2. Where hath he read of the repentance of the Gibeonites, which G.o.d would not despise?

3. If an oath made against the commandment of G.o.d (the breach of the commandment being dispensed with) bindeth so strictly and inviolably as that oath of the princes of Israel did, how much more ought we to think ourselves strictly and inviolably bound, by the solemn oath of the church of Scotland, which was not repugnant but most consonant to the word of G.o.d, even our adversaries themselves being judges? for thus speaketh one of them: _Quod antem jurarunt nostrates, __ non erat illicitum, sed a n.o.bis omnibus jure praesture potest ac debet_;(1277) so that the Doctor hath gained nothing, but loosed much, by that which he saith of the Israelites' oath: he hath even fanged himself faster in the snare which he thought to escape.

O but, saith the Doctor, that which they did, either in swearing or in performing their oath, against the express commandment of G.o.d, we may not draw into an ordinary example.

_Ans._ It was against the commandment of G.o.d; no man will say that we should follow either their swearing or their performing of their oath.

Yet, in the meantime, the Doctor is pressed with this argument, that if their unlawful oath (in the case of G.o.d's dispensation) did bind their posterity, much more doth that oath of the church of Scotland (which the Doctor hath acknowledged lawful and commendable) bind us this day.

_Sect._ 4. But, 4. Albeit the Doctor hath hereby given us scope and advantage enough against himself; nevertheless, for the truth's sake, I add, that it cannot be showed how that oath of the princes of Israel was against the express commandment of G.o.d; but it rather appeareth that it was agreeable to the same. For, as Tremellius(1278) hath it noted, that commandment, Deut. xx., whereby the Israelites were commanded to save alive nothing in the cities of the Canaanites, was to be only understood of such cities among them as should make war with them, and be 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 means Rahab and her father's house got their life, because they sought it, Josh. ii.

Calvin also serveth:(1279) _Jussos fuisse Israelitas pacem omnibus offere._ And Junius, upon Deut. xx., distinguisheth well two laws of war given to Israel.

The first law is concerning offering peace to all; which law is general and common as well to the Canaanites as to foreign nations: "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim 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 commandment was afterward observed by Israel; of whom we read, "That when Israel was strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out," Josh. xvii.

13; Judges i. 28: by Solomon also, who did not cut off the people that were left of the Hitt.i.tes and the Amorites, but only made them to pay tribute, 2 Chron. viii. 7, 8. That which I say is further confirmed by another place, Josh. xi. 19, 20, 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 took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour; but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses." From which words it appeareth, that if the Canaanites had made peace with the children of Israel, they were to show them favour; and that they were bound by the commandment of the Lord to destroy them, then only, and in that case, if they would not accept peace, but make war; whence it cometh, that the cause of the destruction of the Canaanites is imputed to their own hardness and contumacy in not accepting of peace, and not to any commandment which G.o.d had given to Israel for destroying them. In a word, it was _voluntas signi_, which, in one place, Deut. xx. 10, showed 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 another place, Deut.

vii. 2, decreed to deliver the Canaanites before the Israelites, that is, to harden their hearts to come against them in battle, and so to overrule the matter, by a secret and inscrutable providence, that the Israelites might lawfully and should certainly destroy them and show them no mercy.

Even as that same G.o.d who, by one word, showed unto Abraham what was his duty, bidding him offer up his son Isaac, Gen. xxii. 2, by another word signified unto him what he had decreed to be done, forbidding him to lay his hand upon the lad, or to do anything unto him, ver. 12. But this, I know, will be very unsavoury language to many Arminianised conformitants.

The other law of war which Junius, upon Deut. xx., observeth, prescribed to the Israelites how they should deal with them who refused their peace.

And here only was the difference made betwixt the cities which were very far off and the cities of the Canaanites, Deut. xx. 15, 16; but the first law was common, as hath been proven.

Joseph Hall seemeth to deny that the oath of the princes of Israel had any power to bind, but upon another ground than Dr Forbesse took to himself.

"It would seem very questionable (saith Hall(1280)) whether Joshua needed to hold himself bound to this oath; for fraudulent conventions oblige not; and Israel had put in a direct caveat of their vicinity."

