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. VIII.

That the Ceremonies are not things indifferent to the Church of Scotland: because she did abjure and repudiat them, by a most solemne and generall Oath.

HAving spoken of the nature of things indifferent, and shewed which things bee such; also of the rule whereby to trie the [Sect. I] indifferency of things: which rule we have applied to cer∣taine particular cases. It remaineth to say somewhat of the maine and generall purpose, which is principally questioned in this last part of our Dispute, namely, whether Crosse, Kneeling, Holy-dayes, Bishopping, and the other controverted Ceremonies, wherewith our Church is pressed this day, be such things as we may use freely and indifferently? The negative (which we hold) is strongly confir∣med by those Arguments, which in the third part of this our Dis∣pute wee have put in order, against the lawfulnesse of those Cere∣monies. Notwithstanding, we have thought fit, to adde somewhat more, in this place. And first we say, whatsoever bee the condition of the Ceremonies in their owne nature, they can not bee indiffe∣rently

embraced and used by the Church of Scotland, which hath not onely once cast them forth, but also given her great Oath solemne∣ly to the God of heaven; both witnessing her detestation of the Ro∣man Antichrist his five bastard Sacraments, with all his Rites, Ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true Sacraments, without the Word of God: all his vaine allegories, Rites, Signes, and Traditions, brought in the Kirke without or against the Word of God. And likewise, Promising and swearing to continue, as well in the Discipline and use of the Holy Sa∣craments, as in the Doctrine of this Reformed Church of Scotland, which then first she embraced and used, after she was truly refor∣med from Popery and Popish abuses. And this which I say, may be seene in the generall Confession of Faith, sworne and subscribed by his Majesties Father of everlasting memory, anno 1580, and by the severall Parochines in the Land, at his Majesties strait command: which also, was renued and sworne againe anno 1596. by the gene∣rall Assembly, by provinciall Assemblies, by Presbiteries, and par∣ticular Parish Churches.

No Reformed Church in Europe, is so strictly tied by the bond of [Sect. II] an Oath and Subscription, to hold fast her first Discipline and use of the Sacraments, and to hold out Popish Rites, as is the Church of Scotland. And who knoweth not that an Oath doth alwayes ob∣lige and bind, s 1.1 quando est factum de rebus certis & possibilibus, vere de sine dolo praemeditate, ac cum judicio, juste, ad gloriam Dei, & bonum proxi∣mi? What one of all those conditions, was here wanting? Can we then say any lesse, then a t 1.2 Pope said before us, Non est tutum quem∣libet contra juramentum suum venire, nisi tale sit, quod servatum vergat in interitum salutis aeternae? O damnable impietie! which maketh so small account of the violation of the foresaid Oath, which hath as great power to bind us, as u 1.3 that Oath of the Princes of Israel, made to the Gibeonites, had to bind their posterity, 2 Sam. 21. 1. 2. For it was made by the whole incorporation of this Land, and hath no tearme at which it may cease to bind. Nay, (in some respects) it bindeth more straitly, then that Oath of the Princes of Israell. For, 1. That was made by the Princes onely: this, by Prince, Pastors, and People. 2. That was made rashly: (for the text sheweth, that they asked not councell from the mouth of the Lord:) this, with most religious & due deliberation. 3. That was made to men: this, to the great God. 4. That sworne but once: this, once and again.

Some of our Opposites goe about to derogate somewhat from [Sect. III] the binding power of that Oath of the Princes of Israell: they are so nettled therewith, that they fitch hither and thither. x 1.4 D. Forbesse speaketh to the purpose thus: Iuramentum Gibeonitis praestitum contra ip∣sius

Dei mandatum, & inconsulto Deo, non potuissent Iosuae & Israelitae opere persicere, nisi Deus extraordinarie de suo mandato dispensasset, compassione paenitentis illius populi Gibeonitici, & prop •…•…r honorem sui nominis, ut neque faedifragorum fautor, neque supplicium poenitentium aspernator esse videretur.

Ans 1. If the Oath was against the Commandement of God, what dishonour had come to the name of God, though he had not patro∣nized the swearers of it, but hindered them from fulfilling their Oath? If a Christian sweare to kill a Pagan, and hereafter repent of his Oath, and not performe it; can there any dishonour redound thereby to the name of Christ? The D. forsooth must say so.

