THE WORKS OF

MR. GEORGE GILLESPIE

MINISTER OF EDINBURGH,

AND ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS FROM SCOTLAND

TO THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY, 1644

NOW FIRST COLLECTED.

WITH MEMOIR OF HIS LIFE AND WRITINGS,

BY M. W. HETHERINGTON, LL.D.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.

HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO, LONDON

1846.

Contents

[pg vii]

ADVERTISEMENT.

(Transcriber's Note: This book is an 1846 reprint of George Gillespie's books, which were originally published separately. Each is reprinted here with its original title page and other front matter. The paper book had no page numbers; each book is transcribed here with its own page numbering, which may have no correspondence with the publisher's idea of the page numbers.)

In presenting to the public, for the first time, a Complete Edition of the Works of Mr George Gillespie, there are two or three points to which the Publisher begs to direct special attention.

Although the great value of Gillespie's various works was well known to many, yet there had been no recent reprints of them, and they had become so very scarce that it was with great difficulty any of them could be obtained. Recent controversies had brought forward the very subjects which had been so ably treated by Gillespie; and it was felt, that justice to the Church of which he was so great an ornament, and to the cause which he so strenuously supported, demanded the republication of his whole works, in a form, and at a price, which should render them generally accessible.

In prosecuting this task the idea was suggested, that it would be desirable to publish what remained of those Notes on the Proceedings of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, which Gillespie was known to have written, if the permission of the Advocates, in whose Library they were, could be obtained. That permission was most readily granted. The manuscript volumes, of what purported to be Gillespie's Notes, form part of the large collection entitled, the Wodrow MSS. They appear, however, not to be Gillespie's own Notes, but copies separately taken from [pg viii] the original. The fact that they are manifestly separate and independent transcriptions, furnishes good evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of the original manuscripts, though it is not now known where they are, if still in existence. In making a new copy for the press every facility was granted by the Librarians of the Advocates' Library, with their well-known courtesy and liberality; and much aid was rendered by David Laing, Esq., a gentleman thoroughly conversant with Scottish ecclesiastical literature, and generously ready to communicate to others the benefit of his own extensive and accurate knowledge.

Being desirous to render this Edition of Gillespie's works as full and complete as possible, several small and comparatively unimportant papers have been copied from the Wodrow Manuscript, some account of which will be found at the close of the Memoir. An appendix to the Memoir contains all that could be gleaned from Wodrow's Analecta, as printed by the Maitland Club.

The Memoir itself has been drawn up with considerable care, and is as extensive as the paucity of materials for its composition would admit. It might, indeed, have been enlarged by a more full account of the great events which occurred during the period in which Gillespie lived; but this would have been an unfair changing of biography into history, and would not have been suited to the object in view.

As the parts of the Collected Edition of Gillespie's Works were issued successively, they have been paged separately; and may be arranged in volumes according to the taste of their purchasers. It will, however, be found most expedient to adopt a chronological arrangement, such as is indicated in the closing pages of the Memoir.

MEMOIR OF THE REV. GEORGE GILLESPIE.

George Gillespie was one of the most remarkable men of the period in which he lived, singularly fertile as that period was in men of great abilities. He seems to have been almost unknown, till the publication of his first work, which dazzled and astonished his countrymen by the rare combination it displayed of learning and genius of the highest order. From that time forward, he held an undisputed position among the foremost of the distinguished men by whose talents and energy the Church of Scotland was delivered from prelatic despotism. Yet, although greatly admired by all his compeers during his brilliant career, so very little has been recorded respecting him, that we can but glean a scanty supply of materials, from a variety of sources, out of which to construct a brief memoir of his life

We have not met with any particular reference to the family from which George Gillespie was descended, except a very brief notice of his father, the Rev. John Gillespie, in Livingston's “Memorable Characteristics.” From this we learn that he was minister at Kirkcaldy, and that he was, to use Livingston's language, “a thundering preacher.” In that town George Gillespie was born; but, as the earlier volumes of the Session Register of Births and Baptisms have been lost, the precise year of his birth cannot be ascertained from that source. It could not, however, have been earlier than 1612, in which year his father was chosen to the second charge in Kirkcaldy, as appears from the town records, nor later than 1613, as the existing Register commences January, 1614, and, in the end of that year, the birth of a daughter of Mr John Gillespie is registered, and again in 1610, of a son, baptised Patrick. It may be assumed, therefore, with tolerable certainty, that George Gillespie was born early in the year 1613, a date which agrees with that engraven on his tombstone. Wodrow, indeed, states, on the authority of Mr Simpson, that Gillespie was born on the 21st of January, 1613.

Nothing has been recorded respecting the youthful period of Gillespie's life. The earliest notice of him which appears, is merely sufficient to intimate that his mind must have been carefully cultivated from his boyhood, as it relates to the time of his being sent to the University of St Andrews, to prosecute his studies, in 1629, when he was, of course, in his 16th year. It appears to have been the custom of the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy, as of many others at that time, to support young men of merit at the University, as Presbytery Bursars, by means of the contributions of the parishes within its bounds. In the Session Record of Kirkcaldy the following statement occurs, dated November, 1629:—“The Session are content that Mr George Gillespie shall have as much money of our Session, for his interteynment, as Dysart gives, viz. 20 merks, being our Presbytery Bursar.” In some of the brief biographical notices of him which have been given, we are informed that during the course of his attendance at the University, he gave ample evidence of both genius and industry, by the rapid growth and development of mental power, and the equally rapid acquirement of extensive learning, in both of which respects he surpassed his fellow-students. That this must have been the case, his future eminence, so early achieved, sufficiently proves; but nothing of a very definite nature, relating to that period, has been preserved.

When he had completed his academic career, and was ready to enter into the office of the ministry, his progress was obstructed by a difficulty which, for a time, proved insurmountable. Being conscientiously convinced that the prelatic system of church government is of human invention, and not of Divine institution, and having seen the bitter fruits it bore in Scotland, he would not submit to receive ordination from a bishop, and could not, at that juncture, obtain admission into the ministerial office without it. Though thus excluded from the object of his pursuit, he found congenial employment for his pious and active mind in the household of Lord Kenmure, where he resided as domestic chaplain, till the death of that nobleman in September, 1634. Soon afterwards we find him discharging a similar duty in the family of the Earl of Cassilis, and, at the same time, acting as tutor to Lord Kennedy, the Earl's eldest son. This latter employment furnished him with both leisure and inducement to prosecute his studies, and that, too, in the very direction to which his mind had been already predisposed. But, in order to obtain an intelligible view of the state of matters in Scotland at that period, we must take a brief survey of the events which had been moulding the aspect of both church and kingdom for some time before.

It may be assumed as a point which no person of competent knowledge and candid mind will deny or dispute, that the Reformed Church of Scotland was, from its very origin, Presbyterian; equally opposed to the prelatic superiority of one minister over others, and to the authority of the civil power in spiritual matters. This point, therefore, we need not occupy space in proving; but we [pg xi] may suggest, that there is a much closer and more important connexion between the two elements here specified, than is generally remarked. For, as a little reflection will show, without the pre-eminence of some small number of ministers over the rest, the civil power cannot obtain the means of directly exercising an authoritative control in spiritual matters. Even the indirect methods of corruption which may be employed can be but partially successful, and may at any time be defeated, whenever the general body shall be restored to purity and put forth its inherent power. A truly presbyterian church, therefore, never can be thoroughly depended on by civil rulers who wish to use it as a mere engine of state for political purposes; consequently, a truly presbyterian church has never found much favour in the estimation of the civil power,—and, it may be added, never will, till the civil power itself become truly Christian. Thus viewed, it was not strange that the civil power in Scotland, whether wielded by a regent such as Morton, or a king like James VI., should strenuously and perseveringly seek the subversion of the Presbyterian Church. In the earlier stage of the struggle, first Morton, and then James, attempted force, but found the attempt to be in vain. At length the King seemed inclined to leave off the hopeless and pernicious contest; and, in the year 1592, an Act of Parliament was passed, ratifying all the essential elements of the Presbyterian Church, in doctrine, government, discipline, and worship. But this proved to be merely a cessation of hostilities on the part of the King, preparatory to their resumption in a more insidious and dangerous manner, and by the dark instrumentality of his boasted “king-craft.”

The first indication of the crafty monarch's designs was in the year 1597, when he, “of his great zeal and singular affection which he always has to the advancement of the true religion, presently professed within this realm,” to use his own words, enacted that all who should be appointed to the prelatic dignity, should enjoy the privilege of sitting and voting in Parliament. The pretence was, that these persons would attend better to the interests of the Church than could be done by laymen; the intention was, to introduce the prelatic order and subvert the Presbyterian Church. And, that this might be done quietly and imperceptibly, the question respecting the influence which these parliamentary representatives of the Church should have in the government of the Church itself, was left to be determined by the King and the General Assembly. Many of the most judicious and clear-sighted of the ministers perceived the dangerous tendency of this measure, and gave it their decided and strenuous opposition; but others, wearied out by their conflict with the avaricious and tyrannical conduct of the nobility, which they hoped thus more effectually to resist, or gained over by the persuasions of the King and the court party, supported the proposal. The result was, that the measure was carried in the Assembly of 1598, by a majority of ten, and that majority formed chiefly by the votes of the elders, whom the King had induced [pg xii] to support his views. Scarcely had even this step been taken, when the Church became alarmed at the possible consequences; and, in order to avoid increasing that alarm, all further consideration of the measure, with reference to its subordinate details, was postponed till the meeting of the next Assembly. Nor was this enough. As the time for the next Assembly drew near, the King felt so uncertain of success, that he prorogued the appointed meeting, and betook himself to those private artifices by which his previous conquest had been gained.

When the Assembly of 1600 met, the most intense interest was felt by the whole kingdom in its proceedings, all men perceiving that upon its decision would depend the continuation or the overthrow of the presbyterian form of church government in Scotland. The King's first step was the arbitrary exclusion from the Assembly of the celebrated Andrew Melville. The discussion commenced respecting the propriety of ministers voting in Parliament. But when those who favoured the measure could not meet the argument of its opponents, the King again interposed, and authoritatively declared that the preceding General Assembly had already decided the general question in the affirmative; and that they had now only to determine subordinate arrangements. The measure was thus saved from defeat. The next question, whether the parliamentary ministers should hold their place for life, or be annually elected, was decided in favour of annual election. Yet James prevailed upon the cleric to frame an ambiguous statement in the minute of proceedings, virtually granting what the Assembly had rejected. Even then, though thus both overborne and tricked by the King, the Church framed a number of carefully expressed “caveats,” or cautions, for protecting her liberties, and guarding against the introduction of Prelacy. It was not, however, the intention of the King to pay any regard to these “caveats,” so soon as he might think it convenient to set them aside; and, accordingly, within a few months he appointed three bishops to the vacant sees of Ross, Aberdeen, and Caithness, directly in violation of all the “caveats” by which he had agreed that the appointment of ecclesiastical commissioners to Parliament should be regulated.

That mysterious event, the Gowry conspiracy, and the views taken of it by some of the best and most influential of the ministers, tended to alter the aspect of the struggle between the King and the Church; and though the King twice interposed to change the Assembly's time and place of meeting by his own authority, contrary to the provisions of the act, 1592, yet the church succeeded in maintaining a large measure of its primitive freedom and purity, against the encroachments of the crafty and perfidious monarch and his “creatures,” to use their own phrase, the bishops.

The Assembly of 1602, however, was the last that retained anything like presbyterian liberty, and ventured to act on its own convictions of duty. [pg xiii] But, the death of Queen Elizabeth, and the accession of James to the English throne, directed his main attention for a time to other matters, and gave occasion to a temporary pause in his violations of all the laws which he had repeatedly sworn to maintain. The pause was brief. The flattering servility of the English bishops inflated his vanity to an extravagant degree, and rendered him the more determined to subvert wholly the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and to erect Prelacy on its ruins. He had already presumed more than once to postpone meetings of the General Assembly, by his own arbitrary authority; he resumed this course, postponed the Assembly for one year, naming another,—then prorogued it again, without naming another day of meeting, which was nearly equivalent to an intimation, that it should entirely depend upon his pleasure whether it should ever meet again,—directly contrary to the act, 1592, in which it was expressly stipulated that the Assembly should meet at least once a year. The most zealous and faithful of the ministers were now fully aware of the imminent peril to which spiritual liberty was exposed. On the 2d of July, 1605, the day on which the General Assembly had been appointed to meet at Aberdeen, nineteen ministers met, constituted the Assembly in the usual form, and while engaged in reading a letter presented by the King's Commissioner, a messenger-at-arms entered, and in the King's name, charged them to dismiss, on pain of being held guilty of rebellion. The moderator appointed another day of meeting, and dissolved the Assembly in the usual manner. This bold and independent, though perfectly legal and constitutional conduct, roused the wrath of the King to fury. Six of the most eminent of the ministers, one of whom was John Welsh of Ayr, son-in-law of Knox, were confined in a miserable dungeon in the castle of Blackness, for a period of fourteen months, and then banished to France. Eight others were imprisoned for a time, and banished to the remotest parts of Scotland. The severity of Robert Bruce's treatment was increased; and six other ministers, who had not been directly involved in the resistance to the King's authority, by the suppressed Assembly of Aberdeen, were called to London, and engaged in captious disputations by the crafty monarch, and his sycophantic prelates, in order to find occasion against them also. The result was, the confinement in the Tower of Andrew Melville, and his subsequent banishment to France; and the prohibition of his nephew, James Melville, to return to Scotland.

Having thus succeeded, by fraud and force, in cutting off the leading ministers, James next summoned an Assembly to meet at Linlithgow, in December 1606, naming the persons who were to be sent by the presbyteries. In this packed Assembly he succeeded in his design of introducing more generally the prelatic element, by the appointment of constant moderators in each presbytery. Advancing now with greater rapidity, he instituted, in 1610, the Court of High Commission, which may be well termed the [pg xiv] Scottish Inquisition; and in the same year, in an Assembly held at Glasgow, both nominated by the King, and corrupted by lavish bribery, the whole prelatic system of church government was introduced; the right of calling and dismissing Assemblies was declared to belong to the royal prerogative, the bishops were declared moderators of diocesan synods; and the power of excommunicating and absolving offenders was conferred on them.

The government of the Church was thus completely subverted in its external aspect. Its forms indeed remained. There were still presbyteries and synods, and there might be a General Assembly, if the King pleased; but the power of presbyteries or synods was vested in the Prelates, and the King could prevent any Assembly from being held, as long as he thought proper. But the Presbyterian Church, though overborne, was not destroyed, nor was its free spirit wholly subdued. When, in 1617, the King attempted to arrogate to himself and his prelatic council the power of enacting ecclesiastical laws, he was immediately met by a protestation against a measure so despotic. By an arbitrary stretch of power, he banished the historian Calderwood, the person who presented to him the protestation; but he felt it necessary to have recourse once more to his previously employed scheme, of a packed and bribed Assembly, in which to enact his innovations. This was accordingly done in the Assembly of 1618, held in Perth, in which, by the joint influence of bribery and intimidation, he succeeded in obtaining a majority of votes in favour of the five articles of Perth, as they are usually called. These five articles were,—kneeling at the communion,—the observance of holidays,—episcopal confirmation,—private baptism,—and the private dispensation of the Lord's Supper. It will at once be seen that these innovations were directly contrary to the presbyterian principle, which holds that human inventions ought not to be added to divine institutions.

This was the last attempt made by King James for the overthrow of the Presbyterian Church. It was but partially successful. Not less than forty-five, even of the ministers summoned to Perth by the King, voted against the five articles; and in defiance of the authority of the King, and the Prelates, and the terrors of the Court of High Commission, a large proportion of the ministers, and a much larger proportion of the people throughout the kingdom, never conformed to these articles. Various attempts were made by the prelatic faction to suppress the resistance of the faithful ministers and people. At one time a minister who would not yield was suspended from his ministry; at another, he was banished from his flock, and confined to some remote district of the country. But all was ineffectual, although much suffering and distress of mind was caused by these harrassing persecutions. Very gladly would the ministers and people have abandoned the prelatised church, and maintained the government and ritual of the Church of their fathers by their own unaided exertions, had they been permitted. But no such permission [pg xv] could be obtained. They were compelled either to abstain from preaching altogether, or to remain in connection with the Church. And even this alternative was not always left to their choice. They were frequently kept in a species of imprisonment in their own houses, not permitted to leave the Church, and yet forbidden to preach, or even to expound the word of God to the members of their own households. Such was the monstrous and intolerable tyranny exercised by Prelacy in Scotland, in its desperate attempts to destroy the Presbyterian Church.

But the Presbyterian Church has always proved to be not easily destroyed. At the very time when Prelacy and king-craft were uniting for its destruction, its Divine Head was graciously supporting it under its trials, giving it life to endure them, and preparing for its deliverance. The sufferings endured by the faithful ministers in many parts of the country, tended to make them objects of admiration, love, and respect to the people, who could not but draw a very striking contrast between their conduct, and that of the haughty and irreligious prelates. But mighty as was this influence in the hearts of the people, one infinitely more mighty began to be felt in many districts of the kingdom. God was pleased to grant a time of religious revival. The power of vital godliness aroused the land, shining in its strength, like living fire. At Stewarton, at Shotts, and in many others quarters, great numbers were converted, and the faith of still greater numbers was increased. A time of refreshing from the presence of God had evidently come; and it soon became equally evident, that the enemies of spiritual freedom were under the blinding influence of infatuation.

The younger bishops, inflated with vanity, acted towards the Scottish nobility in a manner so insolent, as to rouse the pride of these stern and haughty barons. But the prelates had learned from Laud, what measures would be agreeable to Charles I., who, to all his father's despotic ideas of royal prerogative, and love of Prelacy, and to at least equal dissimulation, added the formidable elements of a temper dark and relentless, and a proud and inflexible will. The consequences soon appeared. Charles resolved, that the Church of Scotland should not only be episcopalian in its form of government, but also in all its discipline, and in its form of worship. In order to accomplish this long wished for purpose, it was resolved that a Book of Canons, and a Liturgy, should be prepared by the Scottish bishops, and transmitted to those of England, for their revision and approval. The book of Canons appeared in 1635, and was regarded by the nation with the utmost abhorrence, both on its own account, and as intended to introduce innovations still more detested. What was dreaded soon took place. The Liturgy was prepared, sent to England, and revised, several of the corrections being written by Laud himself, all tending to give it a decidedly popish character. Some copies of this production appeared early in the year 1637, and were immediately subjected [pg xvi] to the examination of acute and powerful minds, well able to detect and expose their errors, and to resist this tyrannical attempt to do violence to the conscience of a free and religious people.

The crisis came. A letter from his Majesty was procured, requiring the Liturgy to be used in all the churches of Edinburgh, and an act of the Privy Council was passed, to enforce obedience to the royal mandate. Archbishop Spotswood summoned the ministers together, announced to them the King's pleasure, and commanded them to give intimation from their pulpits, that on the following Sabbath the public use of the Liturgy was to be commenced. The 23d day of July, 1637, was that on which the perilous attempt was to be made. In the cathedral church of St. Giles, the Dean of Edinburgh, attired in his surplice, began to read the service of the day. At that moment, an old woman, named Jenny Geddes, unable longer to restrain her indignation, exclaimed, “Villain, dost thou say mass at my lug!” and seizing the stool on which she had been sitting, threw it at the Dean's head. Instantly all was uproar and confusion. Threatened or assailed on all sides, the Dean, terrified by this sudden outburst of popular fury, tore himself out of their hands and fled, glad to escape, though with the loss of his priestly vestments. In vain did the magistracy interfere. It was impossible to restore sufficient quiet to allow the service to be resumed; and the defeated prelatic party were compelled to abandon the Liturgy, thus dashed out of their trembling grasp by a woman's hand.

Such was the state of affairs in both church and kingdom, when George Gillespie first appeared in public life. He had already refused to receive ordination at the hands of a bishop; he had marked well the pernicious effects of their conduct on the most sacred interests of the community; and his strong and active intellect was directed to the prosecution of such studies as might the better enable him to assail the wrong and defend the right. His residence in the household of the Earl of Cassilis, while it furnished the means of continuing his learned researches, was not likely to change their direction; for the Earl was one of those high-hearted and independent noblemen, who could not brook prelatic insolence, even when supported by the Sovereign's favour. The first production from the pen of Gillespie, the fruit, doubtless, of his previous studies, was a work entitled “A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland.” Its publication was remarkably well timed, being in the summer of 1637, at the very time when the whole kingdom was in a state of intense excitement, in the immediate expectation that the Liturgy would be forced upon the Church. Nothing could have been more suited to the emergency. It encountered every kind of argument employed by the prelatic party; and, as the defenders of the ceremonies argued that they were either necessary, or expedient, or lawful, or indifferent, so Gillespie divided his work into four parts, arguing against their [pg xvii] necessity, their expediency, their lawfulness, and their indifferency, with such extensiveness of learning and acuteness and power of reasoning, as completely to demolish all the arguments of all his prelatical antagonists. The effect produced by this singularly able work may be conjectured from the fact, that within a few months after its publication, a proclamation was issued by the Privy Council, at the instigation of the bishops, commanding all the copies of it that could be found to be called in and burned. Such was the only answer that all the learned Scottish prelates could give to a treatise, written by a youth who was only in his twenty-fifth year when it appeared. The language of Baillie shows the estimation in which that learned, but timid and cautious man, held Gillespie's youthful work. “This same youth is now given out also, by those that should know, for the author of the ‘English Popish Ceremonies,’ whereof we all do marvel; for, though he had gotten the papers, and help of the chief of that side, yet the very composition would seem to be far above such an age. But, if that book be truly of his making, I admire the man, though I mislike much of his matter; yea, I think he may prove amongst the best wits of this isle.”

So far as argument was concerned, the controversy was ended by Gillespie's work, as no answer was ever attempted by the prelates. But the contest, which began as one of power against principle, ere long became one of power against power. In vain did the King attempt to overawe the firm minds of the Presbyterians. In vain did the bishops issue their commands to the ministers to use the Liturgy. These commands were universally disobeyed; for the spirit of Scotland was now fairly roused—a spirit which has often learned to conquer, but never to yield. It was to be expected that Gillespie would not be allowed to remain much longer in comparative obscurity, after his remarkable abilities had become known. The church and parish of Wemyss being at that time vacant, the congregation, to whom he had been known from his infancy, “made supplication” that he might be their minister. This request was granted, “maugre St Andrew's beard,” as Baillie says; that is, in spite of the opposition made by Spotswood, Archbishop of St Andrews, who knew enough of the young man to regard him with equal fear and hatred. He was ordained by the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy on the 26th of April, 1638, the celebrated Robert Douglas, at that time minister of Kirkcaldy, presiding at the ordination; and was the first who was admitted by a presbytery, at that period, without regard to the authority of the bishops. This, indeed, soon ceased to be a singularity; but, it must be remembered, that though the attempt to impose the Liturgy upon the Church had been successfully resisted, the ostensible government of the Church was still held by the prelates, and continued to be held by them, till they were all deposed by the famous General Assembly which met in Glasgow on the 21st day of November, 1638. But their power had received a fatal blow, and it could not fail to be highly [pg xviii] gratifying to George Gillespie, that the first free act of the Presbyterian Church, to the recovery of whose liberty he had so signally contributed, should be his own ordination to the ministerial office.

From that time forward, the life of George Gillespie was devoted to the public service of the Church; and he was incessantly engaged in all the great measures of that momentous period. He, however, was not the man of the age. That man was Alexander Henderson, the acknowledged leader of the Church of Scotland's Second Reformation. And, as it is not our purpose to write a history of that period, we must confine ourselves chiefly to those events in which Gillespie acted a prominent part.

The next intimation that we receive of Gillespie is in Baillie's account of the Glasgow Assembly. “After a sermon of Mr Gillespie,” says Baillie, “wherein the youth very learnedly and judiciously, as they say, handled the words, ‘The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord,’ yet did too much encroach on the King's actions: he (Argyle) gave us a grave admonition, to let authority alone, which the Moderator seconded, and we all religiously observed, so long as the Assembly lasted.” This proves, at least, that Gillespie was highly esteemed by his brethren, who had selected him as one to preach before that important Assembly, notwithstanding his youth. It should be added, that on consulting the records of that Assembly's proceedings, we do indeed find Argyle's grave admonition not to interfere with the authority due to the King in his own province, and the Moderator's answer; but nothing to lead us to think that it had any reference to Gillespie's sermon. Baillie had not, at that time, learned to know and appreciate Gillespie, as he did afterwards and, as he had been somewhat startled by the point and power of the “English Popish Ceremonies,” he might not unnaturally conclude, that Argyle's caution against what might be, had been caused by what had already been beginning to appear in the language of the youthful preacher.

The course of public affairs swept rapidly onward, though certainly not in such a channel as to gratify the lovers of arbitrary power and superstition. The King, enraged to find his beloved Prelacy overthrown at once and entirely, prepared to force it upon the Scottish Covenanted Church and people by force of arms. The Covenanters stood on the defensive, and met the invading host on the Border, prepared to die rather than submit to the loss of religious liberty. But the English army was little inclined to fight in such a cause. They had felt the king's tyranny and the oppression of their own prelates, and were not disposed to destroy that liberty, so nobly won by Scotland, for which they were themselves most earnestly longing. A peace ensued. The King granted that spiritual liberty which he was unable to withhold; and the ministers who had accompanied the Scottish army, returned to the discharge of their more peaceful duties. But this peace proved of short duration. The King levied a new and more powerful army, and again declared war against [pg xix] his Scottish subjects. Again the Covenanters resumed their weapons of defence, and marched towards the Border, a number of the most eminent ministers, among whom was Gillespie, being required to accompany the army, and empowered to act as a presbytery. It was, however, judged necessary to anticipate the approach of the English by entering England. This bold movement changed the nature of the contest for the time, because the English parliament felt the utmost jealousy of the King's despotic designs, and would not grant him the necessary support. Negotiations for peace were begun at Ripon, and transferred to London. This rendered it necessary for the Scottish Commissioners for the peace to reside at London. Henderson, Blair, Baillie and Gillespie accompanied the Commissioners to London, resided with them there in the capacity of chaplains, and availed themselves of the opportunity thus afforded, for proving to the people of England that presbyterian ministers were not such rude and ignorant men as their prelatic calumniators had asserted. The effect of their preaching was astonishing, as even Clarendon, their prejudiced and bitter reviler, admits. Wherever they preached, the people flocked in crowds to hear them, and even clustered round the doors and windows of the churches in which they were proclaiming the unsearchable riches of Christ. It soon became apparent that both the cause, and the men by whom it was defended, were too mighty to be despised. Courtly parasites might scoff, but the heart of England was compelled to know that living faith and true eloquence are equally powerful to move and guide the minds of men, whether on the bleak waste of a Scottish moor, or in the midst of a mighty city.

Soon after the return of the Scottish Commissioners and ministers, in the Assembly of 1641, the town of Aberdeen gave a call to George Gillespie to be one of their pastors. This call, however, he strenuously and successfully resisted, and was permitted to remain at Wemyss. But next year, the town of Edinburgh applied to the General Assembly, to have him translated to one of the charges there, and this application was successful, so that he became one of the ministers of Edinburgh in the year 1642, and continued so during the remainder of his life.

But although Edinburgh had succeeded in obtaining Gillespie, the citizens were not long permitted to enjoy the benefit of his ministry. Another class of duties awaited him, in a still more public and important sphere of action. It is impossible here to do more than refer to the great events which at that time agitated not only Scotland, but also England. The superstition, bigotry and intolerance of Archbishop Laud and his followers, combining with and urging on the despotism of the King, had at length completely exhausted the patience of the English people and parliament. Every pacific effort had proved fruitless; and it had become undeniably evident, to every English patriot, that Prelacy must be abolished and the royal prerogative [pg xx] limited, unless they were prepared to yield up every vestige of civil and religious liberty. They made the nobler choice, passed an act abolishing Prelacy, and summoned an Assembly of Divines to deliberate respecting the formation of such a Confession of Faith, Catechism, and Directory, as might lead to uniformity between the Churches of the two kingdoms, and thereby tend to secure the religious liberty of both. The Assembly of Divines met at Westminster, on the 1st day of July, 1643. Soon afterwards Commissioners from the English Parliament, and from the Westminster Assembly, were appointed to proceed to Edinburgh, to be present at the meeting of the General Assembly in August, and to seek a conference, respecting the best method of forming the basis of a religious and civil confederacy between the two kingdoms, in their time of mutual danger. These Commissioners, accordingly, attended the meeting of the Assembly in Edinburgh, and the result of their conferences was the framing of that well-known bond of union between the two countries, the Solemn League And Covenant—“a document which we may be pardoned for terming the noblest, in its essential nature and principles, of all that are recorded among the international transactions of the world.”

As the main object for which the Solemn League and Covenant was framed, was to secure the utmost practicable degree of uniformity in the religious worship of both countries; and, as the English Divines had already met at Westminster to take the whole subject into consideration, and had requested the assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, the General Assembly named some of the most eminent of their ministers and elders as Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. These were, Alexander Henderson, Robert Douglas, Robert Baillie, Samuel Rutherford, and George Gillespie, ministers; and the Earl of Cassilis, Lord Maitland, and Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, elders; but neither the Earl of Cassilis nor Robert Douglas went. Three of these, Lord Maitland, Henderson, and Gillespie, set off for London, along with the English Commissioners, immediately after the rising of the General Assembly; the other three, Warriston, Rutherford, and Baillie, followed about a month afterwards. On the 15th of September the Scottish Commissioners were received into the Westminster Assembly with great kindness and courtesy; and, on the 25th of the same month, the Solemn League and Covenant was publicly sworn and subscribed by both Parliament and Assembly, after addresses by Nyo and Henderson. It was not, however, till the 12th of October, that the Westminster Assembly commenced its serious deliberations concerning Church Government, Discipline, and a Directory of Worship, in the hope of arriving at such conclusions as might produce religious uniformity in the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, if not also with the Reformed Churches of the Continent.

