_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) ill.u.s.trating 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 G.o.dly 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 G.o.d, and so they served G.o.d 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 G.o.d. 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 G.o.d 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 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 a.s.sembly 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 proficisc.u.n.tur, 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 G.o.d'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 Tertullia.n.u.s in Apologetico, iniqua lex est quae se examinari non pat.i.tur; non tam vi cogere homines ad obsequium quam ratione persuadere debent cae leges, quae scribuntur a pio nomotheta. Ergo fere sunt duae cujusvis legis partes, quemadmodum etiam Plato,_ lib. 4, _de legibus scribit, nimirum praefacio __ 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 n.a.z.ianzen,(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 const.i.tution and the judgment of superiors, to which theirs must be conformed, do rule the Lord's flock "with force and with cruelty," Ezek. x.x.xiv. 4; "as lords over G.o.d's heritage," 1 Pet. v. 3.

_Sect._ 2. Always, since men give us no leave to try their decrees and const.i.tutions, that we may hold fast no more than is good, G.o.d 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. x.x.xix. Our divines hold,(155) that all things which are proposed by the ministers of the church, yea, by aec.u.menical councils,(156) should be proved and examined; and that, when the guides of the church do inst.i.tute 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 just.i.tiae_ and so permitteth to do otherwise than the church prescribeth, if it be done _c.u.m discretione just.i.tiae_. 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 h.o.m.o 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 dest.i.tui nos sentimus, ab eodem spiritu qui per prophetas suos __ 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d hath given us, and which no human power can take from us. Out of the law we frame this argument: If the law of G.o.d permit us to work all the six days of the week, the law of man cannot inhibit us. But the law of G.o.d doth permit us to work all the six days of the week, therefore our opposites deny not the a.s.sumption, 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 G.o.d 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 cli, in pisces maris, et bestias agrii, impiae 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 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 G.o.d 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 const.i.tutions 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 const.i.tutions 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 const.i.tutions of governors. 3. Albeit we should most humbly subject ourselves to our governors, yet we may not submit our liberty to them, which G.o.d 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) G.o.d 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, because so much power is ascribed to the king and the church over us, as G.o.d had over his people of old. G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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, G.o.d did not spoil his people of liberty, &c. We know that, by appointing them to rest on those days, G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 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 G.o.d's word. _Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque_, saith Danaeus(169) _quotidie n.o.bis in evangelii proedicatione nascitur, circ.u.mciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus._ G.o.d hath given his church a general precept for extraordinary fasts, Joel i. 14, ii. 15, as likewise for extraordinary festivities to praise G.o.d, and to give him thanks in the public a.s.sembly of his people, upon the occasional motive of some great 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 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 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 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 G.o.d, 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 inst.i.tuteth 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 G.o.d 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 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 G.o.d himself inst.i.tuted, 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 judaic.u.m 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. 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 G.o.d, 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 mult.i.tude of them, but because _Christianorum festa, ab hominibus tantum, judaeorum vero a Deo fuerint inst.i.tuta_, 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 G.o.d, is greater than John Baptist, Luke vii. 28. _Lex_, saith Beza, _vocatur elementa, quia illis velut __ 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, ?st? s??a: 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's ordinances, when their mere authority doth limit or adstrict us in things which G.o.d 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 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 ant.i.types. 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 G.o.d bestowed on his people in the wilderness, could not but shadow out G.o.d'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_, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d.

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 G.o.d 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 inst.i.tuted by G.o.d 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 the inst.i.tution which these days once had from G.o.d, or else to the use which, at that time, they had for G.o.d's worship and their salvation. That they observed them with opinion of necessity, as things which had been inst.i.tuted by G.o.d, it is most likely, but that they observed them with opinion of necessity, as things necessary for G.o.d'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 inst.i.tuted by G.o.d in his law. For to say that they observed them to the same use and end for which G.o.d did inst.i.tute 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 inst.i.tuted by G.o.d, with opinion of necessity, much more doth he condemn the observing of days inst.i.tuted 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 G.o.d. Yet they would have us believe, that they have but sober and mean thoughts of these matters, as of circ.u.mstances 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 superst.i.tion 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 superst.i.tious 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, superst.i.tious 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sembly 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) _apostolos et apostolicos viros, neque de paschate, neque de aliis quibuscunque, festivitatibus legem aliquam const.i.tuisse_. 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 pa.s.sim 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 const.i.tution 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 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 rest.i.tutio 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 G.o.d 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 superst.i.tious vows, and if that such bonds be laid on, they should be broken and shaken off.

What! Calls he this a superst.i.tious vow, which abjured all superst.i.tion and superst.i.tious rites? Or calls he this a rash oath, which, upon so sage and due deliberation, so serious advis.e.m.e.nt, 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 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 superst.i.tions 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 superst.i.tions. 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 dominic.u.m_, &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 a.s.semblies 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 const.i.tutum est, non fuisse pro __ 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 t.i.tle, _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 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 inst.i.tution, 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 inst.i.tution? 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d's inestimable benefits, and a dedicating of the day to this end and purpose. 3. He saith, that it is the privilege of G.o.d 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 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 superst.i.tious." _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 superst.i.tiones._ And this he setteth down for one of these superst.i.tions, _quod dies a die discernitur_, where also he condemneth both the observing of days to the honour of man as superst.i.tious, and the observing of them for the honour of G.o.d as Judaical. If holidays, in Calvin's judgment, be fooleries-if he gave advice not to approve them-if he thought them occasions of superst.i.tion-if he held it superst.i.tion to distinguish one day from another, or to esteem one above another-if he call them Judaical, though kept to the honour of G.o.d, 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.

THE SECOND PART.

AGAINST THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.