2. Where hath he read of the Repentance of the Gibeonites, which God would not despise?

3. If an Oath made against the Commandement of God, (the breach of the commandement beeing despenced with,) bindeth so strictly and inviolably, as that Oath of the Princes of Israell did: how much more ought we to thinke our selves strictly and inviola∣bly bound, by the solemne Oath of the Church of Scotland, which was not repugnant, but most consonant to the Word of God, even our Adversaries themselves being judges? for thus speaketh y 1.5 one of them. Quod autem jurarunt nostrates, non erat illicitum, sed a nobic omnibus jure praestari potest ac debet. So that the D. hath gained no∣thing, but loosed much, by that which he saith of the Isralites Oath. He hath even fanged himselfe faster in the snare which he though to escape.

O! but saith the D. that which they did either in swearing, or in performing their Oath, against the expresse Commandement of God, we may not draw into an ordinary example.

Ans. It was against the Commandement of God; no man will say, that we should follow either their swearing or their performing of their Oath. Yet in the meane time the D. is pressed with this Ar∣gument: that if their unlawfull Oath (in the case of Gods dispensa∣tion) did bind their posterity, much more doth that Oath of the Church of Scotland (which the D. hath aknowledged lawfull and commendable,) bind us this day.

But, 4. Albeit the D. hath hereby given us scope and advantage [Sect. IV] enough against himselfe. Neverthelesse for the trueths sake, I adde, that it can not be shewed how that Oath of the Princes of Israell was against the expresse Commandement of God: but it rather ap∣peareth that it was agreeable to the same. For as z 1.6 Tremellius hath it noted, that Commandement Deut 20. Whereby the Israelites were commanded, to save alive nothing in the Cities of the Canaanites, was to be onely understood of such Cities among them, as should make warre with them, and bee besieged by them. But the Gibeonites were

not of this sort, for they sought their lives, before the Israelites came to them: and by the same meanes, a 1.7 Rahab and her Fathers house got their life, because they sought it. b 1.8 Calvine also obser∣veth, Iussos fuisse Israelitas pacem omnibus offerre. And Iunius upon Deut. 20. distinguisheth well two Laws of warre given to Israel.

The first is concerning offering peace to all: which law is generall and common, as well to the Canaanites, as to forraine Nations. When thou comest night unto a City to fight against it, then proclaime peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. Which Commandement was afterward observed by Israel, of whom we read. c 1.9 That when Israel was strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. By d 1.10 Solomon also, who did not cut off the people that were left of the Hittites, and the Amorites, but onely made them to pay tribute. That which I say, is further confirmed by e 1.11 another place, where it is said, There was not a City that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they tooke in Battell. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israell in battell, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour: but that he might de∣stroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses. From which words it appea∣reth, that if the Canaanites had made peace with the children of Is∣rael, they were to shew them favour; and that they were bound by the Commandement of the Lord to destroy them, then onely and in that case, if they would not accept peace, but make warre; whence it commeth, that the cause of the destruction of the Canaanites, is im∣puted to their owne hardnesse and contumacy in not accepting of peace; and not to any Commandement which God had given to Is∣rael, for destroying them. In a word, it was voluntas signi, which in f 1.12 one place shewed the Israelites, what was their duty, namely to offer peace to all, even to the Canaanites, and not to cut them off, if they should accept the peace. But it was, voluntas beneplaciti, which (as we read in g 1.13 another place) decreed to deliver the Canaanites, before the Israelites, that is, to harden their hearts to come against them in B•…•…ttell, and so to overrule the matter by a secret and inscru∣table providence, that the Israelites might lawfully and should cer∣tainly destroy them, and shew them no mercy. Even as that same God, who by one word shewed unto Abraham, what was his duty h 1.14 bidding him offer up his sonne Isaack, by another Word signified unto him, what he had decreed to be done, i 1.15 forbidding him to lay his hand upon the Lad, or to doe any thing unto him. But this (I know,) will be very unsavory language, to many Arminianized Con∣formitans.

The other law of warre which Iunius upon Deut. 20. observeth,

prescribed to the Israelites, how they should deale with them who refused their peace. And here onely was the difference made be∣twixt the Cities which were very farre off, and the Cities of the Ca∣naanites, Deut. 20. 15. 16. But the first law was common; as hath been proven.

Ioseph Hall seemeth to deny, that the Oath of the Princes of Israel, had any power to bind, but upon another ground then D Forbesse tooke to himself. It would seeme very questionable, saith k 1.16 Hall, Whe∣ther Iosua needed to hold himself bound to this Oath: for fraudulent conven∣tions obliege not: and Israel had put in a direct caveat of their vicinity.