Scarcely had the Westminster Assembly begun its deliberations, when it [pg xxi] became abundantly apparent, that, however sincere its members might all be in the desire to promote the religious welfare of the community, they were, nevertheless, divided in their views as to how that could be best accomplished. There were three parties in the Assembly, the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Erastians. Of these the Presbyterians[1] formed by far the most numerous, comprising at least nine-tenths of the entire body. There were at first only five Independent divines, commonly termed “the Five Dissenting Brethren;” but their number finally amounted to ten or eleven. Only two ministers were decided Erastians, but a considerable number of the parliamentary members, chiefly those who were professionally lawyers, advocated that secular policy. The Scottish Commissioners refused to exercise the right of voting, but were continually present in the Assembly, and took a very prominent part in all its deliberations and debates, supporting, as might be expected, the views of the Presbyterians. The chief strength of the Independents consisted in the tenacity with which they adhered to their own opinions, disputing every proposition brought forward by others, but cautiously abstaining from giving any definite statement of their own; and in the close intercourse which they contrived to keep with Cromwell and the military Independents. And the Erastian party, though few in numbers within the Assembly itself, possessed, nevertheless, considerable influence, arising out of their reputation for learning, having as their ornament and support, that distinguished man, emphatically called “the learned Selden.” But the true source of their power was the Parliament, which, having deprived the King of that ecclesiastical supremacy which he had so grievously abused, wished to retain it in its own possession, and therefore, supported the Erastian party in the Assembly.

Numerous and protracted were the debates which arose in the Westminster Assembly, during the discussion of the various topics on which these three parties differed in opinion; and in all those debates no person took a more active part, or gained more distinction than George Gillespie. His previous course of studies had rendered him perfectly familiar with all that had been written on the subjects under discussion; his originally acute and powerful intellect had been thoroughly trained and exercised to its highest degree of clearness and vigour; and to a natural, perspicuous, and flowing readiness of language, the warmth and earnestness of his heart added the energy and elevation which form the very essence of true eloquence. We have already referred to the high expectations which Baillie entertained of his future career. But high as these had been, they were far surpassed by the reality, as he himself declares. “None in all the company did reason more, and more pertinently than Mr Gillespie. That is an excellent youth; my heart blesses God in his behalf!”—“Very [pg xxii] learned and acute Mr Gillespie, a singular ornament of our church, than whom not one in the whole Assembly speaks to better purpose, and with better acceptance by all the hearers.”—“Mr George Gillespie, however I had a good opinion of his gifts, yet I profess he has much deceived me: Of a truth there is no man whose parts in a public dispute I do so admire. He has studied so accurately all the points that ever yet came to our Assembly, he has got so ready, so assured, so solid a way of public debating, that however there be in the Assembly divers very excellent men, yet, in my poor judgment, there is not one who speaks more rationally, and to the point, than that brave youth has done ever.”

We cannot here follow the course of the prolonged deliberations in which Gillespie so greatly distinguished himself; but there is one instance of his eminence which has so often been related, and not always very accurately, that it would be unpardonable not to give it here,—especially as some pains have been taken to obtain as full and correct a version of it as is now practicable. After the Westminster Divines had agreed respecting the office-bearers whose permanent continuation in the church can be proved from scriptural authority; they proceeded to inquire concerning the subject of Church Discipline. In this the Presbyterians were constrained to encounter both the Independents and the Erastians; for the Independents, on the one hand, denied any authoritative excommunication or suspension, and the Erastians, on the other, admitted such a power, but placed it in the hands of the civil magistracy. For a considerable time the discussion was between the Presbyterians and the Independents; but when the arguments of the latter party had been conclusively met and answered by their antagonists, the Erastians hastened to the rescue, and their champion, “the learned Selden,” came to the Assembly, when the discussion drew near its close, prepared to pour forth all his learning for the discomfiture of the hitherto triumphant Presbyterians. His intention had been made known extensively, and even before the debate began, the house was crowded by all who could claim or obtain admission. Gillespie, who had been probably engaged in some Committee business as usual, was rather late in coming, and upon his arrival, not being recognised as a member by those who were standing about the door and in the passages, was told that it was impossible for him to get in, the throng was so dense. “Can ye not admit a pinning?” said he, using a word employed by masons, to indicate the thin slips of stone with which they pin, or fill up the chinks and inequalities that occur in the building of a plain wall. He did, however, work his way to the seat allotted to the Scottish Commissioners, and took his place beside his brethren. The subject under discussion was the text, Matt. xviii. 15-17, as bearing upon the question respecting excommunication. Selden arose, and in a long and elaborate speech, and with a great display of minute rabbinical lore, strove to demonstrate that the passage contained no warrant for ecclesiastical [pg xxiii] jurisdiction, but that it related to the ordinary practice of the Jews in their common civil courts, by whom, as he asserted, one sentence was excommunication, pronounced by their own authority. Somewhat confused, if not appalled, by the vast erudition displayed, even the most learned and able of the divines seemed in no haste to encounter their formidable opponent. At length both Herle and Marshall, two very distinguished men, attempted answers, but failed to counteract the effect of Selden's speech. Gillespie had been observed by his Scottish brethren writing occasionally in his note-book, as if marking the heads of Selden's argument; and one of them, some accounts say Rutherford, turning to him in this emergency, said, “Rise, George, rise up, man, and defend the right of the Lord Jesus Christ to govern, by his own laws, the church which he hath purchased with his blood.” Thus urged, Gillespie arose, gave first a summary of Selden's argument, divesting it of all the confusion of that cumbrous learning in which it had been wrapped, and reducing it to its simple elements; then in a speech of singular acuteness and power, completely refuted it, proving that the passage could not be interpreted or explained away to mean a mere reference to a civil court. By seven distinct arguments he proved, that the whole subject was of a spiritual nature, not within the cognisance of civil courts; and he proved also, that the church of the Jews both possessed and exercised the power of spiritual censures. The effect of Gillespie's speech was so great, as not only to convince the Assembly, but also to astonish and confound Seldon himself, who is reported to have exclaimed in a tone of bitter mortification, “That young man, by this single speech, has swept away the learning and labour of ten years of my life!” Those who were clustered together in the passage near the door, remembering Gillespie's expression when he was attempting to enter, said one to another, “It was well that we admitted the pinning, otherwise the building would have fallen.” Even his Scottish brethren, although well acquainted with his great abilities, were surprised with his masterly analysis of Selden's argument, and looked into his note-book, expecting there to find the outline of the summary which he had given. Their surprise was certainly not diminished when they found that he had written nothing but, Da lucem, Domine, Lord give light,—and similar brief petitions for the direction of that divine Head and King of the church, whose crown-rights he was about to defend.

Various other anecdotes have been recorded respecting Gillespie's singular skill and ability in debate; but the preceding is at once the most striking and the best authenticated, and may suffice to prove his eminence, both in learning and in power of argument, among the Westminster Divines.[2]

The first part of the task in which the Westminster Assembly was engaged, was the framing of a Directory for Public Worship. This having been completed about the close of the year 1644, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland met on the 23d of January, 1645, to take this Directory into consideration, and to give it their sanction, should it be found satisfactory. Baillie and Gillespie were sent to Scotland, to be present at the Assembly, that they might introduce the subject, and give any explanation that might appear necessary, and to do everything in their power to procure for it the desired approbation. In this they were completely successful, and the Assembly passed an act sanctioning the Directory,—that act having been written, as Baillie informs us, by Gillespie. Having accomplished the object of their mission, they returned to London, where Gillespie was speedily engaged in the Erastian Controversy, during which he produced his greatest work.

We have already referred to the distinguished ability with which Gillespie encountered and defeated Selden, in the discussion which arose within the Westminster Assembly itself. But the principles of Erastianism were entertained by many who were not members of that Assembly, and were advocated in other quarters, so as to lead to a literary controversy. The Rev. Thomas Coleman, one of the Erastians divines, the other being Lightfoot, preached a sermon before the House of Commons, on the 30th of July, 1645, in which there was a peculiar display of Erastianism of the very strongest kind. This sermon was printed, as were all sermons preached before either House, and excited at once the disapprobation of all the friends of religious liberty. It did not remain long unanswered. On the 27th of August, the same year, Gillespie preached before the House of Lords; and when his sermon was also published, he added to it an appendix entitled, “A Brotherly Examination of some passages of Mr Coleman's late printed sermon.” In this appendix Gillespie not only answered and refuted Coleman, but turned his arguments completely against himself. Coleman soon afterwards published a pamphlet entitled, “A Brotherly Examination Re-examined.” To this Gillespie replied in another bearing the title, “Nihil Respondes,” in which he somewhat sharply exposed the weak and inconclusive character of his opponent's argument. Irritated by the castigation he had received, Coleman published a bitter reply, to which he gave the somewhat unintelligible title of “Male Dicis Maledicis,”—intending, probably, to insinuate that Gillespie's answer was of a railing character. This roused Gillespie, and induced him to put forth his controversial power in a singularly vigorous pamphlet, entitled, “Male Audis,” [pg xxv] in which he took a rapid survey of the whole Erastian controversy, so far as Coleman and some of his friends had brought it forward, convicted him and them of numerous self-contradictions, of unsoundness in theology, of violating the covenant which they had sworn, and of inculcating opinions fatal to both civil and religious liberty. To this powerful production Coleman attempted no reply; nor have its arguments ever been answered by any subsequent advocate of Erastianism.

But however able and well-timed these controversial pamphlets were, they were not enough to occupy even the few spare hours that Gillespie was able to snatch from his attendance on the business of the Assembly. He had planned, and was all the while prosecuting, a much larger work. That work appeared about the close of the year 1646, under the title of “Aaron's Rod Blossoming: or, the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated.” In this remarkably able and elaborate production, Gillespie took up the Erastian controversy as stated and defended by its ablest advocates, fairly encountering their strongest arguments, and assailing their most formidable positions, in the frank and fearless manner of a man thoroughly sincere, and thoroughly convinced of the truth and goodness of his cause. As it may be presumed that the readers of this memoir are also in possession of “Aaron's Rod,” we need not occupy space in giving even a brief outline of that admirable work; but as we are convinced that the Erastian conflict, which has been recently resumed, must still be fought, and will be ultimately won, we strenuously recommend the studious perusal of Gillespie's masterly production to all who wish fully to comprehend the subject.[3] One or two points of general information, however, it may be expedient to give. In the “Aaron's Rod,” while Gillespie intentionally traversed the whole ground of the Erastian controversy, he directed also special attention to the productions of the day. This he could not avoid; but this has tended unfortunately, to give to his work the appearance of being to some extent an ephemeral production, suited to the period when it appeared, but not so well suited to the present times. It addresses itself to answer the arguments of Selden, and Coleman, and Hussey, and Prynne; and as the writings of these men have sunk into oblivion, we are liable to regard the work which answered them as one which has done its deed, and may also be allowed to disappear. Let it be observed, that Erastianism never had abler advocates than the above-named men. Selden was so pre-eminent for learning that his distinguishing designation was “the learned Selden.” Coleman was so thoroughly conversant with Hebrew literature, that he was commonly termed “Rabbi Coleman.” Hussey, minister at Chessilhurst in Kent, was a man of great eloquence, both as a speaker and a writer, and possessed no small influence among the strong-minded men of that period. And Prynne had a double claim on public attention [pg xxvi] both then and still; for he had been so formidable an antagonist of the Laudean Prelacy, as to have been marked out by Laud as a special victim,—had been condemned to the pillory, and suffered the loss of both his ears by the sentence of that cruel prelate,—and had been rescued from his sufferings, and restored to political life and influence, by the Long Parliament. He was, moreover, both a learned man, an acute lawyer, and an able and subtle controversialist, and his writings exercised at the time no mean influence. When such men undertook the advocacy of the Erastian argument, encouraged as they were by the English Parliament, it may well be conceived that they would present it both in its ablest, and in its most plausible form. And it is doing no discredit to Erastians of the present day, to say that they are not likely to produce anything either more profound in learning, or more able and acute in reasoning than was done by their predecessors of the Long Parliament, and the Westminster Assembly. If, therefore, Gillespie's Aaron's Rod completely defeated the acute and able men of that day, we may well recommend it to the perusal of those whose duty it may be to engage in a similar controversy in the present age.

But while such were Gillespie's labours in the field of controversy, the value of which could not be easily over-estimated, his memory would be grievously wronged were we to regard him only as a controversialist. For although the topics which first engaged the attention of the Westminster Assembly were those on which the greatest difference of opinion existed, and to which, almost of necessity, the public mind, both then and ever since, has been most strongly directed, there was a very large portion of their duty, and that, too, of the highest importance, and demanding the utmost care, in which a much greater degree of unanimity prevailed. For a considerable time after the Assembly commenced its deliberations, its attention was almost exclusively occupied with the framing of Directories for public worship and ordination, and with discussions respecting the form of Church government, including the power of Church censure. These topics involved both the Independent and the Erastian controversies; and till some satisfactory conclusions had been reached on these points, the Assembly abstained from entering upon the less agitating, but not less important work of framing a Confession of Faith. But having completed their task, so far as depended upon themselves, they then turned their attention to their doctrinal labours.

The manner in which the Assembly entered upon this solemn duty deserves the utmost attention, as intimating the earnest and prudent spirit by which their whole deliberations were pervaded. They appointed a committee to prepare and arrange the main propositions which were to be examined and digested into a system by the Assembly. The members of this committee were, Dr Hoyle, Dr Gouge, Messrs Herle, Gataker, Tuckney, Reynolds, and Vines, with the Scottish Commissioners Henderson, Baillie, Rutherford, and [pg xxvii] Gillespie. Those learned and able divines began their labours by arranging, in the most systematic order, the various great and sacred truths which God has revealed to man; and then reduced these to thirty-two distinct heads or chapters, each having a title expressive of its subject. These were again subdivided into sections; and the committee formed themselves into several subcommittees, each of which took a specific topic for the sake of exact and concentrated deliberation. When these sub-committees had completed their respective tasks, the whole results were laid before the entire committee, and any alterations suggested and debated till all were of one mind. And when any title, or chapter, had been thus fully prepared by the committee, it was reported to the Assembly, and again subjected to the most minute and careful investigation, in every paragraph, sentence, and even word. All that learning the most profound, intellect the most searching, and piety the most sincere could accomplish, was thus concentrated in the Westminster Assembly's Confession of Faith, which may be safely termed the most perfect statement of systematic Theology ever framed by the Christian Church.

In the preliminary deliberations of the Committee the Scottish divines took a leading part, and none more than Gillespie. But no report of these deliberations either was or could be made public. The results alone appeared when the Committee, from time to time, laid its matured propositions before the Assembly. And it is gratifying to be able to add, that throughout the deliberations of the Assembly itself, when composing, or rather, formally sanctioning the Confession of Faith, there prevailed almost an entire and perfect harmony. There appears, indeed, to have been only two subjects on which any difference of opinion existed among them. The one of these was the doctrine of Election, concerning which Baillie informs us they had “long and tough debates;” the other was concerning that which heads the chapter entitled “Of Church Censures,” as its fundamental proposition, viz. “The Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of his Church, has therein appointed a government in the hand of church-officers distinct from the civil magistrate.” This proposition the Assembly manifestly intended and understood to contain a principle directly and necessarily opposed to the very essence of Erastianism, and it was regarded in the same light by the Erastians themselves, hence it had to encounter their most strenuous opposition. It was, however, somewhat beyond the grasp of the lay-members of the Assembly, especially since their champion Selden had in a great measure withdrawn from the debates after his signal discomfiture by Gillespie, and consequently it was triumphantly carried, the single dissentient voice being that of Lightfoot, the other Erastian divine, Coleman, having died before the conclusion of the debate. The framing of the Confession occupied the Assembly nearly a year. After having been carefully transcribed, it was presented to the parliament on the 3d of December, 1646.

A plan similar to that already described was also employed in preparing [pg xxviii] that admirable digest of Christian doctrine, the Shorter Catechism, and so far as can be ascertained, by the same Committee. For a time, indeed, they attempted to prosecute the framing of both Confession and Catechism at once; but after some progress had been made with both, the Assembly resolved to finish the Confession first, and then to construct the Catechism upon its model, so far at least as to have no proposition in the one which was not in the other. By this arrangement they wisely avoided the danger of subsequent debate and delay. Various obstacles, however, interposed, and so greatly impeded the progress of the Assembly, that the Catechism was not so speedily completed as had been expected. It was, however, presented to the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1647, and the Larger, in the spring of the following year.

There is one anecdote connected with the formation of the Shorter Catechism both full of interest and so very beautiful, that it must not be omitted. In one of the earliest meetings of the Committee, the subject of deliberation was to frame an answer to the question “What is God?” Each man felt the unapproachable sublimity of the divine idea suggested by these words; but who could venture to give it expression in human language! All shrunk from the too sacred task in awe-struck reverential fear. At length it was resolved, as an expression of the Committee's deep humility, that the youngest member should first make the attempt. He consented; but begged that the brethren would first unite with him in prayer for divine enlightenment. Then in slow and solemn accents he thus began his prayer:—“O God, Thou art a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in Thy being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.”—When he ceased, the first sentence of his prayer was immediately written down and adopted, as the most perfect answer that could be conceived, as, indeed, in a very sacred sense, God's own answer, descriptive of Himself.[4] Who, then, was the youngest member of the Committee? When we compare the birth-dates of the respective members of the Committee, we find that George Gillespie was the youngest by more than a dozen years. We may, therefore, safely conclude, that George Gillespie was the man who was thus guided to frame this marvellous answer.

Without further enlarging on these points, we may, without hazard, affirm, that however eminent Gillespie was in the department of controversy, he was scarcely, if at all, less so in that of systematic theology, while his personal piety was of the most elevated and spiritual character. Rarely, indeed, have such qualities met in any one man, as were united in him; but when God requires such a man, he creates, endows and trains him, so as to meet the necessity.

When the public labours of the Westminster Assembly drew near a close, the Scottish commissioners returned to their native country. Henderson had previously found the repose of the grave, Rutherford remained a short time behind. Baillie and Gillespie appeared at the General Assembly which met in August, 1647, and laid before that supreme ecclesiastical court the result of their protracted labours. The Confession of Faith was ratified by that Assembly. The same Assembly caused to be printed a series of propositions, or “Theses against Erastianism,” as Baillie terms them, amounting to one hundred and eleven, drawn up by George Gillespie, embodying eight of them in the act which authorised their publication. The perusal of these propositions would enable any person of unprejudiced and intelligent mind to master and refute the whole Erastian theory; and could not fail, at the same time, to draw forth sentiments of admiration towards the clear and strong mind by which they were framed.

But the incessant toils in which Gillespie's life had been spent had shattered his constitution beyond the power of recovery; and the state in which he found Scotland on his return was such as to permit no relaxation of these toils. The danger in which the obstinacy and duplicity of Charles I. had placed that unhappy monarch's life, drew forth towards him the strong compassion of all who cherished sentiments of loyalty to the sovereign and pity for the man. But in many instances these generous feelings were allowed to bias the dictates of religious principle and sound judgment; and a party began to be formed for the purpose of attempting to save the King even at the hazard of entering into a war with England. This was, of course, eagerly encouraged by all who had previously adhered to the King's party in the contest between him and the Covenanters; and a series of intrigues began and were carried on, breaking the harmony which had previously existed, and preparing for the disastrous consequences which soon afterwards ensued. Gillespie exerted himself to the utmost of his power to avert the coming calamities which he anticipated, by striving to prevent the commission of crimes which provoke judgment. His influence was sufficient to restrain the Church from consenting to countenance the weak and wicked movements of politicians. But his health continued to sink under these incessant toils and anxieties. He was chosen moderator of the General Assembly of 1648, though, as Baillie states, “he did much deprecate the burden, as he had great reason, both for his health's sake, and other great causes.”

This Assembly met on the 12th of July, 1648, and so arduous and difficult were the duties which it had to discharge, that it did not end its labours till the 12th of August. Although Gillespie was then rapidly sinking under the disease of which he died, which, from its symptoms, must have been consumption, he continued to take an active part in all its deliberations, and drew up the last public paper which it directed to be framed, in answer to a document, [pg xxx] issued by the State, respecting the engagement that had been formed for the support of the King. The arduous labours of the Assembly being thus ended, Gillespie left Edinburgh and retired to Kirkcaldy, with the view of seeking, by change of scene and air, some renovation to his health. But the disease had taken too firm a hold of his enfeebled constitution, and he continued to suffer from increasing weakness. Still the cares of the distracted Church and country pressed heavily on his mind. He was now unable to attend the public meetings of Church courts; but on the 8th of September he addressed a letter to the Commission of Assembly, in which he stated clearly and strongly his opinion concerning the duties and the dangers of the time. Continuing to sink, and feeling death at hand, he partly wrote and partly dictated what may be termed his dying “Testimony against association with malignant enemies of the truth and godliness.”[5] At length, on the 17th day of December, 1648, his toils and sorrows ceased, and he fell asleep in Jesus.

So passed away from this world one of those bright and powerful spirits which are sent in troublous times to carry forward God's work among mankind. Incessant toil is the destiny of such highly-gifted men while here below; and not unfrequently is their memory assailed by those mean and little minds who shrunk with instinctive fear and hatred before the energetic movements which they could neither comprehend nor encounter. But their recompense is in heaven, when their work is done; and future generations delight to rescue their reputation from the feeble obloquy with which malevolence and folly had endeavoured to hide or defame it. Thus has it been with George Gillespie to a considerable extent already; and we entertain not the slightest shadow of doubt that his transcendent merit is but beginning to be known and appreciated as it deserves, and that ere very long his well-earned fame will shine too clearly and too strong to be approached by detractors.

* * * * *

We have but little more to relate respecting George Gillespie. His death was deeply lamented by all who loved their church and country at the time; and such was the feeling generally entertained of his great merit, that the Committee of Estates, or government of the kingdom, by an Act dated 20th December, 1648, did, “as an acknowledgment for his faithfulness in all the public employments entrusted to him by this Church, both at home and abroad, his faithful labours, and indefatigable diligence in all the exercises of his ministerial calling, for his Master's service, and his learned writings, published to the world, in which rare and profitable employments, both for Church and State, he truly spent himself and closed his days, ordain, That the sum of one thousand pounds sterling be given to his widow and children.” And though the Parliament did, by their Act, dated June 8th, 1650, unanimously [pg xxxi] ratify the preceding Act, and recommended to their Committee to make the same effectual, yet in consequence of Cromwell's invasion, and the confusion into which the whole kingdom was thereby thrown, this benevolent design was frustrated, as his grandson, the Rev. George Gillespie, minister at Strathmiglo, afterwards declared.[6] So much for the trust to be placed in national gratitude and the promises of statesmen.

George Gillespie was buried at Kirkcaldy, his birth-place, and the place also where he died. A tomb-stone, erected to his memory by his relatives and friends, bore an inscription in Latin, recording the chief actions of his life, and stating the leading elements of his character. But when Prelacy was re-imposed on Scotland, after the restoration of Charles II., the mean malice of the Prelatists gratified itself by breaking the tomb-stone. This petty and spiteful act is thus recorded in the “Mercurius Caledonius,” one of the small quarto newspapers or periodicals of the time, of date January 16th to 25th, 1661. “The late Committee of Estates ordered the tomb-stone of Mr George Gillespie, whereon was engraven a scandalous inscription, should be fetched from the burial place, and upon a market-day, at the cross of Kirkcaldy, where he had formerly been minister, and there solemnly broken by the hands of the hangman; which was accordingly done,—a just indignity upon the memory of so dangerous a person.”

The Committee of Estates by which this paltry deed was done was that of Middleton's parliament, frequently called the “drunken parliament,” from the excesses of its leading men, and which on the following year signalised itself by the Glasgow act,—that act which emptied nearly four hundred pulpits in one day. The inaccuracy of the statement made by the prelatic newspaper, asserting that he had formerly been minister at Kirkcaldy, will not surprise any person who is acquainted with the writings of the Prelatists of that period, who seem not to have been able to write the truth when relating the most common and well-known facts. But one is somewhat surprised to find statements equally inaccurate made respecting George Gillespie, by reverend and learned historians. In Dr Cook's History of the Church of Scotland, we find in one passage George Gillespie's character and conduct completely misunderstood and misrepresented, (vol. iii. pages 160-162), and in a subsequent passage an assertion that the proceedings of that party in the church called the Protestors were, in the year 1650, “directed by Gillespie, a factious minister, whose name has been frequently mentioned,” (page 196). George Gillespie was the only person of whom mention was made, or could be made, in the previous portion of the history, as his brother had not then began to take any active part in public affairs; but he was dead nearly two years before the date to which the latter passage refers. It is plain that Dr Cook confounded George Gillespie with [pg xxxii] his brother Patrick, and ascribed to the former the actions of the latter, regarding them both as but one and the same person. He further asserts, that Gillespie was “suspected of corresponding with the Sectaries.” That Patrick Gillespie corresponded with the Sectaries, and was much trusted and countenanced by Cromwell, is perfectly true; but before that time George Gillespie had joined the One Church and family in heaven. In every period of his life, and in every transaction in which he was engaged, George Gillespie was far above all private or discreditable intriguing, which is the vice of weak, cunning, and selfish minds. And while we do not think it necessary further to prosecute this vindication of his memory, we yet think it our duty, when writing a memoir of him, thus briefly to set aside the groundless accusation, whether it be adduced by prelatic or Erastian writers,—his baffled antagonists when living, his impotent calumniators when dead.

The tomb-stone, as has been related, was broken in 1661, but the inscription was preserved. A plain tablet was erected in 1745, by his grandson, the Rev. George Gillespie, minister of Strathmiglo, on which the inscription was re-produced, with a slight addition, mentioning both events. It is still to be seen in the south-east porch of the present church. The inscription is as follows:—

MAGISTER GEORGIUS GILLESPIE, PASTOR EDINBURGENSIS, JUVENILIBUS ANNIS RITUUM ANGLORUM PONTIFICIORUM TURMAM PROSTRAVIT: GLISCENTE AETATE, DELEGATUS CUM MANDATIS IN SYNODO ANGLICANA, PRÆSULEM E ANGLIA ERADICANDUM, SINCERUM DEI CULTUM UNIFORMEM PROMOVENDUM, CURAVIT; ERASTUM AARONIS GERMINANTE VIRGA CASTIGAVIT. IN PATRIAM REVERSUS FOEDIFRAGOS ANGLIAM BELLO LACESSENTES LABEFACTAVIT: SYNODI NATIONALIS ANNO 1648, EDINBURGI HABITÆ PRÆSES ELECTUS, EXTREMAM PATIRÆ SUÆ OPERAM CUM LAUDE NAVAVIT: CUMQUE OCULATIS TESTIS VIDISSET MALIGNANTIUM QUAM PRÆDIXERAT RUINAM, EODEM QUO FOEDUS TRIUM GENTIUM SOLENNE RENOVATUM TUIT DIE DECEDENS IN PACE, ANNO ÆTATIS 36, IN GAUDIUM DOMINI INTRAVIT: INGENIO PROFUNDUS, GENIO MITIS, DISPUTATIONE ACUTUS, ELOQUIO FACUNDUS, ANIMO INVICTUS, BONOS IN AMOREM, MALOS IN INVIDIAM, OMNES IN SUI ADMIRATIONEM, RAPUIT: PATLÆ SUÆ ORNAMENTUM; TANTO PATRE DIGNA SOBOLES.

THIS TOMB BEING PULLED DOWN BY THE MALIGNANT INFLUENCE OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP, AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF PRELACY, MR GEORGE GILLESPIE, MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL AT STRATHMIGLO, CAUSED IT TO BE RE-ERECTED, IN HONOUR OF HIS SAID WORTHY GRANDFATHER, AND AS A STANDING MONUMENT OF DUTIFUL REGARD TO HIS BLESSED MEMORY; ANNO DOMINI, 1746.

It may be expedient to give a translation:—

“Master George Gillespie, minister at Edinburgh, in his youthful years overthrew a host of ‘English popish ceremonies;’ as he approached full manhood, having been sent as commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, his attention was directed to the task of extirpating Prelacy from England, and [pg xxxiii] promoting purity and uniformity in the worship of God. He chastised Erastianism in his ‘Aaron's Rod Blossoming.’ Having returned to his native country he weakened the violators of the covenant, who were bent on provoking a war with England.[7] Having been chosen moderator of the General Assembly which met at Edinburgh in the year 1648, he devoted his last exertions to the service of his country so as to draw forth public approbation: and having, as an eye-witness, seen that ruin of the malignants which he had foretold, departing in peace on the same day on which the League of the three kingdoms was solemnly renewed, in the 36th year of his age, he entered into the joy of the Lord. He was a man profound in genius, mild in disposition, acute in argument, flowing in eloquence, unconquered in mind. He drew to himself the love of the good, the envy of the bad, and the admiration of all. He was an ornament of his country,—a son worthy of such a father.”

Such was the “scandalous inscription” which the peevish spleen, yet bitter malice of Scottish Prelacy, found gratification in attempting to destroy. But there is a righteous retribution even in this world. Men rear their own monuments, and write inscriptions on them which time cannot obliterate. Gillespie's enduring monument is in his actions and his writings, which latest ages will admire. The monuments of Scottish Prelacy are equally imperishable, whether in the wantonly defaced tomb-stones of piety and patriotism, or in the moss-grown martyr-stones that stud the moors and glens of our native land; and the inscriptions thereupon are fearfully legible with records of indelible infamy.

It remains but to offer a few remarks respecting Gillespie's various works. The first production of his pen was his remarkable “Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies.” It was published in 1637, when its author was only in the 25th year of his age; and it must have been completed some time previous to its publication, as it appears to have been printed abroad, most probably in Holland. This gives countenance to one statement which affirms it to have been written when Gillespie had scarcely passed his 22d year.

His next work was published in London, in the year 1641, where he was during the progress of the treaty with the King. It is referred to by Baillie in the following terms:—“Think not we live any of us here to be idle; Mr Henderson has ready now a short treatise, much called for, of our church discipline; Mr Gillespie has the grounds of Presbyterial Government well Asserted; Mr Blair, a pertinent answer to Hall's Remonstrance: all these are ready for the press.” The valuable treatise here referred to has not been so much noticed as several other of Gillespie's writings, but is included in this collective edition.

His Sermons and Controversial Pamphlets were produced in the years 1641-5-6, during the sittings of the Westminster Assembly.

Aaron's Rod Blossoming was published at London also, about the close of the year 1646. This is his greatest work.

The celebrated Hundred and Eleven Propositions were prepared before he left London, and laid before the General Assembly on his return to Scotland in the summer of 1647. Perhaps it is not possible to obtain a clear conception of Erastianism better than by the study of these propositions. They have been reprinted several times, yet were rarely to be obtained.

The short, yet very able and high-principled papers which he prepared for the Assembly and its Commission in 1648, were his latest writings.

