Showing the Necessity of Conformity, Rebuttal 1

Showing the Necessity of Conformity · Rebuttal 1

p. 211¶ A Briefe and plaine Anſwere to Maſter SPRINTS diſcourſe concerning the neceſſity of conformity in the caſe of Depriuation.

BEfore particular anſwere be made to Maſter Sprints ſeuerall arguments, one thing is neceſſary to be premiſed that maketh much againſt the whole ſcope and drift of his Treatiſe, viz. That the cauſe why ſo many godly and worthy Miniſters, hauehave beene heretofore, and are daily depriued or ſuſpended; or why ſo many able men that hauehave deſired to enter into the miniſtry hauehave beene kept backe, is not this onelyonly that they hauehave refuſed to conforme; but that many hauehave beene and are daily depriued and ſuſpended onelyonly for refuſing to ſubſcribe according to the Canon: yea, many that at the time of their conuention, hauehave not ſo much as beene charged with non-conformity, and of whom (by reaſon they were Lecturers only, or for that there were ſome other that did vſe conformity in their churches) the vſe of the ceremonies was not at all or little required, hauehave beene depriued or ſuſpended for this cauſe only, becauſe they durſt not ſubſcribe. And who knoweth not that by the 36. Canon no man may p. 212be either receiued into the miniſtry or ſuffered to preachor catechiſe, except he ſhal firſt willingly & ex animo, ſubſcribe to the 3. articles there mentioned, & to all things conteined in thē. Yea, admit that a man were contented both to conforme & ſubſcribe alſo, yet if he ſhall but at any time affirme (as it is euident many conformers & ſubſcribers alſo wil not ſtick ſometime to do:) That the Booke of common Prayer containeth ſomething in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures, or that ſome of the 39. Articles are in any part ſuperſtitious and erronious, or ſuch as he may not with a good conſcience ſubſcribe vntounto, he is to be excommunicated, ipſo facto (which muſt needes imply ſuſpenſion from his miniſtry) and not to be reſtored till he hauehave publikely reuoked ſuch his wicked errour. So that though all Maſter Sprints arguments ſhal proue good & vnanſwerable, whereby he goeth about to iuſtifie the vſe of the Ceremonies in this caſe: yet will he neuer be able to conuince a great number of them, that hauehave either beene kept out, or put out of the miniſtry, of ſo foule a ſinne as hee would make the world beleeue they ſtand guilty of, vnleſſe he can alſo iuſtifie the ſubſcription, which he ſeemeth altogether vnwilling to doe, and can proue it vnlawfull for a godly miniſter to ſay, that there is ſomething in the Booke of common Praier repugnant to the Scriptures, or that ſome of the 39. Articles are in ſome part ſuperſtitious and erronious, and ſuch as he may not with a good conſcience ſubſcribe vntounto. And if thoſe concluſions which he ſetteth downe in the firſt page of his Treatiſe, and which he ſaith will follow vponupon the proofe of this point, That to ſuffer depriuation or ſuſpenſion for refuſing to conforme, is a ſinne; be the very marke he aymed at in his whole Treatiſe, and the only fruit he expecteth of all theſe paines he hath taken (as indeede they ſeeme to be:) then hath hee ſurely beſtowed his time very ill, and ſpent a great deale of labour to no purpoſe at all. From hence it will follow (ſaith he) firſt, That ſeeing thoſe Miniſters hauehave ſinned that hauehave ſuffered depriuation p. 213ſo refuſing to conforme, they ought of conſcience to offer conformity that they may returne to their miniſtry. 2. That ſuch as not conforming doe remaine in their places, are bound in conſcience to conforme, rather then to ſuffer depriuation. 3. That ſuch as are profitably or probably fitted to the Miniſtry, and deſire that calling, are tied in conſcience before God to promiſe and practiſe conformity, rather then for refuſing it, to bee kept out of the Miniſtry. And where be thoſe Miniſters to be found in England, that hauehave ſuffered depriuation for no other cauſe, but for that they hauehave refuſed to conforme? or that being depriued; might hauehave had aſſurance to inioy againe, and continue in the vſe of their Miniſtry, if they would offer conformity? Or what Prelate hath he knowen, being to admit any into the Miniſtry, hath beene wont to require of him a promiſe of Conformity, and to allow him thereupon, though he did refuſe to ſubſcribe? It is not to bee doubted indeede, but that the onelyonly cauſe that hath been pretended for the depriuation and ſuſpenſion of ſome, hath bene their refuſing to conforme, and that liberty hath bene offred vntounto others, vponupon this condition onelyonly, if they would conforme; But that this hath beene the onelyonly cauſe, why any hauehave ſuffred Depriuation or Suſpenſion, will hardly bee prooued by Maſter Spr. or any other man. If then he knew it not before, let him now vnderſtand, That the true cauſe why ſo many able and faithful Miniſters hauehave ſuffred themſelues to be depriu'd and ſuſpended, rather then they would conforme to the Ceremonies preſcribed, hath been partly (but not only,) this; that they hauehave iudged the ceremonies vnlawfull, and partly, that they knew though they ſhould hauehave yeelded to the vſe of them, they could by no meanes hauehave bin aſſured, that the bearing of this heauy yoke would hauehave kept them in their Miniſtry, vnleſſe they could be content alſo to ſubſcribe to the Booke of common prayer, and thoſe 39. Articles according to the Canon, or at leaſt forbeare to ſpeake either publickly or priuately againſt any p. 214thing contained in them. This being ſo, M. Spr. ſhould either firſt hauehave made it plaine▪ that the only, or at leaſt chiefe cauſe why the Miniſters hauehave been depriued vſually, or ſuſpended in England, hath been their refuſing to conforme; or elſe hee ſhould hauehave made this the ſtate of his queſtion, Whether the ſuffring Depriuation, rather then a man will conforme to the ceremonies in this caſe, when beſides conformity vponupon the ſame penalty ſubſcribing to the Booke of Common prayer, and the 39. Articles, or at leaſt forbearing to ſpeake againſt any thing contained in them, is required, be a ſinne.

And this ſhall ſuffice to bee premiſed for a generall anſwere to his whole treatiſe. Now the arguments whereby he laboureth to proue the lawfulneſſe and neceſſitie of Conformity in the caſe of Depriuation, are to be examined particularly.