Ans. I marvell how it could enter in his mind to thinke this mat∣ter questionable, since the violation of that Oath l 1.17 was afterwards punished with three yeares famine. Yet let us hearken to his reasons. One of them is forged: for the Princes of Israel who sware unto them, put in no caveat at all. m 1.18 The Text saith only in the generall, that they sware unto them. As touching his other reason, it is an∣swered by n 1.19 Calvine. Iurisjurandi religio saith he, cousque sancta apud nos esse debet, ne erroris praetextu a pactis discedamus, etiam in quibus fuimus decepti. Which that it may be made more plaine unto us, let us with the Casuists distinguish o 1.20 a twofold error in swearing. For if the error be about the very substance of the thing, (as when a man contracts mariage with one particular person, taking her to be ano∣ther person,) the oath bindeth not. But if the error be only about some extrinsecall or accidentall circumstance, (such as was the error of the Israelites, taking the Gibeonites to dwell a farre off, when they dweit a hand,) the Oath ceaseth not to bind.

This much beeing said for the binding power of that Oath of the Church of Scotland: let us now consider what shifts our Opposits use [Sect. VI] to elude our Argument, which we drawe from the same; where first, there occureth to us one ground which the Bishop of Edinbrug doth every where beat upon, in the trace of this Argument: taken out of the 21. Article of the Confession of Faith, wherein we find these words. Not that we thinke that any Policie and an order in Ceremonies, can be appointed for all ages, times, and places: for as Ceremonies, such as men have devised, are but temporall, so may and ought they to be changed, when they rather foster superstition, then that they edify the Kirke using the same. Whereu•…•…on the B. concludeth, p 1.21 that none who sware the foresaid Article, could without breach of this Oath, sweare that the Ceremo∣ny of sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament, could be appoin∣ted for all ages, times, and places.

Ans. None of us denieth that Article, we all stand to it. For that which it pronounceth of Ceremonies, must be understoode of alte∣rable

circumstances, unto which the name of Ceremonies is but gene∣rally and improperly applied, as we have shewed q 1.22 elsewhere. Neither can we, for professing our selves bound by an oath, ever to retaine sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament, in this Natio∣nall Church of Scotland, be therefore thought to transgresse the said Article.

For, 1. The Article speaketh of Ceremonies devised by men, whereof sitting at the Sacrament is none, being warranted (as hath beene shewed) by Christs owne example, and not by mans device.

2. The Article speaketh of such Ceremonies, as rather foster su∣perstition, then edify the Church using the same: whereas it is well knowen, that sitting at the Communion did never yet foster super∣stition in this Church. So that the B. did very unadvisedly reckon sitting at the Communion among those Ceremonies whereof the Article speaketh.

But the B. hath a further aime, and attempteth no lesse then both to put the blot of perjurie off himself and his fellowes, and like∣wise [Sect. VII] to rub it upon us, (s) telling us, That no man did by the Oath oblige * 1.23 himself to obey and defend that part of Discipline, which concerneth these al∣terable things, all the dayes of his life; but only, that Discipline which is un∣changeable and commanded in the Word. Yea (saith he,) we further af∣firme, that every man who sware to the Discipline of the Church in gene∣rall, by vertue of that Oath standeth obliged, not only to obey and defend the constitutions of the Church, that were in force at the time of making his Oath; but also to obey and defend whatsoever the Church thereafter hath ordained, or shall ordaine, &c. Whether thereby the former constitutions be esta∣blished or altered, &c. The same answere doth s 1.24 D. Forbesse also re∣turne us.

Ans. 1. Here is a manifest contradiction, for the B. saith that every man did by this Oath oblige himself, only to obey and defend that Discipline which is unchangeable & commanded in the Word. And yet againe he seemeth to import, (that which t 1.25 D Forbesse plainely avoucheth,) that every man obliged himself by the same Oath, to obey and defend, all that the Church should afterwards ordaine, though thereby the former constitutions be altered. The B. therefore doth apparently contradict himself, or at the best, hee contradicteth his fellow-pleader for the Ceremo∣nies.

2. That auncient Discipline and policy of this Church, which is contrary to the Articles of Perth, and whereunto we a•…•…e bound by the Oath, was well grounded upon Gods Word, and therefore should not have beene ranked among other alterable things.

3. Whereas the B. is of opinion, that a man may by his Oath tie himself to things which a Church shall afterward ordaine: he may consider, that such an oath were unlawfull, because not sworne in judgement, Ier. 4. 2. Now this judgement which is required, as one of the inseparable companions of a lawfull Oath, is not Executio justi∣tiae, but Iudicium discretionis, as u 1.26 Thomas teacheth, whom Bullinger and Zanchius x 1.27 doe herein follow. But there is no judgement of discretion, in his oath who sweares to that he knowes not what, even to that which may fall out as readily wrong as right.

