Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies, Part 1 – Part 2

Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies · Part 1 – Part 2

p. 1The first parte Against the necessity of the Ceremonies.

CHAP. I.

That our Opposites doe urge the Ceremonies as things necessary.

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

And if we will hearken to their pleading, it tells no lesse; for howbeit Sect. II they plead for the Ceremonies as things indifferent in their owne nature, yet when the Ceremonies are considered as the ordinances of the Church, they pleade for them, as things necessary. M. G. Powell in the consideration of the Arguments directed to the high Court of Parliament, in behalfe of the Ministers suspended and deprived, p. 2bbAs 3. to the 16. Arg.hath these words: yea these particulars, Subscription, Ceremonies, &c. being imposed by the Church, and commanded by the Magistrate are necessary to be observed under the paine of sinne. The Bishop of Edinburgh resolves usconcerning the necessity of giving obedience to the Lawes of the Church, enacted anent the Ceremonies, thus ccEpist. to the Past. of the Church of Scotl.Where a man hath not a Law, his judgment is the rule of his conscience, but where there is a Law, the Law must be the rule. As for example, before that Apostolicall Canon that forbade to eate blood or strangled things, every man might have done that which in his conscience he thought most expedient, &c. but after the making and the publication of the Canon that enjoyned abstinence, the same was to rule their consciences. And therefore after that time, albeit a man had thought in his owne private judgement, that to abstaine from these things was not expedient, &c. yet in that case he ought not to have eaten, because now the will of the Law and not the judgment of his owne mind, was the rule of his conscience. The Archbishop of Sainctandrews to the same purpose sayeth, In things indifferent, we must alwayes esteeme that to be best and most seemly, which seemeth so in the eye of publike Authority, neither is it for private (d) Serm. at perth. assem. insert by D^r. Lindseymen to controle publike judgment, as they can not make publicke Constitutions, so they may not controle nor dissobey them, being once made, indeed Authority ought to looke well to this, that it prescribe nothing but rightly, appoynt no Rites nor Orders in the Church, but such as may set forward godlinesse and pietie, yet put the case that some be otherwise established, They must be obeyed by such as are members of that Church, as long as they have the force of a Constitution, &c. But thou wilt say, my conscience suffers me not to obey, for I am persuaded that such things are not right, nor well appoynted. I answere thee, in matters of this nature and quality the sentence of thy Superiors ought to direct thee, and that is a sufficient ground to thy conscience for obeying. Thus we see that they urge the Ceremonies, not only with a necessity of practise, upon the outward man, but also with a necessity of opinion, upon the conscience, and that meerly because of the Churches determination and appoyntment. Yea Dr. Mortoune maketh kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, to be in some sort necessary in it self, for he eePractic. def. cap. 3. sect. 20.maintaineth, that though it be not essentially necessary as food, yet it is accidentally necessary as Physick. Nay, some of them are yet more absurde ffDr. forb. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 5. §. 6. & cap. 7. §. 1. & 9. &c. 9. §. 6who plainly call the Ceremomonies necessary in themselves beside the constitution of the Church. ggCassand. Anglic. pag. 270. 11.Others of them who confesse the Ceremonies to be not only unnecessary, but also inconvenient, doe notwithstanding plead for them as things necessary. hhans. to the repl. pref. pag. 43.Doctor Burges tells us, that some of his side think that Ceremonies are inconvenient, but withall, he discovers to us a strange mistery brought out of the unsearchable deepnesse of his pearcing conception, holding iiib. p. 53.that such things as not only are not at all necessary in themselves, but are inconvenient too, may yet be urged as necessary.

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

CHAP. II.

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

THE Bishop of Edinbrugh, to prove that of necessity our consciences must be ruled by the will of the Law, and that it is necessary that we give obedience to the same, albeit our consciences gainesay, alledgeth that Apostolicall Canon Act. 15. (l) ubi suprafor an example, just as Bellarmine mmde cult. Sanct. c. 10.maintaineth, festorum observationem ex se indifferentem esse, sed posita lege fieri necessariam. Hospinian answering him, will acknowledge no necessity of the observation of (n) de orig. fest. christian. cap. 2.Feasts, except Divine Law could be shewed for it. So say we, that the Ceremonies, which are aknowledged by Formalists, to be indifferent in themselves, can not be made necessary by the Law of the Church, neither doth that example of the Apostolicall Canon make any thing against us, for according to ooRepl. to the ans. pag. 258.M^r. Sprints confession, it was not the force or authority of the Canon, but the reason and ground whereupon the Canon was made, which caused the necessity of abstaining, and to abstaine ppCalv. com. in hunc locum.was necessary for eshewing of Scandall, whether the Apostles and Elders had enjoyned abstinence, or not. The reason then why the things prescribed in that Canon, are called necessary Vers. 28. is not because beeing indifferent before the making and publication of the Canon: they became necessary by vertue of the Canon after it was made, as the Bishop teacheth, but quia tunc charitas exigebat, ut illa sua libertate qui ex Gentibus conversi erant, propter proximi edificationem inter judeos non uterentur, sed ab ea abstinerent, qqde exam. part. 1. de bon. oper. pag. 180.saith. Chemnitius. This law rrSynt. part 2 disp. 27. thes. 30.saith Tilen, was propter charitatem & vitandi offendiculi necessitatem ad tempus sancita. So that these things were necessary before the Canon was made. Necessaria fuerunt ssBell. enerv iom. 1. lib. 3. c. 7,saith Ames, antequam Apostoli quidquam de is statuerant, non absolute, sed quatenus p. 4in iis charitas jubebat morem gerere infirmis, ut Cajetanus not…t. Quamobrem ttubi supra thes. 31.saith Tilen, cum charitas semper sit colenda, semper vitanda scand…la. Charity is necessary uuannot. in Act. 15. 29.Acts 15:29saith Beza, even in things which are in themselves indifferent. What they can alleadge for the necessity of the Ceremonies, from the authority and obligatory power of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, shall be answered by and by.

CHAP. III.

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

WHo can blame us for standing to the defence of our Christian liberty, which we ought to defend and pretend in rebus quibusvis Sect. I xxcens. lit. angl. cap 2.saith Bucer? shall we beare the name of Christians, and yet make no great account of the liberty which hath beene bought to us, by the dearest drops of the precious bloud of the Sonne of God? Sumus empti yycomm. in 1. Cor. 7. 23.1 Cor 7:23saith Pareus: non igitur nostri juris ut nos mancipem… hominum servitio: id enim manifesta cum injuria redemptoris Christi fieret: sumus liberti Christi. Magistratui autem zzSynt. part. 2. disp. 44 thes 33.saith Tilen, & Ecclesia praepositis, non nisi usque ad aras obtemperandum, neque ullum certamen aut periculum pro libertatis per Christum nobis partae defensione defugiendum, siquidem mortem ipsius irritam fieri, Paulus asserit, si spiritualis servitutis jugo, nos implicari patiamur. aaGal. …. 1.Let us stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be entangled againe with the yoke of bondage. But that the urging of the Ceremonies as necessary, doth take away our Christian liberty, I will make it evident in foure points.