His firſt maine argument is this, The doctrine and practiſe of ſuffring depriuation (ſpecially vponupon the reaſons vrged againſt our ceremonies) is contrary to the doctrine and practiſe of the Apoſtles.

The antecedent of this Argument (for the conſequent is ſtrong and good) hee laboureth to prooue, firſt in this manner.

To refuſe to do that, which the Apoſtles with the whole Church at Ieruſalem did by Diuine inſpiration and commaundement doe themſelues, and both aduiſe and commaund others to doe, is a ſinne.

But to refuſe conformity in the caſe of depriuation, is to refuſe to doe that which the Apoſtles and whole Church at Ieruſalem did themſelues, and both aduiſed and commanded others to doe: for they practiſed themſelues, and commanded others, euen whole Churches to practiſe ceremonies as inconuenient and euill, for number, nature, vſe, and euill effects, as ours are ſuppoſed to be, and that for reaſons equiualent or inferiour to the auoyding of Depriuation.

p. 215Ergo, to refuſe to conforme in the caſe of depriuation, is a ſinne.

The propoſition of this argument, he neuer goeth about to proue, which yet is moſt falſe and vnſound: for the Apoſtles and whole Church a Ieruſalem might by diuine inſpiration, and ſome ſpeciall commandement of God, both themſelues vſe and inioyne others to vſe ſome Ceremonies, in themſelues as euill and inconuenient as ours, & yet it may be vnlawfull for a Miniſter now to vſe ours, except he did it by the ſame in ſpiration, and had the like commandement from God, as they had. Abraham to manifeſt his faith was commanded by diuine viſion to kil his ſonne and if he had done it, hee had in ſo doing done an excellent worke; will this make it lawfull for all other belieuers for the manifeſtation of their faith, to doe the like, when they hauehave not the like ſpeciall commandement from God to doe it? The contrary would bee much better concluded by this argument, viz. that the Apoſtles doctrine and practiſe, doeth not ſo warrant a Miniſter now to conforme to ſuch like Ceremonies, becauſe they that command them to doe ſo, doe it not by diuine inſpiration, or commandement, as the Apoſtles did.

That which he alleadgeth afterward for the confirmation of this propoſition in his anſwere to the firſt obiect. pag. makes it neuer a whit the ſtronger. For firſt, the anſwere he giues, doeth but beginne the queſtion, and is the very ſame with the propoſition it ſelfe, whereof it ſhould hauehave beene a proofe. If the Apoſtles authoritie (ſaith he) were immediate from God, and that they did was done by the direction of the Holy Ghoſt, wee may bee the boulder to imitate them. Secondly, his ſecond anſwere, that though we may not imitate the Apoſtles in things peculiar to the office, perſons, and times; yet wee may in matter of common equitie, and generall reaſon: Inſteed of confirming he doth directly ouerthrow his owne propoſition, for hee grants here that it is no ſufficient warrant for vsus to doe any thing, p. 216for that the Apoſtles did ſo, becauſe they did many things by diuine direction, that were peculiar to their office, perſons, and time. Thirdly, he doeth expreſſely in this his ſecond anſwere affirme, that the Apoſtles did vrge the practiſe of theſe Ceremonies, not from the immediate authoritie of God, nor from the inſpiration onelyonly of the Holy Ghoſt, but by reaſons and rules of common equitie and perpetuall: Wherein beſides that, he forgets what he had vrged before in the proofe of his aſſumption, and expreſſely contradicts the text, which affirmes that all the things they did write, euen concerning matters of order in the Church, were the commandements of the Lord, 1. Cor. 14. 37. and that when they decreed theſe things in queſtion, they ſayd it ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt and vsus, Act. 15. 28. hee hath alſo weakned his owne propoſition here, and made it of no ſtrength at all. For if the Apoſtles had vſed, or inioyned theſe things, and not done it by diuine inſpiration, and immediate authority from God, whatforce could there bee in their example or commandement to bind our conſcience? The Apoſtles we know were men, and ſubiect to error (as other men) in all caſes wherein they were not immediately directed by the ſpirit of God. And if the reaſon why we are to conforme, be not this; becauſe the Apoſtles did ſo, or becauſe they did ſo by immediate direction from God: but becauſe they did that, which the rules of common and perpetuall equitie, and generall reaſon did require: then an argument drawne from the doctrine of the Scribes and Phariſes, as well as of the holy Apoſtles, might hauehave ſerued the turne. For we are bound to follow them alſo, where they do, or teach that which the rules of common and perpetuall equitie, and generall reaſon doe require.

But let the reaſons be examined, whereby he is moued to iudge, that the Apoſtles did vſe and inioyne theſe Ceremonies, not by immediate authority from God, nor from inſpiration onelyonly of the Holy Ghoſt, but by reaſons and rules of common and perpetuall equitie.

p. 217They vſed & enioyned theſe things (ſaith he) for expediencie and neceſſitie to win the more to Chriſt, and to further & propagate the Goſpel; which though it be granted to be true, yet ſhall we be as farre to ſeeke as we were before; for ſtill the queſtion will be, whether there be the ſame reaſons now to moue vsus to the vſe of our Ceremonies, as mooued the Apoſtles then to vſe thoſe. There might be ſuch ſpeciall cauſes as made it expedient and neceſſary for them to vſe and inioyne ſuch Ceremonies then, as neuer did fall out before, nor ſhall doe againe while the world doth ſtand. It is indeed a rule of common and perpetual equity, that things expedient and neceſſary, that may make for the winning of more to Chriſt, and furtherance of the Goſpel, be done; but that may be expedient and neceſſary vntounto theſe ends for ſome perſons at ſometimes, which yet would be neither neceſſary nor expedient for other perſons at another time to doe, without a ſpeciall and immediat calling from God. It was expedient and neceſſary, that the Apoſtles ſhould preach the Goſpel to all nations, and do ſundry other things that were peculiar and proper vntounto their function, which yet none in theſe dayes may take vponupon them to doe, becauſe they hauehave not the like immediat calling and authority from God; neither is there any thing more euident to eueryevery reaſonable and vnderſtanding man, then this, that the ſame things, which in ſome places and times hauehave been both expedient and neceſſary to be done, hauehave at other times, and in other places proued farre otehrwiſe.