_Ans._ I marvel how it could enter in his mind to think this matter questionable, since the violation of that oath was afterwards punished with three years' famine, 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2. 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. The text saith only in the general, that they sware unto them, Josh. ix. 15. As touching his other reason, it is answered by Calvin,(1281) _Juris jurandi religio_, saith he, _eousque sancta apud nos esse debet, ne erroris praetextu a pactis discedemus, etiam in quibus fuimus decepti_. Which, that it may be made more plain unto us, let us, with the Casuists, distinguish a twofold error in swearing.(1282) For if the error be about the very substance of the thing (as when a man contracts marriage with one particular person, taking her to be another person) the oath bindeth not; but if the error be only about some extrinsical or accidental circ.u.mstance (such as was the error of the Israelites' taking the Gibeonites to dwell afar off when they dwelt at hand), the oath ceaseth not to bind.

_Sect._ 6. This much being said for the binding power of that oath of the church of Scotland, let us now consider what shifts our opposites use to elude our argument which we draw from the same; where, first, there occurreth to us one ground which the Bishop of Edinburgh doth everywhere beat upon in the trace of this argument, taken out of the 21st article of the Confession of Faith, wherein we find these words: "Not that we think that any policy and an order in ceremonies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places; for as ceremonies, such as men have devised, are but temporal, so may and ought they to be changed when they foster rather superst.i.tion than that they edify the kirk using the same: 'whereupon the Bishop concludeth,(1283) that none who sware the aforesaid article could, without breach of this oath, swear that the ceremony of sitting at the receiving of the sacrament could be appointed for all ages, times, and places.' "

_Ans._ None of us denieth that article: we all stand to it. For that which it p.r.o.nounceth of ceremonies must be understood of alterable circ.u.mstances, unto which the name of ceremonies is but generally and improperly applied, as we have showed elsewhere;(1284) neither can we, for professing ourselves bound by an oath ever to retain sitting at the receiving of the sacrament in this national church of Scotland, be therefore thought to transgress the said article.

For, 1. The article speaketh of ceremonies devised by men, whereof sitting at the sacrament is none, being warranted (as hath been showed) by Christ's own example, and not by man's device.

2. The article speaketh of such ceremonies as rather foster superst.i.tion than edify the church using the same; whereas it is well known that sitting at the communion did never yet foster superst.i.tion in this church; so that the Bishop did very unadvisedly reckon sitting at the communion among those ceremonies whereof the article speaketh.

_Sect._ 7. But the Bishop hath a further aim, and attempteth no less than both to put the blot of perjury off himself and his fellows, and likewise to rub it upon us, telling us,(1285) "That no man did by the oath oblige himself to obey and defend that part of discipline which concerneth these alterable things all the days of his life, but only that discipline which is unchangeable and commanded in the word. Yea (saith he), we further affirm, that every man who sware to the discipline of the church in general, by virtue of the oath standeth obliged, not only to obey and defend the const.i.tution of the church that was in force at the time of making his oath, but also to obey and defend whatsoever the church thereafter hath ordained, or shall ordain, &c., whether thereby the former const.i.tution be established or altered," &c. The same answer doth Dr Forbesse also return us.(1286)

_Ans._ 1. Here is a manifest contradiction; for the Bishop saith that every man did, by this oath, oblige himself only to obey and defend that discipline which is unchangeable and commanded in the word. And yet again he seemeth to import (that which Dr Forbesse plainly avoucheth(1287)), that every man obliged himself by the same oath to obey and defend all that the church should afterwards ordain, though thereby the former const.i.tutions be altered. The Bishop doth, therefore, apparently contradict himself; or, at the best, he contradicteth his fellow-pleader for the ceremonies.

2. That ancient discipline and policy of this church which is contrary to the articles of Perth, and whereunto we are bound by the oath, was well grounded upon G.o.d's word, and therefore should not have been ranked among other alterable things.

3. Whereas the Bishop is of opinion that a man may, by his oath, tie himself to things which a church shall afterwards ordain, he may consider, that such an oath were unlawful, because not sworn in judgment, Jer. iv.

2. Now this judgment which is required as one of the inseparable companions of a lawful oath, is not _executio just.i.tiae_, but _judicium discretionis_, as Thomas teacheth;(1288) whom Bullinger and Zanchius(1289) do herein follow. But there is no judgment of discretion in his oath who swears to that he knows not what, even to that which may fall out as readily wrong as right.

4. Whereas the Bishop and the Doctor allege that every man who sware to the discipline of this church standeth obliged to obey all that the church ordained afterward, they greatly deceive themselves.