A short time after his death, and during the year 1649, his brother Patrick published in one volume, entitled a “Treatise of Miscellany Questions,” a series of papers, twenty-two in number, on a variety of important topics, which appeared to be in a condition fit for the press. Though this is a posthumous production, and consequently without its author's finishing corrections, it displays the same clearness, precision, and logical power, which characterise his other works. We are inclined to conjecture that these Essays, as we would now term them, were written at different times during the course of several years, and while he was studying the various topics to which they relate. Several of them are on subjects which were debated in the Westminster Assembly; and it is very probable that Gillespie wrote them while maturing his views on these points preparatory for those discussions in which he so greatly distinguished himself. This conjecture is strengthened by the curious and interesting fact, that a paper, which will be found beginning at page 109 of the part now printed for the first time from the MS., is almost identical, both in argument and language, though somewhat different in arrangement, with chapter viii. pages 115 to 120, of Aaron's Rod. The arrangement in the Aaron's Rod is more succinct than in the paper referred to, but its principles, and very much of the language, are altogether the same. May not this indicate Gillespie's mode of study and composition? May he not have been in the habit of concentrating his mind on the leading topics of the subjects which he was studying, writing out pretty fully and carefully his thoughts on these topics, and afterwards connecting and arranging them so as to form one complete work? If so, then we may conclude that the Miscellany Questions contain such of these masses of separate thinking as Gillespie found no opportunity of using in any other manner, and, therefore, consented to their publication in their present form.

In Wodrow's Analecta it is stated that Gillespie had a manuscript volume of sermons prepared for the press, which were bought from the printer by the Sectaries, and probably destroyed. It is also stated, that there were six octavo volumes of notes written by Gillespie at the Westminster Assembly [pg xxxv] then extant, containing an abstract of its deliberations. Of these manuscript volumes there are two copies in the Wodrow MSS., Advocates' Library, but neither of them appears to be Gillespie's own hand-writing; the quarto certainly is not, and the octavo seems to be an accurate copy of two of the original volumes. These have been collated and transcribed by Mr Meek, with his well-known care and fidelity, and the result is now, for the first time, given to the public. What has become of the missing volumes is not known, and it is to be feared the loss is irrecoverable. There is one consideration, however, which mitigates our regret for the loss of these volumes. The one which has been preserved begins February 2d, 1644, and ends January 3d, 1645.[8] Lightfoot's Journal continues till the end of 1644, and then terminates abruptly, as if he had not felt it necessary any longer to continue noting down the outline of the debates. Yet Lightfoot continued to attend the Assembly throughout the whole of its protracted deliberations. From other sources also, we learn that the whole of the points on which there existed any considerable difference of opinion in the Assembly, had been largely debated during the year 1644, so that little remained to be said on either side. The differences, indeed, continued; but they assumed the form of written controversy, the essence of which we have in the volume entitled, “The Grand Debate.” It is probable, therefore, that the lost volumes of Gillespie's manuscript contained chiefly his own remarks on the writings of the Independents, and, not unlikely, the outlines of the answers returned by the Assembly. Supposing this to be the case, it would doubtless have been very interesting to have had Gillespie's remarks and arguments, but they could not have given much information which we do not at present possess.

A few brief notices respecting the papers now first published may both be interesting, and may conduce to rendering them intelligible to the general reader.

There is first, an extract attested by the scribes, or clerks, of the Westminster Assembly, copied from the original, by Wodrow, and giving a statement of the Votes on Discipline and Government, from session 76, to session 186.

Second, Notes of Proceedings from February 2, to May 14, 1644, to p. 64.

Third, Notes of Proceedings from September 4, 1644, to January 3, 1645, to p. 100. (By consulting Lightfoot, we learn that the time between May and September was occupied chiefly in debates respecting Ordination, the mode of dispensing the Lord's Supper, Excommunication, and Baptism, with some minor points.)

Fourth, Debates in the Sub-committee respecting the Directory, 4th March, to 10th June, p. 101-2.

Fifth, Notes of Proceedings in the Grand Committee, from September 20, to [pg xxxvi] October 25, 1644, p. 103-7. This part of the manuscript, though short, is of very considerable importance, as giving us a specimen of the manner in which the Grand Committee acted. The Grand Committee was composed of some of the most influential persons of the Lords, of the Commons, and of the Assembly, together with the Scottish Commissioners. The duty of that Committee was to consult together respecting the subjects to be brought before the Assembly, and to prepare a formal statement of those subjects for the purpose of regular deliberation. By this process a large amount of debate was precluded, and the leading men were enabled to understand each other's sentiments before the more public discussions began. And as the Scottish Commissioners were necessarily constituent members of this Committee, their influence in directing the whole proceedings was both very great, and in constant operation. Lightfoot's journal gives no account of the proceedings of this Committee.

Sixth, A paper on excommunication, &c. It has already been mentioned that this paper is nearly identical with part of a chapter in the Aaron's Rod.

Seventh, A short note on some discussions which took place in the Committee of the General Assembly at Edinburgh, on the 7th and 8th of February, 1645, at the time when Baillie and Gillespie laid before the Assembly the Directory which had been recently completed.

Eighth, The Ordinance of the two Houses of the English Parliament, 12th June, 1643, summoning the Assembly of Divines. This is added chiefly for the purpose of shewing the intention of the Parliament in calling the Assembly.

It has been already stated that there are two MS. volumes, purporting to be copies of Gillespie's Notes. The one of these is in octavo, and seems to have been carefully taken; the other is in quarto, and appears to be partly a copy, partly an abstract. In it Gillespie is always spoken of in the third person, which has caused many variations. The transcriber has also made many omissions, not only of one, but of several paragraphs at a time, frequently passing over the remarks of the several speakers. It appears to have been his object to copy chiefly the argumentative part of the manuscript. This defective transcription had belonged to Mr William Veitch, as appears from his name written on the cover and first page, with the addition “minister at Peebles, 1691.” In the copy transcribed for the press, the octavo manuscript has been followed. The quarto, however, along with Lightfoot, has been found useful in correcting the Scripture references, which had all to be carefully examined and verified; but sometimes all three failed to give satisfaction, and a conjectural substitute has been given, enclosed in brackets, and with a point of interrogation. In concluding these remarks, we cannot help expressing great gratification to see for the first time a complete edition of the works of George Gillespie; and in order also to complete the memoir, we add, as an appendix, some very interesting extracts from the Maitland Club edition of Wodrow's Analecta, chiefly relative to his last illness and death.

APPENDIX. EXTRACTS FROM WODROW'S ANALECTA (MAITLAND CLUB EDITION)

“MR GEORGE GILLESPIE.

“Mr George Gillespie, first minister of Kirkcaldy, and afterward minister of Edinburgh; when he was a child, he seemed to be somewhat dull and soft like, so that his mother would have stricken and abused him, and she would have made much of Patrick, his younger brother. His father, Mr John Gillespie, minister of Kirkcaldy, was angry to see his wife carry so to his son George; and he would have said, ‘My heart, let alone; though Patrick may have some respect given him in the Church, yet my son George will be the great man in the Church of Scotland.’ And he said of him when he was a-dying, ‘George, George, I have gotten many a brave promise for thee.’ And indeed he was very soon a great man; for it's reported, that before he was a preacher, he wrote the ‘English Popish Ceremonies.’ He was, of all ministers in his time, one of the greatest men for disputing and arguing; so that he was, being but a young man, much admired at the Assembly at Westminster, by all that heard him; he being one of the youngest members that was there. I heard old Mr Patrick Simson say, that he heard his cousin, Mr George Gillespie say, ‘Let no man who is called of God to any work, be it never so great and difficult, distrust God for assistance, as I clearly found at that great Assembly at Westminster. If I were to live a long time in the world, I would not desire a more noble life, than the life of pure and single dependence on God; for, said he, though I may have a claim to some gifts of learning and parts, yet I ever found more advantage by single looking to God for assistance than by all the parts and gifts that ever I could pretend to, at that time.’

“When he was at London, he would be often on his knees; at another time, reading and writing. And when he was sitting in that great Assembly at Westminster, he was often observed to have a little book, and to be marking down something with his pen in that book, even when some of the most learned men, as Coleman and Selden, were delivering their long and learned orations, and all he was writing was for the most part his pithy ejaculations to God, writing these words; Da lucem, Domine; Da lucem! When these learned men had ended their oration, the Moderator proposed who should give an answer to their discourse; they all generally voted Mr Gillespie to be the person. He being a young man, seemed to blush, and desired to be excused, when so many old and learned divines were present, yet all the brethren, with one voice, determined he should be the person that should give an answer to that learned oration. Though he seemed to take little heed, yet being thus pressed, he rose up, and resumed all the particulars of that learned oration very distinctly, and answered every part of it so fully, that all that heard him were amazed and astonished; for he died in 1648, and was then but about thirty-six years of age. Mr Calamy, if I be not forgotten, said, we were ready to think more of Mr Gillespie than was truly meet; if he had not been stained by being against our way and judgment for the Engagement.

“He was one of the great men that had a chief hand in penning our most excellent Confession of Faith and Catechisms. He was a most grave and bold man, and had a most wonderful gift given him for disputing and arguing. My father told me, he observed that when there was a considerable number of ministers met, there were several of our great nobles were strongly reasoning with our ministers about the engagement 1648. When Mr Gillespie was busy studying his sermon that he was to preach before the Parliament to-morrow, the ministers sent privately for Mr Gillespie, whom he [pg xxxviii] observed to come in very quietly, and when Lauderdale, Glencairn, and some others, rose up and debated very strongly for the engagement, Mr Gillespie rose up and answered them so fully and distinctly, firstly, secondly, and thirdly, that he fully silenced them all; and Glencairn said, ‘There is no standing before this great and mighty man!’ I heard worthy Mr Rowat say, that Mr Gillespie said, ‘The more truly great a man is, he was really the more humble and low in his own eyes,’ as he instanced in the great man Daniel; and, said he, ‘God did not make choice of some of us as his instruments in the glorious work of Reformation, because we were more fit than others, but rather because we were more unfit than others.’ He was called Malleus Mallignantium, and Mr Baillie, writing to some in this church anent Mr George Gillespie, said, ‘He was truly an ornament to our church and nation.’ And Mr James Brown, late minister of Glasgow, told me that there was an English gentleman said to him, that he heard Mr Gillespie preach, and he said, he believed he was one of the greatest Presbyterians in the world. He was taken from the Greyfriars' Church to the New Church. He has written several pieces, as ‘Aaron's Rod Blossoming,’ and ‘Some Miscellany Questions,’ and his ‘Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, about Ruling Elders.’ He had several little books wherein he set down his remarks upon the proceedings of the Assembly at Westminster.”—WODROW'S ANALECTA, vol. iii. pp. 109-18.

“What follows here I have in conversation with Mr Patrick Simpson, whose memory was most exact. What concerns Mr Gillespie, and the Marquis of Montrose, I read over to him, and he corrected. The rest are hints I set down after conversation, when two or three days with him in his house at Renfrew, in the year 1707.

(ACCOUNT OF THE LAST ILLNESS AND DEATH OF MR GEORGE GILLESPIE.)

“Mr George Gillespie being moderator of the Assembly held at Edinburgh, July 12th, 1648, was all the time thereof, as also half a year before, in a greater weakness of body than ordinary; that being now come to a height, which long before had been gathering. He had a great hoasting and sweating, which in the time of the General Assembly began to grow worse; but being extraordinarily (so I may say) upheld, was not so sensible as when the Assembly dissolved it appeared to be. On occasion whereof, the next Wednesday after the rising of the Assembly, he went with his wife over to Kirkcaldy, there intending to tarry for a space, till it should please the Lord, by the use of means, to restore him to some more health to come over again. But when he was come there, his weakness and disease grew daily more and more, so that no application of any strength durst be used towards him. It came to that, he kept his chamber still to his death, wearing and wasting hoasting, and sweating. Ten days before his death his sweating went away, and his hoasting lessened, yet his weakness still encreased, and his flux still continued. On Wednesday morning, which day he began to keep his bed, his pain began to be very violent, his breath more obstructed, his heart oppressed; and that growing all the next night to a very great height, in the midst of the night there were letters written to his brother, and Mr Rutherford, and Mr John Row, his death approaching fast. On Friday all day, and Thursday all night, he was at some ease. Friday at night, till Saturday in the afternoon, in great violence, the greatness of pain causing want of sleep. Mr Rutherford and Lord Craigihall came to visit him. Thus much for his body. Now I'll speak a little of what concerns his soul, and the exercise of his mind all the while.

Monday, December 11, 1648, came my Lords Argyle, Cassils, Elcho, and Warriston to visit him. He did faithfully declare his mind to them, as public men, in that point whereof he hath left a testimony to the view of the world, as afterwards; and the speaking was very burdensome, yet he spared not very freely to fasten their duty upon them. The exercise of his mind all the time of his sickness was vary sad and constant, without comfortable manifestations, and sensible presence for the time, yet he continued in a constant faith of adherence, which ended in an adhering assurance, his grips growing still the stronger.

“One day, a fortnight before his death, he had leaned down on a little bed, and taking a fit of faintness, and his mind being heavily exercised, and lifting up his eyes, this expression fell with great [pg xxxix] weight from his mouth, ‘O my dear Lord, forsake me not forever!’ His weariness of this life was very great, and his longing to be relieved, and to be where the veil would be taken away.

“Tuesday, December 14, (1648) he was in heavy sickness, and three pastors came in the afternoon to visit him, of whom one said to him, ‘The Lord hath made you faithful in all he hath employed you in, and it's likely we be put to the trial; therefore what encouragement give you us thereanent!’ Whereto he answered in few words, ‘I have gotten more by the Lord's immediate assistance than ever I had by study, in the disputes I had in the Assembly of Divines in England; therefore let never man distrust God for assistance that cast themselves on him, and follow his calling. For my own part, the time that I have had in the exercise of the ministry is but a moment.’ To which sentence another pastor answered, ‘But your moment hath exceeded the gray heads of others! This I may speak without flattery.’ To which he answered disclaiming it with a ‘no;’ for he desired still to have Christ exalted, as he said at the same time, and another. And at other times, when any such things were spoken to him, ‘What are all my righteousnesses but rotten rags? All that I have done cannot abide the touchstone of his justice. They are all but abominations, and as an unclean thing, when they are reckoned between my God and me. Christ is all things, and I am nothing!’ The other pastor when the rest were out, asked, ‘Whether he was enjoying the comforts of God's presence, or if they were for a time suspended! He answered, Indeed they were suspended.’ Then within a little while he said, ‘Comforts! aye comforts!’ meaning, that they were not easily attained. His wife said, ‘What reck'd the comfort if believing is not suspended!’ He said, ‘No.’ Speaking farther to that his condition, he said, ‘Although that I should never see any more light of comfort than I do see, yet I shall adhere, and do believe that He is mine, and I am his!’

“The next morrow being Friday, he not being able to write, did dictate out the rest of a paper, which he had been before writing himself, and did subscribe it before two witnesses, who also did subscribe; wherein he gave faithful and clear testimony to the work and cause of God, and against the enemies thereof, to stop the mouths of calumniators and to confirm his children.

“In all his discourses this was mixed as one thing, that he longed for the time of relief, and rejoiced because it was so near. His breath being very short, he said, ‘Where the hallelujahs are sung to the Lamb, there is no shortness of breath!’ And being in very great pain all the Friday night, his mother said in the morning, ‘In all appearance you will not have another night.’ To which he said, ‘Think you that your word will hold good?’ She said, ‘I fear it will hold over good.’ He said, ‘Not over good.’ That day he blessed his children and some others, (Mr Patrick Simson, the writer of this) and said, ‘God bless you: and as you carry the name of your grandfather, so God grant you his graces.’ That afternoon, being Saturday, came Mr Samuel Rutherford, who, among other things, said, ‘The day, I hope, is dawning, and breaking in your soul, that shall never, have an end.’ He said, ‘It is not broken yet; but though I walk in darkness and see no light, yet I will trust in the name of the Lord and stay upon my God!’ Mr Samuel said, ‘Would not Christ be a welcome guest to you?’ He answered, ‘Welcome! the welcomest guest that ever I saw.’ He said further, ‘Doth not your soul love Christ above all things?’ He answered, ‘I love him heartily: who ever knew any thing of him but would love him!’

“Mr James Wilson going to pray, asked ‘What petitions he would have him to put up for him?’ He said, ‘For more of himself, and strength to carry me through the dark valley.’

“Saturday night he became weaker, and inclined to drowsiness and sleeping, and was discerned in his drowsiness a little to rave; yet being till the last half hour in his full and perfect senses, and having taken a little jelly and drink, about half an hour before his death he spake as sensibly betwixt as ever, and blessed some persons that morning with very spiritual and heavenly expressions. About seven or eight of the clock his drowsiness encreased, and he was overheard in it speaking (after he had spoken more imperfectly some words before) those words, ‘Glory! Glory! a seeing of God! a seeing of God! I hope it shall be for his glory!’ After he had taken a little refreshment of jelly, and a little drink through a reed, he said that the giving him these things made him drowsy; and a little afterwards, ‘There is a great drowsiness on me, I know not how it comes.’

“His wife seeing the time draw near, spake to him and said, ‘The time of your relief is now [pg xl] near, and hard at hand.’ He answered, ‘I long for that time. O! happy they that are there.’ This was the last word he was heard sensibly to speak. Mr Frederick Carmichael being there, they went to prayer, expecting death so suddenly. In the midst of prayer he left his rattling[9] and the pangs and fetches of death begin thence, his senses went away. Whereupon they rose from prayer, and beheld till, in a very gentle manner, the pins of his tabernacle were loosed.

“He said (supra) ‘Say not over good,’ because he thought she wronged him so far in wishing the contrary of what he longed for.

“Mr Carmichael said, ‘You have been very faithful, and the Lord has honoured you to do him very much service, and now you are to get your reward.’ He answered ‘I think it reward enough, that ever I got leave to do him any service in truth and sincerity.’ ”

This account was dictated to me by Mr Patrick Simson, Mr Gillespie's cousin, who was with him to his last sickness, and at his death, and took minutes at the time of these his expressions. I read it over, after I had written it, to him. He corrected some words, and said to me, “This is all I mind about his expressions toward his close. They made some impression on me at the time, and I then set them down. I have not read the paper that I mind these forty years, but I am pretty positive these were his very words.” A day or two after, I went in with him to his closet to look for another paper, for now he had almost lost his sight, and in a bundle, I fell on the paper he wrote at the time, and told him of it. When we compared it with what I wrote, there was not the least variation betwixt the original and what I wrote, save an inconsiderable word or two, here altered; which is an instance of a strong memory, the greatest ever I knew.

(Subscribed) R WODROW

Sept. 8, 1707 WODROW's ANALECTA, vol. I, pp. 154-159

* * * * *

What follows about Mr Gillespie I wrote also from Mr Simson's mouth.

“George Gillespie was born January 21st, 1613. He was first minister at Weemyse, the first admitted under Presbytery 1638. He was minister at Weemyse about two years. He was very young when laureate, before he was seventeen. He was chaplain first to my lord Kenmure, then to the Lord of Cassilis. When he was with Cassilis, he wrote his ‘English Popish Ceremonies,’ which when printed, he was about twenty-two. He wrote a ‘Dialogue between a Civilian and Divine,’ a piece against Toleration, entitled ‘Wholesome Severity reconciled with Christian Liberty.’ He died in strong faith of adherence, though in darkness as to assurance, which faith of adherence he preached much. He died December seventeen, 1648. If he had lived to January 21, 1649, he had been thirty six years.

“The last paper he wrote, was ‘The Commission of the Kirk's Answer to the State's Observations on the Declaration of the General Assembly anent the Unlawfulness of the Engagement.’ The Observations were penned, (as my relator supposes) by Mr William Colville, who wrote all these kind of papers for the Committee of Estates, and printed during the Assembly whereof he was moderator. They could not overtake it, but remitted it to the Commission to sit on Monday, and Mr Gillespie wrote the answer on Saturday and the Sabbath, when he (the thing requiring haste) staid from sermon, and my informer, Mr Patrick Simson, transcribed it against Monday at ten, when it passed without any alteration. And just the week after, he went over to Fife, where he died. He was not full ten years in the ministry. He had all his sermons in England, part polemical, part practical prepared for the press, and but one copy of them, which he told the printer's wife he used to deal with, and bade her have a care of them. And she was prevailed on by some money from the Sectaries, who were mauled by him, to suppress them. He was very clear in all his notions, and the manner of expressing them. There are six volumes in 8vo manuscript which he wrote at the Assembly of Divines remaining.”—WODROW'S ANALECTA, vol. i. p. 159-160.

DISPUTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH POPISH CEREMONIES OBTRUDED ON THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

DISPUTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH POPISH CEREMONIES

OBTRUDED ON THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND;

WHEREIN NOT ONLY OUR OWN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SAME ARE STRONGLY CONFIRMED, BUT LIKEWISE THE ANSWERS AND DEFENCES OF OUR OPPOSITES, SUCH AS HOOKER, MORTOUNE, BURGES, SPRINT, PAYBODY, ANDREWS, SARAVIA, TILEN, SPOTSWOOD, LINDSEY, FOSBESSE, ETC., PARTICULARLY CONFUTED

BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,

MINISTER AT EDINBURGH,

1662.

Jer. ix. 12-14.

“Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land perisheth?” “And the Lord saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein, but here walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim.”

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.

D. DEWAR, PERTH. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M'COMB, BELFAST.

HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.

MDCCCXLIV.

Reprinted from Edition of 1660.

A. MURRAY, PRINTER, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.

DEDICATION

TO
ALL AND EVERY ONE
IN THE
REFORMED CHURCHES
OF
SCOTLAND, ENGLAND, AND IRELAND,
WHO
LOVE THE LORD JESUS, AND MEAN TO ADHERE UNTO THE REFORMATION OF RELIGION.
GRACE, MERCY, AND PEACE, FROM GOD OUR FATHER,
AND FROM
THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

As Satan's malice, and man's wickedness, cease not to molest the thrice happy estate of the church of Christ, so hath the eternal council of the only wise God predetermined the coming of offences, persecutions, heresies, schisms and divisions, that professors may be proved before they be as approved and made manifest, 1 Cor. xi. 19. And hence “It must needs be that offences come,” Matt. xviii. 17; neither hath the church ever enjoyed both purity and peace any long time together. But whiles the church of God, thus disquieted, at well with dangerous alterations, as with doleful altercations, is presented in the theatre of this world, and crieth out to beholders, “Have ye no regard, all ye that pass by!” Lam. i. 12. A pity it is to see the crooked and sinistrous courses of the greatest part, every man moving his period within the enormous confines of his own exorbitant desires; the atheistical nullisidian, nothing regardeth the assoiling of ecclesiastical controversies,—he is of Gallio's humour, Acts xviii. 17, and cares for none of those things; the sensual Epicurean and riotous ruffian (go church matters as they will) eats and drinks, and takes his pleasure; the cynical critic spueth out bitter aspersions, gibeth and justleth at everything that can be said or done in the cause of religion; the acenical jester playeth fast and loose, and can utter anything in sport, but nothing in earnest; the avaricious worldling hath no tune but Give, give, and no anthem pleaseth him but Have, have; the aspiring Diotrephes puffeth down every course which cannot puff up; the lofty favourite taketh the pattern of his religion from the court iconography, and if the court swim, he cares not though the church sink; the subdulous Machiavillian accounteth the show of religion profitable, but the substance of it troublesome: he studieth not the oracles of God but the principles of Satanical guile, which be learneth so well that he may go to the devil to be bishopped; the turn-coat temporiser wags with every wind, and (like Diogenes turning about the mouth of his voluble hogshead, after the course of the sun) wheresoever the bright beams of coruscant authority do shine and cherish, thither followeth and sitteth he; the gnathonic parasite sweareth to all that his benefactor holdeth; the mercenary pensioner will bow before he break; he [pg 1-iv] who only studieth to have the praise of some witty invention, cannot strike upon another anvil; the silly idiot (with Absolom's two hundred, 2 Sam. xv. 11,) goeth, in the simplicity of his heart, after his perverse leaders; the lapped Nicodemite holds it enough to yield some secret assent to the truth, though neither his profession nor his practice testify so much; he whose mind is possessed with prejudicate opinions against the truth, when convincing light is holden forth to him, looketh asquint, and therefore goeth awry; the pragmatical adiaphorist, with his span-broad faith and ell-broad conscience, doth no small harm—the poor pandect of his plagiary profession in matters of faith reckoneth little for all, and in matters of practice all for little. Shortly, if an expurgatory index were compiled of those, and all other sorts of men, who either through their careless and neutral on looking, make no help to the troubled and disquieted church of Christ, or through their nocent accession and overthwart intermeddling, work out her greater harm, alas! how few feeling members were there to be found behind who truly lay to heart her estate and condition? Nevertheless, in the worst times, either of raging persecution or prevailing defection, as God Almighty hath ever hitherto, so both now, and to the end, he will reserve to himself a remnant according to the election of grace, who cleave to his blessed truth and to the purity of his holy worship, and are grieved for the affliction of Joseph, as being themselves also in the body, in confidence whereof I take boldness to stir you up at this time, by putting you in remembrance. If you would be rightly informed of the present estate of the reformed churches, you must not acquiesce in the pargetting verdict of those who are wealthy and well at ease, and mounted aloft upon the uncogged wheels of prosperous fortune (as they call it). Those whom the love of the world hath not enhanced to the serving of the time can give you the soundest judgment. It is noted of Dionysius Hallicarnasseus[10] (who was never advanced to magistracy in the Roman republic) that he hath written far more truly of the Romans than Fabius, Salustius, or Cato, who flourished among them with riches and honours.

After that it pleased God, by the light of his glorious gospel, to dispel the more than cimmerian darkness of antichristianism, and, by the antidote of reformation, to avoid the poison of Popery; forasmuch as in England and Ireland, every noisome weed which God's hand had never planted was not pulled up, therefore we now see the faces of those churches overgrown with the repullulating twigs and sprigs of popish superstition. Mr Sprint acknowledgeth the Reformation of England to have been defective, and saith, “It is easy to imagine of what difficulty it was to reform all things at the first, where the most part of the privy council, of the nobility, bishops, judges, gentry, and people, were open or close Papists, where few or none of any countenance stood for religion at the first, but the Protector and Cranmer.”[11] The church of Scotland was blessed with a more glorious and perfect reformation than any of our neighbour churches. The doctrine, discipline, regiment, and policy established here by ecclesiastical and civil laws, and sworn and subscribed unto by the king's majesty and several presbyteries and parish churches of the land, as it had the applause of foreign divines; so was it in all points agreeable unto the word, neither could the most rigid Aristarchus of these times challenge any irregularity of the same. But now, alas! even this church, which was once so great a praise in the earth is deeply corrupted, and hath “turned aside quickly out of the way,” Exod. xxxii. 8. So that this is the Lord's controversy against Scotland. “I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed? How then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?” Jer. ii. 21.

It is not this day feared, but felt, that the rotten dregs of Popery, which were never purged away from England and Ireland and having once been spued out with detestation, are licked up again in Scotland, prove to be the unhappy occasions of a woeful recidivation. Neither is there need of Lyncean eyes, for if we be not poreblind, it cannot be hid from us. What doleful and disastrous mutation (to be bewailed with tears of blood) hath happened to the church and spouse of Christ in these dominions? Her comely countenance is miscoloured with the fading lustre of the mother of harlots, her shamefaced forehead hath received the mark of the beast, her lovely locks are frizled with the crisping pins of antichristian fashions, her chaste ears are made to listen to the friends of the great whore, who bring the bewitching doctrine of enchanting traditions, her dove eyes look pleasantly upon the well attired harlot, her sweet voice is mumming and muttering some missal and magical liturgies, her fair neck beareth the halter like to kens of her former captivity, even a burdensome chain of superfluous and superstitious ceremonies, her undefiled garments are stained with the meritricious bravery of Babylonish ornaments, and with the symbolising badges of conformity with Rome, her harmless hands reach brick and mortar to the building of Babel, her beautiful feet with shoes are all besmeared, whilst they return apace in the way of Egypt, and wade the ingruent brooks of Popery. Oh! transformed virgin, whether is thy beauty gone from thee? Oh! forlorn prince's daughter, how art thou not ashamed to look thy Lord in the face? Oh! thou best beloved among women, what hast thou to do with the inveigling appurtenances and habilement of Babylon the whore?—But among such things as have been the accursed means of the church's desolation, which peradventure might [pg 1-vi] seem to some of you to have least harm or evil in them, are the ceremonies of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's supper, cross in baptism, bishopping, holidays, &c., which are pressed under the name of things indifferent; yet if you survey the sundry inconveniences and grievous consequences of the same, you will think far otherwise. The vain shows and shadows of these ceremonies have hid and obscured the substance of religion; the true life of godliness is smothered down and suppressed by the burden of these human inventions, for their sakes, many, who are both faithful servants to Christ and loyal subjects to the king, are evil spoken of, mocked, reproached, menanced, molested; for their sakes Christian brethren are offended, and the weak are greatly scandalised; for their sakes the most powerful and painful ministers in the land are either thrust out, or threatened to be thrust out from their callings; for their sakes the best qualified and most hopeful expectants are debarred from entering into the ministry; for their sakes the seminaries of learning are so corrupted, that few or no good plants can come forth from thence, for their sakes many are admitted into the sacred ministry, who are either popish and Arminianised, who minister to the flock poison instead of food; or silly ignorants, who can dispense no wholesome food to the hungry; or else vicious in their lives, who draw many with them into the dangerous precipice of soul perdition; or, lastly, so earthly minded, that they favour only the things of this earth, not the things of the Spirit of God, who feed themselves, but not the flock, and to whom the Great Shepherd of the sheep wilt say, “The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost,” Ezek. xxxiv. 4. Simple ones, who have some taste and relish of popish superstition (for many such there be in the land), do suck from the intoxicated drugs of conformity, the softer milk which makes them grow in error. And who can be ignorant what a large spread Popery, Arminianism and reconciliation with Rome, have taken among the arch urgers of the ceremonies? What marvel that Papists clap their hands! for they see the day coming which they wish for. Woe to thee, O land, which bears professed Papists and avouched Atheists, but cannot bear them who desire to “abstain from all appearance of evil,” 1 Thes. v. 22, for truth and equity are fallen in thee, and “he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey,” Isa. lix. 14, 15.

These are the best wares which the big hulk of conformity, favoured with the prosperous gale of mighty authority, hath imported amongst us, and whilst our opposites so quiverly go about to spread the bad wares of these encumbering inconveniences, is it time for as luskishly to sit still and to be silent? “Woe unto us, for the day goeth away, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out,” Jer. vi. 4.

