Several Treatises of Worship and Ceremonies, Treatise 5
THE FIRST ARGUMENT.
All Will-Worſhip is ſin.
To uſe theſe Ceremonies in Church-Service, in manner and form preſcribed, is a Will-Worſhip. Ergo,
To uſe them is ſin.
THE Propoſition cannot be denied, for the Apoſtle Paul plainly condemneth Will-Worſhip.
The Aſſumption may thus be proved:
All parts of Divine Service and Worſhip, impoſed only by the will and pleaſure of Man upon the Miniſters of Divine Service, and that of neceſſity to be done, is Will-Worſhip.
But to uſe theſe Ceremonies in manner and form preſcribed, is to uſe ſuch Ceremonies as are 1. Parts of Divine Service and Worſhip. 2. Impoſed only by the pleaſure and will of Men, upon the Miniſters of Divine Service. 3. Of neceſſity to be done therein. Ergo,
To uſe theſe Ceremonies in manner and form preſcribed, is a Will-Worſhip.
The Propoſition is as clear as the Sun at noon-day.
The Aſſumption hath three parts:
1. That they are parts of Divine Worſhip and Service.
This is proved evidently by this Argument:
All Mystical and Eccleſiaſtical Rites and formes of Divine Service, inſtituted by Eccleſiaſtical authority, to be Miniſterial actions in the ſolemn Worſhip of God, and performed in that manner, and having that uſe in Divine Service, that if God ſhould but ratifie and confirm the ſame uſe, they ſhould then be parts of his true Worſhip; (I ſay) all ſuch Ceremonies are uſed as parts of Divine Worſhip.
But theſe Ceremonies in controverſie, are either all, or the greateſt part of them ſuch. Ergo,
They are parts of Divine Worſhip and Service.
The Propoſition cannot with any modeſt face be denied; For elſe how could a ſole Divine ratification of the preſent uſe of them make them parts of his true Worſhip? If they were not uſed as parts of his Worſhip before.
The Aſſumption is as manifeſt: For if Chriſt ſhould by ſome Revelation from heaven ſignifie, That it is his will that a Miniſter in Divine Service ſhould wear a white linnen garment, in Baptiſm make the ſign of a Croſs, to theſe ends and purpoſes that are expreſſed in the Service Book, then certainly they ſhould be eſſential parts of his Divine Worſhip, elſe the Jewiſh Rites and Ceremonies and our Sacraments are no parts thereof.
The ſecond part of the Aſſumption of the firſt Syllogiſm.
That they are impoſed only upon the pleaſure and will of man.
This is evident: For thoſe things that God leaves as indifferent to the will and diſcretion of man to do, or leave undone, being impoſed by man upon man, are impoſed only upon the will and pleaſure of man.
The third part of the Aſſumption is:
That they are of neceſſity to be done in Divine Service.
Which is alſo out of all doubt; For a Miniſter ſtands bound to do them upon pain of ſuſpenſion and deprivation: And God muſt have no ſolemn Worſhip in England, except it be adminiſtred in the ſame.
Upon all this it follows:
That to uſe theſe Ceremonies in manner and form preſcribed, is to uſe ſuch Ceremonies as are parts of Divine Worſhip, impoſed only by the will of Man, &c.
The Second Argument.
It is a ſin againſt God, for him that is by way of Excellency a ſervant of Jeſus Chriſt, (without a preciſe and direct warrant from him) at any time (especially in the Solemn Worſhip of God) to give ſpecial honour to Antichrist and his members.
But to uſe theſe Ceremonies, is in that manner aforeſaid, to give ſpecial honour to Antichriſt and his members. Ergo,
It is a ſin against God to uſe them.
THE Propoſition is manifeſt and clear to any that have an eye of Reaſon and any light of Divinity ſhining in it: For what is a ſin if this be not: That a Servant of Jeſus Chriſt, even then when he is in the Service of Chriſt, ſhould perform ſpecial honour and ſervice to Antichriſt, or any of his Limbs.
The Aſſumption is proved (if our Adverſaries will grant it, that the Pope is Antichriſt, and that all the viſible members of his Church, acknowledging him their ſupream head, are members of him) by this reaſon.
Such a Conformity to Antichriſt and his members in the Ceremonies of Religion and Form of Divine Worſhip, as is not only beſides the Word of God, but in a ſpecial manner derogatory to all reformed Churches that have departed from the Synagogue of Rome, is a ſpecial honour to Antichriſt and his members.
But to uſe theſe Ceremonies in Divine Worſhip, is ſuch a Conformity to Antichriſt and his members. Ergo.
To uſe theſe Ceremonies, in that manner aforeſaid, is to give ſpecial honour to Antichriſt and his Members.
The Propoſition is without exception: For if it ſhould be a ſpecial honour to the Biſhops of England and their conformed Cleargy, for the Churches of Scotland, voluntarily to leave conformity to the Churches of the Low Countries, France, and Germany, and to conform themſelves in Ceremonies and Form of Divine Worſhip to the Prelatical Clergy of England: It muſt needs be a ſpecial honour to Antichriſt and his Members, for any to do the like to them.
The Aſſumption is thus proved;
For a Minister of Jeſus Chriſt to conforme himſelf in ſuch peculiar Rites, Ceremonies and Formes of Divine Service, to Antichriſt and his members, as other reformed Churches have rejected for vain, fooliſh, and ſuperſtitious, is in a ſpecial manner derogatory to all other reformed Churches.
But to uſe theſe Ceremonies in controverſie, is in that manner to conforme himſelf. Ergo,
It is in a ſpecial manner derogatory to all other Reformed Churches.
Both parts of the Syllogiſme are ſuch as may eaſily be proved, if they be denyed.
The 3. Argument.
All Worſhip more than Civill, performed to any beſides God, is a ſin.
To uſe theſe Ceremonies in manner and forme preſcribed, is to performe a more than civil honour (even a Religious) only to a humane Power and Authority;
Ergo,
To uſe theſe Ceremonies is to ſin.
THe Propoſition needs no proof: For there is no middle Honor between Civil and Divine; and therefore that which is more than Civil, is Divine. Now Divine Honor is to be given only to God, who will not have his Glory given unto another.
The Aſſumption is thus proved;
If theſe Ceremonies be Religious Ceremonies, and all Religious Ceremonies be a part of Divine worſhip, performed to that authority that inſtituteth and commandeth them. If alſo the authority that inſtituteth and commandeth them is but meerly humane, Then the Aſſumption is true.
But the firſt is true: Ergo, The latter is true alſo.
The Propoſition cannot be denyed of any reaſonable creature.
The Aſſumption hath three Parts:
I. That theſe Ceremonies are Religious Ceremonies.
This needs no proof: For what ſhall we make to be Religious Ceremonies, if thoſe Ceremonies be not that are preſcribed by the Church, to the Church only, tied to Religion only, and Religious Functions, Offices, and Perſons; to be acted and performed only in Exerciſes of Religion and Divine Worſhip, and are myſtical ſhadowes and types of Religious Doctrine?
II. That all Religious Ceremonies are parts of Divine Worſhip.
This neither ſhould need any proof: If thoſe that are adverſaries unto us in this cauſe, did not too much preſume of the weakneſs of our Diſcourſe, and the ſtrength of their own wit. For there being an external Divine Worſhip, which properly conſiſts in the outward Rites and Ceremonies of Religion: What Ceremonies can be called parts thereof, if ſuch Religious Ceremonies as theſe be not? For if bowing the knee, &c. in Divine Worſhip, (though it be uſed alſo in Civil Worſhip) be a part of Divine Worſhip, much more are thoſe Ceremonies that are peculiarly appropriated to Divine Service and Worſhip, and wherein part of the forme thereof is made to conſiſt. But it may (for further ſatisfying of men) be thus proved:
All meer and immediate Actions of Religion are parts of Divine Worſhip.
