Chapter 66

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE NOT THINGS INDIFFERENT TO THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND; BECAUSE SHE DID ABJURE AND REPUDIATE THEM BY A MOST SOLEMN AND GENERAL OATH.

_Sect._ 1. Having spoken of the nature of things indifferent, and showed which things be such; also of the rule whereby to try the indifferency of things: which rule we have applied to certain particular cases;—it remaineth to say somewhat of the main and general purpose, which is principally questioned in this last part of our dispute, viz., whether cross, kneeling, holidays, 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 confirmed by those arguments which, in the third part of this our dispute, we have put in order against the lawfulness of those ceremonies. Notwithstanding we have thought fit to add somewhat more in this place. And, first, we say, whatsoever be the condition of the ceremonies in their own nature, they cannot be indifferently embraced and used by the church of Scotland, which hath not only once cast them forth, but also given her great oath solemnly to the God of heaven, both witnessing her detestation of the Roman Antichrist’s “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 vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in the kirk, without or against the word of God;” and likewise “promising, and swearing to continue,” as well “in the discipline and use of the holy sacraments,” as “in the doctrine,” of this reformed church of Scotland, which then first she embraced and used after she was truly reformed from Popery and popish abuses. And this which I say may be seen in the general Confession of Faith, sworn and subscribed by his Majesty’s father, of everlasting memory, anno 1580, and by the several parochines in the land, at his Majesty’s strait command; which also was renewed and sworn again, anno 1596, by the General Assembly, by provincial assemblies, by presbyteries and particular parish churches.

_Sect._ 2. No reformed church in Europe is so strictly tied by the bond of 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 always oblige and bind, _quando est factum de rebus certis et possibilibus, vere ac sine dolo præmeditate, ac cum judicio, juste, ad gloriam Dei, et bonum proximi_?(1274) What one of all those conditions was here wanting? Can we then say any less than a pope said before us:(1275) _Non est tutum quemlibet contra juramentum suum venire, nisi tale sit, quod servatum vergat in interitum salutis æternæ_? O damnable impiety, which maketh so small account of the violation of the aforesaid oath, which hath as great power to bind us as that oath of the princes of Israel made to the Gibeonites, had to bind their posterity, 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2; for it was made by the whole incorporation of this land, and hath no term at which it may cease to bind. Nay (in some respects) it bindeth more straitly than that oath of the princes of Israel. For, 1. That was made by the princes only; this by prince, pastors, and people: 2. That was made rashly (for the text showeth that they asked not counsel from the mouth of the Lord); this with most religious and due deliberation: 3. That was made to men; this to the great God: 4. That sworn but once; this once and again.

_Sect._ 3. Some of our opposites go about to derogate somewhat from the binding power of that oath of the princes of Israel. They are so nettled therewith that they fitch hither and thither. Dr Forbesse(1276) speaketh to the purpose thus: _Juramentum Gibeonitis praestitum contra ipsius Dei mandatum, et inconsulta Deo, non potuissent Josuae et Israelitae opere perficere nisi Deus, extraordinarie de suo mandato dispensasset, compassione poenitentis illius populi Gibeonitei, et propter honorem sui nominis, ut neque foedifragorum fautor, neque supplicium paenitentium aspernator esse videretur._

_Ans._ 1. If the oath was against the commandment of God, what dishonour had come to the name of God though he had not patronised the swearers of it, but hindered them from fulfilling their oath? If a Christian swear to kill a pagan, and hereafter repent of his oath, and not perform it, can there any dishonour redound thereby to the name of Christ? The Doctor, 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 commandment of God (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 God, even our adversaries themselves being judges? for thus speaketh one of them: _Quod antem jurarunt nostrates, __ non erat illicitum, sed a nobis 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 God, we may not draw into an ordinary example.

_Ans._ It was against the commandment of God; 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 God’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 God; 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 Hittites 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 God 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.