Moreover, besides the prevailing inconveniency of the controverted ceremonies, the unlawfulness of them is also plainly evinced in this ensuing dispute by such convincing arguments, as, being duly pondered in the equal balance of an attentive mind, shall, by God's grace, afford satisfaction to so many as purpose to buy the truth, and not to sell it. Wherefore, referring to the dispute the points themselves which are questioned, I am in this place to beseech you all by the mercies of God, that, remembering the words of the Lord, “Them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shalt be lightly esteemed,” 1 Sam. ii. 30, remembering, [pg 1-vii] also, the curse and condemnation of Meroz, which came not to help the Lord against the mighty, Judg. v. 23, of the nobles of Tekoa, who put not their necks to the work of the Lord, Neh. iii. 5 and, shortly, of all such as have no courage for the truth, Jer. ix. 3, but seek their own things, not the things which are Jesus Christ's, Phil. ii. 21, and, finally, taking to heart how the Lord Jesus, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with his holy angels, Mark viii. 38, will be ashamed of every one who hath been ashamed of him and his words in the midst of a sinful and crooked generation, you would, with a holy zeal and invincible courage, against all contrary error, superstition, and abuse whatsoever, set yourselves both to speak and do, and likewise (having a calling) to suffer for the truth of Christ and for the purity of his worship, being in nothing terrified by your adversaries, Phil. i. 28, 1 Pet. iii. 14, which, that ye may the better perform, I commend to your thoughts these wholesome admonitions which follow—

I. When you see so much diversity both of opinion and practice in things pertaining to religion, the rather ye ought to give all diligence for trying the things which are different, Phil. i. 10. If you judge us before you hear us, then do you contrary to the very law of nature and nations, John vii. 51, Acts v. 16. Neither will it help you at your reckoning to say, We believed our spiritual guides, our prelates and preachers, whom God had set over us. Nay, what if your guides be blind? then they not only fall in the ditch themselves, but you with them, Matth. iv. 14. Our Master would not have the Jews to rest upon the testimony of John Baptist himself, but would have them to search the Scriptures, John v. 33, 34, 39, by which touch stone the Bereans tried the Apostle's own doctrine, and are commended for so doing, Acts xvii. 11. But as we wish you not to condemn our cause without examining the same by the Word, so neither do we desire you blindly to follow us in adhering unto it, for what if your seeing guides be taken from you? How, then, shall you see to keep out of the ditch? We would neither have you to fight for us nor against us, like the blind sword players, Andabatæ, a people who were said to fight with their eyes closed. Consider, therefore, what we say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things, 2 Tim. ii. 7.

II. Since the God of heaven is the greatest king, who is to rule and reign over you by his Word, which he hath published to the world, and, tunc vere, &c., then is God truly said to reign in us when no worldly thing is harboured and haunted in our souls, saith Theophylact,[12] since also the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, Rom. viii. 7, who hath made foolish the wisdom of this world, 1 Cor. i. 20, therefore never shall you rightly deprehend the truth of God, nor submit yourselves to be guided by the same, unless, laying aside all the high soaring fancies and presumptuous conceits of natural and worldly wisdom, you come in an unfeigned humility and babe-like simplicity to be edified by the word of righteousness. And far less shall you ever take up the cross and follow Christ (as you are required), except, first of all, you labour and learn to deny yourselves, Matth. xvi. 24, that is, to make no reckoning what come of yourselves, and of all that you have in the world, so that God have glory and yourselves a good conscience, in your doings or sufferings.

III. If you would not be drawn away after the error of the wicked, neither fall from your own stedfastness, the apostle Peter teacheth you, that ye must grow both in grace and knowledge, 2 Pet. iii. 18, for, if either your minds be darkened through want of knowledge, or your affections frozen through want of the love of God, then are you naked, and not guarded against the tentations of the time. Wherefore, as the perverters of the truth and simplicity of religion do daily multiply errors, so must you (shunning those shelves and quicksands of deceiving errors which witty make-bates design for you), labour daily for increase of knowledge, and as they to their errors in opinion do add the overplus of a licentious practice and lewd conversation, so must you (having so much the more ado to flee from their impiety), labour still for a greature measure of the lively work of sanctifying grace; in which respects Augustine saith well, that the adversaries of the truth do this good to the true members of the church, that the fall of those makes these to take better hold upon God.[13]

IV. Be not deceived, to think that they who so eagerly press this course of conformity have any such end as God's glory, or the good of his church and profit of religion. When a violent urger of the ceremonies pretendeth religious respects for his proceedings, it may be well answered in Hillary's[14] words. Subrepis nomine blandienti, occidis specie religionis—Thou privily creepest in with an enticing title, thou killest with the pretence of religion, for, 1. It is most evidently true of these ceremonies, which our divines[15] say of the gestures and rites used in the mass, “They are all frivolous and hypocritical, stealing away true devotion from the heart, and making men to rest in the outward gestures of the body.” There is more sound religion among them who refuse, than among them who receive the same, even our enemies themselves being judges, the reason whereof let me give in the words of one of our opposites[16] Supervacua hoec occupatio circa traditiones humanas, gignit semper ignorantiam et contemptum proeceptorum divinorum—This needless business about human traditions doth ever beget the ignorance and contempt of divine commandments. 2. Where read we that the servants of God have at any time sought to advance religion by such hideous courses of stern violence, as are intended and assayed against us by those who press the ceremonies upon us? The jirking and nibbling of their unformal huggermugger cometh nearer to sycophancy than to sincerity, and is sibber to appeaching hostility than fraternal charity, for just so they deal with us as the Arians did with the catholics of old. Sinceros, &c.[17] “The sincere teachers of the churches they delated and accused before magistrates, as if they alone did continually perturb the church's peace and tranquillity, and did only labour that the divided churches might never again piously grow together, and by this calumny they persuaded politic and civil men (who did not well enough understand this business), that the godly teachers of the churches should be cast forth into exile, and the Arian wolves should be sent into the sheepfolds of Christ.” Now, forasmuch as God hath said, “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain,” Isa. ix. 11, and will not have his flock to be ruled with force and with cruelty, [pg 1-ix] Ezek. xxxiv. 4. Nec potest (saith Lactantius[18]) aut veritas cum vi, aut justitia cum crudelitate conjungi—Neither can either truth be conjoined with violence, or righteousness with cruelty therefore, if our opposites would make it evident that they are in very deed led by religious aims let them resile from their violent proceedings, and deal with us in the spirit of meekness showing us from God's word and good reason the equity of their cause, and iniquity of ours, wherein we require no other thing of them, than that which Lactantius required of the adversaries of his profession, even that they would debate the matter verbis pontius quam verberibus—by words rather than by whips Distringant aciem ingeniorem suorum: siratio eorum vera est, asseratur: parati sumus audire, si doceant—Let them draw out the sharpness of their engines; if their reason be true let it be averred, we are ready to hear, if they teach us. 3. If their aims were truly for the advancement of religion, how comes it to pass, that whilst they make so much ado and move every stone against us for our modest refusing of obedience to certain ordinances of men, which in our consciences we are persuaded to be unlawful, they manumiss and set free the simony, lying, swearing, profanation of the Sabbath, drunkenness, whoredom, with other gross and scandalous vices of some of their own side, by which God's own commandments are most fearfully violated? This just recrimination we may well use for our own most lawful defence. Neither do we hereby intend any man's shame (God knows), but his reformation rather. We wish from our hearts we had no reason to challenge our opposites of that superstition taxed in the Pharisees, Quod argubant &c.—that they accused the disciples of little things, and themselves were guilty in great things, saith Nicolaus Goranus.[19]

V. Do not account ceremonies to be matters of so small importance that we need not stand much upon them, for, as Hooker[20] observeth, a ceremony, through custom, worketh very much with people. Dr Burges allegeth[21] for his writing about ceremonies, that the matter is important for the consequence of it. Camero[22] thinketh so much of ceremonies, that he holdeth our simplicity to notify that we have the true religion, and that the religion of Papists is superstitious because of their ceremonies. To say the truth, a church is in so far true or hypocritical as it mixeth or not mixeth human inventions with God's holy worship, and hence the Magdeburgians profess,[23] that they write of the ceremonies for making a difference betwixt a true and a hypocritical church. Vere enim ecclesia, &c.—for a true church, as it retains pure doctrine, so also it keeps simplicity of ceremonies, &c., but a hypocritical church, as it departs from pure doctrine, so for the most part it changeth and augmenteth the ceremonies instituted of God, and multiplieth its own traditions, &c. And as touching our controverted ceremonies in particular, if you consider what we have written against them, you shall easily perceive that they are matters of no small, but very great consequence. Howbeit these be but the beginnings of evils, and there is a worse gallimaufry gobber-wise prepared. It hath been observed of the warring Turks[24] that often they used this notable deceit—to send a lying rumour and a vain tumult [pg 1-x] of war to one place, but, in the meanwhile, to address their true forces to another place, that so they might surprise those who have been unwarily led by pernicious credulity. So have we manifest (alas too, too manifest) reasons to make us conceive, that whilst the chief urgers of the course of conformity are skirmishing with us about the trifling ceremonies (as some men count them), they are but labouring to hold our thoughts so bent and intent upon those smaller quarrels, that we may forget to distinguish betwixt evils immanent and evils imminent, and that we be not too much awake to espy their secret sleight in compassing further aims.

VI. Neither let the pretence of peace and unity cool your fervour, or make you spare to oppose yourselves unto those idle and idolised ceremonies against which we dispute, for whilst our opposites make a vain show and pretence of peace, they do like the Romans,[25] who built the Temple of Concord just in the place where the seditious outrages of the two Gracchi, Tiberius and Caius, had been acted, which temple,[26] in the subsequent times, did not restrain, but, by the contrary, gave further scope unto more bloody seditions, so that they should have built discord a temple in that place rather than concord, as Augustine pleasantly tickleth them. Do our opposites think that the bane of peace is never in yielding to the course of the time, but ever in refusing to yield? Or will they not rather acknowledge, that as a man is said to be made drunk by drinking the water of Lyncestus, a river of Macedonia,[27] no less than if he had filled himself with the strongest wine, so one may be inebriate with a contentious humour in standing stiffly for yielding, as well as in standing stedfastly for refusing? Peace is violated by the oppugners of the truth, but established by the possessors of the same, for (as was rightly said by Georgius Scolarius in the Council of Florence[28]) the church's peace “can neither stay among men, the truth being unknown, neither can it but needs return, the truth being known.” Nec veritate ignorata manere inter homines potest, nec illa agnita necessario non redire. We must therefore be mortised together, not by the subscudines of error, but by the bands of truth and unity of faith. And we go the true way to regain peace whilst we sue for the removal of those popish ceremonies which have both occasioned and nourished the discord, we only refuse that peace (falsely so called) which will not permit us to brook purity, and that because (as Joseph Hall[29] noteth) St James' (chap. iii. 17,) describeth the wisdom which is from above to be “first pure, then peaceable,” whence it cometh that there can be no concord betwixt Christ and antichrist, nor any communion betwixt the temple of God and idols, 2 Cor. vii. 15, 16. Atque ut coelum, &c.: “And though heaven and earth should happen to be mingled together, yet the sincere worship of God and his sacred truth, wherein eternal salvation is laid up for us, should worthily be unto us of more estimation than a hundred worlds,” saith Calvin.[30] John Fox[31] judgeth it better to contend against those who prefer their own traditions to the commandments of God, than to be at peace with them. True it is,—Pax optima rerum, quas homini novisse datum est.—Yet I trust we may use the words of that great adiaphorist, Georgius Cassander—Ea [pg 1-xi] demion vera, &c. “That alone (saith he) is true and solid Christian peace which is conjoined with the glory of God and the obedience of his will, and is rejoined from all depravation of the heavenly doctrine and divine worship.”

VII. Beware, also, you be not deceived with the pretence of the church's consent, and of uniformity as well with the ancient church as with the now reformed churches, in the forms and customs of both, for, 1. Our opposites cannot show that the sign of the cross was received and used in the church before Tertullian, except they allege either the Montanists or the Valentian heretics for it. Neither yet can they show, that apparel proper for divine service, and distinguished from the common, is more ancient than the days of Pope Cœlestinus, nor lastly, that kneeling in the act of receiving the communion was ever used before the time of Pope Honorious III. They cannot prove any one of the controverted ceremonies to have been in the church the first two hundred years after Christ, except the feast of Easter (which yet can neither be proved to have been observed in the apostles' own age, nor yet to have been established in the after age by any law, but only to have crept in by a certain private custom), and for some of them they cannot find any clear testimony for a long time thereafter. Now, in the third century,[32] historiographers observe, that Paulatum ceremoniæ auctæ sunt, hominum superstitionorum opinionibus: unde in baptismo unctionem olei, cruces signaculum, et osculum addiderunt—Ceremonies were by little and little augmented by the opinions of superstitious men, whence it was that they added the unction of oil, the sign of the cross, and a kiss in baptism. And in the fourth century they say, Subinde magis magisque, traditiones humanæ cumulatæ sunt—Forthwith human traditions were more and more augmented. And so from that time forward vain and idle ceremonies were still added to the worship of God, till the same was, under Popery, wholly corrupted with superstitious rites, yes, and Mr Sprint hath told us, even of the first two hundred years after Christ, that the “devil, in those days, began to sow his tares (as the watchmen began to sleep), both of false doctrine and corrupt ceremonies.” And now, though some of the controverted ceremonies have been kept and reserved in many (not all), the reformed churches, yet they are not therefore to be the better liked of. For the reason of the reservation was, because some reverend divines who dealt and laboured in the reformation of those churches, perceiving the occurring lets and oppositions which were caused by most dangerous schisms and seditions, and by the raging of bloody wars, scarcely expected to effectuate so much as the purging of the church from fundamental errors and gross idolatry, which wrought them to be content, that lesser abuses in discipline and church policy should be then tolerated, because they saw not how to overtake them all at that time. In the meanwhile, they were so far from desiring any of the churches to retain these popish ceremonies, which might have convenient occasion of ejecting them (far less to recal them, being once ejected), that they testified plainly their dislike of the same, and wished that those churches wherein they lived, might have some blessed opportunity to be rid of all such rotten relics, riven rags and rotten remainders of Popery. All which, since [pg 1-xii] they were once purged away from the church of Scotland and cast forth as things accursed into the jakes of eternal detestation, how vile and abominable may we now call the resuming of them? Or what a piacular prevarication is it to borrow from any other church which was less reformed, a pattern of policy for this church which was more reformed. But, 2. Though there could be more alleged for the ceremonies than truly there can be, either from the customs of the ancient or reformed churches, yet do our opposites themselves profess, that they will not justify all the ceremonies either of the ancient or reformed churches. And, indeed, who dare take this for a sure rule, that we ought to follow every ancient and universally received custom? For as Casaubon showeth, though the church's consent ought not to be contemned, yet we are not always to hold it for a law or a right rule. And do not our divines teach, that nihil faciendum est ad ahorum exemplum, sed juxta verbum—Nothing is to be done according to the example of others, but according to the word Ut autem, &c. “As the multitude of them who err (saith Osiander), so long prescription of time purchaseth no patrociny to error.”

VIII. Moreover, because the foredeck and hind deck of all our opposites' probations do resolve and rest finally into the authority of a law, and authority they use as a sharp knife to cut every Gordian knot which they cannot unloose, and as a dreadful peal to sound so loud in all ears that reason cannot be heard, therefore we certiorate you with Calvin, that a acquievistis imperio, pessimo laqueo vos in duistis—If you have acquiesced in authority, you have wrapped yourselves in a very evil snare. As touching any ordinance of the church we say with Whittaker, Obediendum ecclesioe est sed jubents ac docenti recta—We are to obey the church but commanding and teaching right things. Surely, if we have not proved the controverted ceremonies to be such things as are not right to be done we shall straight obey all the ceremonial laws made thereanent, and as for the civil magistrate's part, is it not holden that he may not enjoin us “to do that whereof we have not good ground to do it of faith?” and that, “although all thy external condition is in the power of the magistrate, yet internal things, as the keeping of faith, and obedience, and a good conscience, are not in his power.” For every one of us “shall give account of himself to God,” Rom. xiv. 12, but until you hear more in the dispute of the power which either the church or the magistrate hath to enact laws anent things belonging to the worship of God, and of the binding power of the same, let me add here touching human laws in general, that where we have no other reason to warrant unto us the doing of that which a human law prescribeth, beside the bare will and authority of the law maker, in this case a human law cannot bind us to obedience. Aquinas holdeth with Isidore, that a human law (among other conditions of it) must both be necessary for removing of some evil, and likewise profitable for guiding us to some good. Gregorius Sayrus following them herein, saith, Debet lex homines a malo retrahere, et idio dicatur necessaria debet [pg 1-xiii] etiam promovere in bonum, et ideo dicitur utilis—A law ought to draw back men from evil, and therefore is called necessary, it ought also to promove them unto good, and therefore is called profitable. Human laws, in Mr Hooker's judgment,[33] must teach what is good, and be made for the benefit of men. Demosthenes[34] describeth a law to be such a thing cui convenit omnibus parere which it is convenient for every one to obey. Camero[35] not only alloweth us to seek a reason of the church's laws (Non enim saith he, verae ecclesiae libet leges ferre quarum non reddat rationem—It pleaseth not the true church to make and publish laws, whereof she giveth not a reason), but he[36] will likewise have us, in such things as concern the glory and honour of God, not to obey the laws of any magistrate blindly and without a reason. “There was one (saith the Bishop of Winchester[37]), that would not have his will stand for reason, and was there none such among the people of God? Yes, we find, 1 Sam. ii, one of whom it is said, Thus it must be, for Hophni will not have it so, but thus his reason is, For he will not. And God grant none such may be found among Christians.” From Scripture we learn, that neither hath the magistrate any power, but for our good only, Rom. xiii. 4, nor yet hath the church any power, but for our edification only, Ephes. iv. 12. Law makers, therefore, may not enjoin quod libet, that which liketh them, nay, nor always quod licet, that which is in itself lawful, but only quod expedit, that which is expedient and good to the use of edifying. And to them we may well say with Tertullian,[38] Iniquam exercetis dominationem si ideo negatis licere quia vultis, non quia debuit non licere—You exercise an unjust dominion, if, therefore, you deny anything to be free, because you will so, not because it ought not to be free. Besides all this, there is nothing which any way pertaineth to the worship of God left to the determination of human laws, beside the mere circumstances, which neither have any holiness in them, forasmuch as they have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor yet were particularly determinable in Scripture, because they are infinite, but sacred, significant ceremonies, such as cross, kneeling, surplice, holidays, bishopping, &c., which have no use and praise except in religion only, and which, also, were most easily determinate (yet not determined) within those bounds which the wisdom of God did set to his written word, are such things as God never left to the determination of any human law. Neither have men any power to burden us with those or such like ordinances, “For (saith not our Lord himself to the churches), I will put upon you none other burden, but that which ye have already, hold fast till I come,” Rev. ii. 24, 25. Wherefore, pro hac, &c., for this liberty we ought stoutly to fight against false teachers.[39] Finally, it is to be noted, that though in some things we may and do commendably refuse obedience to the laws of them whom God hath set over us, yet are we ever obliged (and accordingly intend) still to subject ourselves onto them, for to be subject doth signify (as Zanchius showeth[40]), to be placed under, to be subordinate, and so to give honour and reverence to him who is above, which may well stand without obedience to every one of [pg 1-xiv] his laws. Yea, and Dr Field[41] also tells us, that “subjection is generally and absolutely required where obedience is not.”

IX. Forasmuch as some ignorant ones are of opinion, that when they practise the ceremonies, neither perceiving any unlawfulness in them (but, by the contrary, being persuaded in their consciences of the lawfulness of the same), nor yet having any evil meaning (but intending God's glory and the peace of the church), therefore they practise them with a good conscience. Be not ye also deceived, but rather advert unto this, that a peaceable conscience, allowing that which a man doth, is not ever a good conscience, but oftentimes an erring, bold, presuming, secure, yea, perhaps, a seared conscience. A good conscience, the testimony whereof giveth a man true peace in his doings, is, and is only, such a one as is rightly informed out of the word of God. Neither doth a good meaning excuse any evil action, or else they who killed the apostles were to be excused, because in so doing they thought they did God good service, John xiv. 2. It is the observation even of Papists, that men may commit many a soul-ruining scandal, though they intend no such thing as the ruin of souls.[42]

X. If once you yield to these English ceremonies, think not that thereafter you can keep yourselves back from any greater evils, or grosser corruptions which they draw after them; for as it is just with God to give such men over to strong delusions as have not received the love of the truth, nor taken pleasure in the sincerity of his worship, 2 Thess. ii. 10, 11; so there is not a more deceitful and dangerous temptation than in yielding to the beginnings of evil. “He that is unjust in the least, is also unjust in much” saith he who could not lie, Luke xvi. 20. When Uriah the priest had once pleased king Ahaz, in making an altar like unto that at Damascus, he was afterwards led on to please him in a greater matter, even in forsaking the altar of the Lord, and in offering all the sacrifices upon the altar of Damascus, 2 Kings xvi. 10-16. All your winning or losing of a good conscience, is in your first buying; for such is the deceitfulness of sin, and the cunning conveyance of that old serpent, that if his head be once entering in, his whole body will easily follow after; and if he make you handsomely to swallow gnats at first, he will make you swallow camels ere all be done. Oh, happy they who dash the little ones of Babylon against the stones! Psal. cxxxvii. 9.

XI. Do not reckon it enough to bear within the inclosure of your secret thoughts a certain dislike of the ceremonies and other abuses now set afoot, except both by profession and action you evidence the same, and so show your faith by your fact. We are constrained to say to some among you, with Elijah, “How long halt ye between two opinions?” 1 Kings xviii. 21; and to call unto you, with Moses, “Who is on the Lord's side?” Exod. xxxii. 26. Who? “Be not deceived; God is not mocked;” Gal. vi. 7; and, “No man can serve two masters,” Mat. vi. 24. However, he that is not against us, pro tanto, is with us, Mark ix. 40, that is, in so far he so obligeth himself unto us as that he cannot speak lightly evil of our cause, and we therein rejoice, and will rejoice, Phil. i. 18; yet, simpliciter, he that is not with us is against us, Matt. xii. 30; [pg 1-xv] that is, he who by profession and practice showeth not himself to be on our side, is accounted before God to be our enemy.

XII. Think not the wounds which the church hath received by means of these nocent ceremonies to be so deadly and desperate, as if there were no balm in Gilead; neither suffer your minds so far to miscarry as to think that ye wish well to the church, and are heartily sorry that matters frame with her as they do, whilst, in the meantime, you essay no means, you take no pains and travail for her help. When king Ahasuerus had given forth a decree for the utter extirpation of the Jews, Mordecai feared not to tell Esther, that if she should then hold her peace enlargement and deliverance should arise unto the Jews from another place, but she and her father's house should be destroyed; whereupon she, after three days' humiliation and prayer to God, put her very life in hazard by going in to supplicate the king, which was not according to the law, Esth. iv. But now, alas! there are too many professors who detract themselves from undergoing lesser hazards for the church's liberty, yea, from using those very defences which are according to the laws of the kingdom. Yet most certain it is, that without giving diligence in the use of the means, you shall neither convince your adversaries, nor yet exonerate your own consciences, nor, lastly, have such comfort in the day of your suffering as otherwise you should. I know that principally, and, above all, we are to offer up to God prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, which are the weapons of our spiritual warfare, Heb. v. 7; but as this ought to be done, so the achieving of other secondary means ought not to be left undone.

If you disregard these things whereof, in the name of God, I have admonished you, and draw back your helping hands from the reproached and afflicted cause of Christ, for which we plead, then do not put evil far from you, for wrath is determined against you. And as for you, my dear brethren and countrymen of Scotland, as it is long since first Christianity was preached and professed in this land, as also it was blessed with a most glorious [pg 1-xvi] and much-renowned Reformation:[43] and, further, as the gospel hath been longer continued in purity and peace with us than with any church in Europe: moreover, as the Church of Scotland hath treacherously broken her bonds of oath and subscription wherewith other churches about us were not so tied; and, finally, as Almighty God, though he hath almost consumed other churches by his dreadful judgments, yet hath showed far greater long-suffering kindness towards us, to reclaim us to repentance, though, notwithstanding all this, we go on in a most doleful security, induration, blindness, and backsliding: so now, in the most ordinary course of God's justice, we are certainly to expect, that after so many mercies, so great long-suffering, and such a long day of grace, all despised, he is to send upon us such judgments as should not be believed though they were told. O Scotland! understand and turn again, or else, as God lives, most terrible judgments are abiding thee.

But if you lay these things to heart,—if you be humbled before God for the provocation of your defection, and turn back from the same,—if with all your hearts and according to all your power, you bestow your best endeavours for making help to the wounded church of Christ, and for vindicating the cause of pure religion, yea, though it were with the loss of all that you have in the world, (augetur enim religio Dei, quo magis premitur[44]—God's true religion is enlarged the more it is pressed down), then shall you not only escape the evils which shall come upon this generation, but likewise be recompensed a hundred fold with the sweet consolations of God's Spirit here, and with the immortal crown of never fading glory hence. Now, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, stablish you and keep you from evil, that ye may be presented before his throne. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen.

PROLOGUE.

How good reason those wise men had for them who did not allow of the English popish ceremonies at the first introducing of these novations into the Church of Scotland, foreseeing the bad effects and dangerous evils which might ensue thereupon, and how greatly the other sort were mistaken who did then yield to the same, apprehending no danger in them, it is this day too too apparent to us whose thoughts concerning the event of this course cannot be holden in suspense betwixt the apprehensions of fear and expectations of hope, because doleful experience hath made us feel that which the wiser sort before did fear. Since, then, this church, which was once a praise in the earth, is now brought to a most deplorable and daily increasing desolation by the means of these ceremonies, which have been both the sparkles to kindle, and the bellows to blow up, the consuming fire of intestine dissensions among us, it concerneth all her children, not only to cry out Ah! and Alas! and to “bewail with the weeping of Jazer,” Isa. xvi. 9, but also to bethink themselves most seriously how to succour their dear, though distressed mother, in such a calamitous case. Our best endeavours which we are to employ for this end, next unto praying earnestly “for the peace of Jerusalem,” Psal. cxxii. 6, are these: 1. So far as we have attained “to walk by the same rule, to mind the same thing,” Phil. iii. 19, and to labour as much as is possible that the course of the gospel, the doctrine of godliness, the practice of piety lie not behind, because of our differing one from another about the ceremonies, lest otherwise τὸ ἔργον grow to be πάρεργον. 2. In such things whereabout we agree not, to make diligent search and inquiry for the truth. For to have our judgments in our heels, and so blindly to follow every opinion which is broached, and squarely to conform unto every custom which is set afoot, becometh not men who are endued with reason for discerning of things beseeming from things not beseeming, far less Christians, who should have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Heb. v. 14, and who have received a commandment “to prove all things,” 1 Thess. v. 21, before they hold fast anything; and least of all doth it become us who live in these most dangerous days, wherein error and defection so much abound. 3. When we have attained to the acknowledging of the truth, then to give a testimony unto the same, according to our vocation, contending for the truth of God against the errors of men, for the purity of Christ against the corruptions of Antichrist: For to understand the truth, and yet not contend for it, argueth cowardliness, not courage; fainting, not fervour; lukewarmness, not love; weakness, not valour. Wherefore, since we cannot impetrate from the troublers of our Israel that true peace which derogateth not from the truth, we may not, we dare not, leave off to debate with them. Among the laws of Solon, there was one which pronounced him defamed and unhonest who, in a civil uproar among the citizens, sitteth still a looker-on and a neuter (Plut. in Vita. Solon); much more deserve they to be so accounted of who shun to meddle with any controversy which disquieted the church, whereas they should labour to win the adversaries of the truth, and, if they prove obstinate, to defend and propugn the truth against them. In things of this life (as Calvin noteth in Epist. ad Protect. Angl.) we may remit so much of the right as the love of peace requireth, but as for the regiment of the church which is spiritual, and wherein everything ought to be ordered according to the word of God, it is not in the power of any mortal man quidquam hic aliis dare, aut in illorum gratiam deflectere. These considerations have induced me to bestow some time, and to take some pains in the study of the controversies which are agitated in this church about the ceremonies, and (after due examination and discussion of the writings of such as have played the proctors for them) to compile this ensuing dispute against them, both for exonering myself, and for provoking of others to contend yet more for the truth, and for Zion's sake not to hold their peace, nor be at rest, until the amiable light of long-wished-for peace break forth out of all these confusions, Isa. lxii. 1; which, O Prince of Peace! hasten, who “wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us,” Isa. xxvi. 12.

ORDER.

Because polemic and eristic discourses must follow the adversaries at the heels whithersoever they go, finding them out in all the lurking-places of their elaborate subterfuges, and conflicting with them wheresoever they pitch, until not only all their blows be awarded, but themselves also all derouted, therefore, perceiving the informality of the Formalists to be such that sometimes they plead for the controverted ceremonies as necessary, sometimes as expedient, sometimes as lawful, and sometimes as indifferent, I resolve to follow the trace, and to evince, by force of reason, that there is none of all those respects to justify either the urging or the using of them. And albeit the Archbishop of Spalato (Pref. Libror. de Rep. Eccl.) cometh forth like an Olympic champion, stoutly brandishing and bravading, and making his account that no antagonist can match him except a prelate, albeit likewise the Bishop of Edinburgh (Proc. in Perth, Assembly, part iii. p. 55) would have us to think that we are not well advised to enter into combat with such Achillean strength as they have on their side, yet must our opposites know, that we have more daring minds than to be dashed with the vain flourish of their great words. Wherefore, in all these four ways wherein I am to draw the line of my dispute, I will not shun to encounter and handle strokes with the most valiant champions of that faction, knowing that—Trophoeum ferre me à forti viro, pulchrum est: sin autem et vincar, vinci à tali nullum est probrum—But what? Shall I speak doubtfully of the victory, or fear the foil? Nay, I consider that there is none of them so strong as he was who said, “We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth,” 2 Cor. xxiii. 8. I will therefore boldly adventure to combat with them even where they seem to be strongest, and to discuss their best arguments, allegations, answers, assertions, and distinctions. And my dispute shall consist of four parts, according to those four pretences which are given out for the ceremonies, which, being so different one from another, must be severally examined. The lawfulness of a thing is in that it may be done; the indifferency of it in that it may either be done or left undone, the expediency of it in that it is done profitably; and the necessity of it in that it may not be left undone. I will begin with the last respect first, as that which is the weightiest.

THE FIRST PART.

AGAINST THE NECESSITY OF THE CEREMONIES.

CHAPTER I.

THAT OUR OPPOSITES DO URGE THE CEREMONIES AS THINGS NECESSARY.