For, 1. The discipline spoken of in the promissory part of the oath must be the same which was spoken of in the a.s.sertory part. Now that which is mentioned in the a.s.sertory part cannot be imagined to be any other but that which was then presently used in this church at the time of giving the oath; for an a.s.sertory oath(1290) is either of that which is past or of that which is present: and the a.s.sertory part of the oath whereof we speak was not of any discipline past and away, therefore of that which was present. Moreover, Thomas(1291) doth rightly put this difference betwixt an a.s.sertory and a promissory oath, that the matter of a promissory oath is a thing to come, which is alterable, as concerning the event. _Materia autem juramenti a.s.sertorii, quod est de praeterito vel praesenti, in quandam necessitatem jam transiit, et immutabilis facta est._ Since, then, the discipline spoken of in the a.s.sertory part was no other than that which was used in this church when the oath was sworn; and since the promissory part is illative upon, and relative unto the matter of the a.s.sertory part; therefore we conclude the discipline spoken of in the promissory part could be no other than that which was then presently used in this church at the swearing of the oath.

2. Since the doctrine mentioned in that oath is said to have been professed openly by the King's Majesty, and the whole body of this realm, before the swearing of the same, why should we not likewise understand the discipline mentioned in the oath to be that which was practised in this realm before the swearing of the same?

3. This is further proved by the word _continuing_. We are sworn to continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this church; but how can men be said to continue in the obedience of any other discipline than that which they have already begun to obey? This the Bishop seems to have perceived, for he speaks only of defending and obeying, but not of continuing to obey, which is the word of the oath, and which proveth the discipline there spoken of and sworn to to be no other than that which was practised in the church when the oath was sworn. 4.

Whilst we hold that he who sweareth to the present discipline of a church, is not by virtue of this oath obliged to obey all which that church shall ordain afterward, both the school and the canon law do speak for us. The school teacheth, that _canonicus qui jurat se servaturum statuta edita in aliquo collegio, non tenetur ex juramenta ad servandum futura_;(1292) the canon law judgeth, that _qui jurat servare statuta edita, &c., non tenetur ex juramento ad novitur edita._(1293)

_Sect._ 8. But we are more fully to consider that ground whereby the Bishop thinketh to purge himself, and those of his sect, of the breach of the oath. He still allegeth,(1294) that the points of discipline for which we 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, he questioneth what is meant by it.(1295)

_Ans._ 1. Put the case, it were doubtful and questionable what is meant by the word discipline in the oath; yet _pars tutior_ were to be chosen. The Bishop nor no man among us can certainly know, that the discipline meant and spoken of in the oath by those that swear it, comprehendeth not under it those points of discipline 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 fair hazard? G.o.d forbid; for, as Joseph Hall(1296) noteth from the example of Joshua and the princes, men may not trust to shifts for the eluding of an oath. Surely the fear of G.o.d's name should make us tremble at an oath, and to be far from adventuring upon any such shifts.

2. The Bishop doth but needlessly question what is meant by the discipline whereof the oath speaketh; for howsoever in ecclesiastical use it signify oftentimes that policy which standeth in the censuring of manners, yet in the oath it must be taken in the largest sense, namely, for the whole policy of the church; for, 1. The whole policy of this church did at that time go under the name of discipline;(1297) and those two books wherein this policy is contained were called The Books of Discipline. And, without all doubt, they who sware the oath meant by _discipline_ that whole policy of the church which is contained in those books. Howbeit (as the preface of them showeth) discipline doth also comprehend other ecclesiastical ordinances and const.i.tutions which are not inserted in them. 2. Doctrine and discipline, in the oath, do comprehend all that to which the church required, and we promised, to perform obedience; therefore the whole policy of the church was meant by _discipline_, forasmuch as it was not comprehended under doctrine.

_Sect._ 9. The Bishop(1298) objecteth three limitations, whereby he thinketh to seclude from the matter of the oath that policy and discipline which we plead for.

First, he saith, that the matter of the oath is the doctrine and discipline revealed to the world by the gospel, and that this limitation excludeth all ecclesiastical const.i.tutions which are not expressly 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 churches, &c., and that this limitation excludeth all these things wherein the church of Scotland hath not the consent of many notable churches, &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 show how he confoundeth the preaching of the evangel with the written word; likewise how falsely he affirmeth, that the points of discipline for which we plead, are neither warranted by the Scripture nor by the consent of many notable churches. But to the point: These words of the oath, "We believe, &c., that this is the only true Christian faith and religion, pleasing G.o.d, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by the mercy of G.o.d revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel, and received, believed and defended, by many and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three Estates, &c., as more particularly expressed in the Confession of our Faith, &c.," are altogether perverted by the Bishop; for there is no discipline spoken of in these words, but afterward. Why, then, talks he of a discipline revealed to the world by the gospel, having the consent of many notable churches, and expressed in the Confession of Faith? And if the Bishop will have any discipline 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 cannot do with so much as the least show of reason. Thus put we an end to the argument taken from the oath of G.o.d, wishing every man amongst us, out of the fear of G.o.d's glorious and fearful name, duly to regard and ponder the same.