That which he alleadgeth in the ſame place (viz. in his anſwere to the firſt obiection) to confirme this, that the reaſons for which the holy Ghoſt moued the Apoſtles to do thoſe things, do warrant and binde vsus to vſe our ceremonies now, becauſe the holy Ghoſt being euer the ſame, teacheth and ruleth the Church by one and the ſame reaſon reuealed in his Word, as well now as then; is not eaſie to be vnderſtood: For if this be his meaning, (as by his words it ſeemes to be) that vponupon what reaſon the holy Ghoſt at p. 218any time teacheth any perſon in the Church to doe a thing he teacheth all perſons in the Church to do the ſame, when they ſhall hauehave the ſame reaſon, becauſe hee is alwayes one and the ſame; it would follow, that whatſoeuer God hath by any ſpeciall commandement, for any ſpeciall reaſon required, of any ſhould be done of all, where there is the ſame reaſon, though there be not the ſame ſpeciall commandement of God. And ſo, foraſmuch as God (vponupon this reaſon, that Abraham might make knowen his faith) commanded him to ſacrifice his ſonne, all men ſhall bee bound to ſhew the like readineſſe that he did, to kill his owne children, ſeeing the reaſon that mooued God to require this of him▪ concerneth them as well as him, all men being bound to manifeſt and make knowen their faith.

Where he addeth, that by the ſame rules whereby the holy Ghoſt teacheth the Church to pray, and ſing in a knowen language, & Prophets to ſpeake one after another, and women to be ſilent in the Church, hee teacheth that Conformitie which is in queſtion; becauſe they bee all caſes of one nature; namely, of order and Ceremonie in the Church, and worſhip of God; hee affirmeth that which ſeemeth to hauehave no colour of good reaſon in it: For theſe things are of themſelues, and by the very light of nature at all times, and in all places, matters of order and decencie, and ſuch as if no precept had been giuen, common and generall reaſon would ſay are fitting: And the contrary (in themſelues, and not in reſpect of circumſtance onelyonly) vnſeemely; which hee will neuer (ſurely) ſay of any of theſe Ceremonies. And what conſequence there is in this reaſon the holy Ghoſt doth no leſſe teach the one then the other, becauſe they are all caſes of one nature, namely, of order and Ceremonie in the Church? Are there not ſome impious and idolatrous orders, or (at leaſt) Ceremonies, ſuch as a man ought to die rather then to yeelde vntounto them? Are there not, or may there not be ſome contrary to all theſe generall rules? Doth not the damnableſt idolatry, that is, lie p. 219in orders and Ceremonies? how can it follow then that they are of the ſame nature, and required by the ſame rules, becauſe they are matters of order and Ceremonie?

And ſo much ſhall ſuffice for anſwere to the propoſition of his firſt maine argument, and to that which in his anſwere to the firſt obiection hee hath brought for the fortifying of it: now let vsus come to conſider how he proues the aſſumption of this argument. All that hee hath ſaid to this purpoſe (though it bee by him ſpread into thirteene ſeuerall branches) may well bee referred vntounto theſe foure heads, and yet nothing omitted that is worthy conſideration, or carrieth any weight in it at all, viz. 1. That the Apoſtles and whole Churches in their times, vſed as many Ceremonies as ours doth. 2. That theſe many Ceremonies which they vſed, were eueryevery way as inconuenient and euill as ours are ſuppoſed. 3. That the Apoſtles by diuine inſpiration and commaundement from God, required the Churches to vſe ſo many Ceremonies of ſuch ſort. 4. That the Apoſtles were moued to doe thus, vponupon reaſons of no greater weight then the auoiding of depriuation and ſuſpenſion with vsus. Theſe foure points, if he can indeede make good, as hee hath vndertaken to doe, then will no man deny but that hee hath confirmed his aſſumption ſufficiently.

The firſt of theſe points concerning the number, though it be not ſet downe by him in ſo many words, yet it is euidently collected from that which hee hath heere written, without any wreſting of his words or peruerting of his meaning. For when he ſaith, The holy Apoſtles, with the whole Church at Ieruſalem did practiſe themſelues, and inioyned whole Churches the practiſe of ceremonies in number equall vntounto ours, there is no doubt to bee made but that he intended to ſay as much, as in this firſt point he is charged to ſay. Let vsus therefore obſerue well how he proueth this. The Ceremonies (ſaith hee) that they (that is the Apoſtles and Church at Ieruſalem, and whole Churches of p. 220diuers and farre diſtant Countries and Nations, namely the Gentiles in Antiochia, Syria, Cilicia) did vſe, were diuers: as namely circumciſion, ſhauing the head, vowing, purifying, contributing, offering ſacrifices for the perſons purified, obſeruation of the Iewiſh Sabboths, abſtaining from bloud, abſtaining from ſtrangled. Whereunto this anſwere may be giuen; firſt, that ſundry of theſe 9. things which he hath here reckoned vp, can with no good reaſon be called Ceremonies. In the laſt clauſe of his anſwere to the firſt obiection, when he had matched praying and ſinging in a knowne tongue, the Prophets ſpeaking one after another, and womens keeping ſilence in the Church, with our Ceremonies, he makes this the reaſon of it: Becauſe (ſaith he) they be all caſes of one nature, namely of Order and Ceremony in the Church and worſhip of God. Whereby hee ſeemeth to vnderſtand that this is of a nature of a Ceremony to bee vſed in the Church and in the worſhip of God: which if it bee ſo, then ſurely can neither abſtaining from blood, nor abſtaining from ſtrangled be accounted Ceremonies. And though it be granted that all theſe nine things he mentioneth, were once commanded in the Ceremoniall Law, yet that the Apoſtles or Churches he ſpeaketh of, did vſe any of them as Ceremonies, or as in obedience to that Law, he wil neuer be able to proue. If a man in theſe daies ſhould abſtaine from fleſh in Lent in the preſence of a Papiſt whom he is loth to offend, and of whom he conceiueth hope, that by condiſcending to him in this hee may winne him to the Goſpell: or if a Miniſter coming to a people Popiſhly affected; ſhould he (hauing the gift of continency) for the ſame reaſon for beare to marry? would any man ſay, that either the one of theſe, or the other did in ſo abſtaining practiſe any Ceremony? or was it a Ceremony in Paul, when hauing preached long among the Corinthians and Theſſalonians, hee departed from his right, and forebare to take any maintenance from them?