Sect. 1. This I prove, 1. From their practice; 2. From their pleading. In their practice, who seeth not that they would tie the people of God to a necessity of submitting their necks to this heavy yoke of human ceremonies? which are with more vehemency, forwardness, and strictness urged, than the weighty matters of the law of God, and the refusing whereof is far more inhibited, menaced, espied, delated, aggravated, censured, and punished, than idolatry, Popery, blasphemy, swearing, profanation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery, &c. Both preachers and people have been, and are, fined, confined, imprisoned, banished, censured, and punished so severely, that he may well say of them that which our divines say of the Papists, Hoec sua inventa Decalago anteponunt, et gravius eos-multarent qui ea violarent, quam qui divina praecepta transgrederentur.[45] Wherefore, seeing they make not only as much, but more ado, about the controverted ceremonies than about the most necessary things in religion, their practice herein makes it too, too apparent what necessity they annex to them.

Sect. 2. And if we will hearken to their pleading it tells no less; for howbeit they plead for their ceremonies, as things indifferent in their own nature, yet, when the [pg 1-002] ceremonies are considered as the ordinances of the church, they plead for them as things necessary. M. G. Powel, in the Consideration of the Arguments directed to the High Court of Parliament in behalf of the Ministers suspended and deprived (ans. 3 to arg. 16), hath these words, yea, these particulars: “Subscription, ceremonies, &c., being imposed by the church, and commanded by the magistrate, are necessary to be observed under the pain of sin.” The Bishop of Edinburgh resolves us concerning the necessity of giving obedience to the laws of the church, enacted anent the ceremonies, thus: “Where a man hath not a law, his judgment is the rule of his conscience, but where there is a law, the law must be the rule. As, for example, before that apostolical canon that forbade to eat blood or strangled things, every man might have done that which in his conscience he thought most expedient, &c., but after the making and the publication of the canon that enjoined abstinence, the same was to rule their consciences. And, therefore, after that time, albeit a man had thought in his own private judgment that to abstain from these things was not expedient, &c. yet, in that case, he ought not to have eaten, because now the will of the law, and not the judgment of his own mind, was the rule of his conscience.”[46] The Archbishop of St Andrews, to the same purpose saith, “In things indifferent we must always esteem that to be best and [pg 1-003] most seemly which seemeth so in the eye of public authority, neither is it for private men to control public judgment, as they cannot make public constitutions, so they may not control nor disobey them, being once made, indeed authority ought to look well to this, that it prescribe nothing but rightly, appoint no rights nor orders in the church but such as may set forward godliness and piety, yet, put the case, that some be otherwise established, they must be obeyed by such as are members of that church, as long as they have the force of a constitution, &c. But thou wilt say, My conscience suffers me not to obey, for I am persuaded that such things are not right, nor appointed. I answer thee, In matters of this nature and quality the sentence of thy superiors ought to direct thee, and that is a sufficient ground to thy conscience for obeying.”[47] Thus we see that they urge the ceremonies, not only with a necessity of practice upon the outward man, but also with a necessity of opinion upon the conscience, and that merely because of the church's determination and appointment; yea, Dr Mortoune maketh kneeling in the act of receiving the communion to be in some sort necessary in itself, for he maintaineth,[48] that though it be not essentially necessary as food, yet it is accidentally necessary as physic. Nay, some of them are yet more absurd, who plainly call the ceremonies necessary in themselves,[49] beside the constitution of the church. Others of them, who confess the ceremonies to be not only unnecessary,[50] but also inconvenient, do, notwithstanding, plead for them as things necessary. Dr Burges tells us,[51] that some of his side think that ceremonies are inconvenient, but withal he discovers to us a strange mystery brought out of the unsearchable deepness of his piercing conception, holding that such things as not only are not at all necessary in themselves,[52] but are inconvenient too, may yet be urged as necessary.

Sect. 3. The urging of these ceremonies as necessary, if there were no more, is a sufficient reason for our refusing them. “To the precepts of God (saith Balduine) nothing is to be added,[53] Deut. xii. Now God [pg 1-004] hath commanded these things which are necessary. The rites of the church are not necessary, wherefore, if the abrogation or usurpation of any rite be urged as necessary, then is an addition made to the commandment of God, which is forbidden in the word, and, by consequence, it cannot oblige me, neither should anything herein be yielded unto.” Who can purge these ceremonies in controversy among us of gross superstition, since they are urged as things necessary? But of this superstition we shall hear afterward in its proper place.

CHAPTER II.

THE REASON TAKEN OUT OF ACTS XV. TO PROVE THE NECESSITY OF THE CEREMONIES, BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH'S APPOINTMENT, CONFUTED.

The Bishop of Edinburgh, to prove that of necessity our consciences must be ruled by the will of the law, and that it is necessary that we give obedience to the same, albeit our consciences gainsay, allegeth that apostolical canon,[54] Acts xv., for an example, just as Bellarmine maintaineth, Festorum observationem ex se indifferentem esse sed posita lege fieri necessariam[55]. Hospinian, answering him, will acknowledge no necessity of the observation of feasts, except divine law could be showed for it.[56] So say we, that the ceremonies which are acknowledged by formalists to be indifferent in themselves, cannot be made necessary by the law of the church, neither doth that example of the apostolical canon make anything against us, for, according to Mr Sprint's confession,[57] it was not the force or authority of the canon, but the reason and ground whereupon the canon was made, which caused the necessity of abstaining, and to abstain was necessary for eschewing of scandal, whether the apostles and elders had enjoined abstinence or not.[58] The reason, then, why the things prescribed in that canon are called necessary, ver. 28, is not because, being indifferent before the making and publication of the canon, they became necessary by virtue of the canon after it was made, as the Bishop teacheth, but quia tunc [pg 1-005] charitas exigebat, ut illa sua libertate qui ex gentibus conversi erant, propter proximi edificationem inter judeos non uterentur, sed ab ea abstinerent, saith Chemnitius.[59] This law, saith Tilen,[60] was propter charitatem et vitandi offendiculi necessitatem ad tempus sancita. So that these things were necessary before the canon was made. Necessaria fuerunt, saith Ames,[61] antequam Apostoli quidquam de iis statuerant, non absolute, sed quatenus in iis charitas jubebat morem gerere infirmis, ut cajetanus notat. Quamobrem, saith Tilen,[62] cum charitas semper sit colenda, semper vitanda sandala. “Charity is necessary (saith Beza), even in things which are in themselves indifferent.”[63] What they can allege for the necessity of the ceremonies, from the authority and obligatory power of ecclesiastical laws, shall be answered by and by.

CHAPTER III.

THAT THE CEREMONIES THUS IMPOSED AND URGED AS THINGS NECESSARY, DO BEREAVE US OF OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, FIRST, BECAUSE OUR PRACTICE IS ADSTRICTED.

Sect. 1. Who can blame us for standing to the defence of our Christian liberty, which we ought to defend and pretend in rebus quibusvis? saith Bucer.[64] Shall we bear the name of Christians, and yet make no great account of the liberty which hath been bought to us by the dearest drops of the precious blood of the Son of God? Sumus empti, saith Parcus:[65] non igitur nostri juris ut nos mancipemus hominum servitio: id enim manifesta cum injuria redemptoris Christi fieret: sumus liberti Christi. Magistratui autem, saith Tilen,[66] et ecclesioe proepositis, non nisi usque ad aras obtemperandum, neque ullum certamen aut periculum pro libertatis per Christum nobis partæ defensione defugiendum, siquidem mortem ipsius irritam fieri, Paulus asserit, si spiritualis servitutis jugo, nos implicari patiamur. Gal. v. 1, “Let us stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ [pg 1-006] hath made us free, and not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” But that the urging of the ceremonies as necessary doth take away our Christian liberty, I will make it evident in four points.

Sect. 2. First, They are imposed with a necessity of practice. Spotswood tells us,[67] that public constitutions must be obeyed, and that private men may not disobey them, and thus is our practice adstricted in the use of things which are not at all necessary, and acknowledged gratis by the urgers to be indifferent, adstricted (I say) to one part without liberty to the other, and that by the mere authority of a human constitution, whereas Christian liberty gives us freedom both for the omission and for the observation of a thing indifferent, except some other reason do adstrict and restrain it than a bare human constitution. Chrysostome, speaking of such as are subject to bishops,[68] saith, In potestate positum est obedire vel non. Liberty in things indifferent,[69] saith Amandus Polanus, est per quam Christiani sunt liberi in usu vel abstinentia rerum adiaphorarom. Calvin, speaking of our liberty in things indifferent,[70] saith, We may eas nunc usurpare nunc omittere indifferenter, and places this liberty,[71] tam in abstinendo quam in utendo. It is marked of the rites of the ancient church,[72] that liberae fuerunt horum rituum observationes in ecclesia. And what meaneth the Apostle while he saith, “If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the using,) after the commandments and doctrines of men?” Col. ii. 20-22. Surely he condemneth not only humana decreta de ritibus, but also subjection and obedience to such ordinances of men as take from us liberty of practice in the use of things indifferent,[73] obedience (I say) for conscience of their ordinances merely. What meaneth also that place, 1 Cor. vii. 23, “Be not ye the servants of men?” “It forbids us, (saith Paybody) to be the servants of men, that is, in wicked or superstitious actions, according to their perverse commandments [pg 1-007] or desires.”[74] If he mean of actions that are wicked or superstitious in themselves, then it followeth, that to be subject unto those ordinances, “Touch not, taste not, handle not,” is not to be the servants of men, because these actions are not wicked and superstitious in themselves. Not touching, not tasting, not handling, are in themselves indifferent. But if he mean of actions which are wicked and superstitious, in respect of circumstances, then is his restrictive gloss senseless; for we can never be the servants of men, but in such wicked and superstitious actions, if there were no more but giving obedience to such ordinances as are imposed with a necessity upon us, and that merely for conscience of the ordinance, it is enough to infect the actions with superstition, Sunt hominum servi, saith Bullinqer,[75] qui aliquid in gratiam hominum faciunt. This is nearer the truth; for to tie ourselves to the doing of anything for the will or pleasure of men, when our conscience can find no other reason for the doing of it, were indeed to make ourselves the servants of men. Far be it then from us to submit our necks to such a heavy yoke of human precepts, as would overload and undo us. Nay, we will stedfastly resist such unchristian tyranny as goeth about to spoil us of Christian liberty, taking that for certain which we find in Cyprian,[76] periculosum est in divinis rebus ut quis cedat jure suo.

Sect. 3. Two things are here replied, 1. That there is reason for adstricting of our practice in these things, because we are commanded to obey them that have the rule over us, and to submit ourselves, Heb. xiii. 17,[77] and to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, 1 Pet. ii. 16, and that except public constitutions must needs be obeyed, there can be no order,[78] but all shall be filled with strife and contention. Ans. 1. As touching obedience to those that are set over us, if they mean not to tyrannise over the Lord's inheritance, 1 Pet. v. 3; and to make the commandments of God of no effect by their traditions, Mark vii. 9, they must give us leave to try their precepts by the sure will of God's word; and when we find that they require of us anything in the worship of God which is [pg 1-008] either against or beside his written word, then modestly to refuse obedience, which is the only way for order, and shunning of strife and contention. It will be said again, that except we prove the things commanded by those who are set over us to be unlawful in themselves, we cannot be allowed to refuse obedience to their ordinances. Ans. This unlawfulness of the ceremonies in themselves hath been proved by us already, and shall yet again be proved in this dispute. But put the case, they were lawful in themselves, yet have we good reason for refusing them: “David thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to break the law of the shew-bread; Christ thought the satisfying of the disciples' hunger to be cause sufficient to break the ceremony of the Sabbath. He thought, also, that the healing of the lepers' bodies was a just excuse to break the law that forbade the touching of them; much more, then, may we think now in our estimation, that the feeding of other men's souls, the satisfying of our own consciences, together with the consciences of other men, and the healing of men's superstition and spiritual leprosy, are causes sufficient to break the law of the ceremonies and of the cross, which are not God's but men's,” saith Parker.[79] 2. As touching submission or subjection, we say with Dr Field,[80] that subjection is generally and absolutely required where obedience is not, and even when our consciences suffer us not to obey, yet still we submit and subject ourselves, and neither do nor shall (I trust) show any the least contempt of authority.

Sect. 4. Secondly, It is replied, that our Christian liberty is not taken away when practice is restrained, because conscience is still left free. “The Christian liberty (saith Paybody[81]), is not taken away by the necessity of doing a thing indifferent, or not doing, but only by that necessity which takes away the opinion or persuasion of its indifferency,” So saith Dr Burges,[82] “That the ceremonies in question are ordained to be used necessarily, though the judgment concerning them, and immediate conscience to God, be left free.” Ans. 1. Who doubts of this, that liberty of practice may be restrained in the use of things which are in [pg 1-009] themselves indifferent? But, yet, if the bare authority of an ecclesiastical law, without any other reason than the will and pleasure of men, be made to restrain practice, then is Christian liberty taken away. Junius saith,[83] that externum opus ligatur from the use of things indifferent, when the conscience is not bound; but in that same place he showeth, that the outward action is bound and restrained only quo usque circumstantiae ob quas necessitas imperata est, se extendunt. So that it is not the authority of an ecclesiastical law, but the occasion and ground of it, which adstricts the practice when the conscience is left free. 2. When the authority of the church's constitution is obtruded to bind and restrain the practice of Christians in the use of things indifferent, they are bereaved of their liberty, as well as if an opinion of necessity were borne in upon their consciences. Therefore we see when the Apostle, 1 Cor. vii., gives liberty of marriage, he doth not only leave the conscience free in its judgment of the lawfulness of marriage, but also give liberty of practice to marry or not to marry. And Col. ii. 21, when he giveth instances of such human ordinances as take away Christian liberty, he saith not, you must think that you may not touch, &c., but “touch not,” &c., telling us, that when the practice is restrained from touching, tasting, handling, by the ordinances of men, then is Christian liberty spoiled, though the conscience be left free. Camero, speaking of the servitude which is opposed to Christian liberty, saith,[84] that it is either animi servitus, or corporis servitus. Then if the outward man be brought in bondage, this makes up spiritual thraldom, though there be no more. But, 3. The ceremonies are imposed with an opinion of necessity upon the conscience itself, for proof whereof I proceed to the next point.

CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY PROVED BY A SECOND REASON, NAMELY, BECAUSE CONSCIENCE ITSELF IS BOUND AND ADSTRICTED.

Sect. 1. Bishop Lindsey hath told us,[85] that the will of the law must be the rule of our [pg 1-010] conscience, so that conscience may not judge other ways than the law determines. Bishop Spotswood will have the sentence of superiors to direct the conscience,[86] and will have us to esteem that to be best and most seemly which seemeth so to them. Bishop Andrews, speaking of ceremonies,[87] not only will have every person inviolably to observe the rites and customs of his own church, but also will have the ordinances about those rites to be urged under pain of the anathema. I know not what the binding of the conscience is, if this be not it: Apostolus gemendi partes relinquit, non cogendi auctoritatem tribuit ministris quibus plebs non auscultat.[88] And shall they who call themselves the apostles' successors, compel, constrain and enthral, the consciences of the people of God? Charles V., as popish as he was, did promise to the Protestants,[89] Nullam vim ipsorum conscientiis illatum iri. And shall a popish prince speak more reasonable than protestant prelates? But to make it yet more and plentifully to appear how miserably our opposites would enthral our consciences, I will here show, 1. What the binding of the conscience is. 2. How the laws of the church may be said to bind. 3. What is the judgment of formalists touching the binding-power of ecclesiastical laws.

Sect. 2. Concerning the first of these we will hear what Dr Field saith:[90] “To bind the conscience (saith he) is to bind the soul and spirit of man, with the fear of such punishments (to be inflicted by him that so bindeth) as the conscience feareth; that is, as men fear, though none but God and themselves be privy to their doings; now these are only such as God only inflicteth,” &c. This description is too imperfect, and deserves to be corrected. To bind the conscience is illam auctoritatem habere, ut conscientia illi subjicere sese debeat, ita ut peccatum sit, si contra illam quidquam fiat, saith Ames.[91] “The binder (saith Perkins[92]) is that thing whatsoever which hath power and authority over conscience to order it. To bind is to urge, cause, and constrain it in every action, either to accuse for sin, or to excuse for well-doing; or to say, this [pg 1-011] may be done, or it may not be done.” “To bind the conscience (saith Alsted[93]) est illam urgere et adigere, ut vel excuset et accuset, vel indicet quid fieri aut non fieri possit.” Upon these descriptions, which have more truth and reason in them, I infer that whatsoever urges, or forces conscience to assent to a thing as lawful, or a thing that ought to be done, or dissent from a thing as unlawful, or a thing which ought not to be done, that is a binder of conscience, though it did not bind the spirit of a man with the fear of such punishments as God alone inflicteth. For secluding all respect of punishment, and not considering what will follow, the very obliging of the conscience for the time, ad assensum, is a binding of it.[94]

Sect. 3. Touching the second, it is certain that human laws, as they come from men, and in respect of any force or authority which men can give them, have no power to bind the conscience. Neque enim cum hominibus, sed cum uno Deo negotium est conscientis nostris, saith Calvin.[95] Over our souls and consciences, nemini quicquam juris nisi Deo, saith Tilen.[96] From Jerome's distinction, that a king praeest nolentibus but a bishop volentibus, Marcus Antonius de Dominis well concludeth: Volentibus gregi praeesso, excludit omnem jurisdictionem et potestatem imperativam ac coactivam et solam significat directivam, ubi, viz., in libertate subditi est et parere et non parere, ita ut qui praeest nihil habeat quo nolentem parere adigat ad parendum.[97] This point he proveth in that chapter at length, where he disputeth both against temporal and spiritual coactive jurisdiction in the church. If it be demanded to what purpose serveth then the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do serve is, 1. For the plain discovery of such things as the law of God or nature do require of us, so that law which of itself hath power to bind, cometh from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither ἀντοκρατορικῶς nor νομοθετικῶς, but declarativè, Mal. ii. 7. 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and neither enforced by [pg 1-012] the law of God nor nature, and which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things, and therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions, admonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales, that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus considered, they have only vim dirigendi et monendi.[98] It is said of the apostles, that they were constituted doctrinae Christi testes, non novae doctrinae legist tores.[99] And the same may be said of all the ministers of the gospel, when discipline is taken in with doctrine. He is no nonconformist who holdeth ecclesiam in terris agere partes oratoris, seu legati obsecrantis et suadentis.[100] And we may hitherto apply that which Gerson, the chancellor of Paris, saith:[101] “The wisest and best among the guides of God's church had not so ill a meaning as to have all their constitutions and ordinances taken for laws properly so named, much less strictly binding the conscience, but for threatenings, admonitions, counsels, and directions only, and when there groweth a general neglect, they seem to consent to the abolishing of them again;” for seeing, lex instituitur, cum promulgatur, vigorem habet, cum moribus utentium approbatur.

Sect. 4. But as we have seen in what respect the laws of the church do not bind, let us now see how they may be said to bind. That which bindeth is not the authority of the church, nor any force which the church can give to her laws. It must be then somewhat else which maketh them able to bind, when they bind at all, and that is ratio legis, “the reason of the law,” without which the law itself cannot bind, and which hath the chiefest and most principal power of binding. An ecclesiastical law, saith Junius,[102] διαταξις sive depositio, non vere lex est, sed διατυπωσις aut canon, ac proindedirigit quidem ut canon agentem voluntarie: non autem necessitate cogit, ut lex etiam involuntarium quod si forte ante accedit coactio, ea non est de natura canonis sed altunde pervenit. An ecclesiastical canon, [pg 1-013] saith Tilen,[103] ducit volentem, non trahit nolentem: quod si accedat coactio, ea ecclesiastici canonis natura est prorsus aliena, Calvin's judgment is,[104] that an ecclesiastical canon binds, when manifestam utilitatem prae se fert, and when either tu prepon or charitatis ratio doth require, that we impose a necessity on our liberty. It binds not, then, by its own authority in his mind. And what saith the canon law itself?[105] Sed sciendum est quod ecclesiasticae prohibitiones proprias habent causas quibus cessantibus, cessant et ipsae. Hence Junius saith,[106] that the law binds not per se, but only propter ordinem charitatem, et cautionem scandali. Hence Ames,[107] quamvis ad justas leges humanas, justo modo observandas, obligentur homines in conscientiis suis a Deo; ipsae tamen leges humanae, qua sunt leges hominum, non obligant conscientiam. Hence Alsted:[108] “Laws made by men of things indifferent, whether they be civil or ecclesiastical, do bind the conscience, in so far as they agree with God's word, serve for the public good, maintain order, and finally, take not away liberty of conscience.” Hence the professors of Leyden say,[109] that laws bind not primo et per se, sed secundario, et per accidens; that is,[110] quatenus in illis lex aliqua Dei violator. Hence I may compare the constitutions of the church with responsa juris consultorum among the Romans, which obliged no man, nisi ex aequo et bono, saith Daneus.[111] Hence it may be said, that the laws of the church do not only bind scandali et contemptus ratione, as Hospinian,[112] and in case libertas fiat cum scandalo, as Parcus;[113] for it were scandal not to give obedience to the laws of the church, when they prescribe things necessary or expedient for the eschewing of scandal, and it were contempt to refuse obedience to them, when we are not certainly persuaded of the unlawfulness or inexpediency of the things prescribed.

Sect. 5. But out of the case of scandal or contempt, divines teach that conscience is not bound by the canon of the church made [pg 1-014] about order and policy. Extra casum scandali et destinatae rebellionis, propter commune bonum, non peccat qui contra constitutiones istas fecerit, saith Junius.[114] “If a law (saith Perkins)[115] concerning some external right or thing indifferent, be at some time or upon some occasion omitted, no offence given, nor contempt showed to ecclesiastical authority, there is no breach made in the conscience.” Alsted's rule is,[116] Leges humanae non obligant quando omitti possunt sine impedimento finis ob quem feruntur sine scandalo aliorum, et sine contemptu legislatoris. And Tilen teacheth us,[117] that when the church hath determined the mutable circumstances, in the worship of God, for public edification, privatorum conscientiis liberum est quandoque ista omittere, modo offendicula vitentur, nihil que ex contemptu ecclesiae ac ministerii publici petulanti καινοτομια vel κειοδοξια facere videantur.

Sect. 6. We deny not, then, that the church's canons about rites, which serve for public order and edification, do bind. We say only, that it is not the authority of the church framing the canon that binds, but the matter of the canon chiefly warranted by God's word.[118] Scimus enim quaecunque ad decorum et ordinem pertinent, non habenda esse pro humanis placitas, quia divinitus approbantur. Therefore we think concerning such canons, “that they are necessary to be observed so far forth only, as the keeping of them maintaineth decent order, and preventeth open offence.”[119]

Sect. 7. If any say that I derogate much from the authority of the church when I do nothing which she prescribeth, except I see it lawful and expedient, because I should do this much for the exhortation and admonition of a brother. Ans. 1. I give far more reverence to the direction of the church than to the admonition of a brother, because that is ministerial, this fraternal, that comes from authority, this only from charity, that is public, this private, that is given by many, this by one. And, finally, the church hath a calling to direct me in some things wherein a brother hath not. 2. If it be still instanced that, in the point of obedience, I do [pg 1-015] no more for the church than for any brother, because I am bound to do that which is made evident to be lawful and expedient, though a private Christian do but exhort me to it, or whether I be exhorted to it or not. For answer to this I say, that I will obey the directions of the church in many things rather than the directions of a brother; for in two things which are in themselves indifferent, and none of them inexpedient, I will do that which the church requireth, though my brother should exhort me to the contrary. But always I hold me at this sure ground, that I am never bound in conscience to obey the ordinances of the church, except they be evidently lawful and expedient. This is that, sine quo non obligant, and also that which doth chiefly bind, though it be not the only thing which bindeth. Now, for making the matter more plain, we must consider that the constitutions of the church are either lawful or unlawful. If unlawful, they bind not at all; if lawful, they are either concerning things necessary, as Acts xv. 28, and then the necessity of the things doth bind, whether the church ordain them or not; or else concerning things indifferent, as when the church ordaineth, that in great towns there shall be sermon on such a day of the week, and public prayers every day at such an hour. Here it is not the bare authority of the church that bindeth, without respect to the lawfulness or expediency of the thing itself which is ordained (else we were bound to do every thing which the church ordains, were it never so unlawful, for quod competit alicui qua tali, competit omni tali: we behold the authority of the church making laws, as well in unlawful ordinances as in lawful), nor yet is it the lawfulness or expediency of the thing itself, without respect to the ordinance of the church (for possibly other times and diets were as lawful, and expedient too, for such exercises, as those ordained by the church); but it is the authority of the church prescribing a thing lawful or expedient. In such a case, then neither doth the authority of the church bind, except the thing be lawful and expedient, nor doth the lawfulness and expediency of the thing bind, except the church ordain it; but both these jointly do bind.

Sect. 8. I come now to examine what is the judgment of formalists touching the binding of the conscience by ecclesiastical laws. Dr Field saith, that the question [pg 1-016] should not be proposed, whether human laws do bind the conscience, but “whether binding the outward man to the performance of outward things by force and fear of outward punishment to be inflicted by men, the non-performance of such things, or the non-performance of them with such affections as were fit, be not a sin against God, of which the conscience will accuse us,”[120] &c. Unto this question thus proposed and understood of human laws, and where no more is considered as giving them power to bind, but only the authority of those who make them; some formalists do give (as I will show), and all of them (being well advised) must give an affirmative answer. And, I pray, what did Bellarmine say more,[121] when, expressing how conscience is subject to human authority, he taught that conscience belongeth ad humanum forum, quatenus homo ex praecepto ita obligator ad opus externum faciendum, ut si non faciat, judicat ipse in conscientia sua se male facere, et hoc sufficit ad conscientiam obligandam? But to proceed particularly.

Sect. 9. I begin with Field himself, whose resolution of the question proposed is,[122] that we are bound only to give obedience to such human laws as prescribe things profitable, not for that human laws have power to bind the conscience, but because the things they command are of that nature, that not to perform them is contrary to justice or charity. Whereupon he concludeth out of Stapleton, that we are bound to the performance of things prescribed by human laws, in such sort, that the non-performance of them is sin, not ex sola legislatoris voluntate, sed ex ipsa legum utilitate. Let all such as be of this man's mind not blame us for denying of obedience to the constitutions about the ceremonies, since we find (for certain) no utility, but, by the contrary, much inconveniency in them. If they say that we must think those laws to be profitable or convenient, which they, who are set over us, think to be so, then they know not what they say. For, exempting conscience from being bound by human laws in one thing, they would have it bound by them in another thing. If conscience must needs judge that to be profitable, which seemeth so to those that are set over us, then, sure, is power given to them for binding the conscience so [pg 1-017] straitly, that it may not judge otherwise than they judge, and force is placed in their bare authority for necessitating and constraining the assenting judgment of conscience.

Sect. 10. Some man perhaps will say that we are bound to obey the laws made about the ceremonies, though not for the sole will of the law-makers, nor yet for any utility of the laws themselves, yet for this reason, that scandal and contempt would follow in case we do otherwise. Ans. We know that human laws do bind in the case of scandal or contempt. But that nonconformity is neither scandal nor contempt, Parker hath made it most evident.[123] For, as touching contempt, he showeth out of fathers, councils, canon law, schoolmen, and modern divines, that non obedire is not contempt, but nolle obedire, or superbiendo repugnare. Yea, out of Formalists themselves, he showeth the difference betwixt subjection and obedience. Thereafter he pleadeth thus, and we with him: “What signs see men in us of pride and contempt? What be our cetera opera that bewray such an humour? Let it be named wherein we go not two miles, when we are commanded to go but one, yea, wherein we go not as many miles as any shoe of the preparation of the gospel will bear us. What payment, what pain, what labour, what taxation made us ever to murmur? Survey our charges where we have laboured, if they be not found to be of the faithfulest subjects that be in the Lord, we deserve no favour. Nay, there is wherein we stretch our consciences to the utmost to conform and to obey in divers matters. Are we refractory in other things, as Balaam's ass said to his master? Have I used to serve thee so at other times?” And as touching scandal, he showeth first, that by our not conforming, we do not scandalise superiors, but edify them, although it may be we displease them, of which we are sorry, even as Joab displeased David when he contested against the numbering of the people, yet did he not scandalise David, but edify him. And, secondly, whereas it might be alleged, that nonconformity doth scandalise the people, before whom it soundeth as it were an alarm of disobedience, we reply with him, “Daniel will not omit the ceremony of looking out at the window towards Jerusalem. Mordecai omitteth the ceremony of bowing the knee to Haman; Christ will not [pg 1-018] use the ceremony of washing hands, though a tradition of the elders and governors of the church then being. The authority of the magistrate was violated by these, and an incitement to disobedience was in their ceremonial breach, as much as there is now in ours.”

Sect. 11. But some of our opposites go about to derive the obligatory power of the church's laws, not so much from the utility of the laws themselves, or from any scandal which should follow upon the not obeying of them, as from the church's own authority which maketh them. Camero speaketh of two sorts of ecclesiastical laws:[124] 1. Such as prescribe things frivolous or unjust, meaning such things as (though they neither detract anything from the glory of God, nor cause any damage to our neighbour, yet) bring some detriment to ourselves. 2. Such as prescribe things belonging to order and shunning of scandal. Touching the former, he teacheth rightly, that conscience is never bound to the obedience of such laws, except only in the case of scandal and contempt, and that if at any time such laws may be neglected and not observed, without scandal given, or contempt shown, no man's conscience is holden with them. But touching the other sort of the church's laws, he saith, that they bind the conscience indirectly, not only respectu materiæ præcepti (which doth not at all oblige, except in respect of the end whereunto it is referred, namely, the conserving of order, and the not giving of scandal), but also respectu præcipientis, because God will not have those who are set over us in the church to be contemned. He foresaw (belike), that whereas it is pretended in behalf of those ecclesiastical laws which enjoin the controverted ceremonies, that the things which they prescribe pertain to order and to the shunning of scandal, and so bind the conscience indirectly in respect of the end, one might answer, I am persuaded upon evident grounds that those prescribed ceremonies pertain not to order, and to the shunning of scandal, but to misorder, and to the giving of scandal; therefore he laboured to bind such an one's conscience with another tie, which is the authority of the law-makers. And this authority he would have one to take as ground enough to believe, that that which the church prescribeth doth belong to order and the shunning of scandal, and in that persuasion to do it. But, 1. [pg 1-019] How doth this doctrine differ from that which himself setteth down as the opinion of Papists,[125] Posse los qui præsunt ecclesiæ, cogere fideles ut id credant vel faciant, quod ipsi judicaverint? 2. It is well observed by our writers,[126] that the apostles never made things indifferent to be necessary, except only in respect of scandal, and that out of the case of scandal they still left the consciences of men free, which observation they gather from Acts XV. and 1 Cor. x. Camero himself noteth,[127] that though the church prescribed abstinence from things sacrificed to idols, yet the Apostle would not have the faithful to abstain for conscience' sake: why then holdeth he, that beside the end of shunning scandal and keeping order, conscience is bound even by the church's own authority? 3. As for the reason whereby he would prove that the church's laws do bind, even respectu præcipientis, his form of speaking is very bad. Deus (saith he) non vult contemni præpositos ecclesiæ, nisi justa et necessaria de causa. Where falsely he supposeth, not only that there may occur a just and necessary cause of contemning those whom God hath set over us in the church, but, also, that the not obeying of them inferreth the contemning of them. Now, the not obeying of their laws inferreth not the contemning of themselves (which were not allowable), but only the contemning of their laws. And as Jerome,[128] speaketh of Daniel, Et nunc Daniel regis jussa contemnens, &c.; so we say of all superiors in general, that we may sometimes have just reasons for contemning their commandments, yet are we not to contemn, but to honour themselves. But, 4. Let us take Camero's meaning to be, that God will not have us to refuse obedience unto those who are set over us in the church: none of our opposites dare say, that God will have us to obey those who are set over us in the church in any other things than such as may be done both lawfully and conveniently for the shunning of scandal; and if so, then the church's precept cannot bind, except as it is grounded upon such or such reasons.