All Religious Ceremonies are meer and immediate Actions of Religion:
Ergo, They are parts of Divine Worſhip.
Further, How can a man imagine that a meer Religious Eccleſiaſtical Act, done by a Servant of God in the ſolemn Service and Worſhip of God, by preciſe Canon of the Church, ſhould be no part of Divine Worſhip, ſith all the ſolemn Rites and Ceremonies that are uſed in the ſolemn Services of Civil States, (eſpecially ſuch as are done in their preſence) have been ever reputed parts of civil Honor and Worſhip.
Laſtly, Conſidering that God in his Divine Worſhip doth require the whole heart, and all the powers of the Soul during the act of his Worſhip, It were great preſumption for any mortal Creature to preſcribe any Action to man during the ſame Act that is no part thereof: conſidering that every Action ſo preſcribed muſt of neceſſity pull a part of the heart from Divine Worſhip.
III. That Authority that inſtituted them is but meerly humane.
This is moſt certain, for if they were inſtituted by Divine authority, they could not be eſteemed matters indifferent; and ſhould not be in the power and diſcretion of the Magiſtrate to diſanull them.
The fourth Argument.
If it be lawfull for a Miniſter of the Gospel without ſin to uſe theſe Ceremonies in Divine Worſhip: it is lawfull for him upon the ſame occaſion to uſe any Jewiſh, Turkiſh, Paganiſh, or Popiſh Ceremony whatſoever.
But it is not lawfull for the Miniſter of the Gospel to uſe in Divine Worſhip, upon the ſame occaſion, any Jewiſh, Popiſh, Paganiſh, or Turkiſh Ceremony.
Ergo, He cannot without ſin uſe theſe.
THe Aſſumption cannot for ſhame be denied, We prove the conſequent of the Propoſition.
If any Jewiſh, Turkiſh, Paganiſh, or Popiſh Ceremonies and Rite be a thing in its own nature as indifferent as theſe Ceremonies are, and either have, or may have by ſuch like inſtitution as good uſe, then the conſequent of the Propoſition is true.
But the firſt is true, Ergo, The latter is true alſo.
The Propoſition, as I think, cannot be denied, nor the Aſſumption, but by bringing ſome contrary inſtance in ſome of their Ceremonies: When any ſuch ſhall be given, this Argument ſhall be further proſecuted.
The fifth Argument.
Every ſchiſmatical Action done by a Miniſter of the Gospel is a ſin.
To uſe theſe Ceremonies in controverſie are ſchiſmaticall Actions.
Ergo, To uſe theſe Ceremonies is ſin.
THe Propoſition will be granted: I muſt prove the Aſſumption.
All actions of irregularity and non-conformity to the Catholique Church wherein we live, are ſchiſmatical Actions.
To uſe theſe Ceremonies in controverſie, are actions of irregularity, and non-conformity to the Catholique Church wherein we live.
Ergo, The uſe of theſe Ceremonies in controverſie are ſchiſmatical Actions.
The Propoſition cannot be denied; for if we be branded with the cole of ſchiſme juſtly, for denying conformity in ſome Ceremonies, but to ſome of our own particular Churches wherein we live, though we be content to join with them that uſe them in Divine Worſhip: much more Schiſmaticks are they that are not conformable in Rites and Ceremonies, to the Catholick Church wherein they live.
I prove the Aſſumption:
If all the Proteſtants, Pastors, Ministers, and Governors, living this day in Europe, and all the painfull reſident Pastors of our own Country, (except ſome non-reſident Idol-ſhepherds, ſome that depend upon the Prelacie, and ſome other that are forced and conſtrained to uſe them againſt their will) do not only refuſe to uſe theſe Ceremonies, but esteem them vain, fooliſh, and ſuperstitious: Then the uſe of theſe Ceremonies are actions of irregularity, and non-conformity to the Catholique Church.
But the first will be proved true; Ergo, The latter is true alſo.
The Propoſition is evident, by their own Principles: For an irregularity and non-Conformity to the Paſtors and Governors of Churches, is an irregularity and non-Conformity to the Church, for they are reputed the CHURCH-REPRESENTATIVE: and if they be to be anathematized, and excommunicated, that deny the biſhops and other miniſters aſſembled in the convocation, to be the Church of England repreſentative, then ſurely are all the Paſtors of the viſible Churches in Europe, the Catholique Church repreſentative, and thoſe particular Miniſters in this Realm, that ſhall uſe not only different Ceremonies, but ſuch as they have renounced and forſaken, are Schiſmaticks and irregular perſons.
The Aſſumption is evident in it ſelf.
The ſixth Argument.
All ſpiritual Communion with thoſe Idolaters amongst whom we live in the myſteries of their Idolatry and Superſtition, is ſin.
To uſe theſe Ceremonies in Divine worſhip, is a ſpiritual Communion with the Idolatrous Papiſts (that do not only border round about us, but are tollerated in infinite numbers to live amongst us) in the myſteries of their Idolatry and Superſtition. Ergo,
To uſe theſe Ceremonies is to ſin.
The Propoſition is his M. own, if Maſter B. have made a true report of the Conference at Hampt. Court; for therein his Ma. confeſſeth, That if we lived among Idolaters, we ought not then to communicate with them in their Rites and Ceremonies.
The Aſſumpion is thus proved:
If Papiſts be Idolaters, if we be not only in league with whole Kingdoms of Papiſts bordering upon us, and near unto us, but have many thouſand profeſſed ones living amongst us: if theſe Ceremonies be ſpecial myſteries of their Superſtition: if to uſe the ſame Rites that they do in theirs, in our ſpiritual and divine Service, be ſpiritually to communicate with them in the ſame: then is the Sentence of the Aſſumption true.
But we ſhall be able to prove, as ſoon as any ſhall deny, that the firſt, and every part and parcel thereof is true. Ergo,
The later is true alſo.
The ſeventh Argument.
To Mingle Prophane things with Divine, is to ſin.
To uſe theſe Ceremonies in Divine Worſhip, is to mingle Prophane things with Divine: Ergo,
To uſe theſe Ceremonies in Divine Worſhip is to ſin.
THe Propoſition ſhineth in the eyes of the very Heathen, who have eſteemed it a diſhonour to their Religion and Worſhip, that any prophane perſons ſhould be Actors in it, much more that any prophane Actions ſhould be mingled with it.
The Aſſumption is thus proved.
All peculiar Actions done in Divine Worſhip, that are neither Civil nor holy, are prophane.
Theſe Ceremonies are peculiar actions, done in Divine worſhip, that are neither civil nor holy: Ergo,
They are prophane.
The Propoſition cannot with any ſhew of reaſon be denied, there being no mean between theſe in ſuch actions as are preſcribed to be done in Divine Service, by Canon and Law: For though ſpitting, coughing, hemming, &c. if they be uſed for neceſſity, be neither civil, holy, nor prophane actions; yet if there ſhould be an Eccleſiaſtical Canon that ſhould require the Miniſter to ſpit at every full period, or the people to hem, and hauk, at every tranſition in a Sermon, they muſt needs then be referred to one of theſe three heads, as ſhall eaſily be proved if it be denied.