First, they are imposed with a necessity of practise. B. Spotswood Sect. II (b) tells us, that publike constitutions must be obeyed, and that privat (…) ubi supramen may not dissobey them, and thus is our practise adstricted in the use of things which are not at all necessary, and aknowledged gratis by the urgers to be indifferent, adstricted (I say) to the one part without liberty to the other, and that by the mere authority of a human constitution, whereas Christian liberty gives us freedome, both for the omission, and for the observation of a thing indifferent, except some other reason doe adstrict & restraine it, then a bare humane constitution. Chrysostome speaking of such as are subject to Bishops, ccHomil 1. in Ep▪ …d Tit.saith, In potestate positum est obedire vel non. Liberty in things indifferent ddSynt. theol. lib. 6. cap. 38.saith Amandus Pol…s, est per quam Christiani sunt libe…i in usu vel abstinentia rerum adiaphorarum. Calvine speaking of our liberty in things indifferent, eeInstit. lib. 3 …. 19. sect. 7.saith, We may …as nunc usurpare nunt omittere indifferenter, and places this ffib. c. 10.liberty, tam in abstinendo quam in utendo. It is marked p. 5of the Rites of the auncient Church ggCh…. exam part. 2. de rit in adm. Sacr. pag 33.that liberae fuerunt horum Rituum observationes in Ecclesia. And what meaneth the Apostle whiles he saith, hhCol. 2. 20. 21, 22.Col 2:20Col 2:21Col 2:22If yee be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world, are yee subject to ordinances, (touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the commandements and Doctrines of men? Sure he condemneth not only iiZanch. comm. in Col. 2. 20.Col 2:20humana decreta de Ritibus, but also subjection and obedience to such ordinances of men, as takes from us liberty of practise in the use of things indifferent, obedience (I say) for conscience of their ordinances merely. What meaneth also that place, 1. Cor. 7. 23. Be not ye the servants of men? It forbids us kkapol. part 3. c. 1… sect. 5.saith Paybody to be the servants of men, that is in wicked or superstitious actions according to their perverse commandements or desires. If he meane of actions that are wicked or superstitious in themselves, then it followeth that to be subject unto those ordinances, touch not, taste not, handle not, is not to be the servants of men, because these actions are not wicked and superstitious in themselves. Not touching, not tasting, not handling are in themselves indifferent. But if he meane of actions which are wicked and superstitious in respect of circumstances, then is his restrictive glosse senselesse, for we can never be the servants of men, but in such wicked and superstitious actions, if there were no more but giving obedience to such ordinances, as are imposed with a necessity upon us, and that merely for conscience of the ordinance, it is enouch to infect the actions with superstition. Sunt hominum servi saith llcomm. in 1 Cor. 7. 23.1 Cor 7:23Bullinger, qui aliquid in gratiam hominum faciunt. This is nearer the trueth, for to tie our selves to the doing of any thing for the will or pleasure of men, when our conscience can find no other reason for the doing of it, were indeed to make our selves the servants of men. Farre be it then from us, to submit our necks to such a heavy yoke of humane precepts, as would overloaden and undoe us. Nay, we will stedfastly resist such unchristian Tyranny, as goeth about to spoile us of Christian Liberty, taking that for certaine, which we find in Cyprian. mmde haeret. Baptiz.periculosum est in divinis rebus, ut quis cedat jure suo.

Two things are here replied, 1. That there is reason for adstricting Sect. III of our practise, in these things, nnB. Lind. Epist. to the past. of the Church of Scotl.because we are commanded to obey them that have the rule over us, and to submit our selves, Hebr. 13. 17. And to submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, 1 Pet, 2. 16. and ooSpots. Serm. at perth. assemb.that except publick constitutions must needs be obeyed, there can be no order, but all shall be filled with strife and contention. Ans. 1. As touching obedience to these that are set over us, if they meane not to pp1. Pet. 5 3.1 Pet 5:3Tyrannize over the Lords Inheritance, and to qqMark. 7. 9.Mark 7:9make the Commandements of God of no effect by their Traditions, they must give us leave to trie their precepts by the sure rule of Gods Word, and when we finde that they require of us any thing in the worship of God, which is either against or beside p. 6his written Worde, then modesty to refuse obedience, which is the only way for order, and shunning of strife and contention. It will be said againe, that except we prove the things commanded by these who are set over us, to be unlawfull in themselves, we can not be allowed to refuse obedience to their ordinances. Ans. This unlawfulnesse of the Ceremonies in themselves, hath beene proved by us already, & shall yet againe be proved in this Dispute. But put the case they were lawfull in themselves, yet have we good reason for refusing them. David thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to breake the Law of the shewbread. Christ thought the satisfying of the Disciples hunger; to be cause sufficient to breake the Ceremony of the Sabbath: He thought also, that the healing of the leapers bodies was a just excuse to breake the Law that forbade the touching of them Much more then may we think now in our estimation, that the feeding of other mens soules, the satisfying of our owne consciences, togither with the consciences of other men & the healing of mens superstition & spiritual leprosie are causes sufficient to breake the Law of the Ceremonies & of the Crosse, which are not Gods but mens rrof the Crosse cap. 5. sect. 11., saith Parker 2. As touching submission or subjection we say wi…h Dr. Field ssof the Church lib. 4. cap. 34.that subjection is generally & absolutly required where obedience is not, and even when our consciences suffer us not to obey, yet still we submit and subject our selves, and neither doe nor shall (I trust) shew any the least contempt of Auctority.