Sect. 12. Bishop Spotswood and Bishop Lindsey, in those words which I have heretofore alleged out of them, are likewise of opinion, that the sole will and authority of the church doth bind the conscience to obedience. [pg 1-020] Spotswood will have us, without more ado, to esteem that to be best and most seemly, which seemeth so in the eye of public authority. Is not this to bind the conscience by the church's bare will and authority, when I must needs constrain the judgment of my conscience to be conformed to the church's judgment, having no other reason to move me hereunto but the sole will and authority of the church? Further, he will have us to obey even such things as authority prescribeth not rightly (that is, such rites as do not set forward godliness), and that because they have the force of a constitution. He saith that we should be directed by the sentence of superiors, and take it as a sufficient ground to our consciences for obeying. Bellarmine speaketh more reasonably:[129] Legesæ human non obligant sub pœna mortis æternæ, nisi quatenus violatione legis humanæ offenditur Deus. Lindsey thinketh that the will of the law must be the rule of our consciences; he saith not the reason of the law, but the will of the law. And when we talk with the chief of our opposites, they would bind us by sole authority, because they cannot do it by any reason. But we answer out of Pareus,[130] that the particular laws of the church bind not per se, or propter ipsum speciale mandatum ecclesiæ. Ratio: quia ecclesia res adiaphoras non jubet facere vel omittere propter suum mandatum, sed tantum propter justas mandandi causas, ut sunt conservatio ordinis, vitatio scandali: quæ quamdiu non violantur, conscientias liberas relinquit.

Sect. 13. Thus we have found what power they give to their canons about the ceremonies for binding of our consciences, and that a necessity not of practice only upon the outward man, but of opinion also upon the conscience is imposed by the sole will of the law-makers. Wherefore, we pray God to open their eyes, that they may see their ceremonial laws to be substantial tyrannies over the consciences of God's people. And for ourselves, we stand to the judgment of sounder divines, and we hold with Luther,[131] that unum Dominum habemus qui animas nostras gubernat. With Hemmingius,[132] that we are free ab omnibus humanis ritibus, quantum quidem ad conscientiam attinet. [pg 1-021] With the Professors of Leyden,[133] that this is a part of the liberty of all the faithful, that in things pertaining to God's worship, ab omni traditionum humanarum jugo liberas habeant conscientias, cum solius Dei sit, res ad religionem pertinentes praescribere.

CHAPTER V.

THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, PROVED BY A THIRD REASON, VIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE URGED UPON SUCH AS, IN THEIR CONSCIENCES, DO CONDEMN THEM.

Sect. 1. If Christian liberty be taken away, by adstricting conscience in any, much more by adstricting it in them who are fully persuaded of the unlawfulness of the thing enjoined; yet thus are we dealt with. Bishop Lindsay gives us to understand, that after the making and publication of an ecclesiastical canon, about things of this nature, albeit a man in his own private judgment think another thing more expedient than that which the canon prescribeth, yet in that case his conscience must be ruled by the will of the law, and not by his own judgment. And Bishop Spotswood, to such as object, that their conscience will not suffer them to obey, because they are persuaded that such things are not right, answereth; that the sentence of their superiors ought to direct them, and make their conscience yield to obedience. Their words I have before transcribed. By which it doth manifestly appear, that they would bear dominion over our consciences, not as lords only, by requiring the willing and ready assent of our consciences to those things which are urged upon us by their sole will and authority, but even as tyrants, not caring if they get so much as constrained obedience, and if by their authority they can compel conscience to that which is contrary to the πληροφορια and full persuasion which it hath conceived.

Sect. 2. It will be said, that our consciences are in an error, and therefore ought to be corrected by the sentence of superiors, whose authority and will doth bind us to receive and embrace the ceremonies, though our consciences do condemn them. Ans. [pg 1-022] Giving, and not granting, that our consciences do err in condemning the ceremonies, yet, so long as they cannot be otherwise persuaded, the ceremonies ought not to be urged upon us; for if we be made to do that which our consciences do condemn, we are made to sin, Rom. xiv. 23. It is an audacious contempt, in Calvin's judgment,[134] to do anything repugnante conscientia. The learned Casuists teach us, that an erring conscience, though non obligat, yet ligat; though we be not obliged to do that which it prescribeth, yet are we bound not to do that which it condemneth. Quicquid fit repugnante et reclamante conscientia, peccatum est, etiamsi repugnantia ista gravem errorem includat, saith Alsted.[135] Conscientia erronca obligat, sic intelligendo, quod faciens contra peccet, saith Hemmingius.[136] This holds ever true of an erring conscience about matters of fact, and especially about things indifferent. If any say, that hereby a necessity of sinning is laid on them whose consciences are in an error, I answer, that so long as a man keeps an erroneous conscience, a necessity of sinning lies on him, and that through his own fault. This necessity ariseth from this supposition, that he retain his erring conscience, and so is not absolute, because he should inform his conscience rightly, so that he may both do that which he ought to do, and do it so from the approbation of his conscience. If it be said again, What should be done to them who have not laid down the error of conscience, but do still retain the same? I answer, eligatur id quod tutius et melius est.[137] If therefore the error of conscience be about weighty and necessary matters, then it is better to urge men to the doing of a necessary duty in the service of God, than to permit them to neglect the same, because their erring conscience disapproveth it; for example, it is better to urge a profane man to come and hear God's word than to suffer him to neglect the hearing of the same, because his conscience alloweth him not to hear. But if the error of conscience be about unnecessary things, or such as are in themselves indifferent, then it is pars tutior, the surest and safest part not to urge men to do that which in their consciences they condemn. Wherefore, since the ceremonies [pg 1-023] are not among the number of such necessary things as may not be omitted without the peril of salvation, the invincible disallowance of our consciences should make our opposites not press them upon us, because by practising them we could not but sin, in that our consciences judge them unlawful. If any of our weak brethren think that he must and should abstain from the eating of flesh upon some certain day, though this thing be in itself indifferent, and not necessary, yet, saith Baldwin,[138] “he who is thus persuaded in his conscience, if he should do the contrary, sinneth.”

Sect. 3. Conscience, then, though erring, doth ever bind in such sort, that he who doth against his conscience sinneth against God. Which is also the doctrine of Thomas.[139] But, without any more ado, it is sufficiently confirmed from Scripture. For, was not their conscience in an error who thought they might not lawfully eat all sorts of meat? Yet the Apostle showeth that their conscience, as erring as it was, did so bind, that they were damned if they should eat such meat as they judged to be unclean, Rom. xiv. 14, 23. The reason wherefore an erring conscience bindeth in this kind is, quoniam agens, &c.[140] “Because he who doth any thing against his conscience doth it against the will of God, though not materially and truly, yet formally and by way of interpretation, forsomuch as that which conscience counselleth or prescribeth, it counselleth it under the respect and account of the will of God. He who reproacheth some private man, taking him to be the king, is thought to have hurt not the private man, but the king himself. So he that contemneth his conscience contemneth God himself, because that which conscience counselleth or adviseth is taken to be God's will.” If I go with certain men upon such a course as I judge and esteem to be a treasonable conspiracy against the king (though it be not so indeed), would not his Majesty (if he knew so much), and might he not, justly condemn me as a wicked traitor? But how much more will the King of kings condemn me if I practice the ceremonies which I judge in my conscience to be contrary to the will of God, and to rob him of his royal prerogative?

CHAPTER VI.

THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY PROVED BY A FOURTH REASON, VIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESSED UPON US BY NAKED WILL AND AUTHORITY, WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON TO SATISFY OUR CONSCIENCES.

Sect. 1. When the Apostle forbiddeth us to be the servants of men, 1 Cor. vii. 23, is it not his meaning that we should do nothing upon the mere will and pleasure of men, or propter hominem et non propter Deum, as Becane the Jesuit expoundeth it,[141] illustrating what he saith by another place, Eph. vi. 6, 7. Christian servants thought it an unworthy thing to serve wicked men,[142] neither yet took they well with the serving of godly men, for that they were all brethren in Christ. The Apostle answereth them, that they did not the will of man, because it was the will of man, but because it was the will of God, and so they served God rather than man, importing that it were indeed a grievous yoke for any Christian to do the will of man, if he were not sure that it is according to the will of God. Should any synod of the church take more upon them than the synod of the apostles did, who enjoined nothing at their own pleasure, but only what they show to be necessary, because of the law of charity? Acts xv. 28. Or should Christians, who ought not to be children, carried about with every wind, Eph. iv. 14; who should be able to discern both good and evil, Heb. v. 14; in whom the word of God ought to dwell plentifully, Col. iii. 16; who are commanded to beware of men, Matt. x. 17; not to believe every spirit, to prove all things, 1 John iv. 1; and to judge of all that is said to them, 1 Thes. v. 21; should they, I say, be used as stocks and stones, not capable of reason, and therefore to be borne down by naked will and authority? 1 Cor. x. 15. Yet thus it fareth with us. Bishop Lindsey will have the will of the law to rule our consciences,[143] which is by interpretation, Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. He gives us not the reason or equity of the law, but only the will of it, to be our role. Bishop Spotswood[144] will have us to be so directed by the sentence of our superiors, that we take their sentence as [pg 1-025] a sufficient ground to our consciences for obeying. Which is so much as to say, you should not examine the reason and utility of the law, the sentence of it is enough for you: try no more when you hear the sentence of superiors, rest your consciences upon this as a sufficient ground: seek no other, for their sentence must be obeyed. And who among us knoweth not how, in the Assembly of Perth, free reasoning was shut to the door, and all ears were filled with the dreadful pale of authority? There is this much chronicled[145] in two relations of the proceedings of the same, howbeit otherwise very different. They who did sue for a reformation of church discipline in England, complained that they received no other answer but this:[146] “There is a law, it must be obeyed;” and after the same manner are we used. Yet is this too hard dealing, in the judgment of a Formalist, who saith,[147] that the church doth not so deal with them whom Christ hath redeemed: Ac si non possint capere quid sit religiosum, quid minus, itaque quae ab ecclesia proficiscuntur, admonitiones potius et hortationes dici debent, quam leges. And after, he says of ecclesiastical authority, tenetur reddere paerscripti rationem. “I grant (saith Paybody[148]) it is unlawful to do, in God's worship, anything upon the mere pleasure of man.” Chemnitius[149] taketh the Tridentine fathers for not expounding rationes decreti. Junius observeth,[150] that in the council of the apostles, mention was made of the reason of their decree. And a learned historian observeth[151] of the ancient councils, that there were in them, reasonings, colloquies, discussions, disputes, yea, that whatsoever was done or spoken, was called the acts of the council, and all was given unto all. Caeterum (saith Danaeus[152]) quoniam ut ait Tertullianus in Apologetico, iniqua lex est quae se examinari non patitur; non tam vi cogere homines ad obsequium quam ratione persuadere debent cae leges, quae scribuntur à pio nomotheta. Ergo fere sunt duae cujusvis legis partes, quemadmodum etiam Plato, lib. 4, de legibus scribit, nimirum praefacio [pg 1-026] et lex ipsa, i.e. jussio lege comprehensa. Praefatio causam affert, cur hominum negotiis sic prospiciatur. Ecclesiastical authority should prescribe what it thinks fit, Magis docendo, quam jubendo; magis monendo, quam minando, as Augustine speaketh.[153] Non oportet vi vel necessitate constringere, sed ratione et vitae exemplis suadere, saith Gregory Nazianzen,[154] speaking of ecclesiastical regiment. They, therefore, who give their will for a law, and their authority for a reason, and answer all the arguments of opponents, by bearing them down with the force of a public constitution and the judgment of superiors, to which theirs must be conformed, do rule the Lord's flock “with force and with cruelty,” Ezek. xxxiv. 4; “as lords over God's heritage,” 1 Pet. v. 3.

Sect. 2. Always, since men give us no leave to try their decrees and constitutions, that we may hold fast no more than is good, God be thanked that we have a warrant to do it (without their leave) from his own word, 1 Thess. v. 25. Non numeranda suffragia, sed appendenda, saith Augustine in Psal. xxxix. Our divines hold,[155] that all things which are proposed by the ministers of the church, yea, by aecumenical councils,[156] should be proved and examined; and that, when the guides of the church do institute any ceremonies as necessary for edification, yet ecclesia liberum habet judicium approbandi aut reprobandi eas.[157] Nay, the canon law,[158] prohibiting to depart or swerve from the rules and discipline of the Roman church, yet excepteth discretionem justitiae and so permitteth to do otherwise than the church prescribeth, if it be done cum discretione justitiae. The schoolmen also give liberty to a private man, of proving the statutes of the church, and neglecting the same, if he see cause for doing so, Si causa fit evidens, per se ipsum licite potest homo statuti observantiam praeterire.[159] If any be not able to examine and try all such things, debebant omnes posse, Dei jussu: Deficiunt ergo sua culpa, saith Parcus.[160] Si recte probandi facultate destitui nos sentimus, ab eodem spiritu qui per prophetas suos [pg 1-027] loquitur portenda est, saith Calvin.[161] We will not then call any man rabbi, nor jurare in verba magistri, nor yet be Pythagorean disciples to the church herself, but we will believe her and obey her in so far only as she is the pillar and ground of truth.

CHAPTER VII.

THAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR LIBERTY, WHICH GOD HATH GIVEN US, PROVED; AND FIRST OUT OF THE LAW.

Sect. 1. That which hath been said against all the controverted ceremonies in general, I will now instance of festival days in particular, and prove, both out of the law and gospel, that they take away our liberty which God hath given us, and which no human power can take from us. Out of the law we frame this argument: If the law of God permit us to work all the six days of the week, the law of man cannot inhibit us. But the law of God doth permit us to work all the six days of the week, therefore our opposites deny not the assumption, which is plain from the fourth commandment, “Six days shalt thou labour,” &c. But they would have somewhat to say against the proposition, which we will hear. Hooker tells us,[162] that those things that the law of God leaves arbitrary and at liberty, are subject to the positive ordinances of men. This, I must say, is strange divinity, for if this were true, then might the laws of men prohibit marriage, because it is left arbitrary, 1 Cor. vii. 36. Then might they also have discharged the apostle Paul to take wages, because herein he was at liberty, 1 Cor. ix. 11-13.

Sect. 2. Talen lendeth the cause another lift, and answereth,[163] that no sober man will say, permissionen Dei, principibus suum circa res medias jus imminuere, num enim ob permissum hominibus dominium in volucres cœli, in pisces maris, et bestias agrii, impiæ fuerint leges principum, quibus aucupii, piscationes, et venationis libertatem, sebditis aliis indulgent, aliis adimunt. Ans. That case and this are very different. For every particular man hath not dominion and power over all fowls, fishes, and [pg 1-028] beasts (else, beside that princes should have no privilege of inhibiting the use of those things, there should be no propriety of heritage and possession among subjects); but power over all these is given to mankind. Pareus observeth,[164] hominem collective intelligi in that place, Gen. i. 26; and Junius observeth,[165] nomen Adam de specie esse intelligendum. But each particular man, and not mankind alone, is permitted to labour six days. Wherefore it is plain, that man's liberty is not abridged in the other case as in this, because mankind hath dominion over these creatures, when some men only do exercise the same, as well as if all men did exercise it.

Sect. 3. Bishop Lindsey's answer is no better,[166] viz., that this liberty which God hath given unto men for labour is not absolute, but subject unto order. For, 1. What tyranny is there so great, spoiling men wholly of their liberty, but this pretence agreeth to it? For, by order, he understandeth the constitutions of our governors, as is clear from his preceding words, so that this may be alleged for a just excuse of any tyranny of governors (that men must be subject unto order), no less than for taking away from us the liberty of labouring six days. 2. This answer is nothing else but a begging of that which is in question, for the present question is, whether or not the constitutions of our governors may inhibit us to labour all the six days of the week, and yet he saith no more, but that this liberty of labour must be subject to order, i.e., to the constitutions of governors. 3. Albeit we should most humbly subject ourselves to our governors, yet we may not submit our liberty to them, which God hath graciously given us, because we are forbidden to be the servants of men, 1 Cor. vii. 23; or to be entangled with the yoke of bondage, Gal. v. 1.

Sect. 4. Yet we must hear what the Bishop can say against our proposition:[167] “If under the law (saith he) God did not spoil his people of liberty, when he appointed them to rest two days at Pasche, one at Whitsunday, &c., how can the king's majesty and the church be esteemed to spoil us of our liberty, that command a cessation from labour on three days?” &c. O horrible blasphemy! O double deceitfulness! Blasphemy, [pg 1-029] because so much power is ascribed to the king and the church over us, as God had over his people of old. God did justly command his people, under the law, to rest from labour on other days beside the Sabbath, without wronging them; therefore the king and the church may as justly, and with doing as little wrong, command us to rest likewise, because God, by a ceremonial law, did hinder his people from the use of so much liberty, as the moral law did give them; therefore the king and the church may do so also. Deceitfulness, in that he saith, God did not spoil his people of liberty, &c. We know that, by appointing them to rest on those days, God did not take away liberty from his people, simply and absolutely, because they had no more liberty than he did allow to them by his laws, which he gave by the hand of Moses, yet he did take away that liberty which one part of his laws did permit to them, viz., the fourth commandment of the moral law, which permitted them to labour six days. The Bishop knew that this question in hand hath not to do with liberty, in the general notion of it, but with liberty which the moral law doth permit. We say, then, that God took away from his people Israel, some of the liberty which his moral law permitted to them, because he was the Lawgiver and Lord of the law; and that the king and the church cannot do the like with us, because they are no more lords over God's law than the people who are set under them.

Sect. 5. But he hath yet more to say against us: “If the king (saith he) may command a cessation from economical and private works, for works civil and public, such as the defence of the crown, the liberty of the country, &c., what reason have ye why he may not enjoin a day of cessation from all kind of bodily labour, for the honour of God and exercise of religion?” &c. Ans. This kind of reasoning is most vicious, for three respects: 1. It supposeth that he who may command a cessation from one kind of labour, upon one of the six days, may also command a cessation from all kind of labour, but there is a difference; for the law of God hath allowed us to labour six days of every week, which liberty no human power can take from us. But we cannot say that the law of God alloweth us six days of every week to economical and private works (for then we should never be bound to put our hands to a public work), whence it cometh [pg 1-030] that the magistrate hath power left him to command a cessation from some labour, but not from all. 2. The Bishop reasoneth from a cessation from ordinary labour for extraordinary labour, to a cessation from ordinary labour for no labour, for they who use their weapons for the defence of the crown, or liberty of the country, do not cease from labour, but only change ordinary labour into extraordinary, and private labour into public, whereas our opposites plead for a cessation from all labour upon their holidays. 3. He skippeth de genere in genus, because the king may command a cessation for civil works, therefore he may command a holy rest for the exercise of religion, as if he had so great power in sacred as in civil things.

Sect. 6. The Bishop hath yet a third dart to throw at us: “If the church (saith he)[168] hath power, upon occasional motives, to appoint occasional fasts or festivities, may not she, for constant and eternal blessings, which do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanksgiving?” Ans. There are two reasons for which the church may and should appoint fasts or festivities upon occasional motives, and neither of them agreeth with ordinary festivities. 1. Extraordinary fasts, either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgment, are necessary means to be used in such cases, likewise, extraordinary festivities are necessary testifications of our thankfulness for the benefits which we have impetrate by our extraordinary fasts, but ordinary festivities, for constant and eternal blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon God's word. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque, saith Danaeus[169] quotidie nobis in evangelii proedicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus. God hath given his church a general precept for extraordinary fasts, Joel i. 14, ii. 15, as likewise for extraordinary festivities to praise God, and to give him thanks in the public assembly of his people, upon the occasional motive of some great [pg 1-031] benefit which, by the means of our fasting and praying, we have obtained, Zech. viii. 19 with vii. 3. If it be said that there is a general command for set festivities, because there is a command for preaching and hearing the word, and for praising God for his benefits; and that there is no precept for particular fasts more than for particular festivities, I answer: Albeit there is a command for preaching and hearing the word, and for praising God for his benefits, yet is there no command (no, not in the most general generality) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary days more than to other days; whereas it is plain, that there is a general command for fasting and humiliation at some times more than at other times. And as for particularities, all the particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting, could not be determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as Camero saith.[170] But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not, nor may not be infinite; for the Bishop himself acknowledgeth,[171] that to appoint a festival day for every week, cannot stand with charity, the inseparable companion of piety. And albeit so many were allowable, yet who seeth not how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as fasts which are appointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite. I conclude that, since God's word hath given us a general command for occasional fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things anent the causes, occasions, nature, and manner of fastings, we may well say with Cartwright,[172] that days of fasting are appointed at “such times, and upon such occasions, as the Scripture doth set forth; wherein because the church commandeth nothing, but that which God commandeth, the religious observation of them, falleth unto the obedience of the fourth commandment, as well as of the seventh day itself.”

Sect. 7. The Bishop presseth us with a fourth argument,[173] taken from the calling of people in great towns from their ordinary [pg 1-032] labours to divine service, which argument Tilen also beateth upon.[174] Ans. There is huge difference betwixt the rest which is enjoined upon anniversary festivities, and the rest which is required during the time of the weekly meetings for divine worship. For, 1. Upon festival days, rest from labour is required all the day over, whereas, upon the days of ordinary and weekly meetings, rest is required only during the time of public worship. 2. Cessation from labour, for prayers or preaching on those appointed days of the week, at some occasions may be omitted; but the rest and commemoration appointed by the church, to be precisely observed upon the anniversary festival days, must not be omitted, in the Bishop's judgment.[175] 3. Men are straitly commanded and compelled to rest from labour upon holidays; but to leave work to come to the ordinary weekly meetings, they are only exhorted. And here I mark how the Bishop contradicteth himself; for in one place where his antagonist maintaineth truly, that the craftsman cannot be lawfully commanded nor compelled to leave his work and to go to public divine service, except on the day that the Lord hath sanctified, he replieth,[176] “If he may be lawfully commanded to cease from his labour during the time of divine service, he may be as lawfully compelled to obey the command.” Who can give these words any sense, or see anything in them said against his antagonist's position, except he be taken to say, that the craftsman may be both commanded and compelled to leave his work and go to divine service on the week-days appointed for the same? Nay, he laboureth to prove thus much out of the ninth head of the First Book of Discipline, which saith, “In great towns we think expedient, that every day there be either sermon or common prayers,” &c., where there is nothing of compulsion, or a forcing command, only there is an exhortation. But ere the Bishop have said much, he forgetteth himself, and tells us,[177] that it were against equity and charity to adstrict the husbandman to leave his plough so oft as the days of weekly preaching do return, but that, on the festival days, reason would, that if he did not leave his plough willingly, by authority he should be forced. Which place confirmeth this difference which we give betwixt rest on [pg 1-033] the holidays, and rest at the times of weekly meeting.

CHAPTER VIII.

THAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, PROVED OUT OF THE GOSPEL.

Sect. 1. My second argument whereby I prove that the imposing of the observation of holidays doth bereave us of our liberty, I take out of two places of the Apostle, the one, Gal. iv. 10, where he finds fault with the Galatians for observing of days, and giveth them two reasons against them; the one, ver. 3, They were a yoke of bondage which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear; another, ver, 8, They were weak and beggarly rudiments, not beseeming the Christian church, which is liberate from the pedagogical instruction of the ceremonial law. The other place is Col. ii. 16, where the Apostle will have the Colossians not to suffer themselves to be judged by any man in respect of an holiday, i.e. to be condemned for not observing a holiday, for judicare hic significat culpae reum facere,[178] and the meaning is, suffer not yourselves to be condemned by those false apostles, or by any mortal man in the cause of meat, that is, for meat or drink taken, or for any holiday, or any part of an holiday neglected.[179] Two other reasons the Apostle giveth in this place against festival days; one, ver. 17, What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? another, ver. 20, Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holidays to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the Apostle saith doth militate as well against them as against any other holidays; for whereas it might be thought, that the Apostle doth not condemn all holidays, because both he permitteth others to observe days, Rom. xiv. 5, and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts, Acts xviii. 21: it is easily answered, that our holidays have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say, that they esteem their festival days holier [pg 1-034] than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge, and if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the Apostle either said or did hereanent, is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine's simile runs. So that all this can make nothing for holidays after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the Apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches, who have known God, as he speaks.

Sect. 2. The defenders of holidays answer to these places which we allege against them, that the Apostle condemneth the observation of Judaical days, not of ecclesiastical days, which the church instituteth for order and policy; which evasion Bishop Lindsey[180] followeth so hard, that he sticketh not to hold, that “all the days whereof the Apostle condemneth the observation were Judaical days prescribed in the ceremonial law,” &c. And this he is not contented to maintain himself, but he will needs father it upon his antagonist by such logic, forsooth, as can infer quidlibet ex quodlibet. The Apostle comports with the observation of days in the weak Jews, who understood not the fulness of the Christian liberty, especially since those days, having had the honour to be once appointed by God himself, were to be honourably buried; but the same Apostle reproves the Galatians who had attained to this liberty, and had once left off the observation of days. What ground of consequence can warrant such an illation from these premises as this which the Bishop formeth, namely, that “all the days whereof the Apostle condemned the observation were Judaical days,” &c.

Sect. 3. Now, for confutation of this forged exposition of those places of the [pg 1-035] Apostle, we say, 1. If all the days whereof the Apostle condemned the observation were Judaical days prescribed in the ceremonial law, then do our divines falsely interpret the Apostle's words against popish holidays, and the Papists do truly allege that their holidays are not condemned by the Apostle. The Rhemists affirm, that the Apostle condemneth only Jewish days,[181] but not Christian days, and that we do falsely interpret his words against their holidays.[182] Cartwright answereth them,[183] that if Paul condemned the observing of feasts which God himself instituted, then much more doth he condemn the observation of feasts of man's devising. So Bellarmine allegeth,[184] loqui ibi Apostolum de judaeorum tantum festis. Hospinian, answering him, will have the Apostle's words to condemn the Christian feasts more than the Judaical.[185] Conradus Vorstius rejecteth this position, Apostolus non nisi judaicum discremen dierum in N.T. sublatum esse docet, as a popish error.[186] 2. If the Apostle mean only of Judaical days, either he condemneth the observing of their days materialiter, or formaliter, i.e. either he condemneth the observation of the same feasts which the Jews observed, or the observing of them with such a meaning, after such a manner, and for such an end as the Jews did. The former our opposites dare not hold, for then they should grant that he condemneth their own Easter and Pentecost, because these two feasts were observed by the Jews. Nor yet can they hold them at the latter, for he condemneth that observation of days which had crept into the church of Galatia, which was not Jewish nor typical, seeing the Galatians, believing that Christ was already come, could not keep them as figures of his coming as the Jews did, but rather as memorials that he was already come, saith Cartwright.[187] 1. If the Apostle's reasons wherewith he impugns the observation of days, hold good against our holidays so well as against the Jewish or popish days, then doth he condemn those, no less these. But the Apostle's reasons agree to our holidays for, 1. According to that reason, Gal. iv. [pg 1-036] 3, they bring us under a yoke of bondage. Augustine,[188] complaining of some ceremonies wherewith the church in his time was burdened, thought it altogether best that they should be cut off, Etiamsi fidei non videantur adversari, quia religionem quam Christus liberam esse voluit, servilibus oneribus premunt. Yea, he thought this yoke of servitude greater bondage, and less tolerable than the servility of the Jews, because they were subject to the burdens of the law of God, and not to the presumptions of men. The yoke of bondage of Christians, in respect of feasts, is heavier than the yoke of the Jews, not only for the multitude of them, but because Christianorum festa, ab hominibus tantum, judaeorum vero a Deo fuerint instituta, saith Hospinian.[189] Have not we then reason to exclaim against our holidays, as a yoke of bondage, heavier than that of the Jews, for that our holidays are men's inventions, and so were not theirs? The other reason, Gal. iv. 9, holdeth as good against our holidays. They are rudimental and pedagogical elements, which beseem not the Christian church, for as touching that which Tilen objecteth,[190] that many in the church of the New Testament are still babes to be fed with milk, it maketh as much against the Apostle as against us; for by this reason, he may as well throw back the Apostle's ground of condemning holidays among the Galatians, and say, because many of the Galatians were babes, therefore they had the more need of those elements and rudiments. The Apostle, Gal. iv. 3, compareth the church of the Old Testament to an infant, and insinuateth, that in the days of the New Testament the infancy of the church hath taken an end. And whereas it might be objected, that in the church of the New Testament there are many babes, and that the Apostle himself speaketh of the Corinthians and Hebrews as babes: it is answered by Pareus,[191] Non de paucis personis, sed de statu totius ecclesiae intelligendum est quod hic dicitur. There were also some in the church of the Old Testament, adulti fide heroes; but in respect of the state of the whole church, he who is least in the kingdom of God, is greater than John Baptist, Luke vii. 28. Lex, saith Beza, vocatur elementa, quia illis velut [pg 1-037] rudimentis, Deus ecclesiam suam erudivit, postea pleno cornu effudit Spiritum Sanctum tempore evangelii.[192] 3. That reason also taken from the opposition of the shadow and the body, Col. ii. 17, doth militate against our holidays; for the Apostle there speaketh in the present time, ἐστι σκια: whereas the Judaical rites were abolished, whereupon Zanchius noteth,[193] that the Apostle doth not so much speak of things by-past, as of the very nature of all rites, Definiens ergo ipsos ritus in sese, dixit eos nil aliud esse quam umbram. If all rites, then our holidays among the rest, serve only to adumbrate and shadow forth something, and by consequence are unprofitable and idle, when the substance itself is clearly set before us. 4. That reason, Col. ii. 20, doth no less irresistibly infringe the ordinances about our holidays than about the Jewish; for if men's ordinances, about things once appointed by God himself, ought not to be obeyed, how much less should the precepts of men be received about such things in religion as never had this honour to be God's ordinances, when their mere authority doth limit or adstrict us in things which God hath made lawful or free to us.