The aſſumption is as clear:
For firſt, His Ma. (with words of great diſgrace and contempt of thoſe that hold the contrary,) hath lately proteſted that they are not urged as holy and Religious matters; And that they are not civil Actions, hath been proved before; for there being an oppoſition in Reaſon between things Civil and Eccleſiastical, though they have ſome things common to both (as all Oppoſites have) yet it is ridiculous to affirm, that thoſe things are civil, that are meerly Eccleſiaſtical, and are Actions peculiarly appropriated, and tied to Divine Worſhip: For civil Actions, are performed in civil Affairs; & though there is a common civility alſo to be obſerved even in Divine matters, yet thoſe Actions cannot be called Civil, that are uſed only in Divine Offices and duties, no more than thoſe can be called Eccleſiaſtical and Divine that are uſed only in Civil affairs. For, it may be affirmed by as good reaſon, that an Eccleſiaſtical Officer, employed only in Eccleſiaſtical matters, is a Civil Officer only: Or a Civil Officer employed only in Civil matters, is an Eccleſiaſtical Officer only; as that a meer Eccleſiaſtical action, done in and by the Church only, ſhould be a Civil Action.
The eighth Argument.
If it be lawful to uſe theſe Ceremonies in Divine Worſhip, it is therefore lawful, becauſe they are either lawful in themſelves, or being things in their own nature indifferent, are made lawful by the commandment of the Magiſtrate to be uſed in Divine Service.
But they are neither lawful in themſelves to be uſed, nor therefore lawful becauſe the Magiſtrate commands them ſo to be uſed, though they be Matters in their own Nature indifferent. Ergo,
They are unlawful to be uſed in Divine Worſhip.
THE Propoſition I think cannot be denied, when it is, I hope it may be proved.
The firſt part of the Aſſumption is clear: For if they were in themſelves lawful to be uſed, then might a Miniſter of the Goſpel, being left to his own diſcretion by the Magiſtrate, invent, inſtitute, and uſe the like Ceremonies in the ſame manner without ſin. For any man, left to himſelf, may lawfully do that which of it ſelf is lawful and indifferent. But a Miniſter ſhould ſin againſt God, if he ſhould of his own head inſtitute and uſe the like Ceremonies to theſe, though permitted by the Magiſtrate; except we ſhould hold, that it is lawful for a Miniſter to do any indifferent thing in Gods Service, for a man may of any indifferent thing make a Ceremony like unto one of theſe.
The ſecond part of the Aſſumption is thus proved:
If they be therefore lawful, becauſe, being thing in their own nature ifferent, the Magiſtrate commands them to be done in Divine Service: Then whatſoever thing (being in its own nature indifferent) is, or ſhall be commanded by the Magiſtrate, is lawful to be done in Divine Service.
But all things that are in themſelves matters indifferent, are not lawful to be done in Divine Service, though the Magiſtrate ſhould command them. Ergo,
They are not therefore lawful to be uſed in Divine S rvice, becauſe the Magiſtrate commands them, though they be things in their own nature indifferent.
The Propoſition cannot be denied: For if ſome things, indifferent in their own nature, being commanded by the Magiſtrate, are unlawful, it can be no good Argument to ſay, Theſe things, being indifferent, are commanded by the Magiſtrate. Ergo,
They may lawfully be done. Much leſs therefore they ought to be done. Or as the Doctors of Oxf. affirm, that they bind the conſcience.
The Aſſumption is more clear than the Propoſition. If it be conſidered either what things are indifferent indeed, or go under the name and title of indifferent things. Eating and drinking, the avoiding the ſuperfluities of Nature; due benevolence between Man and Wife; ſpinning and carding; killing of Oxen and Sheep, &c. which of themſelves have in them neither vertue nor vice, are therefore indifferent Actions; and yet I think none, except profeſſed Atheiſts, but will hold it a foul ſin to do ſome of theſe Actions in any Aſſembly, much more in the ſolemn Worſhip of God, though the Magiſtrate ſhould command the ſame even upon pain of death. But if it be further conſidered, That Carding and Dicing, Masking and Dancing; for Men to put on Womens apparel, and Women Mens; Drinking to healths; Ribald, Stage-plaies, &c. are things indifferent to be done even upon the Lords own day: May a Miniſter of the Goſpel, upon the Magiſtrates commandment, do any of theſe in Divine Worſhip? And yet there is none of theſe but may have applied unto them, by the Wit of Man, a Myſtical and Religious ſence; and then by this Biſhop of Canterburies Rule, They muſt needs be good and lawful Ceremonies: for his principal Argument to prove them lawfull at his laſt Convention of London Miniſters before him, was this:
They are Ceremonies that teach good Doctrine,
Ergo,
They are good Ceremonies.
Whereas the filthieſt actions and things that are may teach good Doctrine: The Holy Ghoſt reſembleth the ſoul polluted with ſin to a menſtrous cloth: A man fallen again into ſin, to a Sow wallowing in the mire: might therefore a filthie Sow, and ſuch unclean Clothes, be brought into the Church, to be viſible ſhadowes, and repreſentations of ſuch things? Nay, What may not by this means be brought into Gods Worſhip, and yet by this reaſon be defended to be a good Ceremony, if the Magiſtrates and Biſhops ſhould decree the ſame? A fools coat and a beggers, worne in Divine Service, may fitly teach this Doctrine, Not many Wiſe, Not many Noble: A Miniſter clothed in ſuch apparrel as thoſe that act the Devils part in a play may teach this, That by nature we are limbs of Sathan, and firebrands of Hell: Men might wear Womens apparel, and Women mens; The one to teach, That the Church is Chriſts Wife; The other to teach, that Women in Chriſt are equall to Men. Bear-baiting may teach us, How Chriſt was baited before the Tribunalls of the Phariſees, or the combate between the fleſh and the ſpirit. But the groſſeneſs of theſe Aſſertions will appear in our Special Reaſons againſt the Ceremonies in particular.
The Ninth Argument.
To adminiſter unto the Church of God Sacraments that are not of Divine Inſtitution, is to ſin.
To uſe divers of theſe Ceremonies, viz. The Croſs in Baptiſm, the Ring in Marriage, the Surplice, &c. is to adminiſter unto the Church of God Sacraments that are not of Divine inſtitution. Ergo,
To uſe theſe Ceremonies, is to ſin.
THE Propoſition is granted of all, both Papiſt and Proteſtant.
The Aſſumption is thus proved:
All myſtical bodily Rites and Signs of ſpiritual grace, adminiſtred to the Church of God, in his ſolemn Service, to confirm Grace, and that by him that repreſents the Perſon of Chriſt, are Sacraments.
The greateſt part of theſe Ceremonies in controverſie are ſuch, and not of any divine Inſtitution. Ergo,
To uſe them, is to administer Sacraments that are not of Divine Institution.
The Propoſition is moſt evident, and cannot be denied of any that bears the face of a Divine.
The Aſſumption is as evident, only this one clauſe may be doubted of: Whether theſe Ceremonies be adminiſtred to confirm Grace, which is thus proved:
Thoſe Ceremonies that are adminiſtred to edifie the ſoul and conſciences, are adminiſtred to confirm Grace.
Theſe Ceremonies are adminiſtred to edifie the ſoul and conſcience. Ergo,
They are adminiſtred to confirm Grace.
The Propoſition cannot with any colour be excepted againſt: For to edifie the ſoul, to confirm Grace in the ſoul, and to feed the ſoul, are equivalent.