Secondly, it is replied, that our Christian liberty is not taken Sect. IV away when practise is restrained, because conscience is still left free. The Christian Liberty ttApol. part. 3. c. 1. sect. 4. s… D^r. Forb. Iren. l. 1. c. 11. §. 5. & 6.saith Paybody, is not taken away by the necessity of doing a thing indifferent, or not doing, but only by that necessity which takes away the opinion or persuasion of its indifferency. So uuManuduct. p. 42.saith Dr. Burgesse, that the Ceremonies in question are ordained to be used necessarily, though the judgment concerning them, & immediate conscience to God, be left free. Ans. 1. Who doubts of this that liberty of practise may be restrained in the use of things which are in themselves indifferent? but yet if the bare auctority of an Ecclesiasticall Law, without any other reason, then the will and pleasure of men, be made to restraine practise, then is Christian Liberty taken away. xxThes. theol. de libers Christ thes. 10.Iunius, saith that externum optis ligatur from the use of things indifferent, when the conscience is not bound; but in that same place he sheweth, that the outward action is bound & restrained, only quo usque circumstantiae ob quas necessitas imperata est, se extendunt. So that it is not the auctority of an Ecclesiasticall Law, but the occasion and ground of it, which adstricts the practise, when the conscience is left free. 2. When the auctority of the Churches constitution is obtruded to bind and restraine the practise of Christians in the use of things indifferent, they are bereaved of their Liberty as well as if an opinion of necessity were borne in upon their consciences. Therefore we see when the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. gives Liberty of Mariage, he doeth not only leave the conscience free in its Iudgment of the lawfullnesse of Mariage, but also give liberty of practise, p. 7to marry or not to marry. And Coll 2. 21. When he giveth instances of such human ordinances as take away Christian Liberty, he saith not, you must think that you may not touch, &c. but, touch not, &c. telling us, that when the practise is restrained from touching, tasting, handling, by the ordinances of men, then is Christian liberty spoyled, though the conscience be left free. Camero speaking of the servitude which is opposed to Christian liberty yyFrel. in Math. 18. 7. tom. 2. p. 340.Matt 18:7saith, that it is either animi servitus, or corporis servitus. Then if the outward man be brought in bondage, this makes up spirituall thraldome, though there be no more. But, 3. The Ceremonies are imposed with an opinion of necessity upon the conscience it self, for proof whereof, I proceed to the next point.

CHAP. IV.

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

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

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

Touching the 2. it is certaine, that humane Lawes, as they come Sect. III from men, and in respect of any force or auctority which men can give them, have no power to bind the conscience. Neque enim cum hominibus sed cum uno Deo negotium est conscientiis nostris, kkInst. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 5.saith Calvine. Over our soules and consciences, nemini quicquam juris nisi Deo llSynt. part. 2. disp. 32. thes. 4.saith Tilen. From Hieromes distinction, that a King praeest nolentibus, but a Bishop volentibus, Marcus Antonius de Dominis well concludeth mmde Rep. Eccl. l. 5. c. 2. N. 12.Sir 50:5Volentibus gregi praeesse, excludit omnem jurisdictionem & potestatem imperativam ac coactivam, & solam significat directivam ubi viz. in libertate subditi est & parere & non parere, ita ut qui praeest nihil habeat quo nolentem parere adigat ad parendum. This point he proveth in that Chapter at length, where he disputteth both against temporall and spirituall coactive Iurisdiction in the Church. If it be demanded, to what purpose serveth then the enacting of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience? I Answere. The use and end for which Ecclesiasticall Lawes doe serve, is. 1. For the plaine discovery of such things as the Law of God or Nature doe require of us, so that Law which of it self hath power to binde, commeth from the Priests and Ministers of the Lord, neither foreign nor foreign but declarativè, Mal. 2. 7. 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are in their owne nature indifferent, and neither inforced by the Law of God nor Nature, & which parte should be followed in these things, as most convenient. The Lawes of the Church then are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kinde of things, & what is expedient in the other kinde of p. 9things, and therefore they are more propperly called Directions, Instructions, Admonitions, then Lawes. For I speake of Ecclesiasticall Lawes qua tales, that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us, thus considered, they have only nnTil. Synt. p. 2. disp. 27. thes. 39.vim dirigendi & monendi. It is said of the Apostles, that they were constitute ooChem eu. amp. 2. de bon. oper p. 179.doctrinae Christi testes, non novae doctrinae legislatores. And the same may be said of all the Ministers of the Gospell, when Discipline is taken in with Doctrine. He is no Non-conformist, who ppMarc. Ant. de dom. de R…p. Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 10. num. 67.holdeth Ecclefiam in terris agere partes oratoris, seu legati obsecrantis & suadentis. And we may hitherto apply that which Gerson, the Chancelour of Paris saith, qqapud field of the Church lib. 4 cap. 34.The wisest and best among the guides of Gods Church had not so ill a meaning, as to have all their Constitutions and Ordinances taken for Lawes properly so named, much lesse strictly binding the conscience, but for Threatnings, Admonitions, Counsels, and Directions only, and when there groweth a generall neglect, they seeme to consent to the abolishing of them againe, for seeing, lex instituitur, cum promulgatur, vigorem habet, cum moribus ut entium approbatur.