4. Whereas the B. and the D. alledge, that every man who sware to the Discipline of this Church, standeth obliged to obey all that the Church ordained afterward, they greatly deceive them∣selves:

For, 1. The Discipline spoken of in the promissorie part of the Oath, must be the same which was spoken of in the assertorie part. Now that which is mentioned in the assertorie part, can not be ima∣gined to be any other, but that which was then presently used in this Church, at the time of giving the Oath. For y 1.28 an assertorie Oath is either of that which is past, or of that which is present. And the assertorie part of the Oath whereof we speake, was not of any Dis∣cipline past and away: Ergo. of that which was present. Moreover, z 1.29 Thomas doth rightly put this difference betwixt an assertorie and a promissorie Oath; that the matter of a promissorie Oath is a thing to come, which is alterable, as concerning the event. Materia autem juramenti assertorii quod est de praeterito vel praesenti, in quandam necessita∣tem jam transiit, & immutabilis facta est. Since then the Discip•…•…ine spoken of in the asseriorie part, was no other then that which was used in this Church, when the Oath was sworne: and since the pro∣missorie part is illative upon and relative unto the matter of the asser∣torie part: Therefore we conclude, the Discipline spoken of in the promissory part, could be no other, then that which was then pre∣sently used in this Church, at the swearing of the Oath.

2. Since the doctrine mentioned in that Oath, is said to have beene professed openly by the Kings majesty, and the whole body of this Realme, before the swearing of the same: why should we not likewise understand the Discipline mentioned in the Oath, to be that vvhich vvas practised in this Realme, before the svvearing of the same?

3. This is further proved by the vvord Continuing. We are svvorne to continue in the obedience of the Doctrine and Discipline of this Church: but hovv can men be said to continue in the obedience of any other Discipline, then that vvhich they have already begunne to obey? This the B. seemes to have perceived, for he speakes only of defending and obeying, but not of continuing to obey, vvhich

is the vvord of the Oath: and vvhich proveth the Discipline there spoken of, and svvorne to, to be no other then that vvhich vvas pra∣ctised in this Church, vvhen the Oath vvas svvorne. 4. Whiles vve hold, that he vvho svveareth to the present Discipline of a Church, is no•…•… by vertue of this Oath, obliged to obey all vvhich that Church shall ordaine aftervvard; both the Schoole & the Canon Lavv doe speake for us. The Schoole teacheth, a 1.30 that Canonicus qui jurat se servaturum statuta edita in aliquo Collegio, non tenetur ex juramento ad ser∣vandum futura. The Canon Lavv judgeth, b 1.31 that qui jurat servare sta∣tuta edita, &c. non tenetur ex juramento ad noviter edita.

But vve are more fully to consider that ground vvhereby be Bish∣op [Sect. VIII] thinketh to purge himself, and those of his Sect, of the breach of the Oath. c 1.32 He still alledgeth, that the points of Discipline for vvhich vve contend, are not contained in the matter of the Oath. Now as touching the Discipline of this Church which is spoken of in the Oath d 1.33 he questioneth what is meant by it.

Ans. 1. Put the case it were doubtfull and questionable, what is meant by the word Discipline in the Oath; yet pars tutior were to be chosen; The B. nor no man among us can certainly know, that the Discipline meant and spoken of in the Oath, by those that sware it, comprehendeth not under it those points of Discipline for which we now contend, and which this Church had in use at the swearing of the Oath. Shall we then put the breach of the Oath in a faire hazard? God forbid. For as e 1.34 Ioseph Hall noteth from the example of Iosua and the Princes, men may not trust to shifts for the eluding of an Oath: Surely the feare of Gods name should make us to trem∣ble at an Oath, and to bee farre from adventuring upon any such shifts.

2. The B. doth but needlessely question, what is meant by the Discipline whereof the Oath speaketh. For howsoever in Ecclesia∣sticall use, it signify oftentimes that policy which standeth in the censuring of manners: yet in the Oath, it must be taken in the lar∣gest sence, namely, for the wholle policy of the Church. For, 1. * 1.35 The wholle policy of this Church, did at that time goe under the name of Discipline: and those two bookes wherein this policy is contained, were called, The bookes of Discipline. And without all doubt, they who sware the Oath meant by Discipline that whole po∣licy of the Church which is contained in those bookes. Howbeit (as the preface of them sheveth) Discipline doth also comprehend other Ecclesiasticall ordinances and constitutions, which are not in∣seet•…•…d in them. 2. Doctrine and Discipline, in the Oath, doe com∣prehend all that, to which the Church required, and we promised to performe obedience. Ergo, the whole policy of the Church was

meant by Discipline, forasmuch as it was not comprehended under Doctrine.

f 1.36 The B. objecteth three limitations, whereby he thinketh to se∣clude [Sect. IX] from the matter of the Oath that policy and Discipline vvhich vve plead for.