2. If hee will needes hauehave all theſe 9. points to be Ceremonies, p. 221yet can hee not make their Ceremonies any whit neere equall in number vntounto ours: For it will be eaſie (ſpecially accounting ceremonies as he doth heere) for their 9. to reckon vp 49. that are vſed among vsus. 3. Theſe 9. ceremonies of his, can neuer be proued to hauehave beene vſed or practiſed by the holy Apoſtles, the whole Church at Ieruſalem, and thoſe whole Churches of diuers and farre countreys and Nations he ſpeaketh of, namely of the Gentiles in Antiochia, Siria, and Cilicia. For the vſe of Circumciſion, he brings the example of the Apoſtle Paul onelyonly, who is mentioned once to hauehave vſed it; But for Purifying. Contributing, offring Sacrifices for the perſons purified, he proues that not Paul only, but foure men more did once ſo, Act. 21. 23, 24. 26. for vowing and ſhauing of the head, that Paul did ſo, not only at that time with thoſe foure men, Act. 21. 24. but once before, Act. 18. 18. For the obſeruation of the Iewiſh Sabbaths; That in one place Paul and Barnabas preached on the Iewes Sabbath in a Synagogue, Act. 13. 14. In two other places, Paul himſelfe diſputed with the Iewes in their Synagogue vponupon their Sabbath day, Act. 17. 2. & 18. 4. for as for the place Act. 13. 42. hee hath much miſtaken it: For the Gentiles deſired them to preach to them foreign. on ſome day between that and the Sabbath. And laſtly, for abſtaining from blood, and ſtrangled, he alleadgeth the decree of the Councill at Ieruſalem, ſent vntounto certaine Churches of the Gentiles, Act. 15. 29. Thus wee ſee, that whereas he did vndertake to proue, that the holy Apoſtles, the whole Church at Ieruſalem, and ſundry other whole Churches of ſundry Nations in the Apoſtles times did vſe and practiſe more Ceremonies then the Church of England doth, he hath not been able to ſhew that either the Church of Ieruſalem, or any one Church then, did practiſe any one Ceremony, or any Apoſtle either beſides Paul: or that Paul did at any time vſe more then 6. Ceremonies at the moſt: or that he vſed any of thoſe ſixe aboue once or twice at the vttermoſt. For neither p. 222abſtaining from blood or ſtrangled, was enioyned as any Ceremony to the Churches of the Gentiles, nor the preaching or diſputing in the Synagogues vponupon the Sabbath, Mat. 20. 55. Act 13. 42. and 20. 3. Act. 17. 17. and 19. 9.Matt 20:55Acts 13:42Acts 20:3Acts 17:17Acts 19:9can with any better reaſon be called a religious obſeruation of the Iewes Sabbath, then Chriſts or Pauls preaching and diſputing dayly when occaſion was offred, will argue, that they did religiouſly keepe and obſerue as holy, eueryevery day in the weake. And this may ſuffice to hauehave been ſaid of the firſt point, wherein hee equalleth the Ceremonies vſed in the Apoſtles time, with ours now; namely, the number of them.

The ſecond point, wherein the confirmation of his aſſumption conſiſteth, is this; That thoſe ceremonies which the Apoſtles and the Churches in their times vſed, were eueryevery way as inconuenient and euill as ours are.

And that hee may make this good, he takes vponupon him to ſhew, 1. That they were as euill in nature, as ours are. 2. That they had beene, and were as much abuſed as ours are, or hauehave beene. 3. That the vſe of them wrought as dangerous effects, as the vſe of ours can doe. 4. That whatſoeuer is obiected againſt our ceremonies, might hauehave beene ſaid againſt them.

To all which this anſwere may be giuen, that no one of all thoſe teſtimonies of holy Scripture, which he here citeth to ſhew what names and titles the holy Ghoſt giueth to ceremonies, that were vſed in thoſe dayes; how Ceremonies were then abuſed; what euill effects the vſe of them did bring foorth, doth make any whit at all to his purpoſe, nor can with any colour of reaſon, be applied vntounto any ceremony which either the Apoſtles themſelues, or any Church by their appointment did vſe. For 1. they were no yokes or burdens, or burdening Traditions, as the places which himſelfe (a ſtrange thing) citeth, doe euidently ſhew: for by Act. 15. 10, 28. it is manifeſt, that the Apoſtles would by no meanes be drawne to inioyne Ceremonies as were ſuch yokes and burdens. Neither could they truely bee called p. 223ordinances of the world, commandements or doctrines of men, or voluntary religion. For beſides that, neither the Apoſtles, nor the Churches that vſed them by their appointment, did put any religion in them when they vſed them: if they had done it, yet had not this beene voluntary religion, or a ſubiecting themſelues to the commandements, or doctrines of men. Becauſe as theſe things at the firſt, were of diuine inſtitution, ſo during the time that the Apoſtles did inioyne the vſe of them, they remained ſtill the commandements of the Lord, as it is euident by that wee finde written, Act. 15. 28. 1. Cor. 14. 37. no more could they be termed impotent and beggarly rudiments, ſo long and ſo farre forth, as the Apoſtles did vſe or inioyne them, but were of great force and ſufficiencie, and ſerued vntounto very good vſe, for the winning of the Iewes vntounto, or retaining of them in the louelove of the Goſpel. This is made the reaſon, both why Iames councelleth Paul, to doe as he did, Acts 21. 20. 24. and why Paul became a Iew, to the Iew, 1. Cor. 9. 20.