But as we have seene in what respect the Lawes of the Church doe Sect. IV not bind, let us now see how they may be said to binde. That which bindeth is not the Auctority of the Church, nor any force which the Church can give to her Lawes. It must be then somewhat else which maketh them able to bind, when they bind at all, and that is, Ratio Legis, the Reason of the Law, without which the Law it self can not bind, and which hath the chiefest and most principall power of binding. An Ecclesiasticall Law rrAnimad. in Bell. contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 16. nota 87.saith Iunius foreign sive depositio, non vere lex est, sed foreign aut Canon, ac proinde dirigit quidem ut Canon agentem voluntarie: non autem necessitate cogit, ut Lex, etiam involuntarium quod si forte ante accedit coactio, ea non est de natura Canonis sed aliunde pervenit. An Ecclesiasticall Canon ssSynt. p. 2. Disp. 27. thes. 39.saith Tilen, ducit volentem, non trahit nolentem: quod si accedat coactio, ea Ecclesiastici Canonis natura est prorsus aliena. Calvines Iudgment is, ttInst lib. 4. c. 10. sect. 32.that an Ecclesisticall Canon binds, when manifestam utilitatem prae se fert, and when either foreign or charitatis ratio doth require, that we impose a necessity on our liberty. It binds not then by its owne auctority in his mind. And what saith the Canon Law it self? uudecr. part. 1 dist. 61. c 8.Sed sciendum est quod Ecclesiasticae prohibi tiones proprias habent causas, quibus cessantibus, cessant & ipsae. Hence Iunius xxubi supra, art 21.saith, t…at the Law binds not per se, but only propter ordinem, charitatem, & cautionem scandali. Hence Ames, yyde consc. l. 1. cap. 2.quamvis ad justas leges humanas, justo modo observandas, obligentur homines in conscientiis suis à Deo; ipsae tamen leges humanae, qua sunt leges hominum, non obligant conscientiam. Hence Alsted: zzTheol. casuum c. 2.Lawes made by men of things indifferent, whither they be civill or Ecclesiasticall, doe bind the conscience in so farre as they agree with Gods worde, serve for the publike good, maintaine order, and finally, take not away liberty of conscience. Hence the Professors o… Leiden p. 10say, aaSyn. pur thiol disp. 35. thes. 19.that Lawes bind not primo & per se, sed secundario & per accidens, that is bbAmes. Bell. enerv. tom. 1. lib 3. cap. 7.quatenus in illis lex aliqua Dei violatur. Hence I may compare the constitutions of the Church with responsa juris consultorum among the Romans, which obliged no man, nisi ex aequo & bono saith ccde pol. Christ. lib. 5. cap. 1.Danaeus. Hence it may be said, that the Lawes of the Church doe only bind Scandali & contemptus ratione, as ddde orig. fest. Christ. cap. 2.Hospinian, and in case libertas fiat cum scandalo, as eeComm. in 1 Cor. 14. 40.1 Cor 14:40Paraeus: for it were scandall, not to give obedience to the Lawes of the Church, when they prescribe things necessary or expedient for the eshewing of scandall, and it were contempt to refuse obedience to them, when we are not certainly perswaded of the unlawfullnesse or inexpediency of the things prescribed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But some of our Opposites goe about to derive the obligatory Sect. XI power of the Churches Lawes, not so much from the utility of the Lwaes themselves, or from any scandall which should follow upon the not obeying of them, as from the Churches owne Auctority, which maketh them. nnpral. tom. 1. de potest: eccl. contr. 2. pag. 371.Camero speaketh of two sorts of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, 1. Such as prescribe things frivolous or unjust, meaning such things as (though they neither detract any thing from the glory of God, nor cause any damnage to our nighbour, yet) bring some detriment to our selves. 2. Such as prescribe things belonging to order and shunning of scandall. Touching the former, he teacheth rightly, that conscience is never bound to the obedience of such Lawes, except only in the case of scandall and contempt, and that if at any time such Lawes may be neglected and not observed, without scandall given, or contempt shewed, no mans conscience is holden with them. But touching the other sorte of the Churches lawes, he saith, that they bind the conscience indirectly, not only respectu materiae praecepti (which doeth not at all obliege, except in respect of the end whereunto it is referred, namely, the conserving of order, and the not giving of scandall;) but also respectu praecipientis, because God will not have those who are set over us in the Church to be contemned. He foresawe (belike,) that whereas it is pretended in behalfe of those Ecclesiasticall Lawes which injoyne the controverted Ceremonies, that the things which they prescribe pertaine to order and to the shunning of scandall, and so bind the conscience indirectly in respect of the end: one might answeare; I am persuaded p. 14upon evident grounds, that those prescribed Ceremonies pertaine not to order, and to the shunning of scandall, but to misorder, and to the giving of scandall. Therefore he laboured to binde such a ones conscience with another tie, which is the Auctority of the Lawmakers. And this Auctority he would have one to take, as ground enough to believe, that that which the Church prescribeth, doeth belong to order and the shunning of scandall, and in that perswasion to doe it. But, 1. How doth this Doctrine differ from that which ooibid. pag. 366.himselfe setteth downe as the opinion of Papists, posse cos qui praesunt Ecclesiae, cogere fideles ut id credant vel faciant, quod ipsi judicaverint? 2. It is well observed by our ppPar. com. in Rom. 14. dub. 7.Rom 14Writers, that the Apostles never made things indifferent to be necessary, except onelyonly in respect of scandall, and that out of the case of scandall, they still left the consciences of men free, which Observation they gather from Act. 15. & 1 Cor. 10. qqubi supra, p. 372.Camero himselfe noteth, that though the Church prescribed abstinence from things sacrificed to Idols, yet the Apostle would not have the Faithfull to abstaine for conscience sake, why then holdeth he, that beside the end of shunning scandall and keeping order, conscience is bound even by the Churches owne Auctority? 3. As for the reason whereby he would prove that the Churches Lawes doe binde, even respectu praecipientis, his forme of speaking is very bad: Deus (saith he) non vult contemni praepositos Ecclesia▪ nisi justa & necessaria de causa. Where falsely he supposeth, not onelyonly that there may occurre a just and necessary cause of contemning those whom God hath set over us in the Church, but also, that the not obeying of them inferreth the contemning of them. Now, the not obeying of their Lawes, inferreth not the contemning of themselves, (which were not allowable) but onelyonly the contemning of their Lawes, And as rrIn Dan. 6.Dan 6Hierome speaketh of Daniel, Et nunc Daniel Regis jussa contemnens, &c. So wee say of all Superiours in generall, that we may sometimes have just reasons for contemning their commandements, yet are we not to contemne, but to honour themselves. But, 4. Let us take Cameros meaning to be, that God will not have us to refuse obedience, unto those who are set over us in the Church: none of our Opposites dare say, that God will have us to obey those who are set over us in the Church, in any other things, then such as may bee done both lawfully and conveniently for the shunning of scandall; and if so, then the Churches precept can not binde, except as it is grounded upon such or such reasons.

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

Thus we have found, what power they give to their Canons about Sect. XIII the Ceremonies, for binding of our consciences, & that a necessity, not of practice onelyonly upon the outward man, but of opinion also upon the conscience, is imposed by the sole will of the Lawmakers. Wherefore, we pray God to open their eyes, that they may see their Ceremoniall Lawes, to be substantiall Tyrannies over the Consciences of Gods people. And for our selves, we stand to the judgement of founder Divines, and wee holde with Luther, that uucom. in 1 Pet. 5. 3.1 Pet 5:3unum (x) Enchirid. class. 3. cap. 14.Dominum habemus qui animas nostras gubernat. With Hemmingius, that we are free ab omnibus humanis Ritibus, quantum quidem ad conscientiam attinet. With the Professors of Leiden, that this is a part of the Liberty (y) Syn. pur. Theol. Disp. 35. Thes. 17.of all the Faithfull, that in things pertaining to Gods Worship, ab omni traditionum humanarum jugo liberas habeant conscientias, cum solius Dei sit, res ad Religionem pertinentes praescribere.

CHAP. V.

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

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

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

Conscience then though erring, doeth ever binde in such sorte, that he who doeth against his conscience, sinneth against God. Which Sect. III is also the Doctrine of ee1… 2…. q. 19. art. 5.Thomas. But without any more adoe, it is sufficiently confirmed from Scripture. For, was not their conscience in an error, who thought they might not lawfully eate all sorts of meat? yet the Apostle sheweth, that their conscience, as erring as it was, did so binde, that they were damned if they should eat such meate as they judged to be unclean. Rom. 14. 14. 23. The reason wherefore an erring conscience bindeth in this kinde is, ffAmes. de consc. lib. 1. cap. 4.quoniam agens &c. Because he who doeth any thing against his conscience, doeth it against the Will of God, though not materially and truely, yet formally and by way of interpretation, for somuch as that which conscience counselleth or prescribeth, it counselleth it under the respect and account of the Will of God He who reproacheth some private man, taking him to be the King, is thought to have hurt not the private man, but the King himselfe. So he that contemneth his conscience, contemneth God himselfe, because that which conscience counselleth or adviseth, is taken to be Gods will. If I goe with certaine men upon such a course, as I judge and esteeme to be a treasonable conspiracy against the King, (though it be not so indeed) would not his Majesty (if he knew so much) and might he not justly condemne me, as a wicked Traitour? But how much more will the King of Kings condemne me, if I practise the Ceremonies, which p. 18I judge in my conscience to be contrary to the Will of God, and to robbe him of his royall prerogative?