Sect. 4. Thus we see how the Apostle's reasons hold good against our holidays; let us see next what respects of difference the Bishop can imagine to evidence wherefore the Judaical days may be thought condemned by the Apostle, and not ours. He deviseth a double respect; and first he tells us,[194] that the Jewish observation of days was to a typical use. And whereas it is objected by us, that the converted Jews did not observe them as shadows of things to come, because then they had denied Christ, he answereth thus: “Howbeit the converted Jews did not observe the Jewish days as shadows of things to come, yet they might have observed them as memorials of by-past temporal and typical benefits, and for present temporal blessings, as the benefit of their delivery out of Egypt, and of the fruits of the earth, which use was also typical.” Ans. 1. This is his own conjecture only, therefore he himself propoundeth it doubtfully, for he dare not say, they did observe them as memorials, &c., but, they might have observed, to which guessing, if I reply, they might also not have observed them as memorials [pg 1-038] of those by-past or present benefits, we say as much against him, and as truly, as he hath said against us. 2. His form of reasoning is very uncouth, for, to prove that the observation of days by the converted Jews was to a typical use, he allegeth, that they might have observed, &c. Thus proving a position by a supposition. O brave! 3. There is no sense in his conjecture, for he yields that they did not observe those days as shadows of things to come, and yet he saith, they might have observed them as memorials of by-past typical benefits; now they could not observe those days as memorials of types, except they observed them also as shadowing forth the antitypes. Pentecost, saith Davenant,[195] et illa legis datae celebratio. Spiritus Sancti missionem, et legis in tabulis cordium per eundem Spiritum inscriptionem, adumbravit. Scenopegiae festum peregrinationem hominis pii per hoc mundi desertum ad caelestem patriam delineabat, &c. So that the feast of Pentecost, if it had been observed as a memorial of the promulgation of the law, could not but shadow forth the sending of the Holy Spirit into our hearts, to write the law in them. And the feast of tabernacles, if it had been observed as a memorial of the benefits which God bestowed on his people in the wilderness, could not but shadow out God's conducting of his children, through the course of their pilgrimage in this world, to the heavenly Canaan. 4. If feasts which were memorials of temporal benefits, were for this reason mystical, then he must grant against himself, that much more are our feasts mystical, which are memorials of spiritual benefits, and consecrated to be holy signs and symbols, for making us call to mind the mysteries of our redemption. 5. Before this dispute take an end, we shall see out of the best learned among our opposites, that they observe the holidays as mystical,[196] and more mystical than the Bishop here describeth the Jewish days to have been, and so we shall see the falsehood of that pretence, that they are observed only for order and policy, and not for mystery. 6. If we would know the true reason which made the converted Jews to observe those days, it was not any mystical use, but that which made them think themselves obliged to other Mosaical rites; even propter auctoritatem legis, [pg 1-039] saith Junius;[197] for albeit they could not be ignorant, that these rites were shadows of things to come, and that the body was of Christ, in whom, and in the virtue of whose death they did stablish their faith, yet they did not at first understand how such things as were once appointed by God himself, and given to his people as ordinances to be kept by him throughout their generations, could be altogether abolished, and for this cause, though they did condescend to a change of the use and signification of those ceremonies, as being no more typical of the kingdom of Christ, which they believed to be already come, yet still they held themselves bound to the use of the things themselves as things commanded by God.

Thus much may be collected from Acts xv. 21, where James gives a reason wherefore it was expedient that the Gentiles should observe some of the Jewish rites for a time, as Calvin,[198] Beza,[199] and Junius,[200] expound the place. His reason is, because the Jews, being so long accustomed with the hearing of the law of Moses, and such as did preach the same, could not be made at first to understand how the ordinances which God gave to his people by the hand of Moses, might be cast off and not regarded, which importeth as much as I say, namely, that the reason wherefore the converted Jews were so apt to be scandalised by such as cared not for the ceremonial law, and held themselves obliged to observe the same, was because they saw not how they could be exempted from the ordinances and statutes of the law of Moses, with which they had been educated and accustomed.

Sect. 5. Rests the second respect of difference given by the Bishop: “Further (saith he), they did observe them with opinion of necessity, as things instituted by God for his worship and their salvation, which sort of observation was legal.”[201] Ans. 1. Be it so; he cannot hereupon infer, that the Apostle doth only condemn the observation of Judaical days, for he seeth nothing of observing days with opinion of necessity, but simply and absolutely he condemneth the observing of days, and his reasons reflex on our holidays, as well as the Jewish. 2. Their opinion of necessity he either refers to [pg 1-040] the institution which these days once had from God, or else to the use which, at that time, they had for God's worship and their salvation. That they observed them with opinion of necessity, as things which had been instituted by God, it is most likely, but that they observed them with opinion of necessity, as things necessary for God's worship and their salvation, is more than can be made good, it is more probable that they observed them merely and simply for that they had the honour to be instituted by God in his law. For to say that they observed them to the same use and end for which God did institute them, is false, because then they had observed them as types and shadows of the coming of Christ, and so had denied Christ. 3. If the Apostle condemn the observing of days instituted by God, with opinion of necessity, much more doth he condemn the observing of days instituted by men with such an opinion. And such is the observation of days urged upon us. Though the Bishop pretend that the observing of our holidays is not imposed with opinion of necessity, shall we therefore think it is so? Nay, Papists do also pretend that the observation of their ceremonies is not necessary,[202] nor the neglecting of them a mortal sin. I have proved heretofore, out of their opposites' own words, that the ceremonies in question (and, by consequence, holidays among the rest) are urged upon us with opinion of necessity, and as their words, so their works bewray them, for they urge the ceremonies with so exorbitant vehemency, and punish refusers with so excessive severity, as if they were the weightiest matters of the law of God. Yet they would have us believe, that they have but sober and mean thoughts of these matters, as of circumstances determined for order and policy only. Just like a man who casts firebrands and arrows, and yet saith, Am not I in sport? Prov. xvi. 18, 19. They will tell us that they urge not the ceremonies as necessary in themselves, but only as necessary in respect of the church's determination, and because of the necessity of obeying those who are set over us. But, I pray, is not this as much as the Rhemists say,[203] who place the necessity of their rites and observances, not in the nature of the things themselves, but in the church's precept?

CHAPTER IX.

SHOWING THE WEAKNESS OF SOME PRETENCES WHICH OUR OPPOSITES USE FOR HOLIDAYS.

Sect. 1. Since it hath been evinced by unanswerable reasons that holidays, as now urged upon us, take away our Christian liberty, I will now pull off them the coat of some fig leaves wherewith they are trimmed up. And first, I hope it will appear to how small purpose Dr Davenant would conciliate his reader's mind[204] to allow of the church's ordinances about holidays (peradventure because he saw all that he had said of that purpose to be too invalid proof), by six cautions, whereby all superstition and abuse which may ensue upon them may be shunned. For whatsoever doth manifestly endanger men's souls, being a thing not necessary in itself, at which they take occasion of superstitious abuse, should rather be removed altogether out of the way, than be set about with a weak and easily-penetrable hedge of some equivocative cautions, which the ruder sort do always, and the learned do too oft, either not understand or not remember. Now, Bishop Lindsey confesseth,[205] and puts it out of all doubt, that when the set times of these solemnities return, superstitious conceits are most pregnant in the heads of people; therefore it must be the safest course to banish those days out of the church, since there is so great hazard, and no necessity, of retaining them.

What they can allege for holidays, from our duty to remember the inestimable benefits of our redemption, and to praise God for the same, hath been already answered.[206] And as touching any expediency which they imagine in holidays, we shall see to that afterward.[207]

Sect. 2. The Act of Perth Assembly allegeth the practice of the ancient church for warrant of holidays, and Tilen allegeth the judgment of antiquity to the same purpose.[208] Ans. The festivities of the ancient church cannot warrant ours; for, 1. In the purest times of the church there was no law to tie men to the observation of holidays. Observandum est, say the divines of Magdeburg,[209] [pg 1-042] apostolos et apostolicos viros, neque de paschate, neque de aliis quibuscunque, festivitatibus legem aliquam constituisse. Socrates reporteth,[210] that men did celebrate the feast of Easter, and other festival days, sicuti voluerunt, ex consuetudine quadam. Nicephorus saith,[211] that men did celebrate festivities, sicuti cuique visum erat, in regionibus passim ex consuitudine quadam per traditionem accepta adducti. In which place, as the reader will plainly perceive, he opposeth tradition to an evangelical or apostolical ordinance. Sozomen tells us,[212] that men were left to their own judgment about the keeping of Easter, Jerome saith of the feasts[213] which the church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate regionum diversa. The first who established a law about any festival day,[214] is thought to have been Pius I, bishop of Rome, yet it is marked that the Asiatican doctors did not care much for this constitution of Pius. I conclude with Cartwright,[215] that those feasts of the primitive church “came by custom, and not by commandment, by the free choice of men, and not by constraint.” So that from these, no commendation ariseth to our feasts, which are not only established by laws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoileth us of our liberty.

2. The festival days observed by the ancient church, were not accounted more excellent than other days, for, saith Jerome,[216] non quod celebrior sit dies illa qua conveniumus, &c. But our festival days are made aliis diebus celebriores, yea, are taken to be holier than other days, as I will afterwards prove.[217]

Sect. 3. Moreover, the proctors for holidays among us think to make advantage of the practice of other reformed churches, and the judgment of modern divines. But we are to consider, 1. As they have the example of some churches for them, so we have the example of other churches for us, for the church of Geneva in Savoy, and the church of Strasburg in Germany, did abolish festival days, as Calvin writeth.[218] Yea, in hac tota provincia aboliti fuerunt dies festi, saith he. The church of Zurich in Helvetia did also banish them all away, as Bullinger writeth to Calvin.[219] 2. The practice [pg 1-043] of the greatest part of the reformed churches in observing holidays, cannot commend them in the church of Scotland, 1. Because she did spue them out with so great detestation, that she is more bound to abhor them than other churches which did not the like, and I may well apply to them that which Calvin saith[220] of the ceremonies of the Interim, to Valentinus Pacaeus, Ut concedam faetidas illas sordes quibus purgatae fuerunt vestrae ecclesiae, inrebus medus posse censeri: earum tamen restitutio eritne res media? 2. The church of Scotland is tied yet with another bond to hate holidays, of which other churches are free; for, by a solemn oath sworn to the God of heaven, she hath abjured all antichristian and popish rites, and dedicating of days particularly. When Tilen would make answer to this argument, he saith,[221] that men's consciences should not be snared with rash oaths and superstitious vows, and if that such bonds be laid on, they should be broken and shaken off. What! Calls he this a superstitious vow, which abjured all superstition and superstitious rites? Or calls he this a rash oath, which, upon so sage and due deliberation, so serious advisement, so pious intention, so decent preparation, so great humiliation, was religiously, publicly, solemnly sworn throughout this land, and that at the straight command of authority? Who is ignorant of these things, except he be a stranger in our Israel? But say the oath had been rash and temeratious, shall it not therefore oblige? His judgment is, it doth not; and so thinks the Bishop of Winchester,[222] who teacheth us, that if the oath be made rashly, paenitenda promissio non perficienda praesumptio, he had said better thus, paenitenda praesumptio, perficienda promissio; for was not that a very rash oath which the princes of Israel did swear to the Gibeonites, not asking counsel at the mouth of the Lord? Josh. ix. 14-16, yet it bound both them, Josh ix. 19, and their posterity, some hundred years after, 2 Sam. xxi. 1. If the matter then be lawful, the oath binds, were it sworn ever so rashly.

Sect. 4. As touching the judgment of divines, we say, 1. Many divines disallow of festival days, and with the church, were free of them. For the Belgic churches, in their synod, anno 1578, wished that the six days [pg 1-044] might be wrought upon, and that the Lord's day alone might be celebrated. And Luther in his book, de Bonis Operibus, wished that there were no feast-days among Christians but the Lord's day. This wish of theirs declareth plainly, that they allowed of no holiday except the Lord's day; yet Bishop Lindsey must make a fashion of saying something for an answer. “This wish (saith he[223]) Luther and the Belgic churches conceived, out of their miscontent at the number, corruptions, and superstitions of the festival days, beside the Lord's day, as ye do.” Ans. 1. Their wish importeth a simple and absolute mistaking of all festival days besides the Lord's day, and not of their number and corruptions only. 2. It is well that he acknowledgeth both them and us to have reason of miscontentment at holidays, from their corruptions and superstitions. The old Waldenses also,[224] whose doctrine was restored and propagated by John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, after Wiclif, and that with the congratulation of the church of Constantinople, held,[225] that they were to rest from labour upon no day but upon the Lord's day, whereby it appeareth, that holidays have had adversaries before us. I find that they pervert some places which they allege against us out of Calvin. Tilen allegeth,[226] Calvin. Inst., lib. 2, cap. 8, sec. 32, acknowledging alios quoque dies festos praeter dominicum, &c. I marvel how a judicious reader could imagine such a thing to be in that place, for both in that and the subsequent section, he is speaking of the Lord's day against the Anabaptists, and if any man will think that in sec. 32 he is speaking of holy assemblies of Christians in the general, yet he can see nothing there of any festival days, beside the Lord's day, dedicated to holy meetings. There is another place of Calvin abused by Bishop Spotswood[227] and Bishop Lindsey,[228] taken out of one of his Epistles to Hallerus, which I find in the volume before quoted, p. 136, 137, that which they grip to in this epistle is, that Calvin, speaking of the abrogation of festival days in Geneva, saith, hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio fuisset, quod nunc constitutum est, non fuisse pro [pg 1-045] sententia dicturum. Ans. That which made Calvin say so, was not any liking which he had to festival days, for he calls the abolishing of them ordo bene compositus;[229] but as himself showeth in the following epistle, which beareth this title, Cal. Ministro Burensi, S.D., the reason why he durst scarcely have so determined, if his judgment had been required, was, because, he saw neither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of contention raised about festival days, and likely to impede the course of reformation; therefore fovendae pacis studio, he professeth that he durst not make mention of the abrogation of those holidays. Because he would have tolerated holidays, because he durst not at that time, and as the case then stood, have spoken of the abolishing them, can it be hereupon concluded that he allowed of them? No, sure. But it is observable how both those prelates pervert Calvin's words. Bishop Spotswood allegeth his words anent the abolishing of these festival days, thus: Ego neque suasor neque impulsor fui, atque hoc testatum volo, si mihi delata optio, &c. Whereas the words in that epistle lie thus: Ego tametsi neque suasor, neque impulsor fui, sic tamen accidisse non moleste fero. Quod si statum nostrae ecclesiae aeque compertum haberes, non dubitares meo judicio subscribere. Hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio, &c. The Bishop would have made his hearers believe that Calvin was not content with the abolishing of the festival days, whereas his words testify the very contrary. Bishop Lindsey is as gross in perverting the end of that epistle. Nec tamen est cur homines adeo exasperentur, si libertate nostra ut ecclesiae edificatio postulat utimur, &c., from which words he concludes, that in Calvin's judgment, the observation and abrogation of those days is in the power and liberty of the church. But the reader will perceive, that Calvin there speaketh only of the church's liberty to abrogate holidays, and nothing of her power to observe them, for he is showing, that howbeit he durst not have given advice to abolish them, if the decision had been referred to him, yet they had no reason for them who were offended at the abolishing of them in Geneva, because that church had done no more than she had power and liberty to do for edification. 3. Other testimonies [pg 1-046] they produce, which cannot help them much. That which Bishop Lindsey[230] allegeth out of Zanchius's confession, maketh him but small advantage; for though Zanchius there alloweth of the sanctification of some festival days, yet, writing on the fourth commandment, he acknowledgeth that it is more agreeable to the first institution, and to the writings of the apostles, that one day of the week only be sanctified. What meant the Bishop to say?[231] that this place is falsified and mutilated by his antagonist, who quotes it not to prove that Zanchius disalloweth of festival days, but to prove that, in Zanchius's judgment, the sanctification of the Sabbath only, and no other day in the week, agreeth best with divine and apostolical institution? Was there any need to allege more of Zanchius's words than concerned the point which he had to prove? The Bishop allegeth also a testimony out of Perkins on Gal. iv. 10,[232] which makes him but very little help; for albeit Perkins thought good, in some sort, to excuse the observing of days in his own mother church of England, yet I find in that place, 1. He complaineth that the greatest part respects those holidays more than they should. 2. He alloweth only the observing of days for order's sake, that men may come to the church to hear God's word, which respect will not be enough to the Bishop, if there be not a solemnising and celebrating of the memory of some of God's inestimable benefits, and a dedicating of the day to this end and purpose. 3. He saith, that it is the privilege of God to appoint an extraordinary day of rest, so that he permitteth not power to the church for appointing a set, constant, and anniversary day of rest, for such a day becometh an ordinary day of rest. 4. He preferreth the practice of those churches of the Protestants who do not observe holidays, because, saith he, the church, in the apostles' days, had no holiday besides the Lord's day, and the fourth commandment enjoins the labour of six days.

Sect. 5. The Bishop meeteth with another answer in his antagonist which crosseth his testimonies, namely, that howsoever foreign divines, in their epistles and councils, spake sometimes sparingly against holidays, when their advice was sought of churches newly risen out of Popery and greatly distressed, yet they never advised a church to resume [pg 1-047] them where they were removed. The Bishop objecteth against this answer,[233] that Calvin, epist. 51, “adviseth the Monbelgardens not to contend against the prince for not resuming (he should have said, for not receiving, if he had translated Calvin's words faithfully) of all festival days, but only such as served not to edification, and were seen to be superstitious.” Ans. 1. Albeit he spake sparingly against holidays, when he gave advice to that distressed and lately reformed church, lest the work of reformation should have been letted, yet he did not allow holidays among them. For in another epistle written to them he saith,[234] De pulsu campanarum et diebus festis ita sentimus, ferendas potius esse vobis has ineptias, quam stationem in qua estis a domino collocati deferendum, modo ne approbetis; modo etiam liberum vobis sit reprehendere, quae inde sequentur superstitiones. And this he setteth down for one of these superstitions, quod dies a die discernitur, where also he condemneth both the observing of days to the honour of man as superstitious, and the observing of them for the honour of God as [pg 1-048] Judaical. If holidays, in Calvin's judgment, be fooleries—if he gave advice not to approve them—if he thought them occasions of superstition—if he held it superstition to distinguish one day from another, or to esteem one above another—if he call them Judaical, though kept to the honour of God, judge then what allowance they had from him. 2. If the Bishop stand to Calvin's judgment in that place which he quoteth, he must allow as to refuse some festival days, though enjoined by the prince. In festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse constantiores, sic tamen ut non litigetis de quibuslibet. Then he allowed them to contend against some holidays, though the prince imposed them. 3. The church of Scotland did remove festival days in another manner, and bound herself never to receive them by another bond than ever the Monbelgardens did; so that having other bonds lying upon us than other churches have, we are so much the more straightly obliged neither to receive holidays, nor any other antichristian and popish ceremony.

[pg 1-049]

THE SECOND PART.

AGAINST THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.

CHAPTER I.

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

Sect. 1. The Archbishop of St Andrews, now Lord Chancellor forsooth, speaking of the five articles concluded at the pretended Assembly of Perth, saith,[235] “The conveniency of them for our church is doubted of by many, but not without cause, &c.; novations in a church, even in the smallest things, are dangerous, &c.; had it been in our power to have dissuaded or declined them, most certainly we would, &c.; but now being brought to a necessity, either of yielding, or disobeying him, whom, for myself, I hold it religion to offend,” &c. Dr Burgess confesseth,[236] that some of his side think and believe, that the ceremonies are inconvenient, and yet to be observed for peace and the gospel's sake; and how many Formalists let us hear their hearty wishes, that the ceremonies had never been brought into our church, because they have troubled our peace, and occasioned great strife? When they are demanded why do they yield to them, since they acknowledge great inconveniency in them? they answer, lest by their refusal they [pg 1-050] should cast their coal to the fire, to entertain and increase discord, and lest, shunning one inconveniency, they should draw on a great. Mr Sprint saith,[237] “It may be granted, that offence and hinderance to edification do arise from those our ceremonies.”[238] He confesseth also, that the best divines wished them to be abolished, as being many ways inconvenient; notwithstanding, he hath written a whole treatise, of the necessity of conformity in case of deprivation.

Sect. 2. But let us understand how he proveth[239] that sometimes it is expedient and necessary to conform unto such burdensome and beggarly ceremonies, as are many ways inconvenient, and occasions of sundry evil effects. His principal reason is,[240] That the apostles, by direction of the Holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetual equity, did practise themselves, and caused others to practise, yea, advised and enjoined (as matters good and necessary to be done) ceremonies so inconvenient and evil in many main and material respects, as the ceremonies enjoined and prescribed in the church of England are supposed to be; whence he would have it to follow, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the ceremonies of the church of England, is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. Ans. These Jewish ceremonies in the use and practice of the apostles, were no way evil and inconvenient, as himself everywhere confesseth, whereas, therefore, he tells us,[241] that those ceremonies were abused to superstition, were of mystical signification, imposed and observed as parts of God's worship, swerving from the general rules of God's word, not profitable for order, decency, and edification, offensive many ways, and infringing Christian liberty, he runs at random all the while; for these things agree not to the Jewish ceremonies, as they were rightly used by the apostles themselves, and by others at their advice, but only as they were superstitiously used with opinion of necessity by the obstinate Jews, and by the false teachers, who impugned Christian liberty. So that all that can follow upon Mr Sprint's argument is this: That notwithstanding of the evils and inconveniences which follow upon certain ceremonies in the superstitious abuse of them by others, yet if, in our practice, they have a necessary or expedient [pg 1-051] use, then (after the example of the apostles) we may well conform unto them. Now, all this cometh not near the point which Mr Sprint undertaketh to prove, namely, that granting the controverted ceremonies to be, in our use and practice of the same, many ways evil and inconvenient, yet to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the same is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. And as touching the comparison instituted betwixt our controverted ceremonies, and these antiquated ceremonies of the Jews, practised and prescribed by the apostles after the ascension of Christ, and before the full promulgation of the gospel, many evils there be in ours, which could not be found in theirs. For, 1. Ours have no necessary use, and might well be spared; theirs had a necessary use for avoiding of scandal, Acts xv. 28. 2. Ours produce manifold inconveniences (whereof we are to speak hereafter) in over use and practice of the same, which is prescribed, theirs in the use and practice of the same, which was enjoined by the apostles, were most expedient for winning of the obstinate Jews, 1 Cor. ix. 20; and for keeping of the weak, 1 Cor. ix. 22; and for teaching the right use of Christian liberty to such as were strong in the faith, both among the believing Jews and converted Gentiles, Rom. iv. &c.; 1 Cor. viii.; x. 3. Ours are proved to be, in their nature unlawful; theirs were (during the foresaid space) in their nature indifferent, Rom. xiv. 6; Gal. vi. 15. 4. Ours are imposed and observed as parts of God's worship (which we will prove afterward);[242] theirs not so, for where read we, that (during the foresaid space) any holiness was placed in them by the apostles? 5. Ours have certain mystical significations; theirs not so: for it is no where to be read, that the apostles either practised or prescribed them as significative resemblances of any mystery of the kingdom of God. 6. Ours make us (though unnecessarily) like unto idolaters, in their idolatrous actions; theirs not so. 7. Ours are imposed with a necessity both of practice and opinion, even out of the case of scandal; theirs not so. 8. Ours are pressed by naked will and authority; theirs, by such special grounds of momentaneous reason, as made the practice of the same necessary for a certain time, whether the apostles [pg 1-052] had enjoined it or not. 9. Ours are urged even upon such as, in their consciences, judge them to be unlawful; theirs not so. 10. Ours have no better original than human and antichristian invention; theirs had their original from God's own institution. 11. Ours are the accursed monuments of popish idolatry, to be ejected with detestation; theirs were the memorials of Mosaical policy, to be buried with honour. 12. Ours are pressed by such pretended reasons, as make them ever and everywhere necessary; theirs, by such reasons as did only conclude a necessity of using them at some times, and in some places. 13. Ours are urged after the full promulgation of the gospel and acknowledgment of Christian liberty; theirs, before the same. 14. Ours are urged with the careless neglect of pressing more necessary duties; theirs not so. These and other differences betwixt the controverted and Jewish ceremonies, do so break the back of Mr Sprint's argument, that there is no healing of it again.

Sect. 3. His second reason whereby he goeth about to prove the necessity of conforming to inconvenient ceremonies, in the case of deprivation, he taketh from this ground:[243] That when two duties commanded of God, do meet in one practice, so as we cannot do them both, in this case we must perform the greater duty, and neglect the lesser. Now, whereas he saith, when two duties do meet, &c., he means not, that both may be duties at once, for then a man shall be so straitened that he must needs commit a sin, in that he must needs omit one of the duties. But (as he explaineth himself) he calleth them duties, being considered apart: as, to hear a sermon at the church on the Sabbath, and to tend a sick person ready to die at home, at the same time, both are duties, being considered apart, but meeting together in our practice at one time, there is but one duty, because the lesser work binds not for that present. Now, he assumes that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform to inconvenient ceremonies, doth cause men to neglect greater duties to perform the lesser, for proof whereof he enlargeth a needless discourse, tending to prove that preaching is a greater duty and of higher bond than the duty of labouring unto fit ceremonies, or of refusing inconvenient [pg 1-053] ceremonies, which cannot help his cause. That which he had to prove was, that not to suffer deprivation for refusing of inconvenient ceremonies, is a greater duty than the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies. But it will be said, that to suffer deprivation for the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies, doth cause men to neglect the preaching of the word, and that is a greater duty than the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies. Ans 1. Mr Sprint himself layeth down one ground, which proveth the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies to be a greater duty than the preaching of the word, for he holdeth[244] that the substantials of the second table do overrule the ceremonials of the first table, according to that which God saith, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice,” Matt. xii. 7. And elsewhere he teacheth,[245] that to tend a sick person ready to die is a greater duty than the hearing of the word. Now, to practice inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies, is to commit soul-murder, and so to break one of the most substantial duties of the second table. Therefore, according to Mr Sprint's own ground, the refusing of inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies is a greater duty than the preaching of the word, which is but a ceremonial of the first table, and if the neglect of tending a sick person's body be a greater sin than to omit the hearing of many sermons, much more to murder the souls of men, by practising inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies, is a greater sin than to omit the preaching of many sermons, which is all the omission (if there be any) of those who suffer deprivation for refusing to conform unto inconvenient ceremonies. But, 2. We deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform unto inconvenient ceremonies, causeth men to neglect or omit the duty of preaching. Neither hath Mr Sprint alleged anything for proof hereof, except that this duty of preaching cannot be done with us ordinarily, as things do stand, if ministers do not conform, for, by order, they are to be deprived of their ministry. Now, what of all this? For though, by the oppressing power of proud prelates, many are hindered from continuing in preaching, because of their refusing inconvenient ceremonies, yet they themselves who suffered deprivation for this cause cannot be said to neglect or omit the duty of preaching: most [pg 1-054] gladly would they preach, but are not permitted. And how can a man be said to omit or neglect that which he would fain do but it lieth not in his power to get it done? All the strength of Mr Sprint's argument lieth in this: That forasmuch as ministers are hindered from preaching, if they do not conform, therefore, their suffering of deprivation for refusing conformity, doth cause them neglect the duty of preaching. Which argument, that I may destroy it with his own weapons, let us note,[246] that he alloweth a man (though not to suffer deprivation, yet) to suffer any civil penalty or external loss, for refusing of inconvenient ceremonies commanded and enjoined by the magistrate. Now, put the case, that for refusing inconvenient ceremonies, I be so fined, spoiled, and oppressed, that I cannot have sufficient worldly means for myself and them of my household, hence I argue thus (if Mr Sprint's argument hold good): That forasmuch as I am, by strong violence, hindered from providing for myself and them of my household, if I do not conform, therefore, my suffering of those losses for refusing of conformity, doth cause me to neglect the duty of providing for myself and for them of my family, which neglect should make me worse than an infidel.