CHAPTER IX.

A RECAPITULATION OF SUNDRY OTHER REASONS AGAINST THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.

_Sect._ 1. That the ceremonies are not indifferent to us, or such things as we may freely practise, we prove yet by other reasons:

For, 1. They who plead for the indifferency of the ceremonies must tell us whether they call them indifferent _in actu signato_, or _in actu exercito_; or in both these respects. Now, we have proven,(1299) that there is no action deliberated upon, and wherein we proceed with the advice of reason, which can be indifferent _in actu exercito_, and that because it cannot choose, but either have all the circ.u.mstances which it should have (and so be good), or else want some of them, one or more (and so be evil). And for the indifferency of the ceremonies _in actu signato_, though we should acknowledge it (which we do not), yet it could be no warrant for the practice of them, or else the believing Gentiles might have freely eaten of all meats, notwithstanding of the scandal of the Jews, for the eating of all meats freely was still a thing indifferent, _in actu signato_.

_Sect._ 2. The ceremonies are not indifferent _eo ipso_, that they are prescribed and commended unto us as indifferent; for, as Aquinas(1300) resolveth out of Isidore, every human or positive law must be both _necessaria ad remotionem malorum_ and _utilis ad consecutionem bonorum_.

The guides of G.o.d's church have not power to prescribe any other thing than that which is good and profitable for edifying; for they are set not as lords over Christ's inheritance, but as ministers for their good: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, (say the apostles and elders to the churches,) to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things," Acts xv. 28. They would not, you see, have enacted a canon about those things, howbeit indifferent in their own nature, had they not found them necessary for the eschewing of scandal. And as for the civil magistrate, he also hath not power to prescribe any thing which he pleaseth, though it be in itself indifferent; "for he is the minister of G.o.d unto thee for good," saith the Apostle, Rom. xiii. 4. Mark that word, _for good_,-it lets us see that the magistrate hath not power given him to enjoin any other thing than that which may be for our good. _Non enim sua causa dominantur_, saith Calvin;(1301) _sed publico bono; neque effroeni potentia proediti sunt, sed quoe subditorum saluti sit obstricta_. Now, the first and chief good which the magistrate is bound to see for unto the subjects, is (as Pareus showeth(1302)), _bonum spirituale_. Let us, then, either see the good of the ceremonies, or else we must account them to be such things as G.o.d never gave princes nor pastors power to enjoin; for howsoever they have power to prescribe many things which are indifferent, that is to say, neither good nor evil in their general nature, yet they may not command us to practise any thing which in the particular use of it is not necessary or expedient for some good end.

3. The ceremonies are not indifferent, because, notwithstanding that they are prescribed and commended unto us as things in themselves indifferent, yet we are by the will and authority of men compelled and necessitated to use them. _Si vero ad res suo natura medius accedat coactio_, &c., then, say the Magdeburgians.(1303) Paul teacheth, Col. ii., that it is not lawful to use them freely: "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 are all to perish with the using), after the commandments and doctrines of men." Hence is Tertullian taxed(1304) for inducing a necessity in things indifferent.

Now, with how great necessity and co-action the ceremonies are imposed upon us, we have made it evident elsewhere.(1305)

_Sect._ 4. 4. Whatever be the quality of the ceremonies in their own nature, they are not indifferent to us; neither may we freely practice them, because Papists make advantage of them, and take occasion from them to confirm sundry of their errors and superst.i.tions, as we have likewise elsewhere made evident.(1306) Now, _c.u.m adiaphora rapiuntur __ ad confessionem, libera esse desinunt_, saith the Harmony of Confessions.(1307) Mark _rapiuntur_. Though they get no just occasion, yet, if they take occasion, though unjustly, that is enough to make us abstain from things indifferent. _Etiam ea_, saith Balduine,(1308) _quoe natura sunt sua liberoe observationis, in statu confessionis, c.u.m ab adversariis eorum mutatio postulatur, fiunt necessaria._

_Sect._ 5. 5. Things which are most indifferent in themselves become evil in the case of scandal, and so may not be used. So hold the Century writers;(1309) so Pareus;(1310) so Zanchius;(1311) so Chemnitius;(1312) so Augustine;(1313) and so hath the Apostle taught.(1314) But that out of the practice of the ceremonies there groweth active scandal unto the weak, we have most clearly proven.(1315) Wherefore, let them be in their own nature as indifferent as anything can be, yet they are not indifferent to be used and practised by us; and whosoever swalloweth this scandal of Christ's little ones, and repenteth not, the heavy millstone of G.o.d's dreadful wrath shall be hanged about his neck, to sink him down in the bottomless lake; and then shall he feel that which before he would not understand.