CHAP. VI.

That the Ceremonies take away Christian Liberty, proved by a fourth reason, viz. because they are pressed upon us by naked Will and Authority, without giving any reason to satisfy our consciences.

WHen the gg1 Cor. 7. 23.1 Cor 7:23Apostle forbiddeth us to be the servants of men, Sect. I is it not his meaning, that wee should doe nothing upon the mere will and pleasure of men, or propter hominem & non propter Deum? as (h) Becane the Iesuite expoundeth it, illustrating (…) Manual. lib. 4. cap. 4.that w…ich he saith, by another place, Eph. 6. 6. 7. iiZanch. com. in illum locum.Christian servants thought it an unworthy thing, to serve wicked men, neither yet tooke they well with the serving of godly men, for that they were all Brethren in Christ. The Apostle answereth them, that they did not the will of man, because it was the will of man, but because it was the Will of God, and so they served God rather then man: importing, that it were indeed a grievous Yoke for any Christian, to doe the will of man, if he were not sure that it is according to the Will of God. Should any Synode of the Church take more upon them, then the Synod of the Apostles did, who injoyned nothing at their owne pleasure, but kkAct. 15 28.Acts 15:28onelyonly what they shew to be necessary, because of the Law of Charity? Or should Christians, who llEph. 4. 14.Eph 4:14ought not to be children, carried about with every wind, who mmHeb. 5. 14.Heb 5:14should be able to discerne both good and evill, nnCol. 3. 16.Col 3:16in whom the Word of God ought to dwell plentifully, who are ooMath. 10. 17.Matt 10:17commanded to beware of men, pp1 Ioh. 4. 1.1 John 4:1not to believe every spirit, qq1 Thess. 5. 21.1 Thess 5:21to prove all things, and to rr1 Cor. 10. 15.1 Cor 10:15judge of all that is said to them, should they (I say) be used as stocks and stones, not capable of reason, and therefore to be borne downe by naked Will and Auctority? yet thus it fareth with us. ssubi supraB. Lindsey will have the will of the Law to rule our consciences, which is by interpretation, Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. He gives us not the reason or equity of the Law, but onelyonly the will of it, to be our rule. ttubi supra.B. Spotswood will have us to be so directed by the sentence of our Superiours, that we take their sentence as a sufficient ground to our consciences for obeying. Which is so much as to say, you should not examine the reason and utility of the Law, the sentence of it is enough for you: try no more when you heare the sentence of Superiours: rest your consciences upon this p. 19as a sufficient ground: seek no other, for their sentence must be obeyed. And who among us knoweth not, how in the Assembly of Perth, free reasoning was shut to the doore, and all eares were filled with the dreadfull pale of Auctority? There is this much chronicled in uuPerth assemb. p. 8. 9. 10. and B. Lindsay in the proceedings set downe by him. p. 63. 64.two Relations of the proceedings of the same, howbeit otherwise very different, They who did sue for a Reformation of Church Discipline in England, complained, xxParke of the crosse cap. 5. sect. 10.that they receaved no other answer but this, there is a law, it must bee obeyed, and after the same manner are we used, yet is this too hard dealing, in the judgement of yyCamer. prael. tom. 1. de potest. Eccl. contr. 2.a Formalist, who saith, that the Church doeth not so deale with them whom Christ hath redeemed, ac si non possint capere quid sit religiosum, quid minus, itaque quae ab Ecclesia proficiscuntur, admonitiones potius & hortationes dici debent, quam leges. And after he sayes of Ecclesiasticall Auctority, tenetur reddere praescripti rationem. I graunt zzApol. part. 3. cap. 1. sect. 25.saith Paybody, it is unlawfull to doe in Gods Worship any thing, upon the meere pleasure of man. Chemnitius aaexam. part. 3. de calib. Sacerd. pag. 38.taketh the Tridentine Fathers, for not expounding rationes decreti. bbAnimad. in Bel. contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 16.Iunius observeth, that in the Councell of the Apostles, mention was made of the reason of their decree. And ccHist. of the counc. of Trent. lib. 2.a learned Historician, observeth of the auncient Councels, that there were in them reasonings, colloquies, discussions, disputes, yea, that whatsoever was done or spoken, was called the acts of the Councell, and all was given unto all. Caeterum saith ddPolit. Christ. lib. 5. cap. 3.Danaeus, quoniam ut ait Tertullianus in Apologetico, iniqua lex est quae se examinari non patitur; non tam vi cogere homines ad obsequium quam ratione persuadere debent caeleges, quae scribuntur à pio nomotheta. Ergo fere sunt duae cujusvis legis partes, quemadmodum etiam Plato. lib. 4. de legibus scribit, nimirum praefatio & lex ipsa. i. e. jussio lege comprehensa. Praefatio causum affert, cur homiuum negotiis sic prospiciatur. Ecclesiasticall Auctority should prescribe what it thinks fit, magis docendo, quam jubendo; magis monendo; quam minando, as eeEpist. 64.Augustin speaketh. Non oportet vi vel necessitate constringere, sed ratione & vitae exemplis suadere, ffin apologet.saith Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. They therefore who give their Will for a Law, and their Auctority for a Reason, and answer all the Arguments of opponents, by bearing them downe with the force of a publike Constitution, and the Iudgement of Superiours, to which theirs must be conformed, doe ggEzech. 34. 4.Ezek 34:4rule the Lords flocke with force and with crueltie, hh1 Pet. 5. 3.1 Pet 5:3as Lords over Gods heritage.

Alwayes, since men give us no leave to trie their decrees and constitutions, Sect. II that we may holde fast no more then is good; God bee thanked, that we have ii1 Thess. 5. 25.1 Thess 5:25a warrant to doe it (without their leave) from his owne Word. Non numeranda suffragia, sed appendenda kkin Psal. 39.Ps 39saith Augustine. Our Divines hold, that llChem. exam. part. 1. de bon. oper. pag. 180.all things which are proposed p. 20by the Ministers of the Church, mmsyn. pur. theol. disp. 49. thes. 72.yea by Oecumenicall Councels, should bee proved and examined; and that when the Guides of the Church doe institute any Ceremonies as necessary for edification, yet nnMagd. cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. co. 443.Ecclesia liberum habet judicium approbandi aut rebrobandi eas. Nay, the oodecr. part. 1. dist. 12. cap 1.Canon law probiting to departe or suerve from the rules and discipline of the Roman Church, yet excepteth discretionem justitiae, and so permitteth to doe otherwise then the Church prescribeth, if it be done cum discretione justitiae. The Schoolmen also give liberty to a private man, of proving the statutes of the Church, and neglecting the same, if he see cause for doing so, ppAquin 2. 2^a. 4. 147. art. 4.Si causa fit evidens, per se ipsum licite potest homo, statuti observantiam praeterire. If any be not able to examine & trie all such things, debebant omnes posse, Dei jussu: deficiunt ergo sua culpa, saith Pareus Si recte probandi facultate (q) comm. in. 1 Cor. 10. 15.1 Cor 10:15destitui nos sentimus, ab eodem spiritu qui per prophetas suos loquitur petenda est, rrcom. in 1. Thess. 5. 21.1 Thess 5:21saith Calvine. We will not then call any man Rabbi, nor jurare in verba magistri, nor yet be Pythagorean disciples to the Church herself, but we will believe her, and obey her, in so farre only, as she is the pillar and ground of trueth.