The Sacrament of the Supper therefore being, for this only cauſe a Sacrament, becauſe it is a myſtical Rite, whereby the ſoul ſpiritually feedeth upon Chriſt, i. e. is edified in Chriſt: Theſe being Myſtical Rites alſo, whereby the ſoul is edified, which it cannot be, but alſo by feeding upon Chriſt; It muſt needs follow, That theſe Ceremonies are Sacraments.
The Aſſumption is their own, for when they are urged with this, That all things muſt be done to edification, They all hold with one conſent, That they do edifie.
The tenth Argument.
It is a ſin againſt Chriſt the ſole Head of the Church, for any one of his Miniſters, (especially in the adminiſtration of Divine things) either by Word or Signs, ſolemnly to profeſs and acknowledge a ſpiritual homage to an uſurped ſpiritual authority in the Church.
But to uſe theſe controverted Ceremonies in manner and Form preſcribed, is even in the ſolemn Service of Chriſt, by ſolemn Signs to acknowledge a ſpiritual homage to the ſpiritual authority of Lord Archbiſhops and Biſhops, which is uſurped. Ergo,
It is a ſin to uſe theſe Ceremonies.
THE Propoſition may not be gainſaid: For all ſpiritual power uſurped over the Churches of God, is an Antichriſtian authority; and to profeſs ſpiritual homage thereunto, is to profeſs ſpritual homage unto Antichriſt, which muſt needs be a ſin,
The Aſſumption hath two parts:
1. That theſe Ceremonies are an acknowledging by ſolemn ſigns a ſpiritual Homage to the ſpiritual authority of Archbiſhops and Biſhops.
Which is moſt evident; for it having been proved before, that they are meer Eccleſiaſtical, Religious and ſpiritual Actions, enjoyned by an Eccleſiaſtical and ſpiritual authority, They muſt needs be Signs of ſpiritual homage to the ſame authority. For either the doing of a Religious and ſpiritual Action, in obedience to a ſpiritual authority, is a Sign of ſpiritual homage, or no Actions can be a Sign thereof. As therefore a Serving man, being a civil perſon, upon the Biſhops pleaſure, wearing a Tawny Coat, and a Chain of Gold, holding up his Train, going bare-headed before him, holding a Trencher at his Table, lighting him to the houſe of Office, dreſſing his meat, rubbing his Horſes, &c. doth by theſe Actions, as it were by ſolemn Signs, acknowledge Civil homage to him, being a Civil Lord and Maſter: So a Miniſter of the Goſpel, and a Paſtor of a particular Congregation, being by his Office a meer ſpiritual man; being commanded by the Biſhop, as he is a ſpiritual Lord and Maſter over the Church of God, to wear a Tipper, a ſquare Cap, a Prieſts Gown and Cloak, a Surplice; to make Croſſes upon childrens faces; to put Rings on Brides fingers, &c. and all this in their Divine Service: I ſay, a Miniſter doth thereby give ſolemn Signs and Tokens of ſpiritual homage to their ſpiritual Lordſhips; even as by preaching the Word and adminiſtration of Sacraments and Prayer, he profeſſeth by ſolemn Signs a ſpiritual homage to the ſpiritual authority of Chriſt.
If they ſhall peremptorily affirm, That they are only Civil matters (as ſome in high place have done to my ſelf) then this will follow of it: Whereas the Biſhops command now Miniſters to wear a Surplice, a Prieſts Cloak, &c. he may command them to wear Tawny Coats, and livery Cloaks, and in their courſes to wait and at end upon him, as ſerving Creatures: For there is no more Civil Authority ſhewed in requiring the one than the other, if the one as well as the other be Civil matters. Neither will it help their cauſe, that the Magiſtrate requireth theſe things to be done: For the Magiſtrate commanding Eccleſiaſtical matters to be done, his commandment doth no more make them Civil, than his commanding the Sacraments, and other parts of Divine Worſhip, to be adminiſtred duly, doth make them Civil matters. For the ratification by Civil authority the Conſtitutions of Eccleſiaſtical authority, doth no more make them Civil matters, than the ratification and confirmation of Civil matters by Eccleſiaſtical authority doth make them Eccleſiaſtical or ſpiritual matters. Though therefore there is none of us that ſtand our in theſe matters, but have ever been content to yield unto their Lordſhips all C…vil honour, ſuch as is given to Barons, Earls, Dukes, and Princes; yet, except they were Gods and Chriſts, we have no reaſon to give ſpiritual homage unto them; which is it that in very deed they require in theſe things: And therefore hence it comes to paſs, That as they turn out of their Palaces thoſe Servants that refuſe their Liveries, and to do their civil Services: So, as though they were Lords and Maſters in the Church, they turn the Miniſters out of their Offices, and ſhut them out of the Church, if they refuſe to wear their ſpiritual Liveries, and to do them ſpiritual and religious Service. But I come to the ſecond part of the Aſſumption.
2. That the authority of our Lord Archbiſhops and Biſhops, is an uſurped authority.
This is ſufficiently proved of late by Mai. Jacob in his I. Aſſertion by many reaſons, only becauſe the weight of the Argument leaneth upon it, I will uſe one Reaſon.
Thoſe Officers and Rulers in the Church, that make claim to be of Divine Inſtitution, challenge to themſelves Apoſtolical authority and juriſdiction, as the only Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, to ſit only in Moſes Chair; To have ſole power of the Keys; To cut from the viſible Church, and receive again; To have power of creating and displacing all other Eccleſiaſtical Officers; To be the Univerſal Paſtors of whole Dukedoms and Kingdoms, under whom all other Paſtors are as Curates, &c. And yet for all this, are ſuch as ſtand and are ſupported only by humane Traditions and Ceremonies, ſuch as a Civil Magiſtrate may, without ſin, put out of the Church; and ſuch as the true Churches of God may renounce (and yet continue the true Church) as Antichriſtian Uſurpers and ſpiritual Tyrants. (I ſay) all ſuch Officers and Rulers exerciſe a uſurped authority in the Church:
But our Archbiſhops and Biſhops are ſuch Rulers and Officers as are aforeſaid. Ergo,
They execute a uſurped power over the Church.
The Propoſition may eaſily be juſtified: For if inferiour Officers, viz. Paſtors of particular Congregations have had, and may have firm continuance in the Church without theſe humane deviſes and inventions; If the Magiſtrate cannot, without ſin, put them out of the Church; And if thoſe can be no true Churches that renounce to have particular Paſtors and Miniſters over them, it muſt much more hold in ſuch Church-Officers and Rulers as theſe are, if their authority be lawful and good: For whileſt the Apoſtles lived, they needed not any humane Traditions and devices to ſupport their authority; the Magiſtrates that ſought to put them down ſinned with a high hand: And that was no Church that renounced and diſclaimed their Office, Authority, and Juriſdiction.
