A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.

CHAP. III.

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

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

First, they are imposed with a necessity of practise. B. Spotswood [Sect. II] (b) tells us, that publike constitutions must be obeyed, and that privat men may not dissobey them, and thus is our practise adstricted in the use of things which are not at all necessary, and aknowledged gratis by the urgers to be indifferent, adstricted (I say) to the one part without liberty to the other, and that by the mere authority of a hu∣man constitution, whereas Christian liberty gives us freedome, both for the omission, and for the observation of a thing indifferent, ex∣cept some other reason doe adstrict & restraine it, then a bare humane constitution. Chrysostome speaking of such as are subject to Bishops, c saith, In potestate positum est obedire vel non. Liberty in things indiffe∣rent d saith Amandus Pol•…•…s, est per quam Christiani sunt libe•…•…i in usu vel abstinentia rerum adiaphorarum. Calvine speaking of our liberty in things indifferent, e saith, We may •…•…as nunc usurpare nunt omittere indifferenter, and places this f liberty, tam in abstinendo quam in utendo. It is marked

of the Rites of the auncient Church g that liberae fuerunt horum Rituum observationes in Ecclesia. And what meaneth the Apostle whiles he saith, h If yee be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world, are yee subject to ordinances, (touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the commande∣ments and Doctrines of men? Sure he condemneth not only i humana decreta de Ritibus, but also subjection and obedience to such ordinances of men, as takes from us liberty of practise in the use of things indif∣ferent, obedience (I say) for conscience of their ordinances merely. What meaneth also that place, 1. Cor. 7. 23. Be not ye the servants of men? It forbids us k saith Paybody to be the servants of men, that is in wic∣ked or superstitious actions according to their perverse commandements or de∣sires. If he meane of actions that are wicked or superstitious in themselves, then it followeth that to be subject unto those ordinances, touch not, taste not, handle not, is not to be the servants of men, because these actions are not wicked and superstitious in themselves. Not tou∣ching, not tasting, not handling are in themselves indifferent. But if he meane of actions which are wicked and superstitious in respect of circumstances, then is his restrictive glosse senselesse, for we can ne∣ver be the servants of men, but in such wicked and superstitious actions, if there were no more but giving obedience to such ordi∣nances, as are imposed with a necessity upon us, and that merely for conscience of the ordinance, it is enouch to infect the actions with superstition. Sunt hominum servi saith l Bullinger, qui aliquid in gratiam ho∣minum faciunt. This is nearer the trueth, for to tie our selves to the doing of any thing for the will or pleasure of men, when our con∣science can find no other reason for the doing of it, were indeed to make our selves the servants of men. Farre be it then from us, to submit our necks to such a heavy yoke of humane precepts, as would overloaden and undoe us. Nay, we will stedfastly resist such unchri∣stian Tyranny, as goeth about to spoile us of Christian Liberty, ta∣king that for certaine, which we find in Cyprian. m periculosum est in divinis rebus, ut quis cedat jure suo.

Two things are here replied, 1. That there is reason for adstricting [Sect. III] of our practise, in these things, n because we are commanded to obey them that have the rule over us, and to submit our selves, Hebr. 13. 17. And to submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, 1 Pet, 2. 16. and o that except publick constitutions must needs be obeyed, there can be no order, but all shall be filled with strife and contention. Ans. 1. As touching obedience to these that are set over us, if they meane not to p Tyrannize over the Lords Inheritance, and to q make the Commandements of God of no ef∣fect by their Traditions, they must give us leave to trie their precepts by the sure rule of Gods Word, and when we finde that they require of us any thing in the worship of God, which is either against or be∣side

his written Worde, then modesty to refuse obedience, which is the only way for order, and shunning of strife and contention. It will be said againe, that except we prove the things commanded by these who are set over us, to be unlawfull in themselves, we can not be allowed to refuse obedience to their ordinances. Ans. This unlaw∣fulnesse of the Ceremonies in themselves, hath beene proved by us already, & shall yet againe be proved in this Dispute. But put the case they were lawfull in themselves, yet have we good reason for refu∣sing them. David thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to breake the Law of the shewbread. Christ thought the satisfying of the Disciples hunger; to be cause sufficient to breake the Ceremony of the Sabbath: He thought also, that the healing of the leapers bodies was a just excuse to breake the Law that forbade the touching of them Much more then may we think now in our estimation, that the feeding of other mens soules, the satisfying of our owne consciences, togither with the consciences of other men & the healing of mens superstition & spiritual leprosie are causes sufficient to breake the Law of the Ceremonies & of the Crosse, which are not Gods but mens r, saith Parker 2. As touching submission or subjection we say wi•…•…h Dr. Field s that subjection is generally & absolutly re∣quired where obedience is not, and even when our consciences suffer us not to obey, yet still we submit and subject our selves, and neither doe nor shall (I trust) shew any the least contempt of Auctority.

