A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship

William Ames (1576-1633) - One of the Greatest Theological Puritans and Writers

Today, many Christians are turning back to the puritans to, “walk in the old paths,” of God’s word, and to continue to proclaim old truth that glorifies Jesus Christ. There is no new theology. In our electronic age, more and more people are looking to add electronic books (ePubs, mobi and PDF formats) to their library – books from the Reformers and Puritans – in order to become a “digital puritan” themselves. Take a moment to visit Puritan Publications (click the banner below) to find the biggest selection of rare puritan works updated in modern English in both print form and in multiple electronic forms. There are new books published every month. All proceeds go to support A Puritan’s Mind.

“The first act of religion, therefore, concerns those things which are communicated to us from God. The other concerns those things which we yield to God.”

This is a raw text file of the work:

A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God’s worship. Or a triplication unto. D. Burgesse his rejoinder for D. Morton The first part

Ames, William, 1576-1633.

A FRESH SVIT Against HUMAN CEREMONIES IN GOD’S WORSHIP. OR A Triplication unto. D. BVRGESSE HIS REJOINDER For D. MORTON.

 

The First Part.

 

 

Psal. 119, 113.

I hate vayn inventions: but thy saw doe I love,

 

Printed Anno 1633.

 

An ADVERTYSEMENT to the Reader, Occasioned by the never enough lamented death of my deare freind the Authour of this Fresh suite.

 

VNderstand Christian Reader, that with the comming forth of this booke into the light, the learned and famous Authour Dr. Ames left the light, or darknes rather of this world. His name for diverse reasons (not needfull here to be recited) hath been hitherto concealed, and that which generally was but imagined before, (viz. that the Repl. and this fresh suit to D. B. Rejoynder) to be his work, now it is certainly known to be his, that none need to doubt therof. It pleadeth trueth succinctly, yet perspicuously, and with sinewy Answeres to B.M. and D. B. poore Sophisms, as indeed his veinc in all his writings and discourses did most admirably lead him to do. Concerning this matter, I may not keep back what I heard him speake as in the sight of God, that he was in his conscience more perswaded of the evill of these reliques of Popery and monuments of that superstition then ever, and yet he never had seen good in them, or come from them: and that moreover if

 

  1. B. or any other of them would yet be daubing with suntempered mortar, and not give over to paint rotten sepulchres, he was by the grace of God resolved still to maintain the cause, and while he liued never let fall the uit commenced this way, not that he sought victorie to himselfe, no; That trueth might returne out of the feild with conquest was the highest pitch of his ambition. And though this worthy of the Lord be with us no more, yetGod (I trust) who is rich in mercy, and hath more then one blessing, will (as need shall require) supply the advantage trueth had, and now hath lost in the losse of this glorious instrument. Together with his life God hath put an end to all his travailes, wherein he shewed himself a pattern of holines, a burning and a shining light, and lamp of learning & Arts, a Champion for trueth, specially while for the space of 12 yeares at least, he was in the Doctors Chaire at Franequer, and having fough• the good fight of faith, whereunto he was called, & professed a good profession before nyamwitnesses, he hath now indeed layd hold on eternall life. His spirit gon to the spirits of just men, and his body committed to the ground, we committ his labours to thy use, wherein he being dead, yet speaketh, and his memorie we hope shall live for ever.

 

Fare well in Christ, the Fountain of all welfare.

 

To the renowned King, EDWARD THE SIXT And so To our present Soueraigne King CHARLES his Successor. IOHANNES ALASCO (a Godly Learned Polonian Baron and Superintendent of the Church of strangers at London) in the Epistle Dedicatory of his tractate Concerning the Sacraments, printed at London, Ano. 1552.

 

WEll doth that Father, and without doubt diserueth praise, who having a daughter a Virgin drawne by the guile of panders into some lewd and dishonest house, and there trimmed after the whorish guise doth presently rescue her thence and bring her home

to his owne house before shee be utterly spoyled. But the same Father (if he be wise) thinks it not enough for the safty of his daughter, and the honor of his house, that he hath brought her home agayne, vnles he take from her wholly whatsoever he knowes to be accounted in those houses a whorish attyre.

 

Neyther doth he inquire whence such attyre came first: but iudgeth it dishonorable to himselfe, and so unworthy his daughter and whole family, that any such thing at all as strompets haue vsed for dressings in their houses, should appeare in his.

 

Neyther doth hee giue eare to their perswasions, who beare him in hand that all things are to bee Esteemed according to the Fathers mynd in his owne house; and so thinke that the Fathers approbation can make that honest, in his owne house, for his daughter, and whole family, which in another house, is most dishonest, for any daughters that regard their owne credits: ascribing so much to the Fathers prerogatiue, that what soever he approues, must be of others well liked of, so farre as it concernes his owne house. For he knowes full well, that although all those things which he hath authorized in his owne house be there well thought of, yet that is not enough, synce the honor of his daughter, and his whole Family, must not only hee cared for

within his owne house, but also throughout the whole Citie, that he may remoue all evill suspicions from his family among all his neighbours; and is heedfull that the panders haue not the least occasion left them, of challenging or laying clayme to the sayd daughter, as hauing some of their whor-house-marks upon her.

 

Even so in the Church of God, as in a city, Magistrates and Ministers are in place of parents, having the pure and right Administration of the Sacraments committed unto them of God, for to be tended, and tendered as their owne daughter. It is therfore very commendable in these parents of the church (as wee may terme them) if they rescue the lawfull & pure Administration of the Sacraments from the violence and tyrany of the Romish Panders, by taking it into their owne care and Custody.

 

But heer they ought to remember (Especially they who are called by the holy Spirit, Eminent Ministers of God, and Nursing Fathers of his church I.E. Christian Kings and Monarchs, that it is not enough for them, thus to have brought this daughter out of the Papists stewes, home into their owne care and keeping, unles they also put of from her, all that dressing, which they know to be whorish in the sayd stewes, that no such thing may be seene with them, which may be

accounted whorish: Especially in that citty where there is great Variety of judgments, the ouerruling wherof by mans Autority is not to bee expected, and where there are so mamy hucksters for the stewes remayning.

 

Nor let them heare the delusions of those who suggest, that such kindes of dressing from whence soeuer they bee taken may bee made good & honest by Authoritye. For well they know, they are not set ouer the whole church of God, but only one part of it, as a Family in a Citty, and that therfore though they could beare out such things at home by their Authoritye; yet it is their dutye (as they regard publike Chastity and honesty) to procure the honor of their daughter and familye not only within their owne walls but alsoe throughout the whole citty; not suffring any thing to be seene within their house, which they know to be held, urged, and maynteyned by the Romish stewes and their instruments as their proper whorish stuffe.

 

Last of all they must bee wary, least any signes or tokens bee left upon their daughter, by which shee may bee questioned agayne by these panders as one of theires.

 

Now (if it please your Excellent Majestye) you are one of these nursing Fathers of the Church of God blessed bee his name therefore: and in this high calling (by

Gods providence) you haue this Ministery of the Sacraments rescued out of the popish Brothells, and brought into your owne care and keeping: Here therfore bee pleased to set before your eyes the foresayd example of a good Father in those things which yet remayne to be performed, I. E. in prouiding for the credit of this your reduced daughter and so of your whole Family, not only in this your Flourishing Kingdome, but also in the Catholike Church of Christ wherof you are a citezen, unto whom a principall part therof as an honorable familye is Committed in trust.

 

This is that which all the Godly throughout the Christian world doe expect from your hand, and that the more earnestly because they know that God hath enriched you with such excellent gifts, & placed you in so high a place almost aboue all others; euen to this very end, that you might remoue from the Ministery of the Sacraments all those popish trinkets, wherewith it hath bin fearfully prophaned, & restore unto it agayne that virgin-like attyre,

 

wherwith it was of old adorned by the high King of Kings, and lawgiver Christ the Lord in his holy Institutions. So shall your faith and fidelitye bee famous throughout the Christian world: and the Church of England grow more honorable under your Gouernment.

 

The Latyn words of Iohannes Alasco himselfe.

Serenissimo Regi EDWARDO SEXTO Deigratia, Angliae, Franciae, & Hiberniae Monarchae, Fideiverae, Catholicae, & Apostolicae, Defensori; Omnium (in suis ditionibus) personarum &c. IOHANNES A LASCO, &c.

 

REcte facit Pater, laudem{que} meretur proculdubio, si Filiam Virginem, dolis lenonum, ad ganeas forte abreptam, rituque jam meritricis ornatam, protinus illinc eximat, incolumi adhuc pudicitia illius, inque suas rursum ipsius aedes reducat: Sed idem

 

satis non esse putat, ad tuendam suam, filiaeque illius, & totius adeo familiae suae honestatern, exemisse e ganeis filiam, inque suas aedes reduxisse; nisi illi id totum plane detrahat, quod in ganeis illis pro ornatu meretricio haberi videt. Neque disquirit, undenam ornatus ille originem suam habeat: sed indecorum sibi, adeoque & castitate filiae suae, & familiae etiam totius indignum esse judicat, ut aliquid omnino ejusmodi domisuae conspiciatur, undecunque tandem deductum esset, quod in ganeis ipsis pro ornatu meretricio haberi non ignoret. Neque hic audit eorum persuasiones, qui omnia ex Patris arbitrio domi suae, aestimanda esse dicunt; & proinde ornatum quoque meretricium illum in ganeis, honestissimum jam fore putant domi paternae, cum filiae illi, tum etiam reliquae toti familiae, si quidem paterna authoritate comprobaretur; eò quod in Patris id potestate positum esse videatur, ut quae illi probantur, ea jam honesta etiam domisuae omnia esse censeantur. Intelligit enim, etiamsi domi suae, pro honestis haberentur omnia quae ipse sua authoritate comprobasset; honestatem tamen filiae illius, & familiae suae totius, non intra domesticos sibi duntaxat parietes suos, sed per totam etiam civitatem reliquam, tuendam esse; ut omnem malam suspicionem, apud omnes omnino cives, a domo sua depellat: & cavet ne ullis rursus lenonibus, ullam deinceps etiam reposcendae denuò ad ganeas filiae suae occasionem quoquo modo relinquat, pro jure ipsorum; si quae apud illam notae adhuc tales, ganeis familiares, conspicerentur.

 

Ita vero, etiam Parentum loco sunt in Dei Ecclesia, veluti in civitate quadam, & Verbi, & Gladij Ministri omnes; habentque sibi concreditum ab ipsomet Domino Deo, veluti filiae loco, purum ac legitimū ministerium Sacramentorum. Hic igitur istorum Ecclesiae Parentum (ut ita jam loquamur) fidem ac studium nemo non merito laudaverit, si concreditum sibi ab ipsomet Deo (veluti filiam quandam) purum ac legitimum Sacramentorum ministerium, ab Antichristi Romani, & lenonum suorum ganeis, in quas vi ac tyrannide ipsorum abductum fuerat, in suas ipsorum domos rursus, in curam (inquam) ac custodiam suam reduxerunt. Sed hic cogitare debent utrique, potissimum autem ij, qui non frustra Praecellentes Dei Ministri, Altoresque Ecclesiae Dei a Spiritu Sancto vocantur, Reges (inquam) ac Monarchae Christiani, satis non esse, si filiam illam e ganeis Papisticis, in aedes rursus suas ipsorum, hoc est, in curam custodiamque suam recipiant, nisi eam etiam omni illo ornatu plane exuant, quem in ganeis ipsis, meretricium ornatum & esse, & haberi sciunt; nequid ejusmodi domi ipsorum conspiciatur, quod pro meretricio haberi posset: in ea potissimum civitate, in qua varia sunt adhuc judicia hominum; neque ab uno homine gubernari possunt; & in qua adhuc multam, infinitamque lenonum turbā superesle constat. Ne{que} hic audient persuasiones illorum, qui ornatum ejusmodi (undecunque tandē desumptus esset) honestum nihilominus domi paternae fore existimant, si Patris ipsius authoritate comprobetur. Intelligunt enim, non toti se Civitati omnino, non toti (inquam) Dei Ecclesiae, sed parti duntaxat illius alicui, veluti domui ac familiae cuidam praeesse: et proinde, etiamsi domi suae, pro honestis jam haberi videant, quae ipsi sua authoritate comprobassent; sui interim officij esse agnoscunt (quatenus equidem castitatis am•ntes, publicae{que} honestatis studiosi haberi volunt) ut filiae illius, totiusque adeo familiae suae honestatem, non inter domesticos

tantum parietes suos, sed per totam illam civitatem etiam, omni studio, ac cura tueantur, nihilque domi suae conspici patiantur, quod in ejusdem civitatis ganeis, ac lupanaribus, maximo lenonúomnium conatu, ac tyrannide, pro meretricio haberi interim, urgerique, ac propugnari vident. Postremo, cavendum sibi modis omnibus esse putant, ne eisdem lenonibus rursum, aut eorum similibus, ullam omnino occasionem (pro jure ipsorum) relinquant, quoquomodo reposcendae fi••ae illius suae; si quae notae adhuc (ganeis illis familiares) apud illam conspicerentur.

 

Iam vero tu quoque unus es ex hisce Ecclesiae Dei Altoribus (Rex Serenissime) quo quidem nomine, summas Deo Patri nostro coelesti gratias agimus. Et concreditum tibi, in praecellenti vocatione hac tua, a Domino Deo, Sacramentorum Ministerium, veluti filiam quandam, ganeis jam Papisticis, in tuas rursum aedes (Divino beneficio) hoc est, in curam ac custodiam tuam domesticam reductum habes. Hic tu igitur tibi quoque sequendum esse cogitabis, in his quae adhuc restant, propositum jam boni Parentis exemplum, in tuenda reductae filiae, totiusque adeo

familiae tuae, publica honestate, non tantum in Regno tuo florentissimo, sed in Chatholica etiam Christi Ecclesia, cujus alioqui & ipse civis es, ejus{que} partem pulcherrimam, veluti insignem illius familiam tibi concreditam habes. Hoc vero abs te pij omnes, toto orbe Christiano, exspectant. Etquidem tanto majore desiderio, quanto majoribus atque excellentioribus donis te a Domino Deo nostro ornatum, ac sublimiore etiam, supra alios fere omnes, loco, positum esse non ignorant: nempe ut Sacramentorum Ministerium, illecebris meretricijs, in Papae ganeis, nefandissimè profanatum, omni illarum ornatu meretricio exuas; suoque illud ornatu virgineo rursus induas; quo videlicet a summo illo Regum omnium Rege ac Nomothete, Christo Domino, in suis institutionibus ornatum esse constat. Sic enim nota demum erit toti Ecclesiae Christi, fides tua, in tuenda filiae tibi concreditae, non domi modo tuae, sed toto etiam orbe terrarum, publica honestate.

 

 

THE PRAEFACE.

 

They who put to sea, according to their severall scopes & purposes, so doe they steere their Compasses, & proceed in their travells answearablely. Such as sett out meerely to satisfy their pleasure, or some private end; when once the heavens begyn to be besett with clouds, the wynds growe high, & the storme approaching threatens apparent danger, when their companyes are scattered & severed from them, or when the foulenes of their stomacks and the noysome humors ther, cause, that they cannot brooke the sea, but with much taedious disquiet & sicknes; They turne their courses & make to shoare with as much speede as they may.

 

Others who seriously intend to make a voyage of it, & are bound for some remote place, & resolved to fetch some precious commodityes from a farr country; they reckon vpon hazards, expect the common calamityes of the sea, & determyne to vndergoe, what ever

they doe expect, or shall befall. The conclusion is: willing they are to adventure the losse of their lives, but not willing, to loose their voyage, therfore on they will: extream necessityes may overbeare them, but no feares can discourage them in ther course.

 

As thus it fares in traveling, so fares it also, with men in professing the truth; their aymes are severall, & their proceedings sutable therunto: Some take up the profession of the truth, as a voyage of pleasure: & such will be sure, to sayle no further, then that they may see the smoake of their own chymneyes: they will serveChrist no longer, then they may serve ther owne turnes, and therfore such will have no more of the gospell, then they may have their owne private with it, not only within sight, but within reach: And its admirable to see, what falsenes they discover in ther course, & yet what fayre colores, they putt upon all their procedings, & would beare the world in hand, they wyshnothing but soundnes, when indeed ther is nothing but shewes & appearances, to please a sensuall eye:

 

Its not amisse therfore, to take the scantling of both these kinds, that the Iudicious Reader may be able to owne them as they appeare in his way, either in their writings, or behaviours: for the lives of men are

like living books, which a wise man will serch into, & observe: To this purposse therfore we shall shortly consider: 1 what is the cause of this declyning? 2 what be the pretenses, wherby they labor to excuse it?

 

The cause of this declining, is the entertaynment of the truth upon false grounds: The apple which is unsound at the coar, will discover rottennes in the skinne afterwards: when the foundation is not sure the whol frame wil synke,* when its shaken by the least storme.

 

Some ther be, like the stony-hearted hearers, who from the present apprehension of the comforts & promises of the gospell, are tickled with the sweetnes the rof, though but in general conceaved, & have their hearts sudainly cheared, with the confused & unapplyed grounds of good;* And therfore they are sayd to receive itsuddaynly with joy:

 

But as they florish speedily, so doe they fade assoone:* for these flashes of comfort, as they arise not from any deepe root of an humbled & self denyng heart: So they leave no deepe stamp or impression upon the Spirit: and therfore when sad & heavy pressures of sorrow doe sease upon the soule, these slight impressions of flashy ioy vanish away:

 

 

These comforts in Temporaries, are like the painting & complexion, which is layd upon the face by deformed harlotts, which the least violence of cold, or heat takes off immediatly; whereas, a sound joy issuing from grounded assurance, is like ruddy complexion, which ariseth from good blood, & a wholsom constitution, which the greatest heats or colds may increase, but cannot remoove as long as life & strength lasteth:

 

*Others agayne are brought to imbrace the truth because of the company or multitude, which they see give credit or countenance therunto:* thus the Pharisee would not to heaven vnlesse he might go in the crowd. Or because of the safty & commodity which the Lord somtimes voutsafes to sincere Professors. Thus many turned Iews in Esters tyme,* not because they were the better, but the stronger party; not for the truth of their profession, but for the safty of the Professors.* These attend upon Christ for the loaves and follow the gospel no longer then profit followes them. The name of a prison, the noyse of a chaine, makes the truth so deformed in their eye, that they dare not, & therfore wil not owne it. As the leaves of a tree, whyle they be fed with moysture, drawne up in•o the branches by the Sunne in the springe, theyflorish

 

and cold frost drive back the moysture, they wither & fall. Like these leaves, is the love of these wordly gospellers. An instance of this temper is apparant in many of our Elizabeth Professors (as they are termed) who were whot at the entrance of the Gospel, when company, credit, & profite were attendants to it: but when the frownes & displeasure of authority, like wynter blasts, plucked away their livings & dignities which were as the moysture, to feed their desires, they dried away in their (discretion) & reteined nothing but the name of auncient Professors, like boxes in Apothecaryes shops, which cary fayre titles on the outsyde, & fill up roome, but have not one healing or usefull drugge in them.

 

A third sort ther be,* who at the first appearing of the gospel in a place, are taken up with the strangnes and novelty, eyther of the Doctryne, or the manner of delivery, & answerablely with some affection make inquiry after it. This was their practise, when Iohn Baptist came preaching in the wildernes,*Then went out to him Hierusalem, & all Iudea, & all the Region about Iordan. This also our Saviour acknowledged as ther indeavor.*Ihon was a burning & a shining light, & you would have

 

recoyced in him for a season.

 

It befalls the Gospell in this case, as it doth with some strange commodity: when it first comes to view, many see & cheapen, until the price proves too heavy, & then they depart & will not buy: So here: when our Saviour sets open the sale of the gospel, in som obscure place, many wil be comers, hearers, Cheapners, until they finde that the word growes somwhat high rated, & the conditions of the Gospel seeme too hard, & then they for sake it. Herod welcomes Ihon Baptist, & observes him, but at last murthers him.

 

*Others lastly, after some sad conviction of the truth revealed, as also of the necessity and excellency therof, hold it a poynt of honor, to persevere in the defense & maintenance of it: and hence for their owne prayse, may, & doe Suffer heavy persecutions, as, poverty, Exile in the profession of the truth, the power wher of they never approved in the exactnes of it.

 

Thus many in Queene Maryes dayes, were exiled for the Gospel, who afterward returned into England,* & opposed, yea persecuted the power & accuratnes practise of it.

 

For ther is a nick of temptation, which stuttes the humor of these temporizing hypocrites, & discovers them

 

in their colours: & hence it is, that these of Diotrephes his generation, could endure banishment, because that hyndred not, but promoted their honor in that kynd of suffering: yet when they came into place of supremacy, fell to beating of their fellow brethren, as conceaving the strictnes of their course, caryed a condemnation of their carelesse and pompous sensuality.

 

We have seen the causes, consider we now the excuses they would pretend for themselves.* And heer as mens corruptions are diverse, & act more or lesse strongly, their shifts cary more or lesse apperance vrith them. Here first your statist is most grosse, to whom his Religion is as his coyne. Al that, goes for currant gospel with him, that is stamped with the authority & allowance of the State: He is hovering betwixt several Religions, that he may take any for his turne, waits & eys, to see which syde is like to prosper, that so he may be of the safest syde: And he •esseth him self with the name of a Christian Churche, & the substance of Religion. And what ever things are like to prove trouble some, these he wil make indifferent, that he may take them, or leave them, as he likes best for his ease.*

 

He complaynes much of the restlesse strictnesse of mens Spirits, who cannot see when they are

 

well, put too great weight upon things, that are of no worth, stand upon trifles. He crieth out for Discretion as that which would umpire & determyne all doubts. And therfor he can run with the hare, & hould with the houud:*(by discretion) He will doe any thing, rather then suffer any thing: (by discretion.) He can soder with the tymes, & winke at the synmes of men, yea swallow them downe, though with reluctance of conscience, & that he termes tolerating; & all (by discretion.) Authority is in stead of all arguments to this man, he enquires after no other ground or warrant.

 

The Temporary Gospeller having had some touch of Religion,* & light of truth, in his mynde, can fynd no rest unto his conscience, vnlesse he have some shew of reason to allege: for he remembers the charge of the Apostle: ye are redeemed with a price: be not the servants of men: he recalls the limitation of Gods command:*obey in the Lord: that we ought to be followers of the Apostles no farther then they wer followers of Christ. That the utmost extent of our Saviours commission to teach, & for men to obey was: That men should be taught,* to observe all that he commanded, not that men commanded.

 

 

Resolving therfor to decline, they seek to catch at any appearance, which they may plead for their declining.* And because they are most led by example, and sense, these are the weapons with which they use to ward them selves, & maintain their course.

 

Common example carries a perswading power with them, its a sufficient reason for their doing because they see it is don. Here they take up their stand. All men for the most part do so, & why may not they?* Thus like sheep they follow the drove though it be to the shambles. Especialy if they heare of any noted & famous for piety, & godlines to goe in such a way, they conclude forthwith, it is the right way: reasoning thus: They are wise and godly, & think you, they durst do it, they would do it, unlesse it wer good and pious? when the truth hath told us, that all m•n are lyers,* & eyther doe, or may deceive, or be decey••d; even the courses of the strictest saynts have ther crackings:* Peter was a good man, & yet dissembled: and Barnabas was a good man,* & yet was snatched away by example into the same dissimulation. What madnes is it because a wise man happily falls into the mire, that we should foule our selves & wallow with him? But the mayne bulwark wherby they beat back all assaults, is if they

 

can hould out some Ecclesiastical Canon: The Church enjoynes it,* & are you wiser then The Church? This stricks it dead, no man must dare to dispute any further; nay they count it unreasonale, once to demurr or doubt any more: but expect, that al men should captivale their conceits presently, & put off reason, & plucke out their eys, to see by other mens spectacles: which is intruth not only to cease to be Christians, but to be men.

 

Not that I detract any due respect & esteeme, which each man should have both in opinion & affection of the true Church of Christ:* I know she is the spouse of Christ; yet but the spouse. It is enough that she is next to her head, the Lord Iesus, she must not usurp to be head, her power is subordinat not supreme, ministerium not imperium,* she must deliver the lawes which she hath receaved, from her King, not dare to make lawes: And therfore we must beware, lest whyle (for our owne es) we would honor the Church too much, we dishonor Christ, wrong & greive both:* To crush therfore the former Cavil, & objection: I answer several things.

 

It is the Romish tenet, to a hayre, & one of the most fulsom poynts, & loathsom dregs of the fylth of Popery. The Iesuits themselves having no other bottom

 

  • hey beare up, or to biuld up, their blynd obedience: An opinion constantly & unanimously opposed by all our Divines (Chamier de votis,*lib. 11. cap. 11.) abhorred by al Christian self denying, and syncere-belleiving hearts: For what is it else, but to jusle Christ out of his prophetical & Kingly office: to resolve our fayth & obedience lastly, into the determinations & commands of men?

 

  1. Why are the Berreans commended for examining Pauls Doctrin?* why are all men enjoyned to trye all things, & to hold that which is good; If we be bound to take our Religion upon trust from the authority of the Churche?

 

  1. If Paul an Apostle & Doctor of the gentiles,* disclaymes all such souveraignty as tyrannicall usurpation, what man or Church dare chalenge it? But disclayme it he doeth. 2. Cor. 1. last. Not that we have dominion over your fayth, but are helpers of your joy, for by fayth you stand.

 

  1. Had men, or Curches, power to coyne Ecclesiastical Canons, to forge new articles of fayth, to make these senses of the Scripture Authentick, which suited their mynds, and to charge these upon the consciences of men, as necessary to be beleeved, Beleivers should not stand

 

by their fayth, but they, and their fayth, should stand or fall, according to the feeble determination of men.

 

  1. If the fayth of particular men depend upon the Church,* upon what doth the fayth of the Church depend? Eyther they be the rule, (which is too loathsome to affirme) or else they are guided by the rule of the word, in their determinations, which begets both saving light in their mynds, & sound faith in their hearts: Eph. b. 20.10. Rom. 17. And if the word be ablé to give them light & fayth, why not others as wel as them?

 

  1. The authority of the Church, unto which we must captivate our judgements,* musteyther be the authority of the Vniversal Church, whiche acteth nothing but in the particulars; & these have varied in opinion, & practise, touching Ceremonies, & therfor cannot setle us in a certaine determination; Or it must be the authority of a particular Churche: but particular Churches have not only erred, but departed from the faythe: Who Lorded it oter the law? did not the Church: 14. Math. 10? who condemned & crucifyd the Lord? (did not the Church?) who persecuted the Apostles & forbad them to preach & publish the Gospel? (did not the Church?) And this

 

which is sayd of Churches, is true of Coun•els, of all kynds, as experience of all ages hath made it good.

 

Others of this rank, plead the love of their people,* the necessity of preaching, & hope of doing good: how precious mens paynes are, & what need of laborers in the vynyard. And therfore conclude, if all men should sit do wur in silence, as some doe, the ruyne of the Church must needs follow. They confesse (its true indeed) these popish reliques, which are the bane of the Churches peace, being unprofitable & needlesse, nay scandalous & offensive, should be removed. But when they weigh that heavy charge: Woe if I: preach not the Gospel, they are then willing to beare all, rather then to deprive the Church of the benefit, & the soules of Gods people, of the profit & comfort of their ministerye:* whereas alas al this pretence of mer¦cy is a miserable mistake, & commonly that worldly watch word (of favour thy self) lyes closely covered under these curious florishes of care & compassion for the common good. For the quaestion is not, whether preaching be precious, or the paynes of faythful Ministers profitable? But the doubt here is, whether we may come to doe lawful things, by unlawful meanes? To synne, that we may doe service? As though

 

the Lord had need of my lye; or else that he could not bring his servants to his owe haven, without the divels boate; or that Christ could not upholde his owne kingdome without the paynes & preaching of some men; now I conceyve, it is undeniably evident, that the suffering, in the tyme of Queene Maryes dayes, did more setle & enlarge the bounds of the Gospel, then all the preaching did in King Edward the sixt his reigne.

 

* Others speake out, & deale downe right: professe, it is agaynst the hayre, & their hearts, to doe this drudgery, but they are not able to undergoe the extreame pressure which followes the refusal of them: Nay its certayne, some have openly protested, that, if it were but half an howres hanging,* they would rather suffer it, then subscribe. But for them & theirs, to ly in the ditch, & to be cast into a blynd corner, like broken vessels; yea they & their familyes to dye many hundred deaths, by extreame misery, before they could come unto their graves; This they were not able to undergoe. A condition, I acknowledge, which needs & deserves a great deale of pity & commiseration, since it is true, that some kinds of oppression make a man mad: But oh that the God of mercy would put it into the mynds & hearts of those whom it doth concerne, that they would never

 

suffer such refuse reliques, longe, to hazard, not only the comforts, but even the con•ciences & happines of many distessed soules.

 

Ther is a thrid & last sort of men, more ingenuous then the former, whoe when they see,* that such colours (of excuses, formerly propounded) are not layd in oyle, & therfore willnot continue, nor can give them any encoragement in ther course; such feeble pleas being like figg leaves, which cannot cover the nakednes of their cause, being neither true in themselves, nor honorable to their proceedings: They come to the mayne hold; and professe the things are lawfull, & commendable, & therfore they doe no more but what they may, nay what they ought. And whereas they have beene of another mynd, they diversely discover the causes of their change; as they are diversely affected, or have a greater stroke of conscience, & conviction of judgement.*

 

One man acknowledgeth, he hath beene long staggering, about the things in quaestion: But now he hath gott greater light, sees more, & understands better. And yet no man could ever see, his candell lighted, his arguments alleged, nor yet were his overswaying reasons, ever offered to skanning.

 

 

Nay if he be put hard to, it wil appeare he hath, none: yea he is not acquaynted with the things he doth, if he come to give an account, of what he hath done. Only you must beleive, he hath private arguments, which doe overpower his judgement: Otherwise he must graunt, he doth practise without ground & reason: The summe in short is, he hath gotten a perspective about him, and perceyves that ease, & liberty is good, & therfore, (Issachar like) is resolved to sit under his burden: he sees the way by swallowing o• ceremonyes, how to sleepe in a wholle skinne, & that •ourse he takes.

 

*If some searching truth delivered in publike, presse him, or some syncere hearted freind perswade him to a further inquiry, he seeks after the truth, as a coward doth for his enemy, being a frayd to fynd it. Loath he is, to be in the society of such, whō he conceaves, to be eyther Iudicious in their dispute, or Zealous in their course, agaynst this trash. Secretly desirous, that other should not occasion conference, or that suche should not enter into serious communicatiō of these things, & if they doe, he is weary of it,* & blames the Author of the discourse, as that more savory or seasonable talk were shut out: When he goes for counsel, and direction, it is to some such Authors, who writè for the things he would

 

practise, or consul• onely with those men, that professe to mayntayne them, & so they make up the match at mydnight.

 

But if yet, their owne consciences, the arguments or persuasions of others,* provoke to a more serious examination of both sides: How wearishly & unwillingly goe they to the vorke? Commonly they make choice of the weakest, whose opinion they know, to be crosse, to their course: or if they advise with other, of more able understanding, it is upon a start or suddayne, that •her can be no sad dispute, & if yet such arguments fall, which they are not able to gaynsay; They goe their way, & can tel how to forget or neglect them, & professe •hey were with such, but could not be convinced, •or see any sufficient reason to set•e their judgements.

 

But when they consult with such, whose opi•ions they know wil please their palates, & perswade •hem to that, which, they are resolved before hand to •ractise; Though happily they propound no reason, but •nly administer some grave counsel, or savory advise to •xpresse their owne resolution, or allege that place Rom. •3.1. Let every soule be suject to the higher powers; Oh they goe away with abundant content, admire & thank him for his advise▪ professe they

 

never heard so much, & that now he is fully setled, & hath his doubts answered to his desire, gives it out, that such a man is able to give satisfaction to any: when in the meane whyle, he never asked any argument, but tooke his bare opinion, because it pleased him, & yet will reject the reason somtymes of another, because it crosseth him.

 

May be, it so falls out, that some new book of great note & expectation, is publyshed, which might cleare the cause to these mens contents: After they have viewed it, & wiped their eyes, all things then are so cleare, that ther is not a cloud in the sky, nay not a mote in the sunne: Ther was never sayd so much before: Oh this book of D. Burgesse, hath made all things evident to them, even to admiration, & conclude, it will doe as much to any that reads it: so that, if men be not obstinate, they cannot, but be convinced.

 

But alas: these men, have they taken the arguments into serious consideration? have they labored to search & examyne the strenght of them? have they propounded them to such who are held most able, & judicious, of the other opinion, who doe not fynd themselves, yet perswaded? Alas here is deepe silence? where is that ancient rule: Audi alteram partem? where is that

 

charge of the Apost: trye all things. Is it not likely the man should be perswaded by his author,* who resolves before-hand never to quaestion any thing in him? He must needs be of his authors fayth, who purposeth to beleive all he sayes, or not to doubt of what he sayes. And whyle I was penning this preface, ther was one curious prank of cleanly conveyance of a declining heart, brought to hand, & it was this: pressures growing heavy upon such, that would not conforme them selves, The Court censures of the Commissary, proceeding to excommunication of such as refused, & adding aggravations therunto: to wit,* forbidding to buy or sell with such, that were so excommunicate, upon payne of excommunication: one amongest the rest was not able to undergoe the burden: to professe he could not suffer, was too shamefull, & therfore he professeth his jugdement was changed by D. Burgesse his book: & therfore he need not, nay he should not suffer. Some of his parteners or consorts, desiring satisfaction with him, entreat that he would poynt at the place, expresse the argument, or arguments, in this booke, that prevayled with him. To which he answers: no perticular, or perticulars, in the book, perswades, but the wholl: The English of which speech & practise is this: I am

 

resolved to conforme: & I will be perswaded by Doctor Burgesse his book to it; but neither I, nor you shall know, what perswades me; that so my grounds not being knowe, they cannot be answered, nor I unsetled any more: oh the desperate folly of a declining heart, to betray & deliver up it self unto the delusions of Satan!

 

Ther is lastly another sort of profound disputers in the world,* who apprehending their reache to be beyond the reasons & writings of other men, have out of the depth of their judgements, devised a way judiciously to deceyve their owne soules; & out of their pick-lock subtility, count it easy to make way for themselbes, & mayntayne their way in any quaestion. And this they do by making a maze of Divisions, & cutt things in so many shreds, by multitudes of distinctions, that at length they loose their cause, the truth, & them selves also in theissue, & must of necessity be wilder the reader, unlesse he be of a searching judgement: This kynd of distinguishing is like snuffing of the candell too neare, putting out the light wholly, whyle they intend to make the light burne more cleare: so do these men darken the truth, professing to discover more of it. praegnable examples of this kynd, the Rej. hath expressed unto us, when to avoyd the dint of the argument concerning

 

significant Cerem: & worship, his destinctions are so many & intricate, that one member destroyes another, & the true nature of worship also, as may appeare in the 85. & 136. pag: of the first part of this Dispute.

 

All this I speake, not that I would fall out with any, who is not of the same opinion with my self: for I prosesse the contrary, in a word of truth: every man abounds in his owne sense: Only this seemes somwhat greiuous, & I conceave also injurious to the truth, that after all hard dealing, she cannot gett an indifferent hearing, Seing it is the fashion of the world, to have mens persons in admiration, to gayne some countenance therby to their owne courses, And therfore to blow up the fame of mens abilityes, (as they do bladders) to the utmost greatnes they can, that the greater warrant they may seeme to have, to follow their opinions & wayes. And contrarywise, the person must be disparaged, when we would have his cause, or work come into discredit: a fashionable, but a shame lesse peice of Rhetorick: Thus the writing of the Repl: must be a pamphlet, his manner of writing •currilous, that when both are thus disfigured, by the dirt and soote, which the Rej. hath flung upon them, it may be conceyved, they

 

were so misshapen in their first frame: vhereas the answeare of the Rei: must be lifted up & proclaymed, worthy, learned, & judicions: which puts me in mynd of Demetrius his out-crye: 19. Acts: 28. Great is Diana of the Ephesians:* the ground whereof was not so much the love of the Goddesse, as the greedy desire of that great profit, they reaped therby: So here, the answeare must be learned & judicious, that men may conforme learnedly, and judiciously.

 

Not that I envy the Drs. Honor, or would diminish any thing of his due, but I cannot endure dawbing, much lesse that the prayse of men, should be advanced, to the praejudice of the truth. Laying aside therfore-all praejudice, & partiality, cast we the proceedings of the Repl: & Reioy. into the scales of righteous consideration, & where the blame most appeares, let the Reader lay it on, & let-him beare it, to whom it is due by desert: And in this search, let no man think, I intend or seek the Rej. his dishonor, for my witnes is in heaven, I doe not; nay I dare not doe it. I know the righteous judge would require it: but it is for the manifestation of truth, and innocency, where ever it is to be found.

 

That I may doe the Doctor right then, I will sett downe the rules how farr the faylings of others may

 

be layd open. 2. How farr, & in what cases, some kynd of tartnes, & sting of indignation may be expressed, in pen or speech, as allowable in holy writt.

 

That we may lay forth the limits of the farst, & see how farr the compasse of our Christian Commission reacheth in the discovery of others faults,* we must wisely distinguish of Persons & Synnes that so we may not be deceaved.

 

Persons then undergoe many conditions, & relations: some are members of the same congregation, who have covenanted, to walk in the fellowship of the fayth of the Gospell: Others are subjects of the same commonwealth only, professing the truth.

 

Both these agayne; are there repenting or pertinacious, & incorrigible synners.

 

Synnes also are of sundry kynds some are private, some are publike: both these agayne, are lesser scandalls: or more hainous & Capitall Crymes, which threaten apparant hazard to the publike good of a state, or the prosperous successe of the Gospell: Now out of these distinctions, such conclusions may easily be collected, which may give answer to the first quaestion, so far as concernes our purpose: & these be 3.

 

In private offences, the rule of our Saviour takes

 

place:* If thy Brother offend, tell him his fault betwixt him & thee alone, if he heare thee, thou hast gayned thy Brother: if our admonition attayne the end, in removing the evill, we need not then crave further help, from any other, to redresse it. Beside, our Brother having regayned his honor by repenting, we should not cast the blott agayne upon him, by any fresh report.

 

  1. If under private admonition, a Brother prove obstinate, & incorrigible, we may, & should publish, both person & fault to the congregation, as our Saviour in that case enjoynes it, as a duty to be discharged, & leaves it not to our freedome to omitt: for the words runn in force, & forme a commaund: tell the Church.

 

  1. If the offence be publike, either left upon record in writing, & made so notorious to all that will attend, & read it: or acted in some sollemne assembly, or in open view before many witnesses, laying aside malice, & envy; which may stir us, or synfull and sinister ends, which may carry us hereunto, & spoyle this, & the best service. Its very lawfull, nay (in case) very necessary, to speake of such miscariages, or write of them, as occasion may require, & that with

 

out all breach of love: whether we looke at others, who are but standers by, That they may not be scandalized, infected, or plucked away by the error of men: Or if we looke at the offenders them selves, by way of Caution, & wholsome prevention, we stopp the poyson of their practise, that so they do no more harme to others; nor bring any more guilt upon their owne soules: then which what greater love and mercy can be showne, to our fellow Brethren?

 

And out of this ground, and after this manner it is, that we shall bring some of the Doctors miscariages to consideration, and present them to the view of the Reader: but such only, which he himself hath made open and notorious, either by writing or practise: and that for this end alone, that the false colours which he hath putt upon his course, and proceedings, may not prejudice the truth in in the hearts, or judgements of the ignorant, and unwary Readers; or any that are willing to declyne, who would very fayne have the Doctors words without controule, that so they might follow him without feare, and this may suffice for

 

answer to the first quaestion, & the warrant for our way to walk in.

 

The second admitts satisfaction in short: to wit How farr & in what cases, some kynd of tartnes may be expressed in pen or speech.*

 

Ans: ther be two instances in Scripture, which are playne & pregnant to this purpose, & left for our direction in this case.

 

The first is the behaviour of Elias, towards Idolaters & their Idolatrous practises whom he jeares to their faces, & out of a holy kind of indignation, s•i•gs with a bitter & a deriding Irony. For so the 〈◊〉: And it came to passe at noone, that Eliah mocked them,* & sayd crye aloud, for he is a God, either he is talking, or is pursuing, or he is in a journey, & peradventure he sleepeth, & must be awakened: And hence it is, the Lord casts such loathsom terms of detestation, upon the Idoll, that he besparckles the worshippers therof with disdayne.

 

The second instance is touching ambitious false teachers,* or Idoll sheapherds. So Isayah, his watchmen are blynd, they are dumb doggs, they cannot bark, they are greedy doggs, they can never have enough. So the Apost. Paul gyrds the consciences,

 

of those silken Doctors of Corynth, & their followers; which slighted the simplicity of the Gospell 1. Cor: 4.10. we are fooles for Christ, & ye are wise in Christ; we are weake, & ye are Strong; ye are honorable, & we are despised; These tart Ironicall speeches stable the heart, with a secret disdayne, of their groundlesse, & ambitious folly: And indeed when the Lord enjoyns it as a duty, & makes it a note, & argument of a happy man,*that a vyle person is contemned in his eyes; what expression of words, can sute such a contempt in the heart, unlesse they cary some tartnes of di•dayne with them.

 

We now see our limitts & allowance: let the judicious Reader according to this rule, consider of some Keene passages of the Reply: and I suppose it will be found, that the most of thē, if not all, are poynted agaynst the unwarrantable standings, & places, the intollerable, & ambitious courses of our Prelats, or else their seeming & self-deceaving arguments.

 

If in any he hath exceeded the bounds of sobriety, I professe, neither to defend, nor excuse it, I know the Replyer himself will not allowe it: For he hath silenced, all such expressions in this second Reply: though he had never so just cause, to provoke him thereunto, &

 

never so great advantage given him by the miserable mistakes of the Rej. in many places: which if the Rej. had found in him, (He that can haulke after words with such eagernes) we should have had exclamations, Proclamations, & outcryes enough to haue filled up a wordy & wyndy volume.

 

How ever, was the Reply: never so worthy, to have the reproach of scurrility cast upon him, or his work; the Rey; was most unworthy & unfit te doe it, who hath, (I dare say) much exceeded in this kynd:* How unseemely is it, & how ill sounds it, to heare theeves complayne of Robbers, harlots of adulteresses. The proverb is homely, but true: its a hard world, when heerring-men revile fisher-men. For proofe whereof, I appeale to thyne eyes to be witnesses Christian Reader. And that I may proceed, according to Allegata probata, I will not look beyond my lyne: Only that picture which the Rej. hath made of himself, I judge it not only lawfull, but in this case necessary to present agayne to his veiw; that the world may know, & if God will, Doctor Burgesse also, may know himself, & what his spleen hath beene, agaynst the people of the most High God, blessed for ever.

 

 

A tast of the tartnes of Doctor Burgesse his Spirit, in the severall passages of his answer.

 

This tartnes will appeare in 3. kindes.

 

  1. His heavy Censures, and that, of the very hearts, & consciences of men.
  2. His open reviling of the persons of the nō conformists: or secret inducements to bring them into distast:
  3. His Keene & scornefull jests, which are his pastime, frequently expressed through the wholl.

Heavy Censures.

 

  1. They who tell us, that all the Church may doe touching rites

 

is: but the application of circumstances, which are in nature, Civill: Adding that the Church may not ordayne any Cerem: meerly Ecclesiasticall; do Manifest a spirit which lusteth after contradiction p. 37 of manuduc.

 

In the answer.

 

  1. If it seeme so to him indeed: God hath smitten his contentious spirit, with Giddines: for who but a man forsaken of all wisdome. &c. 62. p.

 

 

  1. The Convocation house is not so likely to conclude &c. as this Libeller, is to come to shame for his factious, & intollerable comparison, unlesse God humble him. p. 62.

 

  1. For whosoever thinksnot as

 

(they) must either be condemned of grosse corruption, or excused, as having some good meaning: yet much weaknes with all, scil. in (comparison of them) And this pride makes them so scornefull: p. 65.

 

  1. It is so palpablely false, that I should hardly beleeue, any Fryar durst haue sett it downe in print: p. 67.

 

 

  1. And see how these men that talke & write in so haughty, & magistrall a fashion, doe but gull, & deceiue them with the names of worthy men.

 

Which is so great & shamefull a sinne, & in this Replyer, so frequent, that I wonder he dares dispute about Cerem: before he have learned the substance of common honesty: p. 83. in his alligations.

 

  1. How can you beleeue any truth, crosse to your opinion? when as you seek glory one of another, & presume of your new traditions, as if the spirit of truth came to you, or from you alone. p. 103.

 

  1. As for tearmes of excrements,

 

which he would be loath, one should apply to the hayre of his heade, It savoureth of a spirit of rancor, as doth the like Foule speech, in the Scotch Dialogue. God will judge them for these reproches, by which they labor, to breed scorne, and abhorring of these, in the minds of ignorant men. p. 131.

 

  1. This flim-flam Master Iacob lent you, and both he, and you take it up, merely for a shift, Not out of conscience, or judgement; but of hauty desire of defending, what you have once spoke. 207.

 

  1. This Replier (in a common

 

course) giving the name of a good Christian, to some unconformable. The Rej. breaks out into these words. This Addition savores Strongly of that spirit of seperation, which hath beene hunted after, in the chase of unconformity.

 

For this showes, that with these men the adversaries of Ceremonies & Bish. are the only good Christians. p. 216.

 

  1. Doth this Repl. & such as he, who without law, without calling, without reason, without conscience, doe smite with their toungs, and condemne to the put of darkenes, •he Bish. & the conformed Ministers, & in a manner, all that are not of th•ir party. 216. pa:

 

 

〈1 page duplicate〉

 

〈1 page duplicate〉

 

  1. Nor is it rightly taken up, that these men are counted factious, for neglect of Ceremonious Canons, upon conscience, but for stiffe opposition to Ecclesiasticall lawes, which they despitefully speake, & write agaynst, & for contempt of these statute lawes, by which the book of common prayer is established. For that they draw (as fast as they can) into a body of themselves, ingrossing a forehand, the name of brethren, The Godly, the Church, the good Christians, as though we had lost our Christ, & they had found

 

him quite away: 222: pag:

 

  1. The tearming of our Cerem: Popish, is done out of faction, & to make the imposers, & Observers of them, hatefull with the people of God, which I beleeue no Church would suffer, I am sure it should not: pag: 238.

 

  1. This man forceth his witt, & I feare his conscience also, & doth not beleeue himselfe, when he sayth, that these Cerem. are imposed as parts ofGods worship; but only for faction & opposition, would fayne haue it thought so, that their opposition might be justifyed before men. 243. p.

 

  1. For a wrangling spirit; yea an ill conscience, is so playnly to be observed, while he studies

 

to perswade, what himself beleeues not. 243.

 

  1. But what should I presse these men, with the authority of men, who have themselues in estimation, for soundnes of judgement, before all men. p. 370.

 

  1. But the Repl. seing no interpretation will help agaynst the cleare Testimonies of the Learned, by us alleadged, confesseth they were men, (as if he, & his partners were more then men!) & that ther is a little variety. So willing are men rather to cast dirt in the faces of others, then to confesse any mistaking in themselues. Is this any thing, but the spirit of pride,

 

thus masterly to judge the Lords worthyes? 387. p.

 

  1. This answer you think good to give: because you are resolved to sinke the reputation of all men, auncient or latter, how learned, & zealous soever they were, ratherthen to confesse your owne mistaking.

 

Open Revilings of the Persons of Non-conformitants: or secret inducements to bring them into distast.

 

In 52. pag: of the Praeface: some Noncōformists are brought in, & sayd to be of that temper: that when the remove all of Cerem. only was mentioned: Their answer was.

 

They must not have a hoof-behinde

 

them: And the note in the Margent tells us.

 

  1. This Sr. Fran: Walsingham told Mr. Knewstubs, of whom I had it.
  2. It is a ridiculous supposition; its a malitious surmise; all this scurrilous bundle is of no use, unlesse it be to ingraft himselfe, into the affections, (which he calleth the consciences) and applause of his owne partie. p. 633. Preface.
  3. These two notes, note you to be an egregious wrangler. p. 6.
  4. Did ever sober-man reason thus? p. 61.
  5. I should be sory to fynde so much waywardnes, & falshood, in any man of our Religion; but cannot but wonder at it, in

 

a man pretending more then ordinary sincerity p. 15.

  1. How ever these men, who in effect say to all other men, stand backe, I am more holy then thou, &c.
  2. What a shame is it for men to glory of sincerity, for refusing Cerem. And use no sincerity in alleadging authors, 284.
  3. But that use which the learned divines call Historicall, these men call Religious, that they might by a false eare-mark, bring us into suspicion abroad, & into hatred wiht our Religious people at home, and yet they would be counted sincere men. 303.

 

Certaine Quaeres, by which these passages may be weighed, in the balance ofserious consideration.

 

Of all, in generall, the quaeres are these: 1. If the Replier did any where give sentence of conformists consciences? 2. If he uttered any one bitter speache against all Conformists? 3. The former being negatiuely true, if the Rejoyner (in his over & under-lashings) was not overcome of his owne evill, rather then the Repliers?

 

Quaere. 1.

 

  1. If a man upon probability affirme such a poynt, or out of ignorance & mistake, conclude it

 

certaine, & so relate it, as by him conceaved, doth he hereby necessarily manifest a spirit of contradiction, or the weaknes of his owne apprehension?

 

  1. If charity hopes the best, that can be conceaved in reason, to iudge mens spirits by grounds weake, & feeble, out of which nothing can be concluded.

 

Quaere, whether it be not uncharitable censuring?

 

  1. Do all those who contradict the like conceites of the Rej: as false, manifest a sinful spirit in lusting after contradiction?

 

Quaere 2.

 

Whether may not a man mistake a thing plaine, & be of no contentious spirit?

 

Whether in such a mistake, is it certaine God smites with giddines?

 

Whether is not this to iudge mens consciences, beyond warrant of any word of God, or the nature of the work wil beare?

 

 

But is not this, not only unreasonable, but intollerable, if the thing be true?

 

Quaere 3.

 

  1. Whether these words come from a calme loving & merciful spirit?

 

  1. Whether God may not abate a man, for his fals in executing iudgments here: or may lay many punishments on him beside open shame?

 

  1. Whether these definitive determinations of iudgments upon men, for some light differences, & those not so cleare, be not to jussle God out of the place of iustice: & to cast thunderbolts where he doth not?

 

But if the replier make his expression good by his defense, as he hath; is not this a strange censure, upon so smal a thing, & so strange a mistake?

 

Quaere 4.

 

Whether this charge issues

 

not out of a principle, desirous to make the Persons of non conformists, odious to all, proclayming them as such, whose intollerable pride, scornes & contemnes, all men in regard of themselves?

 

Whether the Rej. his passion did not transport him beyond himself in this accusation, when it makes him contradict his owne confession? preface: p. 5.

 

Ther be some moderate learned, Godly, loving. &c.

 

Whether his spleen is not great that would spare none, but even destroy the Nation of Nonconformists, in the esteeme of men: As Haman the Iues? For of all he speakes: They: Them.

 

Quaere 5.

 

Whether he be not more charitable to Fryars, then Nonconformists since he knowes, what they haue printed?

 

Quaere 6.

 

 

Whether if this Repl. was faulty, was it reasonable to fly in the face of all Nonconformists? These men.

 

Whether the Rej. his conscience in cold blood dare say, that their is not amongst the NonConformists, the truth of worthines, but only the names?

 

When in his preface he thus writes p. 3. some peacable & very Worthy Ministers were cast out.

 

Quaere 7.

 

Whether they that cannot entertaine truth crosse to their opinion, & seeke honor one from another, can have any truth of grace? our saviour seemes to gainsay it 5. Iohn. And therfore Whether there be any colour of argument, for the Rej. to condemne al Nonconformists as such, whom this charge condemnes?

 

Quaere 8.

 

Whether doth the vilefying

 

of a relique which one conceaves superstitions, argues a spirit of rancor?

 

How came the Rej: to be sure, that God will judge them for these?

 

Whether may they not repent, & then God wil pardon them, not judge them?

 

How if the reliques be base & deserve to be scorned?

 

Quaere 9.

 

How knowes the R•j: but they might do it out of ignorance, & an error of ignorance may stand with a good conscience?

 

How knowes the Rej: that it was a hauty desire, & no other passion?

 

But if all this be maynteined, is not the Rej: extreamely harsh in his censures, when no roome wil serue him, unlesse he situpon mens consciences, & Pilat-like condemne the innocent?

 

Quaere 10.

 

If one call a non-conformitant

 

a good Christian, doth he expresse a strong savor of seperation?

 

He that names a Non-conformitant a good Christian, doth he conclude, that the adversaryes to the Bish. are the only Christians?

 

Quaere whether reason, or passion agaynst all colour of reason, make these consequences? And whether the Rej. would suffer us to make the like out of his words, when he calleth Conformists: the faithfull servants of Christ, as he doth pag: 628.

 

Quaere 11.

 

Would not the Rej. make Nonconformitants monsters of men, who shal commit so capital a sinne, as condemnation of mē to Hell: & being voyd of law, calling, reason, conscience; in sodoing?

 

Where doth this Repl: condemne all that are not his party, or all conformed ministers?

 

  • ay if neither he, nor any

 

〈1 page duplicate〉

 

〈1 page duplicate〉

 

Non-conformitant ever writt, spake, printed; nay thought so unreasonablely: quaere: whence such an accusatiō comes, & what ground it argues, which exceeds the bounds of truth, or reason; yea common sense?

 

Quaere 12.13.

 

Whether these hundreds of ministers silenced at the beginning of K. I. were despitefull speakers agaynst the cerem: or conscionable forbearers of their use?

 

Whether these, who desire to subscribe according to law, be despisers of the law, or those who deny them the benefit of it?

 

Where is that body, into which the Non-conformitants gather them selves?

 

How appeares it, that they ever ingrossed such Titles to them selves, so as to deny them to all others: or more then the Rej. ingrosseth the title of the faithfull servants of Christ, unto conformists, pag? 628.

 

Whether this imputation be

 

not to bring them into hatred & distast of the state?

 

Whether ever prophane drunkards, riotous adulterers, scoffing Atheists, or the bitterest of the Iesuits, geered more tauntingly agaynst many faythfull? And is it not loathsome to lick up their vomits? For the worst of men, have not worse language, agaynst the Nonconformists.

 

Quaere 14.15.

 

Whether the Rej. can judge of a mans heart any other way thē by his expressions outward?

 

Since the Repl: proffessions & expressions are playne one way, by what warrant can the Rej. conclude his conscience is other. Neither word, nor reason, nor loue, nor Religion, learnes or allowes such inferences: what is the principle whence these proceed?

 

 

  1. Quaere.

 

Whether any man, truly humble, & gracious, can preferr him self before all men?

 

Whether the Rej. accountes all Nonconformists, voyd of all truth of grace, when he layeth this to their charge?

 

  1. Quaere.

 

Whether he that sayes the Auncients were men, doth therby inferr, that he himselfe is more then a man?

 

Whether to affirme the Fathers to be men, is masterly to judge them, or argues a Spirit of pride; when they them selves, so judge, & speake of themselves?

 

Whether to affirme the Auncients to be men, argues a man resolved to sinke all mens reputation, how holy & zealous soever they be, rather then to confesse his owne mistake?

 

 

Quaere 18.

 

Whether ther can be a heavier charge layd agaynst a man then rotten hearted & unfit to live in the society of men? And yet what lighter ground, & more insufficient can be pretended to beare it up?

 

Quaere. 19.

 

What if no man should have knowne, what Mr. Knewstubbs told Dr. B: in private, conceaving him of the same judgement? ergo Quaere.

 

Whether it be safe for fellow brethren, to betrust their secrets to the Rej. his keeping?

 

 

  1. Whether the Rej. did not rake up all the blind corners of his memory, to fetch out what might be, to bring Nonconformers into distast?

 

Quaere. 20.

 

Whether this be not downeright rayling?

 

Quaere 5.6.7.8.

 

Whether the Pharisies, in their Ceremonies, did not praetend more holinesse, then other men? And whether Conformists be not therin more like the

 

Pharisies, then Non-conformists?

 

Whether this be not to leaue the Persons, & to gibe at sincerity it self?

 

Whether doe the professed enemyes agaynst the power of godlines, use any otherlanguage, when they would jeare at the sincerity of Gods servants?

 

Is not some historicall use, Religious? what want of synceritie then is it, to distinguish that historicall use of images, which is to stirr up devotion, from other civill use, by the terme Religious? Nay what synceritie is ther, in branding such a declaration with a false affected ear-mark?

 

 

His tart jests & taunts are not as graines of salt, but so frequent, that they seeme as Pickle, in which the passages of his book are layd to steep, & therfore I will but poynt at some number of places, to ease the reader, & my self.

 

PAg. 71. lyn: Praeface. pa. 14. ly. 29. pa. 19. pa. 33. ly. 22. pa. 15. ly. 1.2.11. pa. 37. ly. 24.25. And he not only takes, but seeks an occasion: yea is content to goe some miles about, to reache men a blow, who were of Godlines & worth, by some slighting taunt to disparage their persons, or works.

 

That judicious & paynfull laborer, & faithfull servant of Christ he slights,*on this manner: M•. Parkars Gaudye & passionate treatise of the crosse. A worke in truth, of that strength, & beauty, that it bleares & dazells the eyes of envy it self. And therfore men out of hope, either to imitate it, or answer it, would beare the world in hand, it was not worth the whyle to spend labor in it.

 

But the Rej. wisheth, some would reduce it to

 

Logicall arguments: & then he doubts not, but it would soone be answered.*

 

Which is such a meer put-of, & so unbeseeming the skill of a Logicall disputer, much more the champion-like confidence of Doctor Burgesse, that had not his heart secretly misgiven him, in this seeming bravado, such an expression would never haue falne from his penn.

 

For let any rationall man be judge in this case. Are not Logicall arguments playnly expressed in a continued discourse, & by a Logician easily collected? & what needs a reducing to a forme then?

 

Beside Mr. Parkars discourse is eyther empty, & voyd of sinewes of sound reason, & then the weakenes of it, is soone discovered, & may be confuted; yea disgraced with more ease; or else ther be arguments, of that solidity, & strength, which eyther the Rej. cannot reduce, or else is not able, or not willing to answere. To say he cannot reduce thē to forme, is a thing too meane to imagine, nor will the Rej. graunt, nor will I, or do I thinke. To say he is not willing to answer, is to gaynsay his owne course, the profession

 

of his care, to traverse this cause, & his loue to our Cerem: & the peace of our Church, so much pretended in his answer.

 

The third therfore must be concluded, for I do not see what fourth thing can be given.

 

Only, Did ever any answerer, serious & judicious, amongst Divines, of any kynd, Protestant Papist, Lutheran, propound such conditions, did ever any grant such? nay is it not to common sense ridiculous? For any Lutheran to send to a Calvinist, any Protestant to a Papist, having printed some serious treatise agaynst them, to send I say this message; well: you haue printed a treatise here, & you place some, yea great confidence in it: if you will (reduce it into sillogismes,) you shall be soone answered, & that ther is nothing but bumbast, & paynted vermilion putt upon it? Spectatum admissi risum? Would not the Papists laugh in ther sleeves, at such an answer, I will say no more: but only propound this forme to the Rej. & saue him a labor to reduce it.

 

He that propounds such tearmes of answer, which never were yet asked, or granted, & indeed are unreasonable to yeeld: professeth he cannot

 

make an answer, being willing therunto.

 

But such termes the Rej. craves. The like jirkes he lends to Mr. Iacob, p. 16. To Godly learned Fenner. p. 38.

 

And he hath such a mynde to chide, that upon the occasionall mentioning of one word excrement, he fetcheth a vagary into Scotland, as it were, & sitts in judgement upon the Author of theScotch dialogue: pa. 131. l. 20. without any confutation of any ground, which I supose had better suited his place, being an answerer, and not a judge.

 

In like sort, he vilifies Mr. Bradshaw: A pamphlet of things indifferent of Mr. Bradshaw. pa. 188. (your Mr. Bradshaw) Whom we are not ashamed to owne, & suppose the Doctor would haue beene afrayd to haue grappled with him, in an arg: had he beene aliue.

 

Venerable Mr. Cartwright he taketh up sometime, as if he had written upon praejudice, without judgemēt. Thus much I thought good, to adde in short, to wipe away that supercilious disdayne, cast here by the Doctor upon divers of the Lords deare servants; many thousands of

 

whom together, he accuseth after of stupiditie, or praejudice, even all that allow not of Organs, in Divine service, or Psalmes-singing. We shall now summarily poynt at the rest of the places, as an inventory or treasury of the Rej. taunts p. 47. l. 22. p. 50. l. 7.8. p. 52. l. 33.34.35. p. 55. l. 26. p. 113. l. 32. p. 120. l. 12. p. 130. l. 10. p. 141. l. last. p. 180. l. 32. p. 182. l. 16 17. p. 213. l. 18. p. 247. l. 21.22. p. 312. l. 6.7. p. 315. l. 11.12. p. 316. l. 10.

 

These are some of the many common places of scoffes, to be found in his booke, & are all contayned within the compasse of the three first chapters. as for the last, I had neither leyseure, nor list, to trouble thee good reader, or my self, with writing them out.

 

Only to giue thee a guesse, how prittily the Rej. can play with words, fynd himself talk, & fill up pages: I shall take so much paynes, as to transcribe a place or two: Thus he writes. p. 66.

 

So this & those rules after added, are as the proverbe is, like a rope & butter, that if the one slip; the other may hold: So agayne.

 

  1. 73. The truth is: Mr. Iacob could never get ouer the block, which Mr. Cartwright, & the Admonitors

 

had layd in his way (how ever Mr. Cartwright himself a man of more activity, made a shift to leape ouer it) namely thus: What soeuer is not commanded in the word, must not be in the Church:

 

And yet Mr. Iacob, that he might seeme to hold fayre quarter with Mr. Cartwright, & other learned Divines, who acknowledge, that certayne Ecclesiasticall rites & Cerem: appropriated to holy actions, were left to the determination of the Church, under some generall rules of the word, will seeme to allow somewhat, he cannot tell what, some circumstances only civill, or occasionall, as the tyme & place, which he rather calleth circumstances, then Cerem: that so, if any shall say, he alloweth nothing to the Churches determination, to be squared, by some rules: He may answer for himself & say: yes, certayne circumstances are; namely such as are necessary in civill, as well as sacred actions. If on the other side, one challenge him to giue some liberty to men, for the ordayning of rites, which are but extrinsecall circumstances about the worship of God: He may answer for himself, he hath protested agaynst all meere Ecclesiasticall Rites, which are ordayned by men, & not left so much as one, to their determination.

 

 

Thus, as he, that by turning of his picture of an horse, made it running, or a tumbling horse, which you would: So hath Mr. Iacob provided for himself, ther to square some circumstances, by 4. rules, or to put of all by another, as the market shall require.

 

This is the substance (Christian Reader) of a whole page almost: Touching which I would propound these Quaeres to thy consideration.

 

Whether it was not easy to make up a massy volume with such talk as this?

 

  1. If a man should sett downe such like passages word for word, & add an answer sutable, filled with such wynde, would it not rather be accounted, & that justly, a blotting of paper, & abusing the reader, then rendering an answer of any worth & satisfaction?

 

And by the survay of these perticulars, collected out of the three first chapters, & comparing theReply therwith, I am confident, it will soone appeare, to any not forstalled with prejudice, whether the replye, or answer, m•y most justly challenge & beare the name of scurrilous? And it will be as evident thatthe Rej. had no cause to accuse the Repl. of scurrility, unlesse he would condemne

 

himselfe not only, of the same crime; but ofsomwhat beside farr more synfull. For, though it be easily incident, I confesse, to our corrupt natures, out of a pange of pride & passion, to cast unbrotherly contempt upon such, who seeme to crosse us in our opinions, & practises, when it comes to poynt of opposition, bewixt some particular men & our selves; yet to vent such a masse of venome, in heavy censures, harsh Revilings, slighting scornes, & that not agaynst one particular, which may appeare in competition, & opposition agaynst us, but even agaynst the generation of those, which refuse humane Ceremonies in Divine worship, many wherof, our penns, & consciences acknowledge worthy & Godly; Nay not only to vent these expressions, but to keepe them sowring, & leavening by us, in our hearts, & writings, many yeares, wherin we haue beene perswaded by freinds, & after perswasions resolved, rather to haue thē burned by others, or to burne them our selves; And yet after all this in colde blood, in saddest consideration, upon review, so far to approue of thē, as to print & publish them to the world; How such

 

a mans spirit is principled? & whether it was a root of bitte•nes, or Godlines, whence such things issue: I leave it to the Almighty to judge, & to the wise hearted to discerne.

 

These be the witnesses, which I haue to produce out of the Rej. his owne writings. All that I desire is, that their depositions may be impartially weighed, & in this desire, & indeavour, ther is no wrong done to any rule of piety or charity.

 

We haue also the Rej. his open practise, as an apparant evidence, to contradict what himself professeth in his Praeface, touching the constancy of his opinion, about the inconveniency onely of these Cerem: howeuer he beares the world in hand to the contrary, & that with great confidence: To which purpose, we intreat the following Allegations may be indifferently heard, from those, who as witnesses can testify his walking by their experience.

 

That faythfull servant of Christ, Mr. Arthur Hildersham, now at rest with God, upon his sicke bed, with great regrate & greif, thus expressed himself to a fellow Brother; Doctor Burgesse his conscience knowes, that I know he speaks untruly. And that it may appeare, these words were neyther spoken

 

passionately by him, nor forged by me; he hath left the proof of them, under his owne hand upon record, which I now haue by me, & shall be bould, for fuller satisfaction, to sett downe his owne mynde in his owne words.

 

In the 19. pag. of the Praeface: The Rej. expresseth him self on this manner, I doe ingeniously confesse two errors in that my Apology; one that I trusted too much to the quotations of the Abridgement, which then I had in writing:

 

To which Mr. Hildersham thus replyes in his notes: How false the quotations are in the Abridgement, will be seene hereafter. But this is manifestly false that he was (before the writing of his Apologye) deceaved therby, or that he had a Copy of it in writing before that tyme. For the Abrigdement was not made till after he was deprived: & therfore no man could haue any coppy of it, either in print or writing. Nay the large book (where of it is an Abridgement,) was not delivered to his Majesty before that day he was deprived; & the Abridgement was made sundry months after. He proceeds Ibid: 19. p. Its true that the Ministers were resolved to haue chosen him for one of those three, that should haue disputed for them, (such profession he had made unto them of his full consent

 

with them in judgement,) & he had beene one of the disputants, if that (not the Deane of the Chappell; but) the King himself, had not expressely (in his message) excepted agaynst him: which also argues, that his Majesty did hold him to be fully of the mynd, that the rest (who had sent him the foresayd book) were of.

 

In his notes of the 20. pag: he hath these words. That ther is no colour of truth in this that he sayth here: i. e. (That when he was chosen to be one of those, that should mayntaine their cause by disputation, he professed to his Brethren, that he could not speake against the things as unlawfull; but only as inconvenient) may appeare evidently to any reasonable man. For seing they had in their book delivered to his Majesty our Kings Father, stated the quaestion not against the inconveniency, but the unlawfulnes of these things. Who will imagyne, they Would euer haue chosen him to be one of the 3 to dispute for them, if he had professed to them at that tyme, that he had nothing to say agaynst the unlawfulnes of them? These be the dying words of that deare servant of God, as I haue them to showe in black & white.

 

If yet the witnes of the dead deserue no credit:

 

The Rej. may with some small consideration, recall to mynd, how after the Revolt, or change of his former opinion, in an occasionall concurrence & meeting of many fellow Brethren; when they out of humane Civility desired him to take his place according to his yeares & gifts; I say, he may (if he will bethink himself) easily recall, what words he then openly uttered to this, or like effect: He told thē he was unworthy to sitt with them; to haue respect from thē, since he had betrayed them, & their cause. Now the cause which they mayntayned was not inconveniency: but unlawfulnes in these things. If the Rej. his memory serue him not about this particular, let him repayre to Bambury syde to his auncient friends there, & they can testify so much to his face. If then the construction that the King, & state, made of his course, the apprehension his fellow Brethren had of his practise: nay his owne profession may be trusted: Lett all the world, & Dr. Burgesse his owne heart judge, whether he hath changed his opinion yea, or no?

 

In his praeface, ther is not much that expects answer. For to omitt his biting language, & devouring words, where with we haue cloyed the Reader in the foregoing Catalogue, and unto which ranke many Gibes here may be referred: as That pag. 5. These do commonly call any small company of their party:

 

The Church & the Christians of such a towne. As if Christ were (I say not divided amongst us) but wholly taken away from us, to them, & what wants this of Schisme in the heart, And that: pa. 9. The glory of suffering for (as they call it) the good cause: And that pa. 12. Others ayme at Schisme & Anabaptisticall delusions: to lett passe these pangs of spleene, & other distempered cariages, which he himself cast upon some passionate people & Strongly conceited. All which being justly blamed, it neither hurts the cause against which he writes, nor helps that which he defends, since the most glorious Gospell of Christ hath such blotts cast upon it, by reason of the sinfull weaknesses of some, who take up the profession therof; Leaving (I say) all these, as not worthy the consideration, we shall intreat the Rej. at his returne to giue some satisfaction to these quaeres.

 

  1. Why Atheists, Papists, prophane varletts, brutish drunkards hellish blasphemers, together with the accursed crew of the most riotous wretches; yea the Generation of Newtralists, morall formalists, ignorant sotts of all sorts, are so zealous for these Cerem. Are so violent to urge, so carefull to practise them, who never had care of piety in all their liues?

 

 

  1. After the Lord, hath cast in some saving illumination into the mynd, convicted the conscience, & converted the hearts of scandalous sinners; after such haue gayned sweet peace of conscience, & assured evidence of Gods loue, sealed unto their soules; why do the hearts of such, rise in some strong indignation agaynst these Popish reliques; when they haue never beene perswaded therunto by teachers, nor had tyme from their owne inward troubles, to consider of them? That this is the disposition of many, I can speake by proof, I would haue the Rej. speake to the reason of it.

 

  1. When it is notorious to all the English world, that the most of the people (who liue in the bosome of the Church, & professe the fayth) be wholly taken up with conformity, both approving & practising of it, countenancing those that do it: Why is the Doctor so troubled, that a few silly despicable people, voyd of wisdome (nay if his former charges be true) voyd of grace, should distast the Ceremonyes; when I know no Iudicious Non-conformer, is disquieted that the crowde of the formall Gospellers should imbrace them? whyle the Rej. is searching the reason of these things, it may chance, he may either search or see his owne heart somwhat more clearely. Leaving then these to his consideration.

 

Proceed we a little to survay the praeface, & the substance of it may be referred to three heads. 1. He chargeth Non-conformity to be cause of many mischeifes. 2. He debates the cure, & administreth that, which he conceaved most meet for redresse. 3. He makes a defense for himself, & writing: Agaynst all which we eycept thus.

 

  1. That his charge is not just.
  2. His dealing in the cure not playne & through.
  3. His defense in that where the stresse lyes, either not equall, or not sufficient.

Come we to skanne the particulars: The mischeifs, which he conceaues to issue from Non-conformity are no lesse then Seperation & prophanesse. A heavy charge, I confesse, but the best is, his reasons haue not the wayt of a rush.

 

  1. That of seperation, p. 5. is supported upon so slender a grounde, that he bewrayes only his desire to haue surpassed his power: therfore Rhetoricates in stead of reasoning. If these (sayth he) be Idolatrous will worshipps; how can you? how dare you ioyne with us, in those acts of Religion wherein these are used?

 

Wherein he neither concludeth the quaestion, because a man may refuse to ioyne in such acts, without sepera〈…〉

 

or utter condemning & renouncing allChurch-•ommunion: Neither doth he proue that, which he con•ludeth about joyning in such acts, by any other argumēt •ut only by how can you, how dare you? To which • answer, we so can, & darejoyne in good acts, to which •omthing perticipating of Idolatry is added, as Christ (our •eacher) & his Apost: did joyne in the Iewesworship, unto which were added many superstitions, as unlawfull, as •ve had our Cerem: Nay I will add one thing further, •hat, if D.B. be resolute in this poynt, i.e. that he must •eperate from all Churches, & Church actions, in •vhich any superstition is exercised; then he must be one of the greatest Seperatists in the world. For •e holding error of judgement to be superstition, & those •uperstitious Brethrē, that absteyne for conscience sake •rom things lawfull, though only upon error in judge•ent: must upon the former ground seperate frō all those Churches in whose Religious acts, any thing in his jud•ement lawfull, is so absteyned from; & much more if •ny thing in his opinion unlawfull, be put in practise: •rom one of which faults, few or no Churches will be •ound wholly free. Yet I would haue another opinion •f D. B. & think, that though he houlde bowing to •he altar, to be superstitious or Idolatrous, yet would

 

he not therfore seperate from the good prayers, that follow that ridiculous Ape of Idolatry.

 

That Other charge of prophanenesse p. 6. pretended to come from praecisenes, is so strange a consequence, that it can hardly with deliberation, be fathered upon Non-conformity, without Non-conscience.

 

For strictnesse in matters of Cerem. hath no more force, to bring forth loosenes in matters of substance; then zeale in matters of faith, & charity hath to bring forth carelessnes of both, nay then pure Religion hath, to breed Atheisme.

 

Goe we to experience: view the places where Non-conformists liue; the people whom they teach▪ the wayes of those with whom they walk; who they be that haue reference to, & dependence upo• their persons, or ministeryes; & I suppose the walls of the Churches, & the stones of the streets, will giue testimony agaynst this accusation. Nay I suppose, I may speake it truly, as I professe, I think it, that someone Non-conformable minister, hath beene a meanes under God, to bring more soules to grace & heauen; then all the Cloysters, or Cathedralls in all England in the same time, where all Conformity hath beene the dayly diet, & liuelehood, of the people.

 

 

Goe we to reason: the best that either the Rej. or any beside, can make of our Cerem: is, that they are things indifferent. Now that weake ones may doubt & stagger about such, That doubting, they ought not to practise them 14. Rom: last vers: is made a duty. That mens walking according to conscience, should be the cause of others disobedience; That keeping the law, should be an occasion in it self of prophaning the law; that stopping the very appearance of the least evill, should sett open a gappe to the greatest; I appeale to any reasonable man whether it be not a consequence voyd of common sense, unlesse men haue a miraculous skill to soder quicksilver, or tysande together, or make heauen & earth meet!

 

Last of all, it is remarkable that Doctor Burgesse himself pa. 8. doth impute these mischeifes unto civill warr about Ceremonies: which if it be well weighed, it will manifest too much prejudice, in his former discourse. For in Civill warrs, the mischeifs ensuing on them, are not wont to be charged upon one part alone, & that poore, passive, overpowred, obnoxious to the suffering of what-soever pressures their opposites please to lay upon them, which is the Case of the Non-conformists in these Commotions: Tell us I pray

 

yow, if in your conscience, the Praelats Canons, courses, Courts, & proceedings, haue had no hand in working mischeife? nay diverse of these mischeifes, which you haue affectedly placed on the other syde?

 

If non-residents, double treble beneficed men, unable, perverse, scandalous, half-Popish Ministers, haue not had a finger in them? If those trumpetours, & drummers, who proclayme the innocency, & justnesse of our Prelats proceedings, haue not brought something to the furtherance of these mischeifes? If you speake your conscience, it must needs say, yes; &, so confesse, it was your passion, not your judgement, that obtruded all upon Non-conformity.

 

The state of this warr is this: wee (as it becommeth Christians) stand upon the sufficiency of Christs institutions, for all kynde of worship: and that exclusively, the word, (say we,) & nothing but the word, in matters of Religious worship. The Praelats rise up on the other side, & will needs haue us allowe, & use certayne humane Ceremonyes of Religion in our Christian worship. We desire to be excused, as houlding them unlawfull. Christ we know: & all that cometh from him, we are ready to imbrace. But these human Cerem: in divine worship we know

 

not, nor can haue any thing to doe with them; upon this they make feirce warr upon us, & yet by the penne of D. B. lay all the fault of this warr, & the mischiefes of it, upon our backs. Now all yee that passe by, consider, & judge, what aequity is used, in such dealing? They will say, all things are to be done decently & in order. To which we willingly consent, but alledge agayne, that we cannot apprehend these Cerem: to be necessary for order, & decency. They (as our Lords) tell us, it is enough for our Consciences, that They esteeme them so. Our Consciences tell us, this is to usurp the place of God, what can we say lesse, then that we will followe our Consciences, rather then their wills?

 

To conclude, the Rej. p. 285. maketh Circumcision lawfull to be imposed, upon the same grounds, that our English Cerem: stand on. Now if it should please our Prelats in a Convocation to apoynt, that all English men should consent to the cutting of their fore-skins, & denounce warr upon those that should refuse this goodly Canon; was it not a graue Accusation, to lay all the mischiefes of such a warr, upon those which would not conforme to such a Ceremony? But the weakest must alwayes goe to the wall, & the Lamb

 

must dye for troubling the water, if it please the Lyon so to determine it.

 

We haue done with the disease, & mischeife together with the cause of it. We are now come to consider the Remedy the Dr. administers: & we except agaynst his dealing herein as not playne; nay not profitable, even by his owne rules.

 

  1. He deales not playnly. For making the Abolishing of the Cerem: by authority, to be one, & the cheife course for cure, as despayring to obtayne that, he refuseth to perswade thereunto: Because forsooth: to judge what is most convenient, & to determine therof, belongeth only to those, who together with power of doing what they shall well like, haue judgement to make choice of the best way. Which is a weake and a very unworthy conceit. For. 1. D. B. cannot deny, that those, who impose, urge, and with capitall punishments inforce these Cerem: upon Christs, Ministers and people, do therin abuse that authority, which they receaved for the procuring of the quietnesse, peace, & safety of those, that desire to serue God according to his word, & not for the troubling, vexing, & scandalizing of them, by opposing

 

  • heir meere wills, in Religious affayres, to mens Consciences: depending wholly and only upon Gods Word; He cannot (I say) deny this to be a greivous sinne of those in place, & yet refuseth seriously to admonish them of the same, being called to giue counsell, & •dvise about this very cause:

 

  1. It is to be supposed that worthy Ministers of the Gospell, are not destitute of wisdome, and judgement concerning Religious affayres. By this reason therfore D. B. might as well haue forborne to judge, what they should choose, as to determine so peremptorily thereof. Lastly, I would gladly know of D. B. whether the Scriptures be not able as well to make Magistrates, and Governoures, perfect to every good worke, as they can do Ministers? whether; either Minister, or Magistrate should doe, or ought to doe any thing, which God hath not commanded them? Whether a faythfull Minister, in his office, ought not to understand, what that word reveales: ought not to teache all Magistrates what out of the word, he so understands? If all which particulars be playne & undeniable, it will appeare that it belonged to D. B. being called to giue counsell, declaratively to judge & determine, what was convenient to be done:

 

which if he durst not declare, he durst not doe his duty. And that I may fasten this nayle yet more fully, I thus force the conclusion.

 

What ever duty of any calling, the word teacheth; that the Minister by the word ought to judge, determine, & deliver. Else how can he teach the wholl counsell of God? how can he giue every one his portion?

 

But the dutyes, and doings (if good) of all Magistrates the word teacheth.

 

Ergo the Minister ought to judge, & determyne of those, by the word, & so deliver them. Ergo it doth not belonge to those onely, who haue power, & are in place, to judge & determine; which was the Doctors assertion.

 

Agayne: what ever God commands, that, and all that, the Minister should teach: & so judge, & determine, else the trumpet should give an uncertayne sound.

 

But what ever men, or Magistrates ought to doe, that Christ hath commanded. Both the parts of the argument are in 28. Math: last v. therfore the conclusion followes: what ever men, or Magistrates ought to doe, Ministers should teach,

 

and consequently judge, and determine.

 

And as thus the Rej. dealt not playnly in his cure, •o whether hath be dealt profitablely, in that his •eceit, is agaynst his owne rule; as it shall appeare in •he scanning of his defense: Which we except agaynst •s insufficient in those particulars, wherin the stresse •nd weight of the plea lyes: And those appeare in •hree speciall obiections he makes: the dynt of none of which, he is able to declyne.

 

The objections are pag. 12.13. & the summe of them •n short is, this writing stirrs strife: ob. 2. exasperat•eh authority: Obj. 3. hinders the remoueall of the Cerem: ob: 4.

 

Heare we now his defense to each of these, in order: To the first, he answers in truth by deniall, that this course of his is so far from stirring the fire of contention, that its casting on water to quench •t: & to this also belongs that, p. 11. there is a neces•ity that some should speake for the cause, unlesse we shall suffer ourselues, not only to be rooted •ut of our livings, but which is worse, out of the hearts of our people, whom we serue in the Lord.

 

Ans: bare deniall with-out reason, yields small

 

releife to a cause, but when it is contrary to the wor• & it self, it betrayes a cause, doth not defend it: & such is this.

 

  1. It is contrary to the word, & that staple 〈◊〉 delivered by the Apostle, which he setts downe, as station, & shelter for the weake in the fayth to be take them selves unto. 14. Rom. 1. where the 〈◊〉 toleration of those, who are weake in the practise• things indifferent, is ever the ground of contention & disturbance in the Church. And therfore this cour•• of forbearance, he inferrs, 19. v. as the way to follow peace: sence teacheth it also: when a company of pas¦sengers are confined to one way to passe, or one door to enter, it causeth them to croud & jussle.

 

  1. This Deniall is contrary to the Doctors ow• doctryne delivered in 3. pag. where its granted by him, and proved by the experience of thresco• yeares: that opposition begetts opposition, & th•• which was giuen to stirr the humor, did only sharpen it. Putt we now the case to the Colledg• of Phisitions; nay let D.B. himself be judge. Is it rationall course? Or like to work a cure? that wh•• the body hath beene distempered many moneths wit• phisick, we should still continue the same receite•

 

And its marvellous to see, how conviction wrests truth from a man, even agaynst his owne passion, & purpose. weigh these two passages, & see if they will accord?

 

The Doctor must write, that he may not be wrought out of the hearts of his people. pag. 11. And yet he confesseth by writing, he hath wrought himselfe out of the hearts of the godly.

 

His defense to the 2. obj: is yet more feeble, though more ingenious: For his answere is nothing but yeilding the cause, in some compasse and circumlocution of words.

 

For (1) when he graunts: that he forbore some yeares this course of writing, that he might not exasperate authority: he privily, yea playnly yeilds, the objection had such rationall face in it, that it did not only presse him, but prevayle with him also: where as 2.ly. he adds: that by this meanes he hath some hope to perswade some to conforme, & so to avoyd the lash of authority. By this he doth not only yeild the objection, but confirme & establish it. For if only those, who are perswaded by his answere, shall avoyd the lash, therfore they who will not be perswaded, must expect the blow, and shall be sure to feele it.

 

 

  1. He adds for his owne intention: Sure I am that I desire not the vexation of any sober man: But his owne bond will not be taken, because he hath so often broke his word; he must seek for other suretyes: (Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam?) Little power have words to perswade any of common understanding, when the practise goes the contrary way. Nor yet can I discerne, how to judge of any mans desire, but only by his indeavour. Those heavy accusations, uncharitable censures, wherby he chargeth & that with much bitternes, the generation of Non-conformists, from what root they come, & what desire they imply, let any rational man determine: For it cannot be to ingratiate them, or procure favor for them, in the affections of the Governors, when he makes them appeare such as deserve none; nay such as ought to receyve none, but the contrary at their hands.

 

Lastly when it is objected: That this course hinders the removeall of these things, which authority otherwise might possibly remove; His defense is; That he will never beleive, that authority will remove them, with dishonor of it

 

self, as yeilding the things to be unlawfull, which it hath so long mayntayned.

 

In which answer: these two particulars offer themselves to consideration.

 

  1. To remove Cerem: as unlawfull, being long mayntayned is a dishoner to Authority.
  2. D.B. beleives, authority will not thus dishonor it self.

Answ: The first of which is a most dangerous assertion; & is made a cheife barr to stay Papists, & others from reforming of any thing, that others haue opposed, & they defended: And its usuall in the mouth of false flatterers, & back freinds to all reformation: & I would hope that D.B. did utter more in this, by his penne, then he meant in his heart. Beside the consequences are not so dangerous, but the ground is as weake For the long continuance, or mayntenance of a thing, if evill & unlawfull, is so farr from bringing dishonor upon any, for the removeall of it, that retayning therof, encreaseth both his sinne, & shame: & it argues a greater measure of humility & power of grace to abandon it.

 

Nay, were the thing lawfull, if yet by circumstances it did appeare, that Gods Honor, the common good,

 

the aedification of our brethren, might more be promoted by the remoueall of it, though it were hoary headed with antiquity & continuance, it argued greatest love to God & man to alter it, rather then to keepe it in use: & that would bring greatest honor to him that should so doe; since by the verdict of Gods Spirit, he is most honorable, that most honoreth God.

 

  1. From these grounds, how rotten & unsavory the second particular of the Rej. his defense is, will easily be graunted. For if in such a remoueall, the duty of Authority doth consist, the power of grace doth appeare, the glory of God, & good of the Church & common wealth, will be advanced; To be of that beleife with D. B. that Magistrates will never be brought to doe what they ought, how uncharitable is it thus to lay their honor in the dust? And not to presse them hereunto, when we may, & by our calling, ought, how unconscionable is it? And how contrary to that loue we owe to the Almighty, & our Governours?

 

The crowd of objections, which he makes concerning himself, I conceyve, as so many Strugglings of Spirit, which stood in the way, to withstand him in his course. His conscience, as it should seeme, gaue the •nsett, & let in some such intimations as these to him.

 

 

Why is not Popery coming in fast enough; but you must make a preparation thereunto: yea become a purveyer, & harbenger to make Roome, & lay in provision for it? Is it not sufficient, that the wicket is sett open, that the Popish pack may be drawne in; but you must sett open the great gate, that a Sumpter horse may amble in with a load of reliques & Cerem? For if the patent of the Church be so enlarged, to appoynt Cerem: at their pleasure, to admonish and teach, and it is in their power to appoynt what, & how many, as seemes good to them; why then let images be erected, let crosses & Crucifixes be sett up in every corner. These are lawfull admonitors, & instructers, & we cannot haue too many good Companions, to putt us in mynd of our duties.

 

Consider beside, how many poore Ministers are under pressure, some fled, some imprisoned, many suspended, themselues & families undone. Why will you not suffer them to lye in the dust, but will you trample upon them, even unto death? Is it not enough, they make brick, but must they be beaten also? Oh consider, as before the Lord, to whom you must giue an account. Doe you well to blow the fire in the Chymny, whyle the flame is in the thach? Is not the fury of the BB.

 

yet feirce enough, their rage sharpe enough, but you must sett them on, and strenghthen their hands, to strike har¦der? lastly, is not Cringing at Altars, bowing at the name of Iesus, like to be brought in, & practised with great forwardnes, & will you, dare you encorage, in such courses, yea giue an approbation and commendation to them? For they will say, they are but significant Cerem: they place no merit, putt no efficacy in them, only they are admonitors of our dutyes. Thus is the foundation of superstition layd, the Gospell Stopped, and an open way made for Popery, and you are the perswader, the encorager, yea defender of all these: how vill you answer this at the great day?

 

Yet do I not speake this, as though I were troubled, with the weight of any thing he hath writt. For I professe unfaynedly the way of his traverse fynds welcome with me; wherin the nakednes, & indefensiblenes of his cause I hope will be discovered. Only one thing I would most earnestly intreat, that he would show us but fayre play in these proceedings: to witt, that he would not breake our heads, whyle others haue bound our hands: Lett him but graunt us indifferent termes, euen the common curtesy of the court, an impertiall pleading: we desire no more favour then the cause by its owne credit will procure: Lett the larv

 

be open, as the rigour of Iustice allowes: To which purpose shall he so far prevayle with his Lord BB. that we may enjoy, the use of our books, the liberty of the presse, & if not the benefit of our charges, yet freedome of breathing in our native soyle, & with our poore desolate families; And I dare promise him he shall not want those, that will joyne issue with him, in this traverse, either by writing, or printing, & that without any gaudy expressions, (wherof he accuseth Mr. Parker) but by playe dynt of Syllogisme: & we will take our oaths, as he in desireth, that each man of us shall write his conscience. which I wonder why the Dr. putt in, since its openly knowne to all that will not shutt their eyes, that all conscience doeth not liue & dye alone with conformable men. But if we neither haue, nor he will procure us leaue, or liberty, either to preach, or write, or print, yea scarce to liue; then he must knowe, we are denied the benefitt of the law, & the Curtesy of the Court & in vayne he braggs of his traverse.

 

To pursue all the particulars objected, & answered in his owne beshalf, is not worth the whyle, since no weight of the cause lyes ther upon: Only one •ravado here vented by the Rej. is not to be borne: which is observably sett downe in the 14. ob: D. Burges. hath parted with more profitt, by taking up

 

conformity, and a benefice, then any now in England hath done by his unconformity, and losse of a benefice. Surely he myndeth not so affectionately as he should, the affliction of his brethren. What did D. B. part with? Nothing but future, contingent, uncertayne profitt: which made him liable to be envied, and opposed by the colledge of phisitions; Profitt, which was not necessary to his life & being, depending upon extraordinary paynes: such as in all probability, he could not haue long indured, or at least with contentement of mynd. His Pshisick practise made that change, which Tully commendeth in Merchandize: Satiata quaestu, vel contenta potius, ut saepe ex alto, in portum, sic ex ipso portu, se in agros possessionesque contulit. After sufficient gettings, it forsooke both sea & sea-hauen, and betooke it self to quietnesse and plentie in the countrie.

 

On the other side, what haue not? what do not men loose by unconformity? Even all their meanes of living; all their liberty, not only of providing for themselves, & their families; but even of breathing in any ayre, saving onely that, which may be drawen out of stinking prisons. Nay somtyme all the Commodity of

 

their Country, or Nationall habitation; being forced to flye euen unto the indians for safety, to say nothing of their losse of life it selfe, by cruell imprisonments Now let our Saviour judge betwixt us, & D.B. The poore widow (sayth he) that parted but with two mites, parted with more then they did, who out of their plenty, parted with many sheckells, because those two mites were all that she had.

 

If this be true, then many & many a one hath parted with more profitt for Non-conformity, then D. B. did for Conformity, for soe much as they haue parted with, all they had, & he only with part of that which he had, or might haue hoped to gett, superfluous in comparison of that, which others haue lost. To conclude all, I suppose if we were willing to suffer, we should be more willing, both to search, & see the truth, & I doubt not, but the Lord would settle the hearts of such, & blesse their indeauors in that behalfe. All that I would craue at thy hands (Christian reader) is this, that thou wouldest read without prejudice, and judge without partiality; judge not the person, or cause of the distressed the worse, because of their pressure or paucity.

 

 

Welcome Christ with his crosse, any truth though with trouble. Be willing the truth should fall on any side as worthy to be prised & loued for it selfe. That is all I desire for my money: & Religion, conscience, reason will not denie this.

 

Rules for to direct the weake reader how to read the booke with profitt.

 

Where these abbreviations occurr, D.B. signifies Dr. Burges. Rej. signifies Dr. Burges. Repl. notes the Replier. Def. signifieth D. Morton.

 

  1. Because the Replyer is forced to follow Dr. Burges in his farr fetched, & new coyned definition, & the maze of the multitude of his distinctions, the weaker understanding will be att a losse, as not able to comprehend, or catch his meaning suddenly, & therfore, if I were worthy to aduise, I would intreat such, to craue the helpe of some judicious Minister, who is faithfull, not to betray him for hauing the booke, but willing and able to informe him how to conceiue of it aright.

 

 

The Replyer his maner of writing being presse & punctuall, & therefor setts downe soo much of the Rejoynders wordes, as he conceiued needfull, if any difficulty arise therefrom, the Reader is to be entreated to consult with the answere at large.

 

The faults escaped correct thus:

 

pag: 17. in the margent line 3. for sext reade sort. pag: 20. lin: 22. for accuratnes reade accurate. pag: 24. lin: 5. for captivale reade captivate. Ibidem lin: 18, for es reade endes. pag: 25. lin: 1. for they reade to. pag: 26. lin: 20. for oter reade over. pag: 27. lin: 7. for dowur reade downe. Ibidem in the margent lin: 17. for ito reade to. pag: 37. lin: 14. for there reade either. pag: 42. in marg: lin: 2. for Graecos, reade Graccos. pag: 50. collum: 2. lin: 9. for these reade those. pag: 71. lin: 9. for had reade hould. pag: 75. lin: 2. put out by,

 

 

 

An Alphabeticall TABLE Of the Principall Occurrents in this FRESH SVIT. Where note that 1. p. and 2. p. at the end, sometimes of the number, directing to the page, stands for 1. part, and 2. part.

 

A.

AVgustin what he thought, but durst not speak.

  1. 33.2. p.

His judgement of signes.

  1. 223.

His Condemning the very nature of such Ceremonies, where some choise things are noted.

  1. 228.

Adjuncts called Parts by Ramus,

  1. 156.2. p.

Anabaptists occasioned reformation of Cermon.

  1. 19.1. p. and 457.2. p.

B.

BEzas cleare judgement of Episcopall authority.

  1. 91.1. p.

Beza expresseth the Commune sentence of our Divines, of the ancient Bishops, viz▪ that they were ever too busy about Ceremonies.

  1. 228

Bucers wish about Holydayes, viz. that there were not so much as one left, besides the Lords-day.

 

  1. 360.

Baines▪ his Syllogisme against our Ceremonies: confirmed

  1. 258.

Brightmans answere to Iuel.

  1. 503.

Babingtons Comment. on Levit. 10.1. observable against our Ceremonies.

  1. 24.2. p.

Bradshaws opinion of indifferent things opened.

  1. 161.

Bellarmins answer to the Law of the O. Test. prescribing all things to the Iewes.

  1. 13.2. p.

His Proof •or the Churches liberty to institute Ceremonies from Purim and the Feast of Dedicat.

  1. 246.

He saith as much for their, as we for our Cer.

  1. 488.

Blumfeild a Persequutor threatned a good man for the Surplice.

  1. 18.1. p.

Bernards answer to the Virgin Maries Image, bidding him Good morrow.

  1. 364.

C.

CAsuits admit nothing beside their order.

  1. 65.1. p.

Chokim the Hebrew name of Ceremon. finely laid open.

  1. 35.1. p.

Conformers miserable Apologie.

  1. 13.1. p.

Ceremonies their dispute how ancient; opposed by Waldenses, Martyrs, removed in Helveria.

  1. 8.15.1. p.

Other things ridiculous yet as tolerable, if they had but institution from the Convocation-howse as a May pole ith Church, or a straw in a Childs hand at Bapt.

  1. 17.

Ceremonies such as ours, why naught.

  1. 18.

Ceremonies how defined, examined.

  1. 21.

Ceremonies laid out in 4. things

  1. 23.

Ceremonies holy.

  1. 129.2. p. and 178.186.

 

Their Worship.

  1. 132.2. p. and 298.

Ceremonies must have a rule for number.

  1. 144.2. p.

Ceremonies Popish may yet be Iewish.

  1. 218.

See also.

  1. 273.

Ceremonies by Institution to what Commandement they belong.

  1. 301.

Ceremonies condemned for speaking out of place.

  1. 364.

Ceremonies, Clowts that have layen on the plague foares of Idolatrie.

  1. 367.

Ceremonies cānot be deduced from the kinds named by the Rej.

  1. 482.

Ceremonies used by us never objects of Idol: answered.

  1. 401.

Ceremonies consequently imposed as belonging to giving honour to God, yet Superstitious.

  1. 103.1. p.

Ceremonies single, double, trebble.

  1. 91.2. p.

Ceremonies the Garmēts of Religion whereof the Scots mans jest.

  1. 94.

Church repraesentative, to the life repraesented.

  1. 88.1. p.

Church English and primative compared.

  1. 403.

Calvins account of additions.

  1. 121.2. p. 376.

What he saith to Cassander, and to our Maisters of Cerem.

  1. 122.2. p.

His admirable speech to the Lord Protector of England.

  1. 389.

His moderation toward Popish Ceremonies, what See.

  1. 400.

His inference, that, if the 3. Children in Dan. had followed the Counsell, and witt of our times; they needed never to have stood out against the Kings Commandement.

  1. 127.2. p.

His judgement of Ceremonies cleared.

  1. 240.

His opinion missinterpreted by the Rej. answered.

 

  1. 16.1. p.

Chamiers answer to that of no new Cerem. brought in these days.

  1. 295.

His famous Censure of Ceremonies Analogical and Sacramental, as idlely doeing that over againe, for which the Sacramēts were by Christ appointed.

  1. 84.1. p.

Covels Sentence sleighted by the Rejoynd.

  1. 208.

Christ the only authentick teacher.

  1. 210.211.

Chemnitius his famous testimony about additions.

p 249.

Cajetan a Cardinall of Rome would not be buried ith Church:

  1. 469.

Conformity disuaded frō, by one that Conformd himself.

  1. 474.

Circumcision Defended to be now lawfull by Def. & Rej.

  1. 274.

Convocatiō howse not Cleared by all that the Rej. can say.

  1. 113.

Found Guilty of much evill: of perverting the Articles of religion, and s•tting thē out far worse, then they were in good K. Edwards time, decreeing lesse good, then the Councill of Trent.

  1. 115.123.

Comlines.

  1. 77.2.
  2. Corinths. c. 14. which how interpreted by F•thers and Schoolmen, and more honestly then now adayes by Hierar hichs.
  3. 53.2. p.

Contrariety, of Decencie and edification displeasing, yet Contrariety of rites serving thereunto, not so.

  1. 117.2. p.

D.

Dr. Humphreys letter to the Bishops.

  1. 269.

Dr. Davenats doctrine at Cambridg

  1. 79.1. p.

Dr. Morton cals for abolition of Superstition without delay.

  1. 378.

Dr. Andrews speech to the Convocation.

  1. 419. & 421.

 

Dr. Fulck forsook the College for the Surplice

  1. 473.

Distinctions of popish writers brought together by Rive•us.

  1. 299.

Distinction into Coma•d and allowance, Symbolizing with papists.

  1. 142.

Distinctions of Against & beside.

  1. 28.2. p.

Distinction of traditions into Divine, and Apostolicall rejected by Iunius

  1. 335.

For denying of which distinction the Repl: was charged with unlearnednes, yet all the Rej. learning, and more put to it cannot make it good.

  1. 336.

Dipping 3. times

  1. 242.

E

EAsterday solemnized with a pascal lamb, by a late great Bp. of England.

  1. 40.2. p.

Easter the first apple of strife, from the Bp. of Rome.

  1. 85.448. and 440.

Evill of our doings •o be put away, finely explained

  1. 131.

F.

FAsting in what sense, worship.

  1. 145.

Freewill offrings, no will worship.

  1. 153.

Nor do warrant appointing of Cer.

  1. 152.1. p. and 151.2.

Feasts of love, their original uncertain.

  1. 334.

G.

GVnpowder stopt into an image.

  1. 513.

H.

HOokers strang speech

  1. 2.2. p

Hooper a Bp. refused the Surplice.

  1. 135.

What he speaks of Bps. state.

  1. 408.

Holy, either by infusion or inhaesion, the Def. absurd distinction

  1. 179.

Human, with Bellarm. and the Rej. in one sense.

  1. 302.

Hezekiah, whether he le•t

 

the images stand, set up by Col.

p 369.

I.

INtended observation.

  1. 26.1. p.

Infants Communicants,

  1. 37.2. p.

Iunius his remarkable speech about additions.

  1. 89.2. p. and 252.

His sentence of images.

  1. 286. and 290.

Images for use religious mainteyned and condemned by the Rej.

  1. 237 283.

Images in Churches, not indifferent by the Homilies against Idol.