The Aſſumption is as eaſily juſtified: For 1. They make claim and title to all thoſe Prerogatives before rehearſed in the firſt part of the Propoſition, and unto more than that, as ſhall be proved if it be denied. 2. It is an Embleme of their own, NO CEREMONY, NO BISHOP. Ergo, No humane Tradition and Invention, no Biſhop. Ergo, The Office of a Biſhop is ſupported by them, either only or ſpecially. 3. Their Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction is derived from the King, elſe it is a flat denial of his Supremacy. Alſo, themſelves grant in their laſt Tables of Diſcipline, That the King hath power to encreaſe or diminiſh the Circuit of a Biſhopprick: That he may make two or more Biſhoppricks of one, and one Biſhopprick to be two or more: Yea, what ſhould hinder, but that he may devide the Biſhopprick of London into eight hundred. For, where God hath not defined the number of Pariſhes that a Biſhop is to raign over, it muſt needs be a thing indifferent: In which, by their own Doctrines, the King hath authority, without ſin, to diſpoſe. If therefore the King may as well (notwithſtanding any thing in the Law of God) Give the Keys of the Church to every particular Paſtour of a Congregation, over his own Congregation, as to a Biſhop over a Dioceſs, which taketh away the very Eſſence of an Engliſh Biſhop; He may, without ſin, take away the very Office of the Biſhop, which conſiſts in having Juriſdiction over many Congregations. Alſo, it being not defined, by the Word of God, but left free, what attire Biſhops ſhall wear, as alſo, what maintenance they ſhall have; The King, having abſolute power in things indifferent, according to their own Doctrine, He may turn them out of their Rochets and Parliament Robes; Thruſt them out of their Pallaces, and put them to their ſtipends, to live upon voluntary devotions of poor Chriſtian People, and then a man may eaſily imagine what the Office of a Biſhop would be worth: For, he that hath authority to preſcribe to a Biſhop, and other Miniſters, the Forms, Rites, and Ceremonies of their Divine Service, hath alſo power much more, to preſcribe, moderate, and appoint their Apparel, Diet, and manner of maintenance. So that it is clear, That the King may, without ſin, diſanul the Authorities, Dignities, and Prerogatives of Biſhops; Any of which ſhall be (if it be denied) proved to be matters of greater indifferency, and therefore more appertaining to his Supremacy, than the preſcribing of Forms of Divine Service, and myſtical Rites of Religion. For let the King take from the Biſhop all indifferent things (which he may do by their own Doctrine) and a Biſhop will be no Biſhop, as ſhall be proved, if it be denied. 4. There is no true and ſober Chriſtians but will ſay, that the Churches of Scotland, France, the Low-Countries, and other places (that renounce ſuch Archbiſhops and Biſhops (as ours are) as Anticriſtian and uſurping Prelates) are true Churches of God: which they could not be, if the Authority and Prerogatives they claim to themſelves, were of Chriſt, and not uſurped. For if it were the Ordinance of Chriſt Jeſus, That in every Kingdome, that receiveth the Goſpel, There ſhould be one Archbiſhop over the whole Kingdome; One Biſhop over many hundred Paſtors, in a Kingdome, and all they inveſted with that authority and Juriſdiction Apoſtolicall which they claim jure Divino, to be due unto them, and to reſide in them, by the Ordinance of Chriſt; Certainly that Church that ſhould renounce and diſclaim ſuch an Authority, ordained in the Church, cannot be a true Church, but a Synagogue of Sathan. For they that ſhould renounce and deny ſuch, muſt needs therein renounce and deny Chriſt himſelf. Thus the Aſſumption is cleared.
The eleventh Argument.
All Humane Traditions and Rites enjoyned to be performed in Gods worſhip as neceſſary to Salvation, are unlawfull.
Theſe Ceremonies in controverſie, being but Humane Traditions, are enjoyned to be performed in Gods worſhip, as neceſſary to Salvation: Ergo,
Theſe Ceremonies are unlawfull.
THe Propoſition is freely granted of all our Adverſaries hitherto. If any hereafter, by reaſon of ſome difficulties, the cauſe may be thruſt into by granting the ſame, ſhall be ſo deſperate as to deny the ſame; we ſhall be ready to make it good, at any time.
The aſſumption is thus proved.
Whatſoever Humane Tradition, Ceremony, or Action, that may without ſin, or inconvenience to any part of the Worſhip of God be omitted in the ſame, and yet notwithſtanding are injoyned and urged as more neceſſary than thoſe Actions that are by the Word of God neceſſary to Salvation: I ſay, ſuch humane Ceremonies and Traditions are injoined as neceſſary to Salvation.
But theſe Ceremonies are ſuch, as may without any ſin, or any inconvenience to any part of the Worſhip of God, be omitted in the ſame, and yet notwithſtanding are enjoyned as more neceſſary for Chriſtians to do, than thoſe Actions that are neceſſary to Salvation by the Word of God: Ergo,
Theſe Ceremonies in controverſie are injoyned, &c. as neceſſary to Salvation.
He hath no blood of ſhame running in his veins, that will deny the Propoſition.
The Aſſumption hath two parts:
The firſt is this,
That theſe Ceremonies are ſuch as may, without ſin, or any inconvenience to any part of the worſhip of God, be omitted.
This is evident: For 1. if they could not be omitted without ſin in Divine Worſhip, they were Divine and not Humane Ordinances. For example, Though to go clothed to the Congregation be a Civil action, yet, becauſe it is a ſin, for any to go naked to the Congregation, It is a Divine Ordinance, That men ſhould go clothed thither. And in this caſe (as in any other caſe of ſin) a man ought rather never Worſhip God publickly, than to go naked to the Congregation. For the omiſſion of a Good Action is no ſin, when it cannot be done, but by committing of a ſin? 2. Divine Worſhip conſiſting in Prayer, the Sacraments, and the Word, no wit of man can ſhew wherein the bare omiſſion of any one of theſe Ceremonies is inconvenient to any one of theſe parts: for what inconvenience can a man (that is not drunk with the dreggs and lees of Popiſh Superſtition) finde it to publick Prayer, to be ſaid in the Congregation without a Prieſts Surplice? The omiſſion of ordinary pawſes and Accents, points and ſtopps, the ſuppreſſing of the voice, or a loud hooping and hallowing out of the words, or an undiſtinct ſounding of them, were ſuch actions as common reaſon will teach are inconvenient for Prayer, and ſo inconvenient, that a man ought never to pray publickly in the Congregation, as the voyce thereof, that ſhould by Canon be tied thereto: And the Magiſtrate (though there were no Canon to the contrary) ought to turn ſuch out of the Miniſtry that ſhould omit ſuch matters in prayer. But for a Miniſter to pray without a Surplice, can be in reaſon no more inconvenient, than for him to pray without Book, without a pair of ſpectacles upon his noſe. And there may be as good reaſon given to prove it convenient for a man that ſaith a thing without Book, to put on a pair of Spectacles, as there can be to prove it convenient for him that is to pray in the Church, to put upon himſelf a white linen Garment.
The ſecond part of the Aſſumption is this;
That they are injoined as more neceſſary for Chriſtians to do, than thoſe Actions that by the Word of God are neceſſary to Salvation.
Which I prove by this collection of Reaſons;
1. If the whole Solemn Worſhip and Myſtery of Jeſus muſt ſtoop and yield to theſe; And theſe muſt not ſtoop or yield to them.
2. If thoſe that will yield to theſe are dispenſed with, for omiſſion of ſome duties that God requires of the Miniſter to be performed as neceſſary to Salvation, and thoſe that are willing to do all neceſſary Services tending to the Salvation of Man, cannot be dispenſed with for the omiſſion of theſe, but muſt be turned out of Chriſts Service.
3. If thoſe that refuſe only conformity to theſe are worſe than Idolatrous Papists.
4. If the bare omiſſion of theſe, though upon tenderneſs of conſcience, be Sedition, Schiſme, Diſloyalty, Rebellion, a denial of the Kings Supremacy, Anabaptiſtry, Frenzy, worthy impriſonment, Baniſhment, loſſe of Goods and Living.
5. If all that profeſſe theſe to be unlawfull, are to be delivered up to Sathan, and anathematized as men holding wicked and damnable Errours.