If it be admitted, that all theſe places were meant of the Iewiſh Ceremonies (as indeed the moſt of them were) and euen of thoſe which the Apoſtles and Churches did yeeld to the vſe of; yet will Maiſter Spr. bee neuer able to proue (and if he proue not this hee ſaith nothing to the purpoſe) that when and where the Apoſtles of thoſe Churches vſed them, they had beene notoriouſly knowen to hauehave beene ſo abuſed, or to hauehave wrought ſuch euill effects, as hee here ſpeaketh of. Nay it is euident, that after they grew into ſuch abuſe, and ſuch euill effects followed the vfe of them, the Apoſtles were ſo farre from vſing or inioyning them, as they did vtterly refuſe the vſe of them themſelues, and forbad it to the Churches, therefore Paul who once had vſed circumciſion, and ſome other of the Ceremonies himſelfe doeth afterward, with great ſharpeneſſe, and bitterneſſe, reproue, and condemne the vſe of them, Gal. 4. 9. 10. and 5. 12. Tit. 1. 14. which places and ſuch like, it is very ſtrange p. 224that Maiſter Spr. would alleadge to proue that the Apoſtles, and Churches in their time by their appointment, did vſe Ceremonies as bad as ours. For can any man be ſo abſurd, as to imagine that the Apoſtle would euer practiſe, or command thoſe things after that they were growne ſo bad, after that hee had ſeene iuſt cauſe to inueigh againſt them, and condemne them in that manner? To this purpoſe alſo the Apoſtles reſolution, in not ſuffering Titus to be circumciſed (when hee ſaw what an abuſe that Ceremonie was growen vntounto, and how dangerous an effect was like to follow it, if hee had yeelded vntounto it) maketh very ſtrongly, notwithſtanding any thing that hee would ſeeme to ſay to the contrary in his anſwere to the ſixt obiction, as ſhall further appeare in the diſcuſſing of the fourth point, that hath bene obſerued in the confirmation of this his aſſumption.

3. If it were granted, that the Ceremonies which the Apoſtles vſed and appointed, had bin notoriouſly knowen to hauehave beene ſubiect to ſo great abuſe of ſome, and to hauehave had in them ſo euill effects, euen before or at that time, and in thoſe places alſo, where the Apoſtles inioyned them: yet could not this hauehave proued them eueryevery way as inconuenient, and euill as ours are. For ours are ſaid (and ſufficiently proued alſo, as they ſuppoſe who hauehave ſuffered depriuation, or ſuſpenſion for this cauſe) to bee euill, not onelyonly becauſe they hauehave beene groſſely abuſed, and very euill effects hauehave followed the vſe of them (for ſo much may be ſaid alſo of ſome of Gods owne ordinances) but for that they neuer were good, nor can euer ſerue to any good vſe. Thoſe, as they were at the firſt the ordinances of God, ſo they are here ſaid by Maiſter Spr. to hauehave beene ſtill inioyned to certaine Churches by the Apoſtles; which if it be ſo, then could no abuſe, that obſtinate Iewes, or other wicked men had put them vntounto, make the vſe of them either vnlawfull, or inconuenient vntounto the faithfull, that by Apoſtolicall (that is diuine) authoritie, were required to vſe them.

p. 225And here fitly commeth to bee examined, whether that bee true which is affirmed by him in his ſecond reaſon, which he brings for the proofe of this point, viz. that nothing in ſubſtance is obiected againſt our Ceremonies, which might not hauehave been ſaid aſwell againſt thoſe which the Apoſtles and Churches of their times did vſe. In handling of this point, as he hath left out much of the force and ſubſtance of eueryevery argument, which in the Abridgement (the booke which himſelfe quoteth) are ſet downe againſt our Ceremonies, ſo hath hee affirmed much more againſt them which the Apoſtles then vſed, then he is able to iuſtifie and make good. The trueth is, that though eueryevery one of thoſe foure arguments doth ſtrike to the heart the ceremonies of our Church; yet is there neuer a one of them that doth giuegive the leaſt touch vntounto thoſe which the Apoſtles and Churches then did vſe.

For firſt, Ours are humane inuentions, notoriouſly knowen to hauehave been of olde, and ſtill to bee abuſed to idolatry and ſuperſtition by the Papiſts, and yet of no neceſſary vſe in the Church: Theirs, as they were at firſt by diuine inſtitution, ſo were they not at that time when they vſed them, notoriouſly knowen to hauehave been abuſed, either to idolatrie, or to the confirmation of falſe and pernicious doctrine, and were at that time of neceſſary vſe: and though they had been neuer ſo much abuſed, and had beene alſo in any other of no neceſſary vſe; yet becauſe they were vſed, by warrant of Apoſtolicall and diuine authoritie, this firſt argument toucheth them not at all, hee doth indeede denie all this, and quoteth Scripture to proue that they were humane inuentions, of no neceſſary vſe, and abuſed to ſuperſtition. But it hath beene already ſhewed, that all theſe Scriptures are miſunderſtood, and applied by him; & no more ſhal need to be ſaid for the conuincing of him in this point, when that himſelfe (cleerely and ſtrongly contradicting himſelfe) hath both elſewhere in this argument, and euen in this very place affirmed. For p. 226were they humane inuentions, which himſelfe here ſayth were practiſed and taught by direction of the holy Ghoſt? were they of no neceſſary vſe, which he in the proofe of his firſt propoſition of his firſt argument, Num. 8. affirmes to hauehave bin commanded by the Apoſtles, as matters good and neceſſary in that caſe, and brings for proofe thereof? Act. 15. 28.

2. Ours are humane Ceremonies appropriated to Gods ſeruice, and ordained to teach ſpirituall duties, by their myſticall ſignification. Theirs, as they were not appropriated to Gods ſeruice, ſo neither were they vſed or appointed by the Apoſtles to bee vſed for myſticall ſignification; or if they had, yet (ſeeing as hath before beene ſhewed) they were not humane Ceremonies, this argument doth not concerne them. It is true indeed that they were in their firſt inſtitution ſignificatiue and myſticall, and thus much the places quoted by him here, viz. Col. 2. 16. 17 Heb. 8. 5. & 9. 8 23 & 10. 1. do proue: But that either the Apoſtles vſed them or ordained them, that they might teach ſome ſpirituall dutie by their myſticall ſignification, that hee hath not ſo much as indeauoured to proue. And ſurely if Paul did vſe circumciſion as a Sacrament, Acts 16. 3. then by the force of Maſter Spr. argument heere (which maintaineth it lawfull for vsus to doe now what the Apoſtles or Churches in their time did:) it may be concluded that it is lawfull for vsus to vſe in Gods ſeruice, other Sacraments then thoſe which God hath ordained.