_Sect._ 6. 6. It is not enough for warrant of our practice that we do those things which are indifferent or lawful in themselves, except they be also expedient to be done by us according to the Apostle's rule, 1 Cor.

vi. 12. But I have proven that many and weighty inconveniences do follow upon the ceremonies,(1316) as namely, that they make way and are the ushers for greater evils; that they hinder edification, and in their fleshly show and outward splendour, obscure and prejudice the life and power of G.o.dliness; that they are the unhappy occasions of much injury and cruelty against the faithful servants of Christ, that they were bellows to blow up, and are still fuel to increase the church-consuming fire of woeful dissentions amongst us, &c. Where also we show,(1317) that some of our opposites themselves acknowledge the inconveniency of the ceremonies; wherefore we cannot freely nor indifferently practise them.

_Sect._ 7. 7. These ceremonies are the accursed monuments of popish superst.i.tion, and have been both dedicated unto and employed in the public and solemn worship of idols, and therefore (having no necessary use for which we should still retain them) they ought to be utterly abolished, and are not left free nor indifferent to us, which argument I have also made good elsewhere,(1318) and in this place I only add, that both Jerome,(1319) Zanchius, and Amandus Pola.n.u.s,(1320) do apply this argument to the surplice, holding, that though it be in itself indifferent, yet _quia in cultu idololatrico veste linea utuntur clerici papaxi, et in ea non parum sanctimoniae ponunt superst.i.tiosi homines; valedicendum est, non solum cultui idololatrico, sed etiam omnibus idololatriae monumentis, instrumentis et adminiculis_. Yea, Joseph Hall himself, doth herein give testimony unto us, for upon Hezekiah's pulling down of the brazen serpent, because of the idolatrous abuse of it, thus he noteth:(1321) "G.o.d commanded the raising of it, G.o.d commanded the abolishing of it.

Superst.i.tious use can mar the very inst.i.tutions of G.o.d, how much more the most wise and well-grounded devices of men!" And further, in the end of this treatise, ent.i.tled, _The Honour of the Married Clergy_, he adjoineth a pa.s.sage taken out of the epistle of Erasmus Roterodamus to Christopher, Bishop of Basil, which pa.s.sage beginneth thus: "For those things which are altogether of human const.i.tution must (like to remedies in diseases) be attempered to the present estate of matters and times. Those things which were once religiously inst.i.tuted, afterwards, according to occasion, and the changed quality of manners and times, may be with more religion and piety abrogated." Finally, If Hezekiah be praised for breaking down the brazen serpent (though inst.i.tuted by G.o.d) when the Israelites began to abuse it against the honour of G.o.d, how much more (saith Zanchius(1322)) are our reformers to be praised, for that they did thus with rites inst.i.tuted by men, being found full of superst.i.tious abuse, though in themselves they had not been evil!

_Sect._ 8. 8. The ceremonies are not indifferent, because they depart too far from the example of Christ and his apostles, and the purer times of the church; for instead of that ancient Christian-like and soul-edifying simplicity, religion is now by their means busked with the vain trumpery of Babylonish trinkets, and her face covered with the whorish and eye-bewitching fairding of fleshly show and splendour; and I have also showed particularly(1323) how sundry of the ceremonies are flat contrary to the example of Christ and his apostles and the best times.

_Sect._ 9. 9. The ceremonies make us also to conform, and like the idolatrous Papists, whereas it is not lawful to symbolise with idolaters, or to be like them in a ceremony of man's devising, or anything which hath no necessary use in religion; such a distance and a dissimilitude there is required to be betwixt the church of Christ and the synagogue of Satan; betwixt the temple of G.o.d and the kingdom of the beast; betwixt the company of sound believers and the conventicles of heretics who are without; betwixt the true worshippers of G.o.d and the worshippers of idols, that we cannot, without being accessory to their superst.i.tious and false religion, and partaking with the same, appear conform unto them in their unnecessary rites and ceremonies. Durandus tells us,(1324) that they call Easter by the Greek and not by the Hebrew name, and that they keep not that feast upon the same day with the Jews, and all for this cause, lest they should seem to Judaise. How much more reason have we to abstain from the ceremonies of the church of Rome lest we seem to Romanise! But I say no more in this place, because I have heretofore confirmed this argument at length.(1325)