6. If a man being in that Church, ought not to be of it where theſe Ceremonies are omitted.
7. If the bare omiſſion of theſe, wake a Miniſter by our Law more ſubject to deprivation and ſuspenſion, than the commiſſion of the foulest Crimes, even Drunkenneſs, Blaſphemy, groſs Ignorance, uncleanneſs.
8. If her late Excellent Ma. Religion conſiſted in theſe: I ſay, If all theſe Aſſertions be true, then are they enjoined as more neceſſary to be done, then thoſe Actions that by the Word of God are neceſſary to Salvation.
But all theſe Eight points are to be juſtified; Ergo,
Theſe Ceremonies are enjoyned as more neceſſary to be done, than ſome Actions that are neceſſary to Salvation.
The Propoſition cannot be gainſayed. It being a Topick Axiom. Cujus privatio eſt deterior, illud ipſum eſt melius: to wit, The worſe the Privation of a thing is, the better the thing is. For Example, If blindneſs be worſe than deafneſſe; Then is the poſitive habit of ſeeing better than that of hearing. So, if Non-conformity be worſe than Drunkenneſſe, Blaſphemy, Idolatry, Filthineſs of Body, &c. It muſt needs follow, that Conformity is a more excellent thing in it ſelf than Sobriety; the true Worſhip of God, the glorifying of the name of God, than a chaſte and honeſt life: But all theſe are urged by the Word of God, as neceſſary means to Salvation: For the Holy Ghoſt ſaith, No Murderer, Adulterer, Unclean perſon, Idolater, &c. ſhall enter into the Kingdome of heaven. If therefore Conformity be more urged by our Lawes than theſe, and the Privation more puniſhed: If this be more ſtrictly required of Chriſtians, yea, of principal Chriſtians, even the Miniſters of the Word, than the other, they muſt needs be urged more neceſſary to Salvation than the other. For, of the more excellency a Chriſtian vertue is, the more neceſſary to Salvation it is.
The Aſſumption in every part and parcel thereof may be juſtified by the practice and Aſſertions of our Adverſaries, not only privately, but in publick: For the 1. God muſt not by Canon be Worſhipped ſolemnly in England, except theſe be mingled with it, though without them he might be never ſo well worſhipped. For the 2. Thoſe that yield to theſe, need not preach at all in our Church except they will; No, nor to do any other part of Divine Service in their own perſon, if they will maintain a Curate, that will keep the Ceremonial Law, and fairly re…d or ſing the Kings Service, as they call it: And yet if Preaching were not neceſſary to Salvation, Paul that was above an Archbiſhop, ſhould not have been under a woe, if he had not done it. For no Miniſter of the Goſpel is under a woe, that performeth all ſervices to the Churches of God that are neceſſary to Salvation. Neither was Pauls Preaching a Reading of Homilies, or of a Service Book. For the 3. Nothing is more notorious then for us that make ſcruple of theſe things to be reputed worſe than Papiſts: One that is a great Judge in theſe cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, affirmed it unto my ſelf. Another, openly at Pauls Croſſe, in mine own hearing, made no doubt but the Papiſts were in the Church, but he made great doubt whether the Puritanes were. And yet we are Puritanes for nothing elſe, but for refuſing Conformity to their Ceremonies: For, howſoever they ſlander us with many other groſs imputations, yet they cannot lay any thing to our charge but our conſcience in this. For all other matters concerning their own Eſtates and Dignities, conſidering how deſperate they are, and unreformable, we can be content to leave them to the Judgment of God, who (as it ſeems) intendeth to glorifie himſelf by ſome other means, than by their Converſion. For the 4. Read Scottiſh, Genevat. The Survey, Remonſtrance, &c. And ye ſhall finde all this laid to their Charge. Alſo their practice ſufficiently proveth it; for the Miniſters that are of late ſuſpended and deprived, only refuſing to uſe theſe Ceremonies, bear their condemnation under theſe Names and Titles.
The 5. and 6. is proved by their own late Canons; For, if they be to be excommunicated ipſo facto, as holding damnable and wicked Errours, that ſhall Profeſs any of theſe Ceremonies to be unlawfull, a man ought not to acknowledge himſelf a member of any ſuch Church, as doth affectedly caſt them out of Gods worſhip: For, for what Error a particular perſon is not to be reputed as a member of the Church, but as a Heathen and Publican; for the ſame a whole Church is not to be reputed a Church, but a Synagogue of Satan.
The 7. may be juſtified by many Inſtances of many vile and impious perſons of thoſe kindes tolerated in the Miniſtry.
The 8. is proved by him that anſwers the Plea of the Innocent, who ſaith, That they that call in queſtion the lawfulneſs of theſe Ceremonies, call in queſtion her late Majeſties Religion; which they could not do, except (at the leaſt) part of her Religion conſiſted in them.
Further, If this doth not ſufficiently prove the main Aſſumption, let theſe Reaſons following be wayed.
1. If the Church be neceſſary to Salvation, and if the Pillars of the Church be neceſſary to the Church, and if the Lord Biſhops be the Pillars of the Church, and theſe or ſuch like Cermonies be the main Supporters of Lord Biſhops: then are theſe Ceremonies in the judgment of the Prelates neceſſary to Salvation. For no Church, no Salvation; no Pillar of the Church, no Church: No L. Biſhop, no Pillar of the Church: No Ceremony, no Lord Biſhop. Ergo, No Ceremony of this kinde, no Salvation.
2. All Divine Conſtitutions binding conſcience are neceſſary to Salvation: But by the late Doctrine of the Prelates and others, theſe Ceremonies (being not unlawfull) when they are commanded by the Church, are ſaid not to be humane but Divine Conſtitutions, binding conſcience; therefore they (as they are urged) are neceſſary to Salvation. For all divine Conſtitutions binding conſcience, are neceſſary to Salvation, or elſe, nothing on our part can be ſaid in any ſence to be neceſſary thereunto.
3. It is neceſſary to Salvation, that men ſhould not only worſhip God, but worſhip him in a comely, decent, and orderly manner, it being a matter of damnation to worſhip God in a confuſed, unſeemly, and diſordered manner, but by the Doctrine of our Prelates, comelineſs, decency, and order, conſiſts in the uſe of theſe Ceremonies; Ergo, in their Judgment they are neceſſary to Salvation.
Objection: The Church doth not intend to urge theſe things, as neceſſary to Salvation. Ergo, They are not urged as neceſſary to Salvation.
Anſw. 1. The Church urgeth not theſe things at all, but only three or four Biſhops in the Church, which (if their own Doctrine be true) are Uſurpers over our Churches, and not ſo much as any true members of a Church.
What if the Synod ſhould Decree that the King ſhould hold the Arch-Biſhops ſtirrop, and the Prince and Nobles kiſs his toe, once or twice a year; and withall they ſhould proteſt, that they do not require this as a worſhip, or honor to the Archbiſhop, but only for comelineſſe, Order, and Edification, were not this a ſhamefull ſhift, as bad as the thing it ſelf.
The twelfth Argument.
All actions, not required by the Word of God, (though commanded by humane authority) that are apparent means of the Damnation of the Souls of infinite numbers of men, are directly againſt the Law of charity, and therefore ſin.