3. Ours being but humane Ceremonies are eſteemed, impoſed, and obſerued as parts of Gods worſhip. Theirs cannot be proued to be obſerued by them, much leſſe impoſed vponupon them as parts of Gods worſhip; and if they had, yet becauſe they were not humane Ceremonies, this argument maketh nothing againſt them: For what is this to the purpoſe that heere hee takes vponupon him to prooue, That the Iewes eſteemed, impoſed, and obſerued them as neceſſarie to ſaluation, Acts 15. 1. 5? p. 227That the zealous Iewes were violently offended with Paul, for teaching that Chriſtians ought not to circumciſe their children, and to liue after the legall cuſtomes Acts 21. 27? That the Apoſtles ordained them as good and neceſſary, Act. 15. 28. 29? That the Apoſtle conformed himſelfe vntounto them for their ſakes, and in their preſence that eſteemed them as worſhips of God, Acts 15. 1. 5. & 16. 3. & 21. 26? Seeing the queſtion betweene vsus is not heere, whether the Iewes obſerued and impoſed Ceremonies, as bad as ours; but whether the Apoſtles or any Church by their appointment did ſo. Did the Apoſtles or any of them, whoſe conformity of Ceremonies is now in queſtion betweene vsus, vſe any Ceremony as impoſed by thoſe Iewes he ſpeaketh of here? And what though the Apoſtles called thoſe things that by their decree was inioyned good and neceſſary? will it follow from thence that they impoſed them as parts of Gods worſhip? or can nothing be good and neceſſary, but that which is a part of Gods worſhip? Though the ſuperſtitious eſtimation the people among whō they are vſed, hauehave of them be obiected by the miniſters in the abridgement (& that iuſtly and materially) againſt our ceremonies: Yet doth not the maine forces of this third argument lye in that, but in this rather; that though they be but humane Ceremonies, yet they that inioyne them doe eſteeme and impoſe them as partes of the worſhippe of God, which puts a manifeſt difference betweene them and the Ceremonies that were vſed by the Apoſtles, or any Church by their appointment.

4 In the impoſing and vſing of ours, thoſe rules that are preſcribed in the Word for matters of direction in the Church concerning Ceremonies, are not kept. For they are no way needfull or profitable for the edification of the Church, but are knowne to cauſe offence eueryevery where, and hinderance vntounto edification▪ and are obſerued only for the will and pleaſure of them that doe inioyne them. Theirs though they were vſed and appointed by them, who had p. 228more farre abſolute authority, and might lawfully hauehave commanded in the Church of God, ſpecially doing that they did by the inſpiration of the holy Ghoſt: yet were they alſo ſquared & directed by the rules of the holy Scripture, and were no way offenſiue, but tended greatly to the edification of Gods people. And how often hath Maſter Spr. affirmed in the proſecuting of this argument, that they were profitable and neceſſary, and alleadged for proofe thereof, Acts 15. 28. 29. though heere as forgetting himſelfe hee doe deny it? Yea this very Section heere, wherein hee takes vponupon him to prooue they were not needfull or profitable, they ſerued rather to deſtroy then to edifie the Church, he concludes with this clauſe; Yet their vſe and yeelding ſerued to edifie, by making way to the Churches peace and furtherrnce of the Goſpel. And this vaine of contradicting himſelfe he taketh ſuch pleaſure in, as he continueth it to the end of his diſcourſe, wherein he laboreth to proue that the fourth argument againſt the Ceremonies in the abridgement, maketh as ſtrongly againſt the Apoſtles, as againſt our Church. They were not profitable for order (ſaith he, in the beginning of that Section) and in the concluſion of it affirmes, yet it was order to vſe and practiſe them in that caſe. And in the beginning of the next Section, hauing ſaid, they were not profitable for decency; for what was more vndecent then for a Chriſtian to vſe idle, vnfruitfull, needleſſe and beggarly rudiments; by and by he addes, yet did this indecency vphold an higher decency: Which laſt phraſe of ſpeech (beſides the contradiction) is very hard to be vnderſtood; for how can indecency ſupport decency? or in what ſenſe can the eſtabliſhment of the faith, and the dayly increaſe of the number of the Churches bee termed a higher decency? or how could the indecency of theſe Ceremonies eſtabliſh the faith and increaſe the Churches. After this in going about to ſhew that they were offenſiue many wayes, in the fift Section hee ſaith, that in the euent they did ſerue indeede as p. 229meanes to infringe the Chriſtian liberty, and immediately after; yet the vſe and practiſe of theſe things by the direction of the Apoſtles did procure the liberty of the Goſpell: So that if M. Spr. himſelfe be to be beelieu'd, eueryevery indifferent and vnderſtanding man will eaſily diſcerne that the 4. Argument which the Miniſters hauehave vſed againſt our ceremonies in the abridgement, doth not any way concerne thoſe which the Apoſtles did vſe. And ſurely it would be altogether needleſſe to inſiſt longer vpō this part of this his Diſcourſe, but that there is one thing affirmed by him, which may not be paſſed ouer: For noting this to be the 4. way, whereby thoſe ceremonies were offenſiue; that the Apoſtles themſelues were offended in impoſing that they did, hee addeth that they taught againſt the things which they inioyned; that namely, they ought not to be vſed by the Iewes or Gentiles. It is ſtrange any learned or Godly man ſhould ſo farre forget himſelfe, as to charge the holy Apoſtles to hauehave inoyned the faithfull to vſe thoſe things which themſelues did teach ought not to be vſed, either by Iewes or Gentiles; ſpecially when the text expreſly ſaith, that what they inioyned, they inioyned by the direction of the Holy Ghoſt. The place he citeth to proue this that he ſaith, viz. Act. 21. 21. doth not affirme that Paul had taught ſo indeed, but that the Iewes had been ſo informed of him: and by Iames his words verſ. 24. it appeares alſo that information was falſe. And if this which he ſpeaketh of the Apoſtles preaching this againſt that which they did ſo decree, were to be belieued, (which God forbid) what had hee gained by it? ſurely that there could be no force in this example or decree to bind vsus in conſcience to vſe thoſe things which they in their doctrine did teach ought not to be vſed by any Chriſtian: And ſo this his firſt Argument, wherein he hath laboured ſo much and with ſo great confidence, is by himſelfe vtterly ouerthrowen.