Secondly, it is replied, that our Christian liberty is not taken [Sect. IV] away when practise is restrained, because conscience is still left free. The Christian Liberty t saith Paybody, is not taken away by the necessity of doing a thing indifferent, or not doing, but only by that necessity which takes away the opinion or persuasion of its indifferency. So u saith Dr. Burgesse, that the Ceremonies in question are ordained to be used necessarily, though the judgment concerning them, & immediate conscience to God, be left free. Ans. 1. Who doubts of this that liberty of practise may be restrained in the use of things which are in themselves indifferent? but yet if the bare auctority of an Ecclesiasticall Law, without any other reason, then the will and pleasure of men, be made to restraine practise, then is Christian Liberty taken away. x Iunius, saith that externum optis ligatur from the use of things indifferent, when the conscience is not bound; but in that same place he sheweth, that the outward action is bound & restrained, only quo usque circumstantiae ob quas necessitas imperata est, se ex∣tendunt. So that it is not the auctority of an Ecclesiasticall Law, but the occasion and ground of it, which adstricts the practise, when the conscience is left free. 2. When the auctority of the Churches con∣stitution is obtruded to bind and restraine the practise of Christians in the use of things indifferent, they are bereaved of their Liberty as well as if an opinion of necessity were borne in upon their con∣sciences. Therefore we see when the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. gives Liberty of Mariage, he doeth not only leave the conscience free in its Iudg∣ment of the lawfullnesse of Mariage, but also give liberty of practise,

to marry or not to marry. And Coll 2. 21. When he giveth instances of such human ordinances as take away Christian Liberty, he saith not, you must think that you may not touch, &c. but, touch not, &c. tel∣ling us, that when the practise is restrained from touching, tasting, handling, by the ordinances of men, then is Christian liberty spoy∣led, though the conscience be left free. Camero speaking of the servi∣tude which is opposed to Christian liberty y saith, that it is either animi servitus, or corporis servitus. Then if the outward man be brought in bondage, this makes up spirituall thraldome, though there be no more. But, 3. The Ceremonies are imposed with an opinion of ne∣cessity upon the conscience it self, for proof whereof, I proceed to the next point.

Notes

• x

  cens. lit. angl. cap 2.
• y

  comm. in 1. Cor. 7. 23.
• z

  Synt. part. 2. disp. 44 thes 33.
• a

  Gal. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1.
• (〈◊〉〈◊〉) ubi supra
• c

  Homil 1. in Ep▪ •…•…d Tit.
• d

  Synt. theol. lib. 6. cap. 38.
• e

  Instit. lib. 3 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 19. sect. 7.
• f

  ib. c. 10.
• g

  Ch•…•…. exam part. 2. de rit in adm. Sacr. pag 33.
• h

  Col. 2. 20. 21, 22.
• i

  Zanch. comm. in Col. 2. 20.
• k

  apol. part 3. c. 1•…•… sect. 5.
• l

  comm. in 1 Cor. 7. 23.
• m

  de haeret. Baptiz.
• n

  B. Lind. Epist. to the past. of the Church of Scotl.
• o

  Spots. Serm. at perth. assemb.
• p

  1. Pet. 5 3.
• q

  Mark. 7. 9.
• r

  of the Crosse cap. 5. sect. 11.
• s

  of the Church lib. 4. cap. 34.
• t

  Apol. part. 3. c. 1. sect. 4. s•…•… D^r. Forb. Iren. l. 1. c. 11. §. 5. & 6.
• u

  Manu∣duct. p. 42.
• x

  Thes. theol. de li∣bers Christ thes. 10.
• y

  Frel. in Math. 18. 7. tom. 2. p. 340.