Sect. 4. Mr Sprint now addeth a third, proving, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the prescribed ceremonies[247] (howbeit many ways inconvenient,) is contrary to the royal law of love, which he labours to evidence three ways. First, he saith, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform, doth, by abstaining from a thing in nature indifferent (such as our ceremonies, saith he, are proved to be), needlessly deprive men of the ordinary means of their salvation, which is the preaching ministry of the word, &c. Ans. 1. That the controverted ceremonies are in nature indifferent, neither he, nor any of his side, hath yet proven; they suppose that they are indifferent, but they prove it not. 2. We deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform to the prescribed ceremonies, doth deprive men of the preaching of the word. Neither saith Mr Sprint aught for proof hereof but that which we have already confuted, viz., that as things do stand, all such as do not conform are to be deprived, whence it followeth only, that the injury and violence of prelates [pg 1-055] (not the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform) depriveth men of the preaching of the word. Secondly, he saith,[248] that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for inconvenient ceremonies, condemneth both the apostolical churches, and all churches since their times, because there hath been no church which hath not practised inconvenient ceremonies. Ans. It is most false which he saith of the apostolical churches; for those Jewish ceremonies practised by them were most convenient, as we have said before. And as for other churches in after ages, so many of them as have practised inconvenient ceremonies, are not herein to be followed by us. Better go right with a few than err with a multitude. Thirdly, he saith,[249] that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform, breedeth and produceth sundry scandals. First, saith he, it is the occasion of fraternal discord. O egregious impudency! who seeth not that the ceremonies are the incendiary sparkles, from which the fire of contention hath its being and burning; so that conforming (not refusing) is the furnishing of fuel and casting of faggots to the fire. Secondly, He allegeth that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform, twofold more scandaliseth the Papist than conformity; for he doth far more insult to see a godly minister thrust out, and with him all the truth of God pressed, than to see him wear a surplice, &c. Thirdly, he saith, It twofold more scandaliseth the Atheist, libertine, and Epicure, who, by the painful minister's deprival, will triumph to see a door opened for him without resistance, to live in drunkenness, whoredom, swearing, &c. Now, for answer to his second and third pretences, we say, 1. Mr Sprint implieth indirectly, that when non-conforming ministers are thrust out, Papists, Atheists, libertines, and Epicures, expect but small opposition from those conforming ministers who come in their rooms. Our opposites have a skilful proctor (forsooth) of Mr Sprint. And, indeed, if Papists and Atheists were so afraid of Conformists as of Nonconformists, they would not thus insult. 2. We must distinguish betwixt deprivation and the suffering of deprivation. Papists insult indeed, that their assured friends, the prelates, are so powerful, as to thrust out from the public ministry the greatest enemies of Popery. [pg 1-056] But as for the ministers' suffering of themselves to be thrust out, and deprived for refusing of conformity, it is so far from giving to Papists any matter of insulting, that it will rather grieve them and gall them to the heart, to understand that sundry powerful, painful, and learned ministers are so averse from Popery, that before they conform to any ceremony of the same, they will suffer for refusal; and that their constancy and courage, in suffering for such a cause, will confirm many professors in the persuasion of the truth of their doctrine, which they taught against conforming unto popish ceremonies. But to go on. Fourthly, saith he, It twofold more scandaliseth such an one as doth truly fear the name of God, who could be more contented to enjoy the means of his faith and salvation, with a small inconveniency of some ceremonies which he grieveth at, than to lose his pastor, the gospel, and the ordinary means of his faith and salvation. Ans. 1. Mr Sprint supposeth that such an one, as for no respect whatsoever would be contented with the practice of some inconvenient ceremonies, doth not truly fear the name of God. And who is the Puritan now? Is not Mr Sprint, who standeth in such a huge distance from all who are of our mind, and so far preferreth himself and his followers to us as if we did not truly fear the name of God? Secondly, He supposeth that, when non-conforming ministers are thrust out, the ordinary means of faith and salvation are not dispensed (to the comfort and contentment of such as truly fear the name of God) by those conforming ministers, who are surrogate in their stead which, how his fellows will take with, let them look to it. 3. Forasmuch as the fear of God is to depart from evil, therefore such an one as doth truly fear the name of God, in so far as he doth fear the name of God, and quatenus, he is such an one, will never take well with the practice of inconvenient ceremonies, which is not a parting from, but a cleaving unto evil. 4. They who truly fear the name of God, are indeed scandalised by the prelates' depriving of ministers for refusing to conform; but by the ministers' suffering of deprivation for this cause, they are not scandalised but edified. But, Fifthly, saith Mr Sprint, it offendeth the magistrate, by provoking him (persuaded and resolved as he is) to disgrace these otherwise well-deserving ministers, and to strike them with the sword of authority. [pg 1-057] Ans. Our refusal to conform to inconvenient ceremonies being a necessary duty, if the magistrate be provoked therewith, we are blameless; neither can it any otherwise provoke him to disgrace those well-deserving ministers, than Moses' seeking of liberty for Israel to go and serve God according to his will, provoked Pharaoh the more to oppress them; or than Christ's preaching of the truth, and his abstaining from the superstitious ceremonies of the Pharisees, provoked them to disgrace him, and plot his hurt. Howbeit we are not ignorant that the magistrate is not provoked by our refusing to conform, except as it is misreported, misdeemed, and misconstructed to him by the false calumnies of our adversaries, which being so, he is not incited by our deed, but by theirs.

Sect. 5. Now, Sixthly, saith Mr Sprint, it unjustly condemneth the harmony of all true churches that ever were primitive and reformed, and all sound teachers of all times and places, whose universal doctrine it hath been, that conformity to inconvenient ceremonies is necessary, in case of deprivation. Ans. That the ceremonies practised by the apostles and apostolic churches were not inconvenient, it hath been already showed; that since their times, sundry churches, both ancient and reformed, have practised inconvenient ceremonies, we deny not: yet Mr Sprint himself[250] will not defend all the practices of those churches, whose practice he allegeth against us. But that all sound teachers, of all times and places, have taught the necessity of conformity to inconvenient ceremonies, in case of deprivation, he neither doth, neither can make good; it is but a bare and a bold affirmation to deceive the minds of the simple. Did not the good old Waldenses,[251] notwithstanding of all the hot persecutions raised against them, constantly refuse to conform unto any of those ceremonies of the church of Rome, which they perceived to have no necessary use in religion, and to occasion superstition rather than to serve for edification? And we verily rejoice to be ranked with those Waldenses, of whom a popish historiographer speaketh thus:[252] Alius in libris cathari dicuntur, quibus respondent qui hodie in Anglia puriorum doctrinam [pg 1-058] præ se ferunt. Moreover, it cannot be unknown to such as are acquainted with the history of the Reformation, how that not Flacius Illiricus only, but many others,[253] among whom was Calvin,[254] and the Magdeburgian doctors,[255] and all the churches of Nether Saxony subject to Maurice,[256] opposed themselves to those inconvenient and hurtful ceremonies of the Interim, urged by the Adiaphorists. And howsoever they perceived many great and grievous dangers ensuing upon their refusing to conform to the same, yet they constantly refused, and many ministers suffered deprivation for their refusal.[257] Besides, do not our divines require, that the church's canons, even in matters of rite, be “profitable to the edification of the church,”[258] and that the observation of the same must carry before it a manifest utility,[259] that in rites and ceremonies the church hath no power to destruction, but only to edification?[260] Do they not put this clause in the very definition of ecclesiastical rites,[261] that they be profitably ordained; considering, that otherwise they are but intolerable misorders and abuses? Do they not teach,[262] that no idle ceremony which serveth not unto edifying is to be suffered in the church; and that godly brethren are not holden to subject themselves unto such things as they perceive neither to be right nor profitable?[263] That whatsoever either would scandalise our brother,[264] or not be profitable to him for his edification, Christians for no respect must dare to meddle with it? Do they not stand so much upon expediency, that this tenet is received with them: That the negative precepts of the law, do bind, not only at all times, but likewise to all times (whereupon it followeth, that we may never do that which is inconvenient or scandalous), and that the affirmative precepts though they bind at all times, yet not to all times, but only quando expedit, whereupon it followeth, that we are never bound to the practice of any duty commanded in the law of God, [pg 1-059] except only when it is expedient to be done; but Mr Sprint excepteth against this rule,[265] that it is not generally true; for evidence whereof he allegeth many things, partly false, partly impertinent, upon which I hold it not needful here to insist. As for such examples, objected by him, as carry some show of making against this rule, which he dare not admit, I will make some answer thereto. He saith, that sometimes even negative precepts have been lawfully violated; for these precepts were negative,—none but priests must eat shew-bread, yet David did lawfully violate it; thou shalt do no work upon the Sabbath, yet the priests brake this, and are blameless; let nothing of God's good creatures be lost, yet Paul and his company did lawfully cast away their goods in the ship, to save their lives, &c. Ans. Mr Sprint might easily have understood, that when divines say, the affirmative precepts bind at all times, but not to all times,—the negative precepts both at all times and to all times, they ever mean, specie actionis manente cadem; so long as an action forbidden in a negative precept ceaseth not to be evil, as long the negative precept bindeth to all times: whereas even whilst an action commanded in an affirmative precept, ceaseth not to be good, yet the affirmative precept bindeth not to all times. So that the rule is not crossed by the alleged examples; for David's eating of the shew-bread; the priests' labour upon the Sabbath; and Paul's casting of the goods into the sea, were not evil, but good actions (the kind of the action being changed by the circumstances). In the meantime, the foresaid rule still crosseth Mr Sprint's tenet; for he holdeth that even whilst certain ceremonies remain evil in their use, and cease not to be scandalous and inconvenient, yet we are not ever bound to abstain from them, but may in the case of deprivation practice them, which directly contradicteth the rule.

Sect. 6. The position therefore which we maintain against Mr Sprint, and from which we will not depart the breadth of one nail, is this, that we can never lawfully conform (no not in the case of deprivation) unto any ceremony which is scandalous and inconvenient in the use of it. For further confirmation whereof, we say, 1. Every negative precept of the law of God bindeth to all times, in such sort, that the action which it [pg 1-060] forbiddeth (so long as it remaineth evil, and the kind of it is not changed) can never lawfully be done. Therefore, forasmuch as to abstain from things scandalous and inconvenient, is one of the negative precepts of the law of God, and the ceremonies whereunto Mr Sprint would have us to conform in the case of deprivation, are, and remain scandalous and inconvenient in our practice and use of them according to his own presupposal; it followeth, that the use and practice of the same is altogether unlawful unto us. 2. That which is lawful in the nature of it is never lawful in the use of it, except only when it is expedient for edification, as teacheth the Apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 12; x. 23. The Corinthians objected that all indifferent things were lawful. The Apostle addeth a limitation,[266] esse licita quatenus conducunt, they are lawful to be used in so far as they are expedient. 3. It is the Apostle's commandment, let all things be done unto edifying, 1 Cor. xiv. 26. Therefore whatsoever is not done unto edifying ought not to be done. 4. The Apostle saith, 1 Cor. viii. 13, “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” Now, put the case, the Apostle had been hindered from preaching the gospel for his precise abstaining from those meats whereat his brother would be offended, would he in that case have eaten? Nay, he saith peremptorily, that whilst the world standeth he would not eat. 5. Say not our writers,[267] that we must flee and abstain from every thing which is not expedient for the edification of our brother? And doth not the Bishop of Winchester teach,[268] that in our going out, and coming in, and in all our actions, we must look to the rule of expediency? And saith not Bishop Spotswood,[269] “It is not to be denied, but they are ceremonies, which for the inconveniency they bring, ought to be resisted?” 6. Dare Mr Sprint deny that which Ames saith he heard once defended in Cambridge,[270] viz., that quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet: Whatsoever is not expedient, in so far as it is not expedient, it is not lawful. Doth not Pareus likewise show out of Augustine,[271] that such things as are not expedient [pg 1-061] but scandalous, and do not edify but hurt our brother, Fiunt ex accidenti illicita et peccata, proinde vitanda? 7. To conform unto inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies, in the case of deprivation, is at the best, to do evil that good may come of it; which was the pretence of those councillors of Pope Pius V. who advised him to suffer stews at Rome, for preventing a greater evil of abusing chaste women and honest matrons. So the pseudo-Nicodemites allege for their abstaining from flesh upon the days forbidden by the church, that this they do for shunning a greater evil, which is the scandal of Papists. Our divines answer them,[272] that evil ought not to be done that good may come of it. But, saith Mr Sprint,[273] this rule of the Apostle (Rom. iii. 8) must be limited,[274] and in some cases holdeth not; for a man may, for doing of good, do that which is evil in use, circumstance, and by accident, so it be not simply and in nature evil. Ans. 1. He begs the thing in question, for that rule is alleged against him to prove that nothing which is evil in the use of it may be done for any good whatsoever. 2. The difference betwixt that which is simply evil, and that which is evil in use and by accident, is in that the one may never be done, the other is unlawful only pro tempore; but in this they agree, that both are unlawful; for that which is evil by accident,[275] whilst it is such, is unlawful to be done, no less than that which is in nature evil. 3. Divines hold absolutely,[276] that Inter duo vel plura mala culpæ (such as things scandalous and inconvenient) nullum est eligendum; that though in evils of punishment we may choose a lesser to shun a greater, yet in evils of fault, election hath no place, neither may we do a lesser fault to shun a greater,[277] nec ullum admittendum malum, ut eveniat aliquod bonum, sive per se sive per accidens. But let us hear what Mr Sprint can say to the contrary. He allegeth, the priests' breaking of the Sabbath, David's eating of the shewbread, and the apostles' practising of very hurtful ceremonies; all which things being unlawful were done lawfully, to further greater duties.

We have answered already, that the [pg 1-062] priests' killing of the sacrifices on the Sabbath, and David's eating of the shew-bread, were not unlawful, because the circumstances changed the kind of the actions. Also, that the Jewish ceremonies used by the apostles were in their practice no way hurtful, but very profitable. Mr Sprint allegeth another example out of 2 Chron. xxx. 18-21: To perform God's worship not as it was written, was a sin, saith he, yet to further God's substantial worships, which was a good thing, was not regarded of God. Ans. One cannot guess from his words how he thought here to frame an argument, which might conclude the lawfulness of doing some evil, that some good may come of it. Howsoever, that we may have some light in this matter, let us distinguish betwixt these two things: 1. The people's legal uncleanness, when they came to eat the passover. 2. Their adventuring to eat it, notwithstanding their uncleanness. That they were at that time unclean, it was a sin. But whilst they prepared their hearts truly to seek God, and repented of their uncleanness; that in this case they adventured to eat the passover, was no sin, because it is the will of God, that such as prepare their hearts unfeignedly to seek him, lament their wants, and repent for that they are not so prepared and sanctified for his worship as they ought (there being no other thing to hold them back beside some defect of sanctity in themselves), notwithstanding of any defect which is in them, draw near to him in the use of his holy ordinances. As touching the former, no man will say, that they chose to be unclean, that they might further God's worship. But as for the latter, repenting of their uncleanness, they chose to keep the passover, this did they to further God's worship, and this was no sin, especially if we observe with Tremellius, that it is said, ver. 20, the Lord healed the people, that is, by the virtue of his Spirit purified and cleansed them, so that, that which was lame was not turned out of the way, but rather made straight and healed.

Sect. 7. And now we leave Mr Sprint, who hath not only conformed to the controverted ceremonies, even upon presupposal of their inconveniency, but hath also made it very questionable,[278] whether in the case of deprivation he ought to conform to sundry other popish ceremonies, such as shaven [pg 1-063] crown, holy water, cream, spittle, salt, and I know not how many more which he comprehendeth under &c., all his pretences of greater inconveniences following upon not conforming than do upon conforming, we have hitherto examined. Yet what saith Bishop Spotswood[279] to the cause? He also allegeth there is a great inconveniency in the refusing of the ceremonies, namely, the offending of the king. But for answer unto this, look what the largest extent of the prince's power and privilege in matters belonging unto God's worship, which either God's word or the judgment of sound divines doth allow to him, none shall be found more willingly obsequious to his commandments than we. But as touching these ceremonies in question, we are upon evident grounds persuaded in our consciences, that they are both unlawful, and inexpedient for our church, and though they were lawful in themselves, yet we may answer as the oppugners of the Interim replied to those who urged yielding to the ceremonies of the same,[280] surplice, holidays, tapers, &c., because of the emperor's commandment. That the question is not about things indifferent, but about a main article of faith, namely, Christian liberty, which admitteth not any yoke to be imposed upon the conscience, no not in things indifferent. Our gracious prince who now, by the blessing of God, happily reigns over us, will not (we assure ourselves) be offended at us, for having regard to our consciences, God's own deputies placed in our souls, so far, that for all the world we dare not hazard their peace and quiet, by doing anything with their repugnance and aversation. Wherefore, we are more than confident that his Majesty will graciously accept from us such a reasonable apology, as they of Strasburg used to Charles V.[281] Quantum omnino fieri potest, parati sumus tibi giatificari, non solum civilibus verum etiam in rebus sacris. Veruntamen oramus invicem, ut cogites, quoniam sui facti rationem oportet unumquemque Deo reddere, merito nos de salute nostra solicitos esse, et providere nequid contra conscientiam a nobis fiat. And as the Estates of Germany to Ferdinand,[282] when they besought him only not to grieve nor burden their consciences. [pg 1-064] Te quidem summum, et à Deo nobis datum magistrum agnoscimus, et libentissime quidem, ac nihil est omnium rerum, quod non possis aut debeas à nobis expectare, sed in hac unare propitium te nobis esse flagitamus. If these hoped that popish princes would accept such answers from them, shall not we? O, shall we not be persuaded that the Defender of the Faith will not refuse to take them from us! especially seeing his Majesty shall ever find, that he hath none more loyal and true subjects, who will more gladly employ and bestow their lives, lands, houses, holds, goods, gear, rents, revenues, places, privileges, means, moities, and all in his Highness' service, and maintenance of his royal crown, and moreover, have so deeply conceived a strong and full persuasion of his Majesty's princely virtues, and much renowned propension to piety and equity, that they will urge their consciences by all good and lawful means, to assent unto every thing which he enjoins as right and convenient, and when the just aversation of conscience upon evident reasons is invincible, will notwithstanding be more willing to all other duties of subjection, and more averse from the least show of contempt.

CHAPTER II.

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

Sect. 1. As for those who allege some conveniency in the ceremonies, they say more than can abide the proof of reason, which the induction of some particulars shall demonstrate. Dr Mortoune[283] allegeth for the surplice, that the difference of outward garments cannot but be held convenient for the distinguishing of ministers from laics in the discharge of their function. Ans. This conveniency is as well seen to without the surplice. If a man having a black gown upon him be seen exercising the function of a minister, it is very strange if any man think it not sufficiently distinguished from laics. The Act of Perth, anent confirmation and bishoping of children, would make it appear, that this ceremony is most profitable to cause young children in their tender years [pg 1-065] drink in the knowledge of God and his religion. Ans. 1. If this rite be so profitable for the instruction of children, then why do prelates appropriate it to themselves, who use to be employed in higher affairs, that permit them not to have leisure for exact catechising of children? Or, 2. Though they might attend the discharging of this duty; why should it be made their peculiar? Is not the parish minister able to catechise them? Or, 3. If it must depend upon prelates, and wait upon their leisure; what hath imposition of hands ado with catechising? 4. How comes it, that children who are not bishopped are as well catechised as they who are bishopped.

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

But Bishop Lindsey thinks yet to let us see a greater expediency for observing holidays. “Certainly (saith he)[285] nothing is so powerful to abolish profaneness, and to root out superstition out of men's hearts, as the exercise of divine worship, in preaching, praying and thanksgiving, chiefly then when the superstitious conceits of merit and necessity are most pregnant in the heads of people,—as doubtless they are when the set times of solemnities return,—for then it is meet to lance the aposteme when it is ripe.” Ans. This is a very bad cure; and is not only to heal the wound of the people slightly, but to make it the more inveterate and festered. I might object, that little or nothing is preached or spoken by him and his companions at the revolution of those festivities against the superstitious keeping of them; but though they should speak as much as can [pg 1-066] be against this superstition, their lancing being in word only, and not in deed, the recidivation will prove worse than the disease. The best lancing of the aposteme were not to observe them at all, or to preach against them, which are tried to work this effect more powerfully than the Bishop's cure hath done; for all know that there is none so free of this superstition as those who observe not the holidays.

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

CHAPTER III.

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

First, then, the ceremonies are inexpedient, because our most holy faith, for which [pg 1-067] we should earnestly contend, received no small harm and prejudice, and is like to receive still more and more, by their means. Our case is not much different from the estate of the churches in Germany, when Charles V. caused the book called Interim to be published:[288] expediency then was pretended of settling the peace of Germany by this as the best way; but it produced a very great inconveniency, and instead of effectuating peace, it brought forth a hotter contention, as well between the Protestants themselves, as between them and Papists. Expediency is now no less pretended for the ceremonies, yet no more truly. But before the bad effects of the Interim were seen, the wiser sort of Protestants[289] wrote against it, and warned men, ut ab eo tanquam a praesentissima peste sibi caverent. Notwithstanding that the emperor did straitly inhibit all impugning of it. And Sleidane tells us,[290] the reason which made them so mistake it was, because they thought such as were upon that course, were opening a way to the popish religion, per adiaphora seu res medias, and because[291] they wished to retain the saving doctrine puram et salvam a technis illorum, qui nunc dum ceremonias restaurare videri volunt, colluviem totam doctrinae pontificiae rursus introducunt. The like reason have we to mistake conformity with antichrist in these ceremonies which are obtruded upon our church, for may we not justly fear that hereby we shall be drawn on to conform with him also in dogmatical and fundamental points of faith. Nay, what talk I of fear? We have already seen this bad consequence in a great part, for it is well enough known how many heterodox doctrines are maintained by Formalists, who are most zealous for the ceremonies anent universal grace, free-will, perseverance, justification, images, antichrist, the church of Rome, penance, Christ's passion and descending into hell, necessity of the sacraments, apocrypha books, Christ's presence in the eucharist, assurance of salvation, &c. Their errors about those heads we will demonstrate, if need be, to such as doubt of their mind. In the meantime it hath been preached from pulpits among ourselves, that Christ died for all alike, that the faithful may fall away from grace, [pg 1-068] that justification is a successive action, that none can be assured of salvation in this life, that images in churches are not to be condemned, that Christ descended locally unto the place of the damned, that the Pope is not antichrist, that Rome is not Babylon the whore, that the government and discipline of the church must alter like the French fashion, at the will of superiors, that we should not run so far away from Papists, but come as near to them as we can, that abstinence and alms are satisfactions or compensations for sin. These, and sundry such like tenets, have not been spoken in a corner.

Sect. 2. How far conformity to the ceremonies of the church of Rome hath drawn Conformists, of greatest note, to conform to her faith also, I may give instance in the Archbishop of Spalato.[292] He holds, that many rites of the Roman church are ancient and approvable, that others, though neither ancient nor universal, yet, because of custom, should be tolerated, and that few only are either to be abolished, or, by some prudent and easy way, purged and refined. Now, will we know how far this unity in ceremonies drew him to unity in substance, then let us hear what is his verdict of Protestants as well as of Papists, who suffer for their religion.[293] Certe potius martyres mundi, quam Dei sunt, qui ex utraque parte sub titulo conscientiae sanguinem frustra fundunt: quasi vero fides et religio Romana, et fides ac religio protestantium sunt duae fides et duae religiones, &c. He tells us,[294] moreover, that if the Protestants will not have peace with those whom they call Papists, and communicate with them, then are they schismatics, and are not in the true church. And in the declaration of the motives whereupon he undertook his departure out of the territory of Venice, he expresseth his judgment of such books as are framed against the doctrine of the church of Rome, that he held them above measure detestable. Neither doth he stand alone in this pitch, for among the sect of Formalists, is swarming a sect of Reconcilers, who preach and profess unity with the church of Rome in matters of faith. For example, they say, that that which the [pg 1-069] learned Papists hold concerning justification, is orthodox, and therefore they will not contend against them, except it be for their contending with us, who do agree with them.[295]

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

Sect. 4. Thus we perceive what prejudice hath arisen, and yet ariseth to the true and saving doctrine, by the means of symbolising with the church of Rome in these ceremonies. But because some Formalists approve not of this course of reconciliation, they (I know) would purge the ceremonies of the blame of it. I will therefore show, that Reconcilers are set forward in their [pg 1-070] course of reconciliation, by means of the Roman rites remaining in reformed churches.

G. Cassander, in his book de Officio pii Viri, relates unto us how he was entered into this course, and conceived this purpose of reconciliation, and tells, that from his youthhood, he was most observant of ecclesiastical ceremonies, yet so, that he abhorred all superstition. And when he had read the writers of that age, who promised some reformation and repurgation of superstitious worships and absurd opinions, he saith, Mire illorum institutum placuit: qui tamen ita superstitiones et abusiones, quae nonnullis ceremoniis ecclesiasticis admixtae erant, exosas haberem ut ipsum ecclesiasticam politiam, quae his ceremoniis fere constant, non sublatum et eversam, sed repurgatam et emendatam esse vellum. We see the first thing which induced him to a reconciliation, was his liking which he had to popish ceremonies, and their remaining in protestant churches, and as this course hath been attempted, so is it also advanced by the ceremonies, for thereby people are induced to say, as they said once, when popish ceremonies did re-enter in Germany.[300] “We perceive now, that the Pope is not so black as Luther made him.” And as for the Reconcilers themselves, may they not conceive strong hopes to compass their end? May they not confidently embark in this business? May they not with great expectation of prosperous success achieve their project? When once they have footing upon our union with Rome in ceremonies and church policy, they cannot but hereupon conceive no small animosity to work out their intended purpose.

Do I talk of a chimera, and imagine now that which is not? Nay, I will really exemplify that which I say, in that Proteus and Versipelles, the Archbishop of Spalato, for, in the narration of the passages which were betwixt his Majesty and him, collected by the Bishop of Durham, we find,[301] that he thought the procuring of concord betwixt the church of England and the church of Rome to be easy. And his reasons were,[302] because he was verily persuaded, that the Pope would approve the English liturgy and the public use of it, as he professed in his colloquy with the Bishops of London and Durham, and the Dean of Winchester. And further,[303] [pg 1-071] he told he was of opinion, that the churches of Rome and of England, excluding Puritans, were radically one church. This made him say,[304] “I do find here why to commend this church, as a church abhorring from Puritanism, reformed with moderation, and worthy to be received into the communion of the Catholic church.” In the following words, he tells, that he could carry something out of the church of England which should comfort all them who hate puritan strictness, and desire the peace of the church (meaning them who desired the same reconciliation with himself). What is more clear, than that the English ceremonies were that which made him prosecute, and gave him hope to effectuate a reconciliation betwixt the church of England and that of Rome.

Sect. 5. But put the case, that as yet we had seen no greater evils following upon the ceremonies, yet must they be acknowledged to be inconvenient, because they are dangerous preparatives for many worse things than we are aware of, and may draw after them sundry evil consequences which are not feared. We have heard before from Spotswood, that novations in a church, even in the smallest things, are dangerous. Who can then blame us to shun a danger, and, fearing the worst, to resist evil beginnings,—to give no place to the devil,—to crush the viper while it is in the shell,—to abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thes. v. 22,—and to take the little ones of Babylon whilst they are young, and dash their heads against the stones?

It matters not that many will judge us too precise for doing so. What? Do they think this preciseness any other than that which the law of God requireth, even observing of the commandment of God, without adding to it, or diminishing from it, Deut. xii. 32; and keeping the straight path, without declining to the right hand or the left? Deut. xxviii. 14; or, do they think us more precise than Mordecai, who would do no reverence to Haman, because he was an Amalekite, Esth. iii. 2, and so not to be countenanced nor honoured by an Israelite? Deut. xxv. 19. Are we more precise than Daniel, who would not close his window when he was praying, no, not for the king's edict, knowing, that because he had used to do so aforetime, his doing otherwise had been both a denying of his former profession, and [pg 1-072] an ensnaring of himself by yielding in small things, to yield in greater, and after an inch to take an ell? Dan. vi. 10. Are we more precise than the Apostle Paul who gave no place to the adversaries of Christian liberty, no, not for an hour? Gal. ii. 5. Are we more precise than David, who would not do so much as take up the names of idols into his lips, least from speaking of them he should be led to a liking of them? Psal. xvi. 4; or, may not the sad and doleful examples of so many and so great abuses and corruptions which have crept into the church from so small and scarcely observable originals, make us loath at our hearts to admit a change in the policy and discipline of a well constitute church, and rightly ordered before the change, and especially in such things as are not at all necessary?

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

CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HINDER EDIFICATION.

Sect. 1. That the ceremonies are a great hinderance to edification, appeareth, First, In that they obscure the substance of religion, and weaken the life of godliness by outward glory and splendour, which draws away the minds of people so far after it, that they forget the substance of the service which they are about. The heathenish priests laboured,[306] per varietatem ceremoniarum, rem in precio retinere. The use for which Papists appoint their ceremonies,[307] is, [pg 1-073] ut externam quandam majestatem sensibus objiciant; and so are the ceremonies urged upon us,[308] though to conciliate reverence and due regard to divine worship, and to stir up devotion. In the meanwhile it is not considered,[309] that mentes humanae mirificae capiuntur et facinantur, ceremoniarum splendore et pompa. Videmus siquidem, saith Bucer,[310] vulgus delectari actionibus scaenicis, et multis uti signis. Chemnitius marks of the cumulating of ceremonies in the ancient church,[311] that it drew to this, ut tandem in theatricum ferme apparatum ceremoniae illae abierint. Musculus reprehends bishops for departing from the apostolical and most ancient simplicity,[312] and for adding ceremonies unto ceremonies in a worldly splendour and respectability, whereas the worship of God ought to be pure and simple.

The policy, then, which in most simple and single, and least lustred with the pomp and bravery of ceremonies, cannot but be most expedient for edification. The king's daughter is most like herself when she is all glorious within, not without, Psal. xlv. 13, and the kingdom of God appeareth best what it is, when it cometh not with observation, Luke xvii. 20, 21. But “superstition (saith Camero),[313] the mother of ceremonies, is lavish and prodigal; spiritual whoredom, as it is, it hath this common with the bodily; both of them must have their paintings, their trinkets, their inveiglements.”

Sect. 2. Secondly, The ceremonies are impediments to the inward and spiritual worship, because they are fleshly and external. In the second commandment are forbidden omnes ritus, qui à spirituali Dei cultu discrepant.[314] “The kingdom of God is within you,” saith Christ, Luke xvii. 21. Now, if the Apostle, 1 Tim. iv. 8, say, that bodily exercise, such as fasting, watching, &c., which are requisite as helps and furtherances to the humiliation of the soul, do but profit a little, then may we say of our unnecessary and unprofitable ceremonies, that they are exceedingly nocent and harmful to true and spiritual worship. The [pg 1-074] Apostle is not speaking of plays and pastimes, as Bellarmine would have us to think. Who can believe that Timothy was so much addicted to play, that the Apostle had need to admonish him, that such exercise profiteth little? He is speaking, then, of such bodily exercises as in those primitive times were used religiously, as fasting, watching, lying on the ground, and such like; and he would have Timothy rather to exercise himself to the life and power of godliness, and to substantial worship, than to any of these outward things. Neither doth the Apostle condemn only the superstitious use of these exercises, as Calvin well observeth,[315] alioqui in totum damnaret: whereas he doth only extenuate and derogate from them, saying, that they profit little. Therefore (saith he), ut maxime integer sit animus, et rectus finis, tamen in externis actionibus nihil reperit Paulus quod magnifaciat. Valde necessaria admonitio, nam semper propendet mundus in illam partem, uti Deum externis obsequiis velit colere. But what will some say? Do we allow of no external rites and ceremonies in divine worship?

Saravia tells us,[316] that dum vitia vitant stulti, in contraria ruunt, and that he is no less in the fault, qui nullas in externo Dei cultu ceremonias admittit, quae tantum decori serviunt, hominesque sui admoneant officii, quam qui quasvis citra, delectum recipiunt, &c. Wherefore, because a transition from idolatry and superstition is more easy to Atheism and the profanation of holy things, than to the golden mediocrity, he saith, he could have wished that Beza had not generally condemned all ceremonies without making any difference.