  1. 289.

Iuels prophesie about the crosse

  1. 290

K.

KNeeling &c. proper worship by the Rej. grant

  1. 138

L:

LVthers advise about yeilding

  1. 97.2. p.

How he placed the Images to make them ridiculous

  1. 285.

Latimers speech to the convocation, for which he was committed to the tower

  1. 123.1. p

His comparison of Cer. and in a Sermon before K. Edw.

  1. 148.2. p.

M:

MElancht free speech against mans inventions

  1. 152.1: p

His meaning opened

p: 141.2. p:

He disalloweth the Collectiō of some from Act:

15: Ibid.

Mat. 15. and Marc: 7: of pharisies washing

  1. 186 &c. and zz1

Ministers how they enter upon their Parishes in Engl:

  1. 412:

N.

NOnresidents a carefull sort of them

p: 417

Negative argument usual with the best writers

p: 43.2. p.

O.

OPiniō wheter it were worship

  1. 125.2. p.

 

Organs d•sliked by Schoolmen

  1. 40•

Not used ith Popes chappell

p: 430

  • fficials cōmanding style when they enjoyne excom.
  1. 410

P.

  • Ope Paul 4. offred to confirm our Ser•ice book witnessed by Dr, Morton
  1. 203
  • ope received the Host •itting
  1. 429
  • apists opinion of their Cer. in regard of worship •nd necessitie to salvatiō, •nd the holines they put •n them, together with •heir operation, and effi•acy, no more then is ••ofessed of ours.

See. p. •.70. and 73.75.1. p. and •03.315.

  • •pists give liberty to the •ulgar man to judg of ••e Churches precepts
  • . 79.1. p.
  • heir judgement of idle •er:
  1. 74.2. p.
  • hey & our mē agree in their answers to the place alleged, against adding to Gods worship.
  1. 115

They deny operative virtue to holy water

  1. 294

Popish idolatrie compared with Heathenish

  1. 518

Policie of old Bps. to win the Heathen by observing their holydais, condemned.

  1. 432. see also p. 500
  2. M. refused the Surplice in Oxford
  3. 463

A remarkable speech of his about mens devises to stir up &c.

  1. z11

Praelats power if they pleas to command all Englishmen to be circumcised

  1. 107.1. p.

Praela•s in a praemunire

  1. 111.

Praelats greife when forced to deprive answ.

  1. 108

Praelats office to make canons saith the Rejoyn.

  1. 107

Parliament against silencing for such non-conformity

  1. 108. r.p:

 

Parl 1610. checkt the prelats

  1. 106.1. p.

Polanus cleered.

  1. 148.1. p

Praying toward the East as ancient as any Ceremonie.

  1. 82.2. p.

R.

REjoynders bulls frequently observed.

See p. 44.83.92-1. p. again p. 6.9.25.32.36.44.92.108 217.2. p.

Rej. noted for palpable error concerning inward worship

  1. 1z7.1. p.

For Error again in

art

  1. 138.

divinity

  1. 138.

His dangerous speech that Christ had laid snares if etc.

  1. 68.2. p.

S.

SAcred proper and reductive, examined

  1. 63.1. p.

Sacramentals what

  1. 226.

Denied by pap. to work etc.

  1. 227.

Condemned by Beza

  1. 244.

Sacrament and Sacramentals a foolish distinction

  1. z33.

Saduces not so praecise.

  1. zz0.

Sopping ith Sacrament

  1. 36.2. p.

Subscription how required by parliament, and refused by none

  1. 10•.1. p.

Superstition rightly defined.

  1. 98.1. p. z15.236. by Polanus.

Superstition

negative.

  1. 101.1. p:

Cast by prevention on non Conformists

  1. 34.

and finely taken off

  1. 95. etc. and 312.

Superstition, how first occasioned by yeilding too much to the infirmity of others,

  1. 83.2. p.

Sadcels testimonie mainteined

  1. 234.

Surplice refused by a minister in Q. Eliz. dayes, and why

  1. 435.

Swearing on a booke ho•

  1. 357.

Souldjers new prest by the Rej.

p: 43•.

 

Scotlands judg. to the ministers of Engl.

  1. 453.

T.

TExts alleged (viz. Ios. 6. and Iudg. 6.) for human Cer.

  1. 491.

Trueth may be merry, noted in a fine speech of Tertulian to that effect

  1. 437.

V.

Vrsins testimony about humā Cer.

  1. 152.2. p

W.

WAldenses opposed Cerem. with such answers as now be used against them.

  1. 8.1. p.

They used not the Crosse

  1. 39.2. p.

Wittenburgh Confession

  1. 231.

Whipping out of the tēple twise don

  1. 320.

Worship ridiculously defined, examined.

  1. 125.1. p.

Worship in what properly Consisting.

  1. 132.2. p 163.168.

Worship is that which is above order and decency in worship.

  1. 7z. z. p

Worship must be essētial, if worship.

  1. 113. z. p.

Worship figurative what

  1. 147.1. p. ult:

Worship applied to the Cer. by the Rej.

  1. 154. z. p.

Worship proper, essentiall, necessarie, how understood by the Rej.

  1. 158.2. p.

Worship Circumstantiall, or accessorie not permitted onely, prooved by a Sillogism from the Rej: •elfe contradictions

  1. 139.1. p

Worship true and good, if according to the will of God, not hindering it, the Papists Plea, as well as our mens.

ibid.

Worship, the parts of it, wha•

  1. 113.2. p

Worship indifferent none

  1. 171.

Worship whatsoever, necessarie.

  1. 138.2. p

Yet will-worship may be

 

without that opinion

ibid.

Worship Popish and Sacrilegious mainteined under the same Colours of reverend manner, order, decencie among Papists

  1. 143.1. p.

Worship in Cer:

  1. 38.1. p.

Will worship distinguisht into lawfull and unlawfull.

  1. 136.2. p:

Will worship not defended by papists.

  1. 150.2. p.

Z.

ZAnchies judgement of our Cer. p 97. z. p. also of annexions and essentials.

  1. 155. &c. z. p:

Zeppers noble testimonie of human traditions.

  1. z16.

GEntle reader take no•ice that through some oversight or casualty, there are the seco•d and third answers wanting in the 16. page of the first part, neare t•e beginning of the 3. chap. which the author finding after the impression, he sayd he would supply after, but death now preventing speach with him, I cannot as yet finde it in his papers.

 

 

BEcause many orthodox writers have been abused and others in them, by spurious bookes which have been obtruded upō the world under their names, •t was thought meet to represent to the reader in this insuing Catalogue, the names of al such bookes as were vndoubtedly knowne to be made by this Author.

 

Catechismus.

Puritanismus Anglicanus.

Amesij. Bellarm. Enervatus 12. printed A0 1630.

Amesij. Casus Conscientiae 12. 1632.

Amesij. Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem 12. 1628.

Amesij. Medulla Theologiae 12. 1628.

Amesij. Antisinodalia 12. 1633.

Amesij. Contra Grevinchovium 12. 1633.

Amesij. Demonstratio Logica. 12. 1633.

A Replye to Bishop Morton,

This fresh suit against Ceremonies.

A first and second Manuduction.

In Psalmos commentaria, yet to be printed:

 

FINIS:

 

 

A FRESH SVIT Against HVMANE CEREMONIES IN GODS WORSHIP. OR A Triplication about Ceremonies, Opposed unto D. BVRGESSE HIS. Rejoinder for D. MORTONS Defence of 3. Nocent Ceremonies.

 

With a Catalog.

 

  1. Of the cheife heads here handled.
  2. Of the Rejoinder his vnworthy personal speaches.
  3. Of divers errours which crept into the presse.

The First Part.

 

Printed in the yeare of our Saviour, 1633.

 

 

 

A direction to the Reader.

 

THe author being constrayned to be absent from the presse, by reason of vrgent occasions and being altogither destitute of any help from ot•er, w•o were willing and able to correct the Impression (as it is the common Lott to poore men vnder pressures to be forsaken of freinds and meanes) there be many faults escaped, in the printing, & some such, which pervert the sense, and will preiudice the truth, and Reader: and therfore he is to be intreated, before he read the book to mend the grosser mistakes with his penn: or else so attend and •onsider of them, that he may have recourse to them as occasion shall serve: the other faults which are of lesse consequence, common curtesy will easily pardon and passe by.

 

 

Faults escaped: thus to be corrected:

 

Pag▪ 3. lin: 21. read tartnes p 4 l. 14. for acquired r. aymed p •. in the margyne: for vt. r. ne p. 13. l. 18 r. polluted p. 16. l. 16. for the•. your. p 19. l. l•st. for n•udd r. mad. p. 20. l. 2. for fopling r. stifl•ng▪ p 29 l. 15. r. noveltyes p. 29. l 22. for if r. of those: p. 31. l. 8 for thrust•. crosse p 32. l. 8. for conserving r. conferring p. 32. l. 23. for is an action, r. are actions: p. 33. l. 3. for acts r. arts p. 35. l. 10. for are all, are ab•e, p. 36. l. 22. for outward r. onward p. 39. l. 13. for ioyned r. coyned p. 42. l. 28. add. a living creature p. 45. l. 15. for n•ther r. whether p. 48. l. 12 for the meanes of the vse. r. meanes of the same vse p. 49. l. 17. in the marg. for qui, r. quia p. 49. l. 20. for it is, r. it is not p. 52. l. 8 for lawfully r. awfully p, 53. l. 11. for there r. three. p. 55. l. 8. for waketh r. worketh. p. 56. l. 6. for are supposed r are not supposed. p. 63. l. 9. for neded to r. needed not to p 66. l. 1. for if r. of. p. 67. l. 19. for mayny r. mayne p 71. l. 20. for an r. from •n p, 75. l. 24. del and p. 7•. l. 29. del• and p. 85. l. 14. for this r. thus p. 94, l. 11 for his r. he p 98 l. 14. for ad, r. and p, 128 l. 26. for nididuall r. individuall p. 129. l. 7. for word r. work •, 131. l. 30 for being r. bring p. 133 l. 7 for lase r. base p. 136. l. 17. for principa. r. principall •. 140. l. 7. for conduct r. conduce p. 144 l: 9, for man ever, r. man did ever p. 145 l. 18.20. for fasting. r. feasting p. 146. l. 14. for defende thaud r. defends and p. 14 8. l, 5. for words r. woods.

 

 

A Generall table shewing the contentes of every chapter.

 

Chap. 1.

Touching the title of D. Burgesse his rejoynder. p: 1:

Chap. 2.

Of the rise and proceeding of Ceremoniall contentions with variety of tenents about them: p: 7:

Chap. 3.

Concerning the just and proper stile of our Ceremonyes p. 16.

Chap. 4 .

The Nature and difinition of a Ceremony. p. 21:

Chap. 5.

Of the sorts and differences of Ceremonyes p. 53.

Chap. 6.

Concerning the difference betwixt popish Ceremomonyes and ours in regard of necessi•y, holines, and efficacy, wherein how far we joyne wi•h the Papists, is fully discussed by the confession of Papists themselves. p: 76.

Chap. 7.

Touching other partitions of Ceremonyes p. 77.

 

Chap. 8.

Concerning the nature of a National church. p. ••

Chap. 9.

Concerning superstition p. 94.

Chap. 10.

Of Parliaments, and Convocations p. 105.

Chap. 11.

Touching the good and evill that Convocations have done. p: 115.

Chap. 12.

Sect. 1.

Of the nature of worship. p: 124.

Sect. 2.

Examination of authorityes, alledged for the several• distinctions of worship. p: 144.

 

A table shewing the particulars of speciall consideration in every chapter.

 

Chap. 1.

 

Its lawfull for an author vpon just occasion, not to set his name to his work.

p: 2.

The terme of scurrility cast vpon the Replyer by contempt, is wiped away.

p: 2.3.4.

The difference of Lord pastor, and ministeriall pastor is vnlawfull.

p: 6.

Chap. 2.

 

Thefirst rise of Ceremonyes

p: 8.

Ceremonyes refused by the waldenses vpon the same grounde we refuse them

p: 8.

The Bishop and the Rejoy: joyne with the Lutherans in mayntayning of images

p: 9.

The protestants most receaved opinion touching Cerem:

p: 10.

T: C: his judgment of significant Ceremonies was ever, that they were vnlawfull.

p: 11.

That Tenet of inconveniency without vnlawfulnes, is vnsound, and vncomfortable

p: 12.13

Chap. 3.

 

Our Cerem: are mere fopperyes by the judgment of our best Divines

p: 16.17.

Ceremonies are nocent and hurtfull as now used:

pag: 18.

 

Opposition against Ceremonies is no cause of the mischeif they bring.

p: 19.

Chap. 4.

 

The vanity of the difinition of a Cerem: discovered in the Generall:

p: 22.

Foure things to be considered to make vs conceave aright of a Cerem:

p: 23.

Things may be Ceremonyes when they are not actually vsed, as a Surplice when it is not worne:

p: 25▪

The contradiction of the Rej. in making a Cerem: an externall action, and requiring a purposed observation notwithstanding in the vse thereof.

p: 26.

Institution and purposed observation are not all one.

pag: 26.27.

An observation of an outward action, with a special ayme or reference intended by the doer, is not required, to make vp the nature of a Ceremonie

p: 27.28.

The proper forme of a Cerem: expressed in the definition, is fully discussed and found false:

p: 29.

How many w•yes reference may be taken

p: 30.31.

That reference to another, not as a cause or part of it to which it doth refer, cannot be the proper nature of a Cerem:

p: 32.33.

The true difference betweene sustantiall and Cerem: worship,

p: 35.36.

A thing may be a Cerem: being referred to that wherof it is a cause.

  1. 37.

The 7. Consectary of the Rej: examined by the

 

way:

pag. 37.

The second consectary examined, and found false:

pag: 40.

The 4. Consectary confuted

pag. 42.

The 6. consectary is examined, and found faulty.

  1. 42.

The 8. consectary discussed and found false

  1. 43.

In what sense it is true, that the same vse and end makes a Cerem: part of worship

p: 45.

Reasons why the same use and end makes a Cerem: part of worship really

  1. 46.47.48.

The 9. consectary opened:

  1. 50.

Confuted & the contradictions in it discovered.

  1. 51.52.53.

Chap. 5.

 

The 2. partition confuted as imperfect and false:

pag. 54.55.

The definition of a sacred Cerem: opened

  1. 57.58.

Confuted

p: 59.60.61.

The third partition of properly and reductively sacred is examined, and the vanity therof declared

  1. 63.64.

The 4. partition handled:

  1. 65.66.

Chap. 6.

 

How we joyne with Papists in giving propriety of worship to Cerem:

  1. 67.68.

How we make them necessary as they laying aside merit:

  1. 68.69.

The Papists doe not hould it synne, to omitt Ceremonies: without scandal and contempt.

69.70.

 

The summe of our Agreement

  1. 73.

That our Prelats, make our Cerem: morally efficac•ous in the way of worship.

Reasons of that

4 p: 75.76.

Chap. 7.

 

Vnprofitablenes is enough to Cashire a Cerem: of mans making

  1. 77.78.

Seven reasons given therof:

Ibid.

Inferiors may iudge of the commaunds of superiors.

  1. 79.

The judgement of the Governour, is not the rule of reteyning cerem.

80.

Whether our judgment and practise are equally bound

  1. 81.

Things indifferent ought not to be restrayned

  1. 82,

The sixt partition handled and examined

  1. 82.

The Rejoy: his contradictions in his divisions

  1. 83.

Crosse signifies the covenant of grace.

  1. 86.

Chap. 8.

 

The nature of a representative church discovered

  1. 88.89.

The association of churches doth not require the orders nor officers of the Hierarchy.

  1. 91.

Chap. 9.

 

Answer to Collossians

2.23. p. 96.

When Cessation of an evill, comes to be worship

  1. 91.

No definition of superstition will evince that the forbearing

 

of Cerem: is superstition

  1. 99.100.
  • he not doing of things forbidden in the first table (though vpon conscience to God, is not alwayes worship,
  1. 100.101.

The examples alledged by the Rej. for to make nonconformitants superstitions, are shewed to be vayne

  1. 103.

Chap. 10.

 

Parliaments allow not superstition as now it is vrged.

  1. 105.

The Prelates procedings are against Parliaments.

  1. 106.

The greife which is pretended in Prelates for depriving and silencing, is fayned

  1. 109.

The Prelates are subject to a Premunire.

  1. 111.

A minister cannot be deprived by law for not vsing Cerem.

112.

Chap. 11.

 

The canons of the convocation 1571. are worse then those which were enacted to their hands 1552.

  1. 115

This is shewed in several• particulars.

  1. 117.118.

That our convocation cometh behynd the counsel of Trent in making provisions for good canons for preaching

  1. 12•. &c.

That they made ill canons and executed them, they made some good, and so left them.

pag. 121.

Chap. 12.

 

The definition of worship: in the generall is examined

  1. 125.

 

A mistake about veneration and adoration.

pag •26.

Inward worship, may be aswell performed fa•sly, as so pretended,

128.129.

The definition of subordinate worship examined, and found faulty,

129.

The holines of the person, and the present intention of the worshipper, is not essentiall to externall worship.

pag, 130.

4 reasons of that,

131.132.133.

The distinction of mediate and immediate worship explicated,

135.

The d•finition of mediate worship is found faulty

135.

The distinction of immediate worship into proper and improper is discussed and confuted

136.

Severall contradictions are discovered in the Rej. his distributions

136.137.

That allowance is not enough to legitimate an•• worship immediate

138.139.140.

Chap. 12. Sect. 2.

All examples and authorityes alledged in favor, of the former false distinctions are explicated, and proved nothing at all to favour the Rej.

145.146.

 

  • Tast of the Rej. his intemperate expressions, vnworthy, as well of him f•om whom they come, as of them against whom they are directed.

 

  1. Egregious wrangler
  2. 6.
  3. Dancing without a fiddle.

14

  1. Hee compares the Replyer to a curre, saying hee runs away from the cause, lookes back at the Def: and shewes his teeth somwhat angerly.

19

  1. A false Reporter.

22

  1. The man is troubled.

35

  1. They that say the church may not ordayne one or other Ceremony meerly Ecclesiasticall doe manifest a spirit that lusteth after contradiction:

37

  1. Mock Dighton.

Ibid.

  1. Nameles libellers as this Repl:

Ibid.

  1. This poore distressed man knowes not what to doe.

35

  1. Not very apt to blush for any thing.

47

  1. God hath smitten his contentious spirit with giddines.

62

  1. A man forsaken of wisedom.

Ibid

  1. Some men in Q: Eliz: dayes were not contented that these Ceremonyes should be removed, unles all went out with them.

52

  1. This libeller like to come to some shame for his factions.

61

It is a malicious surmise, scurrilous and of no vse, vnlesse

 

it be to ingraft himselfe into the affections (which he calleth consciences) and applause of his owne party.

63

  1. You that make a faction.

73

  1. Sooner fit the moone with a new coate, then these men with pleasing Ceremonyes.

67

  1. Your superstition esteemeth this your abstinence to be a singular poynt of piety, and true syncerity.

68

  1. I see no cause of this outleap but eyther to ease his stomack, or to please these of his side

37

  1. Most of their writers are nameles libellers.

38

  1. The Replyer may hang downe his head, he is a silly man

61

  1. This fantasye is the very top and root of separation, and Anabaptistry.

67

  1. The Replyer worse then a fryer

ibid

  1. The Repl: gulls and deceives.

83

  1. Hee hath not learned the substance of common honesty

Ibid

  1. A spirit of contradiction hath carryed him to shifting.

100

  1. Out lyer.

103

  1. You seeke honour one of another.

Ibid

  1. And presume of your owne traditions as if the spirit of truth had come to you, or from you alone

Ibid

  1. The Repl: censures the vniversall militant church.

104

 

  1. Now well fare a good stomack.

113

  1. Boggling and scurrility.

Ibid

  1. The Repl: wrung on the withers,

120

  1. Hee need heare some lecture of logick

121

  1. A Beetle brought out of the Repl: head

130

  1. A spirit full of rancor.

131

36, The Repl: lifting vp his hart to God, is much crying and little wool, as he sayd that sheerd his hogs.

180

  1. Contradictious spirit.

183

  1. These men say to all other men stand back I am holyer then thou.

203

  1. Salt Scurrility,

204

  1. These men if it were safe would spit their gall in the face of the magistracy.

205

  1. Full of Froth and venome

213

  1. A spirit of separation hunted after in the chase of inconformity.

216

  1. Inconformitants of a high strayne beyond other men.

27

  1. Doth this Repl: and such as hee who without law, without calling, without Reason, without conscience, smite with their tongues, and condemne to the pit of darknes the Bishops, the conformed ministers, and in a manner all that are not of their party.

219 See also 220.221.222.226

  1. The Repl: for Faction and opposition would have that thought of others, which he doth not beleeue

 

himselfe.

243

  1. A wrangling spirit and ill conscience

Ibid

  1. The Inconformists are of all men that ever I knew the most impatient, which is a signe of much partiality if not pharisaicall pride.

277

  1. Counting their opposing Cerem: a high poynt of devotion, and their stiffnes therin constancy in that faith.

218

  1. Tinkers luck.

424

  1. It is your trims to fly vpon the faces of our Bishops.

456

  1. This Repl: is the childe of strife not of judgment.

500

  1. You are Godly men, all others are carnall: time-servers, formalists that have no conscience, no syncerity, no zeale, you are the only men.

50•

Many other flowers, of this sent, might have been gathered out of the Rej: his Garden. But I will not trouble the Reader with them: Because I perceive the Author of this Fresh Suit doth not much regard them. Nyether would I have noted these, but for the Rejoynders Bishoplike objecting of Scurrility to the Replyer.

 

Page  1

A manuduction to the following dispute.

 

ALthough it be but dead work, voyd of whetting pleasure or hope of great fruit, to spend much tyme, about humaine formalities, when as the divine substance of religion is in present danger, yet seing the leaders of that course, which tendeth to this mischeif, being themselves marched with a great part of their mayne body, through the fens and quagmyers of non residence, pluralities and ambition, towards the quicksands of Arminianisme, popery and prophanesse, have left these, as theire passe and bagage to be kept and defended by men of good note, and worthy of better imployment (such as Dr. B. is) to the amazing of many good foules: It seemeth necessary to take into some consideration (though short, as such an unpleasant busines doth require) what strenght ther is in these their new works: To proceed therfore in order.

 

CAP. I.

 

FIrst touching the title of D. B. his reioynder.

 

In which two things are observable: First; that he stileth the reply a Pamphlet of a namelesse author:

Page  2

in disgrace, as clearly appeareth in his second part, pag. 38. where he stileth not onely the replyer, but many others, for this very cause, Libellers: But it cannot be esteemed any disgrace,* for any writing upon just occasion, to want the name of the author, without involving, many excellent Divines, and divers pennmen also of holy Scripture, in the same blame. As for the terme Pamphlet, I understand it, as noting a little contemptible writing: But the worth of a writing doth not consist, in bulk and belly, but in synewes, veynes, and arteryes, which with good blood and spirits, may be couched into a little body: If he meane by Pamphlet the same which after, he expresseth in the terme of scurrilous, that is as I take it, ful of jesting, without respect of the persons: he hath to deale with. My answ: is: That if the Rep: had written to the convocation house, an Epistle with this Inscription, To the superstitious fathers of the Church of England: as the Def: entituleth his epistle to us, to his superstitions Brethren, (and yet this Rej: is not ashamed to adopt, this scurrility, and make it his owne childe, by maintaining of it, even against the very nature of D. Burgesse) there had beene more occasion of such a censure, then now is found, in all the Replye, as after shall appeare.

 

The Repl: doth not any where to my remembrance, vilifie the person of his adversary, but only his arguments, and answeres, together with the vyle courses of our Hierarchy, in which kynd of jesting the Rej: his scurrility is far greater, then the Repl: saving the difference, which ariseth out of the outward greatnes of Prelats,

Page  3

and the poore condition of them, which are oppressed by them. Now the Repl: is no admirer of Bs. persons, nether are disputations acquainted, with such court lāguage, as they are used unto: If it please your Lordship &c. but such is the condition of those, that have to doe with Prelats, that they are usually censured either for scurrility, or flattery, and there is no doubt, but some will accuse the Rej: as much of flattery in blazing his Diocesans Admirable wisdome, as he doth the Repl: of scurrility, though I will not: Those who write against Prelats, are wont to expect such a censure from them & theirs.*So Zwinglius in his Epistle touching the authors of sedition I doubt not, saith he, but ther will be many, who having heard or read all these things, at length will be ready to say, what meant this scoffer? Calvin among others, was often accused of the same fault, not onely by those, whom he calls usually, cornutos Episcopos, horned Bishops, but even by their diminutive aemulators among the Lutherans, his answere therefore unto Westphalus about this imputation may serve the Replyer. It is easy for Ioachymus to obiect against me, the odious tarturs of unseemely scurrility,*and slanderous bitternes of language, but it is as easy for me, to wipe away that calumny of his with one word &c. For what course should I take, since either the truth should have beene betrayed in silence, or otherwise by an easy and toothlesse expression, the suspition of fearfulnes and distrust would have beene discovered.

 

And in very deed, let any indifferent man judge, of

Page  2

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  3

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  4

this imputation by any place of the Reply, where the Rej. noteth scurrility, and he shall fynd the Rej. him •elf, far more guilty: As for example pag. 63. in few lynes he may fynde these five termes packed together: It is a manifest untruth and calumny: It is a ridiculous supposition: It is a malitious surmise: It is a scurrilous bundle: It is to ingraft himself into affections which he calls consciences: These are baser termes, then are to be found in any one place, or (I think) in all the course of the Rep: And what is the occasion of them? forsooth, the Repl. sayd, the Prelats have power, to suspend, deprive, excommunicate nonconformists, at their pleasure: that the Defend: called for further help from Buckingham: that the Defend: may be acquired at a better Bishoprick: In the former whereof, ther is nothing sayd, which the Rej. could with colour denye, before he himself had added for matter of accusation, interpretations of his own imagining: And in the last, there is nothing so much suspected of the defendant, D. B. himself knoweth, that it is scandalously true, almost of all Bishops, viz, that they ayme at greater Bishopricks: But on the other syde, what honesty is there, in adding unto the replyers words. Further then the Lawe of the State and Church require: And yet that also is true, de facto, though not de jure, that the Prelats take power to themselves, more then the lawes require: What charity or religion is ther in slighting the consciences of all that hold with the Repl? as if they pretended conscience upon perverse affections: What wisdome is ther? in talking of the Repl. ambition, •o ingraft him self, into the affection of a few poore people,

Page  7

from whom he cannot expect either gayne or worldly credit? This I am sure of, that the Repl. being twice putt out of all meanes of living, for that cause, never in those extremities gayned from that party, the Rej. speaketh of, so much as the Emoluments of a tenn pound Prebendary, which the Rej. so much slighteth Pag. 15. As for his credit, untill he either putt his name to his book, or seek by other meanes to have •it knowne, it cannot without injury be objected, that he sought it.

 

The other thing to be noted in Rej. title, is, that in opposition to a namelesse Author, he nameth himself with such a name or title, as neither by our Prelates rules, nor by the Scriptures doth admitt a good construction. Pastor of Sutton Coldfeild in Warwickshire, Our booke of ordination acknowledgeth no such pastors, from whencealso it is, that in our convocation-church-language, we never heare of a Pastor of one Parish alone, None of our divines in the Synod of Dort, would take to themselves that tittle, though most others did in their subscription. D. Andrewes an ArchBishop in esteeme, censureth this title for a Novelty. The names of Pastor and (in this sense also) of calling,*are mere noveltyes, nor shall you read, that the Auncients ever stiled in these termes, any, who take the charge of distinct parishes: The Scripture indeed doth warrant this title, even to D. Burgesse, (and I do not detract it from him,) but not in such a manner as he taketh it: For wher he

Page  6

writeth in defence of a Lord Bishop over that Diocesse, where Sutton Coldfeild is contained, as a part: and every Ecclesiasticall Bishop is a Pastor, he seemeth in one breath, to take and resigne his pastorall office: If he say, that this varietie is by humaine institution. D. Andrewes resp. ad Ep. 3.* Moll. will take him up: It seemes then, there is no divine right, in ordering the frame of the government of the Church, and then wel-fare Amsterdam: which our Hierachicall men do so much traduce and despise. If he shall say, that one is a Lord Pastor, and the other a ministeriall Pastor, inferior, and subordinate to him, especially in Iurisdiction, then I would have him consider, what D. Fulke saith against Allen, of the Popes pardons Pag. 381. God hath made all Pastors stewards of his houshould, and dispensers of his misteries: And if every Pastor over his charge, be a steward of Gods mysteries, why hath he not the Key of Iurisdiction over his parish, in as large and ample manner, as the Bishop hath over his Diocesse, or the Pope? seing the Keyes are not given to one, but to unitye, as the fathers teach: why should the Bishops and the Pope have two Keyes, and they but one: resolve these things (sayth he to Allen, and I to D. B.) out of the Holy Scripture. It might be here also required how a faithfull Pastor can defend a Bishop or Bishops, in obtruding humaine ceremonies upon that church, whereof he is pastor, and so partake in the obtruding of them. Certainly this is not agreeable, to the commissiō of Pastors,* who are to teach only that, which Christ hath commanded to observe: Which I have commanded, Matth. 28. not what ye shall commaund or invent.

Page  7

Caietan upon the place. Neither is it to preserve the Church, from the dominion of usurpers.

 

CAP. II. Of the rise and proceeding of Ceremoniall contentions, with variety of tenents about them.

 

THe first records the Rej. bringeth for contentions about Cerem: are from Rom. 14. but he might, (and would also if it had served his turne) have fetched it further, from Math. 15. where the Pharisyes contend against Christ, and his Disciples about their ceremoniall observations: Or from the first authors of that Sect, Sammay and Hilles, prophane dissipators of Gods Law, by their traditions, as out of their very names, Cardinall Baronius himselfe noteth. Neither is that contention Rom. 14. agreeable to our Quaestion, because the Ceremonies there quaestioned, were not of humaine institution, nor urged by authority of any Church or Prelates.

 

The second instance which the Rej. bringeth, is about the feast of Easter, whereabout he saith, the world was set on fire. And this indeed is worth the observing, that so soone as Victor-Bishops begann to urge humaine cerem: upon the Church of God, all was presently in a fyre, but were not these presumptuous Victors, the kyndlers of that fyre? The next stepp which the Rej. taketh (over a thousand yeare wyde) is to Illiricus, about permitting the use of a surplice, where it is to be noted,

Page  8

that before Illyricus, ther had beene effectual pleading against Ceremonies,* even Crosse and Surplice, in Helvetia, at Tigure, wherupon they were removed, as Zwinglius relateth de baptismo: And a long tyme before that, the Waldenses (of whose blood were made torches to light us in the right way) did contend against all humaine traditions as unlawful.* So Reinerus cap. 5. All customes of the church, which in the Gospell they do not read, they do contemne. They affirme that those things which are appointed by the Bishops and Prelates, are not to be observed: because they are the traditions of men and not of God. Where also the answer given by that refuter unto your Waldens. is very observable, for by that, it will appeare, that humaine Ceremonies in Divine worship, were then impugned and defended after the same manner, they are to this day. Our allegations being the same with those, which the Waldenses used, and our adversaries answers the same, which the Papistes opposed to the Waldenses.*Answ: the Church is not content with those things which Christ taught, and therfore might make competent constitutions, as the Church of the Iews: in the 9. Est. 1. Maccabae 2. and 4. Touching the authorities alledged by the Haeretikes, Deut. 10. and 13. you shall not add. &c. Answ: is: The Iews might not add any thing to the law, least it might have seemed insufficient at that tyme. To that place Isay 29. Matth. 15. Answ: is: That the constitutions of the church come not only from men but God also: To that of Gall. 1. Answ: is: beside the word, that is against it.

 

Page  9

  1. That Illiricus in this part stood against that, which Calvin writt against, and many excellent Divines •ere silenced and deprived for. 3. That this conten••on of Illiricus was not properly about the Surplice: •o Calvin Ep. 117.*That you affirme the Magdeburgenses to •ove contentions concerning the lynnen garment, I perceave •ot what your purpose is in so speaking: Since I suppose the use •f the lynnen garment (with many such fopperyes) to be yet •etayned amongst you and them. So Illiricus himself pro•esteth: Asuredly we contend not about trifles, nor is in need•ull, that some men should alwayes cunningly propose a lynnen •arment for instance of these proceedings, to such, as are un•cquainted with them, many & those most dangerous wounds •re given to the Church of Christ, by these reconciliations.

 

  1. That the ceremonies then controverted were im•osed by Papists, with Popish intention, which kynd of Ceremonies the Rej. doth seeme, in all his book to dis•layme. 5. That in this Quaestion, the Rej. (under the •ame of certaine reverend Divines, doth seeme to joine •im self with the Adiaphorists and the interim, against which Calvin, and Illiricus did contend. 6. It may •urther also be observed, that the Rej. doth on the other •art, joyne with Illiricus, in defence of images for religious use even in temples, for about these images did •lliricus write, against the reformed churches, as is to be •eene in Vrsine, Par. 2. Pag. 45. where he is confuted by name, and accused to have too large a conscience, in esteeming such images indifferent; yet both D. Morton,•nd D. Burgesse are now come to the same largenes, that they may fynd roome for significant Ceremonies in

Page  10

Gods worship as appeareth in this Rej. cap. 3. sect. 7. For the Protestants most receaved opinion of humaine Ceremonies, Cassander (whose stepps the Def. and Rej. follow in this cause) is a good witnes. They have not only omitted these Ceremonies as lesse profitable,*& superfluous, but the most have esteemed them, as foppish, babish and ridiculous, yea that they were to be condemned, and abandoned as noxious & pernitious. And our Martyr book doth give sufficient testimony, how diverse of the Godly Martyrs, did absolutely condemne all humaine Ceremonies in Gods worship. To name one for all: This was the first occasion of Mr. Tho. Hawkes, his persecution, and this he defended unto the death, against Bonner: Harpsfeild, Fecknam and Chadsye: No ceremonies (saith he) but those which Christ hath appointed: In which story, it is to be marcked,* that Bonners Chaplayne, and Kynsman Darbyshyre, graunted as our Def. and Rej, doe, that their humaine Ceremonies were not necessary to salvation, but only to instruction: In this cause of Cerem. saith: Dr. Willet, Richard Gibson gave up his life pa. 111. Synop. In the beginning of Queene Elizabeth Reigne, ther was a company of honest men, that for the Ceremonies, refused to joine with the Parish assemblyes at London, as appeareth in the examinatiō of Iohn Smyth, W. Nyxson &c. exstāt in the book called part of a Register, will any man think, that they esteemed those Cere: for which they made a kynd of seperatiō to be lawfull?

 

The first example then of humaine Ceremonies, by any orthodox church imposed upō Gods people, which the Rej. brings, is in the Church of Engl. And here he

Page  11

  • eginneth, with famous Queene Elizabeths dayes, •hough he fetch that very story, out of the History of •ranckford troubles, which were in Queene Maryes •ayes: about the same Cerem: and before that in King Edwards: To say nothing of the manyfold testimonies, of Martyrs against such corruptiōs, before King Edward: •s this any illustration of your Quaestion to be debated?

 

Now for the Tenets, which have beene and are about •hese Cerem. the Rej. noted out of T. C. that the ould •enet of those, who opposed our Cerem., was to hold •hem inconvenient only, not unlawfull, But 1. he sheweth no such thing about the Crosse: 2. Nay the contrary appeareth in D.B. himself, who pag. 16. confesseth, that 39. yeares agoe, he did at the least doubt, that the Crosse was unlawfull, and for that cause (not for scandall, as he did the Surplice) he refused it even to Deprivation: He would not have us think, I am sure, that he had then a singular new Tenet by himself, but inclined to the ould. 3. Mr. Hooker P. 246. observeth, that the first pleadings of T. C. against other Cerem: either inferred unlawfulnes, or nothing. 4. The last rules,* and resolutions of T. C. doe evidently speake, of unlawfulnes, of all significant Ceremonies: Although the Cerem: of Crossing were indifferent and convenient, yet to rayse a doctrine of it, is unlawfull, for as much as it is not enough, to teach the truth, unlesse it be truely taught, and that is only out of the word of God. 2. Reply: P. 227. This was his judgment in these, and we have no other Tenet of significant Ceremonies untill this day: Now if in the Hypothesis of one or two signif. Cerem. he swarved a little

Page  12

there frō, out of extrinsecall considerations, yet that doth not make his tenet such, as the Rej. would have it, but rather it is to be held, as an occasionall declinatiō from his Tenet, which also (he is sayd) by faithfull witnesses to have cōfessed, as an error before his death: 4. That tenet of inconveniency, or inexpediency was never yet sufficiently explayned, and therfore had beene fitt work for it.

 

The commō Protestant tenet was alwayes, as Mr. Fox, Mart. P. 4. expresseth it, that it is reproveable to adde unto Christs intention, new found rites, and Phantasyes of men: And Mr. Burgesse in an Epistle to King Iames, in the beginning of his Raigne, witnesseth, that in those dayes, many hundred worthy ministers thought our cer. unlawfull, and would surely dye, rather then use them: which worthy men, surely were not the first authors, of that Tenet: If they were, why did he call them worthy, who now judgeth otherwise of us, for maintaining the same sentence. 5. That tenet of incōveniency or inexpediency, without unlawfulnes in such Cer. was never yet sufficiently explained. And therfore had beene fit work for the Rej. Civill incōvenience, or incommodity may stand with lawfulnes: But how a thing morally inconveniēt, or inexpedient, whyle it remaineth such, may be lawfull, is not so cleare: Nothing is thus inexpedient to morall or spirituall good, but it is impedient, or an impediment to it, and all such impediments of good, whyle they are such, •eeme to be opposite to good, & in that regard evill. I remember, I heard it once defended, in Cambridge,* in these termes: What ever is morally inexpedient, so far as it is such, is unlawfull. 6. This Tenet of the Cere: to be inexpedient, but yet lawfull, hath confounded the

Page  13

thoughts of many, & made them to doe that with greif, which they were ashamed of Mr. Hooker P. 246. maketh a speech in their persons, which I will here write out, because I remember my self, at the first reading, to have beene much affected, & as it were bafled out of that contenance, which stood somewhat that way. Conformers of that sort, are fayned thus to declare their mynds, & excuse their practise: Brethren, our hearts desire is, that we might enjoy the full liberty of the Gospell, as in other reformed churches they doe else where, upō whom, the heavy hand of authority hath imposed no great burden: But such is the misery of these our dayes, that so great happines; we cannot looke to attaine unto: were it so that the equity of the law of Moses, could prevaile, or the zeale of Ezekias could be found in the hearts of those guid• & governours, under whō we live, or the voice of Gods owne prophets could only be heard, or the example of the Apostles be followed, yea or their precepts be answered with full & perfe•t obedience, the•e abominable raggs, palluted garments, marks & sacraments of Idolatry, which power as you see constraineth us to weare, & conscience to abhor, had long •ere this day, beene removed both out of sight, & out of memory. But as now things stand, behold to what narrow streits we are driven, on the one side we feare the words of our Saviour Christ, woe to them by whom scandals and offences come, on the other syde, at the Apostles speech we can not but quake and tremble, if I preach not the Gospell woe unto me, Being thus hardly beset, we see not any other remedy, but to hazard our soules the one way, that we may the other way indeavour to save them. Touching the offence of the weake therefore, we must adventure it: If they perish they perish: Our Pastorall charge is Gods absolute commandement,

Page  14

Rather then that shall be taken from us, we are resolved to take this filth, and to putt it on, although we judge it to be so unfitt, and inconvenient, that as oft as ever we pray or preach, so arayed before you, we do as much as in us lyes, to cast away your soules, that are weak mynded, and to bring you unto endlesse perdition: But we beseech you brethren have care of your owne safety, take heed to your stepps, that you be not taken in these snares, which we lay before you, and our prayer in your behalf is, that the poyson which we offer you, may never have power to doe you harme. This is the miserable Apology of a man, putting on the Surplice, which he thinketh inconvenient, upon such grounds as the Rej. did hold, and doth not yet condemne; This all such do speake either in deeds or words, that putt on a Surplice in that manner: The state of the quaestion is now changed saith the Rej. and the Cerem. held unlawfull, wherupon many mischeifs follow: It may be the compasse of our Prelats intention, to which the former tenet had reference, is varyed by some degrees, towards the Autartique, as Dr. B. speaketh in his Apologye, if ther be no other change, but that after more mischeif don by these ceremonies, then was before, they are now more strictly urged then ever (which the Rej. confesseth) they are now at the least more hatefull, if not more unlawfull then before, This is also considerable, beside the change is little or none, the same mischeives which the Rej. imputeth to the new tenet, Mr. Hooker in his preface chargeth that Tenet with, which this Rej, calleth the ould: Yet neither accusations have any force or colour, but upon the supposall, that the ceremonies are innocent

Page  15

and lawful in their imposition and use. The plaine truth is, that in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths dayes, and before, in King Edwards tyme, the Cerem: were accounted weeds of popery, as that zealous and famous preacher, Mr. Anthony Gilbye doth intitle them, in his letter to Mr. Coverdall, Mr. Turner, &c. Mr. Whittingham, D. Vmphryey, and others, who then laboured the rooting of them out. They were not curious of distinguishing of unlawfulnes and inexpediency, but contented themselves to reject and oppose them: Some as Mr. Greenham refused to give their reasons fully, untill they should be constrained: In the meane tyme they utterly refused them, as unlawfull for them to use: This appeareth out of a booke called a part of a Register &c. Synce that tyme, we have beene forced to shew more distinctly, what grounds we stand on, and so pronounce them unlawfull. In the following pages spent principally about answering of objections, made or feared, or at least imagined, against the Author of this Rej. few things are found capable of any great dispute: Neither can many passages be touched, without odious grating upon D. Burges personall credit, which I tender so much, that I would wish more added to it, by other works, then is detracted from it by this: I will therfore leave these things to stand or fall, without any paynes or perill of myne, or the cause, and passe forth unto the stile of our Cerem: in giving and maintaining whereof the Def. and Rej. are so tender, as to proclaime them innocent.

 

Page  16

CHAP. III. Concerning the just and proper stile of our Cerem. Answ: to the preface, Pag. 54.55.56.57.

 

IN answ: to the Reply. his preface, after certaine words spent concerning the number, and such like circumstances of Mr. Sprynts arguments, not worth the repeating &c. The Rej. cometh to Dr. Morton his title, which he gave to our Cerem: that they are innocent: whereunto was opposed, 1. That Calvin accounted them in the most favorable sense ineptias, fopperyes, and in proper speech noxious, pernicious. To this the Rej. answ: that Calvin meant not these titles to our Cerem: but to some other things which were in King Edwards, book of common prayer, as lights, and crosses at the supper. Concerning which answ: 1. not only D. B. was wont otherwise to understand Calvin as we do, but the Prelats themselves, for so we read in D. B. his Apologye pag. 44. according to D. Covells disposition of it. The ordinary speeches of the Lordship and other Bishops were, that the Cerem: are trifles, raggs, beggerly rudiments, that in the books were multae tolerabiles ineptiae, which if it pleased the King to remove they would be gladd.

 

  1. The Rej. cannot give us any probable reason, why lights should be more foppish, then the Surplice or crossings in the supper: Nay he undertaketh to justifye both lights and crossings in the supper, and a hundred other Cerem: upon the same termes, that he defendeth these.

 

Page  17

  • . Calvin did ordinarily call such Ceremon:*as ours by no her name then these: Epist. 25.9. Adventitions triflles, •ere mockeryes: Epist. 505. babish and saplesse mixtures: •gaine Epist. 260. strange trifles mere fopperyes: againe: Some •erem. are openly Idolatrous others are foolish, and unmeet: And Epist. 117. the use of the lynnen garment with many ••pperyes is retayned both with them of Magdenburgh, and ••hem of Wittemberge. Neither was Calvin alone in these ••rmes. Cassander pag. 852. complaineth that most of ••ur writers consent in them. Not only they have omitted •hose as lesse profitable and superfluous, but the most (meaning ••ur Protestant Divines) have judged them, foppish, ridicu••us, and babish, yea to be condemned, and abandoned, as hurt•ull, and pernicious. The puppy good of popish superstition. Those superfluous trifles. Mr. Fox in Mr. Hoopers Story, •rifles tending more to superstition then otherwise, like •nto stage players attyre. 6. All humaine religious mysticall Cer. are the byrths of folly, because every man •s foolish in fynding out of religious worship, according to his owne imagination. 7. These Cer. are of the same •ynd with confessed fopperyes, as the placing of mysteries in every weather cock, upon church steeples, as some doe: the Ludi Sacri among the papists in frequent use like unto stage playes: The rocking of a babe in a cradle all night, at the Nativity tyme, the Harrowing of hell at Easter; The representation of fighting horse and foot, according to the Custome of Mozarabo: Hist. Concil. Trident. P. 642. If a May pole should be brought into the church, for children to dance about and clyme upon, in signe of their desire to seek things above: If a

Page  18

stiffe strawe were putt into the childs hand, for a signe of fighting against spirituall enemies, as with a speare: ther would be no more folly in these thē is in the crosse. 8. All experiēce telleth us, that such humaine inventions are not aptae to any spirituall use, as they are appointed unto, and therfore may justly be called according to the notation of the word ineptae.

 

Againe it was opposed, that these Cere: were found by wofull experience to be very nocent and hurtfull in that use, which hath beene and is still made of them. To this the Rej. answ: that these mischeifs (which he cannot deny to follow upon our Ceremon: as they have beene and are urged, are accidentall events or sequells, not proper effects of them,) and that the extreame opposing of them as unlawfull, hath beene the cause or occasion of these evills. But 1. these mischeifs have followed upon these Cerem: by more continuall or contiguall succession (then the Pope can plead for his chayer) even from the tyme of the first urging of them, untill this day. Mr. Fox speaking of a wicked persecutor, one Blumfeild, who threatned a good man, one Symon Harelson, to present him, for not wearing the Surplies: Addeth it is pitty, such baites of Popery are left to the enemyes to take the Christians in, God take them away from us, or us from them. For God knoweth they be the cause of much blyndnesse and strife among men:* In his Iudgm: the Cer. were then nocent, and infamous for these sequells, and yet the Rej. fayd, they were not untill of late so extreamely opposed as unlawfull. 2. Our opposition of them is no more guilty of these mischeifs, then the message of Moses and

Page  19

Aaron, were of the cruelty which Pharoahs taske mas•ers used, towards the poore Israelites, Exod. 5. though •ome people now may think so, as many Israelites did •hen. 2. When the Anabaptists in Helvetia opposed humaine Ceremonies as unlawfull, they were by pu•like authority, and with common consent abolished: And the very Anabaptists were thanked for that opposition. So Zwinglius (their arch-adversary) Tom. 1. P. 70.

 

And here truely I shall graunt to the Catabaptists, and will freely confesse, that some commodity hath accrewed, from that contention, which they have stirred about Baptisme: For hence it hath come to passe, that those things which the foolish superstition of humaine conceits had added: (as namely the use of Exorcisme spittle and salt, and many other of the like kynd, which were brought to light) are accounted of all for vayne and frivolous.* Who or what is in the way, that the contention of so many worthy (I dare say) of no lesse respect then Anabaptists, against the same kynd of Ceremonies should be accounted a just cause, or occasion of so different a resolution, as the severest urging of them, is from the utter cashyering of them: Certaine it is: the proper cause is to be sought in some other box, then extreame opposition, and esteeming of them unlawfull. 3. Suppose these Cerem. in regard of some places, tymes, and persons not unlawfull, and the mischeifs accidentall, yet that maketh not the generall urging of them innocent, no more then feirce gallopping of horses through London streets, where many men, women, and children, are indangered, want of intending mischeif, would make that mudd hurry innocent. 4. The mischeifs being so

Page  18

great as fearfull horror of conscience in some: Rej. P. 9. hardening, fopling, and distempering the conscience in other, silencing of so many hundred good ministers, and keeping off more from the ministery, troubling, unsetling, and vexing of thousands among the people, encoraging of Popish and prophane men: with discoraging, and martyring the myndes of many good: the mischeifs I say being so unaestimable that they can in no proportion be recompensed, by all humaine ceremonies that are in the world, the ceremonies which have such sequells, yeare after yeare, are much more hurtfull, then the Cart and horse, that are driven over children in the street, and their urgers of them more guilty, then such Carters or Coach men, as drive them: The Def. therfore & Rej. which pronounce both innocent, and do not rather fynd the Cerem. forfeited, and call the drivers of them to the barre, are neither good Crowners, nor fit to be of that Iurye: Luther Annot. in Math. 15. giveth a better verdit Viz. all humaine traditions or ceremonies (even those which in his judgment may in some cases be observed) have two properties of the Divell, as being lyars, and murtherers, when they continue and are not contemned. Such innocents God deliver his people from.* 5. It is the very nature of such humaine ceremonies as ours, where they are urged and used (as with us) to do hurt: 1. because they are vayne toyes (as formerly was shewed) and therfore prejudiciall to so grave a businesse as Gods worship: They trayne up the people of God in subjecting themselves, and their worshipping of God, unto the pleasure of men. 3. They

Page  21

make way for open imagery, and other grosse superstitions, 4. they challenge that to themselves which is proper to Gods ordinances &c. •. It is the very nature of our Ceremonies, as they are imposed upon all our ministers, and congregations, in such dispositions and relations as they are knowne to have, to scandalize many in and out of the church, to disgrace the ministery, to force the consciences, or undoe the outward state of many good Christians, to encorage Papists, to arme the prophane, and to quench zeale against both.

 

CHAP. IIII. Concerning the nature and definition of a Ceremony: Pag. 29.30.

 

HEre we have the cheif hynges, whereupon the doores and wyndowes of the Rej. doe alwayes both open and shutt, brought as it were into one box, by the examining of these therfore, we shall perceave what strenght is in all the building.

 

The beginning of this doctrine is orderly taken from the definition of a Cerem:*A Ceremony is an outward action designed and purposely observed and done, in reference to some other thing, to the substance whereof it is neither a cause nor a part. I will no• here use Scalligers saying: Nothing more unhappy then a Grammarian adventuring to define. For this is not the fault of this Definitiō,* that it is too Grammaticall, because no Hebrue, Greek, or Latyn Grāmar, no nor Dictionarie neither, hath any such word, as beareth the sense of the thing here defined: Let any

Page  22

man make triall, and he shall fynde this true, that there is no word Hebrue, Greek, or Latyn, that hath any such meaning. But I may well apply, that rule of Lawyers: A definition is a dangerous thing in law: i.e. in those humaine lawes, which have no ground, but mans will, such as those are wherby our Ceremonies have theire being: The unhappines of this Definition is, that as it is recorded of Doria the Admirall of Genua in a great Seafight against the Turkes, he fetched his course so farr about to gayne the wynd, that he could never come to strike one stroke, before the fight was ended: So this Rej. seeking to get some advantage of wyndye words, doth in this definition, goe so farr about, that by this course, he is not likely to come orderly unto the graple.

 

*An outward action may be designed or referred to another thing very many wayes: now the Rej. taking in to his definition, reference to another thing in generall, and excepting nothing but causes, and parts, he maketh all other references as they are found in outward actions Cerem: D. B. wrote this his Rej. in Reference to the Church of England, his Diocesan, and other ministers, and people, as also in reference to the Replyer, neither is his book any proper cause, or part of these, shall we say therfore that his book is a Cerem. of all these? In reference to Dr. B. many taylors, shoomakers, bookbynders, Apothecaryes, Chyrurgions, Sextons, Paritors, Church-wardens (and who not?) have performed many actions, which yet were never esteemed his Cerem. The Bishops corrupt and cruell dealing in troubling of many congregations, and depriving many better then themselves,

Page  23

have reference to the Ceremonies, but are no proper cause nor part of them? are they therfore the Cerem: of Ceremonies? To prosecute the wyldnes of the definition, was too taedious a chase: but yet we must consider how he explaineth the termes of it: remembring alwayes, that this explication is a Cerem: to that definition, and is no proper cause nor part of it.

 

Concerning the generall, that a Ceremon: is an action and externall: Zwarez a great Master of the Ceremonies, telleth us, that a Ceremony is not only a transient action, but also a permanent thing: De Resig. vol. 1. ar. •. lib. 4. cap. 14. and that Ceremonies may be distinguished according to the number of the tenn predicaments, of which, action maketh but one, and an externall action but half a one: But let us heare the Rej. expresse himself: The Crosse and Surplice, are not Cerem: but •he wearing of the Surplice &c. P. 30. Touching which we must understand,* such outward things have a fourfold consideration: 1. According to their nature, as they arise •ut of their principles, as the lynnen cloth of a Surplice, •he wood of a crucifixe. 2. That artificiall frame or •ashion that appeareth in these. 3. The impression or •rdination, which is put upon these to this or that end. •. The using of these, or stirring up the heart by these •n practise: So in the brasen Serpent, we may attend, •. the brasse or metall out of which it was made: 2. the •ashion of it: 3. the impression of God in or by this so •ashioned to such a purpose: 4. the using of this, erec•ing of it up by Moses, the seing and beholding of it by •he people: whence it is easy, to see the deceit of the

Page  22

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  23

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  24

Rej. his assertion: Things in the second, & third senses, formerly mentioned, are by all writers truely called cerem: either not attending, yea excluding in our consideration, the fourth respect which is the use: Namely that habitude or impression which was imprinted upon a crucifix, or brasen Serpent, by which they had a morall fitnes, either lawfully, or unlawfully putt upon them, for their severall ends, are Cerem. lawfull or unlawfull. Thus the current of writers Papisticall confesse: the church hath power, to make and appoint Ceremonies and enjoine the using of them, so that they are ceremonies, befor they be used, their high Altar is a ceremony, yea holy all the tyme, before it be used, in bearing the unbloody sacrifice: Thus all Interpreters, terme the types of the ould law cerem:, for that spirituall disposition they have, and typicalnes which the Lord set upon them, as well when no man used them, as when they were used: The Brasen Serpent being once sett up: had beene a Ceremony in the wildernes though the people would never looke upon it, yea I ask, whether the massing vestments of Papists, such which carry a consecrating virtue with them, are not ceremonies, when they are kept, as well, as when they are worne, All men so speake, so write, so judge: and the like may be said of our Surplice &c. In a word: These which were properly types, were properly Ceremonies, but Legall institutions & rites amongst the Iewes were properly rites, as well before and after they were used, as in the using. And therfore they were properly ceremonies,* as well when they were not used, as when they were in use, in

Page  25

the night as in the day, when men are in sleepe and cannot use them, as when they were awake, and did imploy them in worship.

 

  1. If we be truely and properly said to use Cerem. then Cerem. are properly such besyde their use.* True it is some Cere. consist in actions, and all actions being in motion, when the actions cease the Ceremonies grounded upon them must needs cease: but it is not, because they are Cerem., but because they be such Cerem., whose foundations are in actions: In summe then it appeares, that the being or existence of the fashionablenes of the brasen serpent, and the morall impression or appointment to its end, this being, or existence, I say is a ceremony, when it is not used by any: and therfore some being or existence is a ceremony poynt blank to the Rej. determination. He adds:

 

It is an externall action,* because internall actions of the mynd, being matters of substance cannot duely be called ceremonies.

Peradventure these words, may have some true sense in some specialties, but they serve not his turne in this place, because though he only mentions outward actions: yet he requires a purposed observation of them, which caries the work both of mynd and will and therfore includes an internall action of the man, for no man can purposely observe, but he must both judge what he should doe, and affect what he judgeth, so that the Rej. here speakes daggers, nor can I see, how he can excuse a contradiction or two.

 

He that requires a purposed observation in a Cer. he*

Page  26

requires an act of mynd & will, & so an internal act.

 

But D. Burg. requyres a purposed observation in a ceremony.

 

Therfore he requyres an act of mynd and will, and so an internall act, whence defining a Ceremony to be an action externall, and yet making it internall also, he crosseth shynns with himself.

 

Or thus:

 

He that duely and of right judgment requires a purposed observation, he requires an internall, and so a substantiall act or a matter of substance.

 

But Dr. Burg. requires duely and in right judgment (I meane in his apprehension) a purposed observation:

 

Therfore he requires a substantiall matter in a Ceremony, which he denies should be done: and that is a contradiction.

 

The second terme, is designed or purposely observed and done, and as he explicates himself: Institution or that which is all one, intended observation, is essentiall to a Cerem: P. 30. Which words are confused, and draw with them dangerous inconveniences, when Institution and intended observation, are made simply all one: For neither is all institution, an observation, because many things are instituted, which are not observed. 2. Neither is an intended free observatiō for one tyme used: an institution, 3. an institution with authority implyeth much more in it, then intended observation. Dr. Iackson in his originall of unbeleif,*pag. 334.335. very aptly to this purpose noteth, that some expressions may sometyme be used, and observed

Page  27

well, which to use ordinarily, (much more to institute) •ould be ridiculous or impious. As Iacob did unblameablely •ish his sonne Iosephs coate, yet to have hanged it about his •edd, or table, that it might receave such salutations, evening and morning, or at every meale tyme, might have countenanced many branches of superstition: once and use it not, may be discretion, of those things whose continuall use degenerates into abuse. All observers of Ceremonies are not instituters of them, I thinke D. B. would be loath, to institute the Crosse, and Surplice, with other Cerem: which yet he doth observe: In his interpretations of subscription he refuseth to defend, how well these be imposed (that is as I take it instituted) and yet acknowledgeth, the intended observation of them, to be very well: Besyde all this, it is to be marked, that the Rej. by confounding institution and purposed observance, doth exclude or forget all naturall ceremonies, such as bowing of the body before superiors, imbracing of those, who are deare unto us, lifting up the hands and eyes to heaven in ordinary worship, which nature it self doth teach all nations to observe, without any institution, though not without some government of councell, nor without such variety, as nature it self is subject unto: Againe if by this phrase he meane that a purposed observation of an outward act, with an ayme and reference to such a thing, is of necessity required to make up a Cerem: or a Ceremonious action, in worship or otherwise, it is a miserable mistake: Instance thus: A carnall Protestant presents himself amongst such, as are at Masse, he professeth to his companions, before he goes in, and doth in the purpose

Page  28

of his heart seriously loath the pix and Idoll there, yet when its lifted up, he bowes as others doe: Lett any man in reason tell me, did he not use or abuse rather a Divine Ceremo. in that bowing or no? If the Rej. say yes, as he must, unlesse he will speake against all reason & truth: I then reply upon his owne grounds: That outward action which is not purposely referred, that is not a Cerem. but this action is not purposely observed with any ayme to that end for the party intended no such thing, purposed no such matter, but did it as a thing of-course, as a man should bow his knee for exercise when he is alone. 2. Peter withdrawing himself from the Gentiles at the coming of the Iewes, he did not purposely this, with reference to any Iudaicall seperation, as judging any legall pollution in joyning with the Gentiles, or holines in parting from them, and therfore he did not pra•tise any Iewish Cere. according to the Rej. conceit, but directly contrary to the text: there is no end of these absurdities.

 

The differen•ing terme is placed in reference to some other matter, of the substance whereof it is neither necessary cause nor part, Pag. 30.

Where he seemeth to expound that, which before he called a proper cause by a farr differing terme of a necessary cause: what should be the intention of this variation I cannot guesse: It may be the Rej. forgot, that he was in giving of accurate rules, and so fell into a loose varying of phrases: So likewise in illustrating of this difference, in stead of part he nameth a substantiall part, as distinguishing parts into substantiall and accidentall, of which

Page  29

addition I cannot tell what to make: How ever this is no forme or essentiall difference of a Cerem. from other actions. D. B. hath preached a thousand good sermons, in reference to his flock or people, yet I do not think, he esteemed them Cerem. of his hearers: This Paradoxe he enlargeth with many similitudes, and examples, I looked he should have alledged some scripture, from whence this might have beene gathered or concluded: at the least adjoyned some convicting argument, which might have cleared this so mayne poynt of his definition, or if none of those, that yet he would have shewed some authority or author, who had so writt and spoke, but here is deepe sylence, and we must take all upon the Drs bare word, but by the Drs leave we are purposed to trye his novellies and not to take them upon trust.

 

Here (1) it is justly to be faulted,* that he goes against all rules of art and reason, making up the cheif part of his definition, of a negative, and so in yssue tells us, what the thing is not, not what it is: For having said, that a cerem. must be in reference, the demaund might be, what reference is that, he adds it is not a cause, or a part, And any may in reason still enquire, if it be not either if those two, what is it then, or what intend you by it, here he leaves himself not a muse or a hole to escape, but even a broad feild to walk at liberty in, either to affirme, or deny what he will: For presse him thus: If it be not the reference of a cause or part, is it then referred by way of comparison? No: Is it by way of opposition? No: And thus where shall we hould him, or make him stay, Nay

Page  30

where will he himself fynd footehold to stand: Iust for all the world, as if he should defyne a man to be a living creature, which is not a byrd, nor a fish, nor a lambe, nor an oxe, how senselesse and sapplesse would such descriptions be, and yet this of the Rej. in this place is the like. And hence it is, that in stead of a clearer knowledge, and apprehension of the thing, which should be gayned by a definition, I dare be bould to make it good (for I speake but what by experience I have found) that the most ordinary, yea judicious readers, when they thought they knew some thing of a Cerem. before: after they had read this definition, they knew, just nothing at all: Thus his defining is like flinging dust in the eyes of a mans understanding, to delude and deceave, at the least to dazell and trouble his reason: I hope by the next returne, the Rej. will be content to acknowledge this fault, and will tell us in plaine English, what he meanes by this reference▪ which if he do, I am verily perswaded he will be forced to see, how far wyde he was, when he mynted and vented these feeble conceits. How ever we will see, what we can make of it, and in this our enquiry, it must not seeme strange to the Drs learning, that being simple men, our dull capacityes compasse severall wayes that we may fynd out the foundation, upon which this assertion is built, In which we professe in a word of truth, our desire is not to pervert his meaning, but to understand it.

 

*This reference then in the generall wherein it is propounded can carry but two significations we may consider both, that we may guesse at the mynd of the author.

 

Page  31

  1. Its taken for relation, in open phrase,* and so also he declares it, and in a fayre construction seemes to intend it, for so he writes. It is not divine nor humaine institution that makes a C•remon:*for that it is the relation as hath beene sayd which constituteth. If this be his meaning, then the two relats, betwixt whom this relation is, must be their action referring, and the matter or thing unto which it is referred: but in this sense it doth thrust it self & caries a contradiction with it: All relates are mutuall causes one of another, And doe consist of mutuall affection betweene each other:* As there cannot be buying without selling, giving without taking: assume we now in this sense, but the action outward to the thing wherunto it is referred, are relats: Therfore they are mutuall causes one of another, therfore how can they be in this reference, and yet be not a cause one of another, which the Rej. expresseth and requireth: this sense not houlding, let us see how the other will serve his turne.*

 

  1. This reference in a large sense implyes any kynd of notionall respect, which can be considered and conceaved, besyde that of a cause or part, and this drawes many absurdities with it.

 

  1. That which belongs to substantiall worship, as well as ceremoniall, that cannot be the difference, or proper nature of a Ceremony, for then they should not be distinct one from another: but to be referred to some thing not as a cause or part, belongs even to substantiall worship as well as Ceremoniall: For each worship of God hath proper and particular causes of which it is made, and unto which it is referred, as an effect,

Page  32

not as a cause or part. 2. The Induction of particulars will make it undeniable, profession of the true God, and the truth of the Gospell is referred to both, not as a cause or part of either: ergo, sound profession is a ceremony: Prayer in all the kynds of it, confession to God, petitioning from God, are referred to him, not as causes or parts; ergo, they are ceremonies.

 

Hearing attending conserving, examining things heard, are referred thereunto, not as causes or parts of the things; ergo, they are ceremonies.

 

Nay to beleive and hope in God, to love and feare him are referred to God not as causes or parts: ergo, these are Ceremon. If it be here said, yea but these are inward actions, whereas our Cerem. are said to be outward by the Rej. I answ: be it graunted, yet this kynd of reference being the proper forme of a Ceremon: the reason still houlds good (though we have no need of this example having so many before mentioned) for wheresoever the forme or proper nature of a thing is, there the thing formed will be, as its a sound kynd of reasoning, where ther is a reasonable soule as a forme, there is a man: Lastly to deride contemne, rayle, revyle Christ, his truth and servants is an outward action purposely observed with reference to these, by persecutors, not as causes and parts of them; ergo, these are but Ceremon: synnes, and is not here wyld work, thinks thou Christian reader.

 

  1. That which is common to all actions, and all things, can not be a forme and difference of a Cerem. to make it differ from all other: but thus to be referred

Page  33

to another, not as a cause or part is common to all outward actions, naturall, civill, religious, yea to all naturall artificiall things: Thus all acts may be referred one to another, and all other to Divinity, not as causes or parts of Divinity: are they therfore all Cer? Nay all precepts of art are referred the former to the latter, not as causes or parts; ergo are they in this Rej. conceit, and by the verdi•t of this definition Ceremo? Amongst the examples of this difference, the last is to be attended unto because it hath a remarkable note added unto it? Convening in one set place at an honore appointed unto worship saith the Rej. is in that relation a ceremony of worship: and yet as it is an observance of order it is no Ceremo. Of this ther can be no doubt, but the observation of tyme and place, in reference to another thing, is according to the definition of the Rej. a ceremony: But how an observation of this tyme and place, can be considered as an order, without reference to some thing to be ordered in that tyme and place, that so it may be differenced from the same order, as it is a ceremony, this is a metaphisicall abstraction, as I cannot conceave of, let others therfore judge: When the Apost. chargeth the Corinth, to doe all things in order: could he be so understood, that he spake of order, and of the ceremony of order, and that by doing of things in order, he meant a Cerem: because there is a relation of order to things: but by doing orderly he meant no ceremony, because there is no relation to things: Order without relation to things ordered, is like the accidents in the Popish Sacrament, without any subject after transubstantion: If the doctrine of humaine Cerem. cannot

Page  34

stand, or be understood, without such miraculous subtilties let it goe seek for those that will receave it. The note added to the former example is: that they who oppose matters of order to matters of ceremony, as if the same thing could not be done in double relations, do confound severall notions of things, and oppose things coincident. Here first may be marked, how he crosseth that in this conclusion, which he layd for the ground of it: before he sayd reference or relation to some other matter doth distinguish a cerem. from order, because a Cerem. hath such a relation, and order as order hath not: but now he telleth us of double relations one in order, and another in ceremo. Secondly he fighteth here without an adversary, except he understand by matters of order, meere order, and by matters of Ceremo. such observations, as are significant by institution, for no man doubteth but Cerem. lawfull and unlawfull also may be done in order.

 

In the example of this rule, the Rej. is so subtile in his subliming and refining of notions, that he hath these words: The observance of the order appointed for reading, singing, praying, &c. is in respect of that order of the substance thereof, but referred to divine service is a cerem. In this (I say) no more good sense appeares then needs must, for putt those words together: The observance of order, in respect of that order is of the substance thereof: without all quaestion: as a man in respect of the same man is of his substance: So also the observance of a cerem. in respect of that ceremony is of the substance thereof: Here is no difference, neither indeed can any difference be intelligiblely fayned betwixt order of divine service, and

Page  35

order in relation to divine service, but humaine Cerem. must thus be handled.

 

For a concl•sion of this, that we may not altogether send the Reader away with these uncertainties, withdrawing our selves from the Rej. his by paths, we will in a word or two, a little enquire, what the word of truth, gives us to consider, touching Ceremonies, and see if we can hitt the ould and the good way, the Kings roade of righteousnes.

 

If then we look into the scriptures,* which are all to informe us, in all things we should doe, we shall fynd no other names of such Cere. which the Lord hath either required, or the church used, but those: TO RAH CHOKIM MISPAT: but the Cere. part of Gods service, was made known most usually by the last word CHO KIM, coming of a root, which signifyes, to grave, frame, carve, fashion in manner of a statue or picture, and is applyed as the Hebrewes observe, to appoint or make the first rude draught of a thing, and so it fittly imports those services which were enjoined the Israelites, by meanes of outward sensible, carnall things, all which were but like the horne-book or prymmer, for the church to be schooled by, when it was in its infancy and nonage, and therfore are called, elements of the world, carnall rites, beggerly rudiments, to witt, because these were only supplementa to those spirituall ordinances, which are called morall or substantiall: for wheras there be some ordinances of God, which cary a constant and perpetuall equity and necessity of our honouring of the Lord: As that there should be a rule made knowne, to counsell and advise

Page  36

us, how he will be worshipped: requisite it is, we should heare, reade, meditate, conferr, suffer our selves to be squared by this rule and word: Equi•y, ne••ssity requires we should pray,* that we should have seales of the covenant to confirme us in regard of our infirmity, how ever ther needed none in regard of Gods immutability, but to lett out his love to us, in the full sourse of it: Againe equall and necessary it is, we should in the name of Christ, cast out what is contrary, and will destroy his kingdome, his propheticall and preistly office, and so his honour: But to have outward elements carnall, and sensible rites, to t•ach our mynds, to cary up our hearts to God, laying asyde the minority of the church, there is not a perpetuall necessity of •hese, nor add they to the substance of the service, but only help me, because I am weake, and dymme sighted, like so many spectacles, to succour my dazeling eye: and therfore are Cerem. the first draught of outward ordinances: Now all the outward types appointed •hus by God, which foretould Christ to come, and those other rites which by way of signification taught our mynds, and so helped and stirred our hearts outward to grace or duty, all these are ceremonies: And consider them, and practise them, as they are in the word appointed, whether it be with any reference, to any other worship, or without reference had to any other worship, they are then and ever were at all these tymes in themselves, and in their use ceremonious worship: Instance thus: To put on frontletts before the eyes, &c. commanded 15. Numb. and by them to be admonished and stirred to the obedience of the

Page  37

law: take this Ceremo. in the work, and in its owne nature, as a meane signifying, teaching, and so working, this is a Ceremony, and so to do is Ceremonions worsh•p: referr it; referr it I say to no other thing, but only to this, unto which it is appointed of God,* as a meane to work & as a cause doth work this, I say look at it, as a cause to work, (which the Rej. excepted in his definition) in this sense it is a ceremony and ceremonious worship: the like of the rest. At a word: It is the verdit and voice of the scripture, and consent of all men, to divyde worship into morall, ceremoniall. Whence I gather thus: If ther be a ceremoniall worship, a distinct species from morall or substantiall worship, then is a ceremony in it owne proper nature, as such a worship without reference or consideration had of morall or substantiall, as a man in his owne nature is a living creature, without any consideration of a beast. Againe hence its cleare, that as well as morall worship hath a compleat nature of it owne, without ceremoniall: So ceremoniall hath its compleat nature without morall, because they are contradistinct species.

 

Againe hence it followes, divine ceremonies as such, are parts of worship: every species as it is a species, is part of his genus: but divine ceremonies as such, are species of religious worship: whence that is false which the Rej. affirmes in the seventh consectary:*That actions in some consideration may be reall acts of Divine worship, and as so, be no ceremonies. For its ev•dent, he doth and must needs speake of acts Ceremoniously religious, and then besyde the former argument, I would reason thus:

Page  38

If a man, as he doth referr a religious action to another, doth worship God, then is it a species of worship even in that reference: but as he doth referr a religious action to another, he doth worship God: ergo, that action in that reference is a species of worship: And thus much his owne words in the same consectary seeme to me to evince: The outward elements and acts in respect of the inward things they do represent and exhibite are cerem. So the Rej. Consect. 7. P. 34. But I assume, God is worshipped by them, or they be parts of worship, in that very use, and therfore as ceremonies they are parts of worship: Hence lastly the vanity of the fift consectary, is playnly discovered, as containing empty words without any worth of matter. For when its sayd: To acknowledg any thing,*to be ordained a Cerem. by man, to be used in the worship of God, and yet to affirme the same to be a part of that worship to which it referreth, implyes a contradiction: The answere is easy: It is confessed by all men, that Ceremo. are not part of that substantiall worship, I say that particular worship, which they do accompany, and unto which they referr as none of the types in the ould law, were either hearing, praying, beleeving, &c. and yet were reall and proper ceremonious worship, in themselves considered, as being a contradistinct species thereof: So also the Sacraments, are no part of that particular inward worship whereunto they refer: namely, fayth in God and his promises, and yet by signifying, sealing, according to Gods institution, they are true divine cere. and reall true parts of worship in the Generall: So also our humaine Cere. as the crosse, it is not, nor we affirme

Page  39

it to be, part of our fayth in God, or our constant obedience to him, and yet we say as its made a token to import these, and so made a teacher of these, its a ceremonious, yet a reall species of worship in the generall, though false: So that either the Consect. is to no purpose, carying only an empty sound of words, or if it be taken in a fayer sense, it will not free our ceremonies, from the charge of false worship: Thus farr we have made a little digression from the Rej. but not from the matter (Christian Reader) nay nor yet wholly from the Rej. because all this, adds still, to the manifestation and confutation of the desperate feeblenes of his definition, joyned merely out of his owne conceit, •nd vented to the world, without either proofe or au•hority.

 

From these premises certaine consectaries are deduced, the quality whereof may easely be guessed at, by •hat which hath beene found in the praemises viz. that •hey are either to little purpose, or false: For the conclusion being false, all the collections which hence he gathers, must needs be as untrue, so that either they are not sound, or else they take no force or foundation of •oundnes and truth from hence, if there be any in them, •nd therfore I need add no further examination, for the •ree it self falling, the boughs must needs followe: For •ny collection he makes must in this, or the like forme •e concluded: If a Ceremo. be an action externall, &c. •hen this and that and the other will follow. Let me •eason, and on the contrary syde assume: but a cerem. •s not an outward action instituted, &c. nor is that definition

Page  40

true, as hath beene declared by the reply: ergo, none of all those consectaries, may be concluded, can be collected therfrom.

 

Yet for more satisfaction sake, let us take a view of the severall; but very shortly: The first is, that therfore the same actions one at the same tymes may in severall respects be cere. & no c•re: But if the nature of a cere. doth not consist in reference or relation, as hath beene evicted before sufficiently, then the change of the respect or relation, doth not bring-in the change of a ceremony.

 

Second Consectary is:*That institution and observation, makes a ceremony not a naturall habitude or aptnes of any action to expresse this or that: Now if no naturall aptnesse or habitude make a Ceremo. what will the Rej. say, to things of Decency, Comlynes, and order which are ceremonies in his sense. 42. pag. and in a large sense of the word may truely be so called, do none of these arise out of the naturall aptnes and habitude of the action? The whytenes and cleannesse of the communion cloth, doth not the decency thereof yssue from the habitude of the thing, which if it was foule and nasty, would not be decent, let all institution do what it could: That a minister should turne his face to his people in the pulpitt when he preacheth, and not his back, is not this comlines in the naturall aptnes of the action: That people should stand or sitt in hearing the word, and not ly along upon their faces, doth not this yssue from the naturall aptnes of the action, without institution, is there not decency in th•se, or can institution make the contrary decent? If therfore decency and comlines of some actions, to this

Page  41

or that, issue from the naturall habitude, then some cerem. doe issue out of this aptnes, because these are such, and so this consect. is false.

 

The thyrd is: that misticall signification is not necessary to make a ceremony (as some would have it) but relation only as appeareth in diverse observances of the law: though misticall signification added, may make a double and perhaps a triple ceremony. If this be graunted no inconvenience followeth to the Repl. because the quaestion still remaineth, about double and triple Ceremon. such as the crosse is, whether it be lawfull for men, to institute such in Gods worship. And to argue, from a single Cerem. to a double, and triple, this is not from the head of parity. And as for the observances in the law, I deny all of them to have beene properly Ceremon. although they be some tyme so called improperly, and that with Iudicious Iunius on Exod. 25. Some Ceremo. are taken up to figure the truth of the thing,*and those appertaine properly to the nature of types by Gods appointment, others are taken in, not so much, for the resemblance of the things, but for the nature of the figures: As in these Cerem. there be many things, that make nothing to the nature of a Cerem. as such, but only to the nature of the thing, which thing after the manner of some matter liable to sense, is applyed about the Ceremony and the Ceremoniall figure.

 

The fourth is: That the difference which some make betwixt circumstances and Ceremonies is a meere nycetye, or fiction: This is a strange nycety as ever I knew. The turning

Page  42

or jogging of h houre glasse in relation to the measure of tyme for a sermon, the sweeping of the church before the church me•ting, the carying of some notes for remembrance upon occ•sion, the quoting of scripture without, or by the book, and a 100. such, w•re never esteemed ceremoni•s properly so called, before men began to b•ing a myst upon religious observances, that humaine presumptions might not be discerned.

 

The fift hath his answere before.

 

*The sixt is: That divine or humaine institution doth not make an action to be a ceremony or no ceremony. These consectaries follow marvellous strangely from the premises, when the seeme to contradict both the premises, and themselves in some particulars: I would therfore intreat the Rej. to end the quarrell at his next rejoyning, and make a reconciliation betweene these.

 

  1. To a ceremony Institution is essentiall, pag. 30.
  2. It is not ap•nes of an action, that maketh it a ceremony, but Institution. Cons. 2. Pag. 32.
  3. Now here we are tould that Divine, or humaine institution, do not make an action a ceremony, whence I reason thus:

*If neither Divine nor humaine institution make a Ceremony, then no institution doth: for all institutions are either Divine or humaine, and from the denyall of all the species to the denyall of the Genus, the consequence is good: as it is neither a beast, nor a man, therefore it is not.

 

But this sixt corallary saith, its neither divine nor humaine institution make a ceremony: ergo, I conclude, no

Page  43

institution doth make a ceremony; which is a direct contradiction to the second: which affirmes, that institution doth make a Ceremony.

 

The seventh hath beene discussed and confuted before in the substance of it:* Pag. 34. onely that strange kynd of expression may here be observed as we passe by: It is not essentiall to a ceremony simplye, that it be no proper part of Divine worship: where let it be observed, that to be no proper part of worship, is a bare negation, or not being of worship: now plaine it is, and manifest to all that have but common sense, that a bare negation, cannot be essentiall to any thing, that hath being, neither simply nor comparatively. And by the same proportion, and upon the same ground, he might as well say, to be no part of worship, is not essentiall to any thing, and therfore not to a Ceremony: now to what profit, or purpose are such expressions, which serve nothing to the cause in hand, but to darken the truth with words, and to dazell the mynds of the ignorant.

 

The eight is; That it is not the use or end,*which maketh a ceremony to be part of divine worship, or not, but institution: Divine institution maketh any circumstance a part; but humaine institution, though to the same end and use, maketh only an adjunct of divine worship, because the observance thereof cannot incurr the act of any proper worship of God. How this is a consectary following upon the premises it doth not appeare. The contrary seemeth to follow from the sixt consectary, where divine and humaine institution is denied to make a Ceremony, or no Ceremony, but rather to difference arbitrary, and necessary Cerem. For

Page  44

by the very like reason; Divine and humaine institution doth not make worship, or no worship, but rather maketh a diff•rence of necessary or arbitrary will worship. The reason of that is rendered, because relation doth constitute a Ceremo. And the same reason houldeth here, because relation doth constitute worship: The Institution Divine or humaine doth onely difference the efficient cause, not the matter, forme, and end, wherin the essence of worship doth consist. If Gods institution did make any circumstance of worship to become worship, then the ceasing from worship should be worship, because ther were circumstances of tyme appointed, when men should cease from solemne worship: The reason which supporteth the other part of this assertion viz: That humaine institution cannot make an action part of worship, because the observance thereof, cannot incurr the act of worship, is just as much, as if it had beene so sett downe: humaine institution cannot make worship; because that which it maketh, cannot be worship. If men appoint even places, and tymes, in the same manner, to the same ends, that God did, they are worship as well (though not so good) as the other: If this were not so, then wherefore doth the Scripture tell us, of will worship, taken up at the pleasure of men, or according to the institutions, doctrines, and traditions of men? For by the Rej. his rule, there can be no such thing, and therfore it is vayne to forbidd it. This may suffice for this consectary, yet because the reflexion of it doth often occurr in the dispute. I further undertake to prove, that it is neither true in it self: nor 2. is it truely inferred from the definition, and both

Page  45

these charges we will indeavour to make good.

 

For our right proceeding to discover the falshood of the collection, when he saith: The same use and end maketh not a ceremony to be part of Divine worship,*we must not understand true worship, for that all the world of orthodoxe divines, especially his opposites, against whom he rayseth this consectary, do confesse, that only the Lords institution makes divine worship true, but there is religious worship which is false: So that the meaning is, whether the same use and end of a Ceremony, make it not to be in the kynd of religious worship, as well without the institution of God, as its made true religious worship by it. Or whether: when the same use and end of a ceremony which was religious, when Gods institution came, the institution being taken away (neither I say) the same use, and end, is not now religious properly: we •ffirme against the Rej. that Divine Institution being •aken away, continue the same use, and the same end, •here is still religious worship properly though false.

 

Againe this also is especially to be mynded, that we •re then sayd to keepe the same use and end, not when we imploy the same thing or action: but when we use •hem as under the act of the same rule, as in the same way, as in the like virtuall respect unto the same end: I often mention that particle of similitude as, because •hough the ordinances of man, cannot have the same virtue as Gods have, nor can attaine the same end of honouring of God as his doe, yet if we take them, and use them as such, they are false worship to us, so abusing

Page  46

of inventions, as the use of Gods owne ordinances, are true worship: So that where both these are, the same meanes in a proper religious use, to attaine the end properly religious, there is Divine worship. And this thus opened, now comes to be confirmed.

 

Where the essentiall causes are of Divine worship, there is Divine worship.

 

Where there is the same use and end, properly religious; there be the essentiall causes of Divine worship.

 

Ergo, there is Divine worship.

 

*The first part is beyond all exception, nor cannot suffer a denyall of a man, that hath not forsaken and denyed reason: The second part or the minor proposition, is thus made good:

 

Where there is the same operari, i. e. working or act of essentiall causes of worship; ther is the same esse or being of the same causes.

It being an ould receaved rule, amongest not only Logitians, but even reasonable men, idem operari, ide•esse, the same working, and the same being, goe bot• together.

 

But where the same use and the same end is properl• religious, there is same operari or acting of the essentiall causes of worship: Ergo, there must need be the same essentiall causes: For when God hath

Page  47

appointed such meanes to be used to such an end, the appointment being past, the worship is not yet, before those meanes and end come, and they cary the essence of the action.

  1. We may borrow the ground of another argument from •he Rej. owne graunt elsewhere, for pag. 38. speaking of superstitious Ceremoni•s he hath these words: Ceremonies are superstitious, when men worshiping only the true God, yet place and •utt upon their owne Ceremonies, the title of Divine, as in ef•ect, when the proper service of God is placed in them, or merit, •r necessity, holines and efficacy, though by vertue of the churches institution: For what can be sayd more of Gods ordi•ances then this, nay not all this truely, I meane, for merit &c. •hence I reason diversly.

 

If the superstitious incroaching in Gods service, by •ppointing meanes of the same use efficacy and end with the Lords, be a breach of worship properly divine. •hen also is it really and properly though falsely divine worship:* for a synne directly contrary to the duty of a •ommaund, is even of the same kynd with the duty: but •he appointment and use of such meanes, in such a virtue •o such an end, is a breach of true worship really divine, •rgo it is really divine, false worship.

 

  1. Againe: That which makes a Ceremony properly species of divine false worship; that adds more then an •djunct to divine worship, for an adjunct, doth not vary •he kynd, or make a new species, but only alters the •ame species.

 

But institution thus superstitious, makes an action, a species of divine false worship: by the Rej. consent,

Page  48

nay by the confession of all Divines orthodoxe, that knew what they writt or spake: Ergo, it adds more then an adjunct to Divine worship, for it makes it a species, which is professedly contrary to that which the Rej. hath in this consectary: namely; that humaine institution makes an action an adjunct to divine worship not a part: whereas here its plaine it makes it a species, and so a part of Divine false worship.

  1. Againe its lawfull to add an adjunct, which is properly Divine to Gods worship, by the Rej. learning▪ Pag. 36.37. but it is not lawfull, to add the meanes of the use, to the same end, which God hath appointed: As i• was not lawfull to the Iewes to use other braceletts, about there necks, frontletts upon their foreheads, wherein they should write the law, answerable to the Frontletts, and fringes, which God appointed.

 

That which the Rej. adds, touching the appointmen• of the place of meeting,* is a most miserable mistake: Hi• words are; The Lords appointment of one place for sacrifices, and of some sett dayes for the solemne worship of God a• the Sabbath, and their feasts to Israel, made the observance of that very place and these tymes, to be part of worship: But the churches appointment of a sett place,*or tyme, unto the •elebration of the acts of religious worship, because it incurreth not the worship it self, leaves the observance thereof as a mere ceremony.

 

Herein (I say) the Rej. missed the mark miserablely: For the Temple was a type of Christs body: Pull down this temple, and I will rayse it up within three dayes:

Page  49

but he spake of the temple of his body, Iohn 2.19.21. and the very frame of it by Gods institution and ordination, was holy, had an efficiency, and virtue through God appointment, to cary up the heart to God, by that virtuall respect, and efficacy which it had, as his meanes to that end. Now lett the Church institute, and appoint a place, and put this virtue, & efficacy in it, by their institution to the same end, to which the temple was appointed, and I suppose the Rej. himself will say, its superstition and false worship: But our temples have no such thing, putt upon them, to no such end, & therfore are not in the same end and use: unlesse the Rej. will •hould, that prayers better ascend in Paulls church, when he rounds a pillar in the eare, then when he prayes abroad: and that he is of opinion, with Bishop Andrewes, that we are heard,*not because of the prayer that is made, but because of the place in which it is made: but I hope the Rej. is farr of from such delusions.

 

The second thing we charge upon this consectary, is; that it is collected by any force of reason, from the foregoing definition: for cast it into a forme, and the very expression will be confutation enough: for the frame must stand thus:

 

If a Ceremony be an outward action instituted, and purposely observed, in relation to some thing, wherof it is neither cause nor part: then it followes, that the same use and end, maketh not a Ceremony part of Divine worship.

These things have so ill connexion, and sement of reason, that when they are sett in a forme, they fall all in

Page  50

peeces, as though the consequent was afrayd of the antecedent, so farr it is from following from the definition naturally, that all the cords of reason, cannot drawe them together, as it will appeare, if any man will putt it to triall, by all the topick places of invention: we will therefore rest, untill we heare what Balsame the Dr. brings to heale this wound:

 

The nynth and last Consectary is:*That Ceremonies may in regard of their generall kynd and end be worship, so farr as they are in their kynd parts of order and decency, and yet in their particulars, not be of the substance of order, comlines, worship. We are at last therfore come to a strange reckoning.* Cer. are in their kynd, parts of order, & yet (as we were tould pag. 31.) that order so farr as it is order, is in that respect no ceremony. 2. A Ceremo. in respect of the genus and end is worship, and yet in the consectary immediately going before, it was peremptorily pronounced, that use and end maketh not a Ceremony part of Divine worship: I take the cause of this crosse Doctrine to be, that humaine ceremonies in divine worship, are such a crosse knott, that he who seeks to open the conveyances of it, must needs run crosse in his thoughts and words. To make this crossing more plaine, let us first debate (a little more fully) the truth of this corallarie,* and then see what followeth therefrom. We here have three conclusions.

 

  1. Ceremonies in their kynd, as they are parts of order, and decency, may be acts of religion.
  2. Yet the particulars may not be of the substance of order.

Page  51

  1. That the particulars are not Divine; which propositions are plainly expressed in the corallary, if they be not contradictious one to another, I must confesse, I must bidd all reason and logick farewell, or else the Rej. hath a new logick, which yet never saw light: And therfore I reason thus.

If every particular have the whole nature of the Genus in it, then the generall being divine,* the particulars must be divine; but every particular of order and decency are species to generall nature of order &c. therfore they have the whole nature of order in the generall; & ergo are divine: & to affirme the contrary which here is done, is to say a living creature hath sense, but the species man and beast hath none: Or; the nature of man is reasonable, but the particulars: Thom. or Ihon are not reasonable; and thus the 3. conclusion implyes a contradiction to the first conclusion.

 

  1. Againe the second also is more grosse, if more may be added, If the generall, give his whole substance & nature to the particulars, then if ther be any substance of order, the particulars have it, but the generall nature of order gives all the substance to the particulars; ergo, they have it: the maintaining of the contrary conceit, is to bidd battell to all reason, and to deny a confessed common, and receaved principle of art.*Generall is that kynd of whole, which gives his essence to the particulars. For now farr should a man be forsaken of common sense, who should affirme, that manhood, or the nature of man in generall, should have the substance of reason: but considered

Page  52

in his species and particulars. Tho. and Ihon, they should be wholly destitute of the substance of reason: And assuredly (good reader) when I considered, the wonderfull confidence of the disputer, arrogating so much subtility and learning, and yet to fall so foule and offend so heavily, against the very rudiments of logick, and principles of reason, I could not but look up to heaven, and lawfully as I could, and tremblingly remember,* that of the Prophet: That the Lord is sayd to putt out the understanding of the Prudent.

 

Thus we have discussed the falshood of the Corallary, we will now reason from it, for our owne advantage, taking the false graunt of the Rej. in this place.

 

*Every species under a commaund, stands by virtue of the same commaund the Genus doth, as that is a common rule in reason, the generall and speciall appertaine to the same place, and it is a rule in Divinity receaved without gaynsaying: the generall commaund by the same stroke and compasse comprehends all the particulars under it: and when that, by way of precept is enjoyned, all the rest by the same rule, & by virtue of the same commaund, are also required. We must preserve the life of our Brother, that is the generall of the 6. Commaund, by the same precept, all the particulars of wayes and meanes which are the specialls of preservation, are required: but the particulars of order and decency are under the generall of order and decency; ergo, these particulars stand by virtue of the same commaund they do. And by the Rej. graunt, these standing by a commaund of divine worship, and being proper acts thereof: ergo,

Page  53

it must needs follow that the particulars stand by vertue of the commaund of Divine worship, and are proper acts thereof: we see by this tyme whither the Drs. Divinity hath brought him.

 

Againe, if they be so commaunded, and be such proper acts of worship: of such acts the Rej. confesseth the Negative arg. from Scripture concludeth well. Such acts of proper worship cannot be imposed by man or the Church, significant ceremonies, which cary such acts of worship, are unlawfull, and thus by one graunt, he hath yeilded there of the arguments, which he strives after to answere and to overthrowe.

 

CHAP. V. Of the sorts and differences of Ceremonies.

 

THe first partition of Ceremo. into private or publike, close or open, may passe for the evidence of it, but yet it may be quaestioned, seing institution is essentiall to a Ceremony, as before we have beene taught, to whom the institution of private Ceremonies do belonge? whether the convocation house may appoint men, when they eat and drink, goe to bedd and rise up, to signe themselves with the signe of the Crosse?

 

The second partition into Ceremon. civill, sacred or mixt: Civill, when theire immediate object and end is civill; Sacred,*when the immediate object and end is matter pertaining to religiō, requireth more attention. And 1. it is to be noted, that by this division, all naturall Ceremo. are abrogated

Page  54

or excluded, for else the first distribution should have beene; Ceremo. are either naturall or instituted: Now Bellarmine himself more considerately maketh some ceremon. naturall.*Certaine Cerem. receave institution, as it were from nature it self, which may be called naturall Cerem. as to looke up to heaven, to lift up our hands, and to bow our knees, when we pray unto God. Note also the varying of the phrase: In civill cerem. he requireth an immediate civill object & end, but in sacred he will have it enough, that the immediate object and end, be matter pertaining to religion. There may be some purpose in this, to exclu•e all civill Cerem. and so civility out of matters pertaining to religion, that all things being counted religious, humaine misticall Ceremo. in religion, may not be discerned from common observations, which are equally and often used to the same immediate end both in civill, and in religious matters. These things reserved, the substance of this partition may passe, together with the illustrations of it: Only one illustration I would have remembred for future use. An action (saith the Rej.) imperated of religion, or springing out of the feare of God, may be civill, and belong to the second table. This is that which some of our Divines meane, when they speake of mediate worship, that is, there be duties belonging to the second table, imperated or governed by religion, but not immediatly flowing from it. This the Rej. taketh hould of in many places, and maketh thus actions religious, which here he calleth civill. The conclusion drawen out of this partition is, that they have the spirit of contradiction, which say that the church may not ordaine Cer.

Page  55

meerely ecclesiasticall, but only common, because all Cer. in religious affaires, are m•erely ecclesiastical: And besyde the crosse & surplice have ther civill use, as a crosse for a shop signe, &c.

 

But if one spirit crosse another,* those spirits must be tryed (saith the Apost.) and where ther is want of reason and good ground, there is that spirit, which the Rej. blameth, and objecteth to others. Now upon a short triall, it may appeare, where it waketh: The Rej. tould us before, that some ceremonies are mixt, partly civill, and •artly sacred; now he telleth us with the same breath, that any ceremony in religious affayres is meerely sacred and ecclesiasticall: And by proportion any Cerem. in civill affaires must needs be meerely civill, what then is become of the mixt or common sort: here sure is a contradiction from what spirit soever it come. 2. What •n assertion is this, any ceremony used in religious affay•es, is meerely sacred? If men and women come purposely in their best apparell to church, if they compose themselves to a grave posture, give the upper place to •he cheifest persons, and take such to themselves, as they may heare the preacher in, and yet have no exception taken against them for it, if all the places and seats be made cleanly and fitt for a meeting, to be held in a comely fashion, all these are ceremo. according to the Rej. his definition, yet no man but out of contention •ill affirme they are meerely religious, or ecclesiasticall: For all these in the same manner & to the same immediate end, the same persons would doe, if the meeting were to heare the magistrate propound unto them a grave civill busines, concerning the common wealth

Page  56

affaires. And surely that which remaining the same may be civill,* is not meerely and properly ecclesiasticall, but common to both uses, and rather meerely civill, then meerely ecclesiasticall, because civility is supposed and included in ecclesiasticall affaires, but ecclesiasticall proceedings are supposed and included in civill. Dr. Iackson in his originall of unbeleef, pag. 337. doth wel observe: That decent behaviour doth change the subject only, not alter its owne nature and forme, whilest its used in matters sacred: Nor is the habit of civill complement, or good manners, such an unhallowed weed, as must be layd asyde, when we come into the sanctuary. And indeed there is no more reason, to shutt civility out of the church, or sacred busines, then to shutt religion out of the towne-house or civill affaires. 3. That which is added of a civill use of the Ceremon. in quaestion doeth nothing agree. If a porter or baker weare a lynnen garment in the Church, upon occasion, as at other tymes, no man will except against it, or account it a ceremony, ecclesiasticall, or religious.

 

A crosse that is used for a shopp signe, hath no ecclesiasticall or civill use in religion, except ther be so many temples in one place, that they must be distinguished by signes, as shopps are: As for the examples mentioned before, of the Bishops in their formalities, and the Clerks in their surplices, at a funerall for civill use: I answer, the immediat end of such formalities is religious, even in that, they are characters of ecclesiasticall persons, and their religious office: Are not Rochetts and such like formalities ecclesiasticall ceremonies, being signes of cheif ecclesiasticall officers as such? The furnerall, at

Page  57

which they are present, doth no more make them civill, then among the Papists it maketh all their superstition to become a civill order: Nay by this it appeareth that both civill ceremonies may be used in ecclesiasticall affaires, and ecclesiasticall cerem. in civill affaires, because both may be used in the same affaires. To traverse these notiōs more full, I add these considerations: These words, matter pertaining to religion added in the explication of sacred cerem. may cary a double sense.* 1. That it is enough to make ceremonies sacred, if this be their end to be serviciceable to some thing, which is an ordinance, or to some person, in a holy function, or performance of an ordinance, and this seemes to be the Rej. meaning for his examples cary this meaning, when wearing of blackes, rending of garments, in dayes of humiliation are made by him sacred cer. as also by those words, wherein he is so peremptory, and expresseth his lordly censuring, even of mens hearts, in lusting after contradiction, if they deny ceremonies used in religious affaires to be meerely ecclesiasticall, but this we conceave to be false, & hope it hath in part, and shall appeare to be more plainly in the following discourse.

 

Secondly it may cary this sense: that is truely sacred, when the object is God, and his honour aymed at immediatly, as when we kneele to God in prayer, we do not kneele to the scripture, or man praying but God directly: or when the next object is a holy thing, but so attended as by that, or in the use of that, we tender up honor to God and attaine that end. As the minister preacheth the word to the people, and they heare it preached, but by both and in the virtue of both,

Page  58

according to Gods appointment, the heart is caried in holy affections, and apprehensions to him, and so both hould out Gods honor: So Sacraments given and receaved, excommunicatiō dispensed, they hould out the spirituall government of God and his honor unto us, & bring our hearts under his hand to give that honour which is due to his power, soveraignty, and holines, appearing therin unto us: This only makes a thing properly sacred, but if things of any nature, only so farr attend a religious, either person, thing, or performance, as that they help not in carying out the act to God, and so tendering honor to him, but stand only in a distance, and subordination as things of necessity, or in some conveniency presupposed to goe before a religious work, in a common way to that, as to other things, in the like proportion, and have the self same work in that sacred as in civill affaires, this is not sacred at all: So place and tyme, a font, will do as much to any civill action, as to a sacred: So that only religion applyeth, and takes to it self, that civill circumstance, that it might put forth his owne act, as upon a stage, makes such things do as much for him, as for any politike and naturall work, Religion serve its turne upon these occasions. In a word the ground lyes here: The latter art, ever useth the work of the former,*sometymes for necessity, sometymes for conveniency, and adjoining himself to it, doth of it self, do its owne work: So that the thing, is either a subject unto which the act of religion or policy is applyed, or else, that fitnes which such things have in subordination, to have other things to be annexed to them, is that common

Page  59

end, which such things hould out indifferently, by the •ame rule, to civill and sacred actions, and ergo are common to them both, but are neither properly: Instance •hus: A magistrate of the common wealth; A Generall in the feild; A minister of a congregation, they may successively stand upon the same hill: the magistrate to deliver the law, and judgment, to the subject: The Ge•erall to give his charge to the souldiers: The Minister •o preach unto a congregation. Is any man such a wise••ker, as to say, this hill is a civill, or politike hill, a warlike hill, a sacred hill, because it serves all these actions of po•icy, warr, and religion: so that to make the point plaine, because we are forced to show forth the feeblenes of the Rej. dispute, we will now from these grounds (Reader) reason, and exemplifye, that the meanest may understand.