CHAP. VII.

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

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

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

B. Lindsey his answeare is no better, Viz. yyProc. in Perth. Assemb. part. 3. pag. 13.That this liberty Sect. III which God hath given unto men for labour, is not absolute but subject unto order, For. 1: what tyrannie is there so great, spoyling men wholly of their liberty, but this pretence agreeth to it? for by order, he understandeth the constitutions of our Governours, as is cleare from his preceeding words, so that this may be alleadged for a just excuse of any tyrannie of Governours, (that men must be subject unto order,) no lesse then for taking away from us the liberty of labouring sixe dayes. 2. This answeare is nothing else but a begging of that which is in question, for the present question is, whether or not the constitutions of our Gouvernours, may inhibite us to labour all the sixe dayes of the week, and yet he saith no more, but that this liberty of labour must be subject to order, i. e. to the constitutions of Governous. 3. Albeit we should most humbly subject our selves to our Governours, yet we may not submit our liberty to them, which God hath graciously given us, because, zz1. Cor. 7. 23.1 Cor 7:23we are forbidden to be the servants of men, or aaGal. 5. 1.Gal 5:1to be intangled with the yoke of bondage.

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

But he hath yet more to say against us. If the King (saith he,) may command a cessation from oeconomicall and privat workes, for workes Sect. V civill and publike, such as the defence of the Crowne, the liberty of the Country, &c. What reason have ye, why he may not injoyne a day of cessation from all kinde of bodily labour, for the honour of God and exercise of Religion, &c. Ans. this kinde of reasoning is most vitious, for three respects, 1. It supposeth, that he who may command a cessation from one kind of labour, upon one of the sixe dayes, may also command a cessation from all kind of labour, but there is a difference: for the Law of God hath allowed us to labour sixe dayes of every week, which liberty no human power can take from us. But we can not say, that the law of God alloweth us sixe dayes of every week, to Oeconomicall and private workes, (for then we should never be bound to put our hands to a publike worke.) Whence it commeth, that the Magistrate hath power left him to command a necessa…ion from some labour, but not from all. 2. The Bishop reasoneth from a cessation from ordinary labour for extraordinary labour, to a cessation from ordinary labour for no labour: for they who use their weapons for the defence of the Crowne or liberty of the Country, doe not cease from labour, but only change ordinary labour into extraordinary, and private labour into publike: Whereas our Opposites pleade for a cessation from all labour upon their holy dayes. 3. He skippeth de genere in genus: because the King may command a cessation for civill workes, therefore he may command a holy rest for the exercise of Religion, as if he had so great power in Sacred as in Civill things.

The B hath yet a thrid dart to throw at us. If the Church ccibid. pag. 26. 27.saith Sect. VI he, hath power upon occasionall motives to appoint occasionall Fasts or Festivities, p. 23may not shee for constant and eternall blessings, which doe infinitly excell all occasionall benefites, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanksgiving. Ans. There are two reasons, for which the Church may and should appoint Fasts or Festivities upon occasionall motives, and neither of them agreeth with ordinary Festivities. 1. Extraordinary Fasts either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgement, are necessary meanes to be used in such cases: likewise, extraordinary Festivities are necessary testifications of our thankfulnesse for the benefits which we have impetrate by our extraordinary Fasts; but ordinary Festivities for constant, & eternall blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set Anniversary dayes, is no necessary meane for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, Because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to minde these benefites, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon Gods Word. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque saith ddapud …ald. de casconsc. lib. 2. c. 13. cas. 1.Danaeus: quotidienobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus, 2. God hath given his Church a generall precept for extraordinary Fasts, Ioel, 1. 14. and. 2. 15. as likewise for Extraordinary Festivities, to praise God, and to give him thanks in the publike assembly of his people, upon the occasionall motive of some great benefite which by the meanes of our fasting and praying, we have obtained, Zechar. 8. 19. with. 7. 3. If it be said, that there is a generall command for set Festivities, because there is a command for Preaching and hearing the Word, and for praising God for his benefites; and that there is no precept for particular Fasts, more then for particulare Festivities? I ans. albeit there is a command for preaching & hearing the Word, and for praising God for his benefites, yet is there no commnad (no not in the most generall generality,) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary dayes, more then to other dayes: whereas it is plaine, that there is a generall command for fasting and humiliation, at some times, more then at other times. And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting, could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as eepr…l. tom▪ 1. de pot. Eccl. contr. 2.Camero saith, But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite: for the ffubi supra pag. 16.Bishop himselfe acknowledgeth, that to appoint a festivall day for every week; can not stand with Charity, the inseparable companion of piety. And albeit so many were allowable, yet who seeth not, how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as Fasts which are appointed for ocurring causes, and therefore may be infinit. I conclude, that since Gods Word hath given us a generall p. 24command for occasionall Fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things, anent the causes, occasions, nature, and maner of Fasting: we may well say with ggag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. 4. 10.Gal 4:10Cartwright, that dayes of fasting are appointed at such times and upon such occasions, as the Scripture doeth set forth: wherein because the Church commandeth nothing, but that which God commandeth, the Religious observation of them, falleth unto the obedience of the fourth Commandement, as well as of the seventh day it selfe.

