His [Mr. Sprint’s] principal reason is, That the Apostles by direction of the Holy Ghost , and upon reasons common and perpetual equity, did practice themselves, and caused others to practice, yea advised and injoyned (as matters good and necessary to be done) Ceremonies so inconvenient and evil in many main and material respects, as the Ceremonies injoyned and prescribed in the Church of England are supposed to be; whence he would have it to follow, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conforme to the Ceremonies of the Church of England, is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles.
Ans. These Jewish Ceremonies in the use and practice of the Apostles. were no ways evil and inconvenient, as himselfe every where confesseth; whereas therefore he tells us, that those Ceremonies were abused to superstition, were of mistical signification, and observed as parts of God’s worship, swerving from the general rules of God’s word , not profitable for order, decencie, and edification, offensive many ways, and infringing Christian liberty he runnes at random all the while: for these things agree not to the Jewish Ceremonies, as they were rightly used by the Apostles themselves, and by others at their advise, but only as they were superstitiously used with opinion of necessity by the obstinate Jews, and by the false teachers, who impugned Christian liberty. So that all that can followe upon Mr. Sprints Argument, is this, That notwithstanding of the evils and inconveniences which follow upon certaine Ceremonies in the superstitious abuse of them by others, yet if in our practice they have a necessary or expedient use, then (after the example of the Apostles) we may well conforme unto them. Now all this cometh not near the point, which Mr. Sprint undertaketh to prove, namely, That granting the controverted Ceremonies to be in our use and practice of the same, many wayes evil and inconvenient, yet to suffer deprivation for refusing to conforme to the same, is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles.
And as touching the companion instituted betwixt our controverted Ceremonies, and these antiquated Ceremonies of the Jews , practiced and prescribed by the Apostles , after the ascension of Christ, and before the full promulgation of the Gospel , many evils there be in ours which could not be found in theirs. For,
1. Ours, have no necessary use and might well be spared: Theirs, had a necessary use for avoiding of scandal, Acts 15.28.
2. Ours, produce manifold inconveniences (whereof we are to speak hereafter) in our use and practice of the same , which is prescribed : Theirs, in the use and practice of the same, which was injoyned by the Apostles, were most expedient, for winning of the obstinate Jews, 1 Cor 9.20. &: for keeping of the weake, 1 Cor. 9.22. And for teaching the right use of Christian liberty, to such as were strong in the faith, both among the believing Jews and converted Gentiles, Rom. 4 &c, 1 Cor. 8 & 10.
3. Ours, are proven to be in their nature unlawful: Theirs, were (during the foresaid space) in their nature indifferent, Rom 14.6, Gal 6.15.
4. Ours, are imposed and observed as parts of God’s Worship (which we will prove afterward:) Theirs, not so, for where read we that (during the foresaid space) any holiness was placed in them by the Apostles?
5. Ours, have certaine mistical significations Theirs, not so: for it is nowhere to be read, that the Apostles either practiced or prescribed them as significative resemblances of any mystery of the Kingdome of God.
6. Ours, make us (though unnecessary) like unto Idolaters in their Idalatrous actions: Theirs, not so.
7. Ours, are imposed with a necessity both of practice and opinion, even out of the case of Scandal: Theirs, not so.
8. Ours, are pressed by naked will and Authority: Theirs, by such special grounds of momentaneous reason, as made the practice of the same necessary for a certaine time, whither the Apostles had injoyned it or not.
9. Ours, are urged even upon such, as in their consciences judge them to be unlawful: Theirs, not so.
10. Ours, have no better original than humane and Anti-Christian invention. Theirs, had their original from God’s owne institution.
11. Ours, are the accursed monuments of Popish Idolatrie, to be ejected with detestation: Theirs, were the memorials of Mosaical policy, to be buried with honour.
12. Ours, are pressed by such pretended reasons, as make them ever and everywhere necessary: Theirs, by such reasons, as did only conclude a necessity of using them at sometimes, and in some place.
13. Ours, are urged after the full promulgation of the Gospel, and acknowledgement of Christian liberty: Theirs, before the same.
14. Ours, are urged with the carelesse neglect of pressing more necessary duties: Theirs, not so. These and other differences betwixt the controverted, and Jewish Ceremonies, doe so break the backe of Mr. Sprint’s argument, that there is no healing of it againe.
George Gillespie, A dispute against the English-Popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland: wherein not only our own arguments against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune, Burges, Sprint, Paybody, Andrewes, Saravia, Tilen, Spotswood, Lindsey, Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted, 1637.
Ask For The Old Path 