 

If to be applyed to a religious affaire, make a thing sacred, then all things almost and all arts may be sacred, because they may be applyed to a matter, thing, or person religious, as the next object and end. If the pulpitt be a sacred thing, because it is applyed to support the minister preaching: then is the ayre sacred, its applyed to his speech in speaking: then is the light sacred, its applyed to his eye in reading, then are his spectacles sacred, for they are used by him, reading his text, then the two pottle potts, which hould the wyne consecrated, should be sacred potts, Nay the ministers doublett, that covers him, yea if he was hoarse, and tooke some oyle to help his voice, they should now become sacred doubletts, and sacred oyle. The paper book which the preacher

Page  60

looked on, when he is out in his sermon, should be a sacred paper book, and to follow the Rej. if putting on of ashes upon the head, be sacred in the day of humiliation, then by like proportion, when God enjoines people in a fast, to putt on their poorest and meanest attyre, those ragged bands, and ould Capps, and Quoifes were sacred bands, and Quoifes and Capps: But do you laugh at these things masters? when the Rej. is so violent in this cause, that he breakes the bridle, and flyes out against all, that will not yeeld to him in this: And I would wishe the reader to consider how righteous it is, with God, to suffer men to fall foully whē they will follow their owne imaginations: Erewhyle the Rej. made all things Cerem. by the loosnes of his definition, and now to help the Ceremo. he would make all things sacred by the large compasse he gives to religious Cere. The vanity of which expression, I hope appeares sufficiently, by that, which hath beene sayd, but yet that the meanest may feele with his finger, the grossnes of this mistake,* I shall add one more instance. The height of the sunne, or the sound of a clock one & the same, may at the same tyme, in the same city, be a directiō for Protestants, Papists, Iewes, Anabaptists, & all sects to assemble for religious service: It may at the same tyme by the same sound be a direction, for magistrats to meet for judicature, for drunkards to meet to riott, for gaimsters to meet to play, for travelers to meet to sett upon their journey: so that it hath relation to all these religious politike, prophane practises at once, I would fayne have the Rej. tell me, what a kynd of Ceremony this is? If he say religious,

Page  61

I then demaund, is it Anabaptisticall, Papisticall, Iudaicall, Lutheran, Protestant, Arminian, superstitious, or truely religious cerem. is it any one of these, or all of these, for to them all it serves in their intentions, and purposed observation, and by the institution of him that sett it up happely. Nay it hath relation to many other affaires, and so it shall be a politike, civill cerem. it serves to that end, it may be called, a riding, a playing, a drunken ceremo. for it serves at once to all these purposes, and in all their intentions and purposed observations hath equall relations unto all: Againe those things whose end is immediatly Gods honour, they must be able to cause that honour, for each thing can reach his owne and immediate end, in the course of nature, or rationall institution, one tyme or other: But all things which only attend upon religious affaires, can never attaine this end, or cause the worship of God in lifting up his honour: of this kynd are tyme and place, being bare circumstances: the like may be sayd of the font, which is no more sacred, then the mudd & banks were that contained the water of Iordā wher baptisme was celebrated.

 

Thus of the definition in the generall, some other specialls be, in the explication whereof, I shall desire the Rej. judgment, and help a little, that I may understand his meaning, at his next returne. When he sayth, pag. 36.*

 

If the next immediate use belong to religion, as Ieroboams setting up of his calves, that the people might worship there, the action shall be construed religious whether true or falsely so called.

 

Ioyne to this the words of the eight corallary which goe thus:

 

Page  62

It is not the same end, and use, which maketh a ceremony part of divine worship, I desire a reconciliation of these two: For:

 

That which makes actions, such species of religious worship as Ieroboams bowing to the Calves, that makes them parts of divine worship, though false.

 

But the use and end here make actions such true and reall species of false worship religious, as Ieroboams bowing to the calves was: ergo, the use and end makes Cerem. parts of divine worship.

 

Againe he sayth: it is not so much the terme from which, that shall denominate the action, as the terme to which, Pag. 36.*

 

If he meane by not so much, that is never a whitt, as I conceave he doth or must, I desire he would informe us, by his next answ: of this case: Conceave a man (coming to do homage according to custome to the King) shall by reason of an erronrous conceit, bow out of a sacred opinion and affection, though the object be civill, and the act terminated in the person of the King, whether is this action sacred or no?

 

Againe I enquire what those words meane: The same Ceremony which is in present use sacred, may be forth with by the change of the object become civill:*The people bowing downe worshipped God and the King, the Ceremony was materially the same, but objectively different. These expressions need a comment: If by materially the same, he meane the naturall action is the same, its true, but that is nothing to this purpose. Let him tell us, whether there is a peculiar specification of those actions in themselves, before they

Page  63

come at the object: Since the object supposeth the being of the thing in its kynd, before it can be an adjunct to it: If there be the same specificall and formall nature of the action, then that bowing being civill when it is performed to a man, why might not Ihon have tendered the like to an Angell, and the angell receaved it, in that he might have done it, as to a fellow servant of higher honour and account, and the angell needed to have feared religious worship, for he being knowne once to be a creature, the change of the object would have altered the worship: But the angell it seemes was of another opinion, then the Rej. and conceaved that it was religious worship before it came to him, and would not have beene civill worship if the object had beene changed.

 

The third partition (of sacred Ceremo. into properly sacred, is those of divine institution, which are simply necessary,* necessitate praecepti, & reductively so called, as those which in their particular have no divine institution, but are applyed to things divine, and these are arbitrary and ambulatory cerem. This partition is somthing obscure and therfore should not have beene sett downe in bare words, but had some sufficient warrant and explication: For 1. if these be true members they must have the true nature of things sacred agreeing to them both equally and essentially: but things which are applyed to Divine actions, have not the nature or definition of things sacred, because they be applyed as adjūcts to the subjects in a seperable manner. Its all one as if a man should divyde, a living creature, either that which is so properly, as a man, or that

Page  64

which is so reductively,* as a garment, because it is applyed to a man. 2. Proper is usually opposed either to tropicall, or to common, or to alien, or else to unfitt, unto none of these senses can it be referred in this place where it is opposed to reductive. 3. Sacred arbitrary cerem. are in truth arbitrary worship, and arbitrary worship is will worship. 4. I would know to whom our Cere. are arbitrary? Surely to the imposers only, and so all instituted Cerem. are arbitrary, though to others, they be made never so necessary, they are not (it will be sayd) made necessary to salvation. No more say I are all popish Cerem. nor all Divine, absolutely necessary to salvation, nor so made or esteemed: Ours are made, as necessary to salvation, as man can make them, when the ordinary meanes of salvation, are absolutely denied to all those that refuse them.

 

The fourth partition is,*of reductive sacred ceremo. into rightly so called, and abusively: which is indeed an explication of the former division, for sacred Cerem. of Divine institution, are rightely called and the other abusively: But the Rej. fyndeth both these under the head of reductively sacred (Rightly reductively sacred strang amazing termes) are they whose object and end is good, and the things not unapt, &c. where I cannot but admire, that no place is given, to a good efficient or institutor, with fitt authority in matters of institution: we cannot understand by this description, but a Ceremo. is as sacred and religious, when it is appointed by a Vestrye of Layicks, as when the convocation imposeth it. 2. The papists have as good ends, and objects, and also as much aptnesse

Page  65

in most of their Cerem. as we have in ours, and yet they are taxed by our divines, as not rightly sacred, and they themselves are ashamed to defend sacred ceremonies, meerely humaine, or without speciall authority of the institutors, how good soever they esteeme them for object and end: So the Rhem. on Math. 15.9. Cerem. are made by the H. Ghost, joyning with our Pastors, in the Regiment of our Church. So also Bristow against Dr. Fulk in his Rejoi. to Bristow, pag. 104. Nay there is no order of Friars that will admitt of new Ceremon. to be rightly reduced upon them, what ever their object, end, and aptnesse be, except they come from the institutor of the order: All Casuists do hold it for a wrong unto them, if their Priors, Abbatts Generalls, should impose upon them the observance of any thing, besyde the vowe which they have made, to observe the rites instituted by their founder: And are not we Christians, as much tyed by our vow unto Christ, as they are to Dominicus, Fransciscus, &c. Or are we more subject to our Prelats, then they are to their superiors, by vow of obedience? Luther also hath given us a good item in Gen. 22.*In religion nothing is to be attempted or rashly adventured upon, but in things belonging thereunto, we must alwayes enquire, who, how good, and great the person is who commaunds: But the Divill changeth these things, in to what, of what quality, and how great the thing is. Is it not strange then, that from an auncient reverend minister of the Gospell, a hundred yeares after, ther should come a doctrine, of right instituted reductive sacred Ceremon. without any respect of the authority, which is in the institutor?

Page  66

And yet even if these conditions made necessary by the Rej. a quaestion may be made concerning the crosse, whether two crosse motions of a finger and a thumb, be things apt to putt Christians in mynd of Christs passion for us, and our passion and profession for him?

 

Abusively reductive sacred Cerem. sayth the Rej. are Idolatrous, superstitious: Idolatrous, respecting a wrong object: Superstitious made divine in termes or in effect: Impious, casting-off Gods Cerem. or obscuring the Gospell, by representing the History and mystery thereof by dumbe showes, as in the Pageants of the Masse. Here againe the same fault is committed, that opposite members of a distribution, are made subordinate one to another, and may be predicated or affirmed, as Genus and Species, which is an infinite feeblenes, in a judicious disputer: for are not idolatrous, impious: are not superstitious impious Ceremo. as those which professedly crosse the first and second commaund, wherein pyety is most properly placed, and thus divisions fill up places and breed confusion.

 

CHAP. VI. Concerning the difference betwixt popish Ceremon. and ours, in regard of necessity, holines and efficacy, wherein how far we joyne with the Papists, is fully discussed by the confession of papists themselves.

 

TO lett passe the first abuse of Idolatry: Superstition is confessed to be present, where the proper service of God or merit, necessity, holines, and efficacy, by the churches

Page  67

  • nstitution or the doers merit, or when omission of them is •ounted a synne without contempt or scandall, as it is amongst •he Papists, sayth the Rej.

 

We are now come by this distinction, to discerne the differences betwixt the popish Cerem. and ours, theirs being condemned and abominated, and that justly for •hese evills which are found in them: but ours are whol•y acquitted, as though they shared not in the same guilt: Lett us therfore enquire into this busines, with that receaved caution, heare the other syde.*

 

First as touching merit, which is attributed to the doing of Ceremo. by Papists: the difference here, lyes not firstly in Cerem. in particular, but about good works in generall, the Papists making all good works of beleevers to be meritorious, and we denying that presumption. But set that controversye asyde, our Prelates professed, the observation of our Cerem. to be good works of the same kynd, that many of the learned Papists doe many of theirs. The mainy enquiry lies about, propriety of worship, necessity, holines, efficacy: And (merit being excluded) if these be found in ours, as well as in those of the papists, they will prove guilty as thers, and with thers to be condemned.

 

*

Enquire we then, of the severalls: 1. In the doctrine of worship I see not how, or wherein the Iesuites doe differ from the Def. and Rej. about such Ceremonies as ours. Balthasar Chavasius the Iesuite, in his notes of true religion sayth thus: Ceremonies are called lesser, in respect of

Page  68

those which are tearmed greater, because these are held of greatest consequence, and to appertaine to divine worship, of themselves, and directely: but those to witt such are cerem. of lesser note, they so farr conduce to the worshipping of God, as they serve for the ornament & signification of such worship, or the speciall parts thereof: which is so pat the Rej. & Def. doctrine, that they may seeme to have translated his words.

 

For necessity to salvation, no learned Papist ever writt or taught any such thing of all their Cerem. Darbyshyre Bonners Chapplyne, and Kynsman, professed to Mr. Thomas Haukes Martyr, that no Ceremon. (besyde those which Christ himself instituted) are necessary to salvation, but only for instruction: whereupon Mr. Haukes answered; God send me the salvation, and take you the instruction. If necessity of observance be respected (which the Def. ca. 6. sect. 3. calleth obedientiall,) that is not only as great in our Cere. as in any of the Papists, and more also, but advanced by Dr. Covell to aequipage with the Decalogue, and Dr. B. by his silence yeelding unto him, and imitating of him, doth seeme to subscribe to his sentence, and certaine it is, that he writt with Achyepis. allowance. Ecclesiasticall constitution, sayth he, doth change the nature of indifferent things, & by vertue of the commaundement they become necessary, Mens Lawes whyle they are in force, commaunding or forbidding, bynde the conscience as the Decalogut doth, in his preface to the confutation of Dr. B. his Apologye: The Rej. comes not far short of this plea, pag. 42. where he sayth: They are ordeyned to be used necessarily,

Page  69

in respect of order and peace, though in respect of judgment, and immediate conscience to God freely: * The former part of these words, layeth more necessi•y upon our Cerem. then the learned Papists do upon all theirs: The latter doth take away no more, then the like words of theirs do, as by and by shall appeare. In the meane tyme let him that can unriddle me this: They are ordained to be used necessarily in respect of order and peace, though in respect of Iudgment, and immediate conscience to God freely: Is there one conscience mediate, and another immediate? Is necessity of order and peace free in judgment and immediate Conscience? Can any creature, or is any so foolish as to say, they can lay a bond upon conscience immediate to God? Is it not a contradiction, for men by their authority, to bynd immediatly to Gods authority? The truth is our convocation doth make our Ceremonies, as necessary as they can, either by ecclesiasticall, Civill, or Divine authority, whereas the Papists say, they can make many of theirs more necessary, then they doe, if they would: And yet in all, their highest pitch is, they call them necessary:*Not out of any necessity to salvation, but out of the churches institution: and enjoyned the Sacramentalia, not by any necessity of a sacrament, but of a commaundement of the church, and we do no lesse.

 

For making it synne to omitt these cere. even without the case of scandall & contempt. 1. This no learned papist doth say of all their cer. as you shall heare streight. 2. Our practise doth say so much in that, bare ommission

Page  70

where none are scandalized or contemned, is made a fault punishable, nay more then that, when by the practise of them, many are scandalized, and great contempt doth follow to some users of them, yet is it, a capitall fault for them to omitt them so longe, untill they may use them without scandall, and contempt: And what hath beene sayd of worship, necessity, and synne as that we concurr with papists cerem. pressing our Ceremon. vpon the same conditions, as they in the former considerations, the like is true also touching holines.

 

Now because some of these things, which I have affirmed, concerning the doctrine of the Papists about Cerem. may seeme strange to those, that take the measure of their opinion, not from them, but from the occasionall and imperfect sayings of their adversary partyes: It shall be necessary, to heare themselves speake: First let us heare Cassander with his allegations, who so much consenteth with D. Burges, that his Rej. might better have beene called, and intituled Cassander Anglicanus, then M. Sprints book was, save only, that there is more passion shewed in it, then Cassanders temper, and professed moderation could be brought unto.*Cassander in his consult. article 7. I conceave that to be false, that any of ours should have taught, those externall rites and Ceremo. to be worships necessary to procure justification before God: Neither is any other thing attributed to those rites, but that their externall observation may admonish us of the true and internall worship, and might by the hand lead us thereunto: And if they be done out of true faith in Christ and obedience unto the Church of Christ, to which Christ hath commaunded

Page  71

as to be subject, they receave that acceptance from God, which other works of pyety do: But that all ingeniously confesse, our hope of happiness is not to be placed in them: Againe, the same Cassander pag. 869. The false opinion of worship, merit, necessity, the Pontificans themselves (upon whom that conceit is fa¦•hered) do not acknowledge, but affirme that it is falsely attributed unto them. Of this judgment Thomas Aquinas, and Byell are sayd to be by the same Author pag. 870.871. And in p. 875. If the explicatiō of those positive precepts be considered, they will be found, not to differr much for an •dvise or exhortation, &c. If the sentence of some may ap•eare more riged: I beleeve, that no man is forbid to follow •he more moderate opinion, which is explained by Gerson, and followed by many worthy men, who in the transgression of such kynd of precepts, place the mortall synne only in •candall, and contempt. The same author in the same places. Alphonsus Verbesius thus: Our traditions bring no deadly •anger unto the transgressors therof, unlesse the heart be im•ious and contemning. Perionius (out of the sentence of the •orbone Schoole as I suppose) writes thus: ther be many Cere. •n the church, which fall under the nature of a counsell, but •hose which come under the nature of a praecept, the violators •o not of them, all ours would make guilty of synne, unlesse peradventure they shall be found contemners.

 

This which Cassander sayth is fayre, yet to make it

Page  72

more full, I will add some other testimonies, and those of note.*Gregorius de Valentia a Iesuite, Tom. 4. disput. 3. quaestion. 1. part. 4. It is a notorious lye, that we attribute so much to these rites as we do to the Sacraments, and that we have them in the same account, as though a true Sacrament could not be instituted without them: If any of the vulgar sor• erre in that behalf and so conceave, assuredly; neither the church nor divines so teach: If they be omitted without scandall and contempt, and the matter be small and that a seriou• will and full deliberation be wanting, it will be only a veniall synne. So Cajetan a Cardinall: The rule is universall, that in those things which stand by a positive law, if the transgression be made without contempt, and crossing the end of th• law, from some excuse appearing to the party, if it procee• from him, who hath a mynd no wayes syding against the commaund which bynds to a mortall synne, a mortall synne is no• by that breach committed, because it is not the intention of th• holy and just mother the church, to ensnare such good soules▪ with so dangerous a bond.

 

*Bellarmine also thus: Certaine Cerem. are immediate worship, some dispose unto worship, some are instruments of worsh•p: The same author in the s•me place, cap. 31. Calvyn sayt• he judgeth it a fault, if Cerem. be omitted out of contempt o• grosse negligence, and our Church teacheth no other thing touching her Ceremonies. The same authour againe: Other Ceremonies are not lawes, but admonitions, and holsome institutions,

Page  73

which bynd not a man over to any blame, such as many of the rites of Christians be, for he doth not offend, that without contempt, doth not sprinkcle himself with holy water, when he enters into the temple.

 

It was but a poore proof therfore of the Rej. to alledge, that which Bell▪ sayth of some Ceremonies, as if it did agree to all popish Cerem. and that in the common judgment of Papists. Calvin speaking in the person of Sorbonicall Drs, declareth their opinion to be; That Ceremonies bynd consciences by accident, to witt,*because of their ratification, in that the church intend this, and the people consent. Lastly the judgment of Papists is cleare, that they putt no holinesse in the Cerem. instituted, you must place no holines in images, Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. By this which hath beene said, it is (as I think sufficiently manifested, that the differences betwixt all popish Cere. and ours, of worship, necessity, holines, and synfull omission, are vainely and without ground alledged by the Rej.

 

  1. Doe the Defend. and Rej. affirme, that our Cere. are not properly worship,* but only to admonish us thereof: The Papists say the same.
  2. Doe the Defen. and Rej. affirme, that the omission of them without scandall and contempt, is not a synne: The Papists say the same.
  3. Doe the Def. and Rej. affirme, ours are not necessary to salvation, but necessary by the commaund

Page  74

of the Church to be practised: The Papists say the same, nay of some of theirs, they say lesse, for they say, that many of theirs, are only appointed by way of counsell, not of commaund.

There is one other difference, which is added to the former, that Sacramentall operation and efficacy is infeoffed upon Popish Cerem. as he mentioneth pag 40. out of Bellar. I add concerning this: 1. That Bell. doth not affirme this of all Cere. 2. that he doth not ascribe this virtue to the crosse as a humaine Ceremo. but as an imagined institution of God:*especially from the institution of God: The cheif Iesuites do disclaime this operative virtue of many Cerem. Sacramentalls do not work remission of veniall synnes, neither are they appointed to signifie that, but to stirr up their mynd to detestation of them: So the Iesuite Vasquez. Balthasar Chavasius another Iesuite: It is without quaestion, that we putt so much difference betweene Cerem. and the Sacraments, to which they are applyed, as betweene the bark, and the wood, the body and the soule, the leaves and the tree, whence it is we graunt that they may be omitted in any wayghty necessity. Cassander also Consult. art. 9. well observeth, that the best Papists doe make the Cere. of Bapt. only, certaine visible words: from whence it followeth, that they give no other operation to them then to words, which all favourers of sig. ceremo. must needs give: And our prelats do give in all their proceedings, and expressions: as by the following arg. shall appeare.

 

Page  75

  1. What ever is a meane any manner of way ordained, to bring in divine worship, and to cary the mynd and heart to God in that: is so morally efficacious, as the Papists require, and so as our Divines condemne it. Nay if it be by teaching, & stering towards these supernaturall works, as Gods spirituall worship: Its that which the Lord condemnes in images, which tell lyes, its that which the Lord threatens Isay. 29.13. that his feare is taught, according to mens commaunds. And this kynd of efficacy our Cerem. have by their institution as they are appointed, and enjoined to be used. The preface to the book of common Prayer, discovering the intendement of the imposers, hath these words: Such are retained, which are apt to stirr up the dull mynd of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and speciall signification, wherby he might aedifyed.

 

  1. These Ceremo. which are of the same kynd, and homogeneal with the significative part of the actions in the Sacrament, they may be said, to have a reall and true efficacy of teaching, and so be a work of proper worship: because that part of the Sacrament, which is placed in signification, is so: but these ceremonies are homogeneall, & of like nature, with that part of the Sacrament, doth baptisme consecrate the child to God? and so doth the crosse: doth baptisme signifye the covenant, betweene Christ & the child? so doth the crosse: its openly sayd, to betoken the engagement, that is betwixt Christ and the child, that he shall be Christs servant, and souldier to followe his colours, and to fight under his banner unto his dying day: though this image have no

Page  76

tongue of it owne, yet its speaks by the mouth of the Prelats appointing, and their substitutes the ministers acting this image.

 

  1. Consider that which is made end of our Cerem. that our Cerem. are able, or at least are conceaved to be able to attaine, for every rationall meanes can reach the end, now this is the end of the crosse his institution, the white at which it shoots, and the minister makes it spell this lesson, even our dedication unto Christ▪ and our continuall perseverance in his service, so that as the end is, so the meanes are, the end is properly holy, and religious, ergo, the meanes appointed thereunto (such this is) must be holy religious and efficacious therunto, in the intendement of the institutor.

 

  1. Those which are of the same ranke, and sett in the same roome, with Gods owne Cere. they must be conceaved to have holines, and efficacy in them, for so Gods ordinances have. But these significant Cere. thus instituted, are of the like nature with some of Gods owne spirituall rites, As the Phylacteries Nub. 15.39. were appointed by God, for this end, to be remembrances, and admonishers of the law to those that used them: the same place our Cerem. supply, and are ordained for the same purpose.

 

If it be here sayd, that God himself appointed his, and therfore they are holy and religious, but ours being instituted by man have no more then man can give them, I answ: God appoints his, and therfore they are truely holy, and religious, and ought to be embraced: Mens inventions being sett in the same ranke, are holy,

Page  77

  • nd religious, but falsely and superstitiously such, and •herfore are to be abandoned.

 

CHAP. VII. Touching other partitions of Ceremonies, Pag.

 

A Fift partition is, that of sacred Cerem. some are perpetuall, as divine, some temporary, moveable, alterable, ambulatory as humaine, and of ambulatory some •re free, and some are fixed.

 

Of the perpetuity of Divine Ceremon. there is no quaestion, of the alterablenes of humaine, 1. That is a corrupt rule which the Rej. addeth viz. that they are al•erable, when in the judgment and consciences of those to whome it belongs to discerne therof (that is with us to the •onvocation house) they become not unprofitable alone, but •angerous and hurtfull. For not to repeat here, that all •umaine Ceremoniesare unprofitable, dangerous, hurt•ull, 1. unprofitablenes alone is sufficient to cashyre a Ceremony of mans making: consider well of these •easons.

 

  1. If Gods owne Ceremonies were therfore to be removed because unprofitable,* then much more ours, Heb. 7.18.
  2. If we must answere for idle words, then much more for idle ceremonies.
  3. That wherin neither the governour, attaines his end in cōmaunding, nor the governed his in obaying, to

Page  78

commaund that is unlawfull: but he that commaunds unprofitable Ceremo. he attaines not his end in commaunding, nor the governed his end in obeying: Ergo.

  1. 2. Coll. 18. Those things which perish in the using, with those we must not be burdened: but unprofitable Ceremo. perish in the using: ergo, with those we must not be burdened.
  2. Things indifferent, when they are used not in subordination to help forward morall duties, then their use is unlawfull, but when they are unprofitable, then they are not in subordination to help forward the morall. Ergo.
  3. That which crosseth the place and office of the governour, that he must not doe or maintaine: but to enjoine a thing unprofitable is against his office and place: for his office is to rule for our good, Rō. 13.4. but unprofitable things are not so. Ergo.
  4. That which the magistrate can commaund or maintaine in the Church, he must doe by virtue of some precept: That which is done by virtue of a precept, will be avayleable to bring about that end, whereof there is a precept, but unprofitable things cannot attaine that end: Ergo cannot be done by virtue of a precept: ergo, are not under the commaund of a magistrate.

Againe when its here referred by the Rej. to the judgments and consciences of governors to discerne of the dangerousnes of Cerem. and I would fayne knowe, whether the cōsciences of all the Christians in England,

Page  79

  • e so subjected, and tyed, to the flei••e of the convocations•onscience, that without it they may not judge, no nor •iscerne of the unprofitablenes, danger, and hurt of the Ceremo. which they are to practise, surely this is more •ervile, blynd obedience,* then the wiser sort of papists •ill admitt of. The Inquisitor Silvester, in the word •rupulus, saith that: To interpret discretly, humaine praecepts 〈◊〉 the court of conscience, belongs to every one,*as touching his ••ne practise. This was one ground that Paulus Venetus ••lgentius, and the other Venetian divines stood upon, •hat every man whom it did concerne, might and ought • discerne of any superiors praecept, even the popes,*•hether it were lawfull and convenient or no: But •erein the Rej. had consented (as it seemeth with D. •ovell pag. 19. that in such things as these are, the prae•ept of the superior doth bynd, more then the consci•nce of the inferior can: And that the subject having •he commaund of King, or Bishop, for his warrant, ought •ot to examine, but only to performe what he seeth •ommaunded, A very good stirrop if it be well held, for • help men up by, that they may ride upon mens con••iences, at their pleasure. Dr. Davenant taught us other •octrine at Cambridge: when upon Coloss. 2.13. In •pposition to Iesuiticall blynd obedience, he shewed •ven out of Thomas Aquinas,* that subjects may and ought • judge with the judgment of discretion the decr•ees of their ••periors, so farr as it concernes their particular: and against •he Rej. his contrary doctrine let these reasons be wei•hed.

 

If the judgment of the governour be not the rule of

Page  80

imposing, then is it not the rule of removing Ceremo• but the first is denyed by all,* even the Rej. and therfore the second part cannot be graunted. 2. If Cerem. mus• not be removed before they be discerned dangerous by the consciences of the Governors, then Governors do not synn, if they retaine Cerem. never so bad, provided that in their judgments and consciences they seeme no• dangerous, that being by the former graunt the rule o• their removeall, but this is absurd: ergo. 3. If Governours have authority to keepe any Ceremonies imposed, untill they seeme dangerous & hurtfull unto them then all other are bound to obey in the practise, of suc• Ceremo. though in their consciences they ought to b• removed, because the judgment of the governour, is th• rule of maintaining, or removing: and thus they shoul• be brought into a snare and a necessity of synning, eithe• to goe against their consciences rightly informed, and s• synne: Rom. 14. last: or to goe against the judgment o• the governour, and so against the rule (that being th• rule of retaining by the new doctrine of the Rej.) an• so also synne: Againe of ambulatory free Cerem. th• Rej. give•h only an example out of auncient times, bu• we could wish some examples in England. It seemeth▪ we are more fettered and lesse free in all the Ceremo. we have, then any approved course doth warrant: Th• explication of ambulatory fixed Ceremo. is as uncouth, as their title: Their observation, must ever be free in respect of th• judgment, to be had of them, but the practise only is required▪ For if all judgment, to be had of them, be free, then ti• free to account them unlawfull, hurtfull or unprofita•le.

Page  81

  1. Ought the practise to be required either against •he judgment or without it?* A bruit practise is not re•uired, neither is there properly any good practise, but willing out of judgment, Those therfore that so require •nd fix our practise, must needs as much as in them lyes, •equire and fixe our judgment in some manner: But in •ery deed no man or convocation of men (either de ju•e, or de facto) can fixe anothers judgment, concerning •awfull or unlawfull, They may arrogate so much to •hemselves, & commaund men to captivate their wills •nto them, & by their wills so far as they can their judgments, yet the judgment they cannot fixe, but only the outward practise: Neither is it any thing to me, what au•hority others do arrogate to themselves, concerning my practise, but what they require me to practise: I should ac•ount him as good a master or Lord, that should say, do this upon judgment, that thou shouldest do it, because I commaund it, as him, that sayth, thou shalt do this, judge what thou wilt judge: The Rej. it may be will say, that he meaneth a freedome of judgment, in not accounting of them necessary to salvation: But no learned Papist •houlds their Ceremonias minores necessary to salvation, if he speake of necessity of synning upon omission without scandall or contempt, that hath beene handled before. Zanchius in his Ep. to Q. Elizabeth dealeth plainly, & patt to the point in hand. If these Cer. be propoūded to Christians they must be propoūded, either as indifferent or necessary: If this, we do impiously, to make those things necessary, which God hath left indifferent: If that, they are then to be left free, unto the church, but by cōmaunding & cōstraining we make thē necessary:

Page  82

So Calvin de vera Ecclesiae refo•matione Opus. pag. 337. The• will except,*that they b• things of a middle natu•e, the use whereof is indifferent to Christians, why therfore do they forbidd any thing to be omitted?

 

A sixt partition is of simple and double Cerem. double are described to be such, as besyde their use, for order and decency, serve also to aedification, by some profitable signification which either of themselves they have some aptnesse unto, or receave by appointment, as it were by common agreement. Where 1. the Rej. seemeth to double with us, when he maketh simple Ceremon. to serve only for order and decency, without signification, when as before and after he telleth us, that no Cere. may be dumbe, but all must have their signification, 2. Order and decency seeme to be seperated from aedification in some sacred Ceremon. which he knew not of that willed all things to be done unto aedification. 3. All significant Cerem. are supposed first to be in order and decency, and yet after so long a tyme, we are to learne what use our crosse hath for order, more then a circle would have. 4. By the distinction or distribution here made, aptnesse of things for signification, either is in them of themselves or not, yet in the fourth partition our necessary rule was, that the things be not unapt unto their ends. 5. A strange power is here given unto the convocation, to make things apt for signification and aedification, by their appointment, which before were not apt to any such thing. This was wont to be the peculiar of God, to call things that are not as if they were, and so make them this or that,

 

Page  83

  1. In the next place we are tould of significant Cer. impro•erly sacramētall, & those are so called either reductively, such 〈◊〉 are affixed to the use of the Sacramēt, whether they beare no •ignificatiō, or beare some significancy, either of their virtues, •r of our duties, unto which we are obliged by the Sacramēt: Or ••se they be analogically so called, if they be instituted to work ••pernaturall effects, the former are lawfull, but not the latter. The delineation of these confused distinctions is this:

 

Significative Ceremonies are

 

Sacramentall

Properly,

Improperly.

reductive which are

not significative.

or significative.

analogicall.

Morall,

To all which members, I could have seriously wished the Rej. would have added acurate definitiōs or descriptions, and then he would either have beene hyndered, from the confused setting of them downe, or else he would have discovered, his infinite mistaking, and manifested to the world, how he had bewildered himself, whyle he mudds the water, and so would mislead the simple. But we will follow his foorstepps, only let us observe some conclusions out of the frame in generall.

 

First is this:* That some non significative Cerem. are significative: or which is all one, significative Ceremo. are either

 

non significative,

or significative Sacramentall.

This desperate absurdity lyes open to the eye of any, that have their eyes annointed with the eye salve of Logick, and judicious discourse, for let but a fresh man,

Page  84

runn up the speciall to his highest, and he shall perceave some nō significative to be the speciall to the Genus of a significative cere. 2. Cer. reductively sacramē•all & not significative, do properly appertaine to sacred Cer. reductively, & by right so called, & have beene hādled before, & are here wholly heterogeneal. 3. Its well to be noted that humaine Cer. affixed to the Sacram. & bearing significancy of the Sacram. vertue, & obligations, are such as the Rej. fighteth for: But these are analogically sacramētall,* for analogie, similitude, or proportion, cannot be denyed to be betwixt two signes, which signifye the same virtues, the same duties, & the same obligatiō to these dutyes, And though the Rej. say againe & againe, they were never held unlawfull: Ye• learned Chamier in the name of our Divines & reformed churches hath these words: We observe come•y circūstances in the celebration of the Sacramēt,*but we justly cōdemne those, who have added such things, unto which they have phansyed mysteries, & proper significations, & that of those effects which appertaine unto the water of baptisme: As though the work should be twice or thrice do•e, and that either nothing, or that was not sufficient which was done by divine appointment, unlesse humaine rashnes should have added supply. And the Waldēses who first reformed their churches, & purged out all their popish levē, renoūced all such humaine Cer. or Traditious as unlawfull as manifestly appeareth by all Papists and Protestants, that have sett downe their confession & practise. 4. If Analogically Sacramentall Cere. be impious aemulators of Gods holy Sacraments, as the Rej. confesseth, what can be sayd, why humaine significant Cer. analogicall to divine significāt should not by parity of reason, be esteemed impious

Page  85

aemulators of Gods holy signes, Is it forbidden to aemulate Gods Sacra. only, & not all his holy ordinances?

 

After all these come in morall significāt Cer. which are only to expresse some benefitt, whi•h God giveth us, or to notify, professe, or expresse some duty, which we owe to him, or one to another. But I do not see wherein these differ, frō reductive Sacra. Cer. except it be in this, that it may so fall out, that these sometymes are not affixed to Sacramēts, This head therfore seemeth to be added, only because D. Morton had used it before, and for his sake let us a little further weigh it, when therfor the Rej▪ affirmes, that morally significant are ordeined to expresse some benefitt on Gods part, some duty on ours. By some benefitt or duty he must meane any spirituall benefitt, or duty, besyde the covenant, which he professedly mentioneth & excepteth,* for if one benefitt may be signifyed, why not any one, & this morally significant, are religious or sacred significant in the generall, the Species as large as the Genus: Hence againe morally significant, will be a genus to sacramentall reductively significant, for that is but a particular signification of some benefitts, & duties in the Sacrament, which are included under this Generall, & so one species of the distributiō shall become a Genus to the opposite member, & contradistinct species. If it be here replyed that reductive significative sacramentall is annexed to the Sacrament: I answer, that is nothing to the nature of the significancy, for take & use a crosse out of baptisme, in the same manner & to the same end, as in it, & it will be the same in the specificall nature of significancy, only so much the worse, because it is sett cheek by jole with baptisme. 2. I aske what he meanes by those words,

Page  86

expresse, professe: is it barely to declare? if so, then let him show who is his adversary, unlesse he will fall out with his shadow, for do not all his opposites graunt, that sign• indicantia, or showing sygnes are lawfull, but not symbolica.

 

Lastly, when he affirmes, that these Cerem. morally significant are not to signifye the covenant of grace:* I reply, if they may signifye any other spirituall duty or benefitt, if they may signifye the severall essentiall duties of the covenant of each syde, why may they not signifye the whole covenant? 2. If the crosse signifyeth the consecration of the child to God, and so entrance into the covenant, the relation of a souldier, to a Commaunder, a servant to a master, and so is continuance and faythfull perseverance in that profession to Christ, and his respect and regard of us according to those relations, then doth it signify the covenant? By this which hath beene sayd, it appeares, that the quaestion is falsely stated: for these Ceremo. are more then holy by application in his sense formerly opened, they are pressed as necessary, and are used as analogically sacramentall, as well as properly morall,* and in signification, do pertake somthing of the proper nature of Sacraments, as also in the significative teaching, and stirring up the heart: when its sayd, they are used in worship, they are externall acts of Gods worship falsely appointed by man, and serve not for order, nor decency, nor aedification.

 

Page  87

CHAP. VIII. Concerning a nationall Church answ. to the 60.61.62. of the Preface.

 

OF the faythfull congregations, wherein we were borne, baptized, and nourished up in fayth, there is no quaestion made, but they are our loving and beloved mothers: Yet much quaestion ariseth concerning that which the Rej. teacheth viz.*That all those churches together, have one mother, and so we have a grandmother, that is the Church of England, considered as one church: and that by way of representation, as the convocation house, 2. by way of association and combination into one profession, worship, and discipline, which includeth the orders and officers, that is, the Hierarchye, pertaining therunto, but not by any other collective consideration.

 

  1. I never read either in Scripture, or in any orthodoxe writer, of a visible particular Church, either grandmother of Christians, or mother of other Churches, if the Rej. hath, he should do well to informe us, where we may fynd this doctrine explained. 2. I would willingly know, whether Christians & Christian churches also, were not in England, before this great grandmother? I think, the Rej. will not denye it, nor yet flye for succour to his phisitians, who have found out an herb, which is called of them, Sonne before the Father,* to justifye his intention of Daughter before the Mother:* He must confesse, that this Grand-mothe•, is onely a mother in

Page  88

law,* and that law also to be mans, not Gods. 3. All the churches of England, may as well be considered as one in unity of profession, without any new motherhood, as all the Latine Scholes of England one, in the unity of the same Grammar, or all Gallenicall, or Platonicall Scholes, one in their kynd. 4. A Representative mother is the image of a mother, and an image, with commaunding authority in religion, without Gods commaund,* is an Idoll: It was well therfore, to this purpose, sayd of Zwinglius Explan. arti. 8. That you be a representative church, we willingly beleeve, for you are not the true church: But show I beseech you, whence you had this name: who styled you with this title? who gave you power of meeting, and combyning together? who graunted you authority of coyning decrees and Canons, differing from the word of God? who suffered you to impose these upon men? who perswaded you thus to burden Consciences? who enjoyned you to call evill good, and good evill? You are therfore an hypocriticall church, which hath nothing sound in it, and substantiall, but all things fayned and paynted, But you are not that true church, that bride beseeming our Saviour, who stayes her self, upon the truth alone, and the Spirit of God. He speaketh these things of th•se, which under the name of Representative churches, imposed their inventions, upon true churches, without Scripture, which is a true representation of our representative convocation. 5. The Rej. confesseth, that this Hierarchicall convocation is humaine and not divine, and he will not denye, but Christians, and Christian congr•gations are Divine. Now what a monstrous, and preposterous generation, then

Page  89

doth he make (as it were in a Chymaericall dreame) of Divine Children, proceeding from humaine mothers and grandmothers: Our Saviour was of another mynd; when he made these two opposite, from earth, and from heaven: The Rej. hath found out so great consent betweene these two, that earth may be the mother, and grandmother of heaven: Besyde the humaine mother of Divine children, is not of their heavenly fathers choise, nor by him appointed, to beare the person of their true mother: But she was first putt into this office, by the presumption of men, and afterward authorised, by the Archmother of Rome, continuing her profession, by sleight & might, to represent those, from whom she can show no other letters of credence, for the power she usurpeth, then she maketh her self, or hath gotten by stealth from civill power.

 

  1. This representative mother, is very seldome exstant viz, when ther is a Parliament, which now we have not had these diverse yeares: And when she appeareth, she can give no milk to her children, further then she hath commission from man: None of her children can have accesse unto her, only she appointed many yeares since, certaine servants of hers, with restraint of their fathers allowance, to dyet them, with drye ceremonies, and scourge them, with silencing, deprivation, excommunication, if they fynd fault with that provision, which is very pap, with a hatchet; Is not such a mother worthy grand titles and honor?

 

  1. The examples of such motherhood, which the Rej. fetcheth, from the assemblyes of Israell, Scotland, and

Page  90

our Parliament, have no agreement. For 1. we read of no assemblyes of Elders (by office in Israell) from whence all other were excluded, stiled either Mothers of Israell, or all Israell: Neither was there in any such assemblyes, this motherly authority exercised, of appointing humaine sacred Ceremo. unto Israell. 2. The assemblyes of Scotland, before Perth, had no such state, as our convocation, nor power of commaunding, but only advized of, and directed those things which God had appointed, and the churches were knowen to desire, yet might their judgment be well called, the judgment of the church of Scotland, because they pronounced nothing, but that which all the churches of Scotland, did publikely professe, even in their solemne confession. 3. Our Parliament is not stiled, the Mother common wealth of England, yet in civill affaires, more liberty is left for stile, and power, unto publike assemblies, then in religious: But if the lower house of Parliament, were not more freely chosen, and of greater power, then the poore lower house of Convocation, a quaere might be made, whether the state or common wealth of England were there or no.

 

Now for the second way of one church, by association, and combination of all particular churches into one profession, worship, and discipline: This is good, thus farr, and the very same with that collective consideration, which the Repl. mentioned, and the Rej. termed a new mistie inexplicable nothing, except combination doth mistyly cover under it, the swallowing up of particular congregations, by Nationall, Provinciall, Diocesan churches. But

Page  91

  • s for that clause, that this must needs include, such orders and offices as our Hyerarchye: this is either a begging, or a stealing of the mayne quaestion: For 1. this Hierarchye consisteth of officers and orders (by the Rej. owne confession) humaine, not divine: now associa•ion of profession, worship and discipline, may certainly be had by officers and orders divine. 2. The reformed churches of France, have their association, and combina•ion, without any Hierarchye. 3. The Hierarchye doth not associate churches, under it, but subdue all to it self, so that, as the Pope, is sometyme esteemed the Church of Rome, and sometyme, he with his assistants, so is our Hierarchye in England.*Beza in his notes of the church not farr from the end, giveth warning of this: I most willingly leave the wholl frame of Episcopall authority to the Papists: of which (I openly professe) the Holy Spirit of God, was never the author, but humaine policy, which if we do not observe, to be accursed by God, we certainly as yet see nothing at all: and nourish we do a viper in our bosomes which will kill the mother. This prophecy is too true of the Hierarchye, as in other respects, so in this, that it seemeth to devoure, our mother churches title, liberty, right and power, and in a great part hath prevailed.

 

  1. It was added by the Replyer, that the Hyerarchye, is a creature of mans making, and may more lawfully be removed, when it pleaseth man, then ever she was by him erected. To this the Rej. answereth, confessing, that sundry offices and orders in our church are humaine, and not divine: adding, that accidentall formes of discipline, are not determined in the word of God, but left in the churches liberty,

Page  92

to devise, as all but Anabaptists, and such as edge too neare upon them consent.

 

Which words are worthy of a note or two: For he 1. acknowledgeth our Hierarchye of Archbishops, B• Deanes, Archdeacons, &c. to be creatures of mans making, not divine: Now of these principally consist, our convocated mother church, as its well knowen, a few ministers being added to her, for fashion sake, so that this church is a church of man, not of God, by his owne confession, and this church is sayd to be devised by the church, now it soundeth strangly, A church of the churches devising: Nor know I well, what the devising church of England can be. The Rej. telleth us, that there be, but two wayes of considering, the Church of England, as one, either in the convocation house, or in that combination, which must needs (sayth he) include the orders and officers, pertaining therunto: Now in both of these wayes Hierarchicall orders and officers are supposed and included, so that the Church of England, neither of these wayes could possibly devise these orders and officers. 3. The distinction used betwixt the essentialls of discipline, and the accidentall formes thereof, is o•scure: And if these termes, may be interpreted, by that sense, which is given by the Rej. of Doctrinall and Rituall, substantiall, circumstantiall worship, that must be essentiall, which is commaunded in the word, that is accidentall, which is not commaunded, but permitted. Then the Rej. in affirming essentialls to be determined, and accidentalls not, sayth nothing else, but that which is determined, is determined, and that which is not determined,

Page  93

is not determined. 4. If he meane by accidentall formes, circumstances of •yme, number, place and occasionall course of proceeding, then he accuseth unjustly, not only us, but the Anabaptists themselves of opposing so manifest a truth, by all men confessed. 5. It would be worth a little paines of his to declare, how, and in what sense our Hierarchye is accidentall, to the church, and discipline of England? The Bishops are efficient causes, even in a high ranke, of our Discipline, they are principall members, of our Diocesan churches, they have an Ecclesiasticall rule, and commaund over the par•icular congregations within their Dominion, by them and in their name, the essentialls of ordination, institution, introduction, suspension, deprivation, excommunication, &c. are dispensed and disposed of: who will say, that these things, can agree to accidentall formes. 6. Concerning edging upon Anabaptists, in this point it may with better reason be objected, to those that maintaine Diocesan Bishops, then to those that oppose them, for it is well knowen, that the Anabaptists, in Holland, Zeland, and Frisland, have their Bishops, which have care of many congregations, within a certaine circuit, & in all of them (though ther be others that teach) they only, at their visitations, performe some mayne things belonging to the pastorall office. 7. The position (that our Bishops are humaine creatures of mans making) is not only to us, but to many of themselves, sufficient to condemne their office, some of them having publikely protested, that if it were so, they would not keepe their places one day.

 

Page  94

CHAP. IX. Concerning Superstition: answere to 64.65.66.67.68. of the Preface.

 

*BEhold a new crime (O yee Iudges!) and unheard of before this day: These who hould the reliques of Popish confessed superstition, unlawfull, are (in that very name) indited of superstition. Nay they must be content to have it for their solemne style, in publique writings, for so Dr. Morton hath dubbed them (To his superstitious brethren the non-conformists) and Dr. Burges will maintaine it. If any man take it ill, and say, that such a title doth rather beseeme those, which allow of religious holy water, images, circumcision &c. besyde crosses and surplices (as these two Drs doe,) hee is straight way scurlous: But let us inquire into the Inditement.

 

  1. It was noted by the Replyer as a ridiculous peece of Rhethoricke,*and a trick of prevention, usuall with crafty men. The Rej. answereth these two titles suite not well, and the charge is weightye: which is very true, they suite not well, neither, to them they were intended unto, nor yet, betwixt themselves, and the charge of superstition, if it be in good earnest and upon ground, is weightye: But not well suting, do meet often times in affected accusations, and so doe here ridiculous Rhetorick, and craftinesse: Shee that hasted, to call her party whore, in the be¦ginning of their scoulding fray, for feare she should be prevented, with that salutation, as more deserving it,

Page  95

was therin crafty, and yet if she called her whorish Sister, it was ridiculous: Ridiculous I account, a new unexpected toy, which bringeth some admiration with it, Now this accusation is such, for untill now, it hath scarce beene heard of. The Iesuites want neither inven•ion, nor good will, in accusing such, as reject their ceremonies with all kynd of reproaches, and yet they could never yet, hitt upon this imputation, to charge them with superstition for that cause: Nay Balthasar Chavasius (a Iesuite) lib. 2. cap. 7. s. 54. though he would fayne have •astened some such thing upon us, yet seing it would not •ake, but be accounted ridiculous, even by his owne •reinds, he doth so much as say, he durst not do it for •hame: We must not expect sayth he,*many superstitious ex•ressions of undue worship, from those who are falsely called, Evangelicall professors, considering th•se superstitions are •ont to be certaine, vaine and superfluous observations: but •hey (meaning the reformed churches) do bitterly inveigh almost against all Ceremonies. So our Rhemists on Acts •7. Sect. 4. discharge us of superstition: whereupon Dr. Fulk saith: we accept of your restimbnie as the witnesse of our adversaries: And is it not admirable then? that our Def. and Rej. should goe beyond the Iesuites in their owne element, and teach them how, and in what sense, they may here after better accuse Calvin, and those that agree with him of superstition, then of rash irreligious, or profane innovation, for rejecting so many Ceremonies of theirs: which not only they, but also our Divines (if we may beleeve the Def. and Rej.) esteeme easily reformable to good use, & not simply unlawful:

Page  96

And by the same reason, Non-residents, Pluralists, Tot Quots, common swearers of diminitive oaths, & dicers, standing upon the lawfulnes of their practise, may upon that supposition, call those, that gaynesay them superstitious brethren.

 

  1. For the exploiding rather then answering or confuting of the foresaid ridiculous accusation it was alledged: That superstition is a kynd of excesse of religious worship, and that an excesse, or error in a negation, was never called by any author superstition, when he meant to speake properly, except that very negation, be held as a speciall worship. That we doe not absteine from these Ceremo. but as from other unlawfull corruptions (even out of the compasse of worship: That every erroneous deniall of things lawfull is not superstition, and that all sorts of definitions which are given of superstition, doe touch upon our Cerem. rather then on the deniall or condemning of them. All this could not stay the Rej. but he must maintaine, and renue this weighty charge, as he calleth it, and pronounce, that if we can avoyd it, it is our witt, (as if he would say) our book hath saved us: Lett us therfore consider, what the accuser can say, to bringe us to this extreame passe.

 

  1. There can be no plainer reason of this accusation (saith the Rej. then that out of Coll. 2.23. where will worship is instanced in negative observances,*touch not, tast not, handle not, &c. But 1. we teach no negative observances so called, for observances are ceremoniall: Tho. 1.2. q. 101. art. 4. we make no ceremonies of our negations, but make them morall duties: The Prelates on the other syde, appointing positive observances, do seeme to include

Page  97

the negations of them, as of the same kynd: Bap•ize not without crossing, doe not divine service without surplice, communicate not without kneeling, so that •y this meanes they are made guilty of double super•tition.

 

  1. The practise of superstitious persons in those dayes, condemned here by the verdit of this place, caries no proportion or resemblance, with our cessation, or negative absteining from cerem. because there touch not, •ast not, &c. were taken up by virtue of mans imposi•ion, and for the more speciall worship of God,* in a more peculiar manner, but we cease from ours, by virtue of another rule, with no such intent, as to present any peculiar kynd of honor to God therby: And thus absteining from our Ceremon. as unlawfull, upon conscience (though they were lawfull,) cannot be superstition, except first it be an elicited act of religion, or worship: Such worship it cannot be, except either in the intention of the absteiner, or in the nature of the forbearance, it be used as a meanes, to give unto God speciall honor, that is, other and more immediate honor, then we do, by acts of obedience, common to the second table, with the first: But this is neither in our intention, nor doth the nature of such forbearance as we use, implye it: For that common charge which usually occurrs in scripture, cease to do evill, Isay. 1. Absteine from all appearance of evill, 1. Thess. 5. is a duty of obedience in generall common to both tables: Now, if it be onely materially determined, upon a work of the second table, not formally elicited, from love or justice to our

Page  98

brother, it is no act of love or •ustice. As if a man hating his neighbour, should yet for feare of Gods judgment, absteine from killing of him, this was no act of love, or justice, toward him; Even so, absteining from our Cerem. as evill for feare of offending God, though it may materially be referred to the first table, yet cannot it be an elicited act of worship, except it floweth from religion, or a desire to do speciall honor to God therby.

 

  1. These negative prohibitions, were so plainly the Commaundements of men, ver. 22. that from hence our divines do commonly argue against such popish Cerem. as ours are: And therfore Papists in their commentaries, as Estius ad Corn. de lapide &c. upon that place, do strive to putt-off that blow from their Cerem. but yet are constrained to confesse, unprofitable and superfluous Ceremo. or instituted by a meere humaine spirit, (such as ours are) to be in those words condemned; If therfore this place, be the plainest reason, which the Def. and Rej. have, of charging us with superstition, it is plaine enough, there was more affection and affectation, then reason in this weighty charge.

 

  1. Whether any definition of superstition will beare up this weighty charge, forced upon those, that reject humaine Cerem. the Rej. will not try by the Schoolemen, because he loveth them not so well, but only by a Definition which is found in D. Ames his Medulla: but passing by the Schoolemen, he might have found in our Divines, Definitions, very fitt for this triall, as that of Vrsyne Tom. 1. in praecept 2. Superstition is that which

Page  99

  • dds humaine inventions to divine praecepts: That of Dr. Fulk in Act. 17. Sect. 4. A will worship is, more then • appointed by the law of God: That of Mr. Perkyns on •he second commaund, Superstition is worship of God, •ithout his commaundement &c. For ther is not one •f our writers, who treateth of superstition, and doth •ot give such descriptions of it, as from them it may •e concluded, that the rejecting of such Ceremon. as ••urs are, is so farr from superstition, that it is the oppo•ing of superstition: Yet let him choose by what Defini•ions, the cause shall be tryed.

 

  1. The Definition which he maketh choice of is: Superstition is that wherby undue worship is exhibited to God: •rom hence the Rej. collecteth, and assumeth 1. that supersti•ion properly is in the opinion and mynd of the worshipper: •. That a man may imagine himself to honor God in the use •f such things, as God hath not forbidden or condemned, and •hereupon forbeare, even for conscience to God, things lawfull: •. That the very not doing of things prohibited in the first •able (if it be for conscience to God,) is worship. Now the first of these, is to fetch quidlibet ex quolibet, any thing out of every thing: For ther is nothing in the Defini•ion alledged, from whence (by any logick) it can be concluded, that superstition is properly in opinion and mynd: 2. The assertion is as false, as untowardly col•ected, for though inward superstition, be in the mynd or soule, and springeth from an erronious opinion, yet neither it, nor any morall vice or virtue, doth properly consist in opinion, but rather in affection, and disposition of the heart and will, as all that consider of the

Page  100

matter, will easily perceave and confesse: And as for outward superstition, that consisteth in outward observances. 3. The second collection serveth nothing to the purpose: Neither yet the conclusion drawne from it, that there may be a negative superstition: yet is it so intricately sett downe, that it conteyneth a kynd of contradiction, for the forbearing of things lawfull, is termed the use of such things, in what sense I cannot conjecture: The last would prove something, if it were generally true as it is not: The avoyding of synne or things forbidden by God, is an act of common obedience, belonging as well to things forbidden, in the second table, as to those, that are forbidden in the first: And the terminanation of this act, upon matters of the first table, doth no more make it properly worship toward God, then the like termination of it, upon the matters of the second table, doth make the same act, properly justice, o• charity towards men: It may, in this or that particular, be imperated or commaunded by religion to God, and in others by charity to men, but it is not, in that particular elicited, or naturally flowing from either, as worship doth from religion and bounty from charity.

 

The Def. and Rej. absteine every day upon conscience from innumerable things forbidden concerning Gods worship, as from Popish Idolatries, Mahometicall impostures, & all the rabble of those divillish divises, which are among the Heathen. Yet I doe not thinke, that they themselves conceive, their acts of dayly worship to arise in account, unto such a number, as is there to be found, of such things forbidden. The plaine truth is, that an absteining

Page  101

frō this or that instituted, or chosen to be observed, in the worship of God, & for the honouring of God •herby, is a kynd of Cere. worship: But the mere absteining from this or that unlawfull action upon conscience of Gods commaund is no speciall worship, nor was ever •o esteemed. 6. But out of D.A. who sayth; That Religion is an observāce wherby we performe those things which directly belong to the giving of honour to God, so much may be wrūg •s the Rej. meaneth, viz. that if any observance be made of •et doing any thing, which God hath not forbidden, of purpose & directly to give honour to God in the not doing thereof, this must needs be an excesse of religion a negative superstition. Iust so as not observing, is observance; not doing a thing, is •erformance of it, as the purposed absteining from that which •ppeareth a dishonouring of God is a dir•ct giving of honour •nto him. 7. Neither is the other allegation out of D. A. to any better purpose than the former: There is a su•erstitiō sometimes in absteining from certaine lawfull things, viz. when some singular service, & honour is by that abstinēce •ntended. Did the Rep. ever deny this? Nay, doeth he not •xpresly confesse as much in these words; The supersti•ions excesse of religion, do•th sometimes seeme to consist in a •egation, viz. when t•at very negation, abstinence, or forbearing is held for a speciall worship? The Rej. indeed, seemeth to finde a difference in that terme of singular: But that is to finde a knott in a rush; For by singul•r Dr. A. meant the same thing which the Replyer meant by speciall, according as theis termes are oftē promiscuously used. The descant therfore which the Rej. maketh upon this occasiō, that we fancy our non-cōformity so singular a piece of service,

Page  102

a singular point of piety, and of true syncerity, this, I say, is but a declamatory venting of bitter, but ungrounded, surmizes. We account our abstinence from theis Cerem. no speciall or particular worship, much lesse singular for degree of excellency; nor doe we esteeme it a point of piety, more singular, than to absteine from swearing by the Masse. Some point of sincerity there is, in refusing theis mixtures, but not worship, or so singular in our opinion, as the Rej. would perswade his readers to our singular prejudice, & wrōg. Many things are singular faults, if they be admitted, the leaving of which is no singular commendation. What if some had rather never preach the Gospel, or receive the supper than tell a lye for those endes? Will the Rej. thence conclude that they make the absteining from a lye a more singular piece of worship, and piety, than either Word, or Sacraments? I would be loath to undertake the prooving of such a wilde consequence. Divine, and blessed Bradford refused to be admitted unto the Ministery by B. Ridley, except he might be excused from the abusive formalities, then and now, in use: yet Gardiner, nor Boner, neither did, nor being asked would therefore (as is probable) have accused him of Superstition, as esteeming the absteining from those abuses more singular service of God, or piety, than all he might doe, and did afterward in the ministery.

 

  1. The examples brought by the Rej. are like unto his Reasons: 1. The Pharisees did superstitiously restrain• labour on the Sabbath, beyond that which God imposed; this was a negative superstition. True; it was an humaine in•tituted

Page  103

Ceremony someth•ng like unto Popish holy •ayes: But the Pharisees absteining from the feasts of Bacchus, Venus, &c. was no speciall worship. 2. The •hilas•ims not treading on Dagons th•eshold was negative •uperstition: True, as the former, It was an observation •nstituted to honour Dagon by: But their not-admit•ing of Circumcision was no superstition. When there•ore upon such wretched examples, and reasons as theis •re, the Rej is so confident in laying his weighty charge •f Superstition upon us, as that he pronounceth all the •ater of Nilus not to be sufficient to wash us from grosse su•erstition, the understanding reader hath no cause to •hinke otherwise but that even the Rej. may have a •onfident full persuasion such as that he buildeth much •n, and yet but hollow empty supporters for the up•olding of it.

 

  1. Such also are his distinctions, whereby (as with a wett finger) he dischargeth the Convocation of all su•erstition, because they impose the Ceremonies, not as •hings directly, properly, immediatly, but onely consequently, •nd mediately, belonging to the giving of honour to God. For 1. If they be consequently directed to God in •eaching of men Gods will, as the word doeth, they are •irect worship unlesse preaching be no worship. 2. If •hey be worship proper to this office, they are proper worship. 3. If they be worship belonging to the first •able, then they are immediately worship: But all the former are true, as was before shewed, yet one thing more would be knowne, what reason the Rej. hath to place the observance of our Cerem. for the kynde of it,

Page  104

in one degree of distance, and latitude: and the rejecting of them, in another? It seemeth to be as if the English day, and night should be so disioyned that our night should be in England, and our day in China. When he further expounds himselfe we shall be more able to discerne his meaning.

 

  1. Last of all, For ending of this quaestion about superstition, I require a resolution of this not-unlike Quaere, which with change of persons conteineth the same case. Seeing there be different opinions concerning our Diocesan Bishops places, and functions, eve• among them that make benefitt of them, some holding them to be of divine institution, or else not lawfull, so that (as they say) without this perswasion they would give over their Bishopricks, to day before to morrow▪ Others holding them onely of humaine Institution, and yet lawfull; Let him, I say, tell us plainly, whether the Prelates of this later opinion may call the other Prelat•superstitious brethren or fathers, for holding Ecclesiastical• Bishops of Mans institution unlawfull? If not, let no• the Rej. nor his Diocesan be so liberall of this title to others that dissent from them about humaine Ceremonies as unlawfull, except they either thinke Bishops cannot be superstitious, or that we cannot be wronged with any odious imputation.

 

Page  105

CHAP. X.

 

Sect. I. Concerning Parliaments, and Convocations: answere to 70.71.72.73. of the Praeface.

 

BEcause the Def. objected the authority of Parliaments, and Convocations for establishing of theis Rites, it was opposed by the Rep. 1. that Prelates •n theis matters have no respect unto the authority of •arliaments, as appeareth by the testimony of the Par••ament it selfe An. 1610. in the Records thereof. 2. That •o Parliament doeth allow subscription, and Confor•ity to be urged as now it is by the Prelates. Which also •as shewed out of the same Parliament records. 3. That •he Prelates proceedings are so agt. Parliament Lawes, •hat by them they are subject to a Praemunire. Now see •hat is rejoyned.

 

  1. The first fillip is that though the Prelates regard •ot the authority of Parliaments, yet that is no answer to •his Objection, theis Ceremonies are established by sundry acts •f Parliaments. Where the Rej. forgetteth that some ar•uments, and answers are ad hominem, that is, they re•pect the thing in quaestion, not simply, but as it com•eth from such a man. Now this was the meaning of •he Repl. that objecting of Parliaments by a Prelate, in •efence of Prelates who regard not the authority of Par•iaments, is a ridiculous plea.

 

  1. In the second place, it is denied that the Prelates •espect not the authority of Parliaments, because, forsooth,

Page  106

they have the kings commission, and Broad seale 〈◊〉 they are by Parliament confined. That is; they neglect no• Parliamentary Statutes in all things. For so farr as the• can turne any Statute Law to serve their turne, and i• those circumstances which they dare not, for thei• heads, omitte, they follow that which Parliaments pr•¦scribe.

 

  1. To that first Evidēce which was alledged out of th• Records of the worthy Parliamēt An 1610. it is rejoyne•that it doeth onely proove that the Prelates mistake (if th•y di• mistake) in one point, their owne authority given them b• Parliam•nt. Now if by mistaking, he meaneth b•d, and un¦lawfull taking, this which he sayth may be graunted But if he meaneth an errour of ignorance, surely he mistaketh the matter one way or other. For 1. Ignoranc• of the Law doeth not excuse any violaters of the same mu•h lesse Scribes, and Doctors, Prelates, which use to be among Law-makers, and in Commission for to se• to the execution of Lawes. 2. Those that erre of ignorance, correct their fault upon information, and knowledge: But our Prelates being diverse times warned, eve• by the Parliament, have not mended, but more violently than before, persisted in, and pursued this mistaking▪ 3. Mistaking in matters of such weight, as are so many good mens livings, and free-holds, is a broad fault, of the same nature (in all Law) with ill (crafty) meaning.* If the Prelates should take upon them to take away the life of some non-conformists, directly, and by sentence (as they have, in effect, done by long imprisonment, and should be called in quaestion therefore, it would not

Page  107

  • elpe them to say, they mistooke their authority.

 

  1. It is added here by the Rej. that the making of Ec••esiasticall Can•ns doe properly belong to the Prelates. But 1. ••cept there be some mysteriall distinction understood •etwixt Canons, and Lawes, this is to robbe both Par•••ment, and King also of their just authority, that Pre•••es may usurpe it. 2. Say it be so, that it belongeth ••operly to Prelates, for to make Ecclesiasticall Canons, 〈◊〉 it therfore belong to them to make such Canons? •uppose the Ceremonies to be lawfull, have the Pre••tes proper power to appoint any lawfull Ceremonies? •hen they may institute, and appoint, in the Def. and •ej. his judgment, not onely holy-water and Images, ••roughout all England, but also commaund that all the •arliament, with the rest of English men, shall be cir••mcised; for the Def. Pag. 285. being asked, whether he •oldeth Circumcision as it is used under Prester Iohn, lawfull?•he Rej. answereth for, and with him, He doeth so, and you ••y nothing to disproove it; Insinuating that if any thing •e sayd to disproove it, he is ready to mainteine it. Now 〈◊〉 appeale to the first Parliament that shall hereafter be •alled, and in the meane time, to any English man (be•yde those that are resolved to say what Defendants, and Rejoyners will have them) if they beleeve that the Pre•ates have power, and that from the Parliament, or with •he consent of Parliament, to appoint the people of England, even those of the Parliament it selfe, to be circumcised? Have the innocent Ceremonies brought us, and the Parliament into such bondage, that at the Prelates pleasure, we must all be circumcised? It seemeth

Page  108

then they are bloody innocents.

 

  1. The second instance out of the same Parliament Records (sayth the Rej.) blameth this in the Convocation, that it hath made the refusall of Subscription poenall, with deprivation of mens free-holde. Which is very true, and due: but not that onely; For the Parliament condemneth expresly all urging of Subscription above that appointed by the Statute of 13 th. Eliz. which onely concerneth confession o• the true Christian faith, and doctrine of the Sacraments▪ Neither is their mentioning of free-hold so to be taken▪ as if they allowed the men should for refusall of othe• Subscription, be deprived of their Copy holds; bu• onely as an exaggeration of the Prelates praesumption▪ who doe not feare, nor spare to vihlate the fundamentall Lawes, and Liberties of England, such as that is, fo• no man to be deprived of free-hold, without the Law of Parliament, and a Iury of 12. legall men.

 

  1. The Parliament addeth, that silencing and depriving of Ministers for non-conformity, and non-subscription (without, and against Law) hath beene the great griefe of sundry well affected subjects. To this the Rej. sayth, that so it hath beene the griefe of those which deprive• thē; who yet deprived thē because they were cōmaunded, leas• their errour should be still mainteined, ād the Ministery of Cōformists contemned. This professiō of griefe in depriving. Prelates, may be likened unto that of Queene Maries Prelates, who whē they condemned the Martyrs, sayd they did it with greife. So Gardiner in his sentēce of condemnation upon Mr. Rogers, the first that suffered under Queene Mary. We therefore, sayd the Bps. aforesaid, wit•

Page  109

  • orrow of minde, and bitternesse of heart, doe condemne thee •he sayd 10. Rogers, &c. Vnto which may be added M. Fox •his Marginall note. Theis murderers pretend a sorrow of •eart, and they will not cease from murdering. But to follow onely the Rej. his so grieved. It is very goodly so. The well affected subjects were, and are grieved, in that •ēse that scādalizing is called grieving: This scandall was at the Prelates proceedings: The Prelates are grieved for their owne fact, but not to repentance, at least such, as they doe not repent of. The griefe of those well affected subjects stirred up in them, and in the Parliament a serious petition, and indeavour to stay the Prelates violence, and remoove the scandall: but the Prelates, though they challenge the power, and care of Ecclesiasticall affaires as properly belonging to them, could never be mooved, either by others, or their owne praetended griefe, so much as to petition unto his Majesty, for the remooving of the grievance, but were and are as ready as their Paratours, & Pursuivants to doe that which belongs to them about this that grieveth the Parliament, and sundry other well affected subjects. The Parliament grieving with those that grieved, made a good Law to make voyd the Prelates Canons, as the cause of unsufferable griefe: The Prelates, first makers of the Canons, and since urgers of their execution, in which also they often goe beyond their owne rules (as passionate executioners use to doe) and many of them applaud themselves, glory, and triumph in their imagined victory. But it may be those are here meant, who, as D. B. in D. Covel pag. 44. urging subscription, and conformity,

Page  110

stick not to say the Authority sinneth in not remeoving some of theis things. Now if they grieve for sinning against their consciēces, God give it may be to repētance not to be repended of: but yet this not so as the wel-affected (of whom the Parliament speaketh) are grieved, by other mens vnconscionable dealing. They are commaunded, fo•sooth; But who procured that commaund? who should procure the ceasing of that same? And is it sufficiēt for Fathers in God to say they are cōmaunded by man to vndoe the ministers, and vex the people of God? Bishop Grindal was cōmaunded to suppresse the exerrise which was called Prophecying: yet he constantly refused to execute such a commaund. Tempora mutantur, & nos mutamur in illis. But the Prelates, (sayth the Rej▪) proceed•d not against them, because they were painfull, and fruitfull ministers. As if the Parliamēt were to be so interpreted, or rather derided! or any but the Devill of Hell would professe such a cause of such proceeding? Wherefore then? Least their errour should be still suffered, and the ministry of others contemned. It seemeth then that in the Rej: his opinion the Parliament in condemning theis proceedings, went about to mainteine dangerous errour, and to bring conforming Ministers into contempt. But not to speake of his taking the question for graunted, viz: which the Ministers held a dangerous errour) the Parliamentary way of making voyd the Canons might have freed the praetended errour from all danger, and left no ministers in contemptible conformity, vnlesse some would contemne Christian liberty as having by custome their eares nay•ed

Page  111

to the doore of servitude.

 

7 Concerning the Praemunire answer is given, that •f the Prelates be subiect vnto it, that is more than the Rej: •noweth; that they might incurre that perill vpon ignorance; and that by Statute Law the Ceremonies are •stablished, with •he penalty of refusing them, as all men know, and some have •elt at Assises, and Westminster Hall. But for the first of •heis shifts, D: B: knowes ful well (whatsoever the Rej: will know) that Prelates cannot take from any English man his freehold, with out Parliament Authority, and yet be free from the Statute of Praemunire: Now that they doe so, the Rej: himselfe even now confessed. Moreover; who knoweth not that the Prelates doe keepe their Cour•s, silence, deprive &c, in their owne names? which doeth evidently intrench vpon the Praerogative Royal of the Crowne, and so fall into the penalty of Praemunire by the Statute of Henr. 8.25. except they can shew some speciall warrāt by Statute for so doing; which that they cannot doe is evident; because in King Edwards dayes they were enjoined to keepe their Courts in the Kings name; and since that time, have no speciall warrant, by any Statute, for any such Courts in one or others name. Ignorance is here againe vainely pretended, as before was declared. Are the Prelates onely ignorant of that which they have so often beene warned, and convinced of in many Parliaments? Now for the establishing of theis Ceremonies, with the penalty of refusing them by Statute, the Rej: should have done well, if he had named that, or those Statutes where we may finde this done. As for the

Page  112

penalty of deprivation for refusing theis Ceremonies, the Rej: confessed before, that the Parliament Anno 1610. pronounced against it, as contrary to Law. If the Ceremonies themselves stand established by any Statute, it must be that of Eliz: 1. But that concerneth the booke of king Edward in which this Rej: pag. 54.55. confesseth some vaine Ceremones, now removed, to have beene praescribed.* Now either those tollerable fooleries were established by Statute of Eliz: 1. or not theis; For no difference is found in the Statute; If those, why doe our Opposites refuse them, and yet urge theis vpon that Law which no more established theis than them? The trueth is, though the booke for substance was in some sort confirmed, yet every rubrick, and ceremony which was therein cōteined, though it was for a time tolerated, was not established. Why else was subscription, by that Statute, restreyned only to doctrine of Faith, and Sacraments? If any therefore have beene deprived, either at Assises, or other Civill Courts, for mere refusall of theis Ceremonies, (which I much doubt of) that, (without quaestion) hath beene by the Praelates procuring, not by such evidence of Law as iust Iudges require in such wreghty causes. It would also be knowne what kinde of Iudges those were which are sayd to have beene so Ceremonious. Sometime it falleth out, that a Hales is put out of Comission by a Gardiner, and another, a friend of Gardiner being put in his place, strange sentences follow thereon. At the least, it behooveth the Rej: who alleadgeth, and alloweth those Iudges facts, to shew vs vpon what grounds they proceeded?

 

Page  113

  1. Against the Convocation-house (as reasons for which the authority thereof is little, or none in mens •ōsciences) some knowne things were briefly mētioned •y the Replier, to which how the Rej. answereth, it is •ot unworthy consideration. 1. Convocations consist of a •action. No (sayth the Rej.) but of men which submit •hemselves to the Lawes of the Land, and Constitutions of •he Church. As for the Constitutions of the Church, •hey are the Constitutions of the Convocation; so that •he answer in that part is, they submitt themselves to their •wne constitutions: To the Lawes of the Land that they doe not duely submitt themselves, it appeareth out of •hat which the Parliament, before alledged, sayth; di•erse painfull, and learned Pastors ready to performe the legall subscription, have beene deprived for refusing •aonicall subscription: which could not be, if Canons were legall, and their makers obedient to Law. They charge also the bodies, lands, and goods of subjects further than is lawfull, sayth the same Parliament. So that it is by this plaine how the Convocations may be sayd to make a faction even against Parliaments. Yet if they were obedient to Lawes, they may (by conspiring for their private ends against the common good) be esteemed a Faction, as those that bare the greatest sway in the Councell of Trent, were, and are of indifferent understanding men esteemed. So in Queene Maries dayes, the persecuting Prelates, though they submitted themselves to Law, and cried out of others that did not so, yet they were a pernitious faction. And so (it seemeth) was the meaning of the Repl. in this charge, because he addeth

Page  114

for a reason thereof, that they never conclude any thing for the common good of the Church. 2. They are servile to those on whom they depend, and tyrannicall over the po•re th•t are subject to them. This the Rej. doeth not deny, but sayth; It may be an errour of their persons, not of their Constituti•n. But what doeth this helpe us? If we must be subject to servile, and tyrannicall Canons, which come from the errour of their persons, their Constitution will no way relieve us. Their Constitution is for substance the same now that was in Queene Maries dayes and yet we know what they did, and therby may conceive what they may doe againe. 3. They are grosse Violators of most antient Canons, being non-residents, Pluralists &c. Neither is this denied by the Rej. so manife•• is the truth of it. Onely, that he may not be altogethe• silent, he alledgeth that this being true, yet the Def. his speech standeth unshaken, viz. Theis Ceremonies are established by Canons. But I thinke if the Convocations be such as have beene shewed, the credit, and authority both of them, and their Canons is so shaken, that they can affoard little establishment to the Ceremonies i• any free judgment.

 

Page  115

CHAP. XI.

 

Sect. 2. Concerning the good and evill, which our Convocations have done.

 

AMong the Objections mentioned against our Convocations, one appendix was, that in memory of man they never concluded any thing for the com•on good of the Church, more than by others was better done 〈◊〉 their hands: but much evill hath come from them, and more •ould, if their commission had served thereto. Now because •his is a weighty charge, and enough to sleight all their •uthority, if it be true, tis worthy to be severally, and di•igently considered, what their Advocate can alledge to the contrary. If in this point he be brought to a nihil di•it, then let him for ever holde his peace about such Convocations.

 

  1. The first answer is, that the accusation is not true, un•esse the Agreement of the Articles of Faith, and Religion were not good. But 1. this being graunted to be good, yet the accusation may be true, because this Act of An. 1571. can hardly be sayd to have beene concluded within the memory of man. 2. It may well be quaestioned whether in this, our Convocation hath done that which was not better done to their hands. To which purpose it shall not be extravagant, nor unprofitable, to compare a little the Articles as they were set forth in King Edwards dayes, Anno 1552. with the edition which the Convocation of Anno 1571. hath left us. In the former we find

Page  116

this Article De Gratia.*The Grace of Christ, or the Holy Spirit which is given by him, takes away the heart of stone, and gives an heart of flesh; such as were unwilling to things lawfull, he makes willing; and such as willed things unlawfull, he makes unwilling. Which Article is, I know not wherefore, left out in the later edition. This I am sure of, that if the sayd Article had beene renued in the same manner as it was first set downe, it had beene one barre more than now is found against those among us which follow Arminius, and his Remonstrants, & one warrant for publique preaching against them, Secondly, in the Ar•i•le of Iustification, it was before sayd, that the doctrine by sole faith in that sense in which it is explained in the Homily of Iustif•cation,*is most certaine; Now in the later edition this most certaine is left out, and for co sensu is putt in an ambiguous terme ut. Whatsoever was the occasion or meaning of this change, the former words were more full against those that broach new doctrines about Iustification, such as Dr. Iackson doeth in his booke of Iustifying Faith. Thirdly, in the Article o• Sacraments, the former editiō had, that the efficacy of thē is not from the worke done,*which expression (in their Latine) as it is strange, and not knowne in holy writt, so it carrieth w•th it a sense savouring little of piety, but much of superstition. Which words, if they had beene still retained, (as they are not) some superstitious conceites about the Sacramē•s might by them have beene suppressed. Fourthly, In the Article De Coena Domini, the olde edition had theis words: Seing it is required to the true being of humaine nature,*that the body of one, and the same man cannot be in many places at

Page  117

  • •ce, but must be in some one definite place, therefore the body 〈◊〉 Christ cannot be present in many, and diverse places at the ••me time. And because (as holy Scriptures deliver to us) •hrist was taken up into heaven, and is there to remaine unto •he end of the world, none of the faithfull ought to believe, or •rofesse any reall, and (as they speake) corporall presence of his ••esh and bloud in the Sacrament. In the new edition all •his is blotted out: which yet had good use against the •utheran errour of Consubstantiatiō. Fiftly, In the Ar••cle of Traditions, theis words (not found in the former •dition) are conveyed into the later. Every particular, or •ational church hath authority of instituting, chāging, or abro•ating Cere. or Ecclesiasticall rites instituted onely by humaine •uthority, so that all be done to aedification. This addition •emeth to be added for the better advauncing of hu•aine Ceremonies. Sixtly; The Article about the books •f forme, is very much transformed to the wronging of •ubscribers.* For formerly it affirmed onely that the •ooke of service, and that of Ordination of Ministers 〈◊〉farr as c•ncerned trueth of d•ctrine are good &c. but ••ow in the later, this limitation (quoad doctrinae verita••m) is left out, and in stead thereof is added,* that the •ooke of Consecration, and Or•ination containeth ••l things necessary thereunto, and that it hath no•hing in it of it selfe either superstitious or impious, and •hat all that be consecrated, and ordained according •o it, are orderly, and lawfully consecrated, and or•eined.

 

Page  118

Theis changes well considered, I thinke D. B. himselfe will confesse that there was no great good done in the second edition of the Articles concerning Faith, and Religion: Yet be it so, that this was a good worke of our Convocation, what a poore commendation is one good worke, of a Mother-Church in a whole generation or age of her children?*Tis for the poore to tell their store. But for a shepheard, in numbring of his flock to see them brought to one head, what should he say but bemoane himselfe with Alas! and weel a day?

 

  1. The second answer is, that Convocations doe good sometimes, in confirming what was decreed before. Which is sometime true, viz. If the things decreed before, were of themselves good, and had need of the Convocations confirmation. But sometime such confirmations are onely for fashion-sake; As when the Councell of Trent confirmed the Holy Scripture, the Apostolicall Creed &c. and then there is very little, or no good done, more than was formerly done to their hands. Any other confirmation of good, I doe not know our Convocations to be guilty of, nor can I understand, when, whence, and how the Convocation had Commission to confirme any thing, without making of new Canons. A Law of Confirmation is necessary to Canons: but Canons of confirmation are not necessary to Lawes established. Neither can it be shewed that so much hath beene given or committed to the Convocation. Nor if it were, could that be done without Canons (in some respect) new. And so much (it seemeth) Dr. B. knew, from whence it is that he addeth; Or if they have done nothing,

Page  119

  • ecause they have had no commission, to which they are limited •y Act of Parliament, where lyeth the blame? If they have •one nothing! What a miserable supposition is this? To •oe nothing in so long a time, is to be no Synode, no Mother-Church, nor good Milk-nurse, but a dead Car•asse, bearing an empty name of both. If they had no •ommission to doe good, they had no commission to be • Mother-Church. If the Parliament hath limited them •o a commission, it was because they durst not trust •hem without. Yet the blame of not doing good cannot •ye upon the Parliament, because they never sought to •t, or by it, for a commission of doing any good; Nor yet of the Kings Majesty, (where the Rej. seemeth to leave •t) except they have declared what necessity there was •hey should doe some good, and to that intent made petition for a commission; Let it lye therefore upon the convocation it selfe, which repraesenteth, as an Image, or maketh shew of some good but doth none at all.

 

  1. The third answer is; That in the booke of Canons were many good provisions for more plentifull preaching, and •edressing the abuses of Ecclesiasticall Courts, which would have done much good, if they had beene as carefully executed as they were made. But 1. so there was also in the Councell of Trent, many Canons of Reformation, at most of their sessions, nay such, as (without any straining) goe farre beyond those that are found in our Canons. As for example, in the fift Session, under Paulus 3. it was decreed that expounding of the Scripture should be diligently observed in all Cathedrall Churches, and also in other places where any stipend was, or may be had, and

Page  120

that Praebends, for that cause absent from their Chapiter, should enjoy their dividents, as if they were present. And that all Parish Priests should be compelled to teach their people, at the least on the Lords day, and in solemne feasts. In the sixt session, the Auntient Canons are revived which were made against Bishops that buisy themselves in Princes Courts, or other where with secular affaires, and so are either non residents, or non-praedicants. In the seventh, it is ordered that all collations of benefices be upon able men, and such as will be resident upon the same, under great penalties. Pluralities also are abolished, or made nullities. In the fift session under Pius 4. all taking of money for Orders, for letters testimoniall, for seales by Bishops, is condemned as simony: Nay, the Notaries, or Secretaries are forbidden to take any thing except they have no wages▪ (& then also, not above the tenth part of one Crowne) under great penalties. It is also under like penalties decreed, that none be ordeined (except upon necessity, and then with patrimony, or pension sufficient to live on) which have not an Ecclesiasticall Benefice, or special• charge. Moreover, it is decreed, that honest unlearned Parish-Priests should have learned Coadjutors adjoyned to them upon their charges, and that scandalous Priest• should be either reformed, or removed. In the seventh Session, non-residency both of Bishops, and Curates, is againe condemned, as a mortall sinne. And (which D. Bancroft would have called English Scotizing, or Scottish Genevating, if it had beene but mentioned in his Convocation) it was appointed, that the names of those which

Page  121

  • esired to be ordeined, should be the moneth before, •ubliquely proclaimed in the Church, and diligent in•uisition made concerning their life, and manners. It ••so confirmed that none should be ordeined, that is •ot designed to a certaine place of ministery. In the •ight Session it is injoyned to Bishops as their principall •ffice, to preach diligently in their Churches, and that •n all Parishes at least thrice a weeke, there should be prea•hing. And that one man should have but one Benefice •equiring residence &c. With what syncerity theis, and •uch Canons of Reformation were propounded, is to •e seene in the History of that Councell. But in verball provisions it is evident that that Conventicle was not behinde our Convocation, but rather ledde her the way, & taught her how to dissemble as if shee had set downe among other Canons, Who knowes not how to feigne,*he knowes not how to reigne.

 

Secondly: That provision which is here added (if those Canons had beene carefully executed) is as bald as any of the Canons. For 1. the quaestion being of doing good, we are tolde they proceeded so farre that they had done some good, if they had come to execution, that is, to doing of good, and not pretending it onely. 2. To whom did it belong to see good Canons executed, but to Archbishops, Bishops, Deanes, Arch-deacons, which were the makers of them? Had they commission both to make badde Canons, and execute them; but to make onely good, and so leave them without execution? 3. This whole Plea is, as if for the cursed figtree,

Page  122

which brought forth no fruite, one should have alleadged that it brought forth leaves, and so made good provision for fruite, if fruite had followed answerable to the leaves. 4. What provision was made for preaching if it were fully •xecu•ed, D. B. in his Apology, in the 67. page of D. Covel, sheweth thus. By the Canons, no piece of the service must give way to a Sermon, or any other respect, which computed with the accessory occasions of Christenings, Burialls, Mariages, and Communions, which fall out all at some times, some at all times in many Congregations, doeth necessarily pretend, if not a purpose, yet a consequence of devouring of preaching, and so not widowes houses, but Gods house, under pretense of long prayers, while neither the time, nor the ministers strength, nor peoples patience can beare that taske of reading and preac•ing too. Of which intention if we be affraid, who can marvell, that either shall observe my L•rd of Londons motion, for a praying ministry as more needfull in a Church planted, than preaching, as his speeches since also have professed: or that shall marke how some Canons are planted against Lectures in Market-townes, whereby the light hath spread to many darke places, and withall how skilfu••y all his Majesties godly purposes against the ignorant, negligent, and scandalous Ministers, have beene not so much delayed, as deluded, and the offenders covered &c. 5. If some little good had come from the Convocation about their Courts, yet that being covered, and overwhelmed with so great evill which came from thence, as the remooving, or excluding of a thousand good preachers, the vexing, and disturbing of tenne thousand good Christians, (I speake within compasse of trueth) should

Page  123

  • e no more doing of good, than the leaving or sticking •owne of a feather was by him that stole the goose.

 

All theis things being will considered, he that should •reach to the Convocation, may well take up, and repeate Mr. Latimers words uttered before the same Assembly in the 28. yeare of Henry 8. The fruite of your consultation shall shew what generation yee be of. What have yee done hitherto, I pray you? What one thing that the people of England hath beene better for of an haire? or you your selves, either more accepted before God, or better discharged toward the people committed unto your cure? For, that the people is better learned, and taught now than they were in time past, to whether of theis ought we to attribute it, to your industry, or to the providence of God, and the foreseeing of the Kings Grace? What did yee, so great Fathers, so many, so long a season, so oft assembled together, wherby Christ is more glorified, or his people made more holy? I appeale to your owne consciences. Mr. Latimer in this charge, excepteth two exploits of that Convocation; One that they burned a dead man, who had withstood their profit; the other, that they went about to rake another in the coales, because he would not subscribe to certaine of their Articles. Such like exceptions may be made for our convocation, and those multiplied to a great number. But he that should make them must looke for no other fee, or thanks, for such allegations, than Latimer was rewarded with, who (not long after this Sermon preached) was driven not only to cease from preaching, but also to take up his lodging in the Tower.

 

Page  124

CHAP. XII.

 

Sect. 2. Concerning worship answer, to the Rej. premonition, Pag. 123.124.125.126.127.

 

WE here have the Rej. againe entrenching himself, and raising up many distinctions and definitions, as so many blinds, as it were, that the ignorant sort, and such as are more weake in judgment, might not perceave, how the evidence, and strenght of the arguments, which are leveled directly against the Cerem. come in upon them, and prevaile against them: As also, that in the tumult, and lumber of these distinctions, being thus hurried, and hurled together, those answers which are lame and wounded, may creepe away, and escape in the crowd, unseene and unsuspected by the most, who either have not skill, or will and care, to examine things, before they passe, but are content, rather to take these conceits (which are accompanied with ease and quiet) upon trust, then to put them to the triall, or themselves to trouble & vexation, if they prove not true. And because this head is of wayght, & worthy the skanning, we shall therfore take into further triall, and examination, what ever principles or authorities the Rej. hath sett downe, either in the premonition to the second argument, or in the beginning of his treatise, touching kneeling at the Sacrament. That we may therby discerne, what succour the Rej. his cause is like to fynd, when he thinks to shelter

Page  125

under these outworks, which he hath reared up on •urpose to be his sense.

 

Worship generally taken, is thus by him defined, Pag. 123.124.

 

Worship is the performance of respect, unto any thing or person, according to the estimation and dignity therof.

 

The termes of which description, are so loose and •yde, and so farr from laying out the bounds, of the ••ing described, that like a ship-mans hose, you may apply ••em to what you will, rather then to the purpose in •nd: A man hath aestimation, of his life, his goods, his •ood name, answerable to the worth & dignity of thē, •nd doth accordingly performe, that respect, that is fitt 〈◊〉 caring for them: doth he therfore worship his house, •is goods, his lands? Nay any Christian heart, esteemes •nd performes respect to the worship of God: doth he ••erfore give worship unto worship: The Rej. therfore 〈◊〉 to be desired, to make accurate descriptions, if he de••re to give satisfaction to a Iudicious reader. Lastly we •ave here things & persons made the object of worship, •nd yet in the division immediatly following, we are •aught, that worship distinguished according to the object,•nd that truely: is either of our fellow Citizens, and so civill, 〈◊〉 of our God, and so divine: In the definition things and •ersons are the object: And now in the division only •ersons are the object, and things not mentioned: how this quicksilver will be sodered toge•her, I see not.

 

Page  126

Worship according to the degrees, is divided into veneration which is a due respect of Gods ordinances or app•rtenances to his service or adoration which is due to God alone.

Its a receaved rule, that degrees vary not the kynd of any thing, but the quantity of it: As the diverse degrees of heat, or cold, in severall things, degrees of whytenes in severall walls, none of these degrees declare diverse qualities for kynd, but diverse quantities and measures of the same kynd of quality: as one thing is more o• lesse hott, but both have the like heat, for kynd of it whence it followes from the Rej. his ground, that veneration and adoration differing only as degrees of worship, they are both of the same kynd, and then veneration being due to the ordinances, and appurtenances thereof, the essence or kynd of true divine worship, is due to some creature beside God, which not only religion & reason, but all the world of Orthodoxe Divines deny, and the Rej. I presume also in cold blood will do the same.

 

  1. Third division is: Divine worship is either principal• or subordinate: Principall is that holy reverence and respect of the Divine Majesty, which is inwardly performed for his honor: either by the understanding, or will and affections: And this may falsely be pretended, but cannot be falsely performed.

I will not here be curious to pursue all the opē weaknesses of these expressions: Only let the Reader take notice, that the Rej. makes those members of a distinction, & so, such as should be opposite one unto another,

Page  127

which are yet in subordination, and that by his owne •ermes: for he makes one part principall, and the other •ubordinate to it, and so in agreement with it, which •o reason will allowe: As though one should divide a •iving creature into that which is principally so, as a •an, or that which is subordinate, as the faculty of ••ughing, which is a token of a man: And that which ••rceth him to these inconveniences, is the feare, least 〈◊〉 should make externall worship, true worship, in its •wne nature, as conceaving, a back blow is coming to is cause by that meanes.

 

  1. I will not here aske, by what rule he makes reve••nce the Genus to principall worship, when the verdit •f all writers, and text, casts religious reverence, as a •roper duty in the third commaund, whereas principall •orship, is made generall to all the first table, and so the •ore particular is made a Genus to that which is more •enerall then it self: I suppose this is the Rej. phrasio••gie, fitter for a declamer, and one that should descant •hen define: 3. let it here be remembred, that the in•ard acting of understanding, will, and affections to•ards God, is made the proper forme, and that which •ives specificall being to principall worship, because we all have use of this hereafter.

 

Only that which is most remarkeable, and exceeding •oubtfull (& therfore desired proof and confirmation) that which is added, in the following words, viz. In•••nall worship cannot be performed falsely:* which is a cōceit •eyond my shallow apprehensiō, & therfore, at his next •joyning I desire to be satisfied in some particulars.

 

Page  128

  1. He that acknowledgeth one God, Eternall, Almighty, &c. and two persons: but conceaves the Holy-Ghost, not to be a distinct person beside them, but a work proceeding from them both, and so also depend• upon the Godhead thus apprehended: whether dot• such a man, falsely conceave of God, and falsely worship him: making no expression of this his conceaving o• dependance.

 

  1. If there be the same ground and reason, to make false internall, as externall worship, then the one may be as falsely performed as the other: but that ther is the same ground for both, let any man compare them together, and it will appeare at the first view: For the heart, can, and doth goe aside as many wayes from the rule, as the outward man doth, or can do: A man may feare God, upon a false ground, after a false manner to a wrong end: as well as preach, or pray upon a false ground, after a false manner, to a false end: So that I see no colour, nor can conceave, how those words can be excused: Internall worship is true, or not at all: Imagnary internall worship is no worship. For there is nothing, that can be called true, being ordered a right, according to rule, but there is a falshood, which will arise by the wrong ordering, and ill disposing of the same thing: At a word, as every proper axiom• admitts of a contradiction, and so of a falshood necessarily: so likewise every indiduall action, which can admitt of alteration, must needs admitt of a wrong, as well, as of a right disposition, and by consequent of a falsene• which may besall it in that kynd.

 

Page  129

  1. All lifting up the honour of another, to whom, •n way of homage we present our services, that is, wor•hipping of such a party in our intent, and according to the nature of the action: but false conceaving of the •rue God, and fearing of him, upon false grounds is the •ifting up of the honor of God, in the intention of the person, and nature of the word: and therfore it must needs be worship of God, for of no other, it can be, as being tendered to him, but its not true internall worship, and therfore it must be false.

 

Lastly, if this be not at all false worship, then at all, it is no sinne, and so must never be answered for, because unto any other head beside that of false worship, it cannot be referred.

 

Subordinate worship is that which is done in token, and testimony of the soveraignty, we acknowledge in God, and of our dependance upon him.

Here againe, we have the like phrasiologie, words without wayght of reason, in describing or defining the thing intended: For token and testimony are too large and loose expressions to lay out the nature of this worship: Because 1. a man may severall wayes give a token, or testimony of his acknowledgment, and dependance, and yet in none of those wayes be truely said to worship i. e. as by some pledge, by his hand writing, and seale annexed testify, that he doth thus acknowledge and depend, and yet none of these wayes he worships: 2. Take actions in this reference onely, as they looke to our

Page  130

inward dispositions by way of testification, or signification, they are not worship, (I say go no further then that reference) but as they are presented as some services to God immediatly, and as by him instituted and required.

 

True externall worship is said to be made up of 4. things: A person holy, 2. action and manner warranted: 3. end right, 4. the present intention of the worshipper bestowed, and imployed upon the service.

Where let it be considered, how he broyles things of all kynds together, contrary even to their nature, and right reason: In that he requires the inward holines of the person, and his gratious acceptation with God: and secondly the present and religious intention of mynd, as necessary to make up externall true worship, which mixture and constitution, even the names of the things gaynesay, and their natures will not indure.

 

For 1. that which was the forme, and made up the proper nature of internall worship before, that cannot constitute external worship, as common sense teacheth▪ but the inward performing of reverence, (and consequently present religious intention, which is of that kynd) was made the proper forme of internall worship, by the Rej. his graunt.

 

  1. All outward actions, in the frame and constitution are liable to censure of the church, either for approbation or reprehension, but the sincerity of heart, and intention of mynd, the church cannot take notice

Page  131

  • f nor passe a censure upon, provided the outward ex•ressions do not fayle or be a wanting.

 

  1. A man may be bonus ethicus, and yet not bonus Theologus, i. e. a well cariaged man outwardly, expres•ing both the sense and practise of religion in his outward demeanor: And yet not be a a sincere hearted Christian: So a man may be a member of a congrega•ion, and behave himself outwardly beyond exception, •nd yet want, both an upright mynd, and intention sin•ere: So that though they be rejected of God without •hose, yet the fault lyes not in the outward action, but in the inward & spirituall work, which God approves, and takes his complacency in, yet he looks upon these, and loves them so farr as they be sutable to their rule, as he did in the young man, Mark 10.21.

 

At a word: an action may be done by the rule of Ethicks, or the rule of outward ecclesiasticall policy and church discipline appointed by Christ: Or lastly by an inward spirituall principle of grace: The two former, may be true without the last, though a mans sinnes in seperating the last from the first, because though the first be good in their kynd, yet they are not sufficient: the former therfore are to be continued, and the sinne in the last to be reformed: Hence the Prophet Isaiah 1.16. Put away the evill of your doings, the Lord enjoynes thē not to take away their works, but the evill of them: as though he should have said; sacrifice still according to rule prescribed; choose a sacrifice without blemish &c. for the matter; offer it according to rites appointed, for the manner, as before, but being also a heart

Page  132

humbled, a life reformed, wherein you have hitherto fayled, keepe that which is good, and add that which is awanting.

 

  1. Lastly, when an unregenerate minister (gifted sufficiently for outward expressions, and called by the church) shall preach, administer the sacraments, beyond all exception to the eye of man, and to the approbation of the church: I ask: whether the true matter and forme of right administration, may not undoubtedly be concluded to be there, so far as those services are externall.

 

I presume the Rej. will distast the contrary conceit, and scorne to entertaine so silly an imagination, as to affirme, that a wicked man, cannot be a true minister, or his actions performed unreproveablely in that kynd, by what man can see, to be true ministeriall actions.

 

If this he graunt, which cannot be denied with any colour, (and if it be, I shall be ready to make it good) I then reason.

 

Where the true matter and forme is of externall worship, ther is the true compleat nature of externall worship.

 

But in the administration of the Sacrament, &c. by an unregenerate minister, ther is the true matter and forme of true worship.

 

Therfore in the administration of these by an unregenerate minister, ther is the true compleat nature of externall worship.

 

To this place appertaineth that expression in his premonition to the receaving of the Lords Supper, cap. 3. pag. 3.

 

Page  133

Externall worship of God is some outward action,* done in relation to the internall worship: which (viz. the internall worship) gives subsistence to it.

Concerning which passage, I desire one case may se•iously be considered, and it is this: Whether is it not •ossible, that a man (either out of ignorance as not •nowing, or out of lase feare dissembling) may kneele •owne before an Idoll, as Idolaters do, performe and expresse according to their manner all outward actions of reverence, and yet keepe his heart, mynd, & affections, •nwardly acknowledging and loving of God.

 

That this practise is possible, nay too ordinary, that the heart may be caried one way, and the action another way in appearances, needs no proof, since each mans wofull experience gives undeniable evidence thereof: Hence then I reason.

 

If an action may have the reall subsistence of superstition, without the intention of the mynd, the work of heart and affection: then without these hath it the subsistence of externall worship.

 

But without internall worship: to witt without, nay against the intention of mynd, the work of my heart & affection, the action formerly mentioned hath the subsistence of reall superstition.

 

Therfore without the internall worship, the externall hath subsistence.

 

Page  134

The fourth division: Externall worship is either mediate, or immediate: mediate, when any duty of the second table is performe• immediatly to man, but out of conscience, and in obedience to God, to his honour.

In this division of mediate, and immediate worship used by some Divines: The name worship, must need• be taken (by a synecd. the part putt for the whole) fo• obedience in generall, and so they are to be understood and not in propriety of speech: For that which comprehends both the tables of the Decalogue in it (as in this division worship doth) cannot properly be referred, either to any one commaund, or any one table: And in this construction, it serves nothing to the Rej. his purpose, but only to fill up place, & make up the number of Divisions, which is the ready way to confound the reader: And that the Rej. cast lotts almost what to say, it may appeare, in that, he who makes externall worship the Genus to mediate and immediate here: Elsewhere in his premonition to the receaving of the Lords supper, he makes immediate the Genus to externall and internall, so curious is he in his distributions, that in his sense, you may make the whole the part, the part the whole: And if in such Divisions ther be like to be true sense and solidity, let the judicious reader determine.

 

But let us come more neare his particular explication, which is this: Thats mediate worship by the Rej. his definition when any duty is done to our brother,*but in conscience to God.

 

Page  135

Where I desire to be informed at his next rejoy•ing, whether he make this worship to consist, in the •uty discharged to our brother or in the conscience to God, used in the discharge thereof: The former (I sup•ose) he neither will, nor can say, (though he can say ••range things, for then worship should first be tendered 〈◊〉 man, and to the Lord at the second hand.

 

I conceave then he must affirme the second, and •ace the worship, in the act of conscience, caried by •ertue of a commaund: but then let him tell us how •his can be called externall worship, or can possiblely •ccord with the words of his definition going before: •xternall worship is, the performance of an outward action,〈◊〉 he defines, but I assume, the inward work of con•cieoce, is not the performance of any outward action, ••erfore externall worship cannot consist in that.

 

And yet if this was graunted, which sense gaynsayes, •ee how unhappy he is in his expression, for neither in •his would any worship properly appeare. That which •ppertaines to the right doing of every act of obedi•nce as such, that cannot make up the proper nature of •orship: but to be done in vertue, and so in conscience of Gods commaund, belongs to every action of the Decalogue: what ever is not done of faith is sinn Rom. 14. last.

 

The fifth Division. Immediate worship, is either properly so called or else reductively.

 

Proper immediate worship, is any action done to the honouring

Page  136

of God immediately, and in that act it self, 〈◊〉 are all such ordinances, which God hath appointed.

 

Improper worship is any act done, to the honouring of God by the orderly, and comly usage of his owne ordinances which because they poynt at Gods honour in their re¦mote end, as they determine their first end, and use upo• men, as tending to order, decency, and aedification, an• therfore but improperly acts of worship.

 

It is the nature of errour, ever to be unlike it self, and he that goes out of the rigth way, will crosse himself commonly in his going, and this is the reason; the Rej▪ doth so often interfere in his discourse, and which is his exceeding ill happ, though no occasion require it, he cannot conceale these crasy, and ill joynted expressions we shall therfore againe, lay open the whole frame, tha• the description may be half a confutation:

 

Divine worship proper to God pa. 124. sect. 5. mark those words (proper to God) is

 

principa

subordinate & externall, and tha•

mediate, done to man immediatel• but in conscie•ce to God, and 〈◊〉 honour,

immediate

proper

improper determi•••• their use & end 〈◊〉 mediately upon ma•.

Where some things in the generall are very observeable.

 

  1. That improper immediate externall worship, is divine

Page  137

worship proper to God:* this conclusion will appeare, to any, that will but wisely apply the speciall and generall together, according as they be rancked in the foregoing delineation.

 

  1. That improper immediate worship, is mediate worship; for thus I reason: That worship which is immediatly done to man, but in conscience to God, that is mediate worship, so the Rej. description teacheth: but improper immediate worship, is first done to man, so the very expresse words of the Rej. declare evidently: •he acts of improper worship determine, in their end, and use upon men.

 

Therfore immediate improper worship, is mediate by the Drs dispute.

 

If it be here replyed, that the actions which make up mediate worship, must be actions of the second table, not of the first, as these be: I answer; It is the verdit of the word, and the common consent of all Divines, that all the actions and duties, which concerne our brother as the next object and end, and so determine upon him are required, and regulated by the second table: since therfore these things of comlines and order, are of this nature, by the Rej. his graunt, I do not see, how it can be avoyded with any colour of reason, but they must be commaunded in the second table, and so come under the definition of mediate worship, directly contradictory to the Rej. his determination.