But theſe Ceremonies are ſuch Actions. Ergo,
THE Propoſition is without queſtion: For if, without commandment from God, I may, upon the ſole will and pleaſure of the Magiſtrate, or Governours of the Church, do that by which I ſhall be a means of the damnation of my brothers ſoul, which is the greateſt breach of the law of charity that can be: Then may I do any ſin at their commandment without ſin, for what greater ſin can there be againſt the ſecond Table than this, to be a witting Inſtrument of my Neighbours damnation. Which though it be but a matter of Jeſt to our great Doctors, that have many Cures, and no care of ſouls, yet, to them which know the price of a ſoul, it is more than if, upon the meer will of the Magiſtrates, they ſhould be forced to kill their own Children and deareſt Beloveds with their own hand.
Object. The Magiſtrate having authority given him by God to command things Indifferent, he commanding, they are to be done, notwithſtanding the Scandal of our Neighbour.
Anſw. 1. Though the Subject ought to obey his Magiſtrate in all Indifferent actions impoſed upon him whatſoever, yet I deſire that it may be proved, that God in his Word hath given to any Power or Potentate upon Earth any ſuch abſolute authority. The Magiſtrate is Gods Lieutenant, and the glory of the Magiſtrate conſiſts in this, In that, under God, he beareth a Sword, to puniſh thoſe that tranſgreſs his Laws, but he is by Gods Ordinance to be the procurer and protector of the Chriſtian Liberty of his Subjects. That therefore he hath power granted him of God (upon his own pleaſure) to take away the ſame, eſpecially in ſuch a caſe, requires proof out of the Word of God.
2. If he have ſuch a power, yet thoſe things that God leaves to his will to command, or not to command, he cannot command under a greater penalty than bodily death; for his Sword can cut no deeper, and then in the caſe of Scandal a Chriſtian Subject ought rather to ſuffer the Magiſtrate to take away his life, than to do that which ſhall procure the Damnation of his Brothers Soul. And in thus doing, he is no contemner of the Magiſtrates Law, but a fulfiller of the Law of Charity, in not deſtroying his brothers Soul upon the meer pleaſure of a mortal man.
Object. But the commandment of the Magiſtrate takes away the ſcandal, when the thing is done in obedience to him.
Anſw. This is another deſperate ſhift. As though the conſcience of the weak brother that judgeth a thing indifferent to be a Sin will be ever the more ſatisfied and relieved in the matter by the authority of the Magiſtrate, nothing but the authority of God either can or ought to ſatisfie a doubting conſcience. And as for them that put ſuperſtition in things indifferent, and are that way ſcandalized, the authority of the Magiſtrate or Church commanding them, their ſcandal is encreaſed, and not removed by the ſame.
Object. But we muſt more reſpect Obedience to the Magiſtrate, than the ſcandal of inferiour perſons, the thing commanded being indifferent, and not evil.
Anſw. 1. The thing commanded is not indifferent, then when it is a ſcandal and ſtumbling block to our brother. 2. We muſt obey the Magiſtrate only in the Lord, but this is not to obey him in the Lord, only upon his pleaſure to deſtroy a ſoul for whom Chriſt died. 3. An obedience to the Magiſtrate, ſo far as to the condemnation of our brothers ſoul, muſt be a ſpecial obedience, in ſome ſpecial good and juſt commandment, which cannot be verified of a commandment that requireth only a thing indifferent, much leſs ſuch an indifferent, as is a ſcandal and means of deſtruction to mens ſouls.
4. Such a forbearing of obedience only in love to the ſalvation of our brothers ſoul, being without apparent contempt of the Magiſtrate, and having adjoyned with it a meek ſubmiſſion to the mercy of the Magiſtrate, cannot be called a diſobedience, but is indeed a better obedience than theirs, that do contrary, who in their obedience bring the bloud of the ſouls they deſtroy, both upon their own heads, and the Magiſtrate, which is a ſin in the eyes of God worſe than rebellion.
Object. But by obedience to theſe Ceremonies many ſouls by means of preaching are ſaved, which ſhall want the means in the refuſal.
Anſw. 1. We muſt not deſtroy the ſouls of ſome, that we may ſave the ſoules of other, we muſt do that which is juſt, though the World go to wrack for it.
2. The greateſt good that a man can do, cannot countervail the leaſt evil, much leſs ſo great an evil as to be a witting inſtrument of the damnation of a brothers ſoul.
3. He that preacheth cannot aſſure himſelf of the ſalvation of one ſoul by the ſame, for that is wrought by the work of the Spirit of God. And he hath little cauſe to hope for a bleſſing upon that preaching which he purchaſeth with the price of bloud, yea, of the bloud of ſouls.
Object. But the King, the Magiſtrate and State are ſcandalized alſo at the omiſſion of them, and their ſcandal is more to be reſpected than the ſcandal of inferiour perſons, for the uſing of them.
Anſw. 1. For his Majeſty, we doubt not but (if the Prelates would) he would eaſily yield to the removal of them, and therefore he cannot be ſcandalized at the refuſal, when it is of meer conſcience, though of conſcience deceived. 2. The States and Inferiour Magiſtrates of the Kingdom have in all Parliaments ſhewed themſelves willing, and ready to ſet their hands to the removal of them. 3. If the King and State will be ſcandalized, becauſe upon their meer will and pleaſure, I will not do that which I am perſwaded will be a means of the deſtruction of their ſouls for whom Chriſt died: They will be much more ſcandalized at me if I do it; For ſuch an obedience as this, muſt needs be a means of begetting or confirming ſtrange ſins in their ſouls: for as it is a kind of deifying of themſelves, To require (even in the caſe of ſcandal) a thing indifferent to be done; ſo they that ſhall in ſuch a caſe obey, cannot but nouriſh exceedingly that corruption from which ſuch a commandment ſhall proceed. 4. The ſoul of the meaneſt and pooreſt in a Kingdom coſt as great a price, and is as dear to Chriſt, as the ſoul of the Nobleſt, and in the matter of ſcandal, as great heed is to be taken to them, as to any other: And it ſhews of what ſpirit theſe men are of, that think they may betray the ſouls of Chriſts little ones, rather than diſpleaſe a mortal man.
Object. What, Muſt the Magiſtrates Laws be changed for every humour that will pretend ſcandal?
Anſw. Yea, ſuch Laws as command only things indifferent, in caſes of general ſcandal, are to be changed; of particular ſcandal, are (at the leaſt) to be diſpenſed withall: For if Laws that command things neceſſary, are ſometimes to be diſpenced with, and if of them it is ſaid, Extream right is extream wrong. Much more then ſuch Laws as require only ſuch things as are indifferent. 1. Such things that (but for the Commanders pleaſure) makes no matter whether they be done or no. Which are indeed unworthy to be commanded of Worthies. 2. A pretended ſcandal in humour is eaſily diſcerned by thoſe that are wiſe and not malicious, for they that are ready to performe all obedience to the Magiſtrate in all other heavier and greater things, are ready in his Service to ſpend their goods and lives, that think nothing too dear for the redeeming of his ſafety, that are in all other things as obedient, and more obedient than any other of his ſubjects: It is not to be ſuppoſed of any, (that are not poſſeſt with the malicious ſpirit of Antichriſt) that ſuch ſhould refuſe to obey the Kings pleaſure in a toye, and a trifle, (ſuch as are all things indifferent) except that in obeying him they were perſwaded that they ſhould ſin againſt their own conſcience, which, next unto God, they have cauſe to pleaſe, far above all the Kings of the earth, for it hath greater power to torment them than they have.
But I prove the Aſſumption.