The hhubi supra pag. 16. 17.Bishop presseth us with a fourth Argument, taken from Sect. VII the calling of people in great Townes, from their ordinary labours to Divine service. Which Argument iiPar…n ad Scot. c. 16. pag. 64.Tilen also beateth upon. Ans. There is huge difference betwixt the rest which is injoyned upon anniversary Festivities, and the rest which is required, during the time of the weekly meetings for Divine Worship. For, 1. VponUpon Festivall dayes, rest from labour is required all the day over, whereas upon the dayes of ordinary and weekly meetings, rest is required, onelyonly during the time of publike Worship. 2. Cessation from labour for Prayers or Preaching on those appointed dayes of the week, at some occasions may be omitted, but the rest, and commemoration appointed by the Church to be precisely observed upon the anniversary Festivall dayes, must not be omitted, in the kkubi supra pag. 25.Bishops judgment. 3. Men are straitly commanded & compelled to rest from labour upon Holydayes, but to leave worke to come to the ordinary weekly meetings, they are only exhorted. And here I marke how the Bishop contradicteth himselfe: for in one place where his Antagonist maintaineth truly, that the Craftsman can not be lawfully commanded nor compelled to leave his worke, and to goe to publike Divine Service, except on the day that the Lord hath sanctified: llibid. pag. 17.He replieth, if he may be lawfully commanded to cease from his labour, during the time of divine service, he may be as lawfully compelled to obey the command. Who can give these words any sence, or see any thing in them said against his Antagonists position, except he be taken to say, that the Craftman may be both commanded and compelled to leave his worke, & goe to Divine Service, on the week dayes appointed for the same? Nay, he laboureth to prove thus much out of the 9. head of the first booke of Discipline, which saith: In great Townes, we think expedient that every day there be either Sermon or common Prayers, &c. Where there is nothing of compulsion, or a forcing command, only there is an exhortation. But ere the Bishop have said much, he forgetteth himselfe, mmibid. pag. 27.and tells us, that it were against Equity & Charity, to adstrict the husband-man to leave his plough, so oft as the dayes of weekly preaching doe returne, but that on the Festivall dayes, reason would, that if he did not leave his plough willingly, by Auctority he should be forced. Which place confirmeth this difference, which we give betwixt rest on the holydayes, and rest at the times of weekly meeting.

p. 25CHAP. VIII.

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

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

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

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

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

Thus much may be collected from Act. 15. 21. Where Iames gives a reason, wherefore it was expedient, that the Gentiles should observe some of the Iewish Rites for a time, as llcom. in illum locum.Calvine, mmannot. ibid.Beza, and nnanimad. ad Bell. contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 16. nota 32.Iunius expound the place: His reason is, because the Iewes, being so long accustomed with the hearing of the Law of Moses, and such as did preach the same, could not be made at first to understand, how the ordinances which God gave to his people by the hand of Moses, might be cast off and not regarded: which importeth p. 30as much as I say, namely, that the reason wherefore the converted Iewes were so apt to be scandalized by such as cared not for the Ceremoniall Law, and held themselves obliged to observe the same, was, because they saw not how they could be exeemed from the ordinances and statutes of the Law of Moses with which they had been educated and accustomed.

Rests the seconde respect of difference given by the B. Further, Sect. V ooubi supra.saith he, they did observe them with opinion of necessity, as things instituted by God for his worship and their salvation, which sort of observation was legall. Ans. 1. Be it so: he can not hereupon inferre, that the Apostle doth onelyonly condemne the observation of Iudaicall dayes, for he seeth nothing of observing dayes with opinion of necessity, but simply and absolutely he condemneth the observing of dayes, and his reasons reflexe on our Holy-dayes, as well as the Iewish. 2. Their opinion of necessity, he either refers to the institution, which these dayes once had from God, or else to the use which at that time they had for Gods Worship and their Salvation. That they observed them with opinion of necessity, as things which had been instituted by God, it is most likely: but that they observed them with opinion of necessity, as things necessary for Gods Worship and their Salvation, is more then can be made good; it is more probable, that they observed them merely and simply, for that they had the honour to be instituted by God in his Law. For to say, that they observed them to the same use and end, for which God did institute them, is false; because then they had observed them as types and shadowes of the comming of Christ, and so had denied Christ. 3. If the Apostle condemne the observing of dayes instituted by God, with opinion of necessity, much more doeth he condemne the observing of dayes instituted by men, with such an opinion. And such is the observation of dayes urged upon us. Though the B. pretend, that the observing of our Holy-dayes is not imposed with opinion of necessity, shall we therefore thinke it is so? Nay, Papists doe also pretend, ppBell. de Euchar. lib. 6. cap. 13.that the observation of their Ceremonies is not necessary, nor the neglecting of them a mortall sinne. I have proved heretofore out of our Opposites their owne wordes, that the Ceremonies in question, (and by consequence Holy-dayes among the rest) are urged upon us with opinion of necessity, and as their words, so their workes bewray them, for they urge the Ceremonies with so exorbitant vehemency, and punish refusers with so excessive severity, as if they were the weightiest matters of the Law of God. Yet they would have us believe, that they have but sober and meane thoughts of these matters, as of circumstances determined for order and policy onelyonly: Iust like qqProverb. 26. 18. 19.a man who casts firebrands and arrowes, and yet saith, Am not I in sporte? They will tell us, that they p. 31urge not the Ceremonies as necessary in themselves, but onelyonly as necessary in respect of the Churches determination, and because of the necessity of obeying those, who are set over us. But I pray, is not this as much as the rrannot. on Math. 6. 15. sect. 5.Matt 6:15Rhemists say, who place the necessity of their Rites and observances, not in the nature of the things themselves, but in the Churches precept?

CHAP. IX.