 

I might also putt the reader in mynd, of these twicesod-coleworts, that are sett agayne before us: viz. this misty distinction of properly, & reductively, which like

Page  138

a vagrant wanders up and downe in every coast, and therfore should be whipped home to his owne place: For it is propounded & applyed upon the like mistake, that formerly it was pag. 37. in the division of Cerem. And is here, as it was there, voyd of all art and truth.

 

  1. Voyd of Art: For what reason, or rule, doth allow, any reasonable disputer, to make a distribution and so an opposition of parts, that are in consent, and agreement one with another, such is this here propounded. Worship is either proper; as Gods ordinances, or improper, as the adjuncts to these ordinances, which appertaine therunto: As if a man should say: Ther be two kynd of byrds, either an eagle, or her feathers.

 

  1. Its voyd of truth: For who ever accounted all the civill circumstances, and attendants of decency in the discharge of Gods worship to be worship. The band the preacher useth, the doublet he weares are decent attendants unto him, in preaching & praying, and it would be exceeding unseemely, to see him naked in those parts, rudely presenting himself amiddst the congregation, in the work of the Lord, yet did ever any, before D. Burges say, that the band and doublet of the minister, were improper immediate worship.

 

A midst these many mistakes, we have a ground of graunt from the Rej. his owne words: That kneeling in the act of receaving, cannot be improper, but proper worship: For we kneele not either, to man or to the bread, but to God directly, and it is to lift up his honour

Page  139

immediatly in the use and end of that action, and •herfore it cannot be improper, but proper worship.

 

Anna her example of serving God with fasting, and prayer, comes after to be scanned in the next section, only before we end, lett us consider in a word of that passage which the Rej. hath pag. 126. To the proper, circumstantiall or accessory worship: the permission of God, and a right intention, and use, sufficeth to legitimate them. Ioyne we unto these words, the definition of immediate worship, under which all these improper circumstantiall worships are ranged: viz. Immediate worship is, when any act of obedience to the first table, is performed to honour God: out of which I thus reason:

 

Every act of obedience to the first table, is not only permitted, but required in the first table.

 

But the acts of improper immediate worship are acts of obedience to the first table: therfore they are not only permitted but required.

 

To this place belongs the considering and discussing of the variation of that phrase used in the premonition, touching kneeling at the Sacrament, cap. 3. p. 3. False worship, is sayd to be of the will of man merely, True, is sayd to be according to the will of God wholly.

The mistery is, that no worship is false, which hath any thing in it of the will of God, And ther is some worship true and good, which is not of the will of God as a cause, but only according to it, as not hindering or forbidding: This is the Papists plea just against our Doctrines for their traditions. Gregor. de Valent.

Page  140

Tom. 4. Disp. 6. Q. 11. P. 1.*Christ doth not forbidd that we make such addition of worship, which doth not repugne to the law, but consents to right reason, and so to the will of God.

 

So Estius in Tit. 1.14. The Scripture so farr as it speaks in the worst sense, touching the praecepts and traditions of men,*it alwayes understands such, which are so appoint•d and commaunded by men, as that they nothing at all conduct unto piety, or plainly oppose both it and the law of God, such which proceed from a humaine spirit or appetite, to witt so farr as a man is acted of himself, and not of God. So the Rhemists on Math. 15.9.

 

The contrary assertion is the receaved doctrine of our Divines for, and out of the word of God against the Papists, and one fundamentall principle of reformation.

 

*So Luther Gen. 21. This is one mayne principle of the doctrine we professe (against the forged superstitions of the Papists) that we undertake no work in the things which appertaine unto worship, concerning which we have not an expresse commaund of God: No man can boast of the performance of any worship, unlesse he be wholly as it were clothed, and confined within the compasse of the word.

 

Hitherto also, is to be added, that distinction which is last mentioned by the Rej. in the forenamed place in his premonition for kneeling at the Sacram. Chap. 3. Pag. 3.4.

 

Page  141

Immediate true ext•rnall worship, is so called in respect, 〈◊〉 of the meanes, or manner of worship, and that which ••ecteth meanes, is sayd to be grounded either on speciall ••mmaund, which is properly, in and of it self worship, or upon 〈◊〉 allowance only, as touching the particular, which is ••rship per aliud, by virtue of some thing else.

 

  1. But first, ther is internall meanes, and manner as •ell as externall, 2. the manner and meanes do de¦••nd on Gods commaund and allowance in that also: Immediate worship in regard of the meanes of wor•••p, is just as much, as immediate mediate worship: And is suiteth well with that distribution, which we met 〈◊〉, in the former section of significant Ceremonies, to significant and non significant: 4. When as the Rej. 〈◊〉 much to this distinction of generall and parti••lar commaund, he should have tould us, whether he •eaneth by the generall, the Genus or the kynd im•ediate, and next, or any other how remote soever: •he former sense will not help our Ceremonies, the 〈◊〉 will serve at a lift, for many popish Ceremonies as ••ll as ours, since Gods commaund doth not make any 〈◊〉 immediate worship, in, and of it self, for then the 〈◊〉 of a murtherer should be worship, in, and of it 〈◊〉: 5. What reason or sense is there, that Gods com••und should make a thing worship of it selfe, and Gods •••owance should make it worship by virtue of some¦••ing else, when as the commaundement, doth no more •••pect it self or other thing, then the allowance. 6. Al••wance of this or that in generall without allowance 〈◊〉 it, to be worship, maketh nothing at all to be worship.

 

Page  142

*7. It may justly be quaestioned, whether the Rej. 〈◊〉 this distinction of commaund and allowance, do no• symbolize with the Papists in their distinction of commaunds and counsells.

 

For seing this Popish distinction, cannot be avo•ded, but by another betwixt a common precept, and particular, according to the circumstances, Iun. Cont. lib. 2. To. 9. and no worship or good work can be with¦out one of these precepts, certainly this worship upo• allowance, without any particular precept, can neith•• be worship nor good work. 8. I aske whether that in¦stitution of worship which is grounded on allowanc• be a work of obedience to God or not? If it be, the• surely it hath a commaund and not an allowance onl• If not, then either let works of superarrogation be a•¦mitted, or this institution cashyred.

 

The immediate externall true worship in regard of ma•¦ner, is sayd to consist in a reverend usage of prescribed wo•¦ship, according to order and decency. Where observe• that worship being formerly defined by an action, 〈◊〉 here specifyed by a manner, whereas the manner of 〈◊〉 action, is not an action, at least every manner is not 〈◊〉 2. That in the manner here specifyed (reverend usag•) the usage of an action differeth not from the action b• only in reverence, which is a common adjunct of a worship, and therfore maketh not a distinct worshi• 3. That civility, order and decency is required, in th• usage of prescribed worship, and so worship in regard 〈◊〉 the manner though it be religious, may be called c•¦vill: yet let the Reader be admonished, that under the••

Page  143

  • ••re words of reverend manner, order, decency of wor•••p, much sacrilegious worship is mayntained by the ••pists: As our Rhemists on Ihon 6.58. have discovered, 〈◊〉 nature therfore of the things themselves, should be ••nsidered, and we should not suffer our selves to be •used by words. That which is quoted here out of D. 〈◊〉, will occasion the reader to looke upon the place, ••edull. lib. 2. c. 14. th. 25. the words of that position 〈◊〉 these: Although these circumstances of tyme, place and •er like, are wont by some to be called rites or religious ec••esiasticall ceremo., yet in their nature they have nothing, 〈◊〉 is proper to religion, and therfore religious worship doth 〈◊〉 properly consist in them, however by neglect, and contempt 〈◊〉 such circumstances, the sanctity of such religious worship, is 〈◊〉 some sort violated, because the common respect of order 〈◊〉 decency, which do equally agree to religious and civill ••tions cannot be severed, from religious worship, without di•inishing of the sanctity and dignity of it. What can the •ej. gather from hence, but that these circumstances •re not worship, being only so required to religious •ctions as they are to civill: If his argument be this: they •re not properly worship, therfore worship, it is ridicu•ous: If it be thus framed; they are commaunded in ge•erall, therfore in their generall nature, & in respect of •heir utmost end, they must be vouchsafed, the title of •ivine worship: He may as well conclude, that the office •nd act of a Iustice of peace, or Constable, nay a Hangman, must be vouchsafed the same title of divine worship, for these are commaunded in generall, and their utmost •nd ought to be the honouring of God, and sometime

Page  144

they may have reference to some thing done in the worship of God: In the last place ther is a memorand•• added, that the same humaine Cere. which is a worship in regard of manner, may also be worship in respect o• a meane, but not of, and by it self. This is as much to say That the last distinction betwixt meanes and manne• is not distinct, and that a humaine Ceremony canno• be grounded on Gods speciall commaund, the late• whereof no man ever doubt of, and the former, I do• easely assent unto.

 

SECT. 2. Concerning the ex•mplyfying of the former distinction of worship by instances, and confirming of it by witnesses in the same treat: Cap. 4.

HAnna served God in fasting and prayer, Luc. 2.3• Fasting here was worship, saith Dr. B. in som• sense, or else S. Luke was deceaved. Whatsoever becommeth of this consequence, the example fitteth not our Ceremo. for though D. B. hath often exhorted his Auditors to worship God in fasting & praying, in the same phrase, yet (I dare say) he never exhorted them, or any ministers to whom he hath preached amongst others, to serve God in Surplice and Prayer in crossing and baptizing, how much soever he favoureth these Ceremonies: The strange bleating such a phrase carieth with it, would have amazed his people, and affrighted the ministers, and discredited his ministery: by

Page  145

this alone it appeareth, that the example of fasting is abused, when it is paraleled, with crosse and surplice: 2. The consequence is all too peremptorily followed, or else St. Luke was deceaved: I should rather think, that D.B. may be deceaved in his interpretation of St, Luke: The phrase which St. Luke useth, doeth no more urge us, to make fasting worship in any sense, then St. Paul his phrase Eph 6. Watching unto all supplication with perseverance, doth constreyne us to make perseverance, or watching a worship, distinct from supplication: Or then, the same Pauls phrase Acts 20.19. serving the Lord with many teares and temptations, doe make temptations a speciall kynd of worship. 3. Fasting may be called worship by a trope, as being a speciall adjunct of some extraordinary worship, and yet not be a speciall kynd of immediate reductive worship, or any other kynd. 4. The truth is that fasting, is such a help to extraordinary humiliation, as moderate fasting, is to extraordinary thanksgiving, and therfore is no more worship, then Christian fasting: And to this purpose do our divines answer, concerning this place, which is ordinarily objected by every Papist, as here by the Rej. See Chemnitius upon these words: See Polanus, Syntag. lib. 9. cap. 8. Fasting is a help to prayer,*a signe of humility and repentance, but is not a worship of God. 5. Fasting such as Annas was, is not a humaine institution, as our ceremonies are, but partly naturall, when the whole man is taken up with greater, and more instant imployment, exclusive of all ordinary refreshments: and partly of Divine application, in extraordinary humiliation, so

Page  146

that it hath ground and example both in the O. & N.T. which our Ceremonies are destitute of.

 

  1. Mr. Cartwright (many degrees and ages distant from S. Luke) is brought in next, acknowledging circumstantiall worship, only allowed in the particular, though commaunded in his kynd in the second commaund: Now I have at hand, only that edition of Mr. C. his Catechisme, which was printed Anno 1611. and therin I fynd no such thing, upon occasion I will seek for the other edition: In the meane tyme I fynd there, that all will worship, how great a show soever it makes, is condemned and images (in speciall in Gods service even as lay-mens books) which the defendant defende, thand the Rej. rejoyneth for. 2. Suppose he graunt a circumstantiall worship, what is that to worship invented by man: There is no doubt, but some parts of Gods worship, by himself instituted are comparatively circumstantiall, but what is that to mans invention. 3. There is a mighty distance, betwixt the generall of kneeling at prayer, & such like gestures, intended by Mr. C. (if he name circumstantiall worship,) and the generall of Crosse and Surplice, as there is betwixt the generall of this and that father, and the generall of all entia and things, that have being: This testimony therfore maketh nothing to the purpose.

 

The third witnesse is, Chamyer, Tom. 5. l. 20.4.5 affirming that arbitrary vowes are worship of God not per se, of themselves, but by accident, and for some other thing,

Page  147

where to omitt the translation of per se, of themselves, which should have beene by themselves betwixt which ther is a great difference, (as betwixt a body living of the soule, and by it self.) Chamyer in that very place, if his whole sentence be expressed (which neglect, if it had beene the Replyers, we should have heard outcryes, proclamations and invective accusations enough) I say •his whole sentence is contrary to the Rej.: His words in summe are these: To vow,*and to performe are elicited acts of religion, because by themselves and properly they appertaine to religion, but the actions that are vowed, are imperated by religion, and belong unto worship, not properly, but by accident, those formally, these materially. He doth not speake of vowes, in that part which the Rej. quoteth, but of things vowed, nor doth he acknowledge these worship, otherwise then the matter of an action, is an action: It were not farr from his meaning, if one should say, this bakers bread, and that vynters wyne, is a Sacrament materialiter and per accidens. Lastly he doth not speake of any worship elicitus per accidens, such as immediate Ceremoniall worship is, but only imperatus ordered and directed, such as service to ones father or freind may be, and is not this then a worshipfull testimony for Ceremonies, invented by man and made formall, immediate reductive worship.

 

Iunius in the fourth place is brought in, testifying, that the humaine feasts of the Nativity, and Easter, are not worship properly, but it may be figuratively: And what is that, I wonder, to immediate reductive worship of humaine invention: Worship figuratively so called, is any matter,

Page  148

instrument, subject, adjunct, effect or even similitude of worship: Are all such things immediate reductive worship? Iust as bread, pottage, wyne, oyle, or meat, having touched the skirt of a holy garment are holy, Hag. 2.12. Thus the words and wildernesses where Christians meet, may be called worship figuratively or by a figure, the place being putt for the thing done in the place: thus the ringing of the Bell, before the Sermon, may be called worship figuratively, because it is a signe civill to give notice that such a service will be: And hence it is that Iunius doth in the same place affirme, that such observations are only contingent accidents, or adjuncts to worship. The same Iunius doth explaine his owne meaning controv. 5. lib. 2. c. 16. n. 18. warning us to distinguish betwixt actions of worship,*and such which are done in order unto worship, adding moreover this: Actions of worship, what ever are not commaunded of God are forbidden, for as touching such, nothing can be detracted, added, altered: and in Levit. 9. No right way of disposing Gods servants to his worship, can be invented by man, but that, which God him¦self hath prescribed.

 

Polanus is next, who (saith the Rej.) in his syntagme defineth true worship of God to be the performance of what he hath commaunded in obedience to him, to his honour, yet in his partitions pag. 128. he sayth, that an ecclesiasticall rite or Cerem. is outward worship of God, not forgetting or crossing himself, but taking the name of worship in one place properly, and in the other improperly, or reductively. Where it is to be noted, that Polanus sayth nothing of improper, reductive worship, but those termes are putt into his

Page  149

  • outh, or thrust into he speech by the Rejoyner. 2. Po••nus writt his partitions, when he was a young man, 〈◊〉 divine, but his Syntagme was his last work: If ••erfore any crossing was found in these two wri••ngs, his Syntagme was to be taken, as his more mature ••dgment, and preferred as his last will and testament. 〈◊〉. In this his Syntagme lib. 8. c. 1. he hath not onely 〈◊〉 definition of worship, contrary to the Rej. his tenet, 〈◊〉 many other Items:*It belongs to the substance of a good •ork, that it be commaunded of God, and therfore its requi•e, that the worship of God, and every thing appertaining ••erunto be commaunded: Actions indifferent, are not the •orship of God &c. 4. In the place quoted out of his par•ons: That an ecclesiasticall rite is outward worship, he •oth not crosse himself, for what he there meaneth by 〈◊〉 ecclesiasticall rite, he sheweth in the specialls, which 〈◊〉 after setteth downe, as sacrifices &c. though he mingeth some humaine feasts, with the ordinances of God •or his method sake, never intending to make such ce•emon. as ours lawfull worship, and therfore opposeth •is ecclesiasticall rites to those duties, that are perfor•ed only by speech: as Invocation, confession, thanks•iving.

 

  1. Fenner (saith the Rej.) maketh bowing the knee or •ead, lifting up the hands, or eyes, to the parts of externall •orship: But what consequence is there from naturall gestures, to cerem. instituted by man? From actions par•icularly commended unto us in Gods word, as outward worship, to such as their patrons can fynd no al•owance for, but in a remote transcēdent racked Genus?

 

Page  150

Tylenus (a man, that Dr. B. should rather have written against, for his errors, then alledged against other• for his authority) is in the seventh place brought in saying; that a vow of a thing not commaunded, is worshi• only by accident, Syntag. par. 1. dis. 42. th. 17. Yet 1. 〈◊〉doth not say,*it is worship, but that it cannot be called worshi• but by accident. 2. He giveth this limitation, so farr as 〈◊〉 may, some way be referred to worship, as an arbitrary, con¦tingent, indifferent meane. Such as in prayer the choosin• of the word, forgivenesse, rather then pardon, is in th• petition of remission of synnes. 3. The worship 〈◊〉 speaketh of, is not immediate in his opinion, as appe•¦reth disp. 40. th. 16. as it is in the Rej. his divisions: Na• Tylenus is so wise, as to say, that the most proper an• immediate acts of religion, do not respect God per se,〈◊〉 and of themselves, Ibid. th. 18. is it any wonder then, 〈◊〉 graunteth a worship, not in, and of it self, but by acc•¦dent only.

 

Bucanus is the eight witnes, and yet nothing out of hi• is brought, but that ecclesiasticall rites, are not worship 〈◊〉 themselves, and as a work done. Did any of us ever affirme• they were such worship? May be the Rej. would gathe• from thence, that ther is a worship, which is not of i•¦self, and as a work done such, which (though it canno• be gathered from that phrase, with better reason, the• if from this, that fayth (doeth not justifye of it self, an• as a work done, he should conclude, that some grac• ther is, which justifyeth of it self, and as a work done yet we may well graunt of false worship: But see how unhappy the Rej. is in his wrested allegations. Bucan••

Page  151

〈◊〉 the place quoted Loc. 43. q. 20. give•h 1. this caveat: 〈◊〉 lawes appointed for order, and comlines sake only,*are 〈◊〉 of divine w•rship: 2. It should be provided, that in 〈◊〉 of a grave, seemely, and profitable order, those things be 〈◊〉 instituted, which are unprofitable, foolish, ridiculous stage•y like: And of this sort are those, which the Papists com••und, concerning the difference of dayes, and garments:〈◊〉 the same Bucanus Loc. 33. q. 15. In things appertai•••g to worship, we must attend for direction only unto the 〈◊〉 of God, and not to humaine traditions: No observance 〈◊〉 to rites, whereof some are foppish, vayne, and light, 〈◊〉 either in regard of themselves or some other thing su•••stitious, amongst which he reckoneth, the ma•ing of the 〈◊〉, holy-water, the consecration of altars, and magistrall •••erminations. And that lawfull rites of order, are to be ••served, not in regard of themselves, but by the law of cha•••y: where he plainly sheweth, that per se is not alwayes 〈◊〉 to relation ad aliud, as the Rej. understands 〈◊〉. The same Buc. also, Lo. 47. qu. 65. giveth this rule: 〈◊〉humaine ceremonies ought to be used, but those which are •••ointed, and commaunded by the authority of the sonne of〈◊〉.

 

The last witnesse is Melanchton, who fayth in one place: 〈◊〉man may not institute any worship of God, i.e. works ••ich God so alloweth, that he holdeth himself to be honored them of themselves, or whose immediate end is, that God 〈◊〉 be honored by them: As if we did hold the contrary, 〈◊〉 is not this testimony wisely alledged, that all men 〈◊〉 his opposites may graunt, and the graunt of it, nei••er hurts them, or helps him: Nay take away that

Page  152

clause, Gods allowance and holding himself honored, which no humaine institution can inferr) we say that our Cerem. are such, for it is as an immediate end, of all misticall teaching rites, to honor God, by them and in them as of the word, so farr as it preacheth the same vertues that Ceremon. do teach: And so much is taught by th• Rej. in these very dictats, when he reduceth these reductive ceremonies, under the head of immediate worship, for nothing can be immediate worship, whose im¦mediate end is not, that God may be honored by th• performance of it. The same appeareth out of th•• which the Rej. pag. 313. affirmeth, viz. that the prope• end of preaching is aedification of men, if that be joy¦ned, which he every where teacheth, that the prope• end of significant Cerem. is aedification: Of such Cere•▪ therfore may well understand. Melanchton, not only i• this place alledged,* but also Tom. 2. p. 142. The wor• understands not, how great a synne it is to forge worship wit• out Gods commaund: And P. 107. Idolatrous worships o• all they, which are appointed without the commaund of G•• Here is no distinction betwixt worship of it self, or b• it self and by accident reductively &c. The Rej. his test•¦monies being such as have beene declared, there canno• be much force in his examples, if they be agreeable t• his rules, wherof he hath brought such crosse witness• The first example is, of free will offerings,*when a man 〈◊〉 left at liberty to offer a bullock, a goat, or sheepe at his pleasur• where the particular was not commaunded, but only allowe• though the manner was prescribed: Concerning which answer 1. that there were no oblations left wholly 〈◊〉

Page  153

the pleasure of men, for though the particulars were not, nor could not be determined by a distinct rule in generall, yet they were determined by the circumstances, as our Divines are wont to answer the Papists, about their vowes, counsells, superarrogations,*Not by a generall law, but by concurrence of circumstances. So Deut. 16.10. Moses sheweth that the freest offerings were to be according as God had blessed them, from whence it followeth, it had beene synne for any Israelite, whom God had plentifully blessed, to offer a payre of pigeons in stead of a bullock, or two, upon his owne meere pleasure: 2. where that proportion was observed the choice of a goat, before a sheep, or a sheepe before a goat, was no formall worship: 3. That it had beene unlawfull for the Preists out of their pleasure, to institute any such determinate free offering, either ordinarily to be observed, or upon occasion of a mans forwardnesse to such a duety, i.e. that every free offering should be a goat, or at the least, that a goat should be one part of it, which is the presumption of our Prelats, about the reductive worship of the crosse. 4. It was not left to any mans pleasure, for to appoint an offering not appointed of God, in the speciall or least kynd, but onely to choose among those, which God had instituted, that which did best agree, with his condition and occasion, as it is also now of psalmes, prayers, doctrines, interpretations, exhortations, let every man offer, according as God hath furnished him: But from hence to inferr the free choise of offering now to God, a crosse, surplice, holy water, images, this is, as if one should then have concluded

Page  154

from that freedome, the free offering of certaine butterflyes, or such like pretty, odd, vermyn not prescribed in the law, nor by name forbidden.

 

The second example is taken from Salomons worship, at the dedication of the temple, 1. Kings 8.2. 2. Chron. 6. and 7. which he thus conformeth to his notions: The number of Bullocks and Sheepe, were worship in respect of the end and allowance only, the Cere. of prayer, kneeling upon a Scaffold, & stretching out of hands, were worship reductive ad modum in genere suo, having respect to the manner in the generall kynd thereof: The burning of Sacrifices in the floore of the Court, was only lawfull before the brasen altar was consecrated, and upon the present necessity: But 1. in the number of Bullocks and Sheepe, ther was not a different worship, but a different degree of the same worship, as a longer prayer or sermon is not another worship then a shorter, but another degree of extension in the same worship, Surely to pray and prayse God twice, thrice or seven tymes in a day, are no different worships, one frō another, but onely more or lesse exercise of the same worship. 2. Kneeling & stretching out the hands, were not worship in respect to a generall manner, but speciall externall worship, as being naturall, immediate expressions of the inward: As for the scaffold that Salomon kneeled on, that was no more worship, then the asse was upon which our Saviour did ride. Lastly, seing none of these things carying the nature of worship, were instituted ordinary observances, neither might the Preists in any convocation, have made such, these examples are nothing like ours in quaestion.

 

Page  155

The other examples of Ioshuas monitory stone, Ios. 24 26. •sas oath, 2. Chron. 15.14. Nehemiahs subscription, Neh. 9. ••lomons 14. dayes solemnity, 1. Kings 8. Ezekias designing 7. dayes, 2. Cron. 30. Mordicayes Purim, Hest. 9. have little ••ment in them, as the Rej. hath afforded illustration or de••ration by bare naming of them: It may be sufficient to •ny that which is barely affirmed: yet in few words: ••ese for the most of them were actions managed by •ods Spirit, suggested by secret instinct, extracted by ••traordinary and speciall occasions: and therfore (as •r. Iackson Orig. of unbeleef, p. 332. warneth) are then 〈◊〉 lawfull in others, when they are begotten by like ••casions, or brought forth by like impulsions. 2. Ionas stone was, as Dr. Iackson Ibid. pag. 329. judgeth, but •olemne attestation, though somthing extraordinary, ••d indeed was no more worship, then the heavens and •••rth which Moses & Isayah did call to witnesse. 3. Asas •••th, & Nehemiahs subscription, were no more distinct •orship from the covenant, then the words of a simple ••omise are a distinct promise from the meaning of 〈◊〉, subscription and swearing of Canonicall obe••ence in England, were never (that I heare of) excep••d against as Ceremonies of worship, by those which •ondemne them in the substance of them. 4. The ••olonging of worship by Salomon and Ezekias was ••ch a distinct worship, as Pauls continuing his exercise •f religion to mydnight, Acts 20. Mordecah his Purim •ave their proper place in the dispute: Out of all these •ules, testimonies, examples, nothing followeth in fa•our fof our Ceremon. because no sound rule, just testimony,

Page  156

or allowed example, is brought for any Cerem▪ of Mysticall signification by man instituted, and brough• into the solemne ordinary worship of God, for the 〈◊〉 of teaching: which maketh the Rej. his full perswasio• which he protesteth, suspected, and his triumphing rid•¦culous to those that well attend to these his grounds.

 

Yet the Rej. hath a double conclusion looking th• way, 1. That this will shew in what sense we may 〈◊〉 our Ceremonies worship, and yet denye them to 〈◊〉 worship, that is in such a non-sense as is usually foun• in contradicting shifts: The 2. to show the difference betwixt us and the Papists, which is here showed very breifly, but hath beene handled, and answered at large before, and thither therefore we referr the Reader.

 

FINIS.

 

A TABLE OF THE FIRST CHAPTER, OF THE NEGATIVE ARGVment from Scripture.

Section 1. and 2.

COncerning some accusations charged upon the Replier, about this argument. Pag. 1.

Section 3.4.5.

Concerning the faithfulnesse of Christ and Moses. Heb. 3.2. P. 4.

Section 6. and 7.

Of Davids purpose to build a Temple. 2. Sam. 7. 1. Chron. 17. P. 19.

Section 12.

Concerning that phraze. Iere. 7.31. You do that which I commanded not. P. 23.

 

Section 13.14.

Concerning the Ancient Fathers arguing negatively from Scripture. P. 29.

Section 15.

Concerning Protestants arguing negatively from Scripture. P. 34.

Concerning Rules for Ceremonies. P. 47.

Section 16.

Concerning Order and Decentie. P. 51.

Concerning an argument against our Ceremonies, out of 1. Cor. 14. P. 56.

Section 17.

Concerning the Ancient Fathers allowing Human Ceremonies. P. 81.

Section 18.19.

Concerning Protestants witnessing against the negative argument from Scripture. P. 87.

Section 20.21.

Concerning Reasons against the Negative Argument from Scripture. P. 99.

Section 22.

Concerning the Assumption of the maine Argument handled in this Chapter. P. 107.

 

A TABLE OF THE SECOND CHAPTER, Concerning Worship.

Section 1.

OF Worship distinguished into proper or Essential, and unproper or Accidental. P. 110.

Section 2.

Concerning adding to Gods Worship. P. 115.

Section 6.

Concerning our Divines judgement about Ceremonious Worship invented by man. P. 125.

Section 7.

Concerning Vrsines and Zanchies judgement, about Will-worship. P. 149.

Section 8.9.

Concerning Mr. Bradshaws Argument to prove our Ceremonies imposed as parts of Gods worship. P. 158.

Section 10.11.12.13.14.

Concerning some reliques of Arguments fathered upon Mr. Hy. and others. P. 178.

 

A TABLE OF THE THIRD CHAPTER, About the significant nature of our Ceremonies.

Section 1. and 2▪

COncerning certein Miscelaneal notions and testimonies against human religious significant Ceremonies. P. 209

Section 3.

Concerning Augustin. P. 222.

Section 4.

The Iudgement of Protestant Divines concerning significant Ceremonies. P. 230.

Section 5.

Concerning the wrong don to Gods Sacraments by human significant Ceremonies. P. 253.

Section 6.

Concerning Iewish Ceremonies.

  1. 266.

A Letter of D. Humphrey to the Bishops.

  1. 269.

Concerning Circumcision.

  1. 274.

 

Section 7.

Concerning Images.

  1. 283.

Concerning Oyle, Light, Spittle, Creame, and H. Water.

  1. 291.

Concerning the 2. Commandement.

  1. 296.

Section 8.

Concerning the Oath-gesture of Abrahams Servant. P. 304.

Section 10.

Concerning Suarez the Iesuit his stating the Controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists. P. 309.

Section 11.

Concerning the Feast of Purim. P. 315.

Section 12.

Concerning the Feast of Dedication. Ioh. 10.22.23. P. 318.

Section 15.16.

Concerning the Altar of Iordan. P. 322.

Section 17.18.19.20.21.

Concerning the Brazen Altar built by Solomon. 1. King. 8.64. P. 328.

 

Section 22.

Concerning Synagogues. P. 332.

Section 27.

Concerning the Kisse of Charity. P. 340.

Section 28.

Concerning Womens vailes. P. 345.

Section 29.

Concerning the Ancient Custom of Significant Ceremonies among Christians. P. 350.

Section 31.

Concerning swearing upon a booke. P. 357.

Section 32.

Concerning the Lords-daye, Temples, and Ceremonial Festivals. P. 358.

 

A TABLE OF THE FOVRTH CHAPTER, Concerning Idolatrous Ceremonies.

Section 1.

ABout the forming of this Argument, and the generall Answer given therto. P. 366.

Section 2.

Concerning the second Commandement, and Scriptures belonging to it; as Lev. 18.3. &c. P. 369.

Section 3.

Concerning Pillars, Lev. 26.1. and the name Baal, Hos. 2.16.17. P. 379.

Section 4.

Concerning the aequitie of the Commandements formerly mentioned; and Calvins judgement about it. P. 384.

Section 5.

Concerning Daniels abstinence, Dan. 1.8. P. 393.

Section 6.

Concerning Hezekias his breaking down the Brazen Serpent.

  1. 394.

 

A piece of a comparison, betwixt the Primitive, and the praesent English Churche.

  1. 402.

In Organical Musick.

  1. 404.

Chancelours, Commissaries, &c.

  1. 406.

Pompous Bishops.

  1. 408.

Calling of Ministers.

  1. 411.

Ministers going to Law for their places.

  1. 415.

Pluralists, Non-residents, and Dumbe Ministers.

  1. 416.

Simonie.

  1. 418.

Profane Contemners of Religion, members of the Church.

  1. 420.

Spirituall Courts.

  1. 420.

Taking of monie, for Ordination, Citations, Absolutions, and change of Paenance.

  1. 422.

Section 7.8. &c. and 20.

Concerning Councels, and Ancient Writers.

  1. 423.

With a Digression, about the difference of our differing from the Papists, in

Surplice,

  1. 426.

Crossing.

  1. 427.

Kneeling.

  1. 428.

 

Concerning Protestant Divines.

  1. 453.

Section 21.

Concerning the Assumption; namely, that our Ceremonies are human, unnecessarie and Idolatrous. P. 475.

Section 22.

Concerning the Crosse, Popish, and English. P. 489.

Section 23.

Concerning Scripture proof for the lawfulnesse of human Ceremonies Idolatrously abused. P. 491.

Section 24.

Proofs of the same, out of Ancient Fathers.

  1. 499.

Where answer is given to B. Iuels Allegations for the antiquitie of distinct Ministerial garments.

  1. 503.

Section 25.26.27.28.

Concerning D. Mortons reasons for human Ceremonies Idolatrously abused. Where comparison is made, betwixt Popish and Pagan Idolatrie: And something is sayd of D. Burges his intemperate accusations. P. 511.

Section 29.30.

Concerning our Confessions and Practises, making for such Ceremonies.

  1. 524.

A Postscript.

  1. •29.

FINIS.

 

Faults escaped: thus to be corrected:

 

Pag. 11. l. 5. for answer that, r. answer, saith that. p. 25. l. 2. for adventious, r. adventitious. p. 55. l. 4. for Esius, r. Estius, p. 58. l. 12. r. wherein it differeth. p. 62. l. 12. r. all that the Rejoynder. ibid. l. 30. r. Constitutions. p. 75. l. 23. for unto, r. the. p. 98. l. 7. for but of Gods word, r. out of Gods word. p. 108. l. 1. r. heere is said. p. 112. l. 1. for as blacke, r as a blacke. p. 118. l. 4. for pretented, r pretended. p. 126. l. 14. for that is, r. that it is. p. 106. l. 20. for which is not, r. which is not so. p. 129. l. 17. for may, r. way. p. 143. l. 4. for simple, r. simply. p. 143. l. 29. for a, r. u. p. 172. l. 5. for as that. r. but that. p. 186. l. 18. for hir, r. the. p. 193. l. 2. for many of godly, r. many godly. p. 210. l. 16. r. how little soever. p. 214. l. 26. r. representations. p. 215. l. 9. r. attention. p. 224. l. 20. r. never heard of. ibid. l. 23. r. are in Augustines phraze. p. 225. l. 24. r. Idol. p. 227. l. 11. r. Church yards. l. 26. r. Novalists. p. 231. l. 7. for he that with, r. he that weigheth. p 238. l. 28. r. oxen. p. 240. l. 1. for how, r. what. p. 259. l, 27. r. gibbets. p. 268. l. 3. for a more, r. more. l. 4. for of, r. for. p. 269. l. 20 for peached, r. preached. p. 271, l. 12. for devised singularily, r. devised out of singularity. l 22. r. fall together by the eares. p. 272. l. 1. r. Canem twice. p. 285. l. 29. for they are in our, r. they are in this our. p. 325. l. 23. for and, r. had. p. 360 l. 4. for those that, r. not those that. p. 362. l. 20. for Aod, r. And p. 368. l. 24. for significent, r. sufficient, p. 371. l. 2•. for makeng, r. make. p. 374. l. 14. for falimear, r. familiar. p. 417. l. 11. for clouse, r. close. p. 227. l 7. for linnē pontificall, r. linne is but a more ponteficall ibid. l. 8. for and many times, r. are many times. p. 452. l. 26. r. imposers. p. 456. l. 20. for hold, r. held. p. 479. l. 13. for cliving, r. cleaving p. 518. l. 22. r. diameterly, for diademiterly. p. 521. l. 1. for crackt, r. crack. l 25. for forbidden▪ r. forbad.

 

 

 

Page  1

THE DYSPVTE about HVMANE CEREMONIES.

 

CHAP. I. Of the negative argument from Scripture,

 

SECT. 2.

MY purpose is not, to insist upon words, & circumstantiall exceptions, as being of litle moment, but onely to discusse the materiall poynts that I meet with, in their order. Yet because the Rej. commeth on in the beginning, with suche a heat, if the Repl. had marvelously offended, almost in every word; I will take his first accusations (though not •uche materiall) into due consideration.

 

  1. The Repl. made onely mention of the all-suffi••encie, or perfect fulnesse of the Scriptures. Heerat the Rej. •raesently complaineth of abuse, misreporting, and ma••ng a false shew: as if (sayth hee) wee denied the perfect ••lnesse of the Scripture etc. Now 1. the Repl. sayd no

Page  2

suche thing, but the contrarie rather, when he observe that the same was granted by the Def. as it was r•qui¦red by those he writ against. 2. If he had sayd that th• Def. and Rej. also doe denie the perfect fulnes of Scrip¦ture, in regard of Ceremoniall worship, he had sayd• more then trueth, for they teache, that some such worship is lawfull and good, which is not taught 〈◊〉 Scripture, that many teaching Ceremonies, which Go• never instituted, may by man be instituted and brough• into worship, images themselves not excepted, that ad¦ditions to Gods word (so they be not contrarie) m•• and ought to be made.) The summe of their doctrin• in this point, is that which Mr. Hooker setteth down p. 125. Mucke the Churche of God shall alway: need, which 〈◊〉 Scrip•ure teacheth not.

 

Neyther doeth it help, which the Rej. addeth, 〈◊〉Scripture is as perfest in giving generall rules, as it should b• in setting downe of all particular instances. For 1. this 〈◊〉 not generally true, because generall rules make only th• proposition tending to particulars, and the assumtion 〈◊〉 left undetermined, they therfore doe not so fully an• perfectly inferre the particulars, as if they were s•• downe.

 

Generall rules are given in the new Testament, fo• civill policie or governement of Common wealth: ye• no man (I think) will say that civill policie is so full• and perfectly taught in the new Testament as it was 〈◊〉 the olde, or as religious worship is now in the new.

 

The rule for cleane beasts (sayth the Rej.) that they be suc• as chewe the cudde, and divide the hoof, was as perfect, as 〈◊〉

 

suche beasts had been named. True, but here no de••rmination of the assumtion was necessarie, but suche the beasts themselves did make to every man that was •ot blinde, without any institution of man. It was as •ow it is in bread & wine for the Lords Supper, which •e appointed in generall, without naming of wheat, 〈◊〉, mislen bread, or Frenche, Spannish, Rhenish, Itali••, Greek wine: but crosse and surplice (I hope) are •ot so in generall appointed. The generall rules which 〈◊〉 Rej. groundeth our Ceremonies upon, are: let all ••ings be done to edification, with order, and decencie. Now these rules are suche (sayth Mr. Hooker p. 95.) as stand light of reason, and nature to be observed, though the Scrip••re had never mentioned them. So that in them ther is no ••che perfection of Scripture, for particulars, as if the ••rticulars had been named. 2. betwixt these generalls ••d suche particulars in quaestion, there must come a •umane institution, suche as (to make the example •gree) if it had been praescribed in the olde Test. onely •ith cleane beasts should be used in sacrifice, and left to ••e Priests for to determine, what kinde of beasts should 〈◊〉, or holden to be clean.

 

  1. An untruth is charged upon the Replier, in that 〈◊〉 sayd, nothing was denied by the Def. in the 2. section.

 

Now let any man read, over the section, and he shall •inde nothing denied. His answers ar these: wee due ac•ept of your distinction; onely the second member must be ex•ended to generall rules, permissions, commō aequitie, you must •nd unto this distinction; which when you doe not, you con•ute your selves. Is here any thing denied. Yea (sayth

Page  4

the Rej. the Major is denied: because it is shewed that somthing is warranted which is not praescribed. The major is: Scripture condemneth) that which is doen eyther against, or without warrant of the word of God, especially in matters of Gods service. Let any man of common reason and indifferencie, judge, whether this be contradicted, by that, something is warranted which is not praescribed.

 

  1. The Replier is taunted with I know not what fault, for saying here, that, distinction to be granted, which after he denieth to be the non-Conformists. As if in dispute, it were not usuall for one partie to observe what the adversarie doeth grant himself, though hee himself doeth not owne it. The Rej. might have spared all these words of this section, but that he affected to say muche upon litle or no occasion, that his answer might seem abundantly complete.

 

SECT. 3.4.5. Concerning the faithfulnesse of Christ and Moses. Heb. 3.2.

  1. The Repl. once for all noteth, that the Def. his distributing of our confirmations, from Scriptures, fathers, and Protestant Divines, as if they were like in the intended confirmations, wheras the later are onely used by occasiō of perverse praejudice in our adversaries who require suche thinges, and also in constant stiling the fathers testimonies, judgements, and others confessions, the

Page  5

Repl. I say noteth onely that this is some wronge, except it be onely idle Rhetorick. For this, the Rej. flieth in his face, saying he noteth himself an egregious wrangler, his notes are notorious Cavills, and wrangles, and shews what spirit he is of. I will not say this shewe•h what spirit D. B. is of: for I doubt not but his spirit is better then here is shewed. Yet this sheweth what spirit he took upon him with the person of a Rejoiner.

 

Is it so great a fault to suspect the Def. of some wrong-doeing, or of using Rhetoricke, without any moment, in variation of phrases? To doe some wronge unto an adversarie in propounding his allegations after another manner than he meant, is so ordinarie, that the suspicion of it, and that with exception, cannot be accounted so heynous a crime as those toothed termes import. Praejudice is as common fault, and all praejudice is some way perverse. The Rej. after p. 461. accuseth all those of aversenesse, by distraction, stupiditie or praejudice, which doe not feel that organiall musicke worke muche upon their affections (in and to Gods worship) though he knoweth as good mē as our adversaries denie it. Yet he would not have us, nor will wee, from thence gather, what spirit he is of. Rhetoricke is no more an ill word, then Grammar, or Logick. Idle is nothing but without use: and so the Rej. himself confesseth the Def. his variations to be, in making judgements and confessions all one. Neyther could he finde what to say against the former suspicion, without fayning a new objection, which the Repl. maketh not, of aequalling Divine and humane authoritie. The onely fault was, that such

Page  6

things which might be well spoken to another, were spoken to a Bishop.

 

  1. Concerning Heb. 3.2. (to omitte altercations about what was sayd or not sayd by the Def. and take what the Rej. will have sayd, or sayth himself.)

 

The Rej. sayth that a distinction is made, of Ceremonies whereof some are substantiall Divine, and Doctrinalls, and have particular determination in Scripture, some are not substantiall, called, Rituals, and mere Ceremonie•: the former have particular determination in Scripture, but not the later. Now (to let passe, that this distinction concerneth not •he proposition which formerly was sayd to be denied because there is no mention in it of any terme here distinguished) let any man of reason consider the sense of this distinction: Ceremonies are eyther substantiall, Divine, Doctrinall, that is, suche as have particular determination in the worde, or else not substantiall, that is, suche as have no particular determination in the word; the former have particular determination in the word; but the later have not. Which is as muche as to say; those Ceremonies which have no particular determination in the worde, have no particular determination in the word. This explication cannot be excepted against, except Divine and Doctrinall Ceremonies be not all one, with Ceremonies determined by doctrine Divine, which neyther the Defen. or Rejoynder or any considerate man for them, will denie. The Rejoynder himself for instance of substantiall, Divine, Doctrinall Cerem: putteth al those of Moses,

Page  7

lawe, many of which were no way suche, but onely in that they were par•icularly appointed of God. And to put the matter out of a•l doubt, the Rejoynder p. 60. telleth us plainly: that the Def. useth, and all of his side doe use in this quaestion, the terme Doctrinall passively, for a thinge taught in the word.

 

  1. For defence yet of this distinction of Ceremonies into dogmaticall, and Rituall, or meer Ceremoniall (though he confesse it is not formall) the Rejoynder nameth all our Divines, but citeth onely D.A. as distinguishing betwixt Doctrinall and Ceremoniall points of religion. Whiche, if it be so, what make•h this for distinction of Ceremonìes, into Dogmaticall and Rituall, or meerly Ceremoniall? But let us view the places cited. The first is in Bel. Ener: tom. 1. pag. 66. Where it is sayd, that for the most part, the fathers by traditions, meane rites and Ceremonies, receyved without Scripture, concerning which, wee dispute not, and they were too l•berall, though when they judge out of Scripture, they plainly condemne unwitten traditions. What is here, that can help, the Rej.

 

The fathers spake of Ceremonies, which neyther Scripture, nor themselves, judging out of Scripture, did allow of: of them the quaestion was not in that place, though in other places it is handled by the same author, in the same book, as De Pontifice, De Sacraementis, De cultu Sanctorum:

 

Ergo the distinction of Ceremonies into, Dogmaticall and Ritual or mere Ceremoniall, is allowed.

 

Page  6

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  7

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  8

The second place is in the 71. pag. of the same booke: the Apostles elsewhere have written nothing in the dogmatical kinde, which Paul had not preached to the Galatians. Where Dogmaticall is opposed to Prophetical• praedictions, suche as S. Ihon in the Revelation taught, as Bel. there alledgeth. And not to any thing, not particularly conteyned in Scripture, Ergo (sayth the Rej.) the distinction of Ceremonies into Dogmaticall particularly contayned in Scripture, and Rituall, not so conteyned, is allowed as good. The consequence is a baculo ad angulum.

 

  1. The Repl. sayd that Ceremoniall is sometime opposed to morall, and sometime to Substantiall, but not to Doctrinall. Heerupon the Rej. concludeth, that therfore, the distinction of Doctrinall and Ceremoniall Ceremonies may be allowed, because (forsooth) as there be some morall Ceremonies, viz. all those which are appointed of God, and some other, so there bee some Ceremoniall doctrines, or doctrinall Ceremonies, and some other.

 

Where 1. the consequence is suche as the former: Sometime Ceremoniall is opposed to morall, and substantiall: ergo some Ceremonies are doctrinall, and some onely Ceremoniall. 2. What a miscarying is ther in that assertion, all Ceremonies appointed of God are morall? Was there then no difference betwixt the morall and Ceremoniall law of God. 3. Ther neyther bee, nor can be suche significant teaching Ceremonies, as ours in q••estion, and not be Ceremoniall teachings, or tea••ing Ceremonies: which is all one with Ceremoniall •o•trines, or doctrinall Ceremonies.

 

Page  9

  1. The Hierarchie (being quaestioned to whiche of these heads it belongeth) is referred by the Rejoynder to both in severall respects. So then, the distinction is not reall, but rationall onely, in respects.

 

I see not why all lawfull rites ordeyned by men, may not as well be referred to both. Neyther doe I thinke our Hierarchie would take it well if they should be called Ceremoniall Prelates: and Doctrinall for the greatest part they are not found to be actively, nor can so be proved passively, so farr, as they differ from those ministers many of whom they will not suffer to be Doctrinall, because they cannot be at their pleasure Ceremoniall.

 

  1. Concerning the rest of the third section, all that is rejoyned, dependeth onely upon the terme mereCeremoniall Ceremonies. This terme the Replier did not understand (as it seemeth) according to the Authors meaning; neyther can the Rejoynder interpret it, but with suche sense as was formerly declared. Mere Ceremonies are not onely suche as the Rejoynder p. 33. called single Ceremonies, for in the same place, he maketh significant rites, having relation to a further worship, suche as ours are, double, or triple Ceremonies. So that this mere Ceremonie can be nothing else, but a Ceremonie which God hath not instituted for his worship: and so the Def. and Rejoynder mainteyne here onely this assertion: those Ceremonies which God hath not instituted, are not instituted by God. Whiche is so evidently true, that it cannot escape the imputation of idlenesse, eyther to dispute for, or against it. Onely this I note,

Page  10

that by this distinction, God cannot appoint a mere Ceremonie in his worship, though man can: for if God appoint any Ceremonie, it is (eo ipso nomine) doctrinall, substantiall, morall. No merveyl therfor if God have not appointed mere Ceremonies, seing he cannot appoynt any suche, but man onely can doe that.

 

  1. Concerning Heb. 3.2. it is further answered sect. 4. that the faithfulnesse of Christ, and Moses was aequall, and alike in reall faithfulnesse, because they both did that which was commanded them of God. But howsoever this be true, yet if it were Gods revealed will, that more immediate meanes of worship should be instituted in the Christian Churche, then Christ hath instituted, who was ordeyned to institute the meanes of worship, and Moses (as is here supposed) instituted all suche meanes of worship in the old Testament, as God would have instituted, it followeth, that the faithfulnesse of Christ, was not so extended to all the necessities of the Churche, as Moses his faithfulnesse was.

 

  1. Concerning faithfulnesse in Rituall ordinances, the Def. mentioned the ordeyning of two essentiall and necessarie Sacraments. Which allegation the Replier esteemed nothing to the purpose. Yes verely (sayth the Rejoynder) it is some thing. It is in deed something, but this something is nothing at all perteyning to mere Rituals. For so the Defend. and Rejoynder both confesse expresly, that these two Sacraments are not mere Rituals.

 

  1. The Def. addeth, that as Moses appointed Ceremonies,

Page  11

so Christ removed them. Whiche explication of Scripture being blamed by the Replier, the Rejoynder answereth 1. That it is not an interpretation of the text, but an answer to an objection from the text. And yet the same Rejoynder in his Summe of the Def. his answer that it is a comparison of the fidelitie of Christ and Moses. And all the text, and objection, from the text, consisteth in this comparison. 2. It is a proper answer sayth the Rejoynder, for if Christ was faithfull in removing Ceremonies, before necessarie, then be neede not praescribe other Ceremonies then simplie necessarie, and so not all mere Ceremonies. Is not this a proper consequence? ther is no connexion at all betwixt the first and second part, the appointed Ceremonies are therfore onely called simplie necessarie, becaus they were appointed by Divine authoritie: and yet of suche it is sayd, that Christ neede not appoynt other, wheras in deed he could not appoynt other; and that he needed not appoynt mere Ceremonies, that is Humane, which if he should have doen, it had implied a contradiction, mere Ceremonies (in the Def. and Rejoynders opinion being suche as are not appointed by authoritie divine. 3. It is added by the Rejoynder that the fidelitie of Christ appe•red in removing those Ceremonies of Moses, and the thing compared is fidelitie. Both whiche are true, but not to the purpose: because the comparison is not in fidelitie abstractly considered, but in fidelitie about the building and furnishing all the howse of God; of whiche, the abolishing of Mosaicall Ceremonies, is no substantiall part.

 

  1. About the Repl: his answer to a place cited

Page  12

out of Calvin the Rejoynder observeth much irreligious way wardnesse, with falshood, and three grosse untruthes, in one short sentence. Whiche it pleased him to note also in the Table of his principall or most observable Contents: the Replier found guiltie of three grosse untruthes together. p. 15. This peal of terrible words make suche a noise in the readers ears, that he cā scarse hear, what may be spoken for the partie accused. But if he will hearken a litle, it shal be made plaine unto him that hastie passion onely (in reasons absence) made all this ratling sound.

 

The first wayward, false, irreligious, and grosse untruth is, that the Def. should have dealt more plainly, if he had cited Bellarmine, and why (trow ye) is it so great a crime, for to say the Def. might have dealt more plainly? because (forsooth) no dealing could be more plaine, then to set downe the very words of Calvin, with the place, where they are to be found. Now be it so, yet it is not so heynous an offence to say some dealing, might be playner then that which is most playne, but as the Secretaries and Proctors of our Prelats cour•s doe in imitation of Criminall inditements (wherin always stand felonious etc.) aggravate every trifling accusation, and citatiō, especially those which concerne a Bishop, as ungodly, irreligious, false etc. so must he that writeth, against any thing praejudiciall to Praelats, secundum stylum Curiae, But the trueth is that any other mans words set down according to his meaning, is more plaine dealing, then to set down Calvins, beside his intention.

 

The second way ward, false, irreligious, and grosse untrueth

Page  13

is, that the same words, whiche the Def. citeth out Calvin, are found in Bellarmine, de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. the contrary wherof, the Rejoynder doeth averre upon his credit. Now here is to be marked, that the Repl. spake not of every word the same, nor understood individuall samenesse, but like onely, and so did the Rejoynder understand him, when he sayth upon my credite ther be no suche words any where in Bellarmin, of suche words is the credit pawned.

 

This being praemised, let these words of Bellarmin in that very place exstant, be well considered.

 

For as muchas the law of the OLD TESTAMENT was given to one people and for a certeine time onely, as till the comming of Christ,*that law might Easily determine all things in Special, as in deed it aid, for in special it praescribed all things &c. But the law of the gospel was given to all the world i.e, to the peoples of Sundrie nations, and was moreover to endure to the end of the world, and therefore this law of the Gospel could not so easily Determin all things in particular as did the other, that no other lawes might be supposed necessarie then what are found in the new Test. Nor is it possible for diverse nations to agree together in the same lawes and rites, and therfore God judged it far better if he delivered in the Gospel the most general and commune lawes, leaving the more speciall things concerning the Sacraments and articles of faith to be ordered by the Apostles and their Successours according as circumstances of time and place should require.

 

Page  14

Let ther also a comparison be made betwixt this, and that translation which the Rejoynder maketh of Calvins wordes.

 

Calvin sayth, that the Lord hath both faithfully comprised, and perspicuously declared necessaries. Bellarmine sayth, that God in the Gospel hath delivered unto us the most common laws, concerning the Sacraments, and Articles of faith. Calvin sayth, that Christ would not praescribe singularly and specially concerning externall discip•ine, and Ceremonies, for that he foresaw these thinges to depend on the occasions and opportunities of times, nor did he thinke one forme to accord with all ages. Bellarminus sayth, that all speciall thinges could not so easily be determined in the Gospel, so as more laws shold not be necessarie: because ther must be diversitie of laws and ritualls, according to the diversitie of Nations and Peoples, places and times. I doubt not but the Rejoynder upon consideration of this collation, will repent him of pawning his credit for no suche words in all Bel. but I esteeme D.B. his credit better, then I will hold it from his person, let onely his Rejoyning credit be hence esteemed.

 

The third wayward, false, irreligious, and grosse untrueth is, that in that place of Calvin, ther is nothing at all, which without grosse aequivocation, will serve the Def. his purpose. If this were not true, yet I see no wool answerable to so great a crie.

 

But let us see what the Rejoynder can finde in Calvines words, for the Def. his purpose. First (sayth the Rejoynder) Calvin differenceth matters meerly rituall, from matters reall, as the Def. doeth. Whiche as the Def. doeth,

Page  15

is not true. For the Def. differenceth Ceremonies into substantiall and meerly Rituall, p: 7. wheras Calvin doeth not difference Ceremonies, nor maketh any mention of mere Ritualls.

 

Take away that as the Def. doeth, and then the Repl. doeth so also.

 

Secondly Calvin (sayth the Def.) sheweth that Christ hath left mere Rituals at the Churches choyse under generall rules onely. Now heare that aequivocation which the •epl. spake of, for by Ceremonies, Calvin understandeth no suche thinge, as the Def. and Rejoynder doeth by mere Ritualls. The Def. and Rej. (as Bellarmine doeth) comprehend under that name Mysticall Ceremonies, which the Rejoynder calleth double or treble Ceremonies: but Calvin meaneth onely single matter of order and Decencie. For this cause it was, that the Repl. sayd, the Def. should have dealt more plainly in citing of Bellarmin, then of Calvin.

 

  1. About Calvins meaning the Rejoynder striveth muche, but cannot draw it to his purpose. 1. He granteth, that Calvin meant not to teache, that men may praescribe at their discretion mysticall signes in the Churche whiche is all that we desire. 2. His meaning is (sayth the Rej) that what Ceremonies the nece•sitie and utilitie of the Churche doe require, may be ordeyned by the Churche. This is expounded in Calvins own words, translated thus by the Rejoynder what soever the necessitie of the Churche shall require for order and decencie; which is the same that the Repl. sayd. 3. Some toleration of some Ceremonies like unto the Iewish, Calvin is sayd to give, sect. 14. But that which he

Page  16

speaketh ther obscurely, he doeth in this 36, sect interpret plainly:

 

*I witnesse that I do onely approove such Humane constitutions which are founded by the authority of God, and taken out of the Scriptures and so altogether divine, let kneeling in Solemne prayer be an Example. 4. Because Calvin was interpreted out of himself, to speak of things necessarie in their kinde, the Rejoynder opposeth, that absteyning from bloud Act. 15. and suche like things are not necessarie in their kinde. I answer yes: because the kinde under which they were found, was absteining from scandall. So Calvin, sect. 22. (which place is alledged also by the Rejoynder for the institution of Ceremonies not necessary in their kinde, because it is there taught, that weak brethen first comming from Poperie, and not yet seing their freedom in some in different things, are not rashly to be offended, by publicke practise of suche thinges) Calvin (I say) answereth in the same place: Who but a calumniator,*Can say that, So a new law was made by them, who onely as appeareth, went about to praevent scandals, expressly enough forbidden of the Lord? Nor can ought more be sayd of the Apostles Act. 15. who intended nothing els by taking away matter of offense then to urge the Divine law for avoyding offense. But Calvin sayth the Def. epist. 379. teacheth that some scandalous thinges must be borne with, And what is this to the allowing men to institute Ceremonies unnecessarie in their kinde, which is the quaestion in hand?

 

  1. The Rejoynder objecteth further, that the particulars, and not generalls are appointed as necessarie.

Page  25

Which is the verie same that the Rep. said, the kinde is allwaies necessarie and the particular doe so varie by circumstances that some time they may be necessarie, and so appointed, sometime not necessarie, and so not to be appointed. 6. When the Rejoynder perceyved that this testimonie of Calvins maketh nothing for significant Ceremonies, he at last denieth the quaestion here to be of significant Ceremonies, but of Ceremonies. He might as well denie the quaestion to be of sacred Ceremonies, or as he calleth them of double Ceremonies, but onely of Ceremonies. And thus is that very ambiguous aequivocation wherwith the Def. was charged, by his Rejoynder, confessed. For what is else but to aequivocate, when all men know the quaestion to be of one kinde of rites onely, to bring an argument which concerne rites in deed, but not of that kinde?

 

  1. After some pretye phrases of the Repl. his running away, looking backe, shewing his teeth angerly, the Rejoynder in answer to a sad argument, that Humane Ceremonies properly of religious nature use and signification, suche as Crosse and Surplice, are not necessarie in any Churche, nor any ways more necessarie for England, then for any other nation; or then holy water and suche other Ceremonies would, In answer (I say) to all this, the Rejoynder repeateth againe his confuse aequivocall terme of Ceremonie, denying the quaestion to be here of Ceremonies properly religious in theyr nature, use, and signi•ication. i. e. suche as Crosse and Sirplice are, as if we, disputed here of an indetermined

Page  18

idaea. And upon this miserable shift, not knowing what to answer unto the demands propounded, (without speaking directly against his conscience and knowen profession) he telleth the reader (both in text, and table) that the Repl. hath plainly abondoned Heb. 3.2. and so retireth again to his fort, of phrases, of demolishing his Castle, firing his Trenches, running away, & of his chaffe and stubble, caried away before the Def. his windie words, After all which, as a good Canoneer, he dischargeth (as he calleth it) one piece of ordinance after his flying enemies, which is this Basilisko: You (run aways) teache some Ceremonies to be unlawfull, though not forbidden, because they are not commanded. Ergo. But alas this shot hath no mettall of trueth or sense in it, and therfor will never hurt us.

 

Is any man so voyd of reason, as to teache any thing to be unlawfull, & yet cōfesse it is no way against law, or forbidden? Those that say, the Ceremonies are unlawfull, because they are not commanded, though they be not forbiddē, doe evidently mean, that though they be not specially and by name forbidden, yet they are generally forbidden, by that rule which forbiddeth man to adde any thing in Gods worship, unto that which God hath commanded, for suche a shot ther is no need of ordinance: as good may be made out of any bell that hath a clapper in it.

 

Page  19

SECT. 6. & 7. of Davids purpose, to build a Temple. 2. Sam. 7.1. Chron. 17.

THis passage will soon be dispached, if the quaestion may be cleared. The purpose of David, was eyther conditionall onely, if God should allow and second the businesse, or else absolute, without suche suspending condition, as supposing that God did allow, and would prosperously assist him, for the accomplishment of it. If it was of the former sort, and so farr as it was considerable within those limits, ther is no quaestiō, but it was godly, and worthy of all honour. But if it was absolute, it cannot be excused from some mixture of praesumtion. For whatsoever a man may absolutely intend to doe, that he may doe, but for the doeing of such a thing, as building of a Temple then unto God, the Rejoynder himself confesseth it to have been unlawfull, for David, without further warrant: and so confesseth also, that the absolute intention could not be lawfull. Hence are these speaches of the Rej. That which may be lawfully purposed, with submission to Gods pleasure, might not be doen without his pleasure knowen, and leave given. Wee grant, that David could not build the House, nor so muche as set out the place for it, without leave and direction from God.

 

All the quaestion therfor is, whether David had an •bsolute purpose or no? If he had not, wee have no

Page  20

ground from this place, agains• absolute instituting of religious Ceremonies by mā. If he •ad suche a purpose, then the Rejoynder doeth not gainsay, but our argument is good. Now that Davids purpose was absolute, it is more then probable, by that which the Rejoynder confesseth, viz. that Nathan was unadvised in saying to David, ••e doe all that is in thine •eart, the Lord is with thee, before he had consulted with the mouth of the Lord, to whom the designation or place, manner, and Man, did belonge. Heerin sayth the Rejoynder Nathan failed. For 1. Nathan so farr as appeareth doth answer onely to the quaestion of David, allowing his purpose, if therfore Nathans allowance was a failing in being too absolute, Davids purpose was of like nature. 2. If Davids purpose had not been absolute before, yet upon Nathans counsell, from which no dissent of his is any ways insinuated, it became absolute. 3. If David had dissented from Nathan in that poynte, he ought to have admonished Nathan of his sayling, and would also no doubt have doen so or at the least, it would have beē concluded betwixt them two, that counsel must be sought, and expected of God; but Nathan not being corrected, but rather confirmed by David, as David was by him, they both were (wit•out seeking) better informed by extraordinarie revelation. 4. The Def. sayth, and the Rejoynder mainteyneth it, that •od did interpret Davids affection for a deed. But no imperfect velleities of good, are so interpreted. The will which is accepted for a deed, must be absolute, and hindered onely by defect of power. Howsoever, out of the Rejoynder his grantes, we are furnished

Page  21

with this argument:

 

It was not lawfull fo• David to purpose absolutely the building any religious house for Gods Arke, without Gods speciall co•mand, or warrant. Therfore it is not lawfull for man to institute and build Ceremonies double and tr•b•e religious (as the Rejoynder calleth ours) without Gods speciall command or warrant.

 

The grant of the Rejoynder is the common sentence of our Divines well expressed, amōg other, by Mr. W. Attersol, upon Numb. 3.4. David was deceyved, that he went beyond the Commandement •f G•d. To seek to praevent God was to be reproved. It might have been sayd to him: who required these thinges at thy hands?

 

Howsoever his purpose (or simple affection) m•y be comm•nded, yet the fact (that is the absolute purpose resolving upon the fact) is reproved, He ought not the have enterprized that, which was not commanded eyther to any other, or to himself. He did not obey God, but fol•ow his owne minde and device. He did runne too fast, travayling (as it were) without his guide, and sayling without his compasse.

 

These things being considered, it were but vaine labor to prosecute the Rejoynder in particular litigations about this matter, which would be litle else then repetition of the same things. I will onely therfore consider of the Def. his retorsion, and the Rejoynder his shot out of this place: which also should have passed, but for the boasting wherwith they are (with provocation) advanced above their measure.

 

The Def. his retortion is thus. This Act of Davids

Page  22

without speciall warrant were commended by God. Ergo, all institutions of Ceremonies by man, belonging to Gods service, are not therfor to be condemned, because they want expresse warrant. This Act. (sayth the Def. that is (sayth the Rejoynder) this conditionall affection not lawfull to be brought into act. From suche a conditionall affection, he argueth, to absolute and actuall institutions, by what rule of consequence I know not. The Rejoynder teacheth us the clean contrary argument, as before was declared.

 

The Rejoynder his shot is thus in short: David (as Mr. Cartwritconfesseth) had generall warrant from the word of God, for building the Temple, and had no word to forbid him to doe it (til that by Nathan) therfor for David to purpose to build (til that forbidding by Nathan, was lawfull. I answer 1. the conclusion (being understood of a conditionall purpose (as the Rejoynder expounded it) we willingly grāt, as neyther making, nor ever having made any quaestion about it. 2. David had no generall warrant, for his building of the temple, neyther doeth Mr. Cartwrite say any suche thing, but onely that it was revealed there should be suche a Temple. Which was no more warrant for David to purpose the building of it, then other Prophecies were warrant for somme (upon supposition) to purpose the destroying of it. 3. Though ther was no word of God which particularly or absolutely forbid David to build the Temple, yet ther was word enough in g•nerall forbidding him to attempt any suche thinge, untill he should receyve further Commission. So the Rejoynder before confessed: the

Page  23

designation of place, manner, man, and time, did belonge to God: and was therfore forbidden to David, and so the building forbidden, untill that designation should come from God.

 

Now adde unto this shot of the Rejoynder thus repelled but a litle altering the charge and turning the pieces mouths. viz. That our questioned Ceremonies have not so muche generall warrant, as that it is any where in Scripture revealed, ther should be a Crosse, and Sirplice, and that the places of Scripture which seem to forbid them, could never yet be otherwise cleared; and then see how it maketh for the Rejoynder his cause.

 

SECT. 12. Concerning that phraze, Ier. 7.31. etc. You doe that which I commanded not.

THat which the Rejoynder (out of his abundant leysure) would needs inlarge most vainly about sect. 8.9.10. & 11. I passe over with silēce: because the Repl: refused to mainteyne that which is there objected, out of unprinted and uncertayn papers.

 

  1. In the twelf section, we are to inquire, whether and how that consequence in Gods worship, be good: I have not commanded this: therfor, you may not doe it.

 

The Def. and Rejoynder say it is not good, except

Page  24

by not commanding, be unde•stood, forbidding as Lev. 10.1. Deut. 17.3. Which is thus farr true, that except some forbidding be included or (as the Rejoynder speaketh) imported in that not commanding, not commanding c•nnot m•ke a thing unlawfull. But that is the very quaestion whether in thinges proper to religion, not commanding, doeth not include some kinde of forbid•ing.

 

  1. The place mentioned by the Rejoynder: out of Lev. 10.1. doeth most strongly make against him. For the sonnes of Aron are there condemned, for bringing strange, or ordinarie fire to Gods worship, as doeing that which God had not commanded, and yet had not otherwise forbidden, then by providing fire proper to his worship, and not apponting any other to bee used in the tabernacle, and this is the very plea which wee make against Ceremonies of humane institution, in Gods worsh•p. The scope of that text we are taught, by an English Bishop, Babington, in his notes upon that place: Wee may hence learne and setle in our heartes, with what severi•ie the Lord challengeth and defendeth his authoritie, in laying downe the way and manner of his worship, not le•ving it to any creature, to meddle with, but according to praescription and appo•n•ment from him. Content he is, that men shall make lawes for humane matters etc, But for his Divine worship, hee one•y will praes•ribe it himself, and what h•e appointed, that must be doen, and that onely, or else Nad•b and Abibu their punishment expected, that is, Gods w•ath expected, in suche manner as he shall please.

 

Hee was taught this by Calvin, who upon the place

Page  25

sayth God forbad other fire etc. to be used that he might exclude all adventious rites, and teach that he detested whatsoever was come from elswhere. Let us therefore learne so to attend to the Commandment of God, that we desile not his worship, with any far fetched devises.*

 

Mr. Attersoll also in his learned and grave Commentarie upon Numb. 3.4. doeth largely declare out of this example, how God disliketh, and disclaimeth mens devises in his service, as trash, trumperie, and mere dotage: instancing (among other devises) in Ceremonies added unto Baptisme.

 

  1. Our reason was propounded in the words of Calvin upon Ier. 7.31. Seeing God under this title onely condemneth that which the Iews did, because he had not commanded it them, therfore no other reason need to be sought for the confutation of superstitions, then that they are not by commandement from God. To which the Rejoynder answereth, that Mr. Calvins conceit holdeth true in proper points of religious worship, which are all praescribed of God himself, but not in matter of rites, not praescribed of God. Now if this be not a miserable conceit, that Gods not commanding doeth forbid that which he hath praescribed or commanded, but not that which he hath not praescribed, or commanded, let any man of sense judge.

 

Other meaning I cannot gather eyther out of these words, or out of the Rejoynder his doctrine of worship, which was before distinctly weighed, in the head of Worship. Mr. Cartwrites conjecture (as the Rejoynder calleth it) is the very same with that which he calleth

Page  28

Calvins conceit. The Rejoynder his answer also is the same for substance, that it is true in matter• particularly determined by God, but not in matters of order and ceremonie, of which God hath not determined particularly. The sense of which is, that we must depend upon God, so farr as he hath determined particularly, but in other things, we must depend upon men, and in England, upon the Convocation house. But to depend upon God, and his mouth, being to follow onely his determination and what sense then is this, you shall onely follow Gods determination, in those things which he hath particularly determined, but if you please to doe any thing in his wo•ship, which he hath not determined particularly, you may therin depende upon whom you plea•e? For matter of Ceremonie, enough hath beē spokē before: and of order, wee shall after dispute.

 

  1. The rest of this 12. section is spent about the Def, his wonderfull wondring, at our symbolizing with Bellarmine and other Papists, because that as they distinguish sinnes into mortal and veniall, so wee (sayth he) make a distinction of against, and beside the word. About which, the Rejoynder granteth that Chrysostom did well use this distinction, in matters of doctrine, yet he sayth it is not to be extended unto matters of Ceremonie. But (the question being onely about the distinction) it is in the Def. and Rejoynder their opinion farr more appliable to ceremonies, then to doctrines: because they holde many Ceremonies lawfull beside the word, which are not against it, though they holde no suche difference of doctrines. Now this distinction

Page  27

was used by us, according to their conceit, more then our owne. The like is acknowleged of Iunius, that he distinguisheth well betwixt beside and against the Word, in the question of traditions devised for divine worship, 1. e. essentiall worship, particularly determined by God. Which is not so, for in that place, Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an 10. Iunius hath no question eyther about essentialls, or worship, or traditions, but onely about Ecclesiasticall laws, binding the conscience. And if he had, yet that clause particularly determined by God, would spoile all: because in suche thinges ther can be nothing eyther against, or beside the Word. But if it were true, what is the difference, betwixt Iunius and us? The Rejoynder sayth that wee confounde rites with worship, and yet confesse rites not to be particularly described as the other. Which is neyther so, nor so, except he meane those rites, which he calleth double or treble ceremonies: and therin we have Iunius so for us, that not onely in other places, but also in the words next goeing before this in quaestion, he sayth generally, in divine things to coyne new lawes is nothing but to decline.* Yet the Rej. will have it, that Iunius in that place cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10. doe•h refute this distinction, as used by Bell. Marke therfor what are Bell. words, which Iunius confuteth) viz. Onely a prohibition of addition contrarie lawes is understood.*

 

Which are the words also of our Defender and Rejoynder. cap. 2. sect. 3.4.5. So that by this interpretation, the distinction is theris, and Iunius confuteth them all, so well as Bellarmine.

 

The persuaders to Subscription, are also confessed

Page  28

to use the same distinction, but in another meaning. Let the distinction therfore passe (for shame) and dispute of the meaning. But the meaning expressed by the Rejoynder is the very same with ours, save that they differ in the conclusions deducted from it. The altercation therfore which the Rejoynder addeth about some speaches of Mr. Cartwrite, is not worth the answering.

 

The plaine trueth is, that this distinction is ordinarily used by our Divines, against the Papists, even in case of Ceremonies. D. Fulke against the Rhemists, on Mat: 15.9. Of Popish traditions, some be repugnant to t•e lawes of God, and some are beside them, as idle and unprofitable Cer•monies. It was therfor but an affected quarrel, which the Def. picked, and the Rejoynder mainteineth, about these termes, as if they had any reflection upon the Popish difference, betwixt mortall and veniall sins. Nay in this fashion, the Def. and Rejoynder may accuse our blessed martyrs of symbolizing with the Papists that were the murtherers of them. For they were wonte to use this distinction in the same manner that we doe. So heavenly •radford, in his epistle to the Vniversitie of Cambridge: these which a little after he applieth to Romish ragges, and in his epistle to Walden (extendeth them by name to Ceremonies) opiniōs are not onely besides Gods word, but even directly against it. It is therfor more then time for the Def. and Rejoynder to pull in the hornes of this dodmons accusation, and confesse that they were unseasonablie and rashly put forth upon inconsiderate phantasie, easily uttered, but hardly excused.

 

 

SECT. 13.14. Concerning the ancient fathers arguing negatively from Scripture.

  1. TO diverse sentences of ancient Writers, about this matter alledged, the generall answer is givē. 1. that they speak of thinges contrarie to Scripture: which when the Repl. granteth, complaining of the Def. his wilfull mistaking, or mis-interpreting our meaning, the Rejoynder lest he should seem lesse wilfull, repeateth the same imputation, which yet he acknowledgeth to be contrarie to the Repliers owne confession.

 

What should a man say to suche Rejoyners, that know full well our meaning, and yet will never leave threaping another meaning upon us.

 

Wee never sayd, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decencie, are punctually determined in the Scripture. Wee never dreamed that all suche rites being beside the particular determination of the Scripture, are against it, wee speak of double or treble rites as the Rejoynder stileth them, which no mere order and decencie doeth necessarily require, but onely the mere will of man injoine.

 

All this the Rejoynder knoweth: and yet he ceasseth not to beat the ayre, with endelesse repetitions of this imputation, guilded over with some varietie of tanting phrases, that it may be the easlier, swallowed by his unwary

Page  30

reader. 2. It is secondly answered by the Def. that the ancient writers speak of doctrines, not of ceremonies. Wherunto the Repl. granting that to be true for the most part yet answereth, that the trueth of their sayings may be taken so generally, as to include all re•igious Ceremonies. Here the Rejoynder objecteth that limitation (for the most part) is onely to abuse the simple, and that the ambiguous terme of religious Ceremonie, is a bush to hide I know not what in.

 

Now for the former charge Compare here the Abrigment and Def. The later accusation of hiding-bush, etc. cannot otherwise be avoyded (as it seemeth) except to avoyd the same, we would upō every occasion, when we are to speak of the questioned kinde of ceremonies, repeat the Rejoynder his beadroul of termes: double or treble significant, sacred by application, mutable, ambalatorie, arbitrarie, reductively sacramentall, morall Ceremonies, immediate worship, in respect of meanes by vertue of some thing else, in respect of the manner, and reductively, in respect of the utmost ende Divine worship.

 

Whersoever we observe not these termes partly of his owne forging, since the Replie was written he may as well spie a bush over our head, as in this place. It is thirdly answered, that a generall proposition may well be extended beyond one speciall conclusion to which it is upon occasion applied. To this (after that out of splen (as I take it) he styleth it the mans stomacke) the Rejoynder answereth that it may onely be applyed to other of the like kinde. This therfor is onely the difference, whether those Ceremonies which bear all those

Page  31

titles even now rehearsed, bee not of the like kinde, or have not one common nature, with some of those thinges which the Rejoynder calleth substantiall, and doctrinall, poynts: of which we have disputed before, andshall after, by Gods grace.

 

  1. To Tertullians wordes: Prohibetur quod non ultro est permissum: that is prohibited, which is not permitted, the first answer made by the Def. was, that our Ceremonies are permitted. Heerunto it was replied, that Tertullians meaning must needs be of other permission then the Def. can challenge to our Ceremonies, otherwise ther should be no sense in his wordes. The reason is, because the Def. doeth not say that our Cerem. are otherwise permitted, then that they are not forbidden. Whiche kinde of permission if Tertullian understood, then his saying is: that is prohibited, whi•h is not unprohibited.

 

The Rejoynder here for resolution of this difficultie sayth, that Tertullians meaning was to account that not to be permitted by the word, against which any reasons out of the word may be given, though ther be no particular word against it.

 

Now if he had attended unto the question, considering that it was onely what Tertullian in this place meant by this phrase not permitted, and that his meaning for the word must be the same, with that immediately before opposed: Quod non prohibetur ultro permissum est, he would not have given that glosse, for then the meaning of this sentence must be: that which hath no particular word

Page  32

against it, can have no reasons out of the word made against it. Suche •ustian is that clause of the Rejoynder, our meaning and hìs, are alike, and wee hold our Ceremon•es to be so perm•tted, and therfor not prohibited. So permitted is, by his interpretation, not to be prohibited by consequence, prohibited must needs be ey•her the same, or else p•ohibited by particular word: if the former, then he sayth thus: our Ceremonies are not p•ohibited by consequence: therfor they are not prohibited by consequence, if the later, then this is his saying: our Ceremonies are not forbidden by consequence onely, therfor they are not by particular word forbidden. The former is no reason; the later neyther is consequence, nor toucheth any quaestion.

 

The Def. his second answer was, that wee may blush, to speak of Tertullian, because he professeth traditions in the same book. It was answered, that then all may blush, which allege the Fathers for that which they in other places gainesay. The Rejoynder graunting, that those neede not blush, because the Fathers sometime are deafe and hear not themselves speak, and in some particulars left their sound generall principles, yet will needs have us blush (if it be not unpossible, as his Rejoyning charitie suspecteth it is) because they never held that which wee allege them for. But how doeth this appear, because they allowed of sundrie Ceremonies not praescribed in the word. Now except he could prove, they were not as deafe on this the ceremoniall ear, or side, as they were on the other, or that they did not leave their sound generalls, in the particulars of Ceremonies, as well or ill as in other.

 

Page  33

this occasion, especially with his affected exaggerations if it be not impossible.

 

And that the Rejoynder cannot prove this, D. Morton sheweth in his appeal. pag. 324. They that erred in points of doctrine, could not be altogether free from some sprinklings and spots of Ceremoniall corruptions.

 

Moreover, how the best of those ancient writers allowed of sundrie humane Ceremonies, then in use, Augustine shewe•h, epist. 119.*Many such things I dare not so freely gainsay to avo•de the offense partly of some holy minds and partly of some turbulent Spirits.

 

Which is the very case of the best English Divines that doe so sparingly speak against our Ceremonies, and yet sufficiently insinuat, that they would speake more, if they durst for the times. How also our Divines doe not blush to alledge their testimonies against humane Ceremon. though they know that in other places they speak for them this may be seen in D. Whitaker. tom. 1. pag. 116.*Augustine will have us be content with those very few Ceremonies which are conteyned in the Canonical Scriptures. If elswhere he have written ought that may lesse agree with this sentence▪ for my pa•t I will not much tro•ble my selfe to reconcile all his speeches. D. Fulke, Rejoynder to Martial, ar 1. sayth plainely: The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did assault the Churche. The fathers (in them) declined from the simplicitie of the Gospel, and art. 3. Every idle Ceremonie that praevayled, had the Praelates of the Churche, eyther for authors or for approvers, But Christ committed his Churche to them, to be fed with his word, and not with

Page  34

dumbe signes, and dead images, which things he hath forbidden.

 

SECT. 15. Concerning Protestants arguing negatively from Scripture.

  1. THe first quotation by the Def. chosen to answer, is out of D. Mortons Apologie: of which it is sayd by the Replier, that the Def. his answer is, he meant not matters mearly Ceremoniall, but doctrinall, and so he affirmeth the meaning of our argument to bee, if by mere Ceremonies, he mean mere order and decencie, as he interpreteth himself in the ende of this section, Heerupon the Rejoynder asketh, if we call this a Replie? I answer yea: because it sheweth, all that is opposed, though it be granted as true, nothing at all to crosse or contradict our argument, in the right meaning of it. Now marke what he hath to say, why it should not be called a Replie. 1. The Def. telleth not onely what he meant, but where his meaning doeth appear, and the Replie sheweth not that he hath not meant as he sayd. As if eyther the place where a thing is spoken, did adde any weight unto the speache! or all, that mean as they say, doe speak to the purpose. 2. It is partialitie to take up the word mere in this place, and not sect. 3. But this doeth rather shew, that though the Replier

Page  35

took no knowlege of this me•e shift, when he first met with it, yet afterward, seeing it often repeated, marked some emphasis to be placed in it, and so did not spare it before, upon partialitie to one section more then another, which seemeth a strange conceit.

 

Howsoever this doeth neyther prove the replie none, nor yet non-sufficient. 3. He pronounceth it untrue, that the question here is not of mere Ceremonies and rites: which charge he groundeth upon the word specially in the service of God. But that word doeth shew the specialitie of our question to be about the matters of Gods service, or worship, suche as significant Ceremonies are, and mere order is not. 4. Hee is styled a deceyved man, that thinketh signification put upon a Ceremonie, doeth necessarily make it more then a mere Ceremonie.

 

To which I answer, that if he that thinketh so, is a deceyved man, then the Rejoynder doeth deceyve, when in his Manuduction, pag. 33. and 39. he teacheth that speciall instituted signification, doeth make a Ceremonie double or treble more then mere single rites of order.

 

  1. The second quotation is out of D. Mortons Appeal, l. 2. c. 4. sect. 4. where is confessed, he speaketh of Ceremonies, but of Doctrinall onely, suche as sopping in of bread into the cup, etc.

 

Wherupon question was made, why this Ceremonie should be accounted more doctrinall, or more unlawfull, then the Crosse in Baptisme.

 

To the former part of this quaere, the Rejoynder answereth

Page  36

that the Def. hee himself & all suche, in this question meane by Doctrinall, a thing taught in the word and that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is taught in the word. As if it had been asked, why the Sacrament is more doctrinall then the Crosse? and not if Sopping be so? But here it is diligently to be observed, how wee are deluded in this wholle argument, and other also, with the shadow of a wordly distinction, betwixt Doctrinall, and Rituall Ceremonies. Wee say, God hath appointed all Ceremonies properly religious, which are to be used. They answer, that this is true of all doctrinall Ceremonies, but not of rituall: that is to say, as here we are taught, God hath appointed all Ceremonies that he hath appointed, but not all that he hath not appointed. Wee say, it is not lawfull for man to adde unto Gods institutions, in religious worship. They answer, this is true of Doctrinall, but not of Rituall additions: that is, by this interpretation, Man may not adde unto Gods institutions, any of Gods institutions, but mans onely. Let this be borne in minde for all answers that hange on the hinges of this distinction.

 

To the other part of the question, the Rejoynder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Crosse. 1. because the crosse maketh no alteration, of what Christ did ordayne saying doe this. 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptisme, as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper. 3. it is not esteemed an instrumentall signe of any grace given by the use of it, as they took their sops to be. 4. their sopping destroied the very Sacrament. And for these differences, the Repl. is bidden to hang downe his

Page  37

head, for asking suche a quaestion. But 1. Addition is as evill as alteration. For when Christ sayd, doe this, he meant as well, doe this onely, as doe this all. Fac hoc totum: fac hoc tantum: as Zanchie expoundeth it. Addition also is some alteration, if not of the things instituted, yet of the institution, as making it unsufficient, or incomplete, by it self alone.

 

  1. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine, but were bread and wine. Neyther were they first or onely, or (for any thing appeareth) at all▪ used by Haereticks, as the Rejoinder for his advantage, without ground, avoucheth, but by ancient Churches, at least in some cases: as is manifest out of Prosper, de Promissionibus, Dimidium temporis, cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit, etc. Sopping was so farre from being a matter of Haeresie, that as it seemeth, it was receyved among the Fathers, so longe as infants communicating in the Lords Supper, which was, as D. Morton confesseth, Appeale, lib. 2. cap. 13. sect. 3. for sixe hundred yeers.

 

  1. Sopping of bread in wine, considered abstractly from bread and wine, was no signe instituted as an instrument of grace.

 

For so sayth Cassander pag. 1027. out of Ivo: this custome of Sopping prevailed onely through feare of shedding and not by direct authority. 4. It is too severe a sentence,* against those ancient Christians, in Prospers time and (which is more) as Cassander and Hospinian judge, in Ciprians, that they destroyed the very substance of Sacrament. The setting forth of Christs death was not

Page  38

excluded, though some part of the bloud was representatively joined unto the body. A man is dead, that lieth in his bloud, though some of it soak againe into his body. The Fathers, sixe hundred yeers together, did not destroy the substance of the Sacrament. Hitherto therfor appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang downe his head. Let us see if more cause be in the comparisons he maketh betwixt sopping▪ and crossing.

 

The first was, the bread and wine (the onely things used in sopping) were ordeyned by Christ: so is not the Crosse. The Rejoynder answereth here nothing to the purpose, save onely, that they were ordeyned to be used apart. From whence it followeth onely that it is unlawfull to use them not apart. And so it followeth, that Baptisme must as well be used apart, orseparated from the Crosse: because it was ordeyned so to be used, and the Crosse was not ordeyned for any religious use, eyther apart, or with other thinges.

 

The second is, that sopping hath some agreement with reasō, Crossing hath none. The Rejoynder hence maketh two consequences: 1. Ergo Christ in ordeyning the Sacrament otherwise, hath doen some thing not agreable to reason, 2. Ergo the Churche in Crossing hath been void of all reason, fifteē hundred yeare. And upon these groundes, he crieth out of madnesse. But so madnesse may be found in any assertion, if it be first put out of the right wittes or sense, as this is. For the meaning was not, that Sopping is agreable to right reason in the Sacrament, but in civill use, where the aeriall Crosse hath none.

Page  39

Yet▪ it may be added, if it were lawfull for men to adde to Gods ordinances in the Sacraments, then ther would be founde more probabilitie of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread & wine as a manner of food, thē a mysticall aereall crosse into the use of water which is no manner of washing. As for the Churche, it hath not universally used the crosse so longe, except the Waldenses, and others like unto them, were none of the Churche.

 

The same Churche, that used crossing, used also for divers hundreds of years, to give the Sacrament of of the Supper unto infants, without reason, and the continuation of the Crosse more hundreds of years, addeth no reason unto it, except reason in suche things doeth increase with their age. Many thinges have been used in the Churche without reason: or else ther is reason wee should still use all that have been used, caeteris paribus. If ther be any good reason in the crosse, let that be tried by reason, and not by slipperie conjectures taken from the persons using it.

 

The third comparison was, that Sopping was used by Christ, at the very table of the Supper, but Crossing was never so muche honored by him or his Apostles, as to use it at any time. The Rejoynder answereth, that this argument would prove as well, that the eating of a Paschall lambe before the Sacrament, to be better then Sprinkling of water on the fo•ehead of the Baptized. Because CHRIST did that, and not this. But this is not so well. For that

Page  40

  1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremonie distinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used. 2. It is very probable that the Apostles goeing into the colder part of the world, did use sprinkling.

 

  1. Concerning a Paschall lambe, used before the Sacrament, as a Ceremonie morally significant and reductively Sacramentall, I see not why it should not be praeferred before the Crosse or any suche invention, even because Christ did use it, if that Circumcision be now a lawfull Christian Ceremonie, as the Def. and Rejoynder professe and mainteyne, pag. 285. It is also crediblie reported a great Bishop, not long since living, that every Easter day, he used to have a wholle lambe, praepared after the Pascall manner, brought to his table. D. B. knoweth well who it was, and of whom he hath heard it.

 

The fourth comparison was, that sopping was no new signe, but Crossing is. The Rejoynder opposeth that it had been an abomination to eat the Pascall lambe sodden, but the addition of sitting or leaning on couches (though a new signe added by them selves) was lawfull etc. Of which speache, the first part is granted, viz. a sodden lambe had been an abomination: neyther isa sopping communion excused. In the second, ther is observable partiallitie, in that he calleth setting an addition to the Passeover, and yet in the same answer, with the same breath, denieth the crosse to be any addition unto Baptisme. The ground of all is rotten, viz. that sitting was a religious significant Ceremonie instituted by men.

 

Page  41

These thinges considered, let any man judge what cause the Rejoynder had to talke in this place, of the Repl: his roome-conscience, contentious spirit, smitten with giddinisse, forsaken of wisdome?

 

In that which followeth about sopping, ther is no new matter to fasten any dispute on, proper to this place, but only why some ceremoniall sopping may not be used, as neare to the Communion, as the Crosse unto Baptisme? The Rejoynder answereth. 1. because it is not so safe, to use visible elementarie signes in holy actions, as a transient Character. 2. Because suche sopping were worse then the use of any other bodily element, as comming so neer to the very institution. Where 1. it is to be marked, that a religious Ceremonie, of soppes and wine, immediatly before or after the Communion, is not found unlawfull, but onely not so safe as the Crosse. By the same proportion, Ceremonious eating of flesh, and fish, in the solemnitie of the Communion, is onely not so safe, not unlawfull. Hath not the Crosse brought us to a faire market? 2. If the Crosse be not a visible elementary signe, what kinde of signe is it? Character noteth a most proper signe: aereall is elementarie: crossing is eyther visible, or else it is no sensible signe: because it cannot be heard, felt, tasted, or smelled.

 

If he meaneth a permanent substance, beside that he crosseth his owne definition of a Ceremonie, an action &c. in other places he defendeth images, in this very section, he leaned even now, upon couches, as upon safe Ceremonies amonge the Iews.

 

  1. The outward neernesse or likenesse of a humane

Page  42

Ceremonie, to a Divine Sacrament, is allowed on elsewhere by the Def. and Rejoynder both: as when cap. 3. sect 7▪ they mainteyne as Christian, a Ceremoniall sprinkling of men with holy water, wherin, both water and sprinkling, have as great an outward neernesse unto the outward elemēts of Baptisme, as any thing cā have.

 

If the outward materiall shew of neernesse unto a Divine Sacrament, doeth make a Ceremonie unallowable, then muche more, suche a formall significant neernesse, as is betwixt Baptisme, signifying our putting on of Christ crucified, and the Crosse signifying our putting on of courage to fight under, and for Christ crucified.

 

See heer what further is to be sayd of Iuel, and Whitakers, after the Def. and they are conferred.

 

  1. The Replier, affecting brevitie, and finding no new matter of dispute about the allegations out of B. Iewel, and D. Whitaker, passeth them over, with this reason: in excusing of them, nothing is sayd by the Def. which hath not formerly been confuted.

 

Now the Rejoynder doeth not goe about to shew that any new thing is brought forth by the Def. about thē, which had beē to the purpose, but onely catcheth up that word excusing, and repeating the accusation, of impertinent alledging them for the negative argument from Scriptures, in case of Ceremonies, which they doe except, hee taketh upon him to discover an undoubted close meaning of the word excuse: and therupon accuseth not onely the Repl. but I know not how many (they, them) of being scornfull out of pride of spririt.

Page  43

Who would have thought that one word (used according to the ordinary courteous fashion of those which in stead of plaine denying, use the phrase, (excuse me) could have stirred up suche a passion, or occasioned suche an injurious surmize? But to excuse this, which I hope we may doe without any offense, I will yeeld so muche unto his importunitie and challenge, as breifly to shew, that neythe B. Iuell, nor D. Whit. did excepte suche Ceremonies as ours, when they speak of the Scriptures fullnesse. Iuel in the first article sect. 29. alledgeth for the negative argument, Origen, concluding that in the Lords supper the bread is to be eaten, and not reserved unto the morrow, because that Christ did not commande that reservation to the morrow. Now that this reservation is a ceremonie, and a lawfull one also in D. Morton his judgement, appeareth plainely ou• of his Appeal, where (lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 1.) he sayth plainely, that we may grant a longer time of reservation then two or three days, with a reference unto the intent of participating of it by eating.

 

  1. Morton therfor cannot be defended in saying that Iuel excepted ceremonies.

 

For D. Whitaker his not excepting of significant Ceremonies from the Negative argument, may appear partly by his negative silence, and partly by his expresse assertion, de Sacramentis, pag. 203. for unto Bellarmine his assertion, that the Churche may institute new Ceremonies, for ornament, and for signification, he granteth that of ornament▪ as he doeth after of order, but no suche consent is given of signification, but rather the

Page  44

contrarie: Rudes non sunt Ceremonijs erudiendi: dedit Deas, Scripturas, vt ex ijs rudes institutionem necess•riam haurirent. So in Oper: tom. 1. pag. 116. Augustinus nos illis paucissimis Ceremonijs contentos esse vult, quae in Canonicis Scri•turis cont•nentur.

 

The trueth is, that our Divines doe ordinarily reject the Popish Ceremonies, upon this ground, So Gallasius in Exod. 22.7.

 

(*Nihil tale a Christo aut factum, aut institutum. Ergo ne sapientiores nos ipso & Apostolis fore arbitremur.)

 

* There is no suche thing by Christ, either done or instituted, therefore let us not deeme our selves wiser then he or his Apostles.

 

  1. Another omission, wherof the Repl is accused, for which he is called a gentle man, is, that the Def. in the ende of this Argumēt, recalleth the state of the question, distinguishing betwixt mere Ceremonies, & mixt, by mere meaning altogether indifferent, and by mixt, some way forbidden, All which (sayth the Rejoynder) the gentle Replier passeth by. Now sure he might also him self have passed this by, with more credit of the Def.

 

For what sense is in suche a stated question: whether the Scripture doeth condemne suche Ceremonies, as it leaveth indiff•rent, or onely those which it some way forbiddeth? All that passe by, may see, that this was not worth the taking up.

 

Yet concerning the mixture of ceremonies with opinion of holinesse, justice, merit, efficacie, or reall necessitie,

Page  45

which here the Rejoynder maketh the onely grounds of forbidding, he is now, in suche gentle manner as is requisite, answered, in the head of Difference betwixt popish Ceremonies and ours.

 

  1. After this, the Repl. is charged with quarrelling, onely because he sayth the Def. answered nothing to a maine poynt, upon which this first argument, in the Abrigement, doeth depende, namely the rules of Ceremonies, that they should be needfull, and profitable, for aedification, the more comely and orderly performance of Gods instituted service, which being wanting in our Ceremonies they cannot be innocent, though all were granted which the Def. mainteyneth. And why is this a quarell?

 

The Repl. (as it seemeth) can neyther by speaking, nor houlding his peace, gaine so muche favour with the Rejoynder as that in eyther he may passe without some shrewd censorious note. If he holde his peace, he is a gentle man, if he speak, he is a quarreller. But what are the reasons of blame in this place?

 

  1. The Defender (forsooth) was not tied to the Abridgents order 2. It were idle to speak of directive rules, if all humane Ceremonies be unlawfull. 3. If God hath left rules for direction of his Churche in rites and orders Ecclesiasticall, then he hath not determined of them in his word. 4. The Defender hath mainteyned, that our Ceremonies are agreable to the rules of Gods word: so as no Friar dare denie it, nor the Replier professing his name. In all which there is nothing of any moment. For 1. though

Page  46

it were grāted, that the Def. was not tied to the Abridg, order, yet he may be tied to their matter, if he meant to give them a full answer. 2. Though it be needlesse to speak of directive rules in unlawfull Ceremonies as they are simplie unlawfull, yet seing rites of order and decencie, which are confessed lawfull, are by the Def. and others confounded with Cerem. by others esteemed unlawfull, it is very necessarie, that at least the conditions of lawfull Ceremonies should be Demonstrated to agree unto suche Ceremonies as are defended to be lawfull. 3. Though God hath left rules for rites of order and decencie, yet he hath determined of all Ceremonies significant by institution. 4. If the Def. had mainteyned our Ceremonies to be agreable unto these rules of Gods word, it had been the most compendidious way for the Rejoynder to have shewed, where, and how?

 

For that of the Friar, I easily beleive it. For not one friar of a thousend dare say that any allegation for Popish Ceremonies, though it be out of a leadē legend, is not as plaine a demonstration as any is in all Mathematickes. As for the Repliers concealing his name, that is a poor imputation, For I dare undertake, that the Rejoynder may have names enough for that which is sayd, and upon second thoughtes, he may professe his owne name among them, except he can shew, where and how the Def. hath indevored to prove our Ceremonies agreable to those rules about which this question is moved. If the Def. had performed this before, what need the Rejoynder to have made here a solemne

Page  47

digression, touching the rules for Ceremonies. Which digression of his, shall now have a hearing.

 

Concerning Rules for Ceremonies.

  1. IN the first place, he taketh great exception against one rule propounded by T. C. Rep. 2. pag. 62. that Ceremonies offend not any, especial•y the Churche of God. To this, D. Witgifts mayne answer was, that it was a rule for private men, & not for the Churche. Of this the Rejoynder seemeth ashamed: and therfore seeketh after other exceptions. The first is, that the buisinesse for which this rule is given. 1. Cor. 10.32. was no matter of Churche Ceremonie, but of conversatien. Where he should have considered. 1. that some Churche Ceremonies had of ould their place in ordinarie conversatiō, so these two are not apposite one to the other. 2. that the eating of thinges offered to idols, was a heathenish Ceremonie, and therfor the absteining from it required in Christian Ceremonies. 3. that howsoever this rule is in this place applied, yet Rom. 14.15.20. it is by the same Apostle applied to some kinde of Iewish Churche Ceremonies.

 

The second exception is, that this rule is morall and generall, belonging to all our actions not particular, for Ceremonies. But if by particular, he meaneth proper, then he overthroweth by this exception, all those rules by himself acknowledged for good (edification, comelines•e

Page  48

and order:) because none of these are proper unto Ceremonies.

 

The third is that a negative (suche as not to be scandalous) may well be a caution, but not a rule. About which I will not contende.

 

It is sufficient for our purpose, if it be a caution strictly to be observed in Ceremonies, for suche a rule as is. Thou shall not murder.

 

  1. Another rule urged by T. C. (that Ceremonies tende to the glorie of God) is also rejected by the Rejoynder as the former. But no new reason is brought, but onely that it is a comon rule, not proper to Ceremonies, which in many words is inlarged. Now for this (being the same with that formerly objected about not scandalizing) the same answer which before was given is sufficient. Yet this moreover is to be observed for both these rules: that though they be not proper to Ceremonies, our Divines notwithstanding doe usually apply these and suche like generall rules unto Ceremonies, because the breache of these rules is common to (and as it seemeth inseparable from) humane significant Ceremonies proper to religion, taken from Papists. They tende not in their nature to Gods glorie, but rather to the glory of them from whom they have receyved their being. They are scandalous both to Protestants and Papists, as afterward is declared.

 

So Vrsine, tom. 1. pag. 365. giveth one rule for Ceremonies, that they be not impious, which is not proper to Cerem: as Bucanus among the receyved rules of Cer. maketh this one, that they be not opposite to the analogie

Page  49

of faith. Because many of the Popish Ceremonies are impious and opposite to faith. And the same Vrsine addeth among other rules, that they be not scandalous. Iunius also in his Hidelberg, theses de tradit. th. 58. requireth in a good Ceremonie, that it be to the glorie of God. So others many. D. Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 110. giveth 4. rules for Ceremonies: two of which are 1. that all thinges be doen to the glory of God. 3. that all thinges ought to be doen without offence.

 

Yet these rules in T. C. are suche as may not passe without the Rejoynder his censure, layd out in divers digressing pages.

 

Lastly the Rejoynder himself when he would give a rule for distinguishing good Ceremonies from bad, useth to make this one, that they be free from opinion of merit etc. And yet he will not say that suche opinions are proper to Ceremonies.

 

  1. H. I. is in the last place brought in, as not holding the rules of T. C. Whiche (were it true) is litle materiall, or to the purpose. But what is noted out of H. I. repugnant? He injoineth the same rules to be observed in the determining of mere Circumstances eyther Civill, or occasionall, but denieth the Churc•e to have any power of appointing Cerem•nies meerly Ecclesiasticall. And this is in effect to take those rules away, removing the Ceremonies which should be fram•d by them.

 

Nay rather this in effect, and cause both, to acknowlege the rules, and onely to point out the true objects to be ruled by them, and to give warning of abusive objects which have crept in under the colours of those

Page  50

true. Whether this discretion of his betwixt Circumstances, and properly religious Ceremonies, be justifiable or no, that question belongeth not to this digression, but to three wholle chapters of this dispute. But if the Rejoynder would know who doeth directly take these rules, and the other also which he acknowlegeth, as they are Scripture Rules, it is one to whome both he and the Defend. are muche beholding to Mr. Hooker by name, whoe p. 95. sayth plainely of one, as well as of other, they are Rules and Canons of that law, which is written in all mens hea•ts. The Churche had for ever, no lesse then now, stood b•unde to observe them, whether the Apostle had mentioned them, or no. Neyther sayth hee therin muche amisse, except that same no lesse bounde. So that as it seemeth, the Defend, and Rejoynder making suche courtesie of proving our Ceremonies agreable to these Rules can very hardly shew, that they are agreable to light & law of nature. After this light skirmish about 2. rules, the Rejoynder soundeth a retrait, and sayth, he will referre the consideration of the Agreement of our Ceremonies to the true Rules, unto a fitter place. But a fitter place can scarce be founde, for here it was challenged by the Replier, here it was promised by the Rejoynder when he craved leave to speak more fully of rules •o be observed: and this is registred in the table, Rules about Ceremonies shewed in a digression. Now after all this, to make onely a few pragmaticall exceptions against 2. rules which he termeth irregular, and out of square, not once touching upon the rules which the Replier required satisfaction about (v. 13. if our Ceremonies be needfull, and

Page  51

profitable for the aedification of the people, by the more comely and orderly performance of that service, whi•h God hath expressely praescribed in his word) and so to put of the buisinesse unto another invisible and uncertain place, this is nothing else but to be the Def. his Second, in the fault he was accused for, but not in releiving of him at all. It was not for nothing that he called the challenge a quarrell, as insinuating it was not a thing fitte to be medled in. The truth is the Rej. in his Conscience, holdeth our Cerem. incommodious, or inexpedient, though not simplie unlawfull: and therfore can finde no place to shew, that they are needfull, and profitable for aedification. I doubt, whether another speciall Commande from the Kinge, would bringe him to printe a treatise about that question?