The third maine point in cōfirmation of the aſſumption of his firſt Argument is this, That the Apoſtles by diuine p. 230inſpiration and commandement from God, required the Churches to vſe ſo many Ceremonies, and ſuch as were as inconuenient and euill as ours are ſuppoſed to bee. That whatſoeuer the Apoſtles did inioyne the Churches, they did it by diuine inſpiration & commandement from God, is ſo vndoubted a truth, as he needed not at all to hauehave troubled himſelfe in the confirmation of it, it being ſo hard to find any ſcholler that would ſo much gainſay, or call this in queſtion, as hee himſelfe hath (ſometimes) done in this Treatiſe. All the queſtion in this point is, Whether euer the Apoſtles did inioyne vntounto whole Churches ſo many Ceremonies as ours are, and thoſe alſo as inconuenient and euill as ours are: This he goeth about to prooue after this manner; They cauſed others to practiſe ceremonies: for Paul circumciſed Timothie, Act. 16. 3. and tooke the men, and was purified with them, Act. 21. 26. They aduiſed one another to practiſe ceremonies: for Iames and the Elders perſwaded Paul thus to conforme, Acts. 21. 23. 24. They inioyned or commanded the practiſe of Ceremonies: for thus did the Councill at Ieruſalem, Act. 15. 28. 29. This conſtitution is called the decrees that were ordained by the Apoſtles and Elders, Act. 16. 4. and the determination of the Apoſtles, Act. 21. 25. and this commaundement they gaue to whole Churches of diuers and farre diſtant countreys and Nations, namely to the Gentiles in Antiochia, Siria, and Cilicia, Act. 15. 23. and afterwards he addes that the Ceremonies that they did thus cauſe others to practiſe, aduiſe one another to practiſe, inioyne whole Churches to practiſe, were as inconuenient and euill as ours, both for number, nature, and euill effects.

For anſwere vntounto all this: Firſt, it were ſufficient to ſay, That he hath not performed that, which he hath vndertaken, becauſe hee prooues not that the Apoſtles inioyned ſo many Ceremonies as wee hauehave in our Church; or that any one of thoſe Ceremonies which hee ſaith they did inioyne, were as inconuenient and euill as ours are: And for this p. 231point hee is to be referred to that which hath beene anſwered vntounto the two former partes of his Aſſumption.

2. Though he had proued, that they did inioyne vntounto ſome one, or ſome few perſons ſuch Ceremonies, as were both for number and for nature as bad as ours: yet vnleſſe hee had ſhewed, that they had inioyned them vntounto whole Churches, hee hath not concluded that which he tooke in hand. And therefore that which hee brings of Pauls circumciſing of Timothy, or Iames perſwading Paul to purifie himſelfe, is nothing to the purpoſe.

3. Hee hath not proued (nor euer will bee able to doe) that the Apoſtles did ioyne the practiſe of any one of thoſe Ceremonies to any one Church, or to any one perſon, eitheir by inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt. For as for circumciſion of Timothy though it be true that Paul did it, & did it well: yet it would be a harſh ſpeach and vniuſtifieable, to ſay, that he compelled, or inioyned, or commanded Timothy to be circumciſed. And for that which Iames and the Elders ſaid to Paul concerning his purifying, beſides that it cannot haſtily bee called a commandement, or iniunction (becauſe no Church or Apoſtle had ſo much authority ouer Paul, as to command him any thing, 2. Cor. 11. 5. Gal. 2. 6. 9.) Maiſter Spr. knoweth well, that ſome are ‖‖Magdaburg. Centurion. 1. lib. 2. p. 603. Gualt. in act. 21. hom. 139. Zanch. de red. p. 491. b.great Diuines, who hauehave plainely affirmed that Iames and the Elders, did ill in preſſing Paul ſo farre in this matter; ††Caluin. in act. 21. 22. 23.others ſtand in doubt whether they did well in it or no; ſure it is, hee can neuer ſoundly proue, either out of this or any other place of Scripture, that they did it by the inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt, or commandement of God. The place which hee puts moſt confidence in for the proofe of this third point is Acts 15. for there we read indeed of a decree ſent by the Apoſtles vntounto ſundry Churches, and that decree was made by the inſpiration, or direction of the Holy Ghoſt. But to this place it may bee anſwered that things mentioned in this decree, were ſo farre from being ſo many Ceremonies, or ſo bad as ours are (which hee muſt p. 232ſtill bee put in minde, that hee ſhould hauehave proued) that in very deed they were no Ceremonies at all, neither euer came into the minde or purpoſe of the Apoſtles, when they made that decree to inioyne the vſe of any Ceremonies to the Churches. For to omit this that the meere abſtaining and forbearing the vſe of many things, can with no good ſhew of reaſon bee called the vſe, or practiſe of a Ceremonie; though the abſtinence from bloud & ſtrangled, were once a ceremoniall dutie (while the law was in force) yet it was now inioyned by the Apoſtles to the Gentiles, not as a ceremoniall, but as a morall dutie, that they ſhould abſteine from their libertiy in the vſe of theſe indifferent things, when they ſaw the vſe of them would offend their weake brother. And ſurely ſeeing the reaſon and end of this abſtinence was not any ſuch miſticall ſignification, as it had vnderunder the law, but onelyonly to auoide the offence of the Iew; it could no more bee called a Iewiſh Ceremony, then if either out of a naturall loathing of thoſe meates, or reſpect had to their health, or ſome ſuch like conſideration, they had forborne the ſame. Neither let M^r. Spr. thinke it ſtrange that the ſame thing, which being cōmanded in the law, was a Ceremonie, ſhould now, being commanded by the Apoſtles, alter the nature and become no Ceremonie. Let him conſult with the beſt Diuines, and Interpreters of the Scripture, and he ſhall finde, that though circumciſion, was a Sacrament vnderunder the Law, yet Timothy his circumciſion Caluin. in Act. 16. 3.Acts 16:3was no Sacrament; and that all the Ceremonies of the law were ſo abrogated by the death of Chriſt, as that (though ſome vſe of them did remaine for a time) yet they did no longer belong to the worſhip of God, nor were figures of ſpirituall things, nor were obſerued in conſcience of obedience to the ceremoniall law: In which things conſiſteth the very life and eſſence of a Iewiſh Ceremonie, and without which nothing can in good propriety of ſpeach bee called a Ceremonie. But what neede any more bee ſaid of this matter, when the Apoſtles themſelues ſpeaking of p. 233this decree affirme that they that ſaid the Gentiles ought to keepe the law, did in ſaying ſo, ſeeke to ſubuert their ſoules: that they had written and concluded, that the beleeuing Gentiles ſhould obſerue no ſuch thing, (as vowing, ſhauing of the head, purifying, &c.) ſaue only that they keepe themſelues from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from ſtrangled, and from fornication: By which wordes alſo they doe plainely intimate, that this abſtinence which they inioyne in this decree, was no ſuch thing, (but of another kinde and nature) as vowing, purifying, ſhauing of the head, offering, &c. and conſequently was not inioyned by them as any Ceremony of Moſes Law.