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

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

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

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

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

As touching the judgement of Divines, we say, 1. many Divines Sect. IV dissalowe of Festivall dayes, and wish the Church were free of them. For the Belgike Churches in their Synod anno 1578. Wished, that the sixedayes might be wrought upon, and that the Lords day alone might be celebrated. And Luther in his book de bonis operibus wished, that there were no Feast dayes among Christians but the Lords day. This wish of theirs declareth plainly, that they allowed of no Holy day except the Lords day; yet B Lindsey must make a fashion of saying something for an answear. This wish nnubi supra pag. 84.(saith he) Luther & the Belgike Churches conceived, out of their miscontentment at the number, corruptions, & superstitions, of the Festivall dayes beside the Lords day, as ye doe. Aus. 1. Their wish importeth a simple and absolute misliking of all Festiyall dayes besides the Lords day, and not of their number, and corruptions onelyonly. 2. It is well, that he acknowledgeth both them and us to have reason of miscontentment at Holy-dayes, from their corruptions and superstitions. The old Waldenses also ooAlsted. in Chronol. testium veritatis.(whose Doctrine was restored and propagated by Iohn Husse, and Hierome of Prauge after Wikliffe, and that with the congratulation of the Church of Constantinople) ppAen. Silv. apud Didocl. alt. Damasc. pag. 707.held, that they were to rest from labour upon no day, but upon the Lords day. Whereby it appeareth, that Holy-dayes have had adversaries before us. I finde, that they pervert some places which they alleadge against us out of Calvine. qqParaen. cap. 16. pag. 64.Tilen alleadgeth Calvin. Inst. l. 2. c. 8. §. 32. aknowledging alios quoque dies festos praeter Dominicum, &c. I marvell, how a judicious Reader could imagine such a thing to be in that place, for both in that and the subsequent p. 34section, he is speaking of the Lords day against the Anabaptists, and if any man will thinke, that §. 32. he is speaking of holy assemblies of Christians in the generall, yet he can see nothing there of any Festivall dayes beside the Lords day dedicated to holy meetings. There is an other place of Calvine abused by rrSerm at Petth. Assemb.Bishop Spotswood, and ssubi supra pag. 83.B. Lindsey, taken out of one of his epistles to Hallerus: which I finde in the volume before quoted, pag. 136. 137. that which they gripe to in this Epistle, is, that Calvine, speaking of the abrogation of Festivall dayes in Geneva, saith, hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio fuisset, quod nunc constitutum est, non fuisse pro sententia dicturum. Ans. That which made Calvine say so, was not any liking which he had to Festivall dayes, for he ttibid. pag. 138.cals the abolishing of them ordo bene compositus. But as himselfe sheweth in the following Epistle which beareth this title. Cal. Ministro Burensi, S. D. The reason, why he durst scarcely have so determined, if his judgement had been required, was, because he saw neither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of contention raised about Festivall dayes, and likely to impede the course of Reformation, therefore fovendae pacis studio, he professeth, that he durst not make mention of the abrogation of those Holy-dayes. Because he would have tolerated Holy-dayes, because he durst not at that time, and as the case then stood, have spoken of the abolishing them, can it be hereupon concluded, that he allowed of them? No sure. But it is observable, how both these Prelates pervert Calvins words. B. Spotswood alledgeth his words anent the abolishing of these Festivall dayes, thus: Ego neque suasor neque impulsor fui, atque hoc testatum volo, si mihi delata optio, &c. Whereas the words in that Epistle lie thus, ego tametsi neque suasor neque impulfor fui, sic tamen accidisse non moleste fero. Quod si statum nostrae Ecclesiae aeque compertum haberes, non dubitares meo judicio subscribere. Hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio, &c. The B. would have made his hearers believe, that Calvine was not content with the abolishing of the festivall dayes, whereas his words testify the very contrary. B. Lindsey is as grosse in perverting the end of that Epistle. Nec tamen est cur homines adeo exasperentur, si libertate nostra ut Ecclesiae edificatio postulat utimur, &c. from which words he concludes, that in Calvines judgement the observation and abrogation of those dayes, is in the power and liberty of the Church. But the reader will perceave, that Calvine there speaketh only of the Churches liberty to abrogate Holy dayes, and no thing of her power to observe them, for he is shewing that howbeit he durst not have given advise to abolish them, if the decision had been referred to him, yet they had no reason for them who were offended at the abolishing of them in Geneva, because that Church had done no more then she had power and liberty to doe for edification, 3. Other Testimonies they produce, which can not help them much. That which uuubi supra pag. 91.B. Lindsey alledgeth out of p. 35Zanchius his confession, maketh him but small advantage, for though Zanchius there alloweth of the sanctification of some Festivall dayes, yet writing on the fourth Commandement, he aknowledgeth that it is more agreeable to the first institution, and to the writings of the Apostles, that one day of the week only be sanctified. What meant the xxibid. pag. 41.B. to say, that this place is falsified & mutilated by his Antagonist? who quotes it not to prove that Zanchius dissallowed of Festivall dayes, but to prove that in Zanchius his judgement, the sanctification of the Sabbath only, & no other day in the week, agreeth best with Divine and Apostolicall institution: was there any need to alledge more of Zanchius his words then concerned the point which he had to prove? yyibid. pag. 95.the B. alledgeth also a Testimony out of Perkins on Gal. 4. 10. which makes him but very litle help: For albeit Perkins thought good, in some sort to excuse the observing of dayes, in his owne mother Church of England, yet I find in that place, 1. He complaineth that the greatest part respects those Holy-dayes more then they should. 2. He alloweth only the observing of dayes for orders sake, that men may come to the Church to heare Gods Word: which respect will not be enough to the B. if there be not a solemnizing & celebrating of the memory of some of Gods inestimable benefites, and a dedicating of the day to this end & purpose. 3. He saith, that it is the priviledge of God to appoint an extraordinary day of rest: so that he permitteth not power to the Church, for appointing a set, constant, and anniversary day of rest, for such a day becommeth an ordinary day of rest. 4. He preferreth the practise of those Churches of the Protestants, who doe not observe Holy-dayes, because (saith he,) the Church in the Apostles dayes, had no Holy-day beside the Lords day, and the fourth Commandement injoynes the labour of sixe dayes.

The B. meeteth with another answeare in his Antagonist, which Sect. V crosseth his Testimonies, namely, that howsoever forrain Divines in their Epistles and Councells, spake some times sparingly against Holy-dayes, when their advise was sought of Churches newly risen out of Popery and greatly distressed, yet they never advised a Church to resume them, where they were removed. The zzubi supra pag. 83.B. objecteth against this answeare, that Calvine Epist. 51. adviseth the Monbelgardens not to contend against the Prince for not resuming (he should have said, for not receiving, if he had translated Calvines words faithfully) of all Festivall dayes, but only such as served not to edification, and were seen to be superstitious. Ans. 1. Albeit he spake sparingly against Holy dayes, when he gave advice to that distressed and lately reformed Church, iest the worke of Reformation should habe been letted, yet he did not allow Holy-dayes among them. Fot in aaIo. Calv. epist. & resp. col. 592.another Epistle written to them, he saith, De pulsu campanarum & diebus festis ita sentimus, ferendas-potius esse vobis has ineptias, quam stationem in p. 36duplicate page p. 1duplicate page p. 36qua estis a domino collocati descrendam, modo ne approbetis; modo etiam liberum vobis sit reprehendere, quae inde sequentur superstitiones; And this he setteth downe for one of these superstitions, quod dies a die discernitur; where also he dondemneth both the observing of dayes to the honour of men as superstitious, and the observing of them for the honour of God as judaicall. If holy dayes in Calvines judgement be foolries; If he gave advyce not to approve them; If he thought them occasions of superstition; If he held it superstition to distinguish one day from another, or to esteeme one above another; If he call them Iudaicall, though kept to the honour of God; judge then what allowance they had from him. 2. If the B. stand to Calvines judgement in that place which he quotteth, he must allow us to refuse some Festivall dayes though injoyned by the Prince. In festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse constantiores, sic tamen ut non litigetis de quibuslibet. Then he allowed them to contend against some Holy-dayes, though the Prince imposed them. 3. The Church of Scotland did remove Festivall dayes in another manner, and bound her selfe never to receave them, by another bond then ever the Monbelgardens did; so that having other bonds lying upon us, then other Churches have, we are so much the more straitly obliged, neither to receave Holy-dayes, nor any other Antichristian and Popish Ceremony.

p. 1The seconde part, Against the expediency of the Ceremonies.