 

SECT. 16. Concerning Order, and Decencie,

 

  1. Cor. 14.40.

The onely place (by the Rejoynder his confession, for Ecclesiasticall power, in constituting Ecclesiastical Ceremonies.

 

THe Defender beginning to confronte and confute our tenent, neyther bringeth, nor can bringe any Scripture, for the authoritie of

Page  52

Churches to ordeyne Ceremonies, but onely this one, 1. Cor. 14. He sayth, in deed, that he nameth onely this place, not to trouble us with any other at this praesent. But the Rejoynder more ingenuously confesseth, that this is the onely place in the New Testament, by which all Divine• doe conclude, that a power is given to the Churche, to constitute Rites &c.

 

This place is all the answer they give, or can give, to those that are wonte to trouble them with a quo warranto.

 

If this place then faileth them, or serveth not their turne, are not our Ceremonies confessed to be appointed without any warrant of the word, at least in the New Testament?

 

  1. Now that it doeth not make to the purpose, it was first shewed, from this, that the Defend. himself concludeth no more from thence, then that the Churche may by vertue of this permission, ordaine any Ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God. Which maketh nothing to the purpose, except first it be proved that God is better served with our Ceremonies, then without them. The Rejoynder here 1. denieth this to be his Conclusion, and yet they are his owne wordes, & no other conclusion is mentioned by him, as appeareth in the Rejoynder it self, pag. 74. But by this (sayth the Rejoynder) hee undertakes to prove another thing. Let it be so, yet he must first prove this, which he immediately draweth out of the text, which he doeth not.

 

Neyther doeth he so muche as name that other thing

Page  53

which he undertaketh to prove, muche lesse performe his undertaking. This was therfore no fitte place for him to vente his phraze, of shooting beside the Butt. 2. He accuseth the Repl. of insult•ng, because he denied the Consequence, and gave a reason of it: and yet referreth the answer of that reason, to a fitter place I know not where. Onely he repeateth the often exploded evasion, that the question is whether all lawfull thinges be particularly, or expressely commanded in the word, which none of us ever writte, sayde, or thought. Yet we must be troubled with this groundlesse, uselesse repetition, over and over againe.

 

  1. The onely backe of the Consequence made out of this place, is that all Fathers, and all Divines, (the Rej. addeth, of whatsoever Religion not excepting Socinians, nor yet Anabaptists, whom he useth to acknowledge adversaries to his Conclusion) doe use this place for one and the same conclusion.

 

Now this is easier to say, then to demonstrate, I doe not finde this place muche used to any suche purpose by the Fathers. Chrysostome expoundeth it of morall vertuous carriage, opposite unto suche perverse walking as if a man goe upon his handes, with his feet upward. Ambrose extendeth it no further then to things mentioned, in that Chapter: secundum ordinem suppra dictum Oecumenius also maketh it a recapitulation of thinges formerly mentioned, of speaking by course, and womens being covered etc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He Summarily gathers together all that wēt before. Basil

Page  54

expoundeth it of time and place, ed. gr pag. 530. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and of proportion to be observed betwixt divers members. pag. 459. These are some Fathers▪* and (as I amperswaded) more then eyther Def. or Rejoynder can bring, so to argue from this place, as he doeth▪ Amonge the ancient Schoolmen, it is hard to finde, where any one of them doeth conclude Ceremonies proper to religion, out of this place. Thomas in his Comm. upon it, doeth so interpret it, that he leaveth no ground for any suche conclusion: Honestly] 1. e. while one Speakes that other be silent,* and that woemen speak not in Church. in order] 1. e. that first one and then another speake. etc.

 

Erasmus consenteth: Decently and in order that no uns•emelines or tumult arise.

 

*Amonge later writers, these words are often applied to rites, but in a diverse manner. The Papists, and some other doe prove from hence, theyr double treble, analogic•ll Sacramentalls, as the Rejoynder calleth them. See Hosius his Conf. de ritib. Bap. c. 37. Bell. de effect Sacram. l 2 cap. 31. Balthasar Chavassius. l. 1. cap. 21. and l. 2. cap. 7. where from hence they dispute against Calvin by name. •ccius (sayth Musculus upon this place) In his Commune places, in the title of humane traditions citeth these words of the Apostle let all things be done &c. To justifie the traditiōs of the Bishop• as authentick & su•h as ought to be kept with a C•nsciencie of obedience, but this praescript of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopall traditions, but the Apostles owne, to wit such as he had delivered to the Churches.

 

Page  55

Our Divines (f•w of note excepted) doe onely from hence conclude rites of mere order and decencie. And some of the graver, Papists,* to this day can finde no more in it as Esius in his Comm. upon the place: It belongs to decencie that women speak not in the Church, to order, that many speak not at once. What is now become of All Fathers, All Divines, for one and the same conclusion? Mr. Hooker, pag. 95. doeth directly oppose the Def. his conclusion, contending that the Rules set downe in this place, are the Rules of naturall reason, and not of the Apostle, or properlie of the Scripture, For if this be true, then that is false which the Def. so confidently averreth, that the Apostle doeth here grant a generall license and authoritie to all Churches, to ordeyne Ceremonies: except the Apostle did give Churches licence, and authoritie, to doe that, which by the law of nature, they might doe, and by the light of nature, know they might.

 

  1. The Def. was requested to shew, by what Logick he formeth his consequence from order, decencie, and aedification, unto suche Ceremonies as ours?

 

The Rej. hath no other Logick to shew for it then this: Sundrie Divines doe manifest the Consequence, because the same particular circumstances, wo•ld not be comely and to aedification in all places and times, the Churche must have power to institute and alter them. But 1. this is not the consequence, meant by the Repl. expressed by the Def. The Apostle sayth. let all thinges be doen orderly, decently, and to aedification. Ergo, he granteth a generall licence and authoritie to all Churches, to ordeyne any Ceremonies, that may

Page  56

be fitte for the better s•rving of God. 1. e. suche as ours are.

 

Neyther yet is the Consequence, which the Rej. would have implied by the Def. upon supposition of the former: The Apostle hath granted a generall licence, and authoritie, to all Churches, to ordayne Ceremonies, that may be fit for the better serving of God. Ergo, all Rites and Ceremonies, which are beside the prescription of the word (suche as ours are) are not unlawfull. It is in deed, the very same sentence, which the Rejoynder did so spurne from him, pag. 72. when it appeared under the name of Mr. Iacob: in the distinction, betwixt mere Circumstances, Civill, or Occasionall, and Ceremonies meerly Ecclesiasticall. What a miserable cause is this that our Opposites defende, which deeply concerneth the Consciences of all that urge our Ceremonies, or allow of their urging, and yet cannot be fathered, but on one onely place of Scripture, and that with an invisible and inexplicable consequence?

 

Concerning an Argument against our Ceremonies, out of 1. Corin. 14. Which is acknowledged to be the onely place in all the New Testament, that can be alledged for their imposing.

  1. THe Replier, seeing that all the cause (on the imposers part) dependeth on this place of Scripture, & finding nothing by any Logick

Page  57

could be drawne from it for our Ceremonies, thought good to trie, if there may not, from the same place be formed a better argument against them. This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare, and loosing the way: as if all the Def. his Retortions, and all the Rejoynder his paper shot which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him ro flie, or runne away, were new Hares, and exorbitations. I know not else what privilege he hath, to use a weight and a weight, one for the Defend. with him self, and another for the Replier.

 

  1. The Argument is thus put together, by the Rej. pag. 77. All that is left unto the Churches libertie, in things pertayning to Gods worship, is to order them in comely manner. But to appointe and use the Ceremonies as wee doe, is not to order in comely manner any thinge perteyning to Gods worship. Therfore, to appointe and use the Ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the libertie of the Churche, I. e. it is unlawfull. The Rejoynder answereth first to the proposition, and then to the assumption, but so as he mingleth both together, in many words: Yet I will follow his order.

 

  1. First of all he denieth the proposition to be found, in the Repl. his meaning. But I can see no reason of this deniall. 1. Hee sayth, that Order and Ordering is taken sometime largely, for all discipline, or policie, sometime strictly, for rancking of persons and actions handsomely one before, and another after, and so is opposed onely to confusion, as in this place, 1. Cor. 14.40. Now this is far• from overthrowing the proposition, in the Repl. his meaning. For the Repl. meant order in the strict sense,

Page  58

which maketh also for his purpose: and this the Rej. granteth to be the meaning of the Apostle in this place 1, Cor. 14.40. Which place the same Rej. pag, 75. confesseth to be the onely place (in the N. Test.) by which power is given to the Churche to constitute Cerem: Frō both which layd together it necessarily followeth that all which is left unto the Churches power under the title of order, is ordeyning in the strict sense, 1. e. rancking of persons and actions handsomely, as the Rejoynder expoundeth it. Yet immediatly after he accuseth the Repl. for saying order to be the right placing and disposing of thinges instituted, for time, place, etc. not shewing why this disliketh him, or wherin differeth from his owne explication. Onely he sayth that etc. often by the Repl. put to time, and place, is a blind. Whiche is not so, for by etc. is meant all circumstances of like nature with time and place, as number, measure, vicissitude etc. How many Psalmes shall be sunge, or chapter read, what, and how muche Scripture shall be at this or that assemblie expounded, how one part of worship shall succeed another etc. without a blinde.

 

  1. In the next place, the Rejoynder findeth a wrong meaning in the Repl. his use of the phraze (in comely manner:) because afterward in the ende of the Assumtion, he sayth, that comelinesse is nothing but the seemelinesse of order. For (sayth the Rej.) beside that comelinesse of order, ther is other comelinesse. Now this the Repl. professeth immediatly after the words quoted: other where comelinesse may conteyne all naturall and civil handsomenesse. etc. Neyther will I contend about this,

Page  59

but it implieth so muche in this very place. So that the Rejoynder hath not given any reasō, why the Proposition, or first part of the Argument should not be admitted. Yet after that he hath fathered it upon Mr. Iacob and made the Repl. his disciple, he commeth to examine the proofes of it, though he himself (as is now shewed) hath given sufficient assent unto all conteyned therin.

 

  1. The first proof is, that it is manyfestly collected out of the place in question, 1. Cor. 14. and the Def. seemeth to grāt as much. To which the Rej. answereth. 1. that in that place, three distinct thinges are propounded, Edification, Decencie, Order: and these three cannot be one. But edification being the ende, Decencie and order the meanes, they may well be conteyned in one: decent order, tending to edification, or (which is as much to our purpose) in two: decencie, and order, for edification. A holy Sacrament, decently, and orderly administred, for edification, is not fowr distinct thinges, but one. His 2. is, that these words are the conclusion of the wholle Tract. beginning at the eleventh chap. wherin are handled some thinges onely concerning Decencie, some more properly perteyning to Edification, and some which belonge more peculiarly to Order. Ergo more is commanded in these words, then the comely placing of one thinge after another. Let this be granted, yet it followeth not, that more is left unto the Churches libertie, then order, and decencie, unto edification. For all thinges that are commanded, are not left unto the Churches libertie.

 

Page  60

But that speaking in unknowē tongues which the Rej. doeth referre to edification as distinct from order and decencie, is by good Divines accounted to offende against the order and decencie, spoken of c. •4. and 40. So D. Whitaker, de Script. q. 2. c. 18. disputeth against the use of an unknowen tongue in Gods service, out of this very place: pugnat hoc vero cum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quam maxime. 1. Cor. 14.40. 1. e. this mightly overthrowes that good order which he so much stands for. His 3. is, the Defend doeth no way seeme to grant the proposition: because the Repl. undertaketh by argument to rescue this place out of the Def. his hands.

 

But this nothing at all argueth, that the Def. and the Repl. doe not agree about the proposition, though they dissent about the place, as it is handled in the assumtion. The Papists grant us, this proposition: No phraze is used by Christ, in those wordes: this is my body, but a Sacramentall one. Yet because they denie the assumtion: transubstantiating wordes, are not a Sacramentall phraze, we undertake by argument to rescue this place out of their handes. So the Def. requiring no more, then order and Decencie unto Edification, to be left unto the Churches libertie, for the establishing of our Ceremonies, doeth seem at least to grant, that all which is left to the Churches libertie is order and Decencie unto edification, though he denie these to conteyne no more then mere circumstances, which is the assumtion. Of Edification ther is not mention made in the proposition, because that as an ende, is out of question, and allways included.

 

Page  61

  1. Peter Martyr is cyted, out of D. Whitaker, de Pontif. pag. 841.844. as agreeing with that which the Repl. would have. Here the Rej. inlargeth himself much for the sake (as he sayth) of those that are unlatined.

 

  1. He telleth us that P.M. doeth distinguish, though not divide, comelinesse from order. Which wee doe also, For take the Repl. his wordes in the most rigorous sense you cā, yet comlinesse of order, doeth distinguish cōlinesse from order, no lesse then comelinesse of a man, doeth distinguish it from a man. 2. He addeth, that P. Mart. doeth there instance in the Ceremonie of thrise dipping, and in the observation or institution of Feasts. But let the Reader know, that those words, Ceremonie, observation, institution of feasts, which the Rejoynder hath set downe in a differing letter, to be noted as P.M. his words, are not to be found in the place of P.M. but are added by the Rejoynder for advantage. P.M. expoundeth the meaning he had in all his instances by what place, what time, what manner. If therfore the Repl. did not looke upon that place,* but tooke it on trust, from the trustie hande of D. Whitaker (as the Rejoynder objected to him) yet it proveth good and fitting. So that the Rejoynd. forgetteth himself muche, when upon this uncertaine, and momentlesse conjecture, he compareth the Repl. to a hungrie creature (or dogge) that runneth away with a bare bone. D. Morton once (at the least) alledged some testimonies on trust: and therfore, being challenged for them, he confessed that he had them from Mr. Stocke. Yet the Popish adversarie (author of the Sober reckoning) did not compare

Page  62

him to a dogge, but onely sayd, that he sente to stockes and stones, for satisfaction about them. Whiche I doe not allege to the disparagement of eyther D. M. or Mr, St. but onely to shew by comparison how the Rej. doeth sometime overflow, in his termes. 3. For D. Whitaker, he telleth us, that hee onely sayth, that Ecclesiasticall laws belonge onely to order, or orderinge, but not as it is distinct from comelinesse. As if any of us did so. The Repl. his words: ordering in comely manner, doe not (I hope) referre all to order, considered a part from all comelinesse.

 

This is the full summe, of all that Rejoynder had to except against the first allegation. And yet heere upon this nothing, it pleaseth him to accuse not onely the Repl. but these men, of haughtie and Magistrall fashion, gulling, and deceiving, great and shame•ull sinne, and the poor Repl. at the least, for a man destitute of common honestie. It seemeth he was very angry at something. Let the understanding Reader guesse, at what?

 

  1. For more manifestation of the Repl. his vacuitie of comon honestie, the Rej. referreth us to the second testimonie out of Iunius, against Bell. cōt. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86.87. and cap. 17. n. 9.10.12.13.

 

Omitting therfore unnecessarie repetition, let us heare the reasons of extraordinarie dishonestie, 1. Iunius ca. 16. n. 86.87. sayth onely first, that those humane lawes are onely necessarie, in the Churche, which tende to this, that all thinges may be doen decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. Secondly, that these are improperly called lawes in the Churche, being more properly constitions, or Canons.

 

Page  63

Now out of the first saying, the Repl. concluded, that Iunius did judge the Apostle to leave no more to the Churches libertie, then to order Gods ordinances in decent manner: And out of the seconde, he inferred the same conclusion: because any Constitution, above ordering in decent manner that which before was injoined, is properly a law. What ex•raordinary dishonestie is here? 2. Iun•u cap. 17. n. 9. sayth onely that to make new laws in divine thinges is to decline 1. c. in poyntes of fayth or necessarie rules of sanctimonie. But Iunius maketh no mention at all, eyther of faith, or sanctimonie, or necessitie, Nor Bell. himself in that place. Neyther is the question there handled, of poyntes of faith or thinges absolutlie necessarie to sanctimonie. All double treble Ceremonies reductively Sacramentall, and worship, are by the Rej. his owne dictates double sacred: and that is it which Iunius meaneth by divine. 3. Bell sayth that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of lawes contra•ie to the law of God. Wherunto Iunius n. 10. answereth, t•at any lawes at all, added to Gods laws, are contrarie to the law of God, speaking of proper laws, without any backing of Gods law, binding the Conscience, as he sheweth cap. 16. n. 86.8. Here 1. the Rej. left out those words of Iunius, neyther cantrarie nor beside the word: which if he had translated, then the Readers memorie might have recalled, how this place cited before for the defēce of that phraze, was but shifted by the Rej. p. 46.2. It is to be marked, that the Def. and Rej. there answer to Deut. 4. is the same with Bel. p. 134.3. That exposition of laws without backing, is of the Rej. his owne forging. No suche thinge is founde in the places quoted, nor yet did Bel. professe to defēde any suche thing.

 

Page  64

Of binding the Conscience, enough hath been sayd in the head of Difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish.

 

  1. Iunius n. 12. answering to Bellarmines his saying, that God (in the N.T.) gave onely the common laws of faith and Sacram. leaving the specialls to the Churche etc. affirmeth Gods laws to be perfect re, ratione & modo, and those of the Churche to be but Canons and disposings of conveniencie, for better observing of divine lawes.

 

Where note 1. an example of an etc. for a blinde, or blindinge, which the Rejoynder formerly tould of. For in that ete. is conteyned, pro locorum & temporum diversitate: quia non possunt diversissimi populi conuenire in ijsdem legibus & ritibus. 1▪ e. for this cause, speciall laws of rituall thinges, are left to the Churches libertie, because of varietie, which falleth out now by occasion of times and places: Which is the very thinge that the Rejoynder pawned his credite, Bell. never sayde, pag. 15.16. Note also 2. that Iunius doeth not in this place mētion Canons, as the Rej. pleaseth to alter his words in reciting of them. But Cautions, and dispositions. Now a Caution about the performance of any thing, is not an institution of a new thing. 3. Iunius is found to say as muche as he was alledged for, and to the contrarie we have from the Rejoynder a nihil dicit.

 

  1. Iunius n. 13. sayth onely that Christ is the onely law-giver, that is, to give lawes, that in themselvs and by the very authorite of the law-maker, doe binde the conscience. As if Iunius in confuting of Bell. did onely say the very same thing, with him that he goeth about to confute!

Page  65

for Bellarmine in that very place sayth: Christ is the cheife law-giver who by his owne Authority can judge and make lawes.*

 

Now out of all these allegations, the Rejoynder maketh his interrogatories. 1. Where be these words all that is requisite, as spoken of Rites and Ceremonies? Answer the sense of these words as spoken of all Ceremonies above mere order and decencie, is cap. 16.86.2. Where finde you in Iuníus that the Churche may constitute no new thinge? Ans. cap. 17. n. 9. this in things Divine is to turne aside,* for the Rejoynder his interpretation of those words, that they mean poynts of faith, and necessarie rules of sanctimonie, is confuted, by conference of Bellarmines words there opposed, who in that place instanceth in Ceremonia•l and Iudiciall laws, and speaketh not at all of faith and necessarie sanctimonie. 3. Where are those words, ordering in seemly manner? Ans. cap. 16. n. 86. those onely humane lawes are necessarie in the Churche, which make that all thinges be doen decently and in order. 1. Cor. 14.40, 4. If the Churche may appoint no new thinge, but onely see to decencie and order, then sayth the Rej. what patent hath she to make particular ordinances for time, and place? unlesse these be no new things. I Ans. 1. Time and place considered as mere occasionall circumstances, are no more new thinges in Gods service, then concreated time and place, were new things in Creation, distinct from the created world. And Calvin inst. l. 4. cap. 10. sect. 22. severely censureth those, that call suche kinde of determinations new lawes: Quis nisi calumniator, sic novam ferri•b ijs legem dicat, quos constant duntaxat

Page  66

scandalis occu•rere, quae sunt a Domino satis diserte prohibita? If procuring that scandals be avoided, be no new thinge, then neyther is procuring that disorder, and undecencie, for time, place, etc. be avoyded, any new thinge.

 

As for a patent to appoint double, treble, sacred Ceremonies, it is a vayn thing for them to plead it, that cannot shew it under the great Seal. I doe not thinke, that any earthly Kinge would have his subjects submit thēselves to that power, which is fetched out of a Patent, invisible, and onely avouched by conjectures.

 

  1. A reason was given of the foresaid proposition, out of Iun. de Transl. Imp. l. 1. c. 2. n. 26.27.31. viz. that the Churche hath onely a Ministerie, to observe suche thinges as Christ hath appointed, not authoritie of appointing new thinges. Here the Rejoynder 1. observeth, that those words, (new things) have no foot steps in Iunius. As if new things could be appointed lawfully without authoritie of appointing. Surely, he that denieth all authoritie of appointing, and leaveth onely ministeriall performance of things appointed, he denieth appointing of new thinges. 2. He argueth thus: If the Churche have a ministerie to appoint and doe suche thinges as Christ hath commanded, then must she needs have a Commission legative to appoint and use rites serving to order and decencie. Adde to this onely, and then it is not onely that, but all that which we require. 3. He crieth out of miserable perversion, eyther by grosse negligence, or mistaking.

 

Page  79

And why so I pray? Because (forsooth) all that Iunius sayth is good to prove, that no Ecclesiasticall person hath any power by his calling over temporall Princes. But this is nothing against their delegated dependant power, by Commission. But 1. these are very strange distinctions: they have not any power by their calling, but some by commission. They have not any power over temporall Princes (though they be members of the Churche) but over the Churche they have. 2. The Rejoynder maketh Iunius onely to denie that which Bellarmine never affirmed, viz. absolute independent power of Ecclesiasticall persons, as supreme Lords. Nay Bellarmin answereth to Calvin in the very same manner that the Rejoynder doeth: The Pope is not the cheife lawgiver but the vicar of Christ,*& by Christes authority maketh lawes. 3. He addeth that Iunius disp. de trad. distinguisheth betwixt decencie, and the seemlinesse of order alone.

 

As if this were the maine question? Or any part of the Proposition! or denied by the Repl. at all. The Rejoynder having litle to say that was to the purpose, cacheth hould of one word in the ende of the Assumtion used by the Repl. seemlinesse of order (which yet is immediatly there differēc•d frō other decencie, as well commanded as this) and that he maketh the maine matter of the proposition: whereas the meaning is, that nothing is left unto libertie in Gods worship, above decencie and order, for which these testimonies are brought, and not for the other.

 

Page  68

  1. For more full support of the foresaid Proposition, a reason is added, from the fullnesse of a perfect law, which leaveth no more unto Ministeriall judges, then needs must.

 

For answer, the Rejoynder 1. observeth, that some cases are •f necessitie variable, and so left. So the occasions of different Rites and Cerem•nies a•e so various, that if our Lord had fixed any one certayn fash•on, he should have made rather snares then l•ws for his Churche. As, if he had appointed sitting at a table in t•e Communion: or kneeling in prayer. This is strange stuffe. 1. So much is granted, as is desired, viz. that God hath left nothing (about his worship) undertermined in his word. 1. e. uncommanded, and unforbidden particula•ly, save onely that which he could not commande or forbid. Now let any man think▪ and judge, whether it had not been possible for God in his word, eyther to have commanded, or forbidden the signing of those that are Baptised with the signe of the crosse all so well, as Baptizing of them with water? 2, How can that too too bolde and inconsiderate assertion be excused: if our Lord had fixed (or commanded) any one certain fashion of Ceremonies, he had made rather snares, then laws for his Churche. If it had pleased God to commande or forbid the signe of the Crosse in particular, what snare had it been? When God appointed all the Ceremonies of the olde Testament, he did not (I hope) make snares for his Churche, though he did lay a burthen upon it. 3. Wheras the Rejoynder maketh sitting at a table, in the Lords Supper, and kneeling at prayer, to be suche thinges as the Lord could not

Page  69

command, but as snares, because sometime a table may be wanting, or something to sit on, or abilitie to sit, and so of kneeling, this is as poor a snare to cache any man of understanding in, as one sh•l lightly see made. For 1. Many affirmative commandements of God ther are, which in extraordinarie cases cannot be fullfilled, and cease to binde: as praying unto and praising of God, with our voyce: which is no snare, to him that cannot speak.

 

The appointing of wine for the Supper, is no snare, though some Countries have it not, and some mē cannot wel drinke it. See Beza ep. 2. Pareus and Symb. Sacram. l. 1. cap. 9.2. I would know, whether it had beē a snare, if God had appointed sitting at the Table, with exception of suche extra ordinarie cases? if yea, then m•che more when men appoint kneeling, sirplicing, and crossing, if no, then our Argument may proceed.

 

Kneeling in publicke prayer, might have been appointed without snaring, as appearing before the Lord thrise in the yeer, was appointed to every Male in Israel. Deut: 16.16. For (without doubt) many men in Israel, were, by accident, more unable to travel up to Ierusalem, then any Christian that hath knees, is to kneel.

 

After this observation, of which the Rejoynder sayth it may be as we will, he answereth, that our Lord hath left nothing absolute to the will of his Officers: but hath left even ambulatorie Rites, under generall rules, which will trie them as perfectly, as if every one had been named, and with lesse cumber. But 1. this is nothing to the purpose: because so the imperfectest law that is in any nation upon the earth, if it be worthy the name of Law, leaveth nothing

Page  70

so absolute to the will of inferior Officers, as that it should be without the generall rules of justice, common good, etc. Nay not without the rules of order & decencie. 2. Concerning the comparison of perfection, betwixt generall and particular rules, though enough hath been sayd before, upon like occasion, yet this I will adde.

 

If he meaneth, that a generall rule if it be perfectly understood and applied, doeth as perfectly trie as particulars. I grant it to be a trueth. And so was the olde Testament as perfect a rule of Christian faith as the New, thou shalt love thy neighbour, as perfect as the six Commandements of the second Table. But if he mean that a generall rule is as fit and full for our direction of us imperfect men, as particulars are, then I think no man conscious of humane frailtie, will beleiv him.

 

Neyther doe I beleiv, that he himself is so fully perswaded in Crossing the Baptized, by any rule which he hath out of Gods word, for that, as he is for Baptizing, by the rule of that.

 

  1. The Repl. having (as he thought sufficiently grounded the generall, that a perfect law leaveth nothing more then needs must, unto inferior Officers, goeth on to assume, that in the worship of God, all, but particular Circumstances of order, might easily, be (as in¦deed they, were) appointed by Christ, and therfore need not be left to the Churches wisdome. Vpon this, it pleaseth the Rejoynder to say litle to the purpose, in many words. 1. He sayth, that Circumstances of order were not harder to determine, then those of

Page  71

decencie. Now it is plaine enough, that the Repl. here, naming Order, did also understād Decencie, though he named Order onely. 2. He asketh, what School of Divinitie hath taught the Repl. to say, that our Lord forbore the determining of suche circumstances, because all else was easy. I Answer, no rule of Divinitie did eyther teache the Repl. to say so, nor yet the Rejoynder to impute unto him, which he never sayd.

 

But if he meaneth (as it seemeth he doeth) because it was not so easie to determine circumstances of time and place as reall worship.

 

I then answer, that this (as I thinke) the Replier learned out of that Divinitie School, out of which the Def. and Rejoynder learned. That which they cite out of Calvin, pag, 15.16. Iunius is cited to the contrarie, out of Cont. 3. l 4. cap. 17. n. 12. (which place the Rej. looked upon, by occasion of the Repl. his former citation of it.) But hee in that very place, distinguisheth betwixt laws, properly so called, and cautions, leaving onely cautions to the Churches libertie, which is the very same that the Repl. meaneth. The plaine trueth is, that supposing Gods will to be, we should worship him in any place, and any time fitting, it was necessarie, that the particular choise of fitting time and place, should be left undetermined to any particular time or place, exclusively.

 

Calvin also is cited, as more comely expressing the cause to be, that Christ would not, then that he could not determine suche matters.

 

Page  72

Now though Calvin, being so excellent in his expressions, may easily be granted to have expressed the same meaning in more comely manner then the Repl. yet here was no cause of noting disparitie. For the Repl in saying, all things but particular order and decencie may be easily appointed, did not say what Christ could doe, but what might be easily for us appointed, or with our ease, or with the ease which we doe conceyve of in law giving, or of an ordinarie law giver, having suche authoritie as Christ had. And who doeth not see, that it is not so easie, to appoint every particular place, and time, wherin God shall be worshiped, throughout all the world, then with what worship he shall be served? For that particular description, a thousand books, so great as our one bible, would not have suffized.

 

The world (as Iohn sayth) would not be capable of the Volumes that must have been written. The Rej. himself pag 89. telleth us of cumber, and much adoe, that would have been, in naming every particular, is not this as much as lesse easy? Yet it pleased him to seek matter or altercation about this phraze, and that (which agreeth not) immediatly after he had without reason accused the Repl. of picking quarrells pag. 88.

 

  1. A Second reason, of the Repl. his proposition, was, that whatsoever in worship is above order and decencie, is worship. Bec. whatsoever is acted by him that worshippeth, in that act, beside ordinarie civilitie, must eyther be an act or meanes of worship, or an orderly decent disposing of those acts, or else at the least idle, and so unlawfull. The Rej. answereth 1. that a significant

Page  73

Ceremonie for edification, is lawfull, yet commeth not under any of those heads. But he himself confesseth a significant Ceremon: instituted of God, to be essentiall worship, and instituted of man to be worship, though not in it self, of which distinction, enough hath been sayd, in the head of worship. Yet this by the way: A significant Ceremonie for edification, is the same, in it self, by whomesoever it be inst•tuted: because institution is extrinsicall to the thing instituted, and alters it not in it self, internally. If therfore it be essentiall lawfull worship, in it self when it is instituted by God, it is also essētiall (though not lawfull) worship, in it self, when it is instituted by man. Beside that Ceremonie whose proper sole ende is edification, toward God, is properly doen to the honor of God, and so properly divine worship.

 

His 2, answer is, that comlinesse grounded on civill humane considerations, is not mere civilitie, in sacred actions, and use, but sacred by application. W•ich is very true if civill application be meant by mere civill, but then it is nothing to the purpose. For sacred by application is seemly clothing, put on for to goe to Churche in, and yet is in it self mere civill. The question is not of application, but of internall nature.

 

Sacred thinges applied to Civill buissinesse, doe not therfore become Civill, for who will say, that Prayer, at the beginning of a Parliament, is a Civill act, though it were used in the Vpper, and lower house, and applied to that Civill meeting, as it ought to be? And why then shall application of Civill decencie unto

Page  74

Sacred buisinesse, make it alter the nature or name of it?

 

His 3. answer is, that all meanes of worship are not worship. But he knew well enough, that this was meant of proper means of worship.

 

His fourth is, that ordering and manner of disposing, is ill divided from comelinesse. Neyther did the Repl. intend so to divide, but rather to conjoine them, understanding by that manner of disposing, comelinesse. But if the Rejoynder had not cached up some shew of confounding comelinesse with order, which was not intended by the Repl. he had been in this argument wholly at a losse.

 

His 5. and last answer is, that by Basils leave some thinges, in themselfs, may, and sometime must be tolerated. But he should have remembred, that the question here is not of toleratíng, but of appointing and using.

 

Now if it be lawfull, to appoint and use emptie and unprofitable Ceremonies in Gods worship, let those Worshippers judge, that tremble at the Majestie of God, and are afrayd in any manner to appear emptie and unprofitablie before him.* Nay (to passe by our Divines) let the Papists themselvs judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. confesseth those Ceremonies to be forbidden, which are unprofitable altogether, and vaine praecepts, unproffitable & frivolons Ceremonies, onely by humane Spirit invented.* And de effect. Sacrament l. 2. cap. 32. empty and good for nothing. Morethen needs, and not a jot tending to any Godines, and who not?

 

Page  75

  1. Thus farre concerninge the Proposition of our Argument: the Assumtion followeth, which is this: To appoint and use the Ceremonies as we doe, is not to order in comely manner, any thing pertayning to Gods worship. The reason is, because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thinge, but onely the right placing and disposing of thinges formerly instituted.

 

  1. The Rejoynder answer 1. that order requireth new time, place, and measure: which is a Sophistrie in the Proposition before abused, and confuted.

 

  1. His second is, that ordering in comely manner, or comelinesse requireth the institution of suche formalities, as shall be sutable to the dignitie and varietie of divine actions. Where the terme formalities is not so formall, that a man may spie in it the difference it hath from other thinges, the Rejoynd. in his manuduction, pag. 36. appropriateth it to Bishops Roshe•s etc. evē as they are distinct from Surplices: the Bishops went before the Hearse in •heir formalities, the Clearks in their Surplices. So that it seemeth to mean some Ceremonies of state, and dignitie: of which kinde neyther Crosse, nor Surplice is any. Howsoever, unto ordering of one thing doeth not require another new thing, but onely disposing of that one. For if it did, then that new thing (because that also must be ordered) would require another new thing, and that also for order sake another, so that no one thing could be ordered, without an infinite heap of new thinges.

 

Page  76

As for the Dignitie of divine actions, that is best suited with mans reverent and humble simplicitie, not with outward shews of dignitie, invented by man. The womans ordinarie vaile was more suitable to the dignitie of Gods worship, then if she had adorned her self with golde, and pretious stones.

 

Pauls plaine cloak was more suitable then the richest Coap in all Rome. If Order requireth outward shews of dignitie, then Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches an imitable exāple of religious order, for the Councel of Trent sess. 22. professeth, their masse Ceremonies to be invented. That the Majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.

 

*12. To shew further that Order requireth not suche Ceremonie as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, signifying no suche thing. Now the Rejoynder granteth that originally the word doeth not conteyne within the compasse of it, suche kinde of Ceremonies, though by usage it may. Which is very true: but helpeth not, except the Def. or Rejoynder whose principall Argument is taken from this place, and onely retorted by us, can prove, that in this place, the word order is extended beyond his originall signification. He will not therfore stand with us, about the signification of the word in this place: let order (sayth he) in this place signifie no more then placing. But he maketh his retrait to the word Comelinesse: asking if comelinesse be nothing? I answer yes, it is some thing: but the Replier did not insist in that word, because he

Page  77

tooke the force of the Def. his Argument from this place principally to lie upon order.

 

But seeing the Rejoynder hath given up Order, I will adde a word or •wo concerning Comelinesse.

 

I take this for granted, that seing the Rejoynder confesseth Order heer to be taken in strict signification, as opposed onely to confusion, pag. 78. he will also consent with us, that Decencie in the same place and sentence, is to be taken in strict signification, as opposed onely to the vice of undecencie. Now hence it followeth, that Decencie requireth nothing but that which is necessarie to the avoiding of undecencie.

 

I aske therfor, if undecencie in Gods worship cannot be avoided, without double, treble, sacred significant Ceremonies, of mans inventing? If not, then the Apostles did muche forget themselves, in their publicke worshipping of God, before men had invented suche Ceremonies, for that is no answer which the Rejoynder after giveth: all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of Comelinesse. All Churches are bound to avoide undecencie, and to doe that which Decencie requireth, or bindeth them unto. If yea, then Decencie doeth not require suche kinde of Ceremonies.

 

Neyther doeth it in deed, any more thē Order.* So Mr. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is, when the service of God is performed with convenient and fitt circumstances of time, place, person, and gesture, and heereof the Apostle speaketh. 1. Cor. 14.40.

 

The plaine simple trueth, without Ceremoniall affectation, is, that Decencie is (in this place) nothing

Page  78

but good civill fashion,* agreable not onely to worship, but also to any grave assemblie. Decencie (sayth Pareus upon the place) is opposed to vanity, Spottes, ryott it stands not in hoods, Caps, or vizardes of fond Ceremonies. etc.

 

I dare appeall to D.B. his conscience, if Baptisme be not as decently administred without the Crosse, as with it? and publicke prayers made as decently without a Surplice, as with it? Let Conscience here speak, and the Rejoynder hearkening unto it, wil (without doubt) confesse, that Decencie in this place doeth no more require eyther Crosse or Surplice, then Order, and that both of them together doeth no more require those Ceremonies, then a hundred other, which in England (though not at Rome) are denyed unto them.

 

To this purpose, Mr. Attersoll, in his second book of the Sacram. cap. 5. sayth well: If they referre all this trash and trumperie (of humane Ceremonies in Baptisme) to order and comelinesse, as Hosius doeth, doe they not therby blasphemously accuse the Baptisme of Iohn, and of the Apostles, of uncomelinesse and disorder? wheras the comelinesse and dignitie of the Sacraments is to be esteemed by the word of God, by the institution of Christ, by the simplicitie of the Gospell, and by the practise of the Apostles: Nothing is more comely, decent, and orderly, then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth: nothing is more uncomely and unseemly, then that which man inventeth in the service of God, and in the celebration of the Sacraments,

Page  79

therby inverting and perverting the holy ordinances of God.

 

  1. The receyved definitions of Order are brought in to the same purpose, by the Replier. And the Rejoynder yeeldeth so muche as they importe, viz. that order in strict signification doeth not implie suche Ceremonies as ours.

 

He must therfore eyther prove, that in this place. 1. Cor, 14.40. that word is not taken strictly, which he himself formerly granted, or give up this place which is (by his owne confession) the onely place of all the New. Testament, for warranting of suche Ceremonies, or flie to Decencie, upon which he cannot any more fasten then upon order, as hath been shewed.

 

Nothing materiall is added in the rest of the Rejoynd. his answer unto this Argument (where our Divines are observed, to distinguish order and decencie from mysticall Ceremonies, the context of the chapter. 1. Corinth 14. Is declared to respect no mysticall Ceremonies, the phrase of Scripture is shewed to consent,) nothing (I say, and the Reader may see) is added: but onely the same thinges are repeated about Order, and Decencie which are now sufficiently discussed.

 

So that the Rejoynder hath nothing to say to the contrarie, but that wee may safely conclude, Ergo, to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the libertie of the Churche, 1. e. it is unlawfull.

 

Page  58

If ther were nothing else against them, in all the Scripture, then this place, beside which the Def. and Rejoynder can finde none in all the New. Testament, for them, any indifferent man would say they are not allowed.

 

Those that are devoted to the Ceremonies, may shufle up and downe, first to order, and when they are beaten thence, to Decencie, and from Decencie, when they can defend that no longer, to Edification, as the Rejoynder doeth: but all will not helpe. Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds, without starting, I will pawne my head, their anchor will come home to them againe as finding no fast grounde, eyther in Order, or Decencie, or edification, for double significant Ceremonies (suche as ours) to ride at.

 

The Def. could frame no Consequence out of any of these words, the Rejoynder sayth ther is one, but he cannot shew it. To the contrarie consequence nothing is answered of any moment.

 

And is not this a miserable cause, which hath no place in all the New Testament, which the best Advocates can allege for it, but onely that; out of which it is utterly confounded? To the Defend. and Rejoynders mainteyning such a cause, this testimonie may be given that they would willinglie, so farre as they can, favour thinges which the times favour, and therfore strive to make somthing, of that which maketh nothing for them. In the former section, when Order, Decencie, and Edification, should have been handled as Rules, according to the title of the digression, the Rejoynder soddainly

Page  81

breaketh off, referring them to a fitter place. Now here in this place, he was constreined to touche upon them, but so softly and sparinglie, that it appeareth he founde this no fitter place then the former, for those reserved considerations. When shall we come to the fitter place?

 

SECT. 17. Concerning the ancient Fathers allowing of Humane Ceremonies.

  1. OF these, the Repl. answered, it cannot be proved, nor is probable, that from the first beginning of the Primitive Churche they brought in any new inventions. Vpon this, the Rej. accusing not him alone, but others also, that they can beleive no trueth crosse to their opinion, because they seeke honour one of another, & praesume of their new traditions, as if the spirit of trueth had come onely to them, or from thē alone, answereth that it is a matter of fact, proved by Records of Churches, against which nothing can be sayd. But if he could keep-in his passion, so longe, as to hear this onely word, that there are no sufficient Records of any suche thing, exstant from the beginninge, then he might see that sufficient answer is given, unto the name of all Fathers, allways.

 

Yet I will adde one conjecture, to shew, that those

Page  82

observations which seem to have been universall, in the Primitive Churche, were not so in deed, without exception. Praying toward the East, hath as ancient testimonie, as any other humane Rite. Tertullian Apol. cap. 16. witnesseth, that that was one cause why the Christians were esteemed to worship the Sunne. And yet Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 22. doeth witnesse, that at Antioche which was the first Churche of Christians by name, they used not to place their Mysteries which directed their posture of prayer, toward the East, but rather toward the West. And why may we not conceyve the like of Easter, as well as of this East observation?

 

  1. It was secondly answered, that those, Feasts, which the Primitive Churche is sayd to have observed, were not by Canonicall imposition, but voluntarie accommodation to the infirmitie of some, as appeareth by the varietie of their observation, and Socrates his testimonie. Marke now, what a Rejoynder is given? 1. Hee telleth us of a strange conjecture of his, even from this answer▪ viz. that the Churches held, it not onely lawfull, but also convenient, to impose upon themselves suche Feasts. As if occasionall accommodation, were all one with imposition, or voluntarie joining in action for the good that is in it, were always a certaine argument of holding that opinion which others doe affixe unto it. But if they had thought them so cōveniēt, yet that Arg. would be of litle force. For many Ceremonies were thought then convenient, which longe since are universally thought otherwise of, & therfor left off, though no reason of inconvenience can be shewed, which did

Page  83

not agree to those times as well as to succeeding times, except further abuse: which cannot be denied of our Ceremonies in question, as religious use of milke, hony, & absteyning from washing ones hands for certayn days after Baptisme etc. 2. That which was mentioned of infirmitie occasioning this accommodation, the Rej. (after his manner) crieth downe as a fiction, boldly delivered, without proof, or colour, meerly for opposition sake: Wheras notwithstanding it is so clear, that the infirmitie of men newly converted from Iudaisme, and Gentilisme, did bringe into Christian Churches customes like unto those in use amonge Iews and Gentils, that Cardinall Baronius, from that ground mainteyneth many Ceremonies.*What wonder if the growen customes among the Gentiles (and we may add the Iewes also) were such as from which, tho they were converted to Christianisme, they were yet so hardly taken, that it might seeme impossible to putt them quite off, what wonder I say then if the most holy Bishops have graunted them place in the worship of God?

 

Doctor Iackson, in his Originall of Idolatrie sect. 4. chap. 23. sheweth the first occasion of Superstition in Christians, to have been the infirmities, wherby it came to passe, that heathenish (and Iewish) Rites, wherto men had been longe accustomed, could not easily be extirpated. Where also about suche accommodations, he hath this remarkable observation. To outstrip our adversaries in their owne policies, or to use meanes abused by others to a better ende, is a resolution so plausible to wordly wisedome that even Christians have mightilie overreached and intangled themselves, by too muche seeking to circumvent or goe beyond others.

 

Page  84

About the Varietie which was of olde in the observation of these feasts, the Rejoynder answereth, that it notwithstanding, the agreement for the thinges themselves was universall. Which if he would take with a graine of salt, viz. that after some space of time, it was (for ought we know) universall, but not upon any Ecclesiasticall imposition, nor upon any knowne groundes out of Gods word, it is the same that the Repl. affirmeth, and Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. laboreth to confirme.

 

  1. Mention was further made of the mischeife that came in by those humane observations. To which the Rejoynder answereth, that the Anniversarie solemnities have not obscured, but praeserved that simplicitie of the Gospel. And if they had so doen, by accident Satans malice, and mans frailtie, that is nothing but what may be affirmed of Divine ordinances, But 1. the Def. his position was in generall of universall Ceremonies by humane institution, and not Feasts alone? Now those first Ceremoniall observations are guiltie of opening that gate, for all the humane praesumtions to enter into Gods house, which pressed in after them: which gate could never be shutte from that day to this. 2. Those very Feasts made a composition or mixture of humane institutions with divine, and therfore did not praeserve simplicitie. They also were from their first rise not onely aequalled unto, but also extolled above the Lords day. Easter brought in a superstitions Lent to attend upon it, made Baptisme wayt for her Moon: and conformed our Lords Supper unto the Iewish Passeover in unleavened bread, etc.

Page  85

It was the first apple of contention amonge Christians, the first weapon, wherw••h the Bishop of Rome played his prises against other Churches, & after slew so many Bri•tons with, by Austin the monke. Holie-days in honor of Christ invited unto them Saints holy Days etc. 4. It is praesumtion, to make mens inventions as guiltlesse of evill consequences, as Gods holy ordinances. They are active efficacious occasions given of evill: these are onely passive occasions taken.

 

Neyther is ther any corruption of Gods ordinances, whose originall occasion may not be founde in mens (nay fathers) Ceremonious praesumtions.

 

  1. It was finally answered by the Repl. that the allways of these Feasts, cannot include the Apostolicall times, and for other allways, Bellarmine Cont. 1. l. 4. c. 9. hath the same plea, and the answer given unto him by our Divines, may serve here. The Rejoynder here 1. insinuateth that it is very likely, these Feasts, or some of them, were on foot while some Apostles lived: because Polycarpe praetended Iohn to have taught Easter.

 

On foot indeed was the mysterie of Antichristian corruption in the Apostles times. But that which Polycarpe is sayd to have praetended, was for the fourteen day of the moneth, and is confuted by a contrarie praetense of the latine Churches, from Peter and Paul. Socrat. l. 5. cap. 22. He 2. addeth, under Augustines name that it is insolent madnesse, to thinke that not to be well doen, which hath been doen by all the Churche, though it beganne after the Apostles times. Now though I finde no suche saying of Augustines, in the epistle quoted

Page  86

for it, but to the Contrarie, I finde this rule, that it is lawful or not lawfull to beleeve or not to beleeve other witnesses or testimonies besides that of the Scriptures) so far as you see they beare or do not beare weight to make us give more credit to a thinge.* Which being granted, the fact of the Churche cannot so confirme, this or that to be right and well, as that it should be madnesse to denie it. Yet let it be his saying, I answer, if this be true then it must needs follow, that giving of the Communion (and that as is most likely sopped) upon opinion of necessitie, cannot be denied well and good, for that (as is well knowen) was doen generally in Augustines time, and longe before. It must follow also, that they were speciall insolent mad men, that first began to disalow eyther that, or any other ancient thinge of generall observatiō:* which Augustine would never have sayde, whoe professed of his time, that the Churche of God sett in the heape of chaffe and tares, did onely suffer many things, onely ep. 119.

 

He 3. distinguisheth betwixt Bellarmines, and the Defendants alledging of traditions, because Bell. spake of doctrines necessarie to salvation. Which is not true for Bell. in that chapter maketh no mention of doctrines necessarie to salvation: and in the next chapter but one cap. 11. he confesseth, that all thinges absolutely necessarie to salvation, are written in the Scriptures, and (which is muche more) all thinges that are eyther necessarie, or profitable for all men to know.

 

Page  87

SECT. 18.19. Concerning Protestants witnessing against the Negative argument from Scripture.

  1. BEllarmine was brought in by the Def. as an indifferent Adversarie, confessinge that Protestants holde the Apostles to have instituted some thinges, perteyning to rites and order, which are not written. Which was also granted unto him, as making nothing against us. Onely the vanitie of that allegation was in some particulars declared, which how they are cleared (it being a matter of no moment) I referre to the Readers judgement.

 

  1. Chemnitius was alledged, saying, there be some Ecclesiasticall Rites, which have neyther command, nor testimonie, in Scripture, which yet are not to be rejected. Answer was made, that this in a right sense is granted by us. The Rejoynder taxeth this as an idle shift: because 1 Chemnitius did not intende suche a restrictive sense. 2. Circumstances of Order have command and testimonie in Scripture. But 1. It is no idle shift so to interpret an allegation objected, as that the interpretation cannot be confuted, but barely denied. 2. As Circumstances of order and decencie have their generall command or testimonie in Scripture, so have those Rites which Chemnitius understandeth, or else his sentence is without any grounde out of Scripture.

 

Page  78

  1. The same answer is given, and no other Rejoynder made, about Calvin, Danaeus, Whitakers and Zanchie, saving that of Zanchie, it is observed & urged by the Rejoynd. that he sayth some Ceremonies may help for the furtherance of pietie which have no foundation in the word: giving instance of the solemnities of Easter, etc. Tract. de Sacra. Scriptura. For whom I answer, that his sentence must be understood of no particular foundation, or else he should give more then any Papist will require, concerning their humane Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies. As for his instances in the solemnities of Easter, it seemeth he reckoned them amonge Ceremonies of order and decencie, because as the Def. and Rej. confesse, that is the onely place authorizing humane institutions in Religion. If he meant otherwise, he did as a man, crosse his owne rules, as after (God willing) shall be shewed.

 

For the present, let that testimonie of Zanchie be well considered, which he setteth downe in Col. 2.8. It is certayn, that this consequence is very good: this or that is not according to Christ: therfore it is not to be admitted. This ought to be enough to any Christian man: It is not according to Christ: therfore I admitte it not, in the buisinesse of atteyning to salvation. Where is to be noted, 1. That according to Christ, is opposed (by the Apostle) to according to the traditions of men, and therfore is all one, with not appointed by Christ. 2, that all Ceremonies instituted to teache the doctrine perteyning to salvation, are part of the meanes wherby we are supposed to be helped & directed, in seeking and atteyning salvation.

 

  1. About Iunius, ther is more adoe, because his

Page  89

wordes are set downe at large on both pars. But as for that which the Def. and Rejoynder cite out of him, pag. 109. I cannot say much more then hath been answered to the other Divines, untill a consequence be framed out of them, more effectuall to the purpose, then is in that which the Rejoynd. onely quaestioneth. And doeth the rule 1. Cor. 14. concerne nothing but circumstances of Order? Or can our opposites be accorded with this saying? For it hath been formerly manifested what that rule doeth require, and how it may be accorded with our tenent.

 

On the other part, this professed, sworne sentence of Iunius is alledged: If any man, eyther by Civill, or Ecclesiasticall authoritie, will adde thinges not necessarie, nor agreeable to Order, wee would not pertinaciously contend with him, but desire onely that he would seriously consider of three thinges. 1. By what authoritie, or example, he is led to thinke, that the holy Churche of God, and the simplicitie of the mysteries of Christ (whose voyce onely is heard by his sheep) must be clad with humane traditions, which Christ doeth reject? 2. To what ende he judgeth, that thes thinges should be added unto those that are divine? For if the ende be conformitie with others, it were more aequitie, that other Churches should conforme to those, which come neerest to the Word of God (as Ciprians counsel is) then that these should conforme to the other. If the ende be comelinesse, what is more comely then the simplicitie of Christ? What is more simple then that comelinesse.

 

If there be no other reason beside will, then that of Tertullian is to be thought of: The will of God, is the cheif necessitie,

Page  90

and that the Churche of God is not tied unto mans wisdome in thinges Divine. The third thinge to be thought on is, what event allways hath followed upon humane traditions, as longe experience doeth shew? Ecclesiastíci, lib. 3. Cap. 5. This testimonie is so full, and clear, that it needeth no candle of Commentarie, or Consequence, to be set by it. What can the Rejoynder answere?

 

  1. His first is, that Iunius doeth not here condemne our Ceremonies even because they are not commanded in the Word. But he might have remembred out of sect. 2. that the argument is of warrant and direction from the word, not of direct and speciall commanding. Now Iunius plainely denieth authoritie or example of the worde, or any thinge but mans will, to be the grounde of suche Ceremonies, and for that cause would have them avoyded.

 

  1. His second is, that Iunius wrote not this of suche Ceremonies as ours: because he speaketh of those that are neyther necessarie, nor according to order, rejected by Christ, added to Divine thinges, which must needs import necessitie and worship a• fixed unto them. But had it not been better counsel, for the Rejoynder to have helde his peace, then to let every man see what miserable shifts he is driven to? 1. Iunius having made this conclusion: that Magistrates may not constitute, and change persons, things, Ceremonies at their pleasure, and that those which teli them they may (as our Def. and Rejoynder doe in part) are therin no well willers to the Churche, propoundeth this question: if it be not in the Magistrates

Page  91

power, to appointe, or abrogate suche thinges? to which he answereth negatively: because all necessaries, and essentialls are appointed by Christ, and as for other not necessarie thinges, above the sphere of order, he gives those reasons, which are in the wordes, largely cited. Now 1. what a wreched evasion is this, that he spake not of our Ceremonies?

 

He spake of all not necessarie not appointed by Christ: but yet he spake not of ours.

 

This is as some should denie that rule which some logicians call de omni & de nullo, to holde in Ceremonies: or affirme that to be false of English Ceremonies, which is true of all Ceremonies. 2. When our Divines speak against Popish Ceremonies, the Rejoynder his ordinarie answer is, that they speak of Ceremonies held necessarie, and therfore not of suche as ours. Now when Iunius expresly speaketh of Ceremonies not necessarie, the Rejoynder concludeth, that he could not meane ours or suche like. How should any man speake, to put suche a Rejoynder from having some thing to speak? 3. Iunius sayd, that those Ceremonies are unlawfully appointed, which are not convenient to, or required by Order: Ergo (sayth the Rejoynder.) he could not speak of suche as ours are. And yet the same Rejoynder manud. pag. 33. confesseth our Ceremonies to be double or treble Ceremonies and those of order, to be onely single. Neyther could he ever yet finde any fit place, to shew our Ceremonies agreeable to order.

 

Page  92

Nay when the Repl. by this argument, out of 1. Cor. 14.40. proved these Ceremonies unlawfull, the Rej. fled from Order, to Decencie, and Edification.

 

And yet heer in this place, being beaten out of those coverts by judicious Iunius, he betaketh himself againe to that halfmoon of order, which before he had quitted. 4. Iunius sayth, suche Ceremonies are rejected by Christ: Therfore (sayth the Rejoynder:) he cannot mean suche as ours. As if he should say, those that affirme our Ceremonies are rejected by Christ, cannot meane our Ceremonies. 5. Iunius speaketh of Ceremonies added to divine thinges: and so (by the Rejoynder his collection, not of suche as ours, because that must needs import necessitie, and worship affixed to them. And yet both Def. and Rej. cap. 2. sect. 3. can finde out many additions to Divine thinges, which are intended onely for praeservation of them, and the•fore (by their owne judgement) must not needs import necessitie, and worship. Suche turning, winding, and running against walls, you shall seldom see an ingenuous man use in a good cause.

 

  1. Two thinges yet the Rejoynder noteth in the by: 1. Iunius would not resist suche thinges pertinaciously, as the Repl. doeth 2. Iunius speaking against cladding Gods ordinances with the garments of humane Ceremonies, had another meaning, then the Def. p. 3. Rejoynder pag. 5. where he calleth suche Ceremonies as ours, the garment of Religion: because by clothing Iunius meant adorning and hiding of nakednesse, but the Def. opposed garments to members of the bodie: and therfore the

Page  93

Repl. need not by his marginall note have applied Iunius his clothing to the Def. his garment. Now for the first of these, ther is difference betwixt pervicatious contending, without reason and measure, which Iunius modesly putteth from him, and that constant restistance which he himself teacheth here in this place, where he affirmeth that Christs sheep (even in suche Ceremoniall matter) will not nor ought to hear any voice but Christs. For this, hee foreseeing that it would be accounted pervicacie, disclaimeth that, and yet doeth thoroughlie resist. So would the Rep. if he may have leave: If not, I see not why he may not doe the same thinge, though he be censured for it, as Iunius feared hee should be.

 

And this I may truly say, I have heard the Repl. more then once professe, that whē, in studying of Divinitie, he was something perplexed about Ceremonies and suche like humane institutions, by reason of some ambiguous, and ill consenting passages of some others, this one place of Iunius (so solemnely confirmed with the oath of suche a man, for his synceritie and unpartiallnesse in the buisinesse, and alleging suche grave reasons for his judgement therin) did very muche affect him, and first setle his minde for suche matter. So that if he be deceyved, Iunius hath deceyved him. But he hath now more cause then before, to esteem muche of this place because, the utmost that the Rejoynder could say to it, is as good as just nothing.

 

As for the difference which the Rejoynder would finde, betwixt that clothing of Religion, which Iunius

Page  94

taxeth, and the garment of Religion, which the Defend mainteyneth, I cannot discerne it.

 

For 1. If Iunius meant adorning, as the Rejoynder sayth he did, that is one office of a garment, and suche a one as the Rejoynder ascribeth to Ceremonies in respect of Religion, pag. 95. where is sayd that they are comely formalities, suitable to the dignitie and varietie of divine actions. 2. If Iunius meant hiding of nakednesse of Religion, he meant it onely in the esteem of those which impose suche Ceremonies. And so all they that adde their Ceremonies to Religion, as usefull garments, doe seem to account it (in comparison) naked without them. 3. If the Def. meant to shew, that our Ceremonies are not essentiall limbes of the bodie of Religion, so did Iunius mean to shew, that those which adde their Ceremonies to Gods ordinances, doe pretend, they adde onely clothing, not members, to the body of Religion. Neyther is this snaching at words, as the Rejoynder termeth it. For it is, and hath been an ordinarie commēdation of Ceremonies, that they are as a garment to Religion. Whence it was that a Scottishman (as I remember) at the first comming of King Iames into England, hearing them mainteyned under that name, answered that he wondred then how Religion did live, and thrive, in the colde countrie of Scotland; without suche linsiewoolsy garments?

 

  1. Vnto this full testimonie of Iunius, the Repl. added the words of Zanchie, ano•her witnesse of the Defend. His words in his epistle to Q. Elizabeth, are

Page  95

these: the Churche must be ordered by the rule of the Apostolcall Churche, as well in Ceremonies, as in doctrine. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is no more contrarie to the Def. then to Zanchie himself, acknowleging (elsewhere) some Ceremonies lawfull, which have neyther commande nor testimonie of Scripture, which he would never say of doctrinals. Now 1. If it be also against Zanchie himself, yet it disableth his testimonie, for the Def. 2. This which is alledged out of him, for Ceremonies without testimonie or foundation in Scripture, hath been answered before, that it must needs be understood of particular foundation. And so he might well say the same of doctrinalls. For in this ther is no difference betwixt Ceremonies, and many other thinges, which are not Ceremonies, and yet apperteine to Conscience. As the Apostle sayd: let all thinges be doen comely and in order, so sayd he also: whatsoever thinges are venerable, or honest, just, of good report, and prayse, let them be doen.

 

All the particulars of these latter, are not Ceremoniall: and yet many hundreds of suche thinges have no more command, or testimonie in Scripture, then the particulars of order and Decencie: Neyther have the generalls of order and Decencie, lesse command and testimonie in Scripture then the generall of these.

 

His 2. answer that Zanchies comparison is to be understood of similitude, not of aequalitie, is in the former words answered.

 

For no disparitie can be shewed, betwixt many particulars of Doctrinall pointes, in their cases of

Page  98

practise, considered with all circumstances, and the particulars of Decencie and Order: muche lesse betwixt their generalls. As for exāple it is as difficult for D. B. to fetche from any doctrine in Scripture, this particular: It is venerable, just, and of good report, for him to write su•he a Rejoynder as he hath doen, as this particular: the Crosse in Baptisme is orderly, decent, and to edification. I take both to be impossible. But suppose both to be probable, the former (being no Ceremonie) is no more determined in Scripture, then the later.

 

There hath been a fashiō taken up of speaking otherwise, but no reason can be rendered of it. Let any man shew the reason, and I will yeeld.

 

The epistle out of which this quotation is, was written in deed against our Ceremonies, yet the Repl. leaving to a fitter place, noted onely for the present purpose, that it was written of them. But the Rejoynd. being great with an observation or two, addeth about that: Moreover Zanchie when he wrote to Q Eliz. to persuade her not to urge the Ceremonies so severly, did write at the same time to B. Iewel, that Ministers should rather yeeld to them, then leave their places: because they are not simplie unlawfull.

 

To which I answer 1. Zanchie writ to Q. Eliz not onely that the Ceremonies should not be so severe•y urged, but also that they ought not to be urged, imposed, or allowed of at all, but abolished. And of this his judgement, he gave suche effectuall reasons, as can never be answered. Amonge other, one is proper unto this place, and fit here to be remembred, because it overthroweth

Page  97

all that warrant which the Def. and Rejoynder have hitherto, or can heerafter plead for them, out of 1. Cor. 14. Order, Decencie, Edification. These Ceremonies saith he make not for edification, but for publicke dissention, private perturbation of conscience, with scandall of good and bad. They make not for order, but disorder, and confusion of good Ministers with evill or Popish, who ought even in garments to differ. They make not for decencie of Christs Spouse: because they are a strange ridiculous, idolatrous attire of this Romish whore.

 

  1. Zanchie when he writ unto B. Iewel, gave no reason of this counsel for yeelding, but left them to be invented by B. Iewel. Now because those reasons of yeelding were never yet made knowen, wherby the former reasons directed by Zanchie against urging can possibly be overborne, I cannot otherwise thinke, but this later counsel was more out of charitie guided by humane erring prudence, then out of judgement grounded on Scripture. Howsoever our question is, not onely of yeelding in case of extreame necessitie, but also of appointing and urging men to that extreame necessitie.

 

  1. Zanchie doeth not perswade to allow of these Ceremonies by subscription, or silence, but onely in extreme necessitie, to yeeld unto them, and that with Protestation.* Now this was according to a kinde of charitable Pollicie, which Luther is author of about all Popish Ceremonies: de Libertate Christiana, in these wordes: Although we must manfully resist those Masters of traditions, and the lawes of the Popes wherwith they overrun

Page  98

the people of God are tartly to be dispraised,*yet the timorous multitude (whome those wicked Tyrants lead captive with the same lawes) must stoop till they be pl•inely layd open. You may inveigh against the lawes and law makers, but withall you may observe them with the weake, untill both they do know the Tyranny and come to understand their liberty.

 

But 1. what warrant have we for suche a course but of Gods word? 2. Mr. Hooker, pag. 247. derideth this course, as a Theorie neyther allowable, nor any way practicable in England.

 

  1. Our opposites, that defend, and commend the Ceremonies, as orderly decent thinges, tending to Edification, cannot without contradiction assent unto this counsel. D. B. in deed did formerly beginne after some manner, to put some peice of this course in practise. But the ill successe that he found in it, hath since made him, & others, keep farr from that part of it, which concerns Protestation, and in stead therof, to turne them unto Commendation. Did ever any that writ for our Ceremonies, write suche an Epistle as Zanchies, unto Queen, or Kinge? Can they say so muche, and doe as they doe? Nay is ther any Bishop, that dare license Zanchie his Epistles, to Queene Eliz and B. Iewel, both together, for to be printed in English?

 

These thinges being so, I leave it unto consideration, unto whom the Rejoynder his affected censure belongeth: Now wel-sare a good stomacke: Hee cannot resist, but hee will not yeeld.

 

Page  99

SECT. 20.21. Concerning Reasons against the Negative Argument from Scripture.

  1. THe Def. his first reason is: Whatsoever is unlawfull is a trangression of some law revealed in the word. Ergo against it. Ergo not onely beside it. The Repl. granteth all: and sheweth, that it is a meer fantasie, before confuted, as a cavill, in the Replie, and longe since, by Mr. Cartwrights, 2. Rep. p. 56. not agreable to the very words of the Argument, to which it is opposed. Vpon this the Rejoynd. powreth out words He turneth head: O strange! a Babe owned from the birth, suckled by many Scriptures, an ill favoured faced brat, absurd, contradictorie, when he is taken in a snare, he sa•th he is mistaken. And what reason hath he to back or bear out all these words with? If the Scriptures (sayth he) condemne what soever is doen not onely against, but beside t•e direction therof, then doeth it condemne something as unlawfull for being onely beside it, and not any way against it. To which I answer, that it doeth not follow: because a thing may be onely beside the word some way, and yet some way against it. Onely beside the particular praescript of it, and yet against the generall command of it.

 

If a Father charge his sonne, or a Maister his servant, first that for a certain time, he doe nothing beside that which he shall bid him: and then commande

Page  100

him for that time, to read in a certain booke, if that sonne, or servant, shall beside reading paint antick f•ces in his booke, he shall doe onely beside the particular commande, and yet against the generall charge, & both ways censurable. Let the Rejoynder therfore spare his words, and see better to his Argument, or rather eat both, that others be not troubled with them.

 

  1. The second reason, brought by the Def. was: Nothing that is indifferent, can be pronounced simplie unlawfull. But some Ceremonies of mans invention are indifferent. Ergo, not to be pronounced simplie unlawfull. All whiche is granted of circumstances of Order, if by invention, be meant determination; otherwise, the Assumtion is denied. Though it was added also (exsuperabundante) that thinges indifferent are sometime taken so generally, that in that sense, the proposition may be denied. Against this, I cannot discerne what materiall thinge is Rejoyned. He sayth, that it is easy to say the Assumtion is false, and not to shew wherin. But I have hitherto thought that it is sufficient for answer to any Argument, to denie the Assumtion, untill it be proved: and that the falsitie of any sentence, doeth consist in this, that it pronounceth otherwise then the thinge is, and therfore in saying an assumtion is false, it is not needfull, to shew wherin.

 

He sayth also that the largest sense of thinges indifferent, doeth make no variation of thinges indifferent. But the Author, and place, was named to him: Sopingius in his Apologie ad lib. Anonym. pag. 166. Where the case is very pertinent. For Doctor Sibrandus was challenged

Page  101

by a Remonstrant, who intituled his book, Bona fides Sitrandi, that as in an Epistle Dedicatorie to the Arche-Bishop of Canterbury, he had, to winne his favour the more against Vorstius, and his, declared his judgement of the Hierarchie (and Ceremonies) of England, to be thinges indifferent, so he spake of the Magistrates power, under the same terme unfitly, Sopingius, a godly learned man, whoe had beē a Scholler under Sibrandus, and so desired to help him out of this brier, had no other way to doe it, but by saying that all those thinges are sometime called indifferent, which are not necessarie to salvation, or without whiche a man may be saved.

 

Now in this sense, the Repl. sayd, the proposition might be denied: viz. that nothing indifferent 1. e. not necessarie to salvation, is unlawfull. The Rejoynder •it seemeth) had not the booke, and so ventured to contradict he knew not what.

 

  1. The third argument was: There must needs allways be varietie of Ceremonies in severall Churches. Ergo all are not praescribed.

 

The Repl. answereth, that ther neyther need, nor ought to be any varietie, but onely in particular circumstances of order, for time and place etc. Here the Rej. (complayning of Coleworts, and of not caring to say any thinge, so it be in opposition) bringeth in to the contrarie some examples of civill decencie, variable according to times and places. But all suche thinges the Repl. conteyned in his etc. He addeth also varietie of solemne feasts But before those can have place here, it must be proved, that suche feasts must needes be. But (sayth he) never

Page  102

any Divine so spake before Mr. Iacob. And hath he soon forgotten, what was even now recited by himself out of Iunius? Suche kinde of Rejoynders will never be wanting.

 

  1. The Def. his fourth reason was, that the Nonconformists like well, that every Minister in his Parish, should determine of Rites and Orders: whence would follow varietie. Ergo they holde some rites of humane invention and ordination, lawfull.

 

To this the Rejoynder addeth, as an explication in text, and table, that Non-Conformists set up Parish-omnipotence without referen•e to Bishops, as some teache, or to Synods, as other. Wherby a Minister, and some of his Parishioners, may ordeyne some Rites and Ceremonies for their use, and the King, and Churche under his authoritie may not. Now before we come to the Repl. his answers unto the Def. his reason, let us consider a litle the Rejoynder his addition. 1. The malignant imputation of Parish omnipotencie, ill beseemeth our Opposites, except that they can shew, more power to be given by us unto Ministers and Elders, in their severall Congregations, then by them is given to Bishops, For untill they can shew this (which they are as able to doe, as to call effectually that which is not, as if it were) in accusing us, of setting up Parish omnipotencie, they confesse themselves, to set up Diocesan omnipotencie, Convocation-omnipotencie, etc.

 

  1. It worse beseemeth D. B. then most other, except he wil confesse, that he, when he was Minister at the Hagh, in Holland, and with the consent of his people, ordered thinges in that Congregation (as to receyve

Page  103

the Communion sitting at the table, to leave out the Crosse in Baptisme, and Surplice in all Divine service) did then and there set up Parish-omnipotencie. 3. It is an injurie, more then ordinarie, to make us (any way) extoll the authori•ie of a Minister, above the authoritie of the Kinge, in any matter of appointing and ordeyning. For though a Minister may doe something in his administration, which no other man can lawfully doe, yet none of us ever thought, that he may appoint and ordeyne any thing to be doen, with coactive authoritie, which the King may doe, in all thinges lawfull, and convenient; even in Churche affaires. So that our tenent is, that the Minister, and his people, may use no Ceremonie, nor exercise any publicke act of worship, which the King may not appoint, commād, and compell them to. For in holding that no suche thinge is to be doen, beside that which Christ hath appointed, and that the Kinge may, and ought to see that all Christs institutions be observed, we must needs be confessed to hold that assertion, which is the conclusion of these two. 4. The fallacious ground of this accusation is, that the Minister with his people, may occasionally order some thinges, which no man absent can, not for want of authoritie, but for want of presence to observe the occasion: as what time the Churche meeting shall beginne, upon that day, that the Communion is to be administred, together with Baptisme, and other buisines, more then ordinarie. 5. That which he intermixeth, of reference to Bishops, bringeth all the Churches of France, Netherlands, etc. under his Censoriall note, of Parish-omnipotencie.

 

Page  104

Thus much for the Rejoynder apart. Now to the Def. 1. His Argument is rejected, as supposing, all Circumstances to be of like nature with these in controversie. No (sayth the Rejoynder) but onely that one would like one thing, and one another. But I say yes, or else he cannot argue from one to the other. For what consequence is in this: Men may determine of simple circumstances for order and decencie: Ergo they may ordeyne double, treble, sacred, significant Ceremonies proper to Religion? beside he nameth in his supposition Festivall days.

 

  1. The second fault, found in the Def. his argument was, it supposeth all circumstances to be of institution. No, sayth the Rejoynder againe. Let him therfore put ordeyning out of the Summe which he hath made of the Def. his reason, and confesse also, that this reason maketh nothing for mens instituting of Ceremonies.

 

  1. The third was, it supposeth contrarie circumstanc•s, ceremoniously to be practised, by the same men as of institution. Not so (sayth the Rejoynder:) but onely cantrarie fashions practised by severall men, out of their election. Yet it seemeth to be for the most part so: because the question is of Ceremonies, and Ceremonious practising, not of incidentall fashions. Of institution, which the Def. calleth ordeyning, not of voluntarie occasionall election. If by varietie of observing Festivall days, and not observing them, was by the Def. understood of severall men, then in that part he was misunderstood by the Repl. Now upon these premisses,

Page  105

the Rejoynder concludeth all the Repl. his answer to be nothing but bogling and scurrilitie. What would he have sayd, if one had accused him of setting up Diocesan, and Convocation omnipotencie.

 

It seemeth that (though he aboundeth in that facultie) he would have wanted reproachefull words, to expresse his indignation of suche an imputation.

 

  1. In opposition to this mishapen Argument of the Def. taken from Non-conformists confession, the Rep. propounded one, from the Conformists confession: You say these Ceremonies are Divine, and yet dare not denie, but the rejecting of them in other Churches, is Divine.

 

You retayne these Ceremonies as Divine, and yet reject other Ceremonies, of like nature, as divine as these. What divinitie (or agreement) is in suche courses? To this, the Rejoynder answereth, that this argueth an ill conscience: because the Def. doeth not say that these our Ceremonies are Divine, but that in respect of permis•ive appointment, and in these, they are divine, in particul•r, and hypothesi, humane. And this may be sayd of the different Ceremonies of severall Churches. For ill Conscience, I will not be so liberall in charging the Rejoynder as hee is prodigall of it toward the Repl. But ill science I can easily prove. For 1. He denieth the Def. to call our Ceremonies Divine: because (forsooth) he calleth them so in the generall, and not in their speciall: for so the Def. doeth interpret his owne termes.

 

Which is as muche as to say, he that doeth not call

Page  106

them every way Divine, doeth not call them Divine. 2. He passeth by the mayne termes of our Argument Divine rejecting of the same Ceremonies in other Churches, Rejecting of other Ceremomonies, as Divine as these in our Churche; and for these he putteth onely, different divine Ceremon. in severall Churches. This sure is no scientificall kinde of answer. 3. No Divinitie will suffer any thing to be called Divine, but that which (all circumstances considered) may at least necessarily be concluded out of the Divine law. Otherwise all good humane laws may be called Divine laws. Now wee have hitherto exspected in vayne, when our Ceremonies may be so concluded.

 

It is altogether impossible, that the institution, and Rejection, of Crosse, and Surplice, in divers places, should be both Divine, or that the urging of these, and abolishing of Images, should be Divine, in the same place, and time. This part therfore of the Argument, the Rejoynder thought good, to answer with silence.

 

Page  107

SECT. 22. Concerning the Assumtion, of the maine Argument, handled in this Chapter.

  1. THe Repl. set downe the Def. his plea, with a generall answer thus: After all this adoe about the Proposition of the first Argument, Now we are tolde of an Assumtiō, out of the Abridgement, and Mr. Hy: viz: that Ceremonies have no warrāt out of the word of God being humane inventions, For Mr. Hy: I cannot say muche (because his reasons are not in printe) but for •he Authors of the Abridgement, they have great wronge doen them. Whosoever will turne to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abridgement, shall see, that the words which our Def. hath turned into a Proposition, are there but part of an illustration, belonging to this proposition: All Ceremonies that swerve from the Rules given in the Word, for the Churches direction, in matters of Ceremonies, are unlawfull. The Assumtion of which is: But the Ceremonies in question, doe swerve from those Rules. Now all this cheif pith, both of Proposition, and Assumtion, is by the Def. omitted: A by thinge is put in place of the Proposition. A new assumtion is formed: and yet all fathered upon the Abridgement. What hath the Rejoynder to say against all this? 1. This demurrer should have come in at the first. But first, or last,

Page  108

if it be true which here sayd, the Def. cannot be defended.

 

  1. The Repl. granted the whole Argument, sect. 2. In saying (forsooth) that he took for granted, whatsoever was there sayd for the all-sufficiencie of Scripture.

 

  1. This of it self, is an Argument against our Ceremonies. What then? the Authors of the Abridgement, may yet have wronge, if it be made theirs, against their will. 4 It is fit to be the first Argument, because if this be granted, all other rules are vayne. The question is nothere of fitnesse for place, but of fitting it to the Abridgement. Yet this whole Argument being granted (according to our meaning) of those that the Rejoynder calleth double triple Ceremonies, the Rules have use about single ones. 5. The Proposition is taken out of the Abridgement, pag. 44. and the Assumtion is fitted to it, Let it be so, yet if that be made a proposition of theirs, which onely was an illustration, or confirmation of their proposition, and (a new assumtion fitted unto it according to an adversaries pleasure) the whole argument fathered upon them, as a first and cheif one, this surely cannot be excused from wrong doeing.

 

  1. To the Def. his answer unto the Assumtion, viz. that in generall and permissive appointment, our Ceremonies are (not humane but) Divine, the Repl. sayd that he understood not a permissive apointment, to be other then an appointment without appointment: because to permitte, is neyther to command or appointe, nor forbid.

 

Here the Rejoynder amonge many shrewed wordes,

Page  109

hath this reason that the same thinges are commanded, in general, but in particular are onely permitted, And for ignorance of this, he twi•teth the Repl. with want of logicke. But I cannot yet see, out of any logick how a generall can be commanded, generally, and any true speciall or particular of it be onely permitted. He that commandeth all order and comelinesse, commandeth also every speciall of it. Every generall command, applied unto his true speciall subject, maketh that specially commanded.

 

It is commanded in generall that every husband should love his wife, not in speciall, that Aquila should love Priscilla: yet suppose Priscilla to be Aquila his wife, she may chalenge conjugall love, all so well as if hername had been in that Command in speciall. Else we may as well say, that superstition, will-worship, or at least disorder, to which order is opposed, is forbidden in generall, but some specialls of them or it, are onely permitted. The trueth is, Crosse and Surplice, cannot with any shew of reason, or common sense, be sayd to be commanded in generall, any more then in speciall, no nor yet permitted, eyther in speciall or in generall. The Rejoynder hath yet found no fit place, to prove the commande though it mainely concerneth his cause, and of it self alone might satisfie any mans conscience, if it could be proved, and the permission is the maine question of this whole Dispute.

 

Page  110

Chapter second, Concerning worship.

 

ALl the materiall doctrine of this Chapter is before discussed, in the Manuduction, sect. 5.6.7. Where the nature, distinctions, and differences of worship, are weighed, and found of no moment for our Ceremonies aide. It shall suffize therfore here, to referre the Reader unto those places, adding onely some notes, upon some passages, formerly not declared.

 

SECT. 1. Concerning worship, distinguished into proper, or essentiall, and unproper, or accidentall.

  1. THe Def. sayth, that by proper and essentiall worship, he understood Ceremonies so necessarily required to Gods service, as that the contrarie therof must needs displease him.

 

Hereupon the Repl. inferred, that all Ceremonies, which serve for decencie, and edification, must needs be proper and essentiall worship: because the contrarie of decencie and edification must needs displease God, in his worship.

 

Marke now the Rejoynder his answer: The contrarie

Page  111

of decencie and edification displeaseth God. But the contrarietie of particular Rites, serving to decencie and edification, doe not displease him: because they fall into one and the same generall kinde, without contrarietie therto, or therin. As fire & water are not contrarie to an element, nor blacke and white, to colour, nor reasonable, and unreasonable, to a creature: so contrarie orders, contrarie formalities of decencie, and contrarie meanes of edification, are not contrarie to order, decencie and edification. All this answer dependeth upon a distinction betwixt generall, and speciall.

 

Now 1. This is a certain, infallible rule: what essence soever is founde in any generall, that must needs be in every speciall, conteyned under it. Ther is no essence in an element generally taken, which is not both in the fire, and water, none in colour so taken, but is both in blacke and white, none in the notion of a creature, which is not in man and beast. From hence therfore it necessarily followeth, that if Order and decencie in generall, be essentiall worship, every true speciall of them must needs be so.

 

  1. It is not of, or for nothing, that the Rejoynder doeth so waver in his speache: contrarie Ceremonies serving to comelinesse, and edification, contrarietie of orders, contrarietie of formalities of comelínesse, and meanes of edification. For this meanes, all his answer is at least put out of comely order serving to edification. For that which serveth to comelinesse, and order, all formalities of them, and all meanes are not specialls, under the genus or generall of decencie, order, edification, but under the generall

Page  112

of meanes, formalities, etc. So that the wholle distinction is confounded, by this wordy explication of it. 3. Contrarietie of orders he confesseth, and yet denieth them to be contrarie to Order: As if order contrarie to order, were not contrarie to order! He will say no, not to order in generall. But then that order in speciall, must have some specificall difference, not conteyned in the generall of order, making the contrarietie: which should (if it could) have been declared. By the same proportion, also as he acknowledgeth contrarie orders, he must also acknowledge contrarie decencies, and edifications: and this hath need of declaraiion, because it is a new inventiō▪ not to be trusted, before it be tried. 4. By order, in this place, must needs be meant good order, otherwise, it were as well order, to set the carte before the horse, as the horse before the carte. Now in good order, the thinges ordered may be someway contrarie, as blacke and white horse set before the carte, and yet the order one and the same: and so in decencie. Edification is onely an ende. But good order, and decencie of the same thinges, in their particular or inviduall use, can be no more cōtrarie to any good order, & decencie of the same thinges in the same use, thē blackto black & white to white. 5. The playne trueth is, that order and Decencie (as they pertaine to our question) doe arise out of the outward disposition and temper of thinges, as health doeth out of the inward disposition and temper of the body, and therfore doeth admit no more contrarietie, then good health doeth.

 

  1. Because the Def. in his distinction, placed Edification

Page  113

onely on the part of Accidentall worship, that was noted as a flaw. To which the Rejoynder answereth, that essentiall parts of worship serve also to edification, and worship of themselves. But 1. this can be no more gathered out of the Def. his words, then that all essentiall worship serveth for decencie: for he placeth these two together, as endes of accidentall parts of worship, that they serve for decorum, and edification. 2. This is but to help a broken legge, with a broken crutche. For essētiall worship tending to worship of it self, is as broken a phraze, as the former was a distinction.

 

  1. It was noted also, that the Def. confounded appurtenances, and parts of worship. The Rejoynder answereth, that those thinges which are appurtenances onely in proper, simple, and strict sense, are partes of worship improperly, and in a sorte. So in deed at the Vniversitie, amonge Sophisters impropriè, laxè, modo quodam, quodammodo, are woont to helpe at a dead lift. But that which is onely an appurtenance of worship, is no more worship, then a Bishops Rochet, is a Bishop.

 

  1. About the same distinction, a question was made how any worship can be not essentiall, that is, not having the essence of worship in it. The Rejoynder answereth, that these appurtenances have in them the essence of accidentall worship, but not the essence of substanciall. So then, they are essentiall accidentall worship: and why not as well substantiall a•cidentall? A Rochet hath no more in it the essence, then the substance, of an accidentall Bishop.

 

  1. The Repl. his last, was, that those which the Def.

Page  114

calleth accidentall parts of worship, have not (by his owne expresse confession, in this sect.) so muche communion with the essentiall, as the haire of the body (which is but an excrement) hath with the body, and therfore cannot be accounted a part of worship. The Rej. here. 1. answereth, that they are in deed no part of essentiall worship, but of the complement of worship, as garments are of mens externall honour. So that now we are come to have that expressed, which before was implied, the Ceremonies may be called worship, as a Bishops Rochet, or other Bishoply garment may be called a Bishop. Though it might be also further inquired, if Ceremonies be parts of the complement, what the other parts of that complement may bee? Certes he that divided worship into essentiall and accidentall parts, did not mean worship, and the complements of worship, muche lesse, parts of essentiall worship, and parts of complement. If he did, his speache, and meaning, doe not well agree together. 2. He taketh great exception against the terme of excrement, as not well appliable to the hair of ones beard, savouring of a spirit full of rancor, to be judged of God as a reproche, tending to breed scorne and abhorring of these Ceremonies, in the mindes of ignorant mē. At all which a mā might have laughed, if Gods name had beē spared, in so frivilous a matter. All Philosophers, that ever I I heard, or read, heathen, and Christian, call and define the haire of mens bodies, an excrement. All Divines, when they speak of hypocrites in the Churche, compare thē to the hayr of a mans body, under the terme of excrement. I therfore would not be loath to hear one call

Page  115

the hayr of my beard, an excrement. Neyther can I smell any savor of a rancourous spirit, or any reproche, in that phrase. As for breeding of scorne in the mindes of ignorant men, one would thinke, it should not be objected by him, that a litle before spake of Parish-omnipotencie, and stuffeth his booke with suche termes, as I am loath (for his sake) to repeate, but that they cannot be more gently refuted, then by bare repeting, after the occasion of them is discussed.

 

SECT. 2. Concerning adding to Gods worship.

IN the second section, the Rejoynder hath nothing materially, to be newly, or now first confuted, save onely that about adding to Gods word, and worship: which onely therfore, needeth here to be discussed.

 

  1. Gods lawes of Praemunire, against all humane presumtions, in his Worship, are famously knowen. Deut. 4. and 12. Thou shalt not adde any thing therto. No man ever writ one sheet of paper against Popish Ceremonies, which did not confute them by these places. The Papists have marked this: Haeretiti accusantes Ceremonias a Deo non institutas, superstitionis, & idolatriae, fundantur praecipue in Deut. 12. Swarez de Relig. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap: 1. The Def. and the Rejoynder theyr answer, is the same, that most Papists use: In these places, where

Page  116

addition is forbidden, is meant onely addition of corruption, not any addition of preservation and additions made divine, not humane. Now 1. for the first part of the first distinction, God forbiddeth onely an addition of corruption, It is worth the considering, which learned Chamier answereth,*The bringing in of a Contrarie praecept is neither used for, nor can be called Addition, for in Addition both remaine, but contraries destroy each other. He that setteth a house on fire, or poysoneth a man, or corrupteth any thing, is not usuallly sayd to adde unto them. 2. By the second distinction, no addition unto Gods will and testament, is more forbidden, then unto mans. As it were a sinne to adde any thing unto Gods Testament as divine, so also were it to adde any thing unto mans testament, or testimonie, and make it his, when it is not his. None may adde any thing to D. M. his Defense, or D. B. his Rejoynder, and make it theirs, when it is not theirs. Suche additions, are usually called lyes, sufficiently forbidden by the ninth Commandemenr: so that no indifferent man will thinke, that nothing more is conteyned in these prohibitions, so often and earnestly urged, in strict reference unto the holy ordinances, and worship of God, which by this interpretation, can challenge no privilege from them.

 

  1. For the second part of these distinctions: humane additions of praeservation, the Repl. observed, that addition was, in the text, expressely forbidden, as a meanes of keeping or praeserving Gods word, and worship: Deut. 4.2. To which it seemeth a contradiction, that addition may be for Keeping, or praeserving. To which the Rejoynder

Page  117

answereth nothing else, but that, therfore addition hindering is forbidden, but not addition keeping. That is, he denieth the conclusion, but answereth not to the proof. But he addeth an example: He that leaves a jewell to be safely kept, doeth not forbid the provision of a Cabinet, with locke, and key, to keep it in. True: Neyther doeth any man dreame, but the Kinges authoritie, and Churches care, may, and ought to be as a Cabinet with locke, and key, to praeserve Gods ordinances and worship. But what is this to additions? and to suche additions, as our Ceremonies in question? The Lords ordinance is, that the Sacrament of Circumcision should cease. For the preservation of this ordinance, the Def. and Rejoynder pag. 285. provide a lawfull Cabinet, under locke and key, that Circumcision as it is used in some places, may be lawfully appointed, and commanded. The Lords ordinance is, that Baptisme should be administred according to the primitive institution, without suche sacrilegious crossings, as are in use among Papists. They have provided a Cabinet, under locke and key, for this, that all which are baptized, shall be crossed. The Lords will is, that his holy supper should be receyved, and used as a supper, notadored.

 

They have provided, that all men shall kneel in the receyving of it, for a Cabinet, like to the former.

 

  1. Cardinal Cajetans interpretation, was (by the Repl.) alledged addition is forbidden even with the pr•etext of keeping the commaundements of God, as more judicious,* and religious. The Rej. answereth, that Cajetan doeth

Page  118

allow the distinction, of additions, into corruptive, and praeservative, in Thom. p. 3. q. 6. a 8. and that in the alleged wordes, meaneth additions corrupting, though pretented for keeping. Now this is as true an interpretation of Cajetans meaning, and ours also, as can be invented: onely that is wanting, whichCajetan (with us) intended, that all additions for preservation, are but pretenses. But as for Cajetan his allowing this questioned distinction in 3. q. 60. (for 6. was an error) whosoever will looke upon the places, shall finde, that neyther in Thomas, not in Cajetan, is any mention of addition preserving, which here is the onely question. They speak in deed of adding words, to the forme used in Baptisme, and note, some words doe corrupt the sense, and some doe not: but not a word of adding Ceremonies preservative. The wordy additions, which they speak of, are as Thomas hath it, I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Sonne, the Holy Ghost, (and the Virgin Marie:) or as Cajetan hath it: I baptize thee (Sexton what is a clocke) in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost. If these be additions of preservation let any Christian, that regardeth Baptisme, judge.

 

  1. It was wished, that the Def. had set downe some examples, of preservative additions. The Rejoynder undertaking it for him, nameth for the Text diverse readings, marginall notes, etc. and for the sense, interlineary glosses, notes, marginall references, and commentaries, and then, readings by sections, building and ordering of Synagogues, and a thousand suche. And in deed he might as well name diverse thousands, as these. But 1. if so many

Page  119

thousand Ceremonies may be added lawfully to Gods law, what meant Augustine, and all our Divines, out of him, to complaine of suche an intollerable burthen of Ceremonies, in regard of their number? 2. Diverse readings, are no more additions, then Coningstable and Constable, are to the Statute of Constables. Marginall notes, no more, then an exposition is to the text, which kinde of addition, the Papists doe wickedly allege for their doctrinall traditions. Interlinearie glosses, notes marginall references Commentaries of the same nature. Reading by sections, building, and ordering, are evidently thinges of meer order, of which, if any man shall say they are additions, then if he be a poor man, he may make great addition to the litle mony he hath, by dividing it into sections, placing it fitly, and disposing of it orderly a hundered ways, to the increase (as it were) of a hundred folde: which would be a welcome doctrine (if it were true) to many a poor man, and even to those which are impoverished by the Bishops silencings, deprivations, and excommunications, for not allowing of additions to Gods worship.

 

  1. It was also justly questioned, if ther were not a deminution, or taking from, for preservation, as well as an addition of that kinde: because in the Text they are joined together, as drawing in one yoke? The Rejoynder answereth no. And denieth the consequence, by example of hardning, and shewing mercy, joined together, without the same mertiorious cause. But 1. the example doeth not agree: because the question was not of a meritorious cause, but of a finall. And in the cheif or

Page  120

last ende, hardning, & shewing mercie doe agree. 2. I can easily, finde out a detraction, as of good praeservation, as the addition of a Cabinet with locke and key.

 

For from a sword, or any other yron weapon, a man may well detract rust, for the preservation of it, From an aguish man, bloud may be detracted, for the preservation of his life, nay sometime a leg, or an arme, may be cutte off, for praeservation of the bodie. So that, all thinges considered, the Rejoynder will upon second thoughts, eyther cashier in Gods worship, his addition of preservation, or else adde unto it, a detraction or deminution of preservation. Calvin in his nineteenth sermon upon Deutrinomie, hath this remarkable sentence.

 

Let us assure ourselves, we shall ever be unruly and wild-headed, untill our Lord hath tamed us, by long handling, and made us sticke to this grounde, that it is no more lawfull for us, in any wise, to adde any thinge to his law, then it is lawfull for us, to take any thinge from it.

 

  1. It was likewise observed, that this praetence hath been allways the shoeing-horne, to draw on superstition with. For (as Calvin noteth on Matt. 15) Legislatoris ipsi non jactabant, se novum quicquam tradere, sed tantum add•re cavendi formulas, quae media ossent adminicula, ad servandam Dei legem. The olde Maisters of Ceremonies praetended always, that they meant onely to bringe-in additions of preservation. Like enough (sayth the Rejoynder:) But this very inlet of superstitious thinges, under the praetence of bringing in onely preservative meanes, doeth witnesse that suche additions as are preservative,

Page  121

were allways allowed by Gods people, as confirmation of error by Scripture, doeth shew the dignitie of holy Scripture. This is in deed as faire a praetence, for an inlet of superstition, as can be made. But withall it is manifest from thence, that is is no sufficiēt, but a very suspicious answer, for Ceremonies, accused of superstition, to say, and not to prove, that they are preservations. Yet these Ceremonie-mongers had all their pretense properly from meanes of preservation, which are and were always allowed by God, and his people, not from additions.

 

Our Parliament statutes made for establishing of true religion, are a meanes of praeserving it in England: but I thinke that Hon. Assemblie would take it ill, if the Rej. should publish to the world, that their Laws are additions to the word, and worship of God.

 

The Rejoynder addeth, that Calvin in the place alledged, doeth account these praetented additions to have been corruptions, from the first. Now (though this is not heer, but in another place, after to be handled) let the Reader gesse of Calvins account, by these his words: Afterward there came teachers who did not think themselves should be esteemed acute enough unlesse they did patch something of their owne to the word of God.*Yet no addition to that word is tolerable. Those secondarie lawes are devised of curious men, as if the single and simple command of God were not enough. To invent new washinges was an idle vanity. Had they rested in the law of God their mod•sty wou•d have ben more pleasing to him, then their Scrupulous anxiety in doing otherwise.

 

Page  122

If this be not enough, to shew Calvins judgement, of Ceremonious additions, let that be added, which he sayth to Cassander, and therfore to the Def. and Rejoynder teaching the very same doctrine of Ceremonies,* that Cassander did. Opusc. pag. 355. He taught that the Ceremonies ordeined by Christ are to be kept intirely, and incorruptly: and nothin• must be added to their institution as if they were lame or imperfect, which indeed is som•what, but it is not all, because by an indirect shift he would lett into the church all other rites. But this halfe trueth is overturned, when he beleeves a right given to the Apos•les and their Successours, to institute suche ceremonies in the administration of the Sacraments which may be for ornament. Therefore he which confessed before nothing should be added, doeth now not only admit such by-Ceremonies, but also commands them. Yet will he help himselfe with a subtil shift, viz. additions are to be indured, if the Sacraments be not held lame or imperfect, therefore with what mixtures you will, the Sacraments may be wholly changed, and yet all be well, so be you charg not Christ to his teeth, that any of his institutions goe lame, and halting etc.

 

7, It was lastly added, that this answer of the Def. was Bellarmines answer to Calvin, about this very poynt and place: de effect Sacr. lib, 2. Cap. 32. Prohibit Dominus additionem corrumpentem, as the Def. translateth it, an addition of corruption is forbidden. Which was the rather added, because the Def. had so vainly objected unto the

Page  123

authours of the Abridgement, symbolizing with Bell••mine. It might otherwise have been added, th•t it is not onely Bellamines answer, but also Gregories de Valentia, tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 11. p. 1. et tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 2. p. 7. Swarezes, de Relig. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap. 1. Baroninses; ad an 53. pag. 459. and that it is the common answer of Papists, in defense of their Ceremonies against this place, urged upon them by our Divines. Yet some few spying the vanitie of this answer, as being ashamed of it, have found out another, of like stampe: For Cornelius a Lapide, in his Commentarie on Deut. 12.32. so expoundeth the wordes of this prohibition: In rebus & Ceremonijs Dei, fac tantum illud, quod Deus, vel per se, vel per Vicarios suos, puta sacerdotes praeceperit. Which agreeth well with that of the Def. and Rejoynder. Vse •hose Ceremonies onely, which God, eyther by himself, or by the Convocation house doeth commande. And some more ancient, and therfore lesse praejudiced Papists, confesse, this law did forbid all humame Ceremonies to the Iews. So Tostatus, Defensorij par. 2. cap. 8. as also in Deut. 12. q. 12. that consequencie is found among the Hebrewes about the observation of Ceremonials. Something is not found written in the law, therefore the Iewes are not bound to keepe that. Yea which is more, it was not lawfull for the Iewes to observe any Ceremonie about the service of God, unlesse that were written in the law as appeares Deut 12.*

 

The Rejoynder hath many wordes, wherwith he raiseth up a great dust, to darken the cause with all.

Page  124

But no man can discerne any direct answer of his to the allegation, save onely his confession, that the Def. his answer, was Bellarmines answer to Calvine, about th•s very place. All that he addeth to that confession, hath been before confuted. It shall be sufficient in this place, to set downe Calvins resolute conclusion, out of Sermon 85. in Deut. It is divelish blasphemie, to say, that God hath not taught men all that it behooveth them to doe. The common by word here hath place: thou art the Divels servant: for thou hast doen more then was commanded thee. Here is no limitation, of new worships properly so called, which is the Rejoynders shift, but all that it behooveth us to doe, is limitted to Gods command.

 

In the fourth section, about Isa. 29. Mat. 15. Col. 2.27 hath nothing materiall in it, beside those distinctions of worship, which before in the Manduction, section 5.6. and 7. are distinctly examined, and discussed. To those places therfore I refer the Reader, for satisfaction, if ther be any needfull.

 

Page  125

SECT. 6. Concerning our Divines judgement about Ceremonious worship invented by man.

THough those three staple sections of the manuduction. 5.6.7. may be sufficient also for clearing of all the materialls here exstant, yet referring the Reader thither for the maine, I must adde something, about diverse particulars.

 

  1. The Replier sayd▪ that Worship doeth not varie according to mē opinions, but cōsisteth in the nature of the action it self. This is (sayth the Rej.) to speake monsters. If he had sayd, things to him unknowen, it had been enough. For all that he hath not known, are not monsters. But what is his reason of this so deep a censure? because (forsooth) opinion, by error of opinion, doeth make that to be essentially false worship, which without suche opinion, were no suche worship. Of which I may as well say, that this opinion, by error of opinion, doeth make the reason essentially false. For 1. the question was not here of essentiall false worship, but of essentiall, and accidentall worship, whether op•nion did make the difference? which the Def. affirmeth, the Repl. denieth, and the Rejoynd. declineth. 2. The Rejoynder hath not yet (that I know of) nor can (as I thinke) define unto us, what is essentiall false worsh•p, according to his rules.

 

Page  126

  1. Every error of opinion doeth not make essentiall false worship: he should therfore have tolde us, what error he meant. The Def. nameth opinion of justice, sanctitie, efficacie, or divine necessitie: and the Rejoynder mentioneth often suche and such opinion, held of the Papists, concerning all their Ceremonies. Of this enough is sayd, Manud. sect. 7. For the present, I denie, that suche an erronious opinion, by it self, and of it self, doeth not make essentiall false worship. Opinion is but an adjuvant efficient cause of that affective act, wherin the essence of internall worship consisteth: and the externall acts of worship, though efficiently differenced by opinion, or faith, are essentially distinguished by their forme, and ende. A man may have an opinion, that is just, holy, efficacious, and necessarie, to performe diverse workes of the second Table, nay upon some occasions, to tell a lie, even against the second Table. Yet none speaking properly, will call, that essentiall false worship, which is a sinne directly against the first Table. Hitherto therfore, I see no monster of the Repl. his making. And if we consider his reason well, which the Rejoynder made to it, the mishaping of thinges will be found on the other side. If (sayth the Repl.) worship did varie occording unto mens oppinions, then a man may goe to Masse, conceyving another privat opinion to himself, then Mas-mongers use to have: and our Convocation may appoint us the grossest of all Popish Ceremonies, if they set another opinion upon it. The Rejoynder his answers are diverse, and some of them strange ones. 1. His first is, that goeing to masse may be a

Page  127

sinne of scandall and presumtion, though a man goe not thitherto worship. By goeing to Masse (acording to the use of our speache) is meant, doeing all those externall actions, which Mas-mongers use to performe. Now the question is, whether he that performeth all those externall actiōs (intending onely to save his life therby, as having no opinion of any other good in so doeing) doeth onely sinne of scandall, and praesumtion, or else over and beside this, is guiltie of externall false worship? the Rejoynder seemeth to say, no, he is not guiltie of false worship. But when the Christians of the Primitive Churche, did with suche an opinion, lay but a litle incense upon the Heathens Altars, they were by all Orthodoxe censured for Idolatrie. The storie of Origen is well knowen, how he delivered Palme, to those that offered it to the image of Serapis, with this expression of his intention: come, and receyve the bows, not of the image, but of Christ. Yet was he therfore censured as a worshipper of that Idol. Calvin writing of purpose concerning this very case, of goeing to Masse with suche an opinion, accuseth them that doe so, of externally professed idolatrie: and therin was justified by Melanchton, Bucer, Martyr, Opus. de vitandis superstitionibus. And if this be not right, then all externall acts, and reall professions, whether symbolizing with Papists, or with Turkes, or Heathens, may be in themselves, (set scandall and danger aside) easily excused. So Calvin argueth, in the forenamed treatise and in a Homilie, Opusc, pag. 532. he sheweth, that those wise men which thinke otherwise, would have derided the simplicitie of Sidrac.