The fourth and laſt point in the confirmation of his aſſumption is this, that the Apoſtles and Churches were moued thus to enioyne and practiſe ſuch Ceremonies, ſo many, ſo inconuenient and euill, vponupon reaſons of no greater weight, then the auoiding of depriuation is with vsus.

This hee prooueth by ſpecifying the cauſes and reaſons that moued the Apoſtles to practiſe and enioyne thoſe Ceremonies, which hee ſayth were theſe three: Firſt, for the beleeuing Iewes that they might not bee offended, nor occaſioned to turne backe to Iudaiſme, Acts 16. 1, 3. and 21. 20, 21, 24. Secondly, for the vnbeleeuing Iewes, that they might be wonne to the Goſpel and ſaued, 1 Cor. 9. 20, 22. and 10. 32, 33. Thirdly, to auoyd the perſecution of the malicious Iewes, and ſo to redeeme the libertie of the miniſterie, which otherwiſe was like to be indangered, Act. 21. 22, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32.

For anſwere vntounto all this, it may be ſaid, that if the Apoſtles had practiſed & inioyned ſuch as are euill Ceremonies as ours are, they had farre greater reaſon ſo to doe, then the auoiding of depriuation is with vsus. For firſt, as their miniſtery was of more great excellencie then ours, whether we reſpect the extraordinary gifts wherewith they were indued, or the wonderfull power of God, which did accompany p. 234them, and giuegive ſucceſſe and fruit to their labours: ſo the redeeming of the liberty of their miniſtery (if that were any cauſe, as he here ſuppoſeth it was) was, and ought to hauehave been of much more weight to moue them to doe as they did, then the continuance of vsus in our miniſtery can be to perſwade vsus to the vſe of our Ceremonies. What one Miniſter of the Goſpel is there that dare to bee ſo preſumptuous, as to ſay that his preaching and miniſtery can bee of that neceſſity and vſe for the glory of God, and good of his Church, as was the miniſtery of any Apoſtle? The worke whereunto the Lord hath called and ſeparated the Apoſtles, (viz. the planting of the Church, and preaching of the Goſpel to all nations) was ſuch as could not hauehave beene performed by any other but the Apoſtles alone: But in the depriuation of our Miniſters that refuſe conformitie, there is no ſuch danger, and of their preaching, there can bee no ſuch neceſſitie imagined; though they preach not, the Goſpel is preached ſtil, and that ſoundly and fruitfully. And how then can Maſter Spr. ſay, that the auoiding of depriuation with vsus, is a reaſon either ſuperior or aequiualent vntounto that which mooued the Apoſtles to doe as they did? if hee had ſaid, there is great ſimilitude and analogie betweene theſe two caſes, he had ſpoken probably, but to maintaine a paritie betweene them he hath no colour of reaſon at all.

2. The Apoſtles in vſing and inioyning thoſe Ceremonies, might bee well aſſured that they ſhould greatly further the ſucceſſe of the Goſpel thereby, the beleeuing Iewes would bee preſerued from Apoſtaſie, the vnbeleeuing (many of them) would be gained and that they ſhould not onelyonly obtaine libertie, and freedome for their Miniſterie by this meanes among the Iewes, but that the very vſing of theſe things would edifie them. Now our Miniſters hauehave no reaſon that is either Superior or aequiualent vntounto this, to perſwade them to the vſe of our Ceremonies, for they cannot be aſſured that the vſing of our p. 235Ceremonies would doe any good at all: no they are well aſſured by many reaſons & long experience that they would doe much hurt eueryevery way, both vntounto the belieuer, and to him that is not yet called to the faith. And ſhould not he (thinke you) hauehave great cauſe to brag of this bargaine, who after that he had purchaſed the liberty of his miniſtry by yeelding vntounto conformity, ſhould finde euer after a wofull experience, that he hath done much more hurt by his conformity, then good by his miniſtry.

3. The Apoſtles in vſing & inioyning thoſe Ceremonies (if they had enioyned any) and the Churches alſo in obſeruing them by their appointment (if any ſuch thing had bin were well aſſured in their conſciences they did that which was not onelyonly lawfull but neceſſary for them to doe, and that they had ſinned if they had not done ſo: for they had diuine authority to warrant & command to do as they did. Will Maſter Spr. ſay that the auoiding of depriuation with vsus, is a reaſon either ſuperiour or equiuolent vntounto this? our Miniſters can diſcerne no ſuch warrant for the vſe of our ceremonies, but are fully aſſured they hauehave this commandement expreſly to the contrary: And will any man perſwade them that for the auoiding of depriuation, or a far greater penalty (though indeede that be very great) they may do a thing which they are aſſured is euil in the ſight of the Lord.

For a concluſion to this anſwere vntounto his firſt maine argument, it ſhall not be amiſſe to ſet downe and repeat ſundry materiall differences betweene the caſe of the Apoſtles and Churches in their times and ours now.

1. They vſed ſuch Ceremonies only, as both at the firſt were diuine ordinances, and the vſe whereof was warranted vntounto them by diuine authority; We are required to vſe ſuch as are inuentions, not humane onelyonly but Antichriſtian.

2. They vſed them in this perſwaſion of their conſcience, that they might in that caſe and ought to be vſed: neither did they euer inioyne them to any that held them p. 236vnlawfull: ours are impoſed vponupon ſuch as are perſwaded in their conſcience they cannot vſe them without ſinne.

3. They vſed them but once or twice vponupon extraordinary occaſion: we are required to vſe ours conſtantly and continually in the ordinary exerciſe of our miniſtery.

4. They neuer vſed them, but when they ſaw euidently that the vſe of them would preuent ſcandall, and tend vntounto edification: we are required to vſe ours, though we ſee euidently the vſe of them would hinder edification, and giuegive offence many waies.