All apparent means of confirming men in Schiſm, Superſtition, and Idolatry, by means whereof many have profeſſedly lived and died therein without repentance, are apparent means of the damnation and deſtruction of many ſouls amongſt us: But
Theſe Ceremonies are ſuch. Ergo,
The Propoſition cannot be denied, for what action of man can be ſaid to be a means of the damnation and deſtruction of anothers ſoul, if theſe actions be not, that confirm men in ſuch foul ſins? So that either a man can do nothing that ſhall deſtroy his brothers ſoul (which is directly againſt the expreſs words of S. Paul) Or elſe ſuch a conformity, in ſuch actions as confirm men in ſuch damnable ſins, doth deſtroy his ſoul.
The Aſſumption is as evident as any ſuch matter can be. For
1. The Papiſts, not only amongſt us, (which are innumerable) but others alſo do profeſs, that by our uſe of theſe Ceremonies (which are conſecrated myſteries of their own Religion) they are confirmed in the truth of their Religion, and the falſhood of ours. And good reaſon they have ſo to judge: For if the broth be good that the Devil is ſod in, ſure the Devil himſelf muſt needs be good alſo. 2. Thoſe Chriſtians of the Seperation, that are called Browniſts, being many hundreds, profeſſing the ſame faith that we do, are by the retaining of Reliques, confirmed in their Schiſm, and Seperation from us; And live and die in this opinion, That our Churches are no true Churches, and that a man cannot, without ſin, communicate with them. And the main ground of this is, for that we mingle with Divine worſhip theſe baſe and vile inventions of men, Yea, of the accurſed Antichriſt. What? Is a linnen rag, and a Chriſts Croſs, &c. to be reputed of ſo great value and price, that the fellowſhip and ſpiritual communion of ſo many Chriſtians, (as ſound in religion as any Prelate in the Realm) ſhould be contemned and rejected for them?
3. Common experience teacheth us, that there are infinite numbers in this Realm ignorant and ſuperſtitious folk, that place as much, or more holineſs in theſe things, than in the holy Ordinances of God; And how can it be otherwiſe, when they ſhall ſee the Rulers of the Church, mingle Heaven, Earth, and Hell together in this manner about them. Curſing, and anathematizing all that ſhall not embrace them. How can they but imagine, that the ſight of a Surplice upon a Prieſts back ſhall bring them to heaven, when they ſhall ſee thoſe that keep Heaven Keys, ſend a man, for want of ſuch a wedding garment, ipſo facto, to hell?
4. If it be but conſidered, that all other Proteſtant Churches have rejected them as menſtruous cloaths, that more than the greateſt number of Paſtors in our own Land, that deſires the name of faithful and painful Teachers, either count them impious, or at leaſt the burdens or reproaches of our Churches: that the firſt appointers of them, (after our ſeperation from Rome) intended only a toleration of them, that the moſt ſcandalous and leud perſons in our Congregations, are the hotteſt for them, that every Parliament ſince her Majeſties raign hath been forward in the removing of them, that the defence of them hath driven men to run into the broching of many groſſe and Popiſh errours. And that ſo many Miniſters, (a catalogue of whoſe names and ſtates, I could wiſh were publiſhed to all poſterity, that it may ſee the wonderfull milde and moderate government of Prelates) have endured and expected daily to endure the grateſt extremities for the ſame: I ſay, if theſe things be duly conſidered, a man ſhall eaſily ſee, that theſe ceremonies are ſtumbling blocks, layd by the Devill and his Agents in the wayes of all the people of this Realm, to hinder the progreſs of the Goſpel, and to make all men ſtumble in the wayes of ſalvation.
AN ADDITION.
NOt onelyonly our Conformers unto Rome, but they alſo that abhor the ſame; can hardly endure to hear, that theſe Ceremonies are parts of divine worſhip, for whoſe further ſatisfaction I add this one Argument.
Whatſoever being uſed in divine worſhip, is directly contrary to the 2d. Commandement, is a part of divine worſhip.
Theſe Ceremonies are uſed in divine worſhip, and are directly contrary to the 2d. commandement. Ergo
The Propoſition is evident, for all outward Idolatry is Divine worſhip; and nothing but outward Idolatry is directly forbidden in the 2d. Commandement.
The ſecond part of the Aſſumption is thus proved,
All inventions and devices of man, grounded orely upon the will of man, and not upon any neceſſity of nature, or civility, ſet a-part to Gods outward worſhip; are contrary to the ſecond Commandement.
Theſe Ceremonies are ſuch, Ergo.
The propoſition we prove thus.
Either all ſuch devices and inventions are contrary unto the 2d. commandement, or elſe there is no *A trope or figure of ſpeech, wherein under one kind of Idolatry all ſorts are forbidden.Synecdoche therein.
But there is a Synecdoche in the 2d. Commandement.
The Aſſumption or latter part of this Syllogiſme cannot be denyed of any, but ſuch as ſhall deſperately ſet themſelves, againſt the truth of God. For if there were no figure or Trope in the commandement, then to bow down unto, and to worſhip the Sun, Moon and Stars, or any other of Gods creatures, yea, or any image made by any other, ſhould be no breach of this commandement, much leſs to offer Jewiſh Sacrifices of ſheep and Oxen, to circumciſe, to go a pilgrimage to Saints, to kiſſe the Paxe, to ſprinkle with holy water, to baptize Bells, or to uſe any other Popiſh rites; in which if a man ſin not againſt the ſecond commandement, he ſinneth not againſt any.
Again, It would be demanded, againſt what commandement, Nadab and Abihu ſinned, when they offered ſtrange fire. The Iſraelites, when they abuſed Gideons Ephod, Judg. 8.27. The Corinthians in eating meat offered to Idols, in the Idols Temples, 1 Cor. 9. Either they ſinned not againſt this commandement, and by conſequent againſt none, or elſe there muſt needs be a wonderfull large Trope in the ſame, which I think never any Divine, Jew or Chriſtian, Proteſtant or Papiſt ever denyed before now.
The propoſition is as evident if it be conſidered, that in the 2.d commandement, literally and in propriety of ſpeech, nothing is forbidden, but the making of Images for worſhip, and the bowing down unto them & worſhiping of them: Now if there be a Synecdoche in the commandement, there muſt of neceſſity be not onelyonly other kinds of falſe outward worſhip of Idolatry, different in form from making and bowing down unto Images and Idols, but there muſt be alſo ſome common cauſe or ground, upon which making and bowing unto Images is forbidden, which muſt be the third Argument, and reaſon by which all other kinds of falſe outward worſhip are brought under bowing unto images, & condemne in that, elſe it were ſenſeleſs to make any thing that is not a bowing down unto Images to be condemned under that name and title. For when one thing is condēned under another, it is becauſe that thing doth communicate with it in the ſame cauſe for which it is condemned. For example; if under, bowing down unto Images, Jewiſh Circumciſion, Sacrifices, &c. are forbidden, foraſmuch as theſe cannot in any ſenſe be called Bowing down to Images; there muſt be ſome cauſe why bowing down into Images is forbidden, which muſt ſtretch it ſelfe unto them, and bring them under it, which muſt be as it were a common genus unto it and them.
Now let all the wits in the world lay their heads together, and they ſhall never be able to deviſe any ſuch common genus, that ſhall be the common cauſe why not onelyonly bowing down to Images: but why, under it all other kind of Idolatry and falſe worſhip is condemned, but this, for that they were humane devices, & inventions, and therefore under the moſt uſual and generall received invention of man, God condemneth all other Inventions uſed to the ſame end. If this be not the reaſon then there are and may be infinite, outward Idolatries and Superſtitions that cannot with any reaſon be referred to this commandement. Therefore it muſt needs follow that either there is no trope in the commandement, or that all ſuch inventions of man are forbidden in the ſame.