Page  106

Misach, and Abednego, if they had then lived, in suche a fashion: Miserable men, yow may doe that externall act which is required of you: it is no worship, so long as you have no faith, trust, or devotion to that idol. 2. His second answer is that those which are present at false worship, by violence, are not false worshipers, and upon this he triumpheth, with fie man, fie. I may better say, alas alas, that good D. B. (I speak as I thinke) should be driven to suche extremities, in defense of those Ceremonies, which he never loved, nor doeth at this day. For goeing to Masse, or doeing all those externall acts, which Masmongers use to performe, implieth more then violent carying thither, and deteyning there. 3. His third is, that nothing but opinion doeth make humane inventions essentiall worship of God. Which is an essentiall denying of the conclusion. 4. For that which was inferred of the Convocation house, he sayth first, it is a flinge. Let it be so, yet it may hit that Ceremonious Goliah, as it is suche, in the fore head. He addeth, that the grossest rites of Poperie cannot pos•iblie be washed from their opinion. Which is not for a Rite, being an externall thing or act, any Rite may be separated from any internall opinion. The last is, that some other Popish rites might be lawfull, if they could be clensed, though we need them not. As if the grossest might not be lawfull, if they could be clensed, or the Rejoynder had shewed that we more need the Crosse, then those other.

 

  1. Because the Def. placed so muche in opinion of sanctitie, the Repl. in the second place, opposed, that Sanctitie cannot be separated from suche Ceremonies,

Page  129

as are proper unto Religion, onely used in the solemne worship of God: because they are neyther civill, nor prophane, and therfore holy. Heer the Rejoynd•r being put to his shifts, as before, answereth that they are in deed holy by applicatiō, but not with inhaerent, or adhaerent holinesse in them, or their use as those which God hath sanctified, nor so as they sanctifie the actors, and actions, which is proper to Gods ordinances. Now how many strange thinges are here? 1. That Ceremonie, whose essence consisteth in application and use, is holy by application▪ and yet not by any holinesse that doeth adhere to them, or their use. Holinesse is an adjunct receyved by the thing that is holie, and therfore eyther inhaerent, or adhaerent. 2. Is this a good reason: they are not holy truely, as Gods ordinances, therfore they are not by men made holy? 3. Have any outward ordinances of God inhaerent holinesse in them? 4. If God hath no way sanctified our Ceremonies, who can make them holy? 5. Doe not Ceremonies teaching holinesse, sanctifie the actors, actions or spectators, after the same manner, that the teaching word doeth sanctifie them?

 

  1. Vpon occasion of the other part, in the Def. his distinction, (that Accidentall worship is any rite, which serveth for the more consonant, and convenient discharge of essentiall worship,) the Repl. wheras he might have sayd, that this is a mishapen definition of Accidentall worship in generall, as it may be divided into true and false, good, and bad, opposeth onely this: that no judicious Divine useth to call circumstances of mere order and decencie, (which notwithstanding

Page  130

serve for the more consonant and conveniēt discharge of essentiall worship) that is a Pulpit, a Table, a faire-Cloath, etc. Worship.

 

The Rejoynder answereth, that in deed, the Ceremonies themselv•s cannot be called worship without madnesse, but onely the use and application of suche circumstances, and rites. Now 1. marke here, how the Rejoynder who defineth a Ceremonie, it is an action etc. and laffeth at the Repl. (because he sayd, some Ceremonies may be put to other good use, as if all Surplices were turned into poor-folkes under-garments) as if the good wife of Bilson had burnt a Ceremonie, whē she burnt a Surplice in her oven, marke (I say) that this same Rejoynder doeth distinguish Ceremonies from their use and application. 2. Who ever was so mad (because it pleaseth him to use this terme) as to say, that standing in a Pulpit, the better to be heard (which is all the use of it) is to be called worship? 3. Crossing with suche expression of the signification therof, as is used in Baptisme, can neyther be distinguished from the use of a Crosse, nor aequalled to the use of a pulpit, not yet lawfully styled true worship, without a spice of one disease or other.

 

  1. The first witnesse brought in for us, is Calvin, inst. l. 4. cap. 10. sect. 8. All those constitutions are wicked, in the observation wherof we place any worship to God. The Def. answereth, he meant not by worship, circumstances of order. Which the Repl. readily granted: because it were non sense, to say, all observations in which circumstances of order are placed, be wicked. To this the Rejoynder sayth first, it is a babie. 2. he sayth,

Page  131

that Calvin meant not to comdemne all constitutions of order: which is as true a babie as the former. 3. Calvin (sayth he) defineth what Constitutions are contrarie to the word of God, namely suche as are ordeyned and imposed as necessarie for consciencie, etc. But Calvin doeth onely shew that suche are of the forbidden kinde: and every notifying of a speciall, is not a definition of the generall kinde. 4. He addeth, that Calvin doeth allow of some significant Ceremonies sect. 14. Of signification, we are to consider in the next chapter. In the mean time this: Calvin generally speaketh against all worship invented of men, without any distinction. One ambiguous phraze of Ceremonies in generall, without any example, save onely Divine, in which he instanceth immediatly after the words cited, doeth not make a cōtradiction to the former sentence. All the rest of the Rejoynder his allegations out of Calvin, about this answer have their answer, in the staple sect. of the Manuduction. 5.6.7.

 

The Def. having thus tould us, what Calvin did not meane, addeth that Calvin meant by wo•ship, the inward vertue of worship, which consisteth (sayth he) in an opinion of holinesse and justice. The Repl here justly noted the ill sound of those words: the inward vertue of worship consisteth in an opinion, to which the Rejoynder sayth just nothing. And yet in all this chapter mainteyneth all that doctrine of opinionated worship, which the Def. let fall. But a man would thinke, that upon this occasion, he should have declared, how, and how farre worship doeth constift in opinion? As for inward

Page  132

vertues and vices consisting in opinion, it is as great a paradoxe, and greater also, then that of the Stoickes, who made all other differences of mens estate, beside vertue and vice, to consist in opinion.

 

In the second place, it was asked by the Repl. how an inward vertue, can be planted in an outward Ceremonie? the Rejoynder by error of opinion. But it is more then error, nay more then ordinarie madnesse, for any man to thinke, his inside, is in his out-side, his heart is in the feather that he weareth on his hat.

 

Th• Repl. added in the third place, that the proper nature of worship, doeth not consist in holinesse, and justice, but in the honoring of God: so that all externall Ceremonies, whose proper use, is the honoring of God, are externall worship. This was directed against those words of the Def. the inward vertue of worship (placed in outward Ceremonies) consisteth in an opinion of holinesse, and justice. Now what sayth the Rejoynder? 1. No man can in any action ayme at Gods honor, without opinion of justice and holinesse in that action. Which may be granted, if justice (in this forme of speache, wherby our Divines use to condemne many Popish Ceremonies) did not signifie justification as it doeth. But yet it doeth not follow from thence, that every opinion of holinesse, and justice, doeth make worship, much lesse inward worship, and least of all, the inward vertue of worship.

 

  1. Then (sayth he) all externall Ceremonies must needs be worship. And this is that which we avouche, of all Ceremonies, whose proper use is the honoring of God. 3. It is not (as he addeth) the immediate and peculiar

Page  133

use of our Ceremonies, to honor God, but to a aedifie man unto the honoring of God.

 

No more (may I say) is it anie otherwise the immediate ende of preaching the word, to honor God, but onely by aedifiying of men, to the honoring of God: and yet preaching of the word is essentiall worship. 4. Pulpits. Fonts, Tables, Table-cloths, and Cups, are as muche appropriated unto religious uses, as our Ceremonies in question. But this is confuted in the staple section of the Manuduct. 3. and 4. And the difference is acknowleged by the Rejoynder, in that, he maketh Pulpits etc. to be onely simple Ceremonies, and ours in question, double and trible. For by that it followeth, that our questioned Cerenies are twice, or thrice more appropriated to worship, then Pulpits.

 

  1. Calvin (sayth the Rejoynder) doeth marke out false worship by a false opinion of worship and necessitie: He doeth so in deed: but never meant to make it a convertible, or reciprocall marke, muche lesse that wherin the essence of all false worship consisteth, as hath been cleared. Paul Phil. 3. marketh out Dogges, by urging of Circumcision: but he never meant, that ther were no other Dogges but suche. Calvin also many times marketh out false worship by an opinion of merit: yet surely a man may use false worship, without suche an opinion.

 

In opposition to these allegations out of Calvin, the Repl. nameth one place, epist. 259. where he sayth, according to the Rejoynder his owne translation: If it be well and throughly looked unto, what it is, that doeth so

Page  134

muche provoke man, to the making of Ceremonies, we shall finde, that they all flowed from this spring-head, because every man made bolde •o fansie some new worship of God: wheras God not onely refuseth all forged worships, but utrerly abhorreth them. This (sayth the Repl.) is a direct confutation of the Def. (and I adde, of the Rejoynder.

 

For if all humane Ceremonies flowed from affectation of will-worship, then a Pulpit, and suche like matters of order, and decencie, are no Ceremonies. If all the worship which is placed in humane Ceremonies, be unlawfull, then no suche Ceremonies are lawfull, what opinion soever ther be of their necessitie, etc. If this be so (answereth the Rejoynder) then Calvin hath confuted his more publick writings, in a privat epistle.

 

Which is nothing so, but onely it followeth, (as the Repl. sayd) that he hath confuted the collection which the Def. made from a shred or two of his more publicke writings. He hath expressed so muche in publicke writings as he doeth in that private epistle. As to adde one place of note, opusc. pag. 356. disputing against Cassander, who mainteyned humane Ceremonies, upon the very same groundes, termes, and condition, that the Def. and Rejoynder doe,* he sayth of them: Seing God will be worshipped by the rule of his law, and therefore detests all feined services, it is undoubtedly contrarie to faith that any thing be added to his precepts by the judgment of man.

 

But that answer being onely for a florish, the Rejonder his second is, that Calvin spake of mysticall Ceremonies excescively multiplied. As if both these could not stād together, for to speak against any sinne excessively

Page  135

multipied, and yet withall against sinne. The Prophets often speak of multiplying idols altars, fornications, according to the number of cities, or townes, on every •igh hill, under every green tree. Doe they not withall speak simplie against all idolatrie? But Calvin (as the Rejoynder addeth) alloweth in some case, the mixture of a like water with wine, in the Lords Supper. What? for a religions Ceremonie? shew the place, and after that, see how it can be justified, against those accusations, which the Rejoynder layeth upon Sopping the bread in wine, pag. 61.62.63. Calvin (as he lastly addeth) epist. 120. could have wished, that Hooper had not so muche strugled against the Cap, and Rochet, or Surplice. But beside that Calvin did not, nor we neyther esteem a Cap, or a Rochet eyther (a Surplice is added by the Rejoynder) so evill as the Crosse in Baptisme, Calvin could not say so muche, without a shrewed item (ut illa etiam non probem, though I doe not allow of suche thinges.) Which manyfestly declare that his wishe was not grounded on suche an opinion, as the Def. and Rejoynder mainteyne. It might also be added, that Calvin in the same place accused them, of wicked perfidiousnesse, who though they seemed to favour the Gospel, yet made a partie against Hooper, about that trashe, unto the hindering of his Ministerie: which is the case of al our depr•ving and silencing Prelates.

 

  1. The second witnesse, produced by the Def. for to be answered, is Chemnitius. To whose condemning of all worship instituded without the word, the Def. answered by his wedge, saying, that he meant onely that which is

Page  136

made essential worship, not accidentall. Concerning this distinction, enough hath been sayd in the 5. and 6. staple sect. of the manudiction, let this onely be remembred, that it is all one, as if he should divide worship, into worsh•p, and no worship: for both Def. and Rejoynder often say accidentall worship is no worship. They adde some time, for explication, that it is no essentiall worship: but so they may say e•sentiall worship is no worship, and then adde that they mean no accidentall worship. The Repl. therfor justly required, that should be showen, if Chemnitius distinguish will-worship, as he doeth, into lawfull and unlawfull.

 

Vpon this occasion the Rejoynder 1. criethout of a falshood shamefull, and to be blushed at, for saying that the Def. distinguisheth will-worship into lawfull, and unlawfull. But let any man judge where is the falshood, shame, and cause of blushing. The question is of worship invented by man, which Chemnitius (with other Divines) call will-worship, whether it be lawfull or no? the Def. answereth by a distinction, that some is unlawfull, as essentiall, and some lawfull, as accidentall. What can be more plaine? But (sayth the Rejoynder) Accidentall worship, be denieth to be properly worsh•p, and therfore denieth it to be will worship, unlesse it be imagined essentiall. What a consequence is this, to bear up so weightie an accusation? It is not properly worship, and therfore it is not will-worship. He may as well say: it is not properly worship, and therfore it is not lawfull worship. May it not be improper will-worship, though it be not properly worship? Or no improper worship come meerly

Page  137

from the will of man? It is rather a propertie of Ceremonies, to depend meerly on the will of the institutor. So Tostatus in Exod. tom. 1.148. et in Levit. pag. 585. A Ceremonie is a certain observation, or a speciall mauner of worshipping God determined out of the sole Commandment of of the lawgiver.*

 

His second exception is frivolous. His third is this: Chemnitius hath this distinction in substance, though not in termes. For he sayth, that right inward worship being supposed, right externall expressions will follow of their owne accorde, and they are externall worship, though not acceptable in themselves. Where 1. Mark the partialitie of the Rejoynder.

 

In the former answer, he requireth the Repl. to shew the distinction which he attributeth to the Def. in his words, or termes, otherwise he may blush for shame. Now, when he is urged to shew his distinction out of Chemnitius, he forsaketh words, or termes, and flieth to substance, without once thinking of shame and blush•ng. 2. This substance is a meer shadow. For first, Chemnitius acknowlegeth no outward expressions to be right worship, but onely those, that flow of their owne accorde, without any institutiō, from inward worship. And who will say, that the Def. and Rejoynder their accidentall worship, of Crosse and Surplice, doe so flow from internall. Secondly, those externall expressions, are as essentiall to externall worship, as profession of faith is to a visible Churche. Nay ther is no externall worship, beside the expressions, and setting forth of the internall. Thirdly, Though those expressions, be not acceptable

Page  138

of, or in themselves, being separated from the internall, yet it doeth not follow from thence, that they are in their nature accidentall worship, and no ways substantial. For the Rejoynder confesseth, that all Gods ordinances are substantiall worship: and yet he will not say that Gods outward ordinances are acceptable unto him, when they are separated from internall worship.

 

Vpon supposition (which now appeareth true) that the Def. could not shew his distinction out of Chemnitius, he was desired, at the least, to shew, that ther is some worship, which is not necessarie: because otherwise he must needs sincke under Chēnitius his charge To this the Rejonder answereth, 1. that Chemnitius understandeth by will worship, whatsoever of mans device, is imagined necessarie. 2. that ther is some externall worship, which is not in the particularities of it necessarie. For the first of which, enough is sayd, in the 7. s. of the manud. Yet here I may adde, that it is so farre from trueth, (no will-worship can be without imagination of necessitie) that on the contrarie, whosoever doeth take upon him, for his will sake professedly to apoynt any worship, cannot possiblie imagine it absolutely necessarie, but acknowleging ther hath been worship, without his addition, he professeth to adde something, not simplie necessarie to the being, but onely to the better being of it. As for the second, In Gods own ordinances, which were substantiall, and essentiall, by the Rejoynder his confession, the particularites were not allways absolutely necessarie Levit. 5. a lambe, or two turtle doves, or two young pigeons.

Page  139

And this answer may serve for all that is further rejoyned about Chemnitius. For it beareth wholly upon perpetuall necessitie of the same particularities. The expressions which he instanceth in, are naturall gestures, suche as kneeling, lifting up of eyes, or hands to heaven etc. which have as manifest impressions in them, of Gods will, without mans institution, as the offering of doves or pigeons ever had, and in their particularities upon occasion carie as muche necessitie with them. What is this to suche unnecessarie worship, as Crosse and Surplice?

 

  1. About Peter Martir his testimonie, beside the repetition of that threed bare distinction of worship, into essentiall and accidentall, he looseth also a knot by it. Peter Martir sayth, it is lawfull for men, to appoint circumstances of ord•r, but unlawfull to appoint any worship. The Def. contradicteth him thus: if it be lawfull to appoint circumstances of order, then it is lawfull to appoint some worship. The Rejoynder excepteth heere 1. that the Repl. calleth that some worship ambiguously, which the Def. called accessorie, and accidentall worship. The accidentall worship belike may be called worship, but not some worship, without ambiguitie. 2. He answereth, that P.M. condemneth onely the framings of essentiall worship. But first P.M. his words are,*lest any thing should seeme to make for worship the Apostle absolutely damns all will worship.

 

Secondly he discerneth all worship f•om order and decencie, Thirdly he opposeth order, to significant Ceremonies, of mans institution, admitting the one and

Page  140

rejecting the other.*Others argue thus: the people is unlearned and rude, therfore to be held in with Ceremonies. Put this difference is betweene us and them of old, they had many Ceremonies, and we exceeding few, but some there must be for order and decencie.

 

To the instance of bowing the knee, called by P.M. externall worship, answer was given a litle before. It is no voluntarie invention, or institution of men.

 

  1. In the next place, D. Morton set downe himself, as last at this table: which was excepted against by the Repl. because divers others were invited to this meeting. Heerupon, the Rejoynder after a few words of forme, not all sound (as that he would have him that sette himself downe last, not to be too hastie, though he shutte the door for hast against others that were invited) taketh occasion to say something, o• Melancton, Bullinger, Bucanus, Polanus, Cartwright, Fenner, Tilenus, Chamier, and Perkins.

 

But he bringeth no answer of moment, but that wether-beaten distinction of essentiall and accidentall worship, which is examined, Manud. sect. 5.6.7. Where also is handled of Tilemus, Polanus, Bucanus, Cartw. and Fenner, by name. It is not therfore needfull to adde muche in this place: yet something in brief, of the rest.

 

  1. Melancton (sayth the Rejoynder) reckones it an error, in constitution of thinges indifferent, to account them worship: but he meaneth, with opinion of rightousenesse, and necessitie, worship of themselves, whose immediate ende is Gods honor, not vestments, Feasts, and

Page  141

fasts, etc. Now concerning all these exceptions, enough hath been spoken, Manud. sect. 5.6.7. Yet concerning Melancton, he meaneth by righteousnesse, justification, by neces•itie, that which is necessarie to justification, by of themselves, considered apart from Gods ordinances, by immediat ende, that which belongeth to the first table.

 

Now 1. the Rejoynder will not say that any humane worship, is lawfull, beside that which is held absolutely necessarie for justification, for then it may be lawfull, though it be every way aequalled to many of Gods ordinances. 2. The signe of the Crosse, to signifie our courage, and constancie in Christs service, were worship, though it be considered, or were used alone by it selfe. 3. Our Ceremonies belonge to the first table, so farre as they belong to any part of his law. 4. Vestments, fasts, and feasts also, are accounted by Melancthon, matters of mere order. For so Tom. 1.297. and 305. he compareth them to order of lectures in schooles, and to the order of reading and praying, in families, morning and evening. And so farre, we also allow of them. Yet one thinge is worth the noting, that wheras imposers of Ceremonies doe muche ground themselvs upon the Apostles example, Acts. 15. and are therin allowed by the Rejoynder pag. 45.46. of his manuducction, Melancton doeth so disalow of this collection, that therin he condemneth all imposition of suche Ceremonies as ours. For Vol. 3. pag. 91. he sayth thus.

 

Page  142

It followeth not: the Apostles reteined the rite of blood and things strangled,*therefore we may sett up new things as matters of worship, t•is Consequence is false, because the Apostles did not Establish this rite, but onely take it up for a while. 2. Though they had instituted some new thing here followes nothing for innovation. This imitation hath ever been hurtfull to the Church. The Bishop is the hearer, and takes the word and rites from the Apostles with a certeyne charge, that he delivereth them over to the Church unchanged.

 

  1. Bullinger (sayth the Rejoynder) undoubtedly condemneth all worship of God, which is meerly of mans tradition: but not Ecclesiasticall laws, nor worship agreable to Gods word, as publicke meetings for worship, set times, places, manner of administration, holy days, and fast days.

 

Now in all this we fully agree with Bullinger, understanding onely by holy-days fit times of preaching and praying and by days of fasting, occasionall times of extraordinarie humiliation.

 

  1. Chamier (sayth the Rejoynder) To. 3. l. 20. c. 5. foure times, useth this distinction, of worship proper and accidentall. But Chamier onely calleth those speciall materiall acts, which are conjoined with formall acts of worship, accidentall parts of worship: as if a man vowed to drinke no wine for a certain time, his absteyning from wine perteyneth to worship, onely by accident. So if in solemne prayer for a Prince, his titles, and style be rehearsed, or any speciall termes of honor, this

Page  143

perteyneth to prayer, by accident. What is this to suche instituted worship, as the Crosse?

 

  1. Mr. Perkins (sayth the Rejoynder) condemneth that worsh•p instituted by men, which is so simple, and in it self. For he granteth a bodilie worship necessarie (as kneeling, lifting up of hands, and eyes etc.) terming it lesse principall worship. As if this were not the very same thinge that we professe. But if any man see Mr. Perk. on the second Comandement, in his golde chaine, in his explication of the Decaloge, and in his treatise of idolatrie, he shall finde this constantly taught by him, as a positive doctrine, that all worship, all thinges obtruded under the name of worship (without any exception) if they be not by God commanded, are unlawfull, superstitious worship.

 

  1. Now last of all (in due place) the Rejoynder answereth for D.M. that he in that place, Apol. par. 1. c. 89. condemneth Romish Ceremonies, because they were so many and burthensome. Now except he meaneth, that these were the onely causes, it is no answer, and (though I have not his Apologie now at hand) I dare venture something on it, that other reasons are there alleged. This I am sure of, that in his Defēce, cap. 6. sect. 6. he condemneth them not onely for their number, but also for their nature. And it is as manifest, as any thing can be, that a number of them have no other nature then ours have. Beside one or two humane Ceremonies may be burthensome.

 

If Circumcision were imposed in England, a the Crosse is, upon which condition, the Def. and Rejoynder

Page  144

allow of it, pag. 285. I thinke these allowers of it would account it a burden. And howsoever the light aeriall Crosse is not so burthensome to the bodie, as that, yet to the Conscience of many thousands, it is alltogether as importable a burden.

 

  1. Vpon occasion of that reason which the Def. rendred for condemning of popish Ceremonies, the Repl. addeth: because he had heard men often speake in this manner, of the fault that is in multitude, he would willingly know, what certain limits, and bounds are set, by Gods law, for the number of humane Ceremonies, suche as ours? If ther may be three, why not fower, five, sixe, and so forth, as many as shall please the Convocation? Surely (sayth he) if once we depart from Gods institution, there will be no place to rest our foot on, but we must ever follow winde and tide, which in religion is basenesse it self. The motion is reasonable, even according to receyved groundes: because we must have a rule for number, if some number doeth make Ceremonies to be justly condemned: and if that number doeth make them condemned by the word, we must also have that rule out of Gods Word. Now see what fluttering and flying answers are given, by the Rejoynder. His 1. is that all our D•vines doe censure Popish Ceremonies for their number. So did all or most of the Prophets censure not onely the Idols of Israel, but even their high places, for their number. His 2. is, that just so many Ceremonies must be allowed, as shall not clog an overcharge the Churches, in the judgement of those, to whose discretion it belonges, to judge therof: Where he meaneth the Convocation howse, for England. Now to passe

Page  145

by here, that which formerly hath been noted, (how corrupt this posi•ion is, to appropriate the j•dgement of discretion; even in Ceremonies, unto Prae•ats) if this be all the rule, then Augustine was too rash, in his time, to judge the number of Ceremonies used then to be a burden more then Iewish. For it did no more belonge to him, for to discerne of Ceremonies used especially out of his Diocesse, then it doeth belonge to every Minister in England, to discerne what Ceremonies he and his people may use. Nay then all our Divines doe wrongfully charge the Popish Cer•monies, for their number: because in the judgement of those among them, to whose discretion it belonges to judge of suche thinges, as well as to our Convocation, they are not thought to clog and overcharge the Churches. Thence also it would follow, that no Praelats could offende, in instituting of Ceremonies, without sinning directly against their Consciences: wheras we are more charitablie persuaded of many, evēCōvocatiō mē. His 3 is, from a comparisō, of Kings laying up of treasure, & multiplying of horses, Deut. 17. as likewise of eating more or lesse.

 

But 1. if there be no more certayne rule of institu•ing of mysticall Ceremonies, then for these thinges, th•n wiser men then any in our Convocation, may abuse the people with them. For so Solomon wi•hout question did, both in horses, & treasure. 1. King. 10. And so what assurance have our Consciences, from their judgements of discerning? Kings multiplying of treasure, and horses, concerneth (in conscience of acting) onely themselves, and their officers. but the Ceremonies (in

Page  146

acting) concerne all the Churches. In that ther is not onely a disparitie, and dissimilitude, but suche a one, as requireth the rule to be more accurate in one, then in the other. 3. Within a latitude, it were easy to determine, how muche treasure, and how many horses, ordinaily are lawfull to be multiplied, by this or that Kings, as also how muche is lawfull, for an ordinarie man to eat at one meal. But if the number of Ceremonies doe depende wholly on the Praelats discretion, ther can be no other rule given of them, then: so many as the Convocation house think good to injoine. His 4. (as I take it) is, that on the margent, from another comparison, one or two cruches may helpe a weak man in his goeing, wheras 6. or 7. would hinder him. Which is very true. But if it should be appointed to all men in England, to goe upō three Cruches, though they doe not see, nor any could shew them, that they had any need of them, onely upon this grounde that the Parliament judged, they had need first of cruches, and then of just three cruches, were not this (think you) a wise statute and to be observed as a law? His 5. and last is, that perill of leaving Gods institution, there may be some, in matters of faith, and necessarie dueties to salvation: but in other matters, to speak of perill, is ridiculous. But some in matters of faith, and principall obedience? none to be feared but ridiculously, in poynt of Rites? It is strange that ever any man of D.B. his knowlege, and profession, should let fall suche a sentence.

 

He himself will recall it, when he hath considered

Page  147

how deadly a thing it is to depart from Gods institution in fundamentall pointes, and also, how great mischeif hath arisen, by leaving Gods institution even in Rites. It is well knowen that Ceremonies and rites, opened the dore and paved the way for invocation of Saints in heaven, and evocation of men out of Hell, for the Sacrifice of the Masse, and Idoll of the Altar, and suche like pretie stuffe to enter into the Churche. And they were Ceremonies which came in with the winde and tide of custome, to which winde and tide if we yeeld our selves againe, God knoweth, what wil become of us.

 

But this especially is in the conclusion, to be marked: the Def. and Rejoynder have hitherto sayd much upon the generall rules for Ceremonies, Order, Decencie, Edification, as if they did trie the tast of every occurrent Ceremonie, as perfectly, as if every one had been named: they are the Rejoynder his wordes, pag. 89.

 

Now when we are come to the issue, they are found to be nothing, but onely winde and tide of custome. As if winde and tide did trie the tast, or discerne distinct•y of every ship, or boat, that is caried by them. What meant they to trouble us about certain rules, if every winde and tide be enough? If the practise of this be not basenesse, in any kinde of worsh•p, essentiall, or accidentall, then it is not base, for a Christian mans consci•nce, in some worship, to be led through hedge, or diche, onely because some went before, or to crouche upon every Maisterly mans word, or nodde, which certaynly is

Page  148

against the dignitie both of Conscience, and also of Worship: because neyther of them are subject to any mere pleasure or custome of men. Mr. Latimer Serm. 3. before King. Pd. seemeth to respect Ceremonies, when he sayd, that the Lutherans, in Germanie, made a mingle-mangle hotchepotche of Poperie with true religion, as in his countrie, they call their hogges to the swine-trough: Come to thy mingle-mangle, come pyr, come pyr. If this be not base, to be thus called to mingle-mangles, let any man judge, that is not woont to be fedde with huskes.

 

Beside, one question yet remaineth▪ when windes, and tides, fall crosse, as often they doe, the windes of authoritie driving one way, and the tide of good Christians bent, the clean contrarie, what is here to be followed? If we may make conjecture of D. B. his judgement, in suche a case, by his practise, it will be very uncertayn.

 

Page  149

SECT. 2. Concerning Vrsines and Zanchies judgement, about w•ll-worship.

  1. HEere (for brevitie sake) the question was repeated, in these words: whether all willworship, wh•tsoever, is to be condemned, or no. The Rejoynder upon this, first accuseth the Repl. of falsifying and changing the proposition. Now he cannot meane this of words: because the veritie and falsitie of a proposition, doeth not consist in words. And the sense he cannot denie to be falsified. For humane Ceremonies, imposed and observed as parts of Gods worship, must needs be worship proceeding from mans will, or will-worship. This therfore is but a blushing at the name of that which without blushing is defended. 2. The Rejoynder himself doeth, in the very next words, confesse so muche, when he professeth, that some will-worship is not condemned.

 

But I wonder from what good Divine he ever learned this assertion? The Papists are ordinarily charged by us for teaching, and practising of will-worship: yet diverse of them are ashamed to professe the defense of suche a monster, in plaine termes. ESTIVS upon the Epist. to the Col. Cap. 3. ult. disputing against some one

Page  150

or two Iesuites, that had been forced to let fall suche a speache, sayth of them, as we say of the Rejoynder, Docere non poterunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usquam accipi in bono. They can never shew, that will-worship is taken in good sense, 〈◊〉 wed of and not condemned. All our Divines might here be opposed to these two Doctors opinions. But it shall suffize, to allege onely two for the contrarie, and they are Vrsin, and Zanchie, whose authoritie are so muche urged by the Def. and Rejoynd. in this section, Vrsin in the place quoted by the Def. upon the 2. Commandement sayth thus: All fained worship is forbidden: all worship which is not of God,*but sett up by men, when worship or honour is fained to be done to the true God, in some work which he hath not enjoyned. Zanchie also upon the same Com. q. 4. thus: We may not worship God with any other worship (though it be in the kind of ex•ernall and Cerem•nia•l worship) then with that which he hath required in the holy Scriptures to be worshiped of us by. 3. Concerning the examples,* which are here brought forth of warrantable will-worship, free-will offerings, vowes, and kneeling in publick prayer, enough hath been answered before. Yet briefly againe free-will offerings were onely to be made of suche thinges as were manifestly knowen to be praescribed by Gods revealed will: and so not the offering, but undertaking of it, at suche a time, or in suche a measure, was left unto the free choise of men, according to occasion.

 

It is no will-worship, to pray thrice or seven times in a day, or to preache thrice in one Lords-day upon speciall occasion. Some vowes are no more worship, for

Page  151

the matter of them (and that onely is left unto choise, no• the manner) then fighting in a lawfull warr, upon the bonde of an oath, is religious worship. Kneeling in prayer is expresly allowed by Gods revealed will: and the determination of it to this or that time, is to be ruled by occasion. 4. As for that conclusion which the Rejoynder draweth from the former groundes, viz. that order comelinesse and edification. 1. Cor. 14. give power to men, for to appoint accessorie parts of ext•rnall worship, first, it hath no connexion with them, as hath been shewed in part, and may further be observed by this, that the inference is, from free-will-offeringes, vows, and Kneeling, that therfore the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. doeth give Churches power to appoint suche formalities as our Crosse, and Syrplice: which is to tie harp and harrow together with a rope of sande. Secondly, suppose it had, then it is not fully and resolutely expressed: because from will-worship of free will-offeringes may as well be concluded essentiall, as accessorie will-worship to be in the Churches power for to appoint it: because they were as essentiall offerings, as other sacrifices, which were by name commanded. If by accessorie worship, he meaneth that which is appointed by man, in opposition to essentiall, as appointed by God (which his manuductive interpretation beareth) then in stead of a conclusion, we have a mere confusion: the Churche may appoint that will-worship which God hath not appointed, but man doeth. Thirdly, the appointing of this or that, doeth not follow upon the practise of free-will-offerings, and vowes, except it be

Page  152

understood, that the Churche might have appointed men, what, and how many free-will offerings they should offer, which were to turne free worship into forced.

 

  1. About Vrsines testimonie, wee have suche turnings, and windings of words obtruded upon us, as aff•rde no matter capable of sad dispute. It shall be sufficient therfore to note onely the passages, which seem to looke towards the question. The Rejoynder pag. 179. tould us, that the Def. offered to confute, out of Vrsine, this proposition: All human Ceremonies which are imposed, and observed, as parts of •ods worship, are unlawfull. Now first upon this, the Repl. brought forth the maine assertion of Vrsin, in the place alledged, viz. that humane Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies, not onely are not the worship of God, but also they binde not the conscience. To this the Rejoynder answereth, that Vrsin in his answer to an objection made against this assertion, sayth, that suche Ceremonies are not worship in themselves, therfore (addeth the Rejoynder) his meaning is, that ther is some true lawfull worship, improperly, and by ac•ident.

 

Which is as if from these words: mans clothes, or armour, are not a man by themselvs, one should conclude, that therfore they are affirmed to be a man improperly, and by accident.

 

Secondly, the Repl. noted diverse words of Vrsin, sounding wholly to the deniall of the honorable title of good worship unto human institutions. Vpon which the Rejoynder complaineth, of willfull omitting these words of Vrsin: worship properly so called doeth so please

Page  139

God, that the contrarie of it would displease him. Where (sayth the Rejoynder) we have an exact description of worship properly so called. But he is herin deceyved. For if this be an exact description of proper worship, then whē a child honoreth his father, he doeth properly and immediatly honor and worship God: because suche an act doeth so please God, that the contrarie of it (dishonoring of ones father) must needs displease him.

 

And so, in very deed, was the meaning of Vrsin, to call the morall duties even of the second table, worship properly so called. Which forme of speaking, though it cannot be excused from great improprietie, yet maketh it nothing for, but rather against the Rej. because Vrsin heerby denieth human Ceremonies so much to participate the nature & name of worship, as any mean moral dutie of the second tabledoeth, no not so much as the hang-mans office, in the due execution of it.

 

Thirdly the Repl. observed, that the Def. concludeth the very same thing out of Vrsin, which we mainteyne, and he undertooke to confute, viz. that divine worship properly so called, is that which is ordeyned of God.

 

To this the Rej. answereth (after an angrie charging the Repl. with a contradctious spiri•, that this is not alledged, because wee denie it, or to confute our proposition, in the sence of Vrsine, but to shew what sence we must holde of it.

 

Now did not the Rejoynder himself tell us pag. 1794.

Page  154

that the Def. offered to confute out of Vrsin, our proposition? How can this be excused from contradictions (I will not say spirit, but) dealing, to say, and unsay the same thing, in the breath of one and the same section?

 

Fourthly, to that which the Def. sayd, of Ceremonies, in a large sense, to be helde worship, the Repl. answered, that thts should be proved. The rejoinder is, that the large sense it set downe, viz. as circumstances apperteyning to the setting out of divine worship.

 

As if we had not required a proofe, but onely an explication. Yet this explication hath no more truthe in this large sense, then if one should say, that all circumstances appertayning to the setting out of a man area man.

 

But (sayth the Rej.) Vrsin, or at least Pareus sayth, that the genus commune nature of these Cerem. as well as of civil laws is morall, and therfore worship. What could he have sayd more to confute both Defendant, and Rejoynder• they are worship, (and that onely in their generall nature) just as civill things: that is not otherwise then all good deeds are worship. So forbidding, or hindering of false worship (which may be doen by Atheists) is worship, in this uncouth manner of speaking.

 

One argument yet is of the Rejoynder his owne invention: Suche thinges doen to the honoring of an Idoll were idolatrie, as to build a temple, to the honoring of an Idoll. Therfore the same thinges doen by the rule, to the right ende, are some way a worship to God. Wherin ther are two ambiguous phrases observable: 1. suche thinges. 2. to the

Page  155

honoring of an idoll.

 

If by suche thinges, he meaneth suche as crosse and surplice, we not onely grant, but urge, that suche thinges doen to the honoring of an idoll, are idolatrie, and therfrom conclude, that suche thinges doen to the honoring of God, are (not some way but) properly, latria, or worship of the true God, though (being destitute of his allowance) false, or superstitious worship. But if he meane suche as circumstances of time, and place, then he accuseth all Princes, that ever granted time, and place, for idolatrous worship, to be Idolaters. Let him consider, how farre this stretcheth.

 

Secondly, if by to the honoring of an Idoll, he meaneth a devout intention of suche an honor, wee grant, that the taking up of a straw directly to suche an immediat ende, is idolatrie. For howsoever suche intention is not necessarie to externall worship, yet the praesence of it doeth make that worship which otherwise were none.

 

Yet all circumstances of time and place, which are occasionally applied to idolatrie, are not idolatrie, eyther essentiall, or accidentall. For then the same circumstances, should be (in diverse Ci•ies) both Idolatrie, and also true worship of the true God, as being circumstances of both.

 

  1. Concerning Zanchie. His name is by mistaking, muche abused. For howsoever he distinguisheth worship into that which he calleth essentiall, and suche thinge as are annexed unto it, yet under these annexions, he comprizeth suche thinges as God hath commanded,

Page  156

all which the Def. and Rej. call essentiall worship. His words are these: Things annexed to worship are holy ordinances which among the Iewes were very many, as their temples, Altars, persons, garments, vessels, times &c. And afterward Ministers, Elders, Deacons, Lords Day &c are the holy things of the Christian Church.* So that Zanchie calleth those annexed, which these men call essentiall worship: what an unhappie witnesse is he, that doeth not agree with them of whom he is produced: But to take all that the Rejoynder would have, this is the summe: If human Ceremonies be some part of externall worship, and yet not of that worship which is essentiall, as Zanchie sheweth, then (in a large sense) Ceremonies applied to religious actions, may be called parts of Gods worship, though not essentiall.

 

To which I answer, that according as Ramus sheweth, about distribution, sometime adjuncts of a thing may (in a large sense) be called parts, and yet they cannot have the abstractive name of that subject attributed unto them: because the adjuncts of a man cannot (with any sense) be called men. The consequence •herfore of this argument is rotten at the root.

 

But suche a reason, as that from the adjuncts of a man, to a man, was thus propounded by the Repl. the crosse is annexed to a Sacrament. To this the Rejoynder answereth, that the Crosse is not annexed to the Sacrament, but onely to the solemnitie of the Sacrament, and so it is not a part of the Sacrament, but of solemnitie.

 

Now here let any man of reason judge, 1. If the

Page  157

Crosse in Baptisme, be not so muche as a circumstance a Ceremonie, or Rite (which all Papists, Lutherans, and our Conformists ordinarily, acknowlege) annexed unto Baptisme? Common use of speache calls that annexed, which is joyned unto another thinge, as an adjunct. Now who can doubt, but the Crosse is so joyned to Baptisme?

 

  1. If the Crosse be not an essentiall part, or member of the solemnitie, and therfore not an annexed adjunct of it, no more then a mans hand is to be esteemed a thing annexed unto him, or his bodie?

 

  1. If this being granted, that the solemnitie of Baptisme is annexed to Baptisme, it doeth not follow, that the Crosse, a maine part of that solemnitie, be not also annexed to the same Sacrament? Such figleaves, so ill-favoredly sowed together, cannot cover the nakednesse of will-worship.

 

Page  158

SECT. 8. & 9. Concerning Mr. BRADSHAW his argument, wherby he proveth our Ceremonies to be esteemed, imposed, and observed, as parts of Gods worship, viz. because they want nothing to true, or right worship of God, but only a right efficient cause, or author.

  1. THe 8. section was neglected by the Repl. as conteyning nothing but affirmation on one side, and negation on the other. This omission (sayth the Rejoynder) was for advantage, because (forsooth) here the Def. his assertion was clearly set downe, namely, that our Ceremonies are not imposed, or observed, as proper, essentiall and necessarie parts of Gods worship.

 

But 1, If this had been a clear explication, yet seeing we meet with it, and handle it in a hundred severall places, before, and after, litle reason had the Rejoynder to suspect advantagious craft, in passing by the same termes in this one place. 2. Ther is no clearnesse at all in heaping up termes, without any explication of them. 3. When these termes, proper, essentiall, necessarie worship are now expounded, by the Rejoinder to mean nothing else but worship specially commanded of God, the sense is so absurde, that it was for his advantage,

Page  159

if they were omitted. For what answer is this: men appointing Ceremonies of their own making, doe not say that they are specially app•inted of God?

 

  1. The argument was thus formed by the Repl. Those Ceremonies, which have the kinde, nature, and definition of worship belonging to them, so that they want nothing but a right author, to make them true worship, those are in their imposition and use, worship, and for want •f a right author, false worship. But our Ceremonies are •uche. Ergo. Here the Rejoynder first complayneth againe, that the terme Reall. is left out of the assumtion, into which it was put by the Def. But 1. who gave licence to the Def. for to put new termes into our arguments? It is not true, that he put any suche terme into the assumtion, but onely mentioned in the title of this section. 3. Except suche a ridiculos sense be put upon this terme Reall, as was even now observed, of prop•r essentiall, ne•essarie, it may be understood both in the proposition, and in the the assumtion also. For if the kinde, nature, and d•finition of worship doe agree to our Ceremonies then they are not onely verball worship, in some fashion of speache (as the Rejoynder distinguisheth, but reall worship.

 

  1. Vpon occasion of that scorne which was cast on the authors of this argument, viz. that this learning never saw print before, as the Def. thinketh, Mr. Bradshaw was named, as a man not to be slighted for his learning, who had longe since put in print, without receyving any printed answer, unto it, or the booke wherin it was conteyned. To this diverse thinges are rejoined, not worthy any answer, but that they tende to the disgrace of a

 

godly learned man, whose memorie is worthy of all honour. 1. Mr. Bradshaw is ranked amonge discontented persons. Which imputation if it be understood of distentment for want of preferment, or great living, could hardly have lighted upon any man in England, whose course and conversation would more beat it off then Mr. Bradshaws did, in the consciences of all indifferent men that knew him.

 

  1. His tracts of indifferencie, and worship are styled litle Pamphlets, suche as doe creep in the darke, and are hard to be seen of men that walked by day light. This is (up and down) the language of great prelates, when Goliah-like, they confute their adversaries with scorning of their litle stature, and ignoble state. But the Def. or Rejoynder might have put that litle pamphlet into the belly of a whale, by setting it forth with a large confutation, in folio, and so also have helped it from creeping, to some kinde of riding on horsebacke.

 

Neyther is it harder for day-light men, to see suche treatises, though thrust by their commaund into dark corners, then it is to open their mouthes for to aske after them, and then their eyes to looke on them. Howsoever, if this be a sufficient answer, then what shall become of many litle bookes for instruction, and helpe, dispersed by good men amonge the Papists, where publicke authoritie doeth make thē to keep thē selves in a litle cōpasse, & to creep in the darke, for fear of being apprehēded by the inquisitours day-light walkers? Mr. Bradshaw was made for accurate, short, & mere logicall fashion of writing. So muche appeareth out

Page  151

of other treatises of his: as that of Iustification. For to have drawen forth him unto large wordy discourses, it had been as hard, as to confine wordy men, unto the accuratenesse of mere logicall dealing.

 

  1. Because the learning of this argument was derided by a Bishop, the Repl. doubted not to aequal Mr. Bradshow, for his skill in framing of an argument, unto any of the Bishops. To which the Rej. answereth, that this is no more praise to him, thē it is for a Carpenters boy, to drive a pinne as well as his Maister. Which might be admitted for true, if ther be any Bishop, that may in this kinde of learning be Magister ejus. Howsoever, it is not to the purpose, except the Maister carpenter, may deride his boy for driving a pinne, which is as well driven as he himself can drive any.

 

  1. The Rejoynd. raiseth up a report, without shewing from whome he receyved it, that Mr. Bradshaw reversed his owne opinion of thinges indifferent. Which untill it be some other way confirmed, then by an adversaries bare telling, and that in a humour of disgracing his person, it must be accounted a mere tale. But he had good reason to reverse his opinion (sayth the Rejoynder) because against all reason and sense, he resolved that ther is nothing indifferent.

 

If this were so as it is related, reason would perswade to some recantation. But it is onely the Rejoynder his telling againe, without any shew of proof.

 

I, for my part, can finde no suche wordes in Mr. Bradshawe his treatise, neyther any thing from whence suche a raw sentence may be reasonably collected. He

Page  162

concludeth in deed cap. 3. that ther is no absolute indifferent thing. 1. e. evereway, as well in order of nature, as of morallitie. He affirmed also cap. 7. ther is nothing actua•ly indifferent, which is not potentially good or evill, and cap. 8. ther is no action of mans will so indifferent, but the doeing therof, by some circumstances, may be evill. Ther is no action that a man can doe, by the power of his will, that is meerly and absolutely indifferent. These passages come the neerest to that which is here fathered upon the treatise: in all which this cruditie appeareth not: ther is nothing indifferent. Nay the harshest of these assertions, may be found not onely in litle Pamphlets made by Carpenters boys, against learning and sense, but in great volumes, written by those that goe for very learned, and sensible in suche matters as this is. Thomas Aquinas, in the great booke, called his Summe, prima secundae, q. 18. ar. 9. hath this conclusion:*It must needs be that every individuall act of man (proceeding from deliberate reason) is either good or bad. And all (or allmost all) those which have written upon that place, doe confirme, and defend the same, who yet were men, that in questions of suche a nature, did not usually write against all learning and sense.

 

  1. At lenght, we have leave given, to examin the Argument it self: but with this remembrance, that is not like to be very sound, which all this while came into no mans head, ti•l Mr. Bradshaw rise up. But who tould the Rejoynder that it never came into any mans head before? though if that were true, the soundnesse may be likely enough.

 

Page  163

Many reasons have been in other mens heads, which never came to the knowlege of our Def. and Rejoynder. And he is immediatly tould, that it is for substance in every one of our Divines, which hath written of worship: because they all, teaching that the common nature of worship required no more, then that it hath the honoring of God for the direct ende of it, they adde, that if this be according to Gods commandement, it is true worship, if not, false. And the Def. was urged to shew one instance to the contrarie. The Rejoynder is made, 1. by repeating over the emptie termes, of in it self proper, essentiall, reall, necessarie, etc. Which have been so often discovered to be nothing but termes, that it were an idle tedious buisinesse, for to insist upon them againe. Yet some few thinges may be observed, as proper to this place.

 

First we are tould here, that it is essentiall to proper essentiall worship, be it true or false, that it tende of it self, and immediatly, to the honour of God. So then we have the common nature of proper worship, as it is common to true and false worship. Now adde unto this that which is added, pag. 125.126. that this worship, if it be required of God, is true, if not, false. Now this being granted, our wholle Argument is granted, so farre as it concerneth proper worship. For by this confession of the Rejoynder it is plaine, that the institution of God doeth not make a thing proper worship, but onely true proper worship, and the want of it doeth make proper worship false.

 

And this is all that we intende in this Argument,

Page  164

for which also we are twitted with new learning by the Def. pag. 185. where also he affirmeth that Gods institution doeth distinguishe essentiall worship from accidentall, and therin he is mainteyned by the Rejoynder as by and by we shall see.

 

But how can these thinges stand together Gods institution is first the specificall difference, wherby essentiall worship is distinguished from accidentall, and yet the specificall difference also wherby true essentiall worship is distinguished from false? Can any one thing be a specificall forme of diverse effects, or difference of diverse subordinate thinges, suche as essentiall, and true essentiall worship are? Can ther be ore and the same difference, betwixt a living and a livelesse creature, and also betwixt a reasonable and unreasonable living creature.

 

It is in the second place observable, how the Rejoynder seeketh to convey, or (to speak playnely) steal away from us, that which he had given. Divines (sayth he) doe distinguish proper worsh•p, from that which is after a sort so called, by immediat ende, and per se.

 

Be it so: this doeth not contradict any thinge here in question: and it hath been expounded before, in the head of worship. The Divines of Saxonie, and Wit•enberge, Vrsin also, and Zanchie are alledged for the same purpose, 1. e. nothing to the purpose, Of Vrsin and Zanchie, enough hath been spoken in the former section. As for the other, see how they

Page  165

agree.

 

It was required, that one of our Divines should be named, who handling the common place of worship, doeth not distinguish true worship from false, by this, that one is appointed of God, and the other not.

 

He bringeth in some Lutherans not fully consenting with our Divines, neyther treating on any common place of worship, but onely writing a breif confession, teaching a difference betwixt lawfull rites of order, and proper worship, which we never doubted of. He taketh hold of those terms immediately, & of itselfe, by which (saith he) these divines distinguish proper worship from that which is after a sort so called.

 

But it is more probable of the places cited, that they rather distingu•sh worship (by those terms) from mere rites of order and decencie, which they doe never call worship, after a sort. Beside, of our Ceremonies, it hath been shewed, that their immediate end, is to honour God: in which respect also, the Rej. himselfe ranketh them under the head of immediate worship.

 

As for per se, or of it selfe, it may meane also as muche as ex opere operato, the mere work wrought. In which sense some Divines pronounce generally of all externall worship, that of it selfe, and in it owne nature, it doth not please God. Perkinse, in his Cases, lib. 2. cap. 6. Howsoever, to shew

Page  166

how the authors of these confessions did not esteem significant Ceremonies Crosse, Surplice etc. to be matters of lawfull order, those words of the Wittenberge Confession doe sufficiently declare. It is not lawfull for Bishops, to thrust upon the Churche, the Ceremonies of the olde law, etc, where come in the words quoted by the Rejoynder and immediatly after, these: Neyther is it lawfull, eyther to restore the olde Ceremonies of the law, or to devize new, to shadow forth the trueth allready layd open, and brought to light, by the Gospel: as in the day light, to set up candles, to signifie the light of the Gospel, or to carry banners and Crosses, to signifie the victoríe of Christ thorough the Crosse. Of which sort is all the furniture of Massing attire.

 

Vpon suche groundes as these, the Rejoynder concludeth thus: Therfore the institution of God alone is that which maketh the same things to be worship truely, and really, which without suche institution, were no suche reall worship, though doen to the same ende, and in the same manner. But I know not how the terme truly, and then againe suche worship came into the question. Wee stand upon this, that Gods institution of worship, doeth make true worship, and denie onely that it maketh that worship, which otherwise, or without suche institution, were no worship at all. How can then the Rejoynder be excused in confounding true worship, with reall worship in this conclusion? Now take away this intruded truely, and then let any man tell me, how this conclusion can be reconciled with those his principles of concerning worship, pag. 125? Any action doen to the honoring of God

Page  167

immediatly, and in that act it self, is proper immediate, externall worship of God. If God requires it not, then that worship is false. And even now: suche an act is proper worship of God, be it true or false. Proper and Reall to him are all one: and yet granting some proper worship to be false (for lacke of Gods institution) he denieth it to be reall worship, if it wante Gods institution: as if Gods institution did make that reall proper worship, which for wante of that institution is false worship.

 

This wilde conclusion is further confirmed by a reason out of Tilenus, which is answered before, in the head of Worship, and by one example out of Fenner, whome the Rejoynder is pleased to call our owne Maister. Where, I will not say, what kinde of men may (by like reason) beproclaimed his owne Maisters, but onely desire him to consider, what reason he had, to avouche, that to hold the Ceremonies unlawfull, is a new tenet lately broached, contrarie to that which was helde in Queen Elizabeths days, whenas he accounteh Mr. Fenner our Maister in this doctrine, who had to doe in the first infamous silencing of Ministers for Ceremonies, in the beginning of D. Whitgifts Dominatinon? But what is that which is brought forth out of our own Maister? Nothing but this: that after publick worship, the people are to use a reverent gesture, as bowing downe the head before the Minister. Wherupon the Rejoynder demandeth, whether this adoration be essentiall, necessarie worship or no? and in what sense this respect of the Minister be by him called worship of •od? To which I answer

Page  168

  1. that I doe not finde it by him called worship of God at all 2. that it were a great absurditie for him to call a respect of man, worship of God, as the Rejoynder doeth. 3. that the adoration spoken of Neh. 8.7. from whence he tooke that observation, was proper essentiall externall worship. In this therfore nothing is founde to purpose.

 

One observation is added further by the the Rejoynder, namely, that diverse of our Divines doe make this part of the defini•ion of proper worship, that it be according to the commandement of God. To which I answer, that suche difinitions are to be understood of true and lawfull worship, even as those definitions of an oath, which require the true God to be sworne by, are to be taken of right and lawfull oathes onely, because swearing by false Gods, is swearing, as all worshipping, of false Gods, is worship, though both unlawfull.

 

In the next place, answer is tendered to this reason of Mr. Br. The bare ratifying of the present use of any thing, cannot make it true and lawfull worship, if it had not be•ore some nature of worship in the use of it. The force lieth in this, that bare ratifying or authorizing of any thing to have that use which it had before without suche authoritie, doeth not change the physicall entitie, essence, or use of it, but onely the authoritie, or legalitie of it. The instances brought by the Rejoynder to the contrarie, may have some shew, but have no force to that purpose. 1. The sole stampe of the King, makes that current money, which was not money at all before, but

Page  169

onely used by way of bartery. In which comparison, he utterly mistaketh and varieth the qualitie wherin it consisteth. For on the one side, it standeth thus: If God should command and us to use our Ceremonies, after the same manner that we have used them, without his commande, they should be parts of Gods proper outward worship. On the other side it standeth thus: if the Kinge commande that peice of mettall to be used for current money, which before was not used so, but onely for bartery, it should be current money. Here is no similitude, because no proportion of qualitie.

 

  1. As the sole word of God, made living creatures of those that were not living, before, so sayth the Rejoynder the sole institution of God, makes that action to be true worship, which was before no reall worship at all, though used to the same ende, and in the same manner. But 1. the creating word of that which was not before in being, differs so muche from that ratifying word which presupposeth the being of the thinge ratified, that here is not so muche as a shew of proportion. 2. This is a direct contradiction to that which the Rejoynder teacheth, pag. 125. If any thinge be doen to the honoring of God immediatly and of it self, which God requires not so to be doen, it is proper immediate externall false worship. For hence it immediatly followeth, that nothing can be doen, to the same ende with true proper worship, but it must be proper worship, eyther true, if it be required of God, or false, if not so required. 3. The place of Sacrifice, before God had determined the particular place, though used to the same ende, and in the same manner, was not in it self any part

Page  170

of reall worship to God: and yet after Gods determination, it was. I answer. There was a great difference in the manner, wherin the place determined (so as it was) ought to be used. For ther was speciall mysteriall signification to be observed in the one, which was not in the other.

 

Otherwise, I see not what more reall worship ther was in Iacobs place of sacrifizing at Bethel, upon Gods speciall determination, Gen. 35. then in Abrahams sacrifizing at Hebron, without any suche speciall determination of God, Gen. 13.

 

When all other Essays faile, the Repl. himself is brought in as guiltie of contradiction, because he affirmeth these two thinges: the institution of God doeth distinguish true wo•ship from false: and yet it doeth not alter the common nature of worship. For (sayth the Rejoynder) it is as if one should say: the reasonable soule doeth distinguish man from creatures that have not understanding: and yet it doeth not alter the common nature of the creature. But the Repl. had answered this before, if the Rejoynder would have attended unto his wordes, as they are by himself set downe, pag. 189. alter the common nature of worship, that is, make that worship, which otherwise, being used to the same ende, and in the same manner, without Gods institution, were no worship at all. In which wordes he plainely expressed, that by altering the common nature of worship, he meant nothing lesse, thē making true worship of false, but onely creating or making the common essentiall nature of worship. And certain it is, that the reasonable soule (as it is reasonable) doeth not make the common

Page  171

essentiall nature of a living creature, for then ther could be no living creature, without a reasonable soule as the Rejoynder affirmeth, ther can be no proper worship, without Gods appointment.

 

  1. Against the Def. his invention of indifferent worship, it was excepted (to passe by repetitions) that no Scripture, Divines, or good reason doeth acknowledge any suche worship. The ground is, because in Scripture, all worship is eyther approved as good, or condemned as evill: all Divines doe distribute worship into true or false: and they have reason so to doe. To this the Rejoynder opposeth nothing but the contrarie assertion, grounded upon examples. 1. So farre (sayth he) as we may call the particularities of externall disposition, in the m•nner of worship, respectively t• their ende, worship, so farre may we call them indifferent worship: as kneeling, standing, bowing, or prostration, the place, and houre of worshiping, singing of this or that Psalme.

 

I will not here write over againe, that which hath been declared about these thinges in the head of Worship. But in breif thus: 1. The question is not, what this or that may be called, by a Rhetoricall trope, but what it is in the nature of it. 2. Respect to the utmost remote ende, doeth no more make matters of order, time, and place, worship, thē it maketh worship of eating, & drinking, and whatsoever we doe to the honor of God, 1. Cor. 10.31.3. In place, and howre, or in the election of one Psalme, before another, ther can no worship be placed, except we will make one worship to be worshipped by another, when it is timed, placed, and chosen.

Page  172

  1. Ther is no speciall worship in one of the gestures named that is not in the other. Neyther is any of these gestures so indifferent, as that it may be lawfull, to forbid, or refuse any of them, generally, and for all occasions, nor yet so, as that by circumstances (without any law or canon) they may become necessarie. These examples therfore serve not the turne they were brought for.

 

  1. Ther is also (addeth the Rejoynder) an arbitrarie choise of essentiall Divine worship, as when we will pray or read, etc. where in respect of this libertie of choise, the kinde of worship is indifferent in some respect. Of which assertion I know not what to say: Necessarie worship is in some respect indifferent. Certainely that respect must make a worship, distinct from that necessarie worship wherof it is a respect: or else, as (by the Rejoynder his doctrine) all thinges in respect of their relation, are Ceremonies, and in respect of their utmost ende, worship, so all thinges, or at least all human actions, are also in some respect arbitrarie and indifferent. Ther is no ende, or bottom in suche reasons. The trueth is, that this when which is here spoken of, is one and the same thinge with houre which was mentioned in the former instance, and therfore needeth no new answer.

 

  1. The Def. for proving of his assertion (that Gods institution doeth difference necessarie and essentiall worship, from indifferent and accidentall) did bringe in the instance of lambes for colour unspotted, which was necessarie and essentiall (as he affirmed) after the law, though before indifferent and accidentall.

 

Page  173

To this it was first answered, that this law of offering lambes for colour unspotted, is no where exstant, and therfore that this instance was alledged eyther out of ignorance, or for want of due consideration. The Rejoynder being constreined to grant this exception to be just, turneth himself to those last words, eyther ignorance, or want of due consideration: and for them accuseth the Repl. of flying in the Def. his face, without Christian moderation. But if it be so great a crime, to impute eyther some ignorance or some inconsideratenesse (suche as no man alive is wholly free from) unto the Def. and if this be unchristian flying in his face, I am sure the Rejoynder hath gone beyoynd the face and stabbed deeper into our Vitals, in many passages of his Rejoynder.

 

As succedaneall instances to the former, which was found failling, the Rejoynder bringeth in diverse, out of the Leviticall, or Ceremoniall law, which were arbitrarie before the law, and necessarily essentiall after. To all which, the second answer to the failing instance, giveth direct satisfaction. As for those Rites, which are further alledged, out of the Legende of fabulous Rabbines, by Mr. Ainsworth, and ratified by the Rejoynder we regard them no more, then the Popish leaden Legendes. Onely the marginall conclusion out of these Instances is observable: The Repl. fallaciously supposeth, that all worship is onely true, or false, not observing a subdivision of true worship, into substantiall, and circumstantiall.

 

Page  174

For 1. what reason can he render, of that which he layeth upon the Repl. as if he had supposed all worship to be onely true or false.

 

The Repl. never denied, but all worship is also good, or evill, internall, or externall, naturall, or instituted, etc.

 

  1. The reason which he bringeth, is onely from the subdivision of true worship. But that doeth not hinder a superdivision, or aequidivision, into common, and speciall, Ecclesiasticall, and domesticall, as Mr. Perkinse divideth in the place before cited. 3. That division into substantiall, and accidentall, cannot possiblie (with any reason) be more applied unto true then false worship, except the Rejoynder will say, that no false worship is eyther substantiall, or accidentall.

 

The seconde answer to the former instance (belonging to all those by the Rejoynder adjoined) is, that i• before the law, the same worship had been performed, with the same minde, that is, in the same manner, and to the same ende, it had been as essentiall worship, as after, though not so true, and lawfull.

 

The Rejoynder here first, observeth a contradiction to that which was formerly sayd sect. 6. worship doeth not varie, according to mens opinion. But if he understand the matter well, he shall finde both sayings well to agree. For though the want of some opinion doeth not varie the nature of worship, so as that the absence of this or that opinion, doeth make any externall worship, not essentiall: and yet it doeth so varie the nature of worship, as that the presence of some opinion, doeth (as an efficient, not as a formall cause) make some externall

Page  175

act essentiall worship. The Rejoynder his second observation is, that our Ceremonies are hereby discharged from will worship, and superstition, except it can be proved, the imposers, or users of them, doe holde, that God is better pleased with them, then without them, in themselves, or that they are as pleasing to him, as if he had commanded them.

 

The consequence of which heerby conclusion, no logician in the world can make good. Yet (taking out in themselves, as an intrusion) all the consequent part may be mainteyned. For if ther be any more good h•lde in the imposing and observing of them, then in the omitting of them, then God is better pleased with them, then without them. And that which is lawfully and justly commanded by men authorized therto, is as pleasing to God as if he had commanded it. Nay •t must be receyved, as commanded of God himself.

 

  1. It was also by the Repl. brought into the Def. his remembrance, that matter, and forme doe usually make up the essence of thinges, and that to instituted meanes, a proper ende is also required, but a right efficient cause not so. About this, the Rejoynder sheweth himself perplexed. For 1. he answereth, that this notwithstanding, actions have as it were matter, forme and essence of accidentall, though not of essentiall worship.

 

Where he manifestly separateth the essence of worship, from essentiall worship, as if the essence of a man could exist without an essentiall man, 2. He gathereth

Page  176

from that which was sayd of respect to the ende, in institutiōs, that therby their assertiō, is cleared: viz. that Cer. respecting the honour of God mediatly, are not properly parts of Divine worship. As if here had been any mention or questiō, of mediatly, or immediatly, proper, or improper, and not onely of essentiall. But for so muche as the Rejoynder would needs heer cite D. Abbot, for his terme immediatly, I would desire him to cōsider of the wholle sentence in that place pronounced by him, viz. Def. of Mr. Perk. pag. 844. Order and comlinesse (sayth the popish Bishop) is some part of Gods worship. But (sayth D. Abbot.) Who taught him this deep point of Philosophie, that an accident is a part of the subject, that the beautie, or comelinesse of the body is a part of the body? Order and comelinesse properly and immediatly respect men, and therfore can be no parts of the woship of God. If this be not a plaine refuting of the Def. and the Rejoynder their assertion, then none is attempted in all the Replie.

 

  1. He in like manner concludeth, that every respect of the honor of God, doeth not make a thinge to be properly religious worship. As if the Repl. had ever spoken, or dreamt of suche a phantasie, except it were in the Rejoynder his name! His wordes are: beside the respect of the ende, is also required institution of means to an ende. What Paracelsian can draw so wilde an assertion, from suche a grounde as this?

 

  1. It was (in the last place) demanded, whether, if the Temple of Ierusalem had been built, with institution of all the appurtenances, sacrifices, and observances, there used, without any Commandement of

Page  177

God, according as they were by his appointment, whether (sayth the Repl.) they had not been essentiall false worship, erected to God? The Rejoynder answereth: Yes no doubt, if we may call (as the manner is) essentiall disworship, essentiall false worship: eyther in respect of the thinges themselves, or in the opinion conceyved in their use. Now marke (all readers that have sense) how this Rejoynder (here in the conclusion of all) is constreyned to confesse, that to be true, which he hath hitherto striven against as false. 1. The Repl. his assertion was, that Gods institution doeth make that worship, which being used in the same manner and to the same ende, were otherwise no worship, or (as it pleaseth the Def. and Rejoynder to speake) no essentiall worship? The Rejoyn-hitherto hath contended against this, as against a great errour.

 

Now in the winding up of the wholle Argument, he confesseth, that some essentiall worship may be, without any institution of God. Certaynly, if this be so, then the institution of God, is not required to essentiall worship, neyther is it of the essence of essentiall worship, that it be instituted of God. 2. He affirmed before, pag, 125. that proper immediat, (or essentiall) worship are onely suche thinges as God hath to that ende ordeyned Yet here he confesseth, that essentiall worship may be without any commande of God. 3. The Rejoynder before, made essentiall and accidentall worship to be a subdivision of true worship. Now he confesseth, that ther is an essentiall worship under the head of false worship. 4. He acknowlegeth, that in all the former senselesse

Page  178

assertions, he did not speake, as the manner of speache is.

 

That was therfore against the manner of speache, which the Def. & he used before. 5. He graunteth some worship to be essentiall, in respect of the thinges themselves, separated from mens opinion. Yet hitherto, he would have made us beleive, that opinion did varie the nature of worship, as sect. 6. If this be not a plaine yeilding, and granting of the wholle Argument, ther can be none, save onely in plaine termes, to say, I yeeld.

 

SECT. 10.11.12.13.14.

THe former argument being (though demonstrative) yet to the Def. his apprehension new, was derided as new learning: these following are excused from that censure, as being more popular, and seeming more fadomable. Of which it is to be observed, that moste of them are fetched out of incertaine papiers, under the name of Mr. Hy. and others, upon the Def. his credit: wherin, what aequall dealing hath been used, it is very suspicious to any judicious reader, and some of those others, (for Mr. Hy. is past writing to) being asked, have testified, that in diverse passages they are muche abused. Yet even these reliques of Arguments are defensible.

 

  1. The first is: because they are imposed to breed an opinion of holinesse, by Mr. Hookers doctrine and therfore, as

Page  179

parts of Gods worship. To which the Def. answereth, that it is no meant of operative holinesse, eyther by infusion, or inhaesion, but onely significative. Whence he concludeth, a perverse purpose of calumniation: and the Rejoynder (adding another distinction, betwixt holinesse in them, and in the users of them) maketh mention also of dotage. But 1. the Def. his distinction is vaine: because even significative holinesse is also a part of Gods worship. Otherwise some holinesse must be fained, which having no other immediat ende but that which directly and immediatly tende to the honoring of God, is no part of his honor. The Rejoynder also is vaine in limiting the matter to holinesse in them.

 

For those thinges which are instituted to that immediat ende onely, that they may breed an opinion of holinesse, and so holinesse, in others, doe (in all reason) deserve the opinion of holinesse some way causall, or operative in themselves: because all breeding is causing, or working, 1. e. operative.

 

It was also observed by the Repl. (onely in a parenthesis, by the way) that holinesse eyther by infusion or inhaesion, were unreasonablie by the Defend. disjoyned.

 

This the Rejoynder excepteth against, and sayth, in those termes ther is no more disjunction, then in these love or charitie, Magistrates, or Governours.

 

But he forgotte the proper English note of disjunction, eyther, or.

 

Page  180

Where did he ever read suche a phraze: eyther love, or charitie, eyther Magistrates, or Governours?

 

It was also replied, that Mr. Hooker attributed operative holinesse to the Crosse, in allowing all that the Fathers ascribed to it. The Rejoynder his onely materiall exception is, that the instance was here not of the Crosse, but of the Surplice. Yet the question is of our Ceremonies, which is as well concluded from one, as another, and the Rejoynder himself, even now, spoke of holinesse in them, as of many, not in it, as of one Ceremonie onely.

 

Neyther is ther any more holinesse in one, then in the other, if both be onely significative.

 

The Repl. further affirmed, that Mr. Hooker spoke of reverence to be signified towards the Ceremonies. To which is rejoined I know not what. But let Mr. Hookers words, goeing before those nakedly cited by the Def. and Rejoynder, be considered. The wise man could not mention so muche as the garments of Holinesse, but with singul•r reverence, and it will be evident, wherto he required reverence.

 

In the last place, Mr. Hookers opinion is slighted, as privat. Wheras all know, that he is in our Ceremoniall controversies, of as publicke note, and approbation, as Bellamine in any Popish.

 

  1. The second reason being slēderly propounded by the Def. out of Mr. Hy. his mangled manuscript, was thus by the Repl. distinctly explained: A holy assembly of Spirituall Lords, and their Assistants, if they be truly holy, and spirituall in their authoritie, and in the exercise

Page  181

of it, will appoint no Ceremonie but holy: and by the observance of the sayd Ceremonies, have some spirituall honor redounding unto themselves: because the vertue which is found in any effect, doeth redounde allways to the prayse of the cause. Of this argument, the Rejoynder pronounceth, that it is a powring out of sal• scurrilitie, to the very lees, a scornefull jest, ascoffing, a spitefull jest, a vagrant thinge, the very noting wherof is answer enough. Now how should a man deal with suche disputers?

 

The Def. brought this Argument out of unknowen papers, into a publick booke, and answered it with sharp wordes. The Repl. onely shewed the force of it: and for that, he is set upon a fresh with new wordes, like swords and daggars. Could they neyther suffer this reason to sleep in the darke, nor endure any light of explanation should be set by it?

 

And what fault can be found with the repeating of those titles, which the Prelats in Convocation take to themselves, or in drawing a conclusion from them?

 

In the second place, our Rejoynder undertaketh to giue a reall answer to this reason. To which purpose, 1. he denieth that our Ceremonies are of the institution of the Convocation-house. And yet the same Rejoynder in answer to the Repl. his preface. pag. 61. complaineth of us, for infringing the libertie of the Churche in her Convocation, touching the appointment of externall Rites, or Ceremon. And pag. 71. as in diverse other places, he telleth us that the Convocation house maketh and establisheth Canons upon & with the Kings Commission, and allowance.

 

Page  182

They are the words also of the Parliament, set downe pag. 70. that the Clergie of England made the Canons. Neyther can any man doubt of this, that have but looked on the booke of Canons. The ratification of suche thinges by Civill authoritie, doeth no more take the institution of them from the Clergie, then the like ratification of any point in true worship, doeth take the institution of it from God and Christ. 2. He denieth the consequence: because a holy assemblie may ordeyne them, and yet not make them holy.

 

But it is manifest, that a holy assemblie, as it is suche, gathered together in the holy name of Christ, as their efficient, and finall cause, cannot but putte a holy forme upon their ordinances. Qualis causa, tale effectum.

 

  1. His third answer is that these Ceremonies may be called holy, because, they are used in holy actions. Which is just so, as a pesse, hassok, or cushin may be called holy, because it is used to kneel upon, in the holy acte of prayer. But instituted significant Ceremonies are evidently of another holinesse, to all that doe not of purpose shut their eyes.

 

  1. The Repl. (after the Def.) goeth about to prove that the Convocation may be called a sacred Synod, and holy in regard of their function. Which is so farr from being denied by us (upon the supposition of the lawfulnesse of suche a function, as they take upon them) that it is the ground of our reason, to prove their ordinances holy. So that the Rejoynder might (in this place) have spared those sweet words of his: stomacke,

Page  183

without wit, or learning: these men say (in effect) to all other men, stand backe, I am holier then thou, they are censorious, and uncharitable. Yet the Repl. could not consent, that our Convocations should be so accounted holy as Churches instituted of Christ, and gathered for true holy worship: because neyther of these doe agree to our Convocation. Heerupon the Rejoynder (having nothing to say that was pertinent) speaketh something of right Ecclesiasticall Synodes, accuseth the Separatists with Mr. Iacob, and lastly affirmeth our Convocations to be gathered for a speciall dutie of Gods service, though he will not tell us, what it is, and confesseth, that litle good is sometimes (he might have sayd at any time) doen at their meetings. Which kinde of answering I leave to the judgement of any reader.

 

  1. A third reason, feched out of M. Hy. his papers, is, that Crosse and Surplice are set apart from civill uses, and appropriated unto the actes of religion in Gods service. To which the Def. answered, by equall comparison of Pulpit-cloth, Communion cup, and place of meeting in like manner appropriated. Wherupon the Repl. was, in generall, that the Def. did well understand what was meant by appropriation. This putte the Rejoynder into a passion, expressed by many wordes: a pretty sleight, for that which cannot be defended, by those which are pusled and toyled, a f•im 〈◊〉, lent by Mr. Iacob, a mere shift, proceeding out of an haughtie desire of defending that which hath been once spoken. And this is all that I finde rejoined to that passage. To which I say nothing.

 

Page  184

A reason was rendred of the former assertion: because a Pulpit-cloth Communion-cup, and Meeting-place are onely civill, being taken from the ordinarie civill customes of men. To which the Rejoynder opposeth, that no civill man will say, that they are onely civill in their application: Whiche is verie true. Nor will any Grammarian say, that good Hebrue, Greek, or Latine, are onely gramaticall in their application, because they are applied to the expressing of all kinde of trueths and falsehoods: and yet they are onely gramaticall etimologie and syntaxe. No Naturalist will say, that the earth and ayre are onely naturall in application, and yet they are onely naturall beinges.

 

It was further added, that clothes, cups, meeting places etc. are of the same use out of Gods service, that they are in it.

 

This is occasion of admiration, and exclamation to the Rejoynder. But he might have considered, that the immediat ende of a clothe, is to cover; of a cup, to drinke out; of meeting places, to meet in: and then where is the strangenesse of this assertion? Is ther not the same immediat use of a mans eyes, in reading one booke, as another, of a mans eares, in hearing one voyce, and another, how soever the subject seen, or heard, may differ in nature or kinde.

 

A distinction was likewise used, betwixt appropriation of this or that individuall, and of the kinde. To this it is rejoined, 1. that the individualls are neverthelesse appropriated. Whiche is not so: because appropriation of the kinde and individuall both, is more then

Page  185

of the individuall alone. Individuals may be extrinsicallie, & accidētally appropriated, the kinde remayning intrinsically common, & indifferent. 2. That some individualls (without all their kinde) have been appropriated to holie uses. Of whiche no man doubteth: because one individuall may be so used, without other. But is ther therfor no difference, betwixt extrinsecall, accidentall appropriation of one Levite to the Ministrie, and the whole tribe? 3. Not all kinde of linnen garments, or crosses are appropriated to religious uses.. As if the question were of linnen garments simplie, though they were used without any suche institution as a Surplice hath, onely for the naturall conveniencie of it, or of crossing the fingers, upon occasion, to drive away flies, that come crosse upon a mans face. Ther was (in the last place) mention made of the significancie of our Ceremonies, which maketh them in their intrinsecall nature (as suche) without any further expectation of occasionall application, to be proper to religion. But of this our Rej. would not hear, in this place. Let it therfore passe to the next chapter.

 

  1. A fourth confirmation wholly dependeth on Matth. 15. Where the Def. would have it, that our Saviour condemneth not the act of washing (that is sayth the Rej.) the monitorie significant signe of washing, used by the Pharisies, but their intention, & opinion, in attributing legall and operative sanctitie, to that their owne invention. Now concerning monitorie significancie, enough hath been spoken, in the head of Ceremonies, and it remaineth to be discussed in the following chapter.

 

Page  186

For the present, it was first noted by the Repl. that some intention and opinion of holinesse cleaveth to our Ceremonies. This is denied by the Rej. and yet in his whole dispute, he maketh them worship, though accidentall, arbitrarie, and improper. Neyther can any man impose a double or treble religious Ceremonie without intention and opinion of some holinesse belonging to it, more then to that which is not so religious.

 

It was in the second place observed, that more holinesse was attributed to those washings, then is by many among us to the crosse, cannot be proved out of the text, ther being no one circumstance in it, which may not fitly be applied to our Ceremonies. To whiche the Rej. sayth 1. that those are blinde & superstitious persons, which attribute suche thinges to the Crosse, not the Church imposing. Iust as Bellarmine, in the place by and by to be cited, answereth Calv. about the same matter:*If there be any more rude among hir Catholiques, we hold them worthy to be corrected. But are not our blinde Protestants, and those rude Papists, hardened in their superstition, by the imposing & urging of those thinges which they superstitiously dote on?

 

The Pharisies (addeth the Rej.) were so strongly conceyted of this washing, that they thought, without it, the very creatures of God should defile them. But that of the very creatures defiling, is not in the text: It is but probablie collected out of our Saviours following discourse, that they estemeed some defiling to follow upō the eating of the creature, not as it was a creature, but as it was so used against the tradition of their Elders. And are are

Page  187

there not many to be found in England, that their very Baptisme is deficient, unsufficient, and so defiled: if it want the Crosse?

 

For further answer, it was alleged by the Repl. that not onely Calvin in Mat. 15. but also Bellarmin himself (de eff. Sacr. l. 2. cap. 32.) sayth, that the Pharisies washing was condemned as vaine, and unprofitable, setting aside, intention, and opinion of legall, operative holinesse. The Rejoynder answering first for Bellarmine, sayth he is abused: because (forsooth) he speakes that falsely, to defend the Popish Ceremonies. As if it were not the common notion of all Christians, that vayne and unprofitable Ceremonies are to be condemned, or as if Bellarmine alone sayd this! or as if this could defend the Popish Ceremonies, which are more easily defended from any other charge, then they can be from this, that they are vayne and unprofitable.

 

Who would have thought, that D.B. would defende vaine and unprofitable Ceremonies, in Gods solemne worship? But Chemnitius (sayth he) observ•s, that Christ condemned not these washings simply as prophane fopperies, nor as simplie unlawfull, but in respect of religion placed in them. Not simplie profane fopperies, that is, voyde of all shew from Scripture, or reason, nor simplie unlawfull, if the actes in themselves be considered or abstracted from all relations by institution added unto them: but in respect of religion placed in them, 1. e. superstition adjoyned unto them. Now ther is superstitio not onely pernitious, but also vaine, and superfluous. Filucius, tract. 24. cap. 2. And chemnitius, in the same place affirmeth,

Page  184

the Pharisies washinges to have been condemned, for that (notwithstanding their vanitie; and want of Divine institution) they were made some part of Gods worship.

 

As for Calvine, the Rej. doeth not denie, but that passage alleged is found in the place, the inventing of Ceremonies was an idle vanitie, before the high opinion of Religion was added unto it. Yet (sayth he) 1. he cleareth our Ceremonies, which was cast upon the Iewish superstitious washings. From some of that blame, (it may be granted) but not from all. For then those wordes (which the Rejoynder confesseth him to set downe) should have beē a contradiction to the other. 2. This shread (added he) is falsely alleged as touching the intention. And why so I pray?

 

Because (forsooth) Calvins meaning was, that to devize new washing, to the like ende, and with the like opinion of them, as of those which God had set, wa of idle vanitie.

 

But if this were his meaning, how can that meaning agree with the meaning of these wordes: It was of idle vanitie before the high opinion of Religion was added unto it?

 

Was there any higher opinion of Religion added unto those washinges, thē to the washinges which God had set? Extremitie drives men to hard shifts.

 

For the fuller clearing of this reason, that idle and vayne or superfluous worship is condemned by Christ, Mat. 15. let these testimonies, and reasons be wel considered.

 

Page  181

The Preists had brought in many Novelties, tho Moses with great terrour had threatned them not to ad any thing,*of which number of additions were those things of washing. There was a double fault for the innovation it selfe was not a slight metter and then this, that they stood more upon those observations of their owne then they did on the Commandements of God. 1. That first offence Christ doeth not praesently reproove them for saying it was a frivolous and superfluous, thing, lest they should have been inflamed.

 

Another cause for which he despised these washings was their superstition. The Pharises had put in the sayd washings, not for any naturall and civill decentie or cleanelinesse, but as perteining to religion, who so did contemne thē were judged to offend against Gods worship, and who so did observe them seemed cheifly to regard, Gods worship in them. But this was in no wise lawfull for them to doe who were so streightly charged of God, Deut. 4. that they should add nothing. For this Christ rejected these washings as superstitious, which reason Mat. 15. ch. intimates when he sayth: Every plant which my heavēly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted out. And Marc. ch. 7. In vaine do they worship me teaching the Doctrines, and praeceps of men, &c. Such things as men sett up of themselves against any Commandement of God.

 

Page  190

*In Mat. 15. Marc. 7. the Commandments of men do meane such Commandments which conduce nothing at all to piety, as those Superfluous washings.

 

  1. In the fift place, another reason (or charge) was brought out of Mr. Hy. his papers, that the Ceremonies imposed, are (for their use and practise) preferred before principall parts of Gods worship: because this is the Pralats Canons: wear a Surplice, or preache not: Crosse, or baptize not. This the Def. accused of dull Sophistrie: because by this meanes, onely an orderly discreete preacher is preferred before one that is factious and exorbitant. Of this base Bonnerly speache, the Repl. shewed his just detestation. For which he is censured by the Rejoynder of casting it out of the mouth of his stomacke, of malice, intemperat railings, and a furious spirit. All which I leave to the readers judgement. Onely this I observe, that he would excuse all or most of the Prelats, from willing silencing any able and godly ministers for omission of our Cerremonies, and doeth absolutely denie, that the Def. ever silenced any Minister (willingly or unwillingly (for onely omission of Ceremonies. Concerning which termes (willingly, and onely omission) some light of explication were needfull. For onely omission of Crosse, or Surplice, by oversight, or other accident, the Pope himself will not silence a Preist, as all Popish Divines tell us, in affirming that to be no mortall sinne. And how those which make Canons for silencing upon purposed continued omission, and execute the same partly by themselves, and partly by their instruments, can be sayd to doe it

Page  191

unwillingly, this requireth interpretation, which will certainly be found tardy. For clearing of this charge, from the imputation of dull Sophistrie, the Repl. first propounded it in this manner: an able godly Minister without the use of these Ceremonies, is not suffered in the Ministerie, wheras an unable & ungodly one, with the use of them, is suffered: therfore they are praeferred before maine thinges: Vpon this, the Rejoynder 1. observeth, that from hence doeth not follow that conclusion: therfore our Ceremonies are made parts of Gods worship. As if this conclusion were once named by Mr. Hy. or by the Def. in this charge.

 

If he will make it supposed, he must shew us Mr. Hy. his concealed papers for the proof of that supposition. He addeth 2. that all Prelats are to be charged with this practise: and that they have no suche power for depriving of bad, as they have for depriving of good Ministers. To which I answer, the question is not here of all, but of that which standeth by our Canons, and Canonicall practise. Yet neyther any authors, nor any defenders of the Canons, can be excused from partaking in this practise, no not the Rejoynder himself. And as for those Praelats, which have great power to doe evill, and litle, or none, to doe good (or which is all one, power effectually to hinder good, and not evill) they have a very dangerous standing, dangerous (I say) as well for others, as for their owne selves. Yet, when our Prelates procured that authoritie of doing evill, they might as easily, and more lawfully have procured the other, of doeing good: not to say, that none of them doe so

Page  192

muche for reforming or removing of bad Ministers,* as is in their power to doe, eyther by themselves, or by other meanes. Nay is it not knowen, how suche kinde of catle are not onely borne with, but borne up by the Prelates in bad causes?

 

The third Rej. is of a calumniation, because some inconformable Ministers are suffered, and some unable, and ungodly deprived. But 1. this calumniation concerning some inconformable suffered for a time, extraordinalie, besides, nay against Canonicall order. 2. He can scarce name one, that he hath knowen deprived for that he was unable. 3. The Turkes and Infidels would cashier their Preists for some ungodlinesse. What a poor rejoinder is this?

 

A fourth consideration is, that a farre lesse offence defended, is more punishable then a greater confessed, and that certayn evills, in themselves lesser, may doe more hurt, then others in themselves greater. Whiche consideratiō, if it be applied to the purpose, will appear in the proper colours: If a Minister confesse himself unable and ungodly, he is not so punnishable, as he that defendeth the Ceremonies are not to be used. The refusing of our controverted Ceremonies, may doe more hurt, then an unable and ungodly generation of Ministers conforming. In that which is further added, under the title of lastly I finde nothing but words & assertions, without backing reasons. Valeant igitur, quantum valere possunt.

 

The same charge was (in the second place) thus framed, by the Repl. Though ther cannot be found able

Page  193

and discreet conformable Ministers, enough to supplie all the Parishes of England, yet many of godly men are shut out of the Ministerie for unconformitie. Therfore Conformitie is praeferred before the maine dueties of Gods worship. Heer the Rej. having litle to say, setteth notwithstanding two colours on the matter. 1. That the consequence is not simplie true, but onely that they conceive the non-conformitie may, by consequence, be a greater hurt, then an able and godly Ministrie, in suche places, as want it, would recompence. As if this crying sinne were onely their conceyt, not their practise, or that their conceits could make this sinne no sinne! or that the salvation of many thousandes of soules, could not recompence the hurt that would come upon the refusing of human Ceremonies? What is this other then daubing rotten walls with untempered morter.

 

His second colour is, that non-conformitans are no lesse blameable, whoe had rather have no worship, then conformitie. Whiche is as muche as if he should say, that whosoever will not sinne for Gods glorie, doeth as muche offend, as he that will not suffer God to be glorified by those which will not to that ende be content to sinne against his conscience.

 

Because this reason was accused of dullenesse, it was noted (by the way) that every Plowman, being a good Christian, did usually make it in this blunt manner, against the Praelats proceedinges, and that the Repl. (being, as it seemeth first brought up amonge suche plaine people) had from his childhood tooke it to be unanswerable. Heerupon, the Rej. 1. answereth the

Page  194

blunt argument, with this sharpnesse: It is like as if one should say, that God, admitting no man to the Priesthood with bodily blemish, did therfore praeferre bodily perfection before spirituall. Wherin, he deceyveth him•elf, & others muche, whether he respecteth the first explication of this reason, or the second. For according to the first, it must be affirmed, that God would suffer men blemished in their bodies, to be priests, though they had no spirituall fitnesse for that office. And according to the second, he should have sayd, that God having otherwise to furnish the Priesthood, according to a superior law, which he might not of his will dispence with, did notwithstanding exclude some of those which that law did allow. But both these assertious are too absurde for the Rejoynder to owne.

 

His second note is of Plowmen, and Children, that they are not the best Logicians. Whiche though it be true, yet is nothing to the purpose: because many Plowmen have good naturall logicke, to reason withall. Otherwise they did very inconsideratly, whoe vented so good reasons under the title of the prayer, and complaint of the Ploughman, as in Mr. Foxe is to be seen, Edw. 3. amonge which reasons (a remarkable thinge) this very slighted argument is one. For so are the wordes: O Lord, for breaking of thy law, the Praelats will set men penance, or pardon them, and maintayne them, as oft as they trepasse. But Lord, if a man once break their laws, or speak against them he may doe penance but once, and after be burnt.

 

The summe of which, Mr. Foxe, in the margent, thus gathereth: The breaking of the Popes law is more punished,

Page  195

then the breaking of Gods law. And as for children, I am perswaded, that D.B. himself, had some trueths so evident unto him, that by no contrarie shew of logick they could ever be wrunge out of him. Sure I am that Timothie, knowing the Scriptures from a childe, had many suche.

 

Neyther was ther mention made eyther of plowmen or children, But onely to shew the evidence of this trueth, not the logicall Demonstration of it.

 

That which was added, by way of limitation, to the name of a plowman, namely, that it was understood of suche a plowman, as is also a good Christian, is very bitterly, and yet as very unreasonablie carped at by the Rejoynder as savouring strongly of that spirit of Separation, which hath been hunted after in the ch•se of inconformitie. For (sayth the Rejoynder if any will beleive all his conceytes) this shewes, that with these men the adversaries of Ceremonies and Bishops are the onely good Christians.

 

Which is a strange streine, to come from D. B. who both hath been an unconformist, and since he hath changed that title, cannot but know, that sundrie unconformists have caried themselves towardes himself, in all respects, as toward a good Christian. And what stronge savour is in this: every plowman that is a good Christian doeth unsua•ly make this Argument. Doeth he imagine, that onely those plowmen, that are professed adversaries to Ceremonies and Bishops, do• make it? Nay he knoweth, that many, and many of those that could otherwise well digest both, yet doe apprehend this course of Bishops silencing Ministers for suche Ceremonies

Page  196

is ungodly, and Antichristian. If he did not know so muche, yet he cannot be ignorant, that the word here interposed by the Repl. for limitation, usually, doeth except some more ignorant, or lesse attentive good Christians. And I doubt not, but the Rejoynder will affirme, that every good conforming Minister in England, doth usually account them for scismatickes that condemne the Ceremonies: yet I would not thence conclude, that with him, those of that judgement are the onely good Ministers. For ther is as muche sinne against charitie, in rash accusing others of uncharitablenesse, as ther is in being uncharitable: of which fault, the Rejoynder can never clear this affected passage, which he in opposition let fall from him.

 

For overthrow of the former reason, an instance was brought in by the Def. taken from a Chancelor, who may (sayth he) put out of Commission him that refused to sit in the place appointed, without praeferring that place to the Kings service. To this the Repl. 1. answered, that no wise Chancelour, would, for his owne pleasure, or for the circumstance of a place easily change, or put out of Commissiō a grave wise mā, whē another like unto him cānot be found. These last words another like unto him cannot be found, are cached up by the Rejoynder and under the shew or sound of them, the Inconformists are by him tossed (as it were) in a blancket, as being of a high straine, beyond all other men, in their owne persuasion etc. But he might have considered (if sinister affection had not hidden it from him) that the case immediatly goeing before this answer,

Page  197

was of shutting out able godly Ministers for inconformitie, when ther cannot be found able and fit conformable Ministers enough. Wherupon is inferred, that the comparison of the L. Chancelour will not help the Def. in this case.

 

Now what kinde of straine is this then in the Rejoynder to conceal the case, and stretche the wordes as it were with his teeth, unto suche a strange odious meaning of so witlesse a bragge. Yet if ther had been no suche dependance of these wordes upon that case, they might be well defended, as understood of an absolute comparison (eyther for abilitie, or pietie) but in relation to this or that people; from whome suche Mininisters are sometime plucked away by violence, whose like, in regard of that people (which have been muche edified by them, and more inwardly knowen, and also (upon good ground) affected unto them, then they can suddainly unto any other) cannot be found.

 

Otherwise, D. Burges, in his Apologie (towards the conclusion) would not have alleged against the silencing of himself, and others like him, that those (at the least) should succeed thē, which were not so wel acquainted with the condition of their sheep. It might be also added, that though another like might be founde, yet it is not in the power of that L. Chancelour, or the Bishop to finde, bringe, & place him in the same Commission, because (for the succession) he must depende upon the Patrons pleasure, not limited to another like the predecessor.

 

Page  198

But that this wresting of the Replyer his words, was affected (in some sort against conscience) it may appear by this, that no man will surmize, the Repl. to thinke, that to no unconformable Minister a Peer may be founde: because it is to be supposed (at the least) that another unconformable one may not onely be equall, but also superior unto him in all absolute perfection.

 

It was also observed, for answer to this instance of a L. Chancelour, that about the circumstance of place, for Commissioners to meet in, ther can be no Conscience pretended, wheras in our Ceremonies, solemne oathes are offered, that no thing but conscience doeth keep us from them. The Rejoynder 1. opposeth, that this unlikenesse maketh, nothing to the question. And yet it sheweth, that a Chancelour may in civill matters, where no conscience can be pretended, take more upon him without preferring, or comparing the matters, then a Bishop can, where Consciēce evidently withstandeth: because Cōsciëce is not to be vexed, except the matter be so great, that (in respect of Gods glorie) it cannot be neglected. He 2. opposeth, that many more of the Conformitans, are ready to take it s• upon their oath, that nothing but conscience makes them conforme. To which I say 1. that he who was immediatly before, so curious in houlding to the question, should not presently have digressed from it: as the Rejoynder here doeth, in turning the comparison, which was made betwixt a L. Chancelour and a Bishop, in respect of a conceyted Commissioner, and a conscionable Minister

Page  199

about preferring one thing before another, into a new comparison, betwixt the consciences of Conformitants, & of those which refuse to conforme. 2. Of that so, if the same meaning be kept on both sides, I muche doubt.

 

For our Conscience is, that in no place, nor uponany mans commande, we may conforme: and theirs is, that upon great urgent extremities, they may some time, and in some place conforme. I am perswaded, that if it had been free in England to use these Ceremonies, or not to use them. D. B. himself hath no conscience, that would ever have made him conforme.

 

After this, the Repl. added something, about the Def. his Pontificall termes, factious and exorbitant men. opposed to orderly and discreet Preachers. As 1. that the Def. himself in his conscience will not say, that Mr. Midsley of Ratsdale, and others like him, were factious and exorbitant men. 2. That this is the language of that evill servant, who beat his fellow-servants, better then himself: Mat. 24.49.3. That all those who are placed in the roome of silenced Ministers, are not orderly and discreet Preachers. 4. That faction and exorbitancie may better be charged upon the Prelats, for breaking many substantiall, ancient, wholsome Canons, then upon us, for breaking a Ceremonious Canon. Now (setting aside the Rejoynder his wandring wordes, with the hony and gall of them) see what he bringeth to the purpose. 1. The first he granteth to be true. But denieth that the Def. meant so generally. And yet the Def. his words are: whoe seeth not, that to deprive

Page  200

men of their Ministerie for not using of the Ceremonies (for that was objected) is to preferre an orderly and discreet Preacher, before one that is factious and exorbitant. If this be not generally spoken, let any reasonable ear discerne.

 

  1. The second he doeth not absolutely gain-say but casteth the like, or rather a farre greater fault in our faces: that wee (forsooth) doe condemne to the p•t of darknesse. Bishops, Conformitants, and in a manner all that are not of our partie. Whiche is so manifest a slander, that the evill servant spoken of Matth. 24.49. could hardly vent one more shamelesse.

 

  1. The third he confesseth: But would make it impertinent though it clean overthroweth the Def. his generall assertion, before expressed. He addeth also certayn frothy wordes, conteyning litle else, beside manifest slanders, which if he were put to suche an oath, as they call juramentum calumniae, he would not owne.

 

  1. The Prelats willfull, and continuall breaking of many, substantiall, & wholsome Canons, is not denied by the Rej. but yet to save their credit, he addeth, that all suche Canons doe not binde every particular Churche, but her owne. In which wordes there is neyther rime, nor reason. The Canons objected, may be seen in Master Parker, part. 2. c. 9. sect. 4. to be Canons of our owne Churche. What then hath the Rejoynder sayd to the purpose? His other stuffe hath been sundrie times examined, and found nothing worthe.

 

  1. All these considered, it will appear, that the Rej. had more will, then power, to maintayne, that the silencing

Page  201

of Preachers for our Ceremonies, is the praeferring of orderly discreet Preachers, before those that are factious and exorbitant.

 

  1. After all this, out of Mr. Hy. his papiers, it pleased the Def. to bring in some peices out of the Abrigement: which for substance are suche as diverse times have been handled before: and therfor need not muche labor in this place.

 

The first is, that many people in our land, are knowen to hold the Sacraments not rightly and sufficiently administred or receyved without them. For the force of suche an opinion in the muliitude, many testimonies are alledged in the Abrigement, and applied unto this assertion, not in deed to prove the same simplie, but to shew what is the consequence of it. All these the Def. left out, and the Rej. had no minde to take them in, but chose rather to rest in this: they are no proofs of the assumption. It was added by the Repl. the opinion even of a few, may make some action unlawfull, which the opinion of many other cannot make lawfull. 1. Cot. 10.28. To avoyd this, the Rejoynder had nothing materiall to say, before he had changed unlawfull into simplie unlawfull.

 

The just number of those that are so minded, cannot be proved, or disproved, without numbering and examining all the people. It was not therfore any meaning of those that gave the rule to reckon by the poul▪ as the Def. and Rejoynder would have us.

 

Neyther is this observation brought in to prove imposing and observing, conjunctly, as they would bear the

Page  202

reader in hād, but only for the observing, other proofes being added for the imposing. Yet it was observed by the Repl. that while actions of this kinde are superstitiously observed, they that still impose them in those places where they are so observed, may truely be interpreted so to impose them. To which the Rejoynder giveth no other proper answer, but onely leaving out the pith of that assertion, may be truly so interpreted, substituteth another; of a purposed ende: and then misinterpreteth actions of this kinde, as if they were meant of the speciall kinde of thinges, and not of unnecessarie actions known to be superstitiously abused.

 

It was also noted as ridiculous in the Def. that those people which thinke that Sacraments are not rightly administred, or receyved without the Ceremonies, are brought into that conceyt by our condemning of the sayd Ceremonies. The Rejoynder answereth, that this condemning of them, must needs make some thinke that they are imposed as parts of religion, and so occasion the simple to think that we esteem them so.

 

In which answer, beside that I know not who are meant by we, and that an occasion of the second or third hand, is made a cause, ther is no mention made of right or unright Sacraments.

 

For lessening of the number of those which so esteeme of our Ceremonies, the Papists are first removed, as having no great conceyt of them. Which I leave to experience. Onely because the Rejoynder requireth testimonie, I can informe him, that Gretser, Apol. pro Greg. 7. p, 8. hath these words: A Lutheran, preaching in

Page  203

  • erteine garments like the Ape of the preists,*celebrates a German Masse. And the Rejoynder himself confesseth in the next wordes, they have a better conceyt of them, then of the contrarie, and that suche as hath been held likely to araw them to our service, and that they have a great disaffection to those that will not tollerat the resemblance of their religious Ceremonies. Adde further, that after B. Babington, and B. Andreos, D. Morton him•elf, in the last words of his Protestants Appeal, hath confirmed the rumor, that Pope Paulus quaertus, did offer to confirme our wholle Service and Liturgie. The Papists therfore have no cause whie they should not have a good conceyt of our Ceremonies, which of all the Service come neerest to, and make most for them.

 

As for the rest, that so conceyt of the Ceremonies, which are not of your disciplining, sayth the Rejoynder) and yet are conformable they are not many. As if those of our disciplinating, were so conceyted, or those of Wales, Non-residents, and dumb-residents forlorne charges, who are not disciplined by us, were eyther few or of reformed judgement. Surely D.B. is not like himself, when he upon ingagement defendeth that which cannot be defended.

 

  1. The second thing brought out of the abridgement, is about the punishment inflicted for omission of our Ceremonies, greater then for breaking of Gods law, in perjurie and adulterie. Now this hath formerly been handled. In this place therfore, it shall suffize, to set a few notes, upon the Rej. his answers. 1. He distinguisheth

Page  204

betwixt punishing, and punishing as a sinne. As if punishment in the internall nature of it, were not of sinne! 2. He distinguisheth betwixt internall peace of the Churche, consisting more in observance of Gods commandements, and the peace of her externall pollicie, impeached by the neglect of her constitutions. Wheras he should have made the distinction betwixt one consisting, & another, or betwixt one impeaching, & another.

 

And yet both the consisting and impeaching of the Churches peace, doeth principally depend on the keeping of Gods commandements: which is all the Repl. affirmed. 3. He distinguisheth betwixt an offence every way lesse, and in it owne nature lesse, whenas the question is not, whether the neglect of our Ceremonies, be not onely in it owne nature a lesse offence, but also in all the circumstances of it. The Def. and Rejoynder themselves confesse, that this neglect, in the nature of it, is no offence at all. 4. Because suche answers were termed Sophisticall evasions, the Rejoynder twice crieth out of rayling: forgetting (without doubt) how often he had abused the same terme against the Repl. and that in the next former section, he had mainteyned the Def. his accusing a plain popular argument, not onely of Sophistrie, but even of dull Sophistrie. For the Rejoynder certainly will not confesse himself a rayler. The rest is not worth repeating, that paper should be twice blotted with it.

 

Against the Def. his distinction, betwixt omission, and contempt, the Replie was 1. that mere omission hath been punished with suspension. Of which the Rejoynder

Page  205

requireth a continued instance. To which I answer, that one instance may be given in Ispswiche, where D. B. was Preacher. For most of the Ministers were suspended upon the complaint of one Web, who professed, that he would not put on the Surplice except others did. D. B. may inquire easily if it was not so. As for continuance, it maketh not to the purpose, except all malefactors be not onely put in prison, but also continued in the same, above the Iudges pleasure.