First, he saith, that the matter of the Oath is the Doctrine & Dis∣cipline revealed to the world by the Gospel: and that this limita∣tion excludeth all Ecclesiasticall constitutions, which are not ex∣pressely, or by a necessary consequence contained in the written Word.

2. That the matter of the Oath is the Doctrine and Discipline, which is received, believed, and defended by many notable Chur∣ches, &c. and that this limitation excludeth all these things, wherein the Church of Scotland hath not the consent of many notable Chur∣ches, &c.

3 That the Doctrine and Discipline which is the matter of the Oath, is particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith, &c. and that in this Confession of Faith, established by Parliament, there is no mention made of the Articles controverted, &c.

Ans. I might here shew how he confoundeth the preaching of the Evangell, with the written Word: likewise, how falsely he affirmeth, that the points of Discipline for which we plead, are neither warran∣ted by the Scripture, nor by the consent of many notable Chur∣ches. But to the point. These words of the Oath: We beleeve, &c. that this only is the true Christian Faith and Religion, pleasing God, and bring∣ing salvation to man, whilk now is by the mercy of God, revealed to the world, by the preaching of the blessed Evangel. and received, believed, and defen∣ded, by many and sundry notable Kirkes and Realmes, but chiefly by the Kirke of Scotland; the Kings Majesty; and three Estaites., &c. as more particu∣larly is expressed in the Confession of our Faith, &c. are altogither perverted by the B. for there is no Discipline spoken of in these words, but af∣terward: why then talkes he of a Discipline revealed to the world by the Gospell, having the consent of many notable Churches, and ex∣pressed in the Confession of Faith? And if the B. will have any Dis∣cipline to be meant of in these words, he must comprehend it under the Christian Faith and Religion, which bringeth Salvation unto man. But this he can not doe, with so much as the least shew of rea∣son. Thus put we an end to the Argument taken from the Oath of God: wishing every man amongst us, out of the feare of Gods glorious and fearfull name, duly to regard and ponder the same.

Notes

• s 1.1

  Alsted. Theol. cas. cap. 15. p. 270.
• t 1.2

  Decret. Greg. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 8
• u 1.3

  Ios. 9.
• x 1.4

  Iren. lib. 1. cap. 9. §. 2.
• y 1.5

  D. Forb. ibid. §. 3.
• z 1.6

  In Ios. 9. 19.
• a 1.7

  Ios. 2.
• b 1.8

  com. in Ios. 9.
• c 1.9

  Ios. 17. 13. & Iudg. 1. •…•…8.
• d 1.10

  •…•…2 Chron. 8. 7. 8.
• e 1.11

  Ios. 11. 19. 20.
• f 1.12

  Deut. 20, 10.
• g 1.13

  Deut. 7. 2.
• h 1.14

  Gen. 22. 2.
• i 1.15

  Ibid. vers. 12.
• k 1.16

  con∣templ. lib. 8. of the Gibeon.
• l 1.17

  2. Sam. 21. 1. 2.
• m 1.18

  Ios. 9. 15.
• n 1.19

  com. in Ios. 9.
• o 1.20

  Ames. lib. 4. de consc. cap. 22. q 9.
• p 1.21

  part. 2. pag. 5.
• q 1.22

  supra part. 3. c. 7. sect. 5.
• * 1.23

  (r) ubi su∣pra pag. 16.
• s 1.24

  Iren. lib. 1. c. 9. §. 3. 4. 6.
• t 1.25

  Ibid. §. 4. & 6.
• u 1.26

  2a. 2a. q. 49. art. 3.
• x 1.27

  Zanch. in 3 um. praec. p. 599.
• y 1.28

  polan. synt. theol. l 9. cap. 23. pag. 802. Zanch. in 3. um. praec. p. 599.
• z 1.29

  2a •…•…a. q. 89. art. 9.
• a 1.30

  Aquin. ubi suprae q. 48. art. 2.
• b 1.31

  decr. Greg. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 35.
• c 1.32

  ubi su∣pra pag. 9.
• d 1.33

  ibid. pag. 12.
• e 1.34

  ubi su∣pra.
• * 1.35

  Zan∣chius gi∣veth the name of Ec∣clesiasticall Discipline to the rites and policy of the Church and lawes made thereanent. In 4. praec, col. 763.
• f 1.36

  ubi supra pag. 10.