 

The Repl. for affirming, that punishments for mere omission, are provided for by Canon, is accused by the Rejoynder of an untrueth in print.

 

Yet the Rejoynder cannot be ignorant (beside other examples) that every man not kneeling, is to be denied the Sacrament, and that the Minister administring to suche, is by the Canon, to be suspended.

 

So that this was trueth in print, ever since the Canons were in print: except suspension from the Sacrament, & from the Ministerie be in his account no punishment.

 

  1. The last thing noted out of the Abridgement is, that non-Cōformitants are accounted Scismatikes, Puritanes, and excommunicates, ipso facto, without appeal: which is without example. The Rejoynder here 1. denieth that flatly, without more words, which is plainly cited out of the 6. Canon, let the Canon therfore be looked upon, and that is enough. 2. He sayth that the ould anathema sit was as muche as to excommunicate ipso facto.

 

And yet King Iames himself, in his answer to Perone, doeth shew, that the olde anathema sit,

Page  206

was onely a declaring who ought to be excommunicated, and not an excommunication de facto. 3. He sayth for Appeal, that none is admitted, from the highest Court, suche as the Convocation is. As if eyther the Convocation were the highest court, or any court at all, for ought that I ever heard of the Court of Convocation, as I have of a Court of Parliament, or as if so muche libertie were left unto a poor Minister, now standing at the Bishops barre, as to appeal to the next Convocation. The Rejoynder surely did not well consider what he spake.

 

  1. Wheras the Def. granted, that we have reason perhaps to wish, that some poenalties were released, the Rejoynder interpreteth this reason to be suche as all men that feel the smart of punishment (for whatsoever offence) may have. Which is nothing else, but to looke on, with laughter, at all the greivous thinges which any Ministers have suffered, for this cause. And yet every foot the Rejoynder putteth on another person, and (as I am perswaded) hath another heart.

 

After this, the Rejoynder commeth to the slanders of Puritamisme, and Schisme. And as for Puritanisme, he sayth the Def. slided by it, as a terme not imposed upon us by him. As if we may not complaine of, or inferre a consequence, from any terme, except it be imposed upon us by D. Morton, or D. Burgesse or at the least, they were not bound to answer for any termes, except suche as they themselves have imposed!

 

For Scisme, and Separation, after some sparkeling wordes of rash-blasphemous, and firie Sirs, he telleth us 1.

Page  107

(1. that nothing may be established in the Churche, which God hath not commanded in his w•rd, 2. that all formes of worhip and all m•re Ecclesiasticall rites, not praescribed, are will-worship. 3. That the calling of our Bishops, and consequently of our Ministers, is Antichristian. 4. That our Ceremonies are idolatrous,) are the first principles of Separation. Now if it would please the Rejoynder eyther to declare what is Separation, or what is a principle, this question would be easilie decided. In the mean time, I answer. 1. the first principle is from Moses, if it be understood, as we mean it: thou shalt not adde any thing therto. 2. The second confounding mere rites, with formes of worship, is not ours, but onely by the Rej. his fiction. 3. The third supposeth, that which we utterly denie, that the calling of our Ministers doeth essentially depende upon the Bishops calling. 4. The fourth is made scismaticall, by a scismaticall conceyt of the Rej. namely, that every Church is to be utterly condemned▪ and so separated from, that hath any thinge in it, by participation idolatrous. His ever being of this opinion, may be answered in that fashion which he answereth the like phraze withall, pag. 216. He hath not ever been the best Logician. His profession, of separating (this day, ere he sleep) if he did beleeve these principles, is nothing else but a rhethoricall flourish, which he would twice recall, before he would separate from those that bowe to Altars, or even those which worship an ubiquitarie bodie, in the Lords supper, though these are more palpablie idolatrous (in his conscience) then the Ceremonies questioned are in ours.

 

Page  208

As for the addition, with a yea, that Mr. Bradshaws very arguments are pretended for Separtion so as they cannot be denied with any forehead, etc. It is not worth a refutation: because Mr. Bradshaw himself in a booke intituled, the unreasonablenesse of the Separation) hath sufficiently shewed how unreasonably they are pretended, and abused. If the Rejoynder hath any thing to rejoigne therto, I would willingly see with what fore-head he can doe it.

 

The other talke of this section, as also the recounting of a confutation in the 15. section, I leave to be counted as it deserveth, by him that will compare what hath been sayd, with the wordy rejoynder to it, so vainely opposed, and so often repeated.

 

Only (in few wordes) let it be noted 1. how in the 15. section, he slighteth the sentence of D. Covell as not worth any answer) who confuted his Apologie, and in that writing (at the least) was a kinde of publick wrighter, having had as muche approbation, as this Rejoynder hath for his rejoynder as appeareth out of the Rejoynder his Praeface pag. 18. namely of the then L.A. D. Bancroft, etc. 2. How he maketh the imposers sentence, to be an adequate rule of observance, de facto. 3. How he denieth some divine worship onely to be unholy in the kinde: as if some singular true divine worship may be unholy. 4. What a wilde consequence he buildeth upon: if the crosse be no part of the Sacrament, then it is no part of worship: because it may not (in the Repl. his opinion) be a part. 5. How unreasonablie he defendeth this consequence: our Ceremonies are changeable, and therfore not essentiall

Page  209

worship; when yet he confesseth the Popish Ceremonies to be changeable, and yet essentiall worship. 6. What science ther is, for a Rejoynder upon suche groundes to charge the Repl. for violating his conscience?

 

CHAP. 3. The third Argument, taken from the significant nature of our Ceremonies.

 

SECT. 1. and 2. Concerning certayn miscelaneall notions and testimonies against humane relegious significant Ceremonies.

  1. THis Argument pleadeth, that no humane Ceremonies, appropriated to Gods service, ordeyned, or instituted, to teache any spirituall dutie, by misticall signification, are lawfull. About this the Rejoynder threateneth blowes. But we have had now suche experience of his forcelesse indevours in other Arguments, that the fear of his blowes is past.

 

  1. The first proof of our proposition was taken from the second Commandement: which the Def.

Page  210

omitted in this place, and the Rejoynder will not have any man to take exception against the sayd, omission: but with what reason, let his reader judge.

 

  1. A second proof was, that Christ is the onely teacher of his Churche, and appointer of all meanes wherby we should be taught and admonished of any holy duty, and all Christs doctrine, with the meanes therof, is perfectly conteyned in the holy Scripture. Here (sayth the Rejoynder) the Def. forgot to tell, how absurd this collection is, Christ is the onely authentique teacher of his Churche etc. therfore they may be no meanes of teaching or admonishing unto duties, but suche as be ordeyned as necessarie. As if it were sufficient for the Def. or Rejoynder to tell us any thing as they please, how litle ever it be to the purpose.

 

He maketh shew of a distinction, betwixt an authentique teacher, and another, what doe you call him? to which we cannot say muche untill he remember to tell us the name, style, and office of that other by-teacher?

 

Onely this, by the way, I would learne: how we can acknowlege and receyve any meanes of religious teaching with faith, except it appear to be appointed by an authentique teacher and lawgiver? And how our Prelates in oppointing meanes of spirituall teaching which Christ appointed not, can be accounted (therin) Ministeriall teachers under him as their and our onely authentique teacher? As also, if Christ be our Authentique Teacher in all good that we learne about religion, who taught our Prelates suche good manners, as to

Page  211

put fescues, of their owne making, into his hand, and so appoint him after what manner, and by what meanes he shall teache us? P. Mart. (in Reg. 8. thus disputeth. For as much as God is most wise he needs not our devise for instrumēts to stirre up faith in us which also no tradesman in his kind would indure,*but would chuse to himselfe at his owne pl•asure what he should think most fitt. Nay I would be resolved of this doubt: whether this be not a doctrine religious in England: The signe of the crosse doeth signifie unto us that we should not be ashamed of Christ crucified etc. If it be (as no Conformist can denie) then I would know: whether and where Christ, our onely Authentique teacher, doeth teache this doctrine? or if our Prelates may bringe in a new doctrine into the Churche, and cause Ministers to preache it? He leaveth out of our proof, that Christ is the onely appointer of meanes, as also that those meanes are limited to admonition of a holy dutie: and in stead of our conclusion, he bringeth in another, of ordeyning as necessarie.

 

The support also of our collection he omitteth: to acknowlege any other meanes of teaching and admonishing us of our dutie, then suche as Christ hath appointed, is to receyve another teacher into the Churche, beside him, and to confesse some imperfection in the meanes by him ordeyned. Yet in the middest of this shufling, and cutting, he telleth us, that our collection is absurd. His reason is not by manifesting the fault of our consequence, but onely by objecting some instances, and those also nothing to purpose. Then (sayth he) it should not be lawfull to use any helpe of Art Memorative, nor to set up a gybbett,

Page  212

or a traytors head on a pole, to give men warning against murder, or treason. Had he so soon forgotten, that the question is of Ceremonies, appropriated to Gods service, teaching by ordination, or ínstitution? If he had not, what did he mean, to instance in thinges that were never called Ceremonies (before this Rejoynder made all things in the world, in some respect, Ceremonies, by his wilde definition of a Ceremonie,) thinges that have no use in Gods service, muche lesse appropriated therto, thinges not teaching by vertue of any ordination, or institution, but onely by their naturall relation, nay things not teaching at all any spirituall dutie directly, and immediatly? Characters and suche like helps of memorie, doe no otherwise teache trueh, then error, and haeresies no more spirituall duties, then carnall lusts, as experice doeth teache. One of the ancientes, and learnedest Schoolmē of our Countrie (Alex. Alēsis, p. 4. q. 1. m. 1.) teacheth us,* that Letters that signifie sacred sentences do not signifie them as they are sacred, but as they are things. And if it be lawfull to institute significant Ceremonies, for all things, that we may note in characters, for memorie sake thē certainly our Convocation may instituteCeremonies properly Sacramentall, even suche as doe signifie and seale the Covenant of grace. For ther is no doubt, but that we may note in characters or writing all that belonge to that Covenant. Gibbets, & traytors heads (besides the former exception out of Alex. Hales) are remembrances of death inflicted upon suche malefactors: but neyther to be appointed by any, without that authoritie, by which death is inflicted, nor in their use

Page  213

imposed upon any, nor determined by institution, to the teaching of any thing, which they would not otherwise teache, not yet suche remembrances as may be brought into Gods worship. Nay, from them some good Divines doe reason against images in Churches, and suche like significant Ceremonies. D. Fulke against Sanders of images, hath these words: Images (sayth Sanders are profitable: because they bring us in remembrance of good thinges. I denie this argument: because nothing is profitable in religion, but that wh•ch is instituted by God. For otherwise wee might bringe the gallows into the Churche, which bringeth us in remembrance of Gods justice.

 

  1. To passe by those exceptions of the Repl. against the Def. which the Rej. calleth wranglinges (though they be defensible enough) The first proof of our proposition is taken from Mar. 7. and Matth. 15. where (as we allege) our Saviour by this argumēt (among others) condemneth the Iewish purifijnges, and justifieth himself, and his Disciples, in refusing that Ceremonie: because (being the praecept of men) it was taught, and used, as a doctrine, by way of significatiō to teache what inward puritie should be in them, and how they ought to be clensed from heathen pollutions. To this the Rej. (supplying againe that which the Def. had forgotten) answereth, that this reason (among others) of signification, is our fiction. Now (though these places of Scripture have formerly been handled, in the second chapiter) let any man considerthis observation: wee finde in our Saviours answer, three reasons of reprehending the Pharisies: 1. That their washing was praeferred

Page  214

before the Commandements of God. 2. That it was hypocriticall. 3. That it was a vaine worship, & therefore sinne. If any say, it was not vayne, as significant, wee replie, it could be no outward worship, but as religiously significant. For washing, without signification had been meer civill. And Marc. 7.4. The Pharisies are reproved, for meer undertaking to observe washinges, no mention being made of any other reason, but onely that observance, which must needes be understood of all observance, which was not civill, but (by institution & intention) religious.

 

  1. For this interpretation, and collation, many good Divines were cited as fathering the same. They are all abused, sayth the Rej. Now of Chrysostome, enough hath been sayd, in the former chapter. D. Whitakers his approbation of the same sentence is shifted of, with binding of conscience, and holinesse placed in them. But these shiftes are sufficiently discussed in the former part of this book. To the Confession of Witenberge it is answered. 1 That it doeth not so muche as give anie glance at Marc. 7. Which how true it is, may appear by these their wordes:*Nor is it lawfull to restore either the old rites of the law, or to devise new in their place to signify the trueth of the gospel now come to light, as for example, to use banners and Crosses to signe Christs victorie on the Crosse: of which kind of i•ly devised repraesentions, is the whole furniture of Masse accontrements, which they say doeth set forth the whole passion of Christ, and many such like things. Of which sacred ceremonies Christ preacheth out of Isajah; In vaine they

Page  215

worship me teaching for doctrines the preceps of men.

 

Whiche last wordes are (in every syllable of them) founde Marc. 7.7. Is not this so muche as a glance at Marc. 7? Suerly heer the Rej. had more affection to his cause, then attentation to the place in quaestion,

 

  1. Of Calvin, see the former chapiter. Yet heer also let these words of his be remembred:*In these words it is evident, that all will worships are condemned. Christ pronounceth them erroneous, which for Doctrine obtrude mens p•aeceps. Let this stand firme, all devised worships are most vaine before God. Vnder whiche censure and sentence, that he includeth suche significant Ceremonies as ours are, it appeareth, as out of his condemning them in the Lutherans, against Westphalus, so out of his owne practise in Geneva and France, where all suche are abolished: for he professeth (de necess. ref. Eccl.) We have touched nothing no not with the least finger to remove it except that which Christ accounts nothing,*seing he pronounceth God is vainely worshipt by humane traditions.

 

  1. Virel (in Catechism. in praecep. 2.) extendeth the second Commandement, unto the forbidding of every humane religious likenesse. The Rej. also confesseth, that the same Virel, there condēneth all superstition: to which he if he had added his definition of superstition, viz: that it is a worshiping of God by rites and Ceremonies devised of man, all would have been plaine. Neyther is

Page  216

it materiall, that Virel pointeth not to Marc. 7. (as the Rej, noteth) seing he groundeth his doctrine upon Matth. 15.9. where the same words are found, which in Marc. 7.7. are repeated. The Rej. therfore had no shew of reason to say, that Virel was abused, in that he was cited as interpreting Marke, because (by his owne confession) he doeth interpret the same wordes which are found in Marke.

 

  1. Zepperus his testimonie (which was not his alone, but the common sentence of diverse Protestant Synodes, as appeareth out of his praeface) is so full, that the Rejoynder in him forbare his common accusation, that he was abused. His words are these, de Pol. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 10. reg. 3.*Sith God is worshipped in vaine by humane traditious Mat. 15.9. Nor will be of an efficacie by such things in the hearts of men, and being meere will-worships, Carrying but an opinion of wisdome through which God will never stir up devotion, prayer, faith, and repentanc• in us &c. And againe. The ceremonies Cobled or botcht by men to the administration of the Sacraments are so many seminaries and nurseries of errour, idolatrie and superstition such ceremonies are to be abolished Mat. 15. Marc. 7. Whence it is manifest that about Baptisme oyle, salt, holy water, tapers, the signe of the crosse &c. are to be abrogated.

 

If these words be not to the purpose, in the Rejoynder his owne conscience, then I despaire of satisfying him about any testimonie that maketh against that

Page  217

tenet which he is resolved to mainteyne (as they say) by hooke or crooke.

 

  1. D. Fulke (sayth the Rejoynder did not thinke humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant, when no religion, or service of God is placed in them. Which is as muche as if he had sayd: D. F. did not think humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant, when they are not significant: For (as hath been shewed in the former part, all religious Ceremonies instituted, by their signification to raise up the heart unto the honoring of God, have some religion and service of God placed in them. And that D. Fulke did mean by placing of religion, or Gods service in them, the using of them unto religious use, it appeareth by a like place in Act. 17. sect. 5. Though it be not simplie unlawfull, to expresse in painting the visible shapes shewed in Visions to the Prophets, yet to make those shapes for any use of religion, is abominable idolatrie.

 

  1. For D. Raynolds, the Rejoynder answereth 1. that he giveth no hint touching the interpretation of this place. 2. that he onely inveigheth against the multitude and burthen of Symbolicall rites, shewing their use in Poperie to be Iewish. 3. that D.R. judged our •ignificant Ceremonies lawfull to be used in case of silencing and deprivation. Now for the first, I answer, that as ther are hints of interpretation for many places of the olde Testament, in the new, which yet are not cited there, so may it be that D. R. gave a hint, without quoting. About the third point, I 1. observe, that by the Rejoynder his owne relation, D. Rain, was not of his and D. Mortons judgemen. For

Page  218

he judged our Ceremonies onely tollerable in case of extremitie: but they allow the very institution of them, as good and profitable for order, decencie, and aedification. 2. D.R. never manifested to the world in publick any reasons for that judgement, but rather for the contrarie, as by and by we shall hear. 3. Ther is a kinde of suspensive judgement (suche as Cyrill, Peter Lombard, as Estius in 2. d. 21. alledgeth and interpreteth them, say Eve had, about the Serpents speaking) to which the iniquitie of times doe draw many godly and learned men, not onely about Ceremonies violently urged by & with greivous poenalties, but also about greater matters, as experience in all ages hath shewed. But that is nothing to others as being destitute or forsaken of certaine groundes or supportes.

 

Concerning the second and mayne poynt, the best way is, to set downe D.R. his owne wordes, which are these: Were it so, that the Popish Vnction had another, eyther worke, or meaning, with the Papists, then with the Iew, as after a sort, it hath, yet might the Ceremonie be Iewish notwithstanding, as sacrifizing of a lambe, to signifie Christ already come. At the least S. Peter did constrayne the Gentiles to Iudaize (Gal. 2.12.) though he, and those Gentiles had another meaning, then that wherin that choise of meates was praescribed to the Iews. Adv. Hart. chap. 8. sect. 4.

 

Thus farr I had in my notes, out of the English editiō but ther is this more in the booke, as I now finde in the latine copie, not having the English at hand: your

Page  219

rites in the very kind are Iewish or as the Iewish were. Now out of these last words I argue thus:* 1. If all umbraticall rites be Iudaicall, and therfore unlawfull, then all religious significant Ceremonies are Iewish and unlawfull.

 

But D. R. sayth the first: therfore he teacheth also the later. 2. Out of the former I conclude thus: if a Iewish rite may be without a Iewish opinion, then our Ceremonies may be Iewish, or Popish, without a Iewish, or Popish opinion, or doctrine.

 

But the first is affirmed by D. R. therfore the later also. Which if it be true, then both the Defend. and Rejoynder have taken a false grounde of their Ceremoniall doctrine, in affirming so confidently upon all occasions, that it is the opinion and docdrine onely which maketh a Ceremonie Iewish, Popish, or any way unlawfull.

 

All this notwithstanding, the Rejoynder could not forbeare, to accuse the Authors of the Abridgement, his olde reverend friends, of sh•mefull abusing the world, with false allegations of these Divines, nor to triumphe in his discovering of this shame.

 

But I could wish, from my heart, that he, and his best friends living, had no more cause to be ashamed of his Rejoinder, then they had of these allegations, which none of the Authors, if they were on earth alive would disavow.

 

Page  220

  1. In the last place, upon occasion of our disliking all the significant Ceremonies, brought in by the Pharisies, it pleased the Def. to taxe us for being too like the Saduces, in refusing suche Ceremonies. Now of this accusation the Replier onely desired the Def. to consider, if it did not touche our blessed Saviour himself, who by his example, and doctrine opposed the same Ceremonies? Heerupon the Rejoynder answereth, that our Saviour walked a midle path, betwixt the excesse of the Pharisies, and the praecisenes of the Saduces, in Ceremonies, observing many humane significant Ceremonies in religion, as the Feast of Dedication, embaulming at burialls, sitting at burialls, sitting at the Passover, and the Synagogues, with their formalities. In which answer, the Rejoynder hath shewed, that upon occasion, he dare goe as farr, and say as muche for humane Ceremonies, as any that went before him, if not more, and that with suche confidence as is not abated with reverence of our Saviour himself, whome this passage doeth concerne. But beside this audaciousnesse, I finde no trueth in these words, For. 1. That which he sayth of the Saduces praecisenesse in flying all human Ceremonies, is not true. The Saduces (sayth Epiphanius lib 1. c. 14.) omnia aequabiliter cum Samaritis observant. i. e. they observe all that the Samaritans observe: and who can doubt but the observations and Ceremonies proper to the Samaritans, were all inventions of men, with the Divels helpe. The Saduces also were sometime high Preistes at Ierusalem, as for example, Annas is noted by Iosephus (l. 20. c. 15.) and by like historians, to have been a Saducen. Now it

Page  221

is not credible, that any high Preist in those times, did absteyne from all humane Ceremonies, used commonly by all the Iews Mar. 7.3. At the least the high Preist did observe the feast of Dedication, sitting at the Passover, and suche like (in the Rejoynder his account) humane Ceremonies. 2. The Saduces were prophane beastes, not hoping for Heaven, nor fearing Hell, and so were allways ready to observe any Ceremonies that made for their temporall advantage, of what kinde soever they were. 3. It appeareth out of the premisses▪ that our blessed Saviour (in favour of our paltrie base Ceremonies) is wronged in his holy name, as if he had been more observant of humane misticall constitutions in religion, then many of the worst Iews, whome yet he reproved for following traditions of men. 4. Because the Rejoynder speaketh of a midle path, betwixt the excesse of the Pharisies, and precisenesse of the Saduces, observed by our Saviour, it would be knowen, whether that midle were medium participationis, or medium abnegationis? i. e. Whether it was only a third way partaking of neyther extreme? or had in it part of the Pharisies excesse, and part of the Saduces precisenesse? The former sense we may (upon the Rejoynder his supposition acknowlege: and that maketh nothing to the purpose.

 

If the later meaning be the Rejoynders, then he must shew us, how farr our Saviour did agree in practise with the Pharisies? And to clear that, he must prove that the Pharisies had lawfull authoritte, for appointing or instituting mysticall Ceremonies, and whiche of them

Page  222

were allowed by our Saviour? 5. The examples here given, pertaine nothing to the question. The feaste of Dedication commeth after to be handled. Embalming at burials, was no significant religious Ceremonie, but a civill rite common to the Israelites with the Egyptians, and other Heathens. If it were, yet being from the time of the Patriarches, how will the Rejoynder prove that it was instituted without Divine direction? Sitting at the Passover can neyther be proved to be mysticall, nor yet instituted by man. Synagoges were no more significant Ceremonies, then was the schoole of Tyrannus, Act. 19.9. The opening, closing, and delivering of the Booke, Luc. 14.17.20. was no more mysticall a Ceremonie, then the opening of a mans mouth, when he speaketh, and the shutting of it againe, when he hath no more to say. Are not these worthy groundes, for to conclude upon, that our Saviour was an observer of humane religious mysticall Ceremonies?

 

SECT. 3. Concerning S. Augustine.

  1. AVgustine, in the Abridgement, was amonge other Divines cited, as allowing of one proof belonging to this Argument, taken from significancie. This the Def. catched holde of before the time or place of it, as matter of a section by it self, distinct from the testimonies of other Divines. Which

Page  223

dealing we must not speak of: because the Rejoynder sayth, it was orderly doen. But if their Printer-hath failed in right noting the numbers, he will needs have that a very slipery tricke. If also the Def. brought in this testimonie out of place, that was (in the Rejoynder his language) because he would not teather us up too straight. All this we may let passe, as formalitie of wordes, sutable to his Ceremonies, which he seeketh to mainteyne.

 

  1. But (sayth the Rejoynder) if in stead of lib. 3. c. 35. be put in lib. 2. cap. 1. as the Repl. would have it, yet nothing is found to the purpose. Now (though it skilleth not muche: because this place was but conjecturally pointed at, in stead of another miscited yet) in that place, this is to be found, so muche to the purpose, that I know not how the Rej. will avoyde the weight of it: that S. Aug. distinguishing betwixt naturall, and instituted signes, sayth presently after, that there is no use or cause of instituted signes, nisi ad expromendum, & trajiciendum in alierius animum, id quod in animo gerit is qui dat, i.e. but to declore and make intelligible, what the institutor meaneth. From whence, we gather, that our Prelates instituting significant Ceremonies, can signifie no more then what they would have, and not what God would have.

 

  1. Another place of Augustine was alledged. out of Ep. 5. Signes when they belong to divine things are called Sacraments.* Of these wordes. the Rej. (differing from the Def. sayth) that his meaning was to shew, that the name of Sacraments belonge properly to divine thinges, and not to all signes of holy thinges.

 

Page  224

But it is plaine, that his meaning was, to shew, that all thinges instituted imbuendo virtutibus animo, i. e. to stir up the minde to vertue, as he speaketh immediatly before, are Sacraments. In defense of the Def. he answereth, with the Def. that in Augustines language, all signes of holy thinges, are familiarly called Sacraments, and that we bewray small acquaintance with Augustines language.

 

Where (because both the Defend. and Rej. would seeme so familiarly acquainted with Augustines language) I would desire onely, that they would interpret unto us (strangers from it) the meaning of these wordes of his, Epist. 119. Dies natalis Domini, non in Sacramento celebratur, sed tantum in memoriam revocatur, quod gestum est. Pascha sic agimus, ut Sacramenti significationem non omittamus. Sacramentum est in celebratione quum rei gestae ita commemoratio fit ut aliquid etiam significari intelligatur quod sancte accipiendum est. i. e.

 

The celebration of Christs nativitie is no Sacrament: but the celebration of Easter is a Sacrament. Here we must have a new distinction, never head of since Augustines time, or else it cannot stand (whiche yet they, who will seeme so versed in Augustines phraze, will needs dictate unto us) that all signes of holy thinges, are, Augustines phraze, Sacraments: except perhaps (against their often professed tenet) they will say, that holy-days no not that which is appointed for memorie of Christs owne nativitie, is a signe of a holy thinge. Neyther can it be (according to Augustines phraze) but all suche significant Ceremonies as Easter was, must have more then the mere name of Sacraments.

 

Page  225

  1. And this was that, for whiche Augustines testimonie was onely brough in for, viz: to shew that religious significant Ceremonies participate part of the Sacraments nature. To this (after some wordes of course) it is rejoined, that the name Sacrament improperly given to other thinges, doeth not prove them to participate the propertie and nature of Sacraments, no more then the Swanne in Houlborne, or the Idols of the Gentiles, doe participate the nature of a Swanne, and God: suche denominations not being reall, and proper, but logicall, or relative. And if it were so, then the taking away of that name from our Ceremonies, doeth discharge them from partaking the nature of Sacraments. To whiche I have this to say 1. that our Argument is not taken from the meer name: for we know that some names are common to thinges quite differing in nature, so falling (as they say) by chaunce, But this communitie of the name Sacrament, was not so: it was communicated to Mysticall Ceremonies upō certeine counsell and reason. And that reason was not meer similitude outward, suche as is betwixt the picture of a Swanne and a living Swanne: Because ther is no suche outward likenesse betwixt the Crosse, and any proper Sacrament: but frō some proportion of inward nature, eyther in mens esteeme, as an Idols was called God, or in deed wholly so farre as mans institution can effect, as •he Popish five Sacramentes are so called, or else in part, as this kinde of significant Ceremonies, which are in quaestion. Now that this last was the reason, Augustine himselfe teacheth in the for-alleged sentence, concerning Easter: and Chemnitius, out of him,

Page  226

doeth largely declare, in the beginning of his 2. tome, de Sacramentorum numero. Bellarmin also (de effect. Sacrament. l. 2. T. 24.) giveth the same rule,* and reason: All are called Sacraments which have a mysticall sense, and are types or figures of other things. 2. From the former answer, the Rej. his Hoste in Holborne can gather, that not the picture of a Swanne, but a living Goose, hath that proportion to a living Swanne, whiche is betwixt other mysticall Ceremonies, and proper Sacraments. 3. It is but a picture of a reason, whiche the Rejoynder maketh, from giving of the name Sacrament, to the taking of it away. For no man will say, that a name taken from the nature of a thing doeth argue more the nature of it, then the taking away the name alone, doeth argue the taking away of the nature. The ancient naming of suche Images as the Papists are, did argue them to have an idolatrous nature: but the removing of that name from them, by the Papists, doeth not argue they are now of idolatrous nature.

 

  1. From the name Sacrament, which first was given to this kinde of Ceremonies, it came that afterward they were called Sacramentalls. For so sayth Swarez de Relig. Vol. 1. tract. 3. lib. 4. cap. 14.*) They use to be styled Sacramentalls, or more generally allCeremonies & holy blessings done in the Church. To this observation of the Replier, the Rejoynder answereth, that the name Sacramentall, taken properly, is given out of relation to Sacraments, not out of participation or resemblance of their nature. And that analogically suche Ceremonies as are consecrated to s•gnifie and worke supernaturall effects are called Sacramenta•is. The

Page  227

first of which interpretations we doe not denie: saving onely, we see not why the Rejoynder should say in that sense onely that name istaken properly.

 

In the second, he confesseth as muche as we desire: saving that he shufleth in two termes unfitting: consecrated to worke. For many Mysticall Ceremonies were not consecrated at all among the Papists (as the aereall signe of the Crosse etc.) and some were consecrated in Augustines time, (the practise wherof is here defended by the Rejoynder) nor can be condemned by those that consecrate Churches, Churche-yarders, Altars etc.

 

And as for working, if it be understood of morall working by admonition▪ then it cannot be denied unto mysticall signes by institution admonitorie.* Howsoever a principall Iesuit may professe as muche at Rome, of Popish Ceremonies, as the Rejoynder doeth here of ours. So Vasquez (in 3. Disp. 128. cap. 5. ar. 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial Sins nor are instituted to that end, but to stir up the mind to detest them.

 

  1. It was in the conclusion of this passage, granted by the Repl. that neyther Augustine, nor other fathers, did constantly in doctrine, and practise reject humane mysticall Ceremonies. Wherupon the Rejoynder inferreth, that Augustine therfore is wronged, and wee are mere Navalists. But here he forgat, that all our Divines, and also our English Articles of confession with our Apologie, doe reject divers thinges (as prayer to, & for the dead, mens falling from grace etc.) which those

Page  228

Fathers did not constantly in doctrine and practise, reject, and yet are neyther to be esteemed mere Novalists, not yet accused of wronging those Fathers, when they cite some testimonies out of their writings, against those errors. Concerning Ceremonies, it is the commune sentence of our Divines, which Beza expresseth (ad Bald winum) It is not to be doubted but that most of your ancient Bishops were somewhat too busy in devising rites etc. but unhappy was the Counsel.*

 

  1. To make an ende of this one testimonie, which it pleased the Defend. to take into so large consideration, for advantage. Augustine Epist 119. ad Ian. is cited by all, as condemning the multitude of humane Ceremonies which were then crept into the Churche and worship of God: and therin (without all doubt) he sayd that out, which many other godly men did inwardly conceyve: yet neyther he, nor they, did constantly reject that multitude, nor he declare his minde, but when he was urged by Ianuarius. The stream of the times, bearing toward Poperie, made him (with others despairing of reformation) yeeld too muche unto suche abuses. Yet in that famous place (Epist. 119.) not onely the number, but even the nature of suche Ceremonies is condemned. 1. For the manifesting wherof, I note these passages: 1. He noteth these Ceremonies, that they were instituted, ut quasi observatio Sacramenti sint. i. e. so that they partaked the nature of Sacrament. For as quasi contractus, and quasi peculium castrense, doe in

Page  229

the Civill law note participation of the nature of suche thinges to which they are quasi; so doeth, quasi Sacramentum. 2. He professeth, that by reason of times, he durst not speake against suche Ceremonies so freely as his judgement did lead him: liberius improbare non andeo. 3. He calleth them servilia onera, and humanas presumptiones: servil burdens, and humane praesumtiones. 4. He accounteth the Churche, in regard of them, to be troubled with muche chaffe, & tares: inter multam paleam, multaque zizania constitutam. 5. He sayth, that suche Ceremonies, though they were tolerated, yet they were not to be allowed of, but upon the first oportunitie to be cashiered resecanda, yea though it were not discerned, how they made against faith or good manners.

 

Let any man now judge, if Augustine did in this his clear sentence about Ceremonies, agree with our Def. and Rejoyner.

 

Page  230

SECT. 4. The judgement of Protestant Divines concerning significant Ceremonies.

  1. THe Rejoynder was not so large in the former section, about one Divine, but he is as brief, in this, about many. For first in generall, he would perswade us with wordes, that the Def. in answering fower testimonies, had answered all, in one worde: that no Protestant Divine (except Beza) hath spoken absol•tely against signes symbolicall and meerly significant▪

 

Which kinde of rejoynding, had had some sense, if mere denying of a conclusion, were a sufficient answer to an argument drawn from diverse testimonies alleged for the proof of it. But yet not trusting to this kinde of answering, he adventureth, to clear the particular allegations: which was more then the Def. would undert•ke. One would have expected, that here he should have answered, that which is so pertinēt to the purpose, found in the Abridgement, pag. 32. because he put it of before (pag. 247.) with a tale of boy, and promised after to shew, that it is nothing to the purpose. The allegation is this: To them that say Images may stand in Churches, as helpes to stirre up devotion, and to put men in remembrance of good thinges (with whome the Def. and Rejoynder consent) it is answered (by P. Martyr, Gwalter, Lavater, Vrsine, Polanus, and others) that the Lord himself hath appointed

Page  231

meanes enough to doe that; and that no meanes may be used to that ende, but suche as he hath ordeyned. This certayne was to the Rejoynder as it were a noli me tangere: that no meanes must be used to stirre up devotion, and to put men in remembrance of good thinges, but onely those which God hath ordeyned. He was therfore contented to passe it over without medling with it. And he that with •is answers to the other allegations, may thinke that the be•ter way for him, had been, to deal in like manner with all. This will appear in the examining of them, one by one.

 

  1. In the first place, therfore, we exspect his answer to that which is founde in the Harmonie of Protestant Confessions, generally approved, by Reformed Churches. About which he is very brief, as his cause required. The Divines of Witenburge (sayth he) and those of France, and the Lowe Contries: viz. that they speake onely of those significant Ceremonies, which serve to shadow out the Mysteries of the Gospell, or to supplie the office of true Sacramentes. Now (for the present) we will not stand muche upon those phrases, shadowes of the Mysteri•s of the Gospel, supplying of the true Sacraments office. It shall be sufficient, to reci•e the wordes which he hath so easily and often answered. The Wittenburge Confession (sect. 17.) sayth thus: It is not l•wfull, eyther to restore the olde Ceremonies of the lawe, or devise new, to shadow forth the trueth allready layd open, and brought to light, by the Gospell: as in •he daylight to set up c•ndels, to signifie the light of the Gospell▪ or to cary banners and crosses, to signifie the victorie of Christ, through his Crosse. Of which sorte, is all

Page  232

that Massing attire, which (they say) doeth shadow out the wholle passion of Christ, and many other thinges of that kinde etc. The other wordes are these: No Mysticull rites (that is, which cary some mysterie, or signification, in them) though not otherwise impious (as namely suche as should be partes of Gods doctrine, or kindes of Sacraments) but onely suche lawes as pertayne to order and decencie are lawfull. Let any man that undetstandeth English, and reason, judge, if these wordes ought, or can be interpreted, onely of (I knowe not what) mysteries of the Gospell, or Ceremonies supplying the office of true Sacramentes, further then our Argument doeth importe. If not, then the Rejoynder granting the premisses, denieth the conclusion as he did before.

 

The Confession condemneth banners by name and Crosses, signifying the victorie of Christ through his Crosse: Our men defende the signe of the Crosse, signifying that Christians shall not be ashamed, to fight manfully against Satan under Christs Banner. The Divines of France and the Lowe Contries, (with the Confession) reject all Ceremonies, that cary some mysterie or signification in them: Our question is, whether humane Ceremonies of mysticall signification, be lawfull? If these testimonies be not plaine enough, I knowe not what is plaine.

 

  1. Peter Martyr (on 1. King. 8) is the next witnesse of whome the Rejoynder sayth, that he speaketh of Exorcisme, oyle, spittle, and exsufflation, to all which the Papists ascribe operation, and to that ende doe consecrate some of them, by prayer. Beside (sayth he) Martyr did approve these

Page  233

our Ceremonies as lawfull, and bowing of the knee at the name of Iesus: so that he wondereth Martyr should be alleged in this cause. Now therfore let us hear P. Martyr himself speak:*The most wise God needeth none of our help to devise meanes to excite faith, nor would the meanest Mechanie endure to &c. See before, how bold then are these men who will praescribe to God wherewithall to help forward our salvation.

 

They multiplie signes which they will leave to be sacred as oyle, spittle, exsufflations etc. & that one Sacrament of Bapt. is much degenerate. Nor are they to be heard when to abuse the simple they use to distinguish betwene Sacrament and Sacramentals meer Sophistrie. As for operation, we have ofte shewed, that many Papists ascribe no more of that, nor no other wise, to many of their Ceremonies, then the Def. and Rejoynder doe allow of in ours. Consecration by prayer, may as well be used about a Surplis, as about a Churcheyard. It is playne by the wordes, that P. M. doeth condemne all meanes instituted by man, for the stirring up of our faith: which are in the Def. and Rejoynder his language, mysticall morall ceremonies, serving for aedification: saying that no Carpente•, or Mason would be so dealt with in his occupation, as the institutors of suche mysticall Ceremonies doe deal with God. He accounteth humane sacred signes in Religion, to be humane Sacraments: and will not admitte of suche distinctions, as the Rejoynder hath multiplied: Sacred properly, and reductively, rightly, or abusively sacred, simple or double sacred. Sacramentall, or morall, reductive, or analogicall Sacramentalls, etc.

 

Page  234

Yet we denie not, but the same P.M. being somtime perplexed in the case of England, did suffer his affection to cary him so farr, that he seemeth to make some of our Ceremonies, in some case, tollerable. But then any man may perceyve wavering in his wordes: as when (in his epist. to Hooper) he requireth five conditions in suche Ceremonies, 1. that the Churche hath libertie to ordeyne them: 2. that the worship of God be not placed in them: 3. That they be few: 4. Not burdensome. 5. Not a hinderance to better thinges.

 

The two first of which conditions are the very question: viz: whether the Churche hath any suche libertie, and whether all suche Ceremonies be not part of worship:* and for the two last, experience teacheth, how burdensome our Ceremonies have been, and are still, to many good mens consciences, and how muche good hath been hindered, by the urging, and practizing of them.

 

  1. Sadeel is put of, with the like shift, of consecration, necescitie, efficacie Sacramentall. Now these terms have been sufficiently unmasked before, in the first part. Let Sadeel here onely be heard, and he will tell his owne meaning. The exorcisme holy water, taper, salt spittle, white garment, the little bells, &c. what good do they do in Baptisme? Do they indeed being added to Baptisme ad at all to its ornament? but what are these devisers of such things wiser then Christ Iesus who instituted Bapt. with such simplicity and purity as knowing better then all men besides what ornamēts suite best with his owne ordināces? what arroganice is this to ad thus to Christs institutiō?

Page  235

Gal. 3. the unction added to Bapt. we allow no more thē that of Confirmation. Bec. it belongs to God onely to appoint Sacramēts The old pastors of the Christiā church did more then was mete accomodate themselves to Iewes and Gentiles whence many cere: cr•pt into the Church but Experience shewes God blessed not such Counsel.* In these wordes 1. all humane addition to Gods institutions are absolutely condēned. 2. Those that undertake to adde suche Cerem. are censured of intolerable arrogancie, as presuming to be wiser then Christ. 3. Lights, and white garments, are by name condemned, which onely offend, in theyr mysticall signification upon mans will. 4. Chrisme or oyle in Baptisme is esteemed a Sacrament, though the Papists denie it conferreth grace, as the Sacraments. 5. The first bringers in of Ceremonies (onely significant) into the Churche, are taxed for departing from the simplicitie of Gods word, as therin finding rather the curse, then the blessing of God upon their presumptions.

 

  1. Daneus is the next (whoe maketh it blasphemie, to thinke, and teache, that any outward thinges (of humane institution) may be made a signe, in the Churche, of spirituall thinges) the first answer is, that this was spoken in opposition to Bellarmines consecrating of creatures to signifie, and worke supernaturall effects. Whiche is very true: but this must be added: that in this sētēce, he toucheth only the signification, not the operation of those Cere. as any that readeth his wordes, may observe. The second answer is that Daneus (elsewhere) alloweth some significant Cere. But the Rej. should have doen well, to name the place or places, which he meant by elsewhere. For we cannot by conjecture finde it.

 

Page  236

This I am sure of, that it is not Isagoge, p. 3. l. 3. c. 11. where he sayth, that the teaching under the law was 〈◊〉 signes, & earthly figures, as a Schoolmaister speaketh to young children: but under the Gospell, open, and man•fest, as one dealeth with growen men. They then that thrust in significant Ceremonies, what doe they but confounde the most wise dispensation of God, and make a mingle-mangle of those thinges, which he hath separated asunder?

 

  1. Polanus (misprinted, or uncertainly printed in the Abrigement) is sayd to allow some significant Ceremonies, as feasts, Fasts, Gestures: and his definition of Superstition, is thought to make onely against Ceremonies Sacramentall, not Morally significant. The onely way therfore is, to set down his wordes, out of which his judgement about this pointe may appear of superstition, he sayth thus (Syntag. l. 9. c. 3.) Superstition stands in chusing worship to God, or exceeds measure therein. True religion worships the true God in a manner prescribed by the word: false, (that is to say Superstition) worships God otherwise then he wills or enjoynes. In another place whatsoever perteines to Gods worship must by him be required. Againe it is a foolish ill zeale of the popish clergie to use such playerake apparrel in Divine service and by apparrel to be distinguished from laicks, that difference and variety was in the old Testament typicall, but the substance being come, what meane they to require types any more?*

 

Page  237

  1. The next witnesse is Mr. Perkinse, on Gal. 3. but (by varietie of editions) uncertaine what verse of the Chapter was designed.

 

The Rejoynder therfore guesseth, that the wordes upon v. 2. or rather 1. were intended, where Mr. P. condemneth the setting up of Images, to be lay-mens bookes. To which he answereth. 1. That he also doeth blame the same. 2. that Mr. P. in some persons and places, preferreth dipping, before sprinkling, in Baptisme. Now for the first of these, if the Rejoynder when he writ these wordes condemne (with Mr. P.) suche images or pictures as are lay-mens bookes, it is wonder, he forgot, or changed this judgement, before he came to the seventh section of this very Chapter, where he doeth defende them. And this is plaine, that if images be to be condemned, as they are lay mens bookes, or teachers, then all humane signes, ordeyned to be lay-mens teachers, in religion, are also to be eondemned with them.

 

The second is an affected flim-flam. For dipping (upon just occasion) rather then sprinkeling, is no more a humane Ceremonie•, in Baptisme, then drinking a convenient draft of wine rather then slight tasting is an humane significant institution.

 

But yet (howsoever the Rejoynder upon conscience of the consanguinitie, betwixt Images, and significant Ceremonies did suppose this first verse of the Chapter to be meant by the Authors of the Abr.) I thinke rather that they intended the foure and twentie verse, where M.P. doeth distinguish betwixt Ceremonies significant, and those of Order, and sayth that the former sort were

Page  238

alsolutely abolished, but the other onely in respect of their speciall determination.

 

  1. Maister Merbur•e was cited (out of a Manuscript, (as it seemeth) as giving the same judgement of significant Ceremonies. But in his later time, he crossed not so muche others, as himself in blotting out this sentence I leave therfore his name under that blotte, and other like, wherwith he soiled himself in his later times.

 

  1. D. Witgift him selfe, is brought in (by Abr.) dissliking any praescript apparell, should be used in Gods service, for significat•on. Def. pag, 291. To this the Rejoynder answereth 1. that in the same place. P. Martyr is alledged, as approving white apparell, for Ministers (who are compared to Angels) to use in signification of their office, because Angel app•ared in white: which should have put him (at the least) out of our Bill. But it followeth not, that therfore all testimonies of Martyrs, must be put out of our Bill, because he varieth from them, in this. In the other places, he speaketh from good groundes of Divinitie: but this reason of his, hath no more force in it, then if from the picture and apparation of Angels, it should be gathered, that no Minister should wear a black night-cap, a black tippet, or a blacke hood, which our Canons doe commande: or that every Minister should have sixe winges fastened to his body, with certain, vizard faces, like unto the faces of Lions, Eagles, and open, because Angels have so appeared, Isa. 6. Ezech. 1.

 

Page  239

It is answered 2. that we should beleive the sayd D. Whitgift in this, that our Surplices are not appointed for any morall signification. But we cannot beleiv, whatsoever one Prelat sayth of our Ceremonies, (for to avoyd the dint of Argument, though it be against the common profession of our Churche, in the very Service-book,) is presently to be beleived.

 

The 3, answer is, that D. Whitgift did use, defend, and urge, significant Ceremonies, which is true, with shame and all: but many a man, upon the racke of an Argument is brought to confesse that, which other while he is woont to denie. Finally this consequence is denied: D. W. did not approve of the Surplice for signification: ergo of no significant Ceremonie: the reason of which consequence is given in the Abridgement (p. 35.) because no good reason can be given, why the Churche may not injoine a prescript apparell for signification, as well as any other Ceremonie.

 

Thus the Rejoynder hath tried what he could say to those testimonies, which the Def. had omitted, in this place: and doeth so please himself therin, that he beginneth a plaudite to himself, saying that he hath openly whipped the Repliers friends: he meaneth the Authors of the Abr. who were wonte to be his reverend friends also. But this whipping of his, is just as if a man should whippe thornes, and prickes, with his bare handes, getting more gashes therby, then he dealeth or giveth blowes. It is not safe so muche as to handle sharp edges muche lesse to whippe them, with naked fingers.

 

Page  240

  1. Now we must hear, how the Rejoynder doeth say for the defence of those answers which the Def. gave to four• Divines, chosen out by himselfe to answer, of whome, Calvin is the first. Of whome it is said, that he condemneth onely suche Ceremonies, as are subs•ituted to the very office of Sacraments. Where if he meaneth part of the office of Sacraments,* he and we consent about Calvin but if he meane the wholle complete office of Sacram. then he wrongeth Calvin. For upon Lev. 4.21. his meaning cannot be, that all the olde Ceremonies of the Iews, had suche a complete Sacramentall office, as Circumcision, and the Passover had. Vpon Isa. 20.2. speaking of Isays goeing barefoot for a signe of future captivitie (which was not the full office of a Sacrament) he sayth: If Isaie had done this of himselfe he might well have been laughed at. Those rites are of no worth which have not God for their author, which we are carefully to note, against the papists who obtrude upō us empty ceremonies for true Sacraments. This rule is for them: if they come from God we are to embrace them, if not, to scorne them, nay they cannot be received without dishonour to God, when therin mortal men take upon them the authority of God. And upon Mat. 21.25. he hath this doctrine: no sacred signe ought to be admitted among the godly, unlesse it be shewwen to be of God,*nor is it in mens choyse to mint any thing. But the Rejoynder affirmeth, that Calvin doeth expresly allow Symbolicall signes, as excercises, and incitements of pietie. The Place he meaneth is Inst. lib. 4. c. 10. sect. 14. where ther is no expresse allowance at all, of mere humane Symbolicall signes, but onely of some Ceremonies,

Page  241

to helpe the ruder sort of people in their unskillfulnesse. Now this kinde of Ceremonies Calvin himself in the 28.29. sect. of the same chapter, doeth manifestly declare, to be matters of mere and necessarie decencie. The end of decencie is,*that (while suche things are used which purchase respect to holy things we be stirred up to piety. That is a Decoium which so makes for the reverence of holy things that is that it be a fit exercise of Godlines. This being considered, and withall, that the Rejoynder in his great Charter, (cap. 1. 〈◊〉 16.) dureth not build his mysticall Ceremonies upon that decencie, which Paul doeth appointe, and Calvine onely admitteth, it is plaine, that Calvines exercises and incitementes of piette, are not his more humane 〈…〉 Ceremonies.

 

  1. The second witnesse, whome it pleased the Def. to take notice of, is Zepperus, or rather, sundrie Protestant Synodes, by Zepperus divulged, as he sheweth in his praeface. Now his wordes are set downe before in the 1. and 2. •ection of this chapter: so that here we are onely to consider what the Rejoynder hath to say against, or upon them. And first he flesh to his olde muse of Ceremonies efficient of grace, in Poperie. But this muse-hole hath been formerly stopped. And if it were open in other assaults, yet Zepper hath sufficiently provided for it here. For beside that he directed his censure of Cerem. (in a great part) against the Lutherans, who denie all efficacie that the Rejoynder denieth, he sayth plainely that by these humane mysticall Ceremonies, God will nor sti•• up devotion, faith, and repentance, in the heart of Christians not at blancke crosse to

Page  242

our Def. and Rejoynder his tenet. For the releiving of that weak shift, the Rejoynder (in the second place) affirmeth, that Zepper (cap. 16.) doeth allow of dipping, and thrice dipping, in Baptisme, as an humane Ceremonie stated in Gods worship to signifie the Trinitie, and our Lords resurrection on the third day. Now in the 16. chapter, ther is no one word of these matters (which kinde of misciting or misprinting the Rejoynder useth to make a great matter of in others) but in the 12. chapter, I finde suche a fonde allegorie of thrice-dipping meerly related out of Augustine, but no allowance of the same. Nay, if the matter be well considered, I thinke the Rejoynder himself will scarce allow of it. For 1. ther can be no better reason given for placing of a mysterie in thrice dipping for Baptisme, then in dividing of the bread to be receyved in the Supper, into three partes, as the Papists doe for a mysterie, among other of their massing toys. 2. This thrice-dipping for mysterie, is so mingled with the true Mysterie of Baptisme, that (to all appearance) it is made a part of that Holy Sacrament 3. For man to institute an outward representation (as an Image) of the Holy Trinitie, is a very great praesumption, against the second Commandement. Christ himself never appointed any suche mysticall reall signe neyther can that incomprehensible mysterie be fitly represented by any suche triplicitie as is of mans making. 4. To invocate the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost over the baptized, and then by thrice redipping, or sprinkling, upon mans pleasure, to signifie they are three Persons, is as if one should light a

Page  243

candle, for the manifesting of something, and then put a bushel over it, for signifying of the same thinge. 5. How can the same three at one and the same time, signifie three Persons, & three days? Can men give manifold disparate senses to one and the same Ceremonies, as literall, allegoricall, tropologicall, and anagogicall? 5. Why may not as well three Crosses be made upon the Baptized; for the same mysteries? 6. It could not be of any moment, for those auncient Byshops, sometime to dip thrice, for signifying of the Trinitie, and some time once, for signifying of the Vnitie. Seing Trinitie and Vnitie are not to be separated in the solemne signification of them, and Heretikes are not confuted with humane signes.

 

  1. Iewel is the next in order. But for so muche as neyther his wordes are quoted, nor the place where they may be founde noted, (on eyther side) but onely according to one English Edition, which I have not, I cannot say muche of them: Yet this I may truly say, that the Rejoynder is put to hard shift, in opposing of the Repliers answer, when he distinguisheth betwixt graces, and duties, actually performed. For these two are expressed by the same name, of the Apostle Paul, 2. Cor. 8.1. I doe you to wit of the grace of God, bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia etc. But it seemeth that humane mysticall Ceremonies are of like nature unto those olde legall Ceremonies, which onely signified what men ought to doe, but gave not grace to doe it: so that they are to be referred unto the killing letter.

 

In searching also for the place, in my latine copie of

Page  244

Iuel,* I founde these wordes Act. 1. pag. 23. The Papists have blurred Christ Sacraments with a number of Superstitiou• and Childish Ceremonies, and have added such like Sanctions to them. Now if by the superstitiousnes, and childishnesse, which is found in the Popish Cere. before their multitude, and before their sanctions binding consciences to them, he did not mean their mysticall signification, upon humane institution, I would willingly learne of the Rejoynder what his meaning was?

 

  1. Beza was by the Def. granted to speak for us. But the Rejoynder (having now exercised hmself unto confidence in suche elusions) will needs have it, that Bezas phraze onely, not his meaning doeth make for us. Let us therfor hear his reasons. 1. Beza (sayth he) condemneth all Symbolicall rites,* which he calleth Sacramentall, that is signifying spirituall graces, not duties. Now Bezas wordes (ep. 8.) are these: I affirme that so often as the ancients brought into the Church any Sacramentals i. e. Significative ceremonies of Spirituall things so oft they greivously offended. Withall I thinke that all symbolical rites should be once profligited out of the church whereinto by no right they could ever enter nor as long as they remaine can the Church have her native bewty restored. Here is no mention at all of graces, but only of spirituall thinges: and yet the Rejoynder would perswade his reader, that he sayth not spirituall duties, but graces. His glosse is naught. Spirituall thinges comprehend so well spirituall duties, as graces. How this reason will be excused, I cannot guesse: except perhaps it

Page  245

be answered, that humane Ceremonies doe signifie duties as they are carnall, and not as they are spirituall. It is further to be marked, that Beza there speaketh of of suche humane significant Ceremonies, as were in common use amonge the ancient Fathers. Now the Rejoynder will not say that they had in common use, so many humane Sacraments, as Beza noteth them to have had significant Ceremonies. 2. The second reason, by which the Rejoynd. would prove that Beza meant not simplie to condemne all significant Ceremonies, is, because he alloweth some Feast-days, confesseth the Surplice and kneeling to be in their nature indifferent, and sayth that the Crosse might sometime of olde have had lawfull use. For the former of which, if the wordes of Beza, had been noted, more might be sayd. In the meane time, let this suffize: If Beza did allow of some humane Feast-days, it may better from this place be gathered, that he did not account them significant of spirituall thinges, then it can from them be gathered, that in this place he did not condemne all suche significants of mans making. Neyther doeth he affirme a significant Surplice to be indifferent. And as for kneeling, that is more excepted against for other causes, then for instituted signification.

 

But in the last, ther is odde dealing. For wheras Beza sayth of the Crosse, ut olim aliquis fu•rit usus ejus etc. which is as muche as to say though this were granted, that there was some use of it of olde, the Rejoynder make•h him to say that ther was of olde a lawfull use of it.

 

Page  246

It is enough for any man, to read over Beza his eyght and twelf Epistle, for understanding not onely of his meaning, but also of his reasons.

 

  1. Because the Def. made Beza a singular man, in opposing all humane mysticall Ceremonies, the Replier added out of Bellarmines observation (de effectu Sacram. l. 2. c. 30.) that at least Calvin, Barentius, and Chemnitius were of the same minde. Now concerning Calvin, enough hath been sayd before. For the other, marke what the Rejoynder hath to say.

 

The question (sayth he) in that place of Bellarmine disputed, is of Ceremonies meritorious, and binding the conscience, out of the case of scandall. And is this all? Surely then the Rejoynder had no reason to object unto the Abrigers, and the Replier, abusing the Reader. For (to omitte that which in the first part of our Dispute, hath been answered, concerning merit & binding) any one that looketh upon Bellarmine, de effect. Sacr. l. 2. cap. 30. may see, that he divideth the controversie betwixt us and the Papists, into sixe heads, the fourth is about binding the conscience, and the fift about merit, but the third is whether the Churche may appoint new Ceremonies? The Afirmative of this question Bellarmine proveth, from the Feast instituted by Mordechay, and that of Dedication,* instituted in the Machabees time, etc. which are the Def. and Rejoyners cheif arguments for significant Ceremonies. And professeth plainely (as our men doe) Our Proposition is no more but this against heretiques, that the church may appoint new Ceremonies not indeed to justifie us from mortal sins but to other ends. On

Page  247

the Negative part, Bellarmine nameth Calvin, Brentius, and Chemnitius. Now the Rejoynder to darken all, confoundeth the third, & fift question into one hoche-poche. Who then doeth abuse the Reader? Of Calvin, enough hath been sayd before as also of Brentius, under the title of Witenberge Confession, Chemnitius onely (being altogether passed over by the Rejoinder though he was not onely propounded by the Replier, out of Bellarmine but also in the Abridgement, pag. 32,) is here to be represented, in his owne wordes. Yet concerning Brētius first, a few wordes may be needfull. The words of Wittenburge Confession (before cited) are plaine. It is not lawfull, to devize new Ceremonies, to shadow forth the trueth already layd open, and brought to light by the Gospel: as in the day light to set up Candles, to signifie the light of the Gospel, or to carry banners & crosses, to signifie the victorie of Christ, thorough his Crosse. Of which sort is all the massing attire. Of this Confessiō Brentius was the penman: and therefore Bellarm. citeth the same as Brentius his sentence about Ceremonies. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that Bellarm. sayth onely that Brentius reproveth the hallowing of water, oyle. &c. consecrated to signifie and worke supernaturall effects: because the mysteries of faith should not now be shadowed out. De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. Whiche to be nothing so, the very words of Bellarm. will shew. for neyther out of Brentins, nor against him, doeth Bel. make any mention of consecrating suche thinges to worke, but onely to signifie spirituall effects.*First they are blessed to signifie spirituall operations. For the sprinkling of the ashes signifieth poenance, &c. Nor

Page  248

doeth the reason of Bre•tius of adumbration hinder,*for those significations are not properly adumbratious, but outward repraesentations of praesent invisible things, and of things spirituall. Or els of things past, most usefull to stir up the affection. Hence it is plaine, that Brentius is opposed by Bellarm. for houlding the Proposition of this our third. Argument, that his reason is ours: and that Bellarm. his answer, so well as his tenet, is that which the Def. and Rejoynd. doe maintayne against us. 2. A second answer, or rather objection, is used by the Rej. that Brentius allowed Lutherun Crosses, and Images, as being a Lutheran. Now it is well knowen, that Brentius at the first did write as became a grave Divine: but after broke out into the Vbiquitary faction, siding against those whome he called Zwinglians and Calvinists. That which we allege, was written in the name of the Churche of Wittenburge, & so praesented unto the Counsell of Trent, out of his and others best judgement. If eyther out of securitie, or out of faction, he did, and writte otherwise, after, it ought not to be put in ballance against this Confession. It is no great mervayll, if a Lutheran doeth crosse his owne Doctrine, even about Ceremonies.

 

For in the same kinde they have Luther himself for their example:*No man did more hardly inveigh against those triffles then Luther did, and yet reteined them for the times sake. That when occasion required he was so vehemente we commend him, but that while he contended against them, he submitted to the them, we pardon in him.

 

Page  42

Something like was the case of Chemnitius, whose words the Rejoynder thought good to passe over in silence. They are these (de ritib. Sacr. ad Can. 13.) When Christ himselfe so instituted the Sacraments that he required them to be used with such and such rites,*it is a very hard question whether it be lawfull for men to add other and that so manyover and above. As if what rites Christ himselfe prescribed were either not enough, or not fit enough. In divine institutions as we must take nothing from, so we must adde nothing to them. But whereas they say by such rites many things are proffitably signified, we answer that belonged to the State of the Old Testament, but what Christ in the New Test. would have learned, must be taught with the light of the word, not by shadowes. And we have a promise of the force of the word; but not of the efficacie of shadowes devised by men. And what rites he would have used by the word, those he himselfe appointed, etc.

 

Ther was some cause, why the Rejoynder did not care to insist on these wordes. For Chemnitius maketh it a very hard thing to justifie humane significant Ceremonies in Gods worship. The Rejoynder sayth, it is as easy as to justifie writing by Characters. Chemnitius maketh them additions to Gods Institution. Nothing lesse (sayth the Rej.) no more then a Cabinet, wherin a Iewel is kept, is an addition to it. Chemnitius judged them repugnant

Page  250

to the New Testament. The Rej. sayth, that there is manifest allowance for them, and authoritie left unto men for instituting of them: (as forsooth) in those words of Order, Decencie, and Aedification.

 

  1. The Replier added unto the witnesses aforesayd, Iunius & Daneus. But concerning Daneus, we have already considered what the Rej. had to except. Iunius onely remayneth: whose wordes were quoted out of his animadversions upon Bell. de cultu Sanctorum, lib. 3. cap. 7. an. 12. Heer the Rej, rouseth up himself, as if he had gotten a great advantage, putting on suche confidence, or rather forth suche shews of it, as if it had been meer folly in the Repl. to make mention of Iunius. His rejoinder therfore is to be considered in all the parts of it. 1. First, he concludeth that the Repl. is no wise man, in not telling them, to what objection, or assertion Iunius doeth there answer: because (forsooth) the Repl. himself had sayd, it was no wisdome for any man, to take up an answer made to an objection, before he considereth the assertion against which the objection is made. As if it were all one to consider the assertion, and to tell them what it is. Is not this a fine consequence? 2. He attributeth unto the Repl. a Sophisticall wit, in concealing, that the assertion of Bell. by Iunius opposed, was, that the Churche may of her power, consecrate creatures, to signifie, and worke supernaturall effects, &c. But from hence nothing can be gathered, for the advantage of the Def. and Rej. except it appear, that Iunius did onely speake of the working, and not distinctly of the signifiyng, which Bell. would have given unto those Ceremonies: whiche how false it is, shall praesently

Page  251

appear. 3. He noteth a shamefull falsification of Iunius his wordes, in the translation of them. Iunius his wordes are: Homo non potest creaturas ad significationem adhibere. The Translation is: Humane Ceremonies cannot be lawfully used for signification. Where is that great falsification, which drew from the Rej. Are you not ashamed? or can you not blush? The Rej. his owne translation of the same wordes, is: No man-can lawfully applie thinges to signification. He must discover the mysticall difference betwixt using for signification, & applying to signification, before he can cast suche shame upon the Repl. & none upon the Rej. 4. To shew Iunius in his owne posture, and the mis-reporting Repl. in his owne colours. The Rejoynder translateth that wholle passages of Iunius, and noteth upon it, first, that Iunius speaketh of consecrating ceremonies. To which I answer, that in the wordes, as they are by the Rej. translated, he expresly condemneth all applijnge to signification. And if consecration were included therein, I hope the Rej. will not disavow consecrating of Churches, Churche-yardes, Altars, &c. Secōdly, he observeth, that Iunius doeth professedly sever the poynt of signification, from that of efficacie. As if the Repl. had confounded them, and not rather distinctly insisted upon •ignification onely which Iunius doeth as distinctly and professedly condemne, as efficacíe, Nay it is the Rej. his common fault, that where the Papists speake of efficacie and signification, and our Divines distinctly answer of both, he will have no answ•r, no not those of Calvin, Brentius, Chemnitius, Daneus, nor this of Iunius, to belonge unto signification distinctly,

Page  238

and by it self. In the third place, he telleth us, that Iunius in the two next annotations, doeth allow voluntarie significant Ceremonies. Let it therfore be considered, that Iunius in the thirteenth annotation, insinuateth at the least his doubt, whether any voluntarie significations can proceed from good: a bono, si forte. 2. He sayth they proceeded from simplicitie, and turned to superstition. Which phrases of his, he so interpreteth other where, that it may easily appear, he did not allow that which here he calleth simplicitie. For cap. 5. annot. 15. he calleth it vanitie, in opposition to the simp•icitie of Christ. And in the second booke, de reliquijs & imaginibus, cap. 27. annot. 29. he calleth it plainely simple superstition. In the fourteenth annotation, he mainteyneth this assertion:*In divine things no shadowes are rightly used in the Church but what God hath instituted. But (sayth the Rej.) he doeth by name allow standing in prayer, on the Lordes dayes, as a significant Ceremonie, as also holybread: annot. 10. Wheras Iunius testifieth plainly, in the 9. note, immediatly before, how he did onely excuse, as comparatively tolerable, suche ancient Ceremonies of the Fathers. Primum suit tolerabile: Patrum simplicitatem piam excusamus. So that Iunius being seen in his owne posture, and the reporters in their colours, let the Reader judge, where is the cause of shame and blushing?

 

Page  253

SECT. 5. Concerning the wronge, that is doen to Gods Sacraments, by humane sigmificant Ceremonies.

  1. THe Argument dependeth on this: that humane Ceremonies appropriated to Gods wo•ship, if they be ordeyned to teache any spirituall dutie, by their mysticall signification, usurpe a cheif part of the nature of Sacraments. This was in the Abr. backed with many testimonies: which the Rej. having before eluded (so well as he could) here contenteth himself to say, they are counterfeit, forced, or forged stuffe: The contrarie wherof hath been declared. Now for the naked Arg. he affirmeth it to have no sienws which must be tried by the answers, & defence of them.

 

The Def. first answereth, by a distinction, betwixt the signification of grace conferred, and the signification of mans dutie, the former wherof he maketh Sacramentall, but not the later. To the which was replied, that Sacr. also doe signifie the dutie of man towards God. This (sayth the Rej.) is not true: bec. Sacr. doe onely implie that dutie. But I would knowe of him, 1. how the Sacr. as signes, doe implie that which they doe not signifie, all so well as our signe of a crosse doeth signifie any dutie? The aerall crosse doeth (though very untowardly) represēt the wooddē crosse, wheron our Saviour was crucified, & so by a trope, Christ crucified: & then implieth our dutie to Christ. And doe not Sacraments signifie Christ, & our dutie toward him so well as this? 2. I aske,

 

Page  254

If Baptisme doe not signifie our wholle mortification, vivification, and putting on of Christ? 3. If the Sacraments doe onely by themselves, implie these duties, yet that implication being explicated in their administration, what use is ther of putting that explicated dutie under a bushel, or bed of mans making?

 

  1. The Rejoynder not trusting to that deniall, sayth further, that if the Sacraments did signifie mans dutie, yet that is not a cheif part of their nature. To which I may replie, that if it were not a cheif part of their nature, but a part onely, yet it is presumption for men to take any part of the Sacraments, and set it upon other thinges, at their owne pleasure. But seing by the nature of the Sacraments, is meant their office, and use, and ther be many offices and uses of them, some of which come not so neer their cheifest office as this signification doeth, it may with good reason be termed a cheif part. Calvin (Consens. de re Sacram.) sayth thus: Sacraments are notes and badges of our Christian profession and incitements to thankfulnes, Exercises of pietie, & bonds under our hands to tye us to Gods service, but their cheife end is to signifie and •igure the grace of God to us.*

 

Now though this last be the cheif office, yet amonge the former one is more cheif then another, and which of them more cheif, then this of signifying spirituall duties with obligation to the performance of them?

 

  1. To prove that the Sacraments signifie morall duties (which first the Def. and in defence of him, the Rejoynder denieth) it was alleged, by the Repl. that the wholle Covenant is in them signed and sealed, betwixt

Page  255

God and man in which Covenāt mans dutie, thorough grace is there professed, and represented. Wherupon the Rejoynder 1. concludeth, that suche signes as doe neyther signe nor seall the covenant of grace, cannot partake the office, or speciall nature of Sacraments. Wherby he gaineth nothing but his owne ideal shadow. 2. He gathereth, that unlesse signifying, without sealing, be a more principall part of the nature of Sacraments, then sealing, suche signes as communicat with them onely in signifying, doe not participat any cheif part of their nature. Which is as mere non sense, as if one should say, that unlesse teaching, without sealing be a more principall part of Sacraments, thē sealing, then the preaching of the doctrine which in Sacraments is signified and sealed, doeth not participat any cheif part of their nature. 3. He answereth, that the Sacraments doe confirme our obligation unto sanctimonie, in generall, but not signifie any morall dutie in particular. Here then is the mysterie: the Sacraments to confi•me (by signification) all our duties, but not this, or that dutie.

 

If our Convocation had been of the Counsel, when Sacraments were appointed they would (as it seemeth) have made them more perfect. But this is certain, our Saviour meant to put a difference, betwixt the olde A. B. C. and the new maner of t•aching fitting for riper yeares: and therfore did not s•o•ll out every letter concerning our dutie, in signes, as of oulde, but give us the summe in a few signes. Whosoever therfore goeth about to multiplie significant signes, crosseth th• very intention which was respected, in the institution

Page  256

of two Sacraments onely. Beside, the Crosse it self, doeth not signifie our dutie of constant fighting under Christ, in pa•ticular, against this or that temptatiō of sinne, the world, or the Devill, but onely in generall, so that by this reason, we should, or may have as many significant Ceremonies, as there be particular temptations to be resisted. Whither shall we come, at length, by walking in this Ceremoniall way?

 

  1. The second Argument, to the same purpose, by the Repl. alleged, was, that the name Sacrament, as it signifieth an oath, or obligation, doeth import, that the Sacraments signifie our dutie to God. To this the Rejoynder answereth, that the Sacraments doe in deed implie, but not represent any morall dutie. Now let any reasonable man judge, whether dipping under the water, and rising up againe, or taking of food for strength, and growth, doeth not more represent spirituall duties, then making a Crosse with ones finger, in the ayer?

 

  1. The third reason mentioned, was taken from the name Eucharist, notifiing thankfulnesse, and the taking of the same, in remembrance of Christ. The Rejoynder his answer is, that the word Eucharist is no Sacrament, but a terme brought in by men to put them in minde of their dutie in receyving it. But that word doeth notifie the nature of the Sacrament, at least in the judgemēt of al Divines, •hat have in this meaning used the terme, though it be not a Sacrament. And they are more then that the Rej. his judgement can counter-ballance. Yet if significant Ceremonies be like unto wordes and characters, as the Rejoynder formerly maintayned, that very word must

Page  257

needes be a Sacrament, or a significant signe of a Sacrament: because it was brought in to put men in minde of their dutie in receyving, as the Rej. speaketh. He addeth 2. that ther is no element, nor action of that Sacrament, so particularly repraesenting thankfulnesse, as kneeling doth reverence, or humilitie, Where first, he maketh kneeling a significant Ceremonie, whiche hitherto he hath seemed to denie. 2. I answer, that the very action of receyving so great a gift, in a cheerfull humble manner, doeth repraesent both thankfulnesse, and humilitie, so far as Christ would have it repraesented by signes. The very celebration of a great benefit receyved, is a signe of thankfulnesse. Otherwise, let the Rejoynder tell us, what repraesentation of thankfulnesse was in the Passover, for that benefit of passing over the Israelites houses, when the first-borne of the Aegyptians were slaine?

 

  1. Instance was given (by the Replier) that both sanctitie, and constancie, which are the thinges •ignified by Surplice, and Crosse, are signified in Baptisme. The Rej. his answer is, that they are not barely or onely signified in Baptisme, as duties, nor by any distinct signe repraesented. As if this were the question, and not this: if Sacraments doe signifie morall duties! Certainly, if Sacraments doe signifie these vertues as graces and duties (as is proved, and also confessed) no Christian need desire to have them •ignified over againe barely and onely as duties, no more then after an instrument made betwixt the Lord of Manner, and his Tenent, conteyning the conditions of both partes, the tenent should seek for a new instrumēt,

Page  258

signifijng his conditions a part: and not onely so, but after that his conditions had been expressed generally, that he should keep all the land in good culture, according as he found it, he should seek for one instrument about the woodes, another for the •arable land, another for the medowes, another for the pastures, and another for the broome feilds, or for every aker one, & that not from the Lord of the manner, but from some Iustice of peace, or high Constable of the Hundred. Neyther is it a thinge profitable, for Christians to remember their dutie, without remembrance of Gods grace therto apperteyning.

 

  1. Against mysticall-morall Ceremonies, of humane institution, the Repl. brought this Arg. in Mr. Baines his wordes: To be a teacher of my understand••g, and an exciter of my devotion, are suche effects, as require vertue, inhaerent, or assistant, to those thinges which should be causes of them. But no signe of mans divizing, hath any suche vertue, in it, or with it. For then it must come eyther from the word of creation, or from Gods after institution.

 

But from neyther of these, have the signes of mans divizing any suche vertue. Therfore no signe, of mans divizing, can be a teacher of mine understanding, or an exciter of my devotion.

 

This the Rejoynder confuteth first, with skornefull wordes, as a sickly childish, and long some objection. After, he answereth, that our monitorie Ceremonies, are onely externall occasions, and objects, wherby the minde of

Page  259

man worketh upon it self, not causes working by some vertue in them.

 

Where 1. observe, how he mangleth and marreth the Argument, that he may maister it: the wordes are, that suche effects require vertue inhaerent, or assistant: he interpreteth them onely of vertue in them, i. e. inhaerent, leaving out assistant: and yet dareth affirme, that upon this fiction of vertue in them (which is his owne fiction) the wholle objection is builded. 2. He maketh our Ceremonies to be onely occasionall objects, and no causes: wheras every instituted signe is a meanes, and so a cause of that effect for which it is appointed, as Logick teacheth. And if they were mere occasions of conceyving that which they signifie, then a white Surplice would not prove half so significant a Ceremonie of Ministers sanctitie, as a white Cocke, especially when it croweth, nor an aeriall Crosse, so significant, as a Gallowes. Beside, if our Ceremonies be occasionall objects onely, then no man is tied to regard the whitenesse of his Ministers Surplice, therby to thinke of his sanctitie, any more then he is bounde to regard the fowlnesse and soile of it, when for a longe time, it is unwashed, and he also useth it in stead of a handkerchif, about his nose, therby to thinke of the imperfection, spots, and blots, which are founde in Ministers disposition, and conversation. Concerning, Letters, Characters, and Giblets, mentioned here againe by the Rejoynder, answer was made before, in the first section of this Chapter.

 

Page  260

  1. To like purpose, the Repl. used this reason: If humane inventions be suche morall admonishers, in spirituall duties, then our consciences are bound to subject themselves to their admonitions, and so to those mortall men, who made them admonishers. The Rejoynder his answer is like his former: humane significant Ceremonies have no vertue of teaching the understanding, or exciting the devotions of mē: but only externall objects tending by their signification to those uses, to the use of which, the consciences of men are not bounde simplie but onely collaterally, and for another thinge. In which answer, 1. ther is a strange mysterie confessed: that humane Ceremonies are appointed to doe that, whiche they have neyther antecedently, nor consequently, any vertue to doe. 2. Externall objects are made opposite unto admonishers with vertue to admonish: as if no externall objects (as Baptisme administred to a childe, before mine eyes) had any vertue of admonishing 3. As strange a distinction is made betwixt simply, and collaterally, and betwixt simplie, and for another thinge: which are suche sustian stuffe, that ther is no fear, they should satisfie any but suche as take termes without reason• or right reason.

 

  1. Another reason of the Repliers, was, that every teaching signe, of publicke use in the Churche, ought often to be interpreted, in preaching, and also defended if they be called in question, in the same preachinges, which kinde of preaching, upon Crosse and Surplice, were very absurd, especially in those Parishes, that scarce have Quarter-Sermons. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that the Crosse having interpretation with it, need not be

Page  261

interpreted: and that the Surplice signifieth, he doeth not well know what, but suche a thinge as may be soon taught. Now that which he sayth of Crosse, he may as well say of the Sacraments, that because in their administration, they have the interpretation goeing along with them, therfore no Minister need muche preache of them. But indeed, ther is speciall need, that the very interpretation which goeth alonge with the use of the Crosse, should be well interpreted: because few or none, eyther of the people, or of the Crossers themselves doe understand, how it hath that signification which the Convocation hath layd upon it, any more, then any other toy, which may easily be devized by the same Convocation: as if they should put a straw into the childes hand, in stead of a spear, to signifie, that he should manfully fight, against all enimies of Christianitie. And of the Surplices signification, seing the Rejoynder himself is not yet certainly informed, what it is, ther must needs be great use of muche preaching about it, first to declare certainly (if it may be founde) what it signifieth, secondly to shew the ground of that signification, or authoritie from whence it commeth, lawfull, and thirdly to urge it upon the consciences of those that are to make use of that signification. His second answer is a bundle of phrases: and so let it passe. Onely let it be noted. 1. that he calleth it furie, to charge our Ceremonies of superstition and yet in sobrietie, mainteyned before, that those which count them unlawfull, are superstitious brethren. 2. that he determineth absolutely, upon his refuted groundes, that we have stopped

Page  262

our own mouths, from preaching the Gospell, by calumniations. Wheras all England knoweth, that those which never preached, or writ against the Ceremonies, have their mouthes stopped by his Prelates, though they onely professe, they cannot use them, by reason of scandall, of which number, Doctor Burges himself hath been one. 3. He would perswade the world, that some of us place all religion in opposing Ceremonies by speaking and writing: which is greater calumnie, then any he charged us with, or then he can prove of any one. 4. He affirmeth us to be of all men he ever knew, the most impatient of opposition, and so most partiall, and Pharisaically proude as if his Prelates were very patient toward those that oppose their Ceremonies, no way so partiall, nor drew any thinge from the Pharisies, or as if himself in this Rejoynder, had not shewed more of these vertues, then any other. 5. He sheweth where the store lieth: in rooting of them out of the hearts of their people, by clamours, and calumnies. We cannot then defend our practise, but with clamours and calumnies, nor answer for our hearts, without rooting them out of peoples hearts.

 

  1. For the further manifestinge of the uselesse signification of our significant Ceremonies, the Repl. appealed to the consciences of the best conforminge Christiansin England, whether ever they founde themselves truly stirred up to holynesse, by the Surplice, or to constancie in fayth, by the Crosse? The Rejoynder

Page  263

answereth, that no man is stirred up by them, as by causes, but onely as by the sight of the creatures, or other memorialls: of which use if men deprive themselves, it is their prejudice or negligence. Now of causes ther was no mention in the quaere. And the question being made of the best conforming Christians (amonge whome the Rejoynder himself is one) prejudice, and negligencie of some, make up no answer. The trueth is, that he himself could not say, out of his conscience, that ever he felt suche motions within him, by occasion of a Surplice, or Crosse, and therfore baulked the question. Yet this is here to be observed: that by the Rejoynder his confession, our sacred Ceremonies are no more admonishers unto spirituall duties, then any creature of God, i. e. then any butterflie is. And are not then our Ceremonies very sacred, or religious. Or is our representative Churches institution, of any more force, or worth, then any childes, that catcheth butter-flies?

 

  1. It was added also which by experience, it is founde) that in some one Congregation, where these Ceremonies have not been used, more holinesse, and constancie of faith hath appeared, then in many Cathedral Churches, where they were never omitted. The Rejoynder his answer is, that where other helpes stand equall, ther is no difference, save onely in a Pharisticall opinion of those, who counte their very opposition of Ceremonies an high poynt of devotion, and stiffenesse therin, constancie in the fayth.

 

Page  264

Behold the man, that even now complayned of clamours, and calumnies. The reasonable part of this answer is, that in Cathedrall Churches, other helpes (as diligent preaching, catechizing, admonishing, directing in Christian duties) are not aequall or answerable to that which is founde in divers Congregations where the Ceremonies have not been used: otherwise ther were no difference. Now heerin, 1. he confuteth himself, in confessing that his Prelates, even those whose admirable wisdome he extolleth, though they have power enough, doe not provide the cheif helpes of edification, for their Churches, aequall to those that are founde in poore Congregations, which receyve not their Ceremoniall helpes, and yet will not suffer those poore Congregations to enjoy their helpes. For doe they not by this, place a high poynt of devotion in their Ceremoniall helpes? 2. How can this stand with reason: where other helpes are aequall, ther is no difference? Certainly, if our Ceremonies be helpes to Edification (as the Def. and Rejoynder mainteine) then where other helpes are aequall, the Cathedrall Churches have a great advantage in helpes, above other, that want those Ceremonies. Nay one Cathedrall Churche exceedeth another in this kinde: as Durrham, for Ceremonies, doeth Chester, and Lichefeild.

 

  1. Because the Def. (to make way for an injurious accusation) changed the phraze used in the Abrigemēt, a cheif part of the Sacraments nature, into another more obnoxious unto exception, the cheif part, the Repl. justly noted this, as no plaine dealing. The Rejoinjoynder

Page  265

(being loath to leave any of the Def. his words un-mainteyned) answereth, that the Sacraments have but two parts, signification, and obsignation: and therfore if signification be a principall part, it is also the principall part: so that the Defend (sayth he) dealt heerin fairely, and pressed us with suche wordes as our Argument requires.

 

But 1. whoe authorized the Defend. to change the termes of our Argument, and then presse us with his changelinges? Let him reserve suche faire dealing for other occasions, when it may passe with lesse notice taken of it. 2. What doeth the Rejoynder mean, to imitate the Defend. in attributing unto us, that we make mere signification, without any qualification or limitation, eyther the or a cheif part of the Sacrament? The Abrigement sayth onely, that suche signification as is ordeyned mystically to teache and admonish us of spirituall duties, is a cheif part of the Sacrament. 3. Mr. Hooker, (lib. 5. pag. 3.10.) sayth that ther are great store of properties belonging to the Sacraments▪ as that they are boundes of our obedience, obligations to mutuall charitie, provokation to godlinesse, preservations from sinne, memorialls of great benefites, markes of distinction from strangers etc. How then can the Rejoynder so resolutely determine of two onely offices, which belonge to them? 4. If all essentiall parts of the Sacrament may be reduced to these two, yet the lesser of these may be called a principall part, without any prejudice to the other, in respect of those mē, which make accidentall, circumstātiall, & improper parts of Gods worship,

Page  266

and so of his Sacraments, as the Def. and Rejoynder upon every occasion doe shift off Arguments with those termes. The rest of this section (beside wordes of no weight) conteyneth nothing which hath not been in the former passages, sufficiently cleared.

 

SECT. 6. Concerning Iewish Ceremonies.

  1. IN the Abrigement, after the former reason, now mainteyned, this was brought in: that In the time of the Lawe (when God saw it good to teache his Churche by significant Ceremonies) none might be brought into, or receyved in the worship of God, but suche onely as the Lord himself did institute. Ergo. And after that, this: It is muche lesse lawfull, for man to bringe significant Ceremonies into Gods worship now, then it was under the Law. For God hath abrogated his owne (not onely suche as prefigured Christ, but suche also, as served by their signification, to teache morall duties) so as now (without great sinne) none of them can be continued in the Churche, no not for signification. Vpon which last grounde, they inferre thus: If those Ceremonies which God himself ordeyned to teache his Churche by their signification, may not now be used, much lesse may those which man hath devized.

 

Now the wisdome of the Def. was, to passe over the former groundes, and onely to insist upon this last inference derived from them. But let us see what he,

Page  267

and the Rejoynder have to say of that.

 

  1. About this inference, many testimonies of great Divines, were alleged in the Abrigement: all which the Def. passeth by, as not worthy answer: for whiche, he was challenged by the Replier. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is wranglinge, spoken not out of conscience, but out of a spirit of contradiction, etc. To which I answer nothing. But that which the Def. neglected, the Rejoynder taketh to supplie, least we should bragge, as it pleaseth him to phrasifie. See therfore how he dischargeth that which he undertaketh. 1. The Nicen counsel (sayth he) is twice falsified: first; that it is supposed to condemne significant Ceremonies, by man devized, upon this reason, that God had abolished his owne, and secondly, that the Councel is affirmed to condemne suche Ceremonies at all.

 

It seemeth the Rejoynder hath more skill (about this cause) in multiplying falsities, then in dividing of them from trueths. For the Nicen Councell was brought in as speaking for one proposition: and the Rejoynder maketh two false assertions of that one simple axiome. Beside the words of that Councel, or Constantine, speaking for it, are (in the Abrigement) onely brought in as testifying this▪ that the olde Ceremonies of the law, being abrogated by God, cannot (without sinne) be now continued in the Churche for signification. In stead of this, the Rejoynder faineth two other propositions, and then fayth, that they are two falsifications: which if they be, let him (who is the coiner of them) see how he can excuse them. The wordes of Constantine are: It seemed unworthy to celebrate the

Page  268

Passover with imitation of the Iewish custome. Let no (suche) thinge be commune to Christians, with the Iewes. We have receyved another way from our Saviour, a more lawfull and convenient of our holy Religion. This is pat to the purpose, for which it was alleged.

 

  1. The testimonie of all the rest (sayth the Rej.) are perverted. 3. Sundrie of the witnesses are knowen to have allowed our, and all, some significant Ceremonies. It is a shame therfore for men gloring of synceritie, in refusing the Ceremonies, thus to leave all synceritie, in alleging of Authors. In which never any protestant writers abused the world so muche, as the Abrigement, and this cavilling Repl. Now 1. for the perverting of all testimonies, it is affirmed onely, but not proved. Onely some generall suppositions are brought in, to support the accusation, all which have formerly been confuted. 2. Among those which he sayth were knowen to allow of our Ceremonies, he nameth D. Humphry, of whome Cambden in his historie of Q. Elizabeth, observeth, that he (though very learned and worthy) never was raised to Ecclesiasticall preferments, because he allowed not our Ceremonies etc. Harding also objecteth him by name, with Mr. Samson, as one that had rather loose all, then use our Ceremonies, and Iuel (Apol. c. 5. div. 1.) doeth not denie, but defend it: besides how well he allowed of our Ceremonies, let all men judge by a certeine letter of his heere printed, written to the Bishops, the Copie bearing this inscription.

 

A letter sent to the Bishops from Doct. Laur. Humphrey president of Magdalen College in Oxford and Reader of Divinity lecture there.

 

Page  269

YOur Lordships letters directed unto us, by our vice-Chancelour, although written in generall words, yet hath so hearted our adversaryes, that wee are now no more cōpted brethren & friends but enimies: & syth the old masse attyres be so straightly commanded, the masse is selfe is shortly looked for. A sword now is put into the enemyes hands of these that under Q. Mary have drawn it for Popery, & under pretēce of good order are ready without cause to bewreck their popish anger upon us, who in this wil use extremitye, in other laws of more importance partiali•y, I would have wished My Lords rather privy admonition then opē expulsion, yea I had rather have received wounds of my brother, then kisses of myne enymye, if wee had privily in a Cōvenient day resigned, then neyther should the punisher have ben noted of cruelty, neyther the offender of temerity, neyther should the pap. have accused (in their seditious book) protestants of contention. Religion requireth naked Christ, to bee peached, professed, Glorifyed that Graviora legis, by the faithfull ministrye of feedinge pastours, should bee furthered, & after that orders tending to edification, & not to destruction, advanced, & finally, the spouses friends should by all meanes be cherished favourd & defended & not by counterfite & false intruders, condemned & overborne, & defaced. But alas a man qualified with inward gifts for lack of outwarde shews is punished, & a mā onely outwardly confornable, inwardly cleane unfurnished, is let alone, yea exalted, the painfull preacher for his labour is beaten, the unpreaching Prelate, offending in the greater is shot free, the learned man without

Page  270

out his cappe is afflicted, the capped man without learning is not touched. Is not this directly to breake Gods laws? Is not this the Pharises vae? It not this to wash the outside of the Cup, and leave the inner part uncleansed? Is not this to praeferre mint and anis to faith and Iudgement and Mercie? Mans tradition before the ordinance of God? Is not this in the schoole of Christ, and in the Methode of the Gospel aplayn disorder? hath not this praeposterous order a woe? That the Catechisme should be reade is the word of God. it is the order of the Church, to preach is a necessary point of a Priest, to make quarterly sermons is law, to see poore men of the poore mens box relieved, vagabonds punished, Parishes Communicate. Roode lofts pulddowne, monuments of superstition defaced service done and heard, is scripture, is statute, that the oath to the Q. Majesty should bee offered and taken, is required as wel by ordinance of God as of man. These are plaine matters necessary, Christian and profitable. To weare a Surplys, a Coape, or a cornerd cappe is (as you take it) an accidentall thing, a devise onely of man, and as wee say a doubt or question in Divinitie. Syth now these substantiall points are inall places of this realme almost neglected the offendes either nothing or little rebuked, and syth the transgessors have no colour of conscience, it is sinne and shame to proceede against us first, having also reasonable defēce of our doings. Charity My Lo. would first have taught us, equitie would first have spared us, brotherlinesse would have warned us, pitty

Page  271

would have pardoned us, if we had bē found trespassers God is my witnesse who is the beholder of all faith. I thinke of your Lordsh. honourably, esteeming you as brethren, reverencing you as Lords and Masters of the congregation: alas why have not you som good opinion of us, why doo you trust knowne adversaries? and misttrust your bretkren? wee confesse one faith of Iesus, we preach one doctrine, we acknowledg one ruler upon earth, in all things (saving in this) we are of your judgement, shall we bee used thus for a surplus? shall Brethren persecute Brethrē for a forked Cappe, devised singularly of him that is our enemy? Now shall we fight for the Popish Coate, his head and body being banished? shall the controversy so fall out in conclusion, that for lacke of this necessary furniture (as it is esteemed) labourers shall lacke wages? Churches preaching? shall we not teach? shall we not exercise our talents as God hath commanded us. Because we will not wante that which our enemies have desired, and that by the appointement of friends Oh that ever I saw this day that our adversaries should laugh to see bethren fall together to the eares! Oh that Ephraim should thus eat up Manasses, Manasses Ephraim. My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church, the Crests and triumphs of Anti Christ. The laugher of Satan, the sorrow and sighs of a number, the mysery and sequel of the tragedie: I write with zeale without proofe of my matter at this time present, but not without knowledge of it, nor without greife of minde. God move

Page  272

your spirit at this praesent to fight against Carnem, Circumcisionem, imo Concisionem, against literam et legem, which principally is now regarded & rewarded. Speake I humbly beseech you to the Queenes Majesty, to the Chancelour, and to Mr. Secretary and the rest, that these proceedings may sleepe, that England may understande your zealous minde toward the worshippe of God, your love toward the poore welwillers, your hate towarde the professed enimies your unity in true conformity, the other neither be needfull now, neither exacted in any good age. So shall the little flock be bounde to you, so shall the great sheepherd be good to you.

 

By this we may judge of some others, whome he onely nameth.

 

  1. That all allowed some•ignificant Ceremonies, is manyfestly proved false, in the former allegations. 4. We glory no more of synceritie, in refusing the Ceremonies, then the Rejoynder doeth in using of them. 5. It is no abusing of the world, to allege generall sentences of men condemning that which they seeme to allow in their practise. If it were, I can name one protestant writer, who hath more abused the world, in this kinde, then any, or all of us: and that is no other, then our Def. D. Morton. For he hath written many bookes of good use, against the Papists, the cheif grace wherof is, that (having a good Librarie, and using it with deligence, and discretion) he hath alleged many thousands of their owne testimonies, for the disproving of those errors and superstitions, which the same Authors, in

Page  273

other places, or at least in their practise, doe apparently eyther allow, or admitte of. This is the wordy answer which the Rejoynder giveth unto the testimonies alleged in the Abr. (pag. 33.34.) for to praevent our bragging: now let us trie if the Argument naked of testimonies, will not stand.

 

  1. The Argument is this: If those Ceremonies which God himself ordeyned, to teache his Churche, by their signification, may not be used, muche lesse may those which man hath devized, The Def. his first answer is, that the use of some Iewish rite, without any Iewish opinion, as Circumcision, and Easter. In which answer nothing is found, that toucheth any terme of the Argument. Yet upon the occasion of it, the Def. was asked how a Iewish Rite, can be used, without some part of a Iewish opinion?

 

The Rejoynd. answereth, materially, but not formally, and in use, But he should have remembred that the Argument is of significant rites using, and the Def. his answer is of Iewish significant rites using: so that in his grant, ther must needes be granted some formall use for signification. Beside, in all using of humane mysticall rites, upon due consideration, ther is some part of a Iewish opinion. I prove it thus: All they that consideratly use carnall, beggerly rudiments, in Gods service, have this opinion, that suche rites as the Iewish (set praefiguration aside which no Christian ever admitted) are good in the Christian Churche. But all that so use humane mysticall rites, use carnall, beggerly rudiments, in Gods service. Ergo. The assumption I prove thus: All that use mysticall rites, wherto there

Page  274

is no Spirit annexed by God, as unto the Euangelicall institutions of the new Testament, use carnall beggerly rudiments, in Gods service. But they whiche use humane mysticall rites, use mysticall rites, wherto there is no Spirit annexed by God. Ergo. The Proposition cannot be denied, untill a better definition of suche rites be given: nor the assumption, except an Euangelicall promise can be shewed of Spiritual blessing upon the use of humane mysticall rites.

 

Concerning Circumcision.

  1. Because the Def. for an example of a Iewish rite, lawfull for Christians to use, named Circumcision, the Repl. concluded, that belike, he houldeth Circumcision, as it is used under Prester Iohn, to be lawfull.

 

The Rej. therfore resolveth us, that He doth so: and also chalengeth the Repl. for saying nothing to disprove him. Vpon this provocation, it is necessarie to say some-thing against these patrones of Circumcision. Where it is to be marked, that the quaestion is of Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies devized by man for signification of morall duties; whether it be lawfull, for a Churche repraesentative, (suche as our Convocation) to appoint, and urge Circumcision, in this kinde, and to this purpose, upon those Christians whoe are under their power?

 

  1. Now of this quaestion in the formal state of it, I finde not, that scarce any doubt was amonge understanding Christians, before this Def. and Rej. being

Page  275

urged therto by direct consequence from their principles, have now found it necessarie, to mainteyne the affirmative part, for defence of our beggerly Ceremonies.

 

Ther was some difference betwixt Hierome, & Augustine, about observing of legall Rites, & in speciall about Circumcision (as appeareth out of the Epistles which passed betwixt them, yet exstant) but both of thē agreed on this, that as well to Iew, as Gentile, all religious use of Circumcision, for Ceremonie, &c. is now after due publication of the Gospel, unlawfull or deadly. All that have written since, agree about the same trueth, except Caietan in one place; who is forsaken & opposed therin by all Papists, the Iesuites themselves not excepted. Our Divines are so confident of this, that from the unlawfulnesse of Circumcision, they usually dispute against other humane Ceremonies: and the Iesuits in answering, are forced to flie unto this (which must be our Def. and Rej. their answer) that the Ceremonies of the olde Testament, are not absolutely abrogated, but onely in regard of their speciall manner, end, & intention. Greg. Valent. tom. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 7. punct. 7. Bellar. de effect. Sacr. l. 2. c. 32. whiche answer is called by D. Fulke (ag. Saund. of images, pag. 672.) a beastly doctrine.

 

But because it were an infinite and needlesse labor, to allege the testimonies whiche may be easily alleged, against Ceremoniall Circumcision, amonge Christians, as unlawfull, I will passe on to reasons against it; that the Rej. may no more say, You say nothing to disprove it.

 

Page  276

  1. First, The onely place, in the New Testament, by which all Divines (as the Rejoynder speaketh, pag. 75.) prove a power in the Churche to constitute Ceremonies, is 1. Cor. 14.26.40. Edification, decencie, order. But the Apostle, in that chapter, doeth no way give leave eyther unto our, or any other Churche to constitute Circumcision for a Ceremonie. Therfore no Churche hath power to constitute Circumcission for a Ceremonie. For Order, and Decencie, no man in his right wits will say that Circumcision commeth under their notion, And as for Edification, it hath been formerly shewed, that it doeth not require new instituted significant Ceremonies, muche lesse a rejected or abrogated Ceremonie, but onely is the ende of orderly and decent cariage of thinges instituted by God.

 

  1. Secondly, no part of the partition wall, betwixt Iewes and Gentiles, may by any Convocation-house, or other Churche be reared up againe. But Circumcision is a part, nay a principall corner-stone of that partition-wall, howsoever it be interpreted, so it be appointed. Ergo.

 

  1. Thirdly, Circumcision cannot be esteemed more lawfull to be instituted for a significant Ceremonie, then a Paschall lambe: and they two being brought into the Churche, what shall hinder (if it please our Convocation house) but the greatest part of the olde Ceremoniall law, may in like manner follow? For the Rejoynder cap. 2. sect. 6. acknowlegeth no other limites, or boundes for nomber of suche Ceremonies, then the judgement of those to whose discretion it belongeth

Page  259

to judge therof.

 

  1. In the fourth place, It is not lawfull for any Churche to impose Ceremoniall burdens upon Christians. But Circumcision is a great burden to them upon whome it is imposed: as our Convocation men would confesse, if it were imposed upon them. Ergo.

 

  1. Fiftly, It is not lawfull for any Churche, or Convocation-house, to usurpe authoritie over the bodies of men, especially unto bloud. But appointing of Circumcision is usurping of authoritie over mens bodies, to the shedding of bloud. Ergo. Adde unto this, that the Convocation-house may better appointe, that all English men, should have their lippes, or their eares pared, or theyr eares nayled to theyr Parish-Churche dore, for signification of that dutie, which they are bounde to performe with their eares and lippes, then suche Circumcision as is in use with the Iewes, and Prester-Iohn. These thinges considered, I thinke ther is no reasonable man, but will sooner reject our Ceremonies, for bringing suche a foul tayle after them, (as that our Convoca•ion may cause all English-men to be Circumcized) then admitte of Circumsicision, for love of our paultrie Ceremonies.

 

  1. Presently after the Def. had excused Iewish Rites, if they were used without Iewi•h opinion, he cōfesseth (without distinction) that all Iewish-Rites are abolished. Wherin the Repl. noted a contradiction. But the Rejoynder (to helpe at a dead lift) distinguisheth betwixt Iewish Ceremonies, as they were typicall or figurative

Page  278

and necessarie, and Iewish Ceremonies, as they are morally significant, and free. Now for necessitie and freedome, enough hath been spoken in the first part. In the other distinction, he disliketh nothing but typicall signification: so that (in his imagination) any Iewish Ceremonie may be now used, and by our Convocation-house imposed upon us, if typicall signification of Christ to come be taken from it. And is not this a Christian doctrine of Ceremonies; that sacrifying of a lam•e to signifie Christ allready come (as D. Reinolds ag. Hart. cap. 8. div. 4. doeth conclude from the like answer of Hart• is now lawfull? It may be he will answer, that he doeth not allow of Ceremonies signifying Christ at all.

 

But it hath been formerly shewed, that our signe o• the Crosse doeth immediately and directly signifie Christ his death upon the Crosse.

 

But let all this be as the Rej. would have it: what i• this for the defense of the Def. whoe sayd even now▪ that a Iewish Rite, without a Iewish opinion, is not unlawfull; and then addeth, that yet it is more safe to inven• new Ceremonies, then those Iewish rites now abolished? Is • Iewish Rite used without a Iewish opinion, typicall▪ Or is it onely lesse safe, to use abolished types, then new invented Ceremonies? This is nothing else but to make ropes of sande.

 

  1. Vpon the former grante (that all those Iewish rites, which were once Gods institutions, are now abolished) the Repl. concluded, in the wordes of D. Whitakers: Num verò veteres figurae sublatae sunt, ut locus

Page  279

esset novis? Num Divinae sublatae sunt, ut humanae succede•ent? Are Divine Ceremonies abolished, that humane may be erected in their place?

 

The Rej. heerupon complaineth of manifest abusing and perverting D. Whitaker his wordes. And why so, I pray? 1. D. Whitaker spake of Divine figures, and the Repl. by corrupt translation maketh him to speak of Divine Ceremonies. As if D. Whitakers did understand by •igures typicall praefigurations of thinges to come onely, in his di•pute against the Papists, whoe by Bellarmine in that place confesse, the Ceremonies of the old Testament were figures of the new Testament, and therefore when the thing it selfe is come should cease.*

 

And what else could he understand, but significant Ceremonies? Doeth not the Rej. rather pervert D. Whitakers meaning, in making him to conclude against typicall praefigurations, which Bellarmine did as well disclaime, as himself?

 

  1. He cuts off by the wast, D. Whitakers his sentence, sayth the Rej. Let us therfor take-in the next wordes, according to the Rej. his owne translation: Therfore if the Ceremonies of Moses were removed because they were typicall, why should not the Popish Ceremonies be removed which are not lesse typicall? Is not this above the wast, against significant Ceremonies? Certainely It was not the meaning of D. Whitaker to charge the Papists with typicall praesignifications of Christ yet to come: and therfore he must needes understand, by typicall, significant Ceremonies.

 

Page  262

  1. The wholl• intention sayth he) w•s, to condemne the Popish Ceremonie, as necessarie, or Sacramentall, But this could not be so: because Bellarmine in that place, first answereth about their figurative nature, and then after addeth:*to that which is objected of the number and weight of popish lawes. 4. D. Wh. (addeth he) did all•w of humane signi•icant Rites: as certayn Feasts. Now if D. Wh. yeelding something to the streame of time, and custome, did account some suche humane institutions tolerable, that is nothing to the purpose. For we urge here his generall rule onely: of Feasts we shall after answer. In the meane time, concerning D. Wh. his generall sentence of humane significant Ceremonies, let these his wordes be considered: Bellarmin saith, the Ceremonies are instituted of the Church to help the ruder sort. I answer the rude are not to be instracted with Ceremonies, God hath given Scripture that out of them the rude may draw instruction.* And it is to be observed, that D. Wh. in that place confuteth the one and thirtie Chapter of Bell. his s•cond booke, de effectu Sacram. But the confutation of the two and thirtie Chapter is wholly wanting: in whiche this Argument was to be handled, in defence of Calvins, Chemnitius, and Brentius his reason: God would have this difference betweene us and the Iewes, teaching them as children by sencible signes, us, as men more simply without signes.* Now that D. Wh. in his Lectures passed over that Chapter with silence, it is not credible; but it seemeth rather, that honest Mr. Allēson found his sentence there so crosse to our English tenents about Ceremonies, that he durst not set forth his wordes in

Page  281

printe. For of D. Wardes fidelitie, in setting forth what Mr. Allenson had praepared for the presse (ne verbulo immutato) cannot without wronge be doubted of.

 

  1. For the backinge of the former consequence, this reason was added, by the Repl. If it had been the will of God, that we should be taught, by other signes, then those which are appointed in the N. Testament: He could easily, and would surely, eyther have chosen some of the olde, for that use, or appointed some new in their places. The Rej. his answer is, that God willeth humane significant teaching Ceremonies, onely permissively, not praeceptively. Of which distinction I know not well what to make: as being uncertayn whether he meaneth, that God hath onely permitted in generall, that Christians may be taught (if men shall thinke fitting) by humane signes; or that he hath commanded that in generall, and onely permitted the particulars to mens discretion! Howsoever, those whoe usurpe this authoritie, must shew good evidence of this permissive will of God, before we can finde our selves, eyther praeceptively, or permissively willed of God, to subject our selves unto their institutions. But that evidence we have hitherto exspected in vayne. The Rej. to darken the cause objecteth, that It is Gods will, that we should worship him constantly in one set place, at suche an houre, in suche an order; and yet these are not praescribed by God. Where it is not true that it is Gods will, to have us bound constantly to one place, time, and order of worship. 2. So farr as we can discerne Gods will for to have us use any one place, time, and order, we discerne

Page  282

that will to be praeceptive, and not meerly permissive.

 

For all knowe, that God hath commanded most convenient place, time, and order, for to be observed in his service: When therfore (all circumstances considered) we finde this place, time, and order, most convenient, we observe it as commanded of God. The like cannot be sayd of our Ceremonies: except first it be shewed, that God hath commanded humane significant Ceremonies in generall: and after it be made apparant, that our significant Ceremonies are more convenient for us, then others.

 

  1. The Def. having given a reason, why it is safer to invent new Ceremonies, then to use those olde ones of the Iewes: because they might ingender an opinion of necessitie: and so might bringe in all the Leviticall law: was answered by the Repl. 1. that though more danger may be in some respect, on the one side, yet more may be absolutely on the other. To this (though it be evident) the Rej. answereth with a bare deniall. 2. The Repl. observed, that the inventing of new humane Ceremonies have ingendred an opinion of necessitie in them: and have brought in all the Popish law of Rites: so that the comparison, even in these respects, may be quaestioned.

 

The Rej. heer first observeth, that it was formerly alleged out of Calv. Ep. 259. that the originall of all humane Ceremonies was, that men would needes forge new worships of God. In whiche wordes, he findeth more then any other man can: opinion of necessitie: and upon that

Page  283

accuseth the Repl. of I know not what varying uncertaintie, without any reason at all. Afterward, he observeth, that Iewish Ceremonies have more colour of necessitie, because of their first Divine institution.

 

Now let that be so: yet if preaching, or the Churches sentence declared in a Convocation, be sufficient to remove from Ceremonies all false opinion (as the Def. and Rej. would persuade us) that maketh no suche difference, but that the comparison may still be quaestioned.

 

SECT. 7. Concerning Images, &c.

  1. A Third reason brought against significant Ceremonies, was, that they open a gap to Images, &c. where the Reader must remember, or consider, that the meaninge is: Images instituted for signification of morall duties, may as well be set up in Churches, as Crosse and Surplice. The Def. his answer was (to passe over superfluitie of wordes) that Images are not to be accounted Popish, or unlawfull, but onely in regard of superstitious adoration. Wherunto it was replied, that then Cassanders Images (not for adoration, but for information & incitement) are not Popish: whiche the Rej. doeth not onely grante, but also proveth it, by the consent of Calvin himselfe, Instit. lib. 1. capit. 11. sect. 12. where he sayth, that Historical Images, or Pictures, may have

Page  284

some use, in teaching, and putting, in remembrance.

 

Now for this, let it be considered, that Calvin in that section, speaketh onely of ordinarie pictures, for teaching and putting in remembrance of that which they repraesent of themselves, without any Ecclesiasticall institution, as certayne wordes written doe signifie a certayne meaning, without any speciall institution. Suche (it may be) would be the picture of Ananias in a white Surplice, signifying with other pictures agreable to the storie, that Paul esteemed and called him a whited wall, Act. 23.3. But in the very next section, which is the thirteenth, Calvin, disputing against setting up of any Images in Churches, doeth sufficiently declare, that he allowed of no Ceremoniall religious use of Images, suche as is of our Crosse, and Surplice.

 

  1. The Replier alleged against this defense of Ceremoniall religiouse use of Images, especially in Churches, the common consent of our Divines. Against this, the Rej. first opposeth Luther and the Lutherans: and then asketh if they be none of our Divines? To whiche I answer, that they are in most maine poyntes our Divines: but about this buisinesse they are no more our, then about Vbiquitie, Consubstantiation, &c. for whiche they disclaime us, even the wholle Churche of England, as no part of the Catholicke Churche, but Sectaries, Sacramentarians, &c. Secondly, the historie of Luther about Images is well knowen: how in opposition to Carolastadius, whoe brake downe Images without his consent, he would have them to be tolerated, onely for a tyme, untill men were more fully instructed.

Page  285

But that he allowed them for good Ceremonies of religion, that cannot be shewed. Mr. Foxe, in the storie of Luther, hath this: Luther misliked the rashnesse of Caro•astadius, in stirring up the people, to throw down Images, without authoritie, and before the people were taught, that Images serve to no purpose. Not that he would mainteyne Images (as he sayd) to stand, or to be suffered: but that this ought to be doen by the Magistrate &c. This was Luther enforced unto, by the slanderers, that accused Protestantes of sedition and tumultes, &c. This is no argument, for the Magistrate to let Images stand; whoe may and should remove them, and will not. The cause why Luther did so stand with the standing of Images, was time, and not his owne judgement. He wished them away. Nay (as Zuinglius relateth) he turned them, some with their feet upward, and some with their faces toward the wall, & their backes to the people, for to make them not religious, but ridiculous. Thirdly, the Lutherans make this one of their controversies, against Calvin, Beza, &c. whether Images may be tollerated in Churches, or in religious use. Fourthly, Polanus (whoe was borne amonge the Lutherans in Silesia) in Ezech. cap. 11. testifieth, that the Lutheran Images, are worshipped of most Lutherans, &c. and therefore are Idoles to be avoyded.* And will the Rej. then defende the Lutheran use of Images?

 

  1. In the next place, the Rej. asketh, in mumminge fashion, if Vrsinus, Iunius, & Mr. Perkins be not of our Divines? or if they doe not acknowlege an historicall use of Images lawfull? To whiche I answer, that they are in our consenting Divines.

 

Page  286

For Vrsine, his wordes are plaine (parte 2. pag. 45. they must needs have large consciences,*who blush not to recken a thing of the worst example, and from heathenish rite, and custome brought into the Church, not without the great disgrace and hurt thereof, among indifferent things. Where it must be observed, that he disputed against Flaccius Illiricus, about Images, even in the Lutheran use, which our Def. and Rej. mainteine. Iunius also is ours. His words are these (adv. Bell. de Imagin. lib. 2. cap. 12. v. 30. It is Gods cause and ours (as is plaine out of the word, that neyther his Image nor Christs, nor any of the Saincts for a religious end, be sett up in any place (specialy that is appointed for Gods worship) or at any time without his order. Verily those Images are to be reckened not onely among things Superfluous,*but Scathie and Forbidden things. Mr. Perkins (being in every mans handes) may be easily consulted with, upon the second Commandement, and in his treatise of Idolatrie.

 

  1. Beza, with his fellow Ministers of Geneva, are next brought in, whoe allowed many pictures, to be set forth in the Frenche Bible. Beza his judgement (even of Lutheran Images) is plaine in his answer to Westphalus, a Lutheran, capit. 36. The placing of Images in Churches we thinke a 1000. times flatly forbidden by the word of God. Whosoever would see Bezas resolute judgement, about the Lutheran use of Images, which the Def. approveth of,* let him looke upon his Antithesis ad th•s. 4. Witenbergentium, in Colloquio Mompelgardensi: & ad Colloquium Mompelgardense, parte 2. And he shall finde enough to satisfie him, not onely about Bezas judgement, but (if he

Page  287

be a good Protestant) concerning the cause, or quaestion it selfe. For no answer of moment could ever be brought forth, by any eyther rigid, or gentle Lutheran, from that time, unto this day.

 

As for those pictures in the Frenche Bible, they are not significant Ceremonies of religious use by speciall institution; but suche signes as Characters or letters, concerning whiche, answer is given, in the first section of this Chapter, out of Alexander Hales: They signifie holy things not as they are holy, but as they are things.*

 

The Rej. therfore fore-seeing what would be answered, goeth about to praevent it, by saying, that the Def. condemneth all religious use of Images, properly so called, 1. e. whose determination must be to God-ward, as Polanus in 2. Praecep. expresseth the meaning. Whiche expression I cannot finde in Polanus, but this to our purpose: Images are not to be allowed in Churches for laymens books.*

 

Neyther can the Def. or Rej. denie all religious use of Images, properly so called; except they denie significant Images, appointed for commonefaction and institution of men in religious duties, to be a religious use. Whiche if they could have doen, they needed not have admitted Images into the same ranke with their income significant Cerimonies, accidentall parts of religious worship. By this also is answered that which he addeth of simple hystoricall use of Images, as separated from all religious use.

 

  1. Of having Images for religious use, the negative is defended by Calvin, and the affirmative by Bellarmine, de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 9. in which quaestion, it was

Page  288

observed by the Replier, that the Def. taketh Bell. his part.

 

The Rejoynder heere first maketh a kinde of doubt, whether Calvin did not therin contradict himself! But not trusting to that, he addeth, that the quaestion was, whether Images may be well (rectè) placed in Churches? because thinges lawfull in them selves, are not lawfull in all times & places to be used. Now the meer looking upon that Chapter of Bell. will praesently manifest, that Calvin, calling Images in Temples, Idolatrous signes sett up wherewith the Churches are defiled,* never meant so to minse the matter, as to make them lawfull, but not expedient. And in deed, if Images may be used for commonefaction, and institution, as Ecclesiasticall significant Ceremonies, ther can be no reason given, why they should be shutte out of the Churche, where Ecclesiasticall significant Ceremonies have their cheifest use.

 

This is certayn, that the Def. expressly denieth the bringing in of Images into Churches, for some suche uses as Bellarmine speaketh of, cap. 10. For instruction, and erudition, for stirring up unto ímitation, and for praeserving of the memorie of Christ, and Saincts, he denieth (I say) this to be any part of Popis• use or abuse about Images, when he sayth, that Onely in regard of superstitious adoration, the use of Images is to be called Popish.

 

  1. It was added by the Repl. that the Def. his assertion is directly against the Homilie against the perill of Idolatrie, unto which we are bounde to subscribe. If this be true (sayth the Rejoynder) the Bishop deserveth to be suspended: the Replier, if it be untrue. Now I doe not desire

Page  289

that he alone, (separated from the rest eyther partaker of the same or guiltie of equall faults,) should be supended: but I dare adventure my suspension, against his, that neyther he nor the Rej. can clear his assertion, from direct contradiction unto that Homilie. I will take no other wordes for proof of that which the Repl. sayth, then that founde in a booke written against Mr. Richard Mountague, about the like sentence, called A dangerous Plot, &c. pag. 94. and 95. where these wordes are quoted out of that Homilie: The words Idoll and Image, be words of divers tongues, and soundes: yet used in the Scripture indifferently, for one thinge allways. To bringe Images into the Churches, is a foul abuse, and great enormitie. They be forbidden, and unlawfull. They are not thinges indifferent, nor tollerable. If the Def. will say, that his assertion is not contrarie to these wordes, then I am contented, that his suspension should be deferred longer then Mr. Mountagues promotion was, after he had written this, and suche like scandalous doctrines, tending directly to the overthrow of our religion. And this reason may be alleged for him: that Mr. Mountague in some poyntes went so farre beyonde D. Morton, that he reckoneth him amonge the Puritan Bishops.

 

  1. The Repl. noted also, that the Def. his assertion confirmeth Bellarmines foul wordes, whoe sayth, that the Apologie of the Churche of England lyeth, in affirminge the Councell of Franckford to have decreed the abolishing of Images: de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 8. because the onely answer is that which Iunius (in his notes upon that chapter) giveth: He that forbiddeth Images to be worshiped,

Page  290

doeth forbid having of Images worshipable, especially in Churches: which answer this Def. doeth flatly denie. The Rej. answereth, that the meaning of B. Iuel, in that place of the Apologie, was, not that the Councel did simplie take away Images, but contrarie to the Councel of Nice, which required the adoration of them. But 1. If these wordes doe not shew Iuels meaning, yet certainly they declare Iunius his minde and judgement, plainely. How then dare the Rej. avouche Iunius to have allowed Images worshipable? 2. Iuel his words are: Charles the Great had a Councell at Franckford, contrarie to the 2. Nicen Councel, concerning the taking away of Images: where the taking away is not limited by contrarietie to the Nicen Councel, but manifestly explaineth the sentence wherin that contrarietie did mainly consist. 3. Learned Iuel knew, how to write plainely, so that his wordes and meaning may be understood. Now what his judgement was of Images for religious use, (adoration set a part) apeareth evidently, as in his 14. Article, so especially in that notable and Propheticall sentence of his, concerning the Image of the Crosse of Christ, as it was in some place or places of England: Si illa mala Crux stat, nos cadimus. If that evill Crosse stand▪ wee (or our religion) must fall.

 

This is related by D. Humphrie, in the historie of B. Iuels life and death, a litle before the ende. And in very deed, except those which write against the Papists, doe refute all Images instituted for religious signification, they doe not make any difference bewixt us, and a great part of Popish Doctors. For (as Bilson, against the Iesuites Apologie, pag. 572. well observeth) this is

Page  291

the doubt, betwixt us and the Papists, whether we should not content our selves, with suche meanes as God hath devized for us, and commended unto us, therby dayly to renue the memorie of our Redemption; or else invent others of our owne heads? Nay if we admitte of significant Images, as religious Ceremonies, I would fain know how we in England can condemne, those that wor•hip before them, or them commemoratively, or recordatively, as Petrus de Crabrera (in 3. q. 25. a 3. disp. 2. n. 35.) speaketh, and Vasquez defendeth to be the common tenet of the Romish Doctors. For that is nothing else, but at the beholding of a Crucifixe, or suche like Image, and calling to minde Christ, and our dutie to him, upon the same to worship him whiche (upon the supposition of their religious signification lawfull) can hardly be condemned by those which hould kneeling at the Communion good.

 

Concerning Oyle, Lighte, Spitle, Creame and H. Water.

  1. In the Abrigement, unto Images were joyned Oyle, Lights, Spitle, Cream, and Holy Water. But it pleased the Def. to passe over Lights, and Cream, untouched. And concerning Oyle and Spitle, by the Rejoynder his owne correction of the Repliers collection, his answer is: that they, having their birth and being from an Apish imitation of a miraculous imployment of them, are therfo•e to be kept out of doores, though some significant Ceremonies be let in. Now this is no answer (as the Replier observed) except the miraculous using of any thing doeth forbid, that it should at any time after be used for signification.

Page  292

Whiche the Rej. would neyther affirme, nor denie; but onely calleth it a flout. But it is suche a flout, as being granted, it ca•hiereth the Crosse, as being above all other Ceremonies for fame of miracles wrought by it, and the Surplice also, as being, in part, an Apish imitation of the Angels miraculous apparitions in white. But the trueth is: our Prelats doe place it in the Churches power, to retayne, as Ceremonies of Baptisme, Chrisme, Salt, Candles, Exorcismes, Ephata, and the Consecration of the Water, so well as the Crosse. These are the very wordes of Lancelot Andrues, the late famous B. of Winchester, in his answer to the 18. Chapter of Cardinall Perrons Replie, pag. 12. or sect. 17. For Holy Water, his more distinct answer was, that their (i. e. Papists) sprinkling of water upon the People, for remembrance of their Baptisme, if it were applied onely for to make them often mindfull, and carefull to keep their vow of Christianitie, made once to God in Baptisme, it might be called a morall Ceremonie and Christian. But as it is used in Romish Churche, as operative, to the purging of venialb sinnes, and driving away of Devills, it is Popish and execrable. I am constreyned to repeat the Def. his wordes, that they may discover the vanitie of the Rej. his exceptions against the replie to them opposed: which was, that Calvin Inst. lib. 4. cap. 10. s. 20. And Iunius in Bellarmine de Cultu Sanctorum, libr. 3. cap. 7. n. 8. were of another minde: &c.

 

The Rejoynder 1. blameth the Replier for making shew, as if the Def. were fairely inclined to let in the use of Holy Water: But without any cause, except he will denie the Def. to be fairely inclined, to let in the use of

Page  293

a morall Christian Ceremonie, as the Defender calleth it. 2. He observeth, that the Def. named not H. Water, but sprincking of Water upon the People. Now the Rej. sayth expresly thus: Wee come to that which they (the Papists) call H. Water their (i.e. the Papists) sprinkling of Water upon the People, &c. confounding plainely these two termes. 3. He noteth, that the Defender did not say it may be, but it might be called Christian: that is (by the Rejoynder his interpretation) if superstition had not stayned it. Now I cannot see any difference betwixt that which the Replier sayth, it may be accounted Christian, were it not for this or that; and this of the Rejoynders: It might be so accounted, if it were not for this or that. But if a staine of superstition, doeth hinder, that a humane Ceremonie cannot be after called Christian, though that superstition be taken from it, by doctrine & profession, what will become of our Ceremonies, which the Rejoynder doeth so labour to mainteyne as Christian, that he hath scarce one threed left about him drie, or free from his sweating? 4. He denieth the Defender to have sayd, that were it not for the operative power which is ascribed unto it, it might be accounted Christian.

 

Wherin whosoever will but look upon the Defender his owne wordes, even now quoted, must needes wonder, what subtill difference the Rejoynder can conceyve betwixt his formall wordes as onely making mindfull, it is Christian, but not as operative: and that sense which he denieth. 5. Because both the Defender and Rejoynder doe make so muche of operative vertue ascribed by the Popish Doctors unto Holy Water, for

Page  294

cleansing from veniall sinnes, as that therin they place all the Poperie and fault of it: let them knowe, that diverse of the best learned amonge them doe flatly denie it. As Estius in 4. pag. 14. Some speake improbably, that Holy Water Con•erreth remission of venial sinne, onely by the deed done.* Vasquez in 3. disp. 128. cap. 5. ar. 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial sinne, nor were instituted for any such end, but to stir up the mind to abandon them. Now as for necessitie,* wherwith the Rejoynder would put off Calvin: Bellarmin himselfe (de Pontif. l. 4. c. 18.) answereth: It is an admonition or holy institution onely whithout any obligation to a fault if it be omitted.*They sinn not who (without contempt) do not Sprinkle themselves with Holy Water, when they enter the Church. Iunius his wordes are so full and plaine, that they admitte no answer: no humane ordination can make it good. 6. The Rep. conclusion: that suche sprinkling of water as the Def. alloweth, may perhaps be called I•wish: but not Christian, without taking Christs name in vayne; cannot be eluded by the Rejoynder his comparatively Christian, no more then some uncleannesse may be called Christian, in comparison of filthinesse contrarie to nature.

 

  1. In the following passages, concerning abuse o• imposing humane Ceremonies, and P. Martyrs, judgement, nothing is worth the answering, which hath not been formerly cleared. Onely about that which the Def. affirmeth, concerning the shutting up of the gap, which was sayd to be opened by this doctrine of humane significant Ceremonies, in Gods worship, something must be answered unto the Rejoynder his fierce

Page  295

accusations. 1. The Rejoynder asketh, If any more significant Ceremonies have been brought-in this threescore yeares? To whiche I answer, first that ther have been of late more bringing in of Altars, with bowing unto thē, then was before: and at Durrham, the third Seat of our Def. more superstitious observations are now sayd to be urged, then in threescore yeares before. Secondly, it is wel knowen, that in threescore yeares, ther have scarce any generall significant Ceremonies been newly brought into the Churche of Rome: yet Chamier (tom. 2. pag. 1299.) answereth to the like evasion: We are to regard not onely what is brought in, but what may be brought in. For while such authority is challenged, the •oke ìs not certaine, but wavering.* 2. Because the Replier sayd, that the gap is every day made wider and wider by suche defences as this is, which allow of Images themselves, for some religious use; because by this meanes any Crucifixe may come in, that is not greater then the Churche doore: the Rejoynder accuseth him of a steeled conscience, if he doeth not bleed for suche an injurious jest of falshood, tending to bring them into suspicion, and hatred: so that in his charitie, we can no longer be accounted syncere men. And I pray you why? Forsooth the Def. doeth not allow all Images, and in Churches too, and for religious use. Now (if his heat be over) let him consider the Def. his wordes, cited, allowed, and mainteyned by himselfe, pag. 291. the use of Images, onely in regard of superstitious adoration, is to be called Popish, and not true. What distinction is heer betwixt Images? though he was not by the Replier accused, as favouring all Images, but onely

Page  296

a Crucifixe. And let him tell us, if he doeth (or can by his groundes) disalow of all Crucifixes? or if ther be no use of suche Images, in Churches, but onely for superstitious adoration? or if ther be no religious use of a significant Image beside adoration? The case is so plaine, that every man may see the Rejoynder in this place, breaking out into an intemperat passion, for want of a reasonable answer to that which he was ashamed to confesse.

 

  1. The Rejoynder confessing that our Prelates can when they please, open the gap, to many other Ceremonies like to these which now they urge upon us, addeth notwithstanding, that the Replier his spirit in saying so, transported him, to involve his Maiestie, and the State, by an uncharitable surmize. And that this gap shall never be opened, unlesse our janglings, and our sinnes bring Gods displeasure upon our land. Now alas, what involving is this of Civill powers, to say, that the Prelats, by their permission, may bring in threescore Ceremonies, as well as three. And what humane religious Ceremonies can be brought into England, without our sinnes desert? As for his intermixing of our janglings, as a possible cause, it is not worth any jangling.

 

Concerning the second Commandement.

  1. One Argument is yet to be handled, eyther omitted, or (as the Rejoynder sayth) put off unto another place, by the Defendant. The Argument standeth thus: The second Commandement forbiddeth to make unto our selves, the likenesse of any thinge whatsoever,

Page  297

for religious use: as Bucer, Iuel, Fulke, Andrews and Bilson doe interpret it. Therfore to make, appoint, or use significant Ceremonies, of mans devizing, is unlawfull.

 

The Rejoynder answereth, in general, that Religious use, by these fore-named Authors, is taken. 1. For worship to the Image: 2. Worship to God, by the Image: and not simply, that whiche may any ways conferre to the furtherance of Religion. Wherin, he sayth nothing but trueth, and yet no trueth at all to the purpose: except he understandeth in the that which he affirmeth, onely, 1. e. that they meant no more, but worshiping to, and by: and in that he denieth, by simply, no difference, betwixt any of those thinges that help forth or further Religion: as if civill circumstances, and instituted religious Ceremonies, were all one. And if this be his meaning, it requireth more then his simple testimonie, to confirme it.

 

  1. For the backing of this Argument, it was first observed by the Replier, that the word likenesse, used in the second Commandement, is generall, and comprehendeth under it, all religious similitudes: because they are homogeneall to Images, there expresly forbidden. To this the Rejoynder answereth nothing: but onely sayth, that our Ceremonies are not religious similitudes in suche a sense as the Commandement intendeth, and Divines understand. And that the Replier speaketh ignorantly: because the Commandement doeth as expresly forbid suche similitudes, as any graven Images.

 

Now the first of these sayinges, we cannot understand, untill the Rejoynder explaineth him self, what that

Page  298

sense is, in which the Commandement intendeth to forbid all religious similitudes? As for the second, to leave the Repliers ignorance unto the readers judgemēt, more in it is granted, then was demanded: viz: that all religious similitudes are expresly forbidden in the second Commandement.

 

  1. It was secondly added by the Replier, that significant Ceremonies are externall actes of religious worship, even as they are used to further devotion▪ Suarez, in 3. q. 65. ar. 4. Bell. de Eff. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 29, and 31. and therfore being invented by man, of the same nature with Images, by which, and at which, God is worshiped. The Rejoynder here (for want of a better answer) flieth to his olde Sanctuarie, of meritorious, necessarie, and immediat worship grosly held by Papists of their Ceremonies, whether th•y be significant, or not significant. But he hath in the former part of this writing, been so beaten out of this burrow, that we need not againe spend time in digging about it. Let any man looke upon the places quoted, and he shall finde, that (merit necessitie, and immediatnesse set a part) significant Ceremonies are externall acts of religious worship: which was all that this argument required. And I dare leave it (though not to the Rejoynder yet) to D. Burgesses judgement, if merit, necessitie, be thinges eyther cheifly, or at all, forbidden in the second Commandement, more then in any other? Certainly, meritorious conceites are generally forbidden: but in no one Commandement specially: and necessarie binding of Conscience by man, belongeth to the first. The Replier looking for an answer

Page  299

something like this, of essentiall and accidentall worship, for praeventing of it, sayd that suche a distinction would help no more heer, then that of the Papists, betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

 

For this the Rejoynder accuseth him of an uncharitable heart, and an unlearned head. But I see no cause: as hath been fully shewed in the confutation of that distinction, both in the first part of this writing, and also in the second Argument, or Chapter, of this part. Yet because the Rejoynder is so impatient, of hearing his distinction of essentiall and accidentall worship, compared with the Papists vaine distinctions: let any man consider a litle the Popish distinctions, which Rivetus hath well noted and expressed in his Cases, on the second Commandement: Worship religious is either of it selfe, or by accident proper or improper of it selfe,* or some other thing, for it self, or in regard of another. Primarie or secondarie, proper or Analogicall. Absolute or respective, simple or according to some respect. Direct, or reductive, perfect or imperfect. And compare with them the Rej. his distinctions of Ceremonies, and worship, in the first part examined. I doubt not, but he will say, they come neerer together, in the very termes, then one would have exspected.

 

  1. The Replier in the next place, argued from the affirmative part of the second Commandement, unto the negative, thus: This Commandementinjoigneth obedience to all the worship appointed by God, all which was significative, Heb. 8.5. and 10.1. therfor it forbiddeth any significative Ceremonies to be brought

Page  300

in to the worship of God, devized by man: &c. The Rejoynder heer 1. answereth out of Mr. Cartwright, that the Affirmative part injoineth us, to use suche as himself doeth approve in his word. Now though in that edition of Mr. Cartw. his Catechisme printed an. 1611. the affirmative part is thus expressed: Doe that which I command thee, and doe no more; Yet that which he quoteth, out of another edition, is enough to cashier all humane significant Ceremonies. For what can be more plainely spoken against them, then that onely suche outward means must bee used in Gods worship as himself hath a•lowed▪ But (sayth the Rejoynder) Mr. Cartw. reckoneth the reverend gestures of the body, amonge those outward meanes▪ What then? Then bodily gestures in religious actions are eyther determined by God, or may be lawfully appointed for signification, by man. A strange consequence: as if, when God allowed for an offering eyther a payre of Pigeons, or two Turtle doves, without particular determination, the Priests might have appointed for signification, that onely two Turtle doves should be offered!

 

His second answere is, that all worship of God among the Iewes, was not significant in his sence of significant. What his sence is, I know not: but the sence and words of the Replier his argument, was of worship appointed, or instituted, beyond that which is naturaall, or necessarie, without any institution, except the law written in every mans heart, be an institution; which hee seemeth not to haue conceiued.

 

14 The last consideration by the Replier propounded was, that significant Ceremonies, which are by institution,

Page  301

must needs belong vnto the second Commandement; as he that maketh an accurate distinction of the Commandements, will presently see: but to man the second Commandement is (in regard of making) wholly negatiue. Ergo. The Rej. answereth first, that significant Ceremonies may belong rather to the third Commandement, as D. Ames referreth them; or accidentally to the fourth. Now as for accidentall belonging to this or that Commandement, it is not in question. To the third Commandement they cannot be directly referred, according to that distinction of the Commandements, which the Rej. himselfe produceth, in the next words as accurate. As for D. Ames, let any man looke vpon his Medulla, lib. 2. cap. 13. th. 34.35.36. and he shall see how the Rej. mistook him.

 

His second answere consisteth in distinguishing the Commandements of the first Table: Wherein (to let other things passe) he maketh the second to prouide, that from God wee take the prescription of all that, by use of which we may really worship him, and esteeme him to be truely and properly honoured of vs: and the Third to prouide, that in all acts of his worship, we carry our selues syncerely and reverently, from this hee concludeth, that the right use of Ceremonies, belong rather to the third Commandement, then to the second, as touching their end. Of this I know not well what to make: 1. The argument was of significant Ceremonies, in regard of their institution and making, the Rej. answereth, touching their end. 2. Touching their end, I cannot vnderstand (nor I thinke any man else) how the proper end of the

Page  302

Crosse in Baptisme, should be syncerity and reverence; except mixture of humane inventions with Gods ordinances be syncerity; and presumption of doing so, be reverence. 3. If the second Commandement doeth provide that we take from God the praescription of all reall worship; then also of significant Ceremonies, except they be phantasticall worship: and yet euen figmenta cerebri, cordisve humani, the very phantasies, or images of the minde, not prescribed by God, are (by the most interpreters) held as well forbidden, as outward reall images. If the same Commandement do•th binde us to Gods prescription, in all true worship; then humane significant Ceremonies, being not prescribed by God, are fa•se worship. If also in proper true worship; then they are onely metaphoricall worship, like unto true worship, or at least tropicall; which hath beene sufficiently confuted in the first part, and in the second Chapter of this.

 

The third answere given by the Rej. is, that in the second Commandemēt, nothing is forbidden, as touching making, but the instituting, or fancying of our owne meere devises, as an immediate meanes of worshipping God thereby. The force lieth in those two termes, meer devises, and immediate meanes of worship. Now for the distinction betwixt immediate and mediate worship, it hath beene sufficiently canvized in the first part. The other evasion, of meer humane devises, is the common refuge of Iesuites, when they are pressed with this argument. So Bellarmine (de effectu Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 32.) to Calvin, alleging that all humane will-worship is condemned in Scripture, * answereth: That is called humane

Page  303

and will-worship which is meerely humane. &c. but what the Church teacheth is of another nature. Beside, lay these two termes together, and then this is Pes computi: mans devises may be euen immediate meanes of worship, if they be not meerely mans.

 

15 In vie of those grounds, laid by the Repl. against humane significant Ceremonies, out of the second Commandement, the Rej. by way of Reconvention faineth two grounds to the contrary: the first whereof is taken from supposed true worship, & meanes necessarily inducing thereto, as onely forbidden in the second Commandement: and the second, from our placing the worship of God, in forbearing these Ceremonies, which he hath not commanded us to fo•bear. Now to both these earthy dead grounds (or Capita mortua) answer hath been given in the first part; partly in the chapter of Superstition, and partly in that of Difference betwixt our and Popish Ceremonies. So that nothing need heer be added. Yet in few wordes, 1. He forgetteth himself muche, in distinguishing significant Ceremonies (which he confesseth to be some kinde of worship) from true worship; except he will confesse them to be false worship. 2. He considered not what he writte, when he speaketh of meanes necessarily inducing to true worship. For no Papist ever conceyted, that their Ceremonies, were eyther necessarie to true worship, as if no true worship could be without them: or necessarily inferring true worship, as if he that used them, howsoever he did it, must needes performe true worship: and yet one of these senses must needes be the meaning of that phraze, if it hath any

Page  304

meaning at all. 3. He taketh the wholle quaestion for wonne, or granted, when he speaketh of our forbearance of that, which God hath not commanded us to forbear: and therupon concludeth thus: God hath not commanded us to forbear humane •ignificant Ceremonies. Ergo.

 

SECT. 7. Concerning the Oath-gesture of Abrahams Servant.

  1. IN this section, the Def. beginneth a confutation of the fore-proved Proposition: All humane Ceremonies, being appropriated to Gods service, if they be ordeyned to teache any spirituall dutie, by their mysticall signification, are unlawfull. His Scripture confutation (for want of rule or praecept) is onely by Examples.

 

Now to omit wordes of no weyght, his first example is Abrahams directing his servant, to put his hand under his thigh, when he did swear. Gen. 24.2. Against this, the Replier first excepted, that in probabilitie, Abraham was not the appointer of this Ceremonie. The Rej. answereth, that this is not materiall to the poynt, what man appointed it, so that it was not of Divine appointment. So that their first proof of Ceremonie appointed by man, is from an example appointed they know not by whome: onely begging of us to grant, that it was not appointed by God, whiche they ought to have proved. Yet the

Page  305

Replier for citing Calvin and Iunius, as leaving it most probable, that is, was an ancient custome before Abraham (which any man looking upon their interpretations, may see to be true) is called by the Rej. a false man in all his allegations. But let that goe.

 

  1. Because the Def. for magnifying of this example, sayd, that ther is not a more Divine service of God, then the taking of an oath; the Replier denied this: affirming the proper, and principall ende of swearing is (not to worship God, but) to confirme a trueth. To this the Rejoynder answereth 1. that so the proper ende of Preaching, Sacraments, Petitioning, is edification of men, confirmation of faith, and obteyning of mercies. Where if he had repeated the Repliers other terme, proper and principall ende, his exception had been at an ende: because the principall ende of these meanes, is to honor God. Beside those very endes which he mentioneth, edification, confirmation of faith, and obteyning of mercie, are illfavoredly distinguished from Gods worship, as no more appertayning to it, then the fidelitie which a Vassall, or Copi-houlder, doeth by oath confirme ordinarily unto his Lord. The Rejoynder his second answer is, the Replier before placed worship in the nature of the action it selfe▪ and yet now placeth it in the ende of the action. As if the nature of an action, may not be gathered from the proper or naturall ende of it! Nay the Replier before declared, that the ende of an instituted meanes, is part of the nature therof, and hath a place in the definition of it.

 

  1. Iackson (in his Originall of unbelief, pag. 327. and 328.) by the difference given of the Replier, doeth well

Page  306

answer the Popish Proctors for Images, who allege as like, the Ceremonie used in an oath: Particular oaths, given onely for satisfaction of men, are not suche proper acts of Gods service, as supplications, thanksgivings, and solemne vowes are. The honor of God would be no whit l•sse, if the use or necessitie of oaths among men, were n••e. In supplications, and thansgivings, it is far otherwise, the more often & solemnely we prayse God, or pray unto him, the more we honor him; because these are direct and immediat• acts of his service, &c.

 

  1. Because the Def. proved nothing to the purpose, about this Gesture, he was required to prove it significative of some spirituall dutie: For it was in probabilitie onely a common signe of subjection, as well out of an oath, as in it, without any respect unto Christ. The Rejoynder in stead of a proof, sayth, that some Ancient and Later Writers doe so conceit. And if the Def. and he also doe conceit it so, we doe not strive with them, about that: but mens conceits are no great proofs. He addeth 2. that if it were a signe of subjection yet might it be significant of a spirituall dutie. But may be, and might be, is no proof.

 

He subjoigneth 3. that it was a common signe used in solemnitie of that kinde, as well out of an oath, as in it; this (sayth he) is barely and boldly affirmed, & implieth a contradiction, as importing other solemnities with•ut an oath, of the same kinde with thi•, wherin was an oath. Now for barenesse, or boldnesse, of a probable conjecture, by way of answer, it should not be objected by him that bringeth meer conceits and might bees, for proving Arguments.

Page  307

And as for contradiction, if he had repeated the word subjection, then he might have discerned signes of that kinde, as well without, as with an oath. By the noting of this also he may see how the Replier herin agreed with Calvin. For no Gesture of subjection to a superior man, is wonte to be proper unto subjection signified in time of swearing.

 

Neyther is the Repliers observation (that as imposition of hands, in those parts, did allways signifie some superioritie: so this underposi•ion of hands was, by proportion, fit to signifie inferioritie, or subjection) this I say was not a meer fiction, as the Rejoynder would have it. For, beside that the meaning was, of the usuall imposing of hands in blessing, wher the lesser is blessed of the greater, as Scripture teacheth: the Rejoynder hath brought but two examples, to infringe the generalitie of it Act. 13.2. Lev. 1.4. and in both of these it houldeth. For they that layd hands on Paul and Silas, did it not onely in the name of the wholle societie, which in suche cases hath some dispensative superioritie over particular members; but allso by Commission from God, which gave them in th•t buisinesse superioritie. And he that brought a beast to be sacrifized, Lev. 1. had certainly power over it. If the Rejoynder could have shewed us, where, and when, a servant imposed his hand upon his Maisters head, or a sonne upon his fathers, that had been to the purpose. Wee on the contrary say with Tostatus on Gen. 47. that the putting under of the hand, was never used, but by an inferior, to his superior.

 

  1. Yet the Rej. hath more to say: namely, that the

Page  308

signe of a servants dutie to which hee is bound by oath, is a mysticall signe of some spirituall dutie: because all the law is spirituall; and obedience to maisters, for conscience sake, is a service of God. Whereto I answere, that I never heard the Hang-mans office, which is servile, called a spirituall dutie; no though he bee bound to it by oath. 2. The oath maketh the thing sworne to, no more spirituall, then a carnall obligation unto it (which may concurre with the obligation of an oath) maketh it carnall. 3. The Law is all spirituall, in the manner; but yet all the workes required by it are not spirituall, nor so esteemed. The Apostle (1. Cor. 6.) distinguisheth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉things pertaining to this life, from spirituall things. All Divines usually distinguish the common morall duties practised by light of nature, from such as are spirituall. 4. Obedience to maisters for conscience sake, is a service, or obedience to God, as it commeth from conscience toward God: but every signe of subjection, is not a signe of it as it commeth from conscience toward God.

 

  1. In the last place, the Replier, supposing all true that hitherto the Def. and Rej. have striven for, yet denieth that any thing could bee concluded from thence, for our Convocation-power in appointing such Ceremonies: because such Prophets as Abraham might doe more then our Convocation.

 

The Rej. heere, would have us shew that this was done by Propheticall inspiration: and because this is not done, he calleth this answere a boulting hole, fit for a distressed and wilfull disputer, whose cause cannot bee defended and yet his stomach will not yeild. But if he had well considered,

Page  309

that it belongeth not properly to the answere, but to the Opponent, to produce reasons; and how vnreasonable it is, for to require a reason proving a thing to be done, of him that iudgeth it false, and onely for disputation sake granteth his adversarie to suppose and take it as true, hee would never have abused so many words by misplacing of them. All these things considered, I doubt not (as the Replier said) but Abrahams servant, if he were heere present, and need required, would sweare, that his example maketh nothing for our Ceremonies.

 

SECT. 10. Concerning Suarez the Iesuite, his stating of the Controversie, betwixt Protestants, and Papists.

  1. IN this section an obiection of ours is brought in, without ranke or file, in the midle of Examples, forgotten (as the Rej. saith) in the proper place. But nothing of moment is answered thereto, either by the Def. or Rej. which is not sufficiently cleared in the first part of this Writing, Chapter the sixt; except the state which Suarez maketh of the question betwixt us and Papists. This therefore (as being very observable) remaineth heere to be declared.

 

  1. The place quoted is in 3. tom. 3. Disp. 15. Sect. 2. The words (as the Replier hath them) are these: The first

Page  310

errour is, that onely those signes which are written, ought to be retained and vsed in the Church. The second, that no outward worship of God is lawfull, but onely that which is appointed by God. The third, that the Church hath not power of commanding, and ordeyning those things, (he meaneth mysticall Ceremonies) which are necessary for convenient celebration of the Sacraments. Of which three poynts, there is none, wherein Suarez and the Def. doe not jumpe. To this the Rej. first answereth, that Suarez doeth not propounded these three points, as three errours of the Protestants: because hee mentioneth not Protestants, but Heretickes, which reason is not worth the answering: because hee mentioneth Heretickes of this time, which phraze is oftner in the Iesuites writings, understood of Protestants, then of any other, as all know that have looked vpon them. By the •ame reason, one may argue, that he understood no speciall Sect, or persons: b•cause hee mentioneth not any by name. But it shall appeare, that his meaning could be of no other then Protestants.

 

  1. He addeth in the second place the wordes going before those quoted, he spake of Suenkf•l•ians. And this is true: but nothing to the purpose. For hee leaving them as desperate phantasticks, passeth on to others, that is, Protestants, as by and by shall appeare.

 

  1. In the next place (saith the Rej.) Suarez speaketh of such as allow some externall worship of God, but refuse all Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies in his worship, as the inventions of men; and hold nothing to be lawfull in Gods service, but what is commanded in holy Scriptures; which is the ground of those three errours mentioned by the Replier. This may be called

Page  311

trueth: but it is not all the trueth, which belongeth to our present purpose. For Suarez his words are these: Others reproove Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies as humane inventions without authority or precept in Scripture:*For they thinke it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture enjoyned. In which ground three •rrours are conteined. Here may a great difference be observed betwixt the Rej. his translation, and Suarez his wordes; especially in that for those words: Th•y think it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture prescribed, the Rej. giveth these: they hold nothing to be lawfull in Gods service, but what is commanded in Scripture. For many things are lawfull in Gods service, which are not worship: as civill circumstances, &c.

 

  1. After those three errours, the Rej. abserveth Suarez to speake of some that dissalow not Ceremonies in generall, but impugne the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, as vaine and superstitious. These no doubt (addeth the Rej) are the Protestants: to whom he imputeth there no other errour, but their opposition against Romish Ceremonies, as vaine and superstitious, as the Defender doeth. Concerning this, 1. This therefore was not mentioned by the Replier, because Suarez himselfe testifie•h, that it is concluded in the former: Which errour cannot be founded, but vpon one of the three above reject•d errours.* 2. Suarez also addeth that these men of whom he in these wordes speaketh, say nothing against all their Ceremonies, but onely, that they are used with intention of worship,*as pertaining to the vertue of Religion: that they are done by us with intention of worship and as pertaining to the vertue of Religion.

Page  312

This they hold Superstitious▪ For though in the Sacraments we are to observe a measure and due circumstances, yet this they will on•ly have as a certeine humane politie, not out of intention of worship and religion: for this they say is Superstitious.*

 

Out of these two observations, I make these two conclusions: 1. If this error be necessarily founded on those three mentioned, (as Suarez sayth, and sheweth) then suche Protestants as hold this (among whome the Rejoynder professeth the Defend. and his owne name) holde also those. 2. If Protestants holde this tenet, that it is Superstition, for to intend worship in humane Ceremonies (as Suarez sayth) then our Defender and Rejoynder in this point are by Protestants found guiltie of Superstition. For they place speciall immediat, though improper, accidentall, and secondarie worship in humane Ceremonies; as is to be seen in this Rejoynder pag. 125.127. &c.

 

Heer they cannot •scape, by alleging (as they use to doe) that the Papists place proper essentiall worship in all their Ceremonies. For Suarez in the same place expoundeth the Popish tenet, concerning worship, just as they doe theirs: Sacramental Ceremonies belong to secondarie worship: not onely because they conteine External worship, but also in the very Externall worship it selfe, they are as it were accidents of other more noble actions.*

 

  1. Hitherto we have had noting directly answered, concerning the three errors, which the Replier sayd Suar•z imputed to Protestants, about Ceremonies in generall. Nor is any other given but this: that Suarez

Page  313

chargeth those errors, not on Protestants, but on Anabaptists: whoe hold this negative argument: whatsoever is not commanded in the Word, is unlawfull. This the Anabaptistes, and not the Protestants, houlde, fanatically even about rites, and formalities, &c. To which I replie 1. that if Suarez his wordes be taken as before they were recited, & not as the Rejoynder doeth ill-translate them, then no man is conversant in the Protestant writings, or have read over that which is formerly cited out of them in these three generall Arguments, but must needs confesse, the very same sense is to be found in most of our principall Divines: and the same words in many:*It is not lawfull to worship God with other external worship save with that which is in Scripture praescribed us. And humane inventions withou• warrant from God in Script. are to be reprehended.

 

  1. If all things be Ceremonies, which are circumstances of order, and decencie (as the Defender and Rejoynder doe not onely affirme, but make their cheif Anchor) then (whatsoever Gui de Er•s discourseth of one furious companie of them) muche injurie is doen to the Anabaptists, in making them to holde, that all Ceremonies are unlawfull, whiche are not conteyned in the Word.

 

For it is well knowen, that they have certain times, & places of meeting for worship; certain order of preaching & praying; nay in Baptizing of men-growne more formalities then many Protestant Churches; and even Bishops over divers Congregations, for order sake (as they say.) D. B. having lived in Holland, can scarce be ignorant of these thinges.

 

  1. To put it out of doubt, that Suarez, under the name

Page  314

of Heretickes, in this place, meant Protestants, let any man look upon his book de Religione, Volume 1. treatise 3. lib. 2. cap. 1. and there he shall finde these wordes, to the same purpose: The Heretiques of these times say every ceremonie, and all worship not praescribed of God, or not conteined in the Gospel is Superstition, yea and Idolatrie. They stand much upon Deut. 12.* Now 1. this cannot be understood of the Anabaptists: because they make no suche account of Deutronomie, or the olde Testament, as that they found any doctrine cheifly on that. 2. Suarez himself, in the same Chapter, sheweth plainely that he there meant Protestants. For he sendeth the Reader, for confutation of these Heretickes, to Gregorius de Valentia, tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 11. p. 1. where he disputeth against Herbrandus, a Protestant, not an Anabaptist: & to Lessius de just. & jure, l. 2. cap. 43. dub. 4. where he disputeth about this quaestion, against Calvin. And (lest any man should thinke, he meant one kinde of Heretickes there, and another in this place quaestioned, he there referreth his reader, for further satisfaction about that quaestion, unto this very place, in 3. tom. 3. disp. 15. What can be more clear? When as therfore the Rejoynder upon suche sandie groundes, concludeth, that we are somewhat encamped in the Trenches of Anabaptists; because we doe not jumpe with Suarez, in condemning these three Errors; we may better conclude, that he and the Def. by rash undermining of us have, unawares, broken into the workes of Papists; because they doe condemne with Suarez, those three Protestant trueths. And withall (seing so great a School-Papist as Suarez, in stating of

Page  315

the controversie, maketh no mention of merit, necessitie, efficacie, number, or holinesse, eyther inhaerent or adhaerent) it is but an evasion of the Defend. and Rejoynder upon every occasion, to flie unto these, as onely differences betwixt us and Papists, about Ceremonies. And so we have more cleared, then that, for which Suarez his testimonie was produced by the Replier: namely, that learned Papists have no opinion of all their significant Ceremonies, which the Defender and Rejoynder doe not mainteyne.

 

SECT. 11. Concerning the Feast of Purim. Ester. 9.

  1. THis example was, seven hundered yeer since, objected by Papists, unto the Waldenses, for humane Ceremonies: & since, by all Papists that have written against Protestants about Ceremomonies; as Gregorius de Valentia, Bellarmine, Suarez, in the places before noted. And we need not seeke for new answers about it, seing that which our Divines have answered is sufficient. Our first answer is that of Iunius to Bellarmine, de Cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 10. Praeceptum •uit politicum: whiche words because they were translated, a praecept of order, the Rejoynd. catcheth occasion to conclude from thence, that order doeth require institution of new thinges. But therin he misseth, except he can

Page  316

prove som new religious thing instituted, beside a circumstance of time, which the Replier (whome he seeketh to involve in a contradiction) doeth expresly distinguish from thinges. His answer is, that though this praecept were Politicall, yet by Iunius himself, annot. 17. it was also significant. Wherin he mistaketh Iunius his meaning, which is expounded annot. 28. It signifieth no dayes, nor repraesents mysteries, but is a commemoration that day instituted.*

 

  1. It was added by the Replier that some of our owne writers at home, say that it was appointed for a civill rejoycing day. Heer the Rejoynder (naming M. Iacob for suche a writer) accuseth him of making it a Guttide: As if no Civill day of rejoycing could be without Gutting. Yet ther bee men reverend for learning, and pietie, which say some suche thing as the Rejoynd. detorteth M. Iacobs wordes to. For Pellicanus upon that place of Ester,* sayth thus: The Hebrewes solaced themselves with feasts. We read of a festival Solemnity instituted, and that for two dayes,*wherein they please themselves with meates and drinks, &c. But the Iewes took up that rite voluntarily as being more prone to the Contentments of the belly, then to the Confidence of the Spirit toward God, whereof in those times they seeme to have ben little Careful. And for this sentence, it seemeth to make, that the Iews are sayd to have made suche feasts, before and without any publick institution: and that nothing is mentioned in the text: Whiche two observations doe not agree to the Feast of Tabernacles, Neh. 8. which the Rejoynd. would make like unto this. Adde heerunto, that, if Iosephus may

Page  317

be credited) the heathen King, Artaxerxes, was the instituter of this Feast, amonge the Heathen, and, the Iews at Susan following his order, it came to be propagated by Mordecay, and Hester, unto all other Iews. Iosephus, lib. 11. cap. 6.

 

  1. Another answer is, (upon supposition of a religious Ceremonie instituted by Mordecai) that it was by Divine direction. The Rejoynder to this returneth, 1. that no man ever so defined before. But he might (when he was a Student in Cambrige) have heard D. Whitakers thus defining. For in his printed Lectures, de Sacramentis, pag. 206. it standeth so:*I answer that both Mordecai did this, God inspiring him, and peradventure by order from some Prophet. And however we do not read that eyther God, or any Prophet did require this, yet for as much as it stāds approved in Scripture there is no doubt but it was done by Divine authority. As for the several Holy-days instituted 2. Chr. 30. cast in heer by the way of the Rejoynder as a President for the Feast of Purim; they agree not. For they were not yeerly Holy-days; nor Holy-days at all, of institution properly so called: but an occasional continuation of free-will offeringes, (whiche might be offered any day in the yeear, without new Holy-days) for that one time. If it had been by men appointed, that every yeer, 14. days should be observed for the Passover Feast, it had fitted to the purpose. But that had been no lesse praesumption, then if they should have decreed, that every yeer after, the Passover should be celebrated in the second moneth, as it was then, by occasion.

 

Page  318

SECT. 12. Concerning the Feast of Dedication. Iohn. 10.22.23.

  1. A Feast of Dedication is brought-in as an instance of a humane Ceremonie appropriated unto Gods service, out of Iohn 10. Now what Feast of Dedication this was, & whether it were meerly of humane institution; this hath allways been, and is still in great quaestion. Nonnius taketh it for that which Salomon appointed: Chrysostome, Theophilact, Euthymius, Cajetan, Calvin, &c. interpret it of that which beganne in the time of Ezra: Others of that instituted by the Macchabees 1. Mac. 4. This last the Defender tooke for granted, and therupon buildeth his Argument: and yet neyther the former, nor this can easily be so evidently proved meerly humane, as it may be made a foundation for humane Ceremonies now. Iunius de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 5. thus answereth Bellarmine, affirming that God did not appoint this Ceremonie: It is false: Solomon, Ezras, the Machabees, followed the Analogie of that place Ex. 4. Lev. 8. the right of which law if it had not been, yet we must needs say that as Prophets they were led by extraordinarie & singular revelation, not to be Exemplarie therein to us.*

 

  1. The Replier first observed, that this example is much alleged by Papists, against Protestants for their

 

Ceremonies: and so indeed it hath beene alwayes, from the time of Waldenses, as was noted, in the 2. Chapter. of our first part. Bellarmine hath it twice: once, de Rom, Pont. l. 4. c. 17. and againe, de Cultu Sanct. l. 3. c.•. To this the Rej. answereth, that this example served 〈◊〉 Bellarmines turne, for imposition of Ceremonies upon the conscience as of necessity to be observed, as Gods lawes; but it serveth the Defender his turne: because as Iunius saith, Co•r. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 5.) it was not injoyned by way of authority, but taken vp by consent. He would make us (as it seemeth) beleeve, that our Ceremonies are not injoyned by way of authority: and if he can doe this, he may also perswade us, that we are for refusing them, excluded, suspended, deprived, excommunicated, fined, & imprisoned, without any way (lawfull or vnlawfull) of authority. Concerning necessity in conscience, see the first part, chap. 6.

 

Another answere of the Rejoynders is notorious: Bellarmine (saith he) allegeth this feast of Dedication, to proove the Dedication, or Consecration of Churches: which is nothing to our question of significant Rites. Now surely if Dedication and Consecration of Churches bee nothing to our question of significant Rites; the Def. and Rej. say nothing to the purpose, when they prove this question of signifying Rites, by the Maccabees Feast of Dedication. And if that Feast of Dedication, doeth not proove humane Dedications lawfull; much lesse doeth it prove the lawfulnesse of other significant Ceremonies, such as ours are.

 

  1. The Defendant for backing of this instance, added, that our Saviour seemeth to approve that humane

Page  320

Feast, by his presence, Ioh. 10. To which it was replied, that he seemeth onely: because we onely read, that he walked in Solomons Perch, at that Feast: which he might doe, without observing or approoving of it. This is Iunius his answer to Bellarmine, alleging that Christ by his presence honoured that Feast:*Christ did not properly honour the Feast, but the Congregation of the faithfull at the Feast: For Christ tooke all such occasions then, to wit, before those solemnities were abolished, of sowing the seed of his Gospel: Nor did Christ ought that wee read at those times, but preach in the Temple. And sure I am, that neither walking in the Porch, nor declaring that he was that Christ, belonged properly vnto the solemnity of that Feast. If hee had preached of Dedications and Consecrations, with allowance, that had beene something.

 

The Rej. objecteth 1. That we plead Christs approbation of marriage, by his presence. This indeed added vnto evident grounds, addeth some honour unto that state: especially, in that a miracle was wrought to the furtherance of a marriage feast: if wee had no other plea for lawfulnesse of marriage, but that meere presence; I, for my part, would as soone separate from my wife, as the rejoynder saith he would from the Church of England, if he were of our minde, about Ceremonies; that is, to day, before to morrow. His 2. objection is, that Christ whipped the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, Ioh. 2. Ergo. Which maketh directly to the clearing of this cause: For there were two whippings of these Merchants out of the Temple; the first whereof was this Ioh. 2. in the begining of his preaching; the other toward the end of it a

Page  321

little before his passion; so that it appeareth plainely, they were not so driven out, but they came in againe, and continued their merchandise there: and yet in the meane space, our Saviour was often present in the Temple, without allowance of that their practise. So had he often condemned the traditions of men, in Gods worship; and yet was present some time, where they were observed. Beside, because the Def. and Rej. are wonte to accuse the Iewes for placing holinesse, necessity, efficacy, and proper essentiall worship in humane traditions, whereby they would avoid the dint of that generall censure which our Saviour giveth of them, Mat. 15. Mar. 7. &c. I would faine learne of them, how it appeareth, or may be conjectured, that they placed not as much holinesse, necessity, efficacy, &c. in this and such like humane Feasts, as in washing of hands before meat. If they did (as any man will thinke) then how can they say, that our Saviour condemned the one, and allowed the other?

 

The following 13. and 14. Sections are spent about some objections taken out of Mr. Cartwrite. But because the slitenesse of this Instance is already sufficiently discovered, I will not cloy, nor deteyne the Reader about them, at this time; but passe on to the next Instance.

 

Page  322

SECT. 15. and 16. Concerning the Altar of Iordan. Iosh. 22.

  1. IT is the Def. and Rej. their fashion, to produce Instances, without proof of their fitnesse, and so exspect from us that they should be disproved: whiche is all one, as if Iohn a Stiles should in a great traverse, bringe forth against Iohn a Nokes, some instrumens, for evidence of his cause, which few, or none, beside himself, can read, (at least so as to discerne any thing in it making for him) and plead that in them was evidence enough, except Iohn a Nokes could prove the contrarie. So it is heer, about the Altar of Iordan: no demonstration is first made, how it agreeth to the purpose: but we are chalenged to shew how it disagreeth. Yet yeelding them this libertie, we have enough to oppose.

 

  1. And first of all, we answer, that this Altar of the two Tribes, was not in the state, or use, religious, as the Crosse is, by the confession of an English Bishop, Babington on the 2. Commandement.

 

The Rejoynder 1. opposeth out of Mr. Parker, par. 1. sect. 34. and 36. that religious in use is that which hath a religious ende: and religious in state, which is Ecclesiasticall, belonging to Gods service. Ergo. But Mr. Parker in those sect. tould him, that religious in a sense common, or mix•ly, all thinges are, that are doen to an holy ende: and religious

Page  323

in sense speciall, or in state, all those thinges are, that have Order, Obligation, and a kinde of Immobilitie, in Gods service. Now the quaestion is not of the former common mixt sense: but of the later speciall state: according to which, no man can say the Altar of Iordan to have been religious, upon ground of Scripture or reason. Let any man judge then, whether partialitie did put out Mr. Parkers eyes (as the Rej. speaketh) or blear theirs, that see not the vanitie of this allegation?

 

  1. B. Babingtons words on the 2. Commandement are these: They erected that Altar, not for religion, but in deed for a civil use, as you may see, Iosh. 22. The Rejoynd. answereth, that he calleth the Altar civill Analogically, because it was ordeyned by consent of fellow-Citizens, which is as meer a shift, as any yet invented by the Rejoynder. For 1. he calleth not the Altar, but the use, civill. 2. He opposeth this civilitie not unto Divine Institution, as the Rejoynder would have him, but unto the same fellow-Citizens erecting of an Altar for Religion. 3. What he meaneth, appeareth plainly, by his third Proposition, there set downe in these termes: It is lawfull to make pictures of thinges which we have seen, to a civill use, but not to use them in the Churche, and for Religion.

 

  1. To passe over circumstantiall passages, the Def. (proving this Altar to be appointed unto Gods service, because it was a patterne of the Lords Altar, as our Crosse is a resemblance of Christs Crosse) was 1. reproved by the Replier: because the Crosse, wheron Christ did suffer, was no more holy then Iudas: and so not to be compared unto the Lords Altar. To this the Rejoynder in

Page  324

many wordes, maketh shew of saying something, but I leave it to the Reader, if he sayth any thinge. I (for my part) can not discerne what it is.

 

  1. The Replier also in the second place alleged▪ that every resemblance of a holy thing, is not therfor holy: because then every Ale-house picture taken from holy thinges mentioned in Scripture, should be holy; and a modell of the Temple, caried by a Tyrian workman, into his countrie for newes, should have been holy.

 

To this the Rejoynder (after a few wordes of course) answereth, that this is to separat the resemblance of a thing, from the use of it. As if the Def. had not argued simply, & meerly, from the resemblance, making, as yet, no mention of the use! If ther be any Sophistrie in this argument (as the Rejoynder sayth ther is) it is first found in the Defender his uncouth reason.

 

  1. The Defender went about to prove, first, that this Altar did mystically signifie a spirituall dutie, in respect of the Gileadites then living; viz: to teache that the Lord was God.

 

To this it was replied, that it doeth not appear out of the text, that ther was intended any use for the praesent age, that then lived: nay the contrarie may be gathered out of the 24. and 25. verses: We have doen it for f•ar of this thing, saying: In time to come, your children might speak unto our children, &c. So shall your children make our children cease from fearing the Lord. The Rejoynder opposeth, that ther is afterward mention made of us, and you. But that is nothing: because it noteth onely, that the generations to come, may denie us, on this side Iordan, not

Page  325

to have been joint Tribes with you on the other side of that River. Vpon this, the Repl. concluded, that this Altar was no direct helpe unto devotion. To which is rejoyned, that it was not a direct (that is immediat) help unto devotion; but immediatly significative, & collaterally for devotion it was. Suche distinctions I never heard, nor read. Any man may see, that a Ceremonie directly and immediatly signifying a spirituall dutie, is a direct & immediat help to devotion. To what other help, this help was collaterall, I would fain know.

 

A further reason of this conclusion was added: viz: then most of the other Tribes should have had use of it, and also reason, to have set up Altars of devotion at every three-way-leet, as Crosses stand. The Rejoynder is 1. that the other Tribes (no doubt) had use of it, as of a witnesse that the Lord is God. Now let any man consider, whether they which ordinarily resorted to the Tabernacle, and Altar of God, had need of a humane Altar, farre remooved from their sight, to put them in minde, that the LORD was God? And whether the two Tribes and a halfe, without the consent, or knowledge of the chiefe Priests, the chiefe Magistrates, the farre greater part of people, and power to appoint vnto all Israel a solemne significant Ceremonie, for their common use? The Rej. addeth in the 2. place, that all are not bound to the same helpes to devotion, and the other tribes needed no such monument, or patterne, having the Altar it selfe in possession. Where 1. except he holdeth the two Tribes, and a halfe bound to set up this Altar, hee maketh in that no difference: if hee so holdeth, then it is no instance of a

Page  426

meere Arbitrarie Ceremonie. 2. The two tribes had the Lords Altar in present possession, as well as divers of the other: so that by this reason, they also for the present need no such monument and patterne: which is the very point in this place questioned.

 

  1. The Replier affirmed, that (in regard of posterity) the immediate ende of this Altar was, to testifie, that those Tribes beyond Iordan, belonged to the same people, and so had right to the same worship, with those of this side Iordan: which is nothing to a Ceremony of state and immediate use, in the speciall solemne worship of God. The Rejoynder asketh if this were not a holy religious ende? I answere, It was so holy and religious, as every Land-marke of a Parsons Glebe-land, or every signe of a Parish-bound is holy and religious: but not so as mysticall Ceremonies. B. Andrewes (against Perone, p. 18.) giveth some light to this, by the ancient use of Lights, and incense: There were lights (saith he) there was incense, used by the Primitive Church, in their service; not for any mysticall meaning, but (as it is thought) for this cause, that where the Christians in time of persecution, had their meetings most commonly in places darke, and so needing lights, and dampish, and so needing good savours, they provided lights against one, and incense against the other. After the Churches retained these things, to shew themselues the successours of those ancient Christians, &c. the After-ages devized meanings and significations of their owne, which from the beginning were not so. If this be so (as it is thought) then there may be signes of succession unto religious fore-fathers, without any mysticall meaning: which is all that by us is

Page  327

pleaded about this Altar of Iordan.

 

And for further manifesting,* that it was so in this Altar, let it be well considered: what Iosephus, one of the learnedest, and most ancient Iewes now exstant, saith, Antiq. lib. 5. cap. 4. They placed an Altar on the banke of the river as a memorable signe of the neerenesse and affinity of them that dwelt beyond Iordan, viz. with them within Canaan: Againe, it was not placed for worship, but symbolically and as a memorandum of their relation to you.

 

  1. The Rejoynder as having sufficiently confuted all other answers, bringeth in one made to himselfe in conference, (though he hath not found it in print) as a grand absurdity: namely, that the Gileadites did ill, in erecting this Altar; and the rest also in allowing of it. Now as for allowance by the High Priest, Princes, and all the Congregation of Israel, which he speaketh of, I finde it not evident in the Text. About the other, I finde this: 1. that D. Fulke, no absurd Divine, (against Sanders, of Images, pag. 649.) writeth thus in print: The two Tribes and a half, Iosh. 22. made not an Image, but an Altar for a memoriall: and yet their fact was not commendable, though it was, in some sort excusable. 2. I finde also that Calvin, before him, upon Iosh. 22. sayth thus: Duae tribus, •um dimidia, non leviter peccarunt, &c. The two tribes and a half did very ill: Which is the great absurditie that the Rejoynder had heard in conference, but not seen in print, before now.

 

Page  328

SECT. 17.18.19.20.21. Concerning the Brazen Altar, built by Salomon. 1. King 8.64.

  1. THe Defender bringeth for instance, a Braze• Altar, built by Salomon. It was replied, that in the Text, ther is no mention eyther of Altar, or Brasse, or Building, but onely of Sanctifying the inner part of the Court. The Rejoyner answereth, tha••he word Brazen slipt in by oversight; the Court may well be called an Altar, in respect of praesent use. The Rej. before, upon farr lesse occasion, talked of slipper•• trickes, &c. but I leave this slipping in, and out, unto the Readers censure, so that no advantage be made of it, in prosecution of this Instance.

 

  1. Yet because not onely the Defender named a•Altar, but the Rejoynder also mainteyneth it for good let us see, what may be answered unto the Replier hi• collection therfrom; namely, that if man may on hi• owne head appoint an Altar (as they say) then man may appoint not onely accidentall worship, but also suche a• is greater then some essentiall worship; because the Alta• which sanctifieth the Offering is greater, then the Offering Mat. 23.19? The Rejoynder heer accuseth the Replie• for want of Iudgement, in this allegation: because tha• which our Saviour sayth, is proper to that one onely Altar

Page  329

in the Temple, by reason of the speciall command of God to use them, and their superadded mysticall signification: wheras other Altars were onely permitted, and so helpes to the Offerings, but not sanctifiers of them; nay they were sanctified by the Offeringes; as also the Altars of Gods appointment, in the time of Moses, Salomon, Ezra, and Machabeus, were first sanctified by the gift that was offered on them, and so installed in their peculiar privilege, of sanctifying the Gifts which were afterwards offered upon them. For all this, no consent is shewed of any Divine: Onely we are bidden to see Zanchie, de Redem. lib. 1. cap. 16. thes. 2.3. Now 1. Zanchie hath nothing to the Rejoynder his purpose: he doeth not distinguish betwixt Altars commanded and Altars permitted: but sayth of the commanded Altars, that they were annexed unto the acts of worship. And so he doeth of the Arke it selfe, and all the principall & most essentiall meanes appointed by God. What can the Rejoynder make of this? 2. The speciall command of God was as well for the Offeringes, as for the Altar: so that cannot be the reason, why the Altar did sanctifie the Offering, more then the Offering the Altar.

 

And the same aequalitie is in the superadded mysticall, and typicall signification. 3. I am sory to hear from D.B. that the Altars built by Abraham, Iacob, &c. before Moses, were onely permitted. He may as well say, that all the Sacrifices before Moses, were onely permitted. Bellarmine himself, de Eff. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 31. confesseth, that they were by inspiration, and impulsion Divine: and all our Divines, disputing against Papists about will-worship, make that Divine instinct, for substance, a Divine

Page  330

command. 4. How could Altars be sanctified by Offeringes, when the Offerings themselfs were not in state of sanctification actually, and properly, before they came to the Altars? He that left his gift at the Altar, that is ready to lay it theron, and then went to be reconciled with his brother, had not yet actually sanctified the same. 5. The Altars of Moses, and Salomon, were not first Sanctified by Offeringes upon them, but by Moses his Annoynting: the manifestation of Gods glorious praesence in a Cloude, filling the Tabernacle, and Temple: and by that fire which came downe from heaven to consume the Sacrifice. Ex. 40. Lev. 8. & 9, 1. King. 8. 2. Chr. 7.6. If Salomons sanctified Court▪ did not sanctifie the Sacrifices offered theron, then eyther those Sacrifices were lesse holy, then those which were offered on the Altar, and sanctified therby: or else they had more sanctifying vertue in them, then the other, which did not sanctifie their Altar, as those did their Court. The like may be sayd, and more also, of Abrahams Altars, &c. but this is enough.

 

  1. Our first answer is the same that D. Whitakers, D. Sutlife, &c. giveth to Bellarmine (whoe de Pont. lib▪ 4. cap. 19. hath the same objection against Calvin) Quicquid Salomon fecit, id Dei authoritate & Spiritus Sancti nutu fecit (sayth D. Whitakers) that is, Salomon did this by Divine authoritie, and instinct of the H. Ghost. The Rej. excepteth 1. that Bellarmine would prove by this example, proper, essentiall worship, by man ordeyned. But if he had looked upon the chapter quoted, he might have seen, that the onely quaestion there, is, whether it was

Page  331

sinne, for men, by their owne authoritie, to erect a new Altar in the Temple? And this the Def. and Rej. with Bellarmine denie, against Calvin. 2. He addeth, that all our Divines doe not give this answer alone. As if we also did not follow them, in adding other answers to this!

 

  1. Our second answer (for I will not dwell on wordes) is, that Salomon did this from aequitie of the Law. This is Iunius his answer to Bellarmine, Cont. 3. lib. 4. cap. 9. It was done extraordinarily and by singular occasion and ac•ording to the Analogie of the commune ground, wherby they did other things, and it may be by speciall revelation.* To this the Defend. answered, that this interpretation overthroweth the former. Nothing lesse (sayth the Replier) because Salomon might be directed, to see, and authorized to follow that aequitie. The Rej. heer, having litle reason to oppose, putteth down, in stead of it, great wordes: as this is to confound Ordinarie, and Extraordinarie; Speciall, and Common; Scripture-light, and immediat Revelation; and so hath no sence in it. And what shew of wool for this great crie? May not one be extraordinarilie, specially, and immediatly directed, to see that Scripture-light which in it self hath ordinarie, & common shining? Surely, the Apostles had ex•raordinarie, speciall, immediat direction, to see the meaning of divers passages in the ould Testament (as the allegoricall meaning of Sara and Hagar, Sinay and Sion, &c.) which was before conteyned in the Scripture.

 

Yet (addeth the Rejoynder) Salomon (by this reason) needed no speciall Authoritie. Whiche I grant, if he be considered as a perfect man; but if he be conceived as

Page  332

Peter, who after hee was sent unto all Nations, needed after a Vision from Heauen, to send him vnto the Gentiles, then this consequence is nothing worth.

 

  1. Passing over the third answer (in pitie) the fourth is, that this sanctification of the Court by Solomon, was no addition of a divers kinde. This is Danaeus his answer to Bellarmine, Cont. lib. 1. cap. 19. To this the Defender answered nothing, which either the Replier thought worthy any answer, or Rejoynder of improving. So that I need not adde any thing to it, but onely a fitting explication which I finde in Tostatus (in 3. Reg. cap. 8.) thus expressed: It was lawfull to do• what Solomon did, because though it were forbid to offer sacrifice elsewhere then at the Altar of whole burnt-offerings; yet now upon necessity it might be, when the Altar was not sufficient to hold all. Nor did Solomon against the Law, because now sacrifices were burnt at the Altar, and on the Altar together, and so the whole Court of the Priests was in a manner but as one Altar, and the intent of the Law was no other, then that they should not offer in divers places, but heere was but one continued place.*

 

SECT. 22. Concerning Synogogues.

TO this simple instance, the Replier answered, 1. that Synagogues were no significant Ceremonies. 2. That it is most likely, they were

Page  333

first founded by those Prophets, which brought in Schooles of the Prophets. 3. That in them, there was (of olde) no significant humane Ceremonie used. To the first is rejoyned, that the Synagogues bare some representation of the Sanctuary. But I aske, How? Was this representation in matter, or forme, or use? He seemeth to referre it unto use, in resorting to solemne worship. Now let any man consider, whether every place apppointed for solemne worship, be a significant Ceremonie? If so, then no Anabaptists ever denied significant Ceremonies of mansappointing, which yet the Rejoynderaccused them for. But this fonde conceyt is sufficiently confuted in the first part of this writing, Chap. 4. and 5. Yet suppose the Synagogues had been a repraesentation of the Sanctuarie, which was a Ceremonie; is every repraesentation of a Ceremonie, a new Ceremonie? then any man may make more Ceremonies, then ther are men in his Parish. The second (about the founding of Synagogues by Prophets) which the Repl. sayd, is most likely, the Rejoynder maketh a bolde affirmation, without proofe. But what boldnesse is, in conjecturing that to be likely, which no man can give any likely reason against? The third (of no humane significant Ceremonies used in Synagogues) is absolutely pronounced false. But no reason of this sentence is given out of the Scriptures, but onely that they used there reverend gestures: as if all reverend gestures were significant Ceremonies of mans invention! The rest that he quoteth out of Purchas his Pilgrimage, are wandring Pilgrimes, without house or home, and therfore worthy no other answer,

Page  334

but that which our law hath provided for Vagabondes

 

SECT. 23.24.25.26. Concerning Love-Feasts.

  1. THe Instances out of the ould Testament were suche, as we have now shewed them to be: Out of the new Testament first are brought in the Feasts of love, or charitie. Now concerning these Feasts, no man can certainly informe us, whoe did appoint them! I mervayl (sayth the Apostle, according to Erasmus his Paraphrase, on 1. Cor. 11.) Quis ritus istos i• vos invexerit: whoe brought-in these Love-Feasts? No man can tell us, what religious signification was by institution annexed unto them? Nay it cannot be shewed, where they are spoken of, without reproof? Yet the Defend. and Rejoynd. will needs have them significant humane Ceremonies, ordeyned, and used by the Apostles.

 

  1. To this, it was 1. answered by Mr. Nic. that if they were of Apostolicall, then they were of Divine insti•ution. Then whiche (sayth the Defender) he could not have uttered a more unlearned position. Nay soft (it was replied) this censure is too too Magisteriall: because to say that that which came from the Apostles, as Apostles, came from the Spirit of God, is no unlearned Position. O yes (answereth the Rejoynder) becaus

Page  335

the Apostles ordeyned some thinges, not as Apostles, not by immediat revelation, but by the direction and authoritie of Gods Word. In which kinde of rejoyning, I see no more learning then needs must. 1. The quaestion was of Apostolicall institutions: the answer is of that which the Apostles did, but not as Apostles, that is not properly Apostolicall. 2. That which is manifested by the Holy Ghost shining •n the Word (they are the Rejoynder his wordes) is de•ied to be Divine. 3. No example is, or can be brought, of a new significant Ceremonie instituted by the Apost•es, without immediat revelation. The allegations op•osed, may fill up paper, but not satisfie any reasonable Reader.

 

  1. For removing of that Magisteriall censure of the •reat unlearnednesse of the fore-sayd Position, it was no•ed that some learned men, were authors of it, or parta•ers in it. Iunius is one: who (Cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. an. 6) •ayth, that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostoli•all traditions, is almost imaginarie and superfluous. Wher •he Rejoynder hath nothing to catch at, but onely that •article almost. Take therfore another place of the same •unius (in his Hidelberg Theses de Traditionibus, th. 24) where without almost, he sayth fully thus: The distinction of traditions into Divine and Apostolicall is a false distinction, because such traditions are of one sort, for there be no Apostolicall traditions but such as are delivered from God.*

 

  1. It was added also by the Replier that Danaeus (upon the same place) calleth it a childish distribution. True (sayth the Rejoynd.) but he meaneth by Apostolicall, thinges determined by the Apostles, by their ordinarie facultie, as

Page  336

Pastors, and yet having the same authoritie with their writings: Now let the Reader mark, that the Defender his charge of unlearned rudenesse, depended on this, if Apostolicall traditions may be called Divine, as being commanded of God. To talke heere of faculty, ordinary, pastors, authority equall to Scripture, &c. it is nothing else, but to bring him unto losse. Neither is, or can this limitation be justified by any other proofe then the Rej. his owne testimonie.

 

  1. When the Repl. spake of more learned men allowing of the foresaid position, and rejecting the distinction made betwixt Divine and Apostolicall traditions; the Rejoynder stayeth him, and confesseth that the distinction is ridiculous, in the Papists sense: yet (saith he) in another sense (not telling what) it may stand. And is the great charge of a most unlearned Position come now to this: the contrarie words in some sense may stand? Be sparing (my masters) in crying down your poore neighbours, for such extreame want of learning, when you• opposite learning can scarce stand in any sense.

 

  1. After these testimonies, the Replier inquired into the Logicke of this distinction betweene Divine and Apostolicall traditions. But the Rejoynder correcteth his interpretation, and saith this distinction is taken chiefely from the different Authors, Christ, and the Apostles. Be it so: yet it were not extreame rudenesse, to say that whatsoever the Apostles as the Apostles of Christ, appointed, that Christ himselfe appointed. But saith the Rejoynder, some things were appointed by Christ himselfe immediately, and others by the Apostles occasionally.

Page  337

Which is true: yet 1. this overthroweth that which was even now alleaged, that this distinction is chiefely taken from different Authors: because this is onely a difference of manner, as Polanus (Syntag. lib. 1. cap. 47.) doeth clearely manifest, in his large confutation of this selfe same distinction. 2. By the same or somewhat like reason, a distinction may be made, betwixt the word of God, and the word of the Prophets, 3. It were worth the knowing, upon what occasion these Feastes were ordained by the Apostles?

 

  1. It is brought in by the Def. as a second answere of Mr. Nic. That these Love-feasts, were abrogated by the Apostles. From which he gathereth, that then they were not of divine institution. No say we, nor yet Apostolicall. For it was onely said before, that if they were of one, they were also of the other: but not positively that they were of either. So that the Defender forgot, when he inferred: So this second answer confuteth the first.

 

  1. The third answer of the same Mr. Nic. was (as it is reported) that these Love-feasts were not of mysticall signification, nor yet meerely Ecclesiasticall. And this the Replier undertooke to mainteyne: because no signification was added unto their nature by any institution, so farre as by any certeine evidence can be declared.

 

The Rejoynder opposeth, that the appropriating of their naturall signification, to the signifying of Christian love, might be in that use, by Ordination. Where, First might be, is not a proofe: and we require in an instance objected for an Argument, that it should be prooved fitting. Secondly, Every Ordination doeth not inferre mysticall signification.

Page  338

I• it be ordained (as it is) that Collection of Almes, for the poore, bee used in the Church, hath it therefore a new mysticall signification put upon it above that which it would have out of the Church?

 

  1. Ecclesiasticall the Replier denied these Feasts to have beene, or Religious, because they were used in the same manner, or to the same ende, out of the assemblies, that is, to the reliefe of the poore, and maintenance of brotherly love. The Rejoynder, First, opposeth appropriation: as if all things used in the Church, were appropriated to it! So common salutations used at Church should be appropriations. He secondly concludeth from thence, that (by this reason) Eating of things offered to Idols, in the idols Temple, should not be religious. But this doeth not agree; except the meat used in Love-feasts, were first sacrificed to God: which yet hath not beene prooved: nor then, except the eating of things offered to Idols, were meerely religious; which the Christians of Corinth (ep. 1. cap. 8.) did not thinke, nor the Apostle teach. Yet might those Eatings have such a relation vnto the Idols, as might make them superstitious (even without that superstitious opinion which the Defender and Rejo. require unto superstition) though such a relation unto the true God, and his religion, doe not make feas•s by man invented, truely and meerely religi•us.

 

  1. It was finally replied, that the Ordination of these feasts cannot be shewed, to have beene Apostolicall: and to that pu•pose P. Martyr was alleged, in 1, Cor. 11.22. The Rejoynder opposeth 1. that t•e Argume••

Page  339

so much the stronger:*because then they were meerely of humane institution, and yet had Apostolicall approbation. Secondly, that P. Martyr confesseth the same feasts to be mentioned every where in the fathers, as a thing descended to them, from the Apostles, as their Spring-head.

 

To the first, I answer, Frst, that the Def. his Argument which was taken from the ordination of the Apostles, cannot possibly be strong at all,* if these Feasts were not of Apostolicall ordination. Secondly, Apostolicall Approbation of them, hath not yet beene prooved. As for P. Martyr, his testimonie is cleare. Wee see heere how dangerous it is to adde to divine institutions, which the Corinthians did, setting up these feasts without warrant from the word. To P. Ma•tyr, adde Calvin, upon the same place:*We may see hence, that their manner of feasting wholly •ispleased the Apostles, allbeit the forementioned abuse were away. It is not well to turne a holy meeting into strange customes. As for the after-continuation of like feasts, which the Rejoynder maketh so much of; Hospinian (Histor. Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 6.) answereth fully: This was first to be found fault with in their love feasts, that they did not in simplicity keepe the institution of Christ, but added somewhat thereto. The Apostle recalled them to the first institution. But it seemes his authority was not such with them that came after, but that as the Corinthians had done, so also they would appoint many things in great zeale, I confesse: but very vnadvisedly, which also in time brought in most pestilent superstitions.

 

Page  336

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  337

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  338

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  339

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  340

SECT. 27. Concerning the kisse of Charity.

  1. THis instance is like the former, in that neither the institution, nor the mysticall signification of it can bee shewed out of Scripture. Our answer also is the same with that before: It is a naturall indicant signe of peace and reconciliation; used in those parts, as imbracing, and shaking of hands, with vs. For this Mr. Nic. is accused, as more civill, or rather uncivill, then spirituall. But with whom the civility or uncivility about this matter resteth, neither the Def. nor Rej. are fit Iudges. It may proove this charge hath as little ground, as the other of an extreame unlearned Position.

 

  1. The Replier passed over allegations mentioned by the Def. as Oratoriall Phrases: but the Rejoynder will have them Explicatorie; & setteth them downe againe, at large. I will therfor take the sayd Allegations into a summarie consideration. He citeth Iustin, Origen, Tertullian, Cyrill, Clemens Al. not noting the places where their wordes are to be found. But Baronius had An. 45. (out of whome he seemeth to have borrowed these quotations) affordeth us some light that way. Where this is by the way to be marked, that Cardinall Baronius himself concludeth no more out of them then this:*The kisses of the Gentils being tokens of peace and love are not

Page  341

to be quite taken away but with a kind of moderation to be used among Christians, as the Apostles provided when they so often put them in mind of Saluting one another with a holy kisse. Out of the two first, nothing is alleged, but that when Prayers were ended, Christians were wont to salute one another with a kisse: which proveth nothing more then we grant.

 

Tertullian calleth it Signaculum Orationis, the Seal of Prayer; the words of prayer therin used being Peace be unto thee. Now though Tertullian maketh no words of this forme of Prayer to be used; yet suppose all: 1. this is manifestly an Oratoriall phraze (which the Rejoynder denied) not Explicatorie, but needing explication; which yet I will not spend time about. 2. Tertullian according to his hyperbolicall fashion, ascribeth so muche to this Kisse, as smelleth of Superstition:*What prayer is there perfect which is separated from a holy kisse? He sheweth notwithstanding that it was used in privat houses as well as in the Congregation:*At home perhaps you may put of till another time the Salutation of peace. 4. He discovereth a custome something contradictorie to his former assertion. At Easter we do well to lay aside the Kisse. 5.* Ther were even in Tertullians time, divers superstitions creeping in among Christians, about prayer, as he in that his treatise of Prayer sheweth: Washing, doffing of cloakes, sitting upon beds. What then can be made of this testimonie?

 

Cy••ll is the next, whoe calleth it Signaculum reconciliationis, quo in sacris utim•r: the Seal of reconciliation used in Divine Service. But 1. we may well quaestion the Author

Page  342

of that Catechisme, whether Cyrill was he (as D. Andrues sayth, in his answer to the 18. chap. of Person, pag. 3.) 2. Whosoever was the Author, he was so prodigall of dealing significations, according to his pleasure, that we may say of him, as Ierom of Origen, His braines were the Churches Sacraments:* so that he hath no credit left about suche thinges. 3. How doe Tertullian and Cyrill agree in their testimonie? One sayth, the Kisse was a Seal of Prayer; the other, that it was a Seal of Reconciliation. 4. The same Cyrill, in the same place, Cat. 5. giveth another mysterie of Kissing: Because Christs body goes thorough our mouth. Iust so therefore we kisse the mouth as we do the dores we enter into the Churche by.* How doeth he agree then with him-self?

 

Clemens is the last: whoe calleth this gesture Mysticall, (Paedag. lib. 3.) But this was a Rhetoricall phraze. For it signifieth nothing else (as the fore-goeing words shew) but that they should not use it, qui non habent intus amicitiam; but as a true signe of good will. In the words also next following that common salutations (dilectorum in via salutationes) should be with mysticall grace, mysticè, intus, amanter & benignè alloqui. Now let the Def. and Rejoynd. cast up their accounts, and tell, what they have gained by these Testimonies more then before was given them?

 

  1. But yet (sayth the Defend.) this gesture is called Holy, and the object of it is Peace: Tis true: But all our civill actions ought to be suche as becommeth Saints, 1. e. so farr Holy for manner, that they be free from sinne; and to the Glorie of God: many also have Peace for their

Page  343

direct object.

 

Furthermore, if this Kisse was holy in the nature of it, I aske whether a repraesentation of it may not be made also for a holy use, as the Altar of Iordan, and the Synogogues were in the Def. and Rejoynders opinion? And if so, whie have we not a Pax to kisse at the Communion? I see not (by these tenets) what should keep out Paxes, more then Altars, with bowing to them, but onely the meer pleasure of our Prelats Regent.

 

Now we have thus dispached the Defender we need not trouble our selves with his Second, the Rejoynder proceding another way, against the Replier. Yet I will note what new weapons he useth.

 

  1. The Rejoynder thinketh it strange, that constant Application by direction, or custome, should not be Institution. But it is no more strange, then that the common using of one way from Lichefild, to Coventrie, or from thence to Coldfeild, may be without Institution; or that the same word which of ould signified Love, is now among Christians commonly applied unto Christian Love, without any new institution.

 

  1. He sayth, that naturall fitnesse for signification, doeth hinder Institution. True: but fitnesse, with actuall use for signifying of true love, doeth praevent an institution of the same signification: as the former signification of the word Love, doeth so hinder a new institution of the same word to signifie Christian love, that it would make the Authors of suche an institution, ridiculous, & idle.

 

  1. He affirmeth, that the ordeyned seating of a Minister in an higher place, in way of Reverence to his Function, is

Page  344

as Mysticall a Ceremonie, as the Crosse in Baptisme. Then (say I) a Mothers kissing of her froward childe, in the Churche to still it, in reverence to Preaching or Praying, is as Mysticall a Ceremonie, as the Kisse of Peace. And what need any other institution, then constant application of suche gestures, by the Rejoynder his rule?

 

  1. He quoteth Calvin, upon the place, as for him, whome every man that will, may see to be against him. So Beza, and Paraeus. Onely he hath a litle shew (but no substance) out of P. Martyr his words, upon 1. Cor. 16.20. Whoe yet upon Rom. 16.16. in few words, sheweth his meaning all one with ours: and his judgement of humane significant Ceremonies hath been before declared.

 

  1. Notwithstanding all this weaknesse of his praemisses, he concludeth strongly, that those which doe not yeeld unto his proofs, have themselves, above all other men, in estimation for soundnesse of judgement. To which I will onely say this, we have (by Gods grace) more judment, then either to accuse others so vainely, or to make any account of this accusasion, as if it would prejudice us with any man of judgement.

 

Page  345

SECT. 28 Concerning Womens Vailes. 1. Cor. 11.

  1. THe last example of Apostolicall Humane, Significant Ceremonies by Institution, and Appropriated unto Gods worship, is a Womans Vaile, such as a Huik is, in the Low-Countries, or a french Hood, with a Bon-grace, was wont to bee in England. Now at this it was answered, that the Vaile was neither Apostolicall, nor meerely of humane institution, nor of instituted signification, nor yet appropriated unto Gods worship: but a civill order of decencie, used as well out of Gods worship as in it. And the Rejoynder granteth, that it was a civill custome: but addeth, that it is as absurd, from thence to conclude, that it was in religious worship civill, and not religious, as to affirme this of blowing of Trumpets in the new Moones, &c. Where first, hee should have remembred, that we are heere in answering, not in prooving, and concluding, which is the Def. his part. Secondly, The Replier said it was a civill order of decencie, expressing the immediate end, which it had as well in, as out of worship, which will well beare this conclu•ion: that it was no more religious, then Womens proper apparell, long garments, &c. (to which Chrisostome upon 1. Cor. 11.) compareth the Vaile, as one part to another, or their shooes, or slippers are. 3. Concerning Trumpets,

Page  346

in some use of them, wee have their instituted signification, expresly set downe in the Word, Nunb. 10. shew the like, for going to Church in shooes, or Vailes; and then we will confesse a paritie of reason.

 

  1. The Def. proceeding by interrogatories, maketh this the first: whether the Vaile was not significant of some good thing? To which the Repl. answered, yes, it did declare, or argue a good thing, as indeed all civill apparrell of modest fashion doeth. For this hee is checked, and bidden to stand by, with his answer while his elders speake. As if we were now in the High-Commission; and hee as Commissioner, might prescribe us when, and how much we may speake for our selves, though much without ground be spoken against us, and interrogatories propounded to the prejudice of our cause!

 

  1. He asked secondly, what it did signifie? Answer was made, that it signified subjection to superior power. Then a morall dutie was professed by it, sayth the Rej. just so, as modesty, and shamefastnesse, gravity, and care of not offending, are professed by all apparell of modest honest fashion. And yet I never heard all modest apparell called a mysticall religious Ceremonie. Theophilact (in Cor. 11.) maketh a mans beard like and equall unto his uncovering in signification. And will the Def. and Rej. say, that Beards are religious mysticall Ceremonies?

 

  1. The Def. added, that it had some relation unto God. To which it was answered, that so there is in an upper Seat, of an Heathen Magistrate, sitting in judgement: which yet is no mysticall Ceremonie of religion. The Rej. (altering first▪ the case, into a throne set up to

Page  347

that end, to represent the Soveraignty of God, for religious cognizance, and document) affirmeth the Seat of a Heathen Iudge, to be a mysticall Ceremonie of Religion. Now set aside his changing of the question, and take him as answering, that everry Seat, of judgement among all Heathen, is such a Ceremonie; and then, let any man consider, if hee hath not brought his pigges to a faire market? Seats of Iustice, are religious Ceremonies, even among those that know not what religion meaneth: what is become of intended immediate, though improper worship, which he is wont to require as necessarie unto a religious Ceremonie of mysticall signification? Hee may as well say, that such vailes as Tamars was wherewith she deceived Iuda, even unto incest, was religious Ceremonies among the Heathen; because a Vaile (in the nature of it) declareth a morall duty. For many of those Seates (in their nature tending to justice) are but vailes of injustice, as Tamars was of uncleannesse. If those High-seates bee religious Ceremonies, then the bowing of inferiours unto them, kissing of their feet, or foot-stooles, must be such also. Why then did the Def. seeke (as with a candle and lant-horne) in every darke corner for instances or examples of religious significant Ceremonies of mans appointing? every civill meeting, every Company of Soldiers, every Schoole of Children can afford examples enough, and more then enough.

 

  1. It was added, by the Repl. that the Def. allegeth nothing out of Divines, which may not as well bee applied to the Iudges Bench, as to the Vaile of Women. Yes,

Page  348

this (sayth the Rej.) that the one used in civill actions, is religious in use onely, not in state: the other used in religious actions, is religious, both in state and use; which is (saith he) Mr. Parkers distinction. Now 1. there was no such distinction as this, alleged by the Def. out of our Divines: so that this contradicteth not that which the Repl. affirmed. 2. This distinction as it is heere explained, was never used by Mr Parker, or (as I thinke) by any reasonable man, before now: A circumstance used in civill actions, is religious in use; the like used in religious actions is religious in use and state. Is the Criers O wize Religious in use, because, or as it is used in civill actions? And is the Paraters citation religious in state, because, or as it was used in Spirituall Courts? 3. What if •udges have a peculiar Seat in the Church, as in divers places, they have? Is that Seat therefore religious in state, as an Altar, a Crosse, the Chaire of Peter, &c.?

 

  1. The Repl. also observed, that the Vaile was of the same nature with long haire, such as becommeth women; and therefore, no religious mysticall Ceremonie. No (saith the Rej.) because long haire is of nature; and the Vaile of institution, which to a Ceremonie is essentiall. To which I oppose 1. the true observation of P. Martyr, the Def. his chiefe witnesse, about this instance: A woman ought seeing her haire is given her of God, to follow this his institution, and to imitate her Maker, and cover her head: which if she will not doe, as much as is in her, she throwes off the naturall vaile.* where he sheweth that it is so naturall, that it cannot be imitated without some violation of nature, by any woman, though no new institution impose

Page  349

it upon her. 2. Chrisostome (upon the same place) hath this: That is from nature it selfe,*that we women should cover our heads, and we men should uncover our heads. Nature would that women should bee covered: she is taught to be covered even from thence. 3. Paul himselfe saith not only that nature it selfe hath taught women to use a vaile; but also, that the disguising of it is all one, with shaving: so that long haire, and a vaile, according to the Apostle, is all one, for the ground of it. If therefore speciall institution, above nature, be essentiall to a Ceremonie, then certainely vailing of women is no Ceremonie; much lesse religious, and mysticall significant, by institution humane.

 

  1. The Def. his third demand was, whether these Ceremonies of covering, and uncovering, were not instituted to bee observed in Gods publike worship? Answer was given (by the Repl.) that this indeed was required, in every grave meeting of men and women: but not primarily, and principally instituted for Gods worship. Paul surely did not institute them for new Ceremonies, but onely urged the Corinthians, not to neglect them, as being naturall. The Rej. opposeth 1. that requiring is an institution. As if the Kings requiring his subjects to observe Christs institutions, did therefore institute the Sacraments, &c. 2. His second answer is, that application, by injunction, was (as it were) an institution. So that by and (as it were) the Lords Sacraments have beene so often instituted, as they have beene applied, and injoyned; that is an hundred thousand times, and more. But if any man will needs use the terme institution in such a sense, that is nothing to our question;

Page  350

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  351

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  354

〈1 page duplicate〉

 

〈1 page duplicate〉

Page  350

which is of Ceremonies, whose first author and appointer, in speciall, was man. Otherwise, all Divine Ceremonies will proove humane institutions; and so the Rej. hath disputed all this while, about nothing. The rest of the Rej. his wordes, in this Section, are either meere repetitions of confuted fictions, or such as need no confutation, I may well againe repeat (as justified) the Repl. conclusion: Seeing the Def. could finde but three examples of humane Ceremonies, in all the new Testament; and none of those there can be shewed, to be of mysticall signification, or appropriated onely to Gods worship, or of humane institution; the Prelates may be ashamed in such domineering fashion, to urge humane Ceremonies vpon the consciences of Ministers and People of the new Testament.

 

SECT. 29. Concerning the Ancient Custome of Significant Ceremonies among Christians.

  1. AS the Def. was passing over from Scriptures, to humane writings, and customes, he was told by the Replier, that heere hee may finde more fish for his net, in the troubled waters of mans infirmitie, then were to bee looked for in the Scripture fountaines. This the Rej. thought not worthy of any answer. Let the Reader yet take knowledge, that we

Page  351

esteeme not any thing like of a thousand objections fetched from testimonie subject to errour, as we would have done of one plaine testimonie Divine, if it could have beene produced.

 

  1. The oldest Records we have (saith the Rej.) doe mention humane misticall Ceremonies in Gods worship, as Apostolicall traditions. Which 1. is not true: because those which call them Apostolicall, use not to call, or esteeme them humane. 2 The Records of the first age, which we have, are so imperfect, and uncertaine, that God (in so disposing of them by his Providence) doeth in a manner warne us, not to depend on them, but onely on his written Word. 3. The great varietie that was found, in the first ages, about the observation of Lent, and Easter, doeth manifestly proove, they were not Apostolicall: as Chamier sheweth (De jejunio, cap. 7.) Not out of any certaine law, but out of private devotions, and consequently Superstition.* In the next place, for a maine ground of this assertion (that the universall Church observing humane Rites, tooke them to have beene of Apostolicall allowance) the Rej. bringeth in the common text of Papists, out of Augustine, ep. 118. Such universall observations, not being written in Scripture, must be understood to be commanded by generall Councels, or from the Apostles. Where 1. he faulteth twice in the translation, in (turning dantur intelligi, into must be understood, when D. Morton himselfe (Pr. Ap. lib. 2. cap. 28. •. 3.) maketh a strong probabilitie onely; and in turning commendata, by into commanded. 2. This being but a probable rule, and And Augustines conjecture of that probability, being

Page  352

also but probable, it may faile, with all that is built vpon it. 3. Chamier (in the place fore-mentioned) answereth Bellarmine about it, that it must either include the Apostles time (whose history is in Scripture) and so the humane Ceremonies come not within the compasse of it; or else it may bee denied as false. 4. If this rule bee good, then Apostolicall Ceremonies cannot be knowne from other, but onely by those who know certainely what is and hath beene allwayes observed in all Churches: which will fall hard upon most Christians. 5. Augustine (in the same place) complaineth of mens presumptions and burdensome Ceremonies, contrary to Christ his mercifull institution; requiring the easinesse and lightnesse of that yoke or burden which Christ hath imposed in his Sacraments, to be still preserved in the Church. Now those Ceremoniall observations, which are said to have beene universall in the Primitive Church, did not agree to this rule. For they had then in common use, beside other solemnities, fiftie Holy-dayes, betwixt Easter, and Pentecost, Ambrose in Luc. 17. of which Tertullian boasteth (lib. de Idololatria, cap. 13.) that they were more then the Heathen used:*Reckon all the observations of the Heathen in order, and they will never fill up Pentecost. They had also with Lent and all) more then fiftie fasting-dayes. Adde unto these, the Ceremonies the which Tertullian reckoneth up, de Corona cap. 3. and then, I aske, if any man can upon consideration, beleeve, that all these were either Apostolicall, or so accounted by Augustine? Certainely, to exced or equall the Heathen, in humane observations, was not agreeable to the Apostles rules, nor

Page  353

the Fathers. 6. It is a received rule, that the writings of the Apostles, are the onely certayne rule of true Apostolicall traditions. D. Fulke, Rej. ag. Brist. cap. 7. But this rule, as it is understood by our Rej. maketh those writings not the onely certaine rule.

 

  1. The Fathers practise (sayth the Rej.) interpreted their rules touching the perfection of Scripture, and purity of Gods worship, to be vnderstood of necessary doctrine, and proper worship. The contrary whereof appeareth, partly by the fore-mentioned place of Augustine, where hee complaineth of the Ceremonies which he practised, as disagreeing from the Doctrine of the Gospell which he taught. Beside, (because proper worship hath beene discussed in its proper place) it would be inquired, what the Rej. meaneth by necessary doctrine? If he meaneth onely that doctrine which is absolutely necessary to salvation, it is a poore commendation of Scripture-perfection: because that is found in every good Catechisme; and Bellarmine himselfe doth not denie that perfection to Scripture. I cannot gesse at his thoughts, by his words: because (to my remembrance) this distinction (betwixt necessary, and unnecessary doctrine) is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this place onely let fall. But for the interpretation of doctrine, by practise, if the Rejoynder will have this hold in the ancient times, what reason can he give that it should not also hold in our time? If so, then why is not our argument good: Calvin, Bucer, Beza, the Divines of Helvetia, France, Netherland, &c. have in their practise, banished Crosse, Surplice and kneeling, Ergo, their doctrine is against them?

 

Page  354

  1. The Rej. calleth it, a spirit of singular singularity, to thinke, the whole Church, in the dayes of purest zeale, and frequent martyrdome, did not du•ly exami•e the•r Cerem•nies. And yet the same Rej. (without any spirit of singular singularity) acknowledgeth, that in the two first ages, after the Apostles, there was either want of clearnesse, or a manifest touch of error, about some sixteene points of doctrine, very important: pag. 458. Which if he will reconcile with this affected accusation, he must say, that Christians in those times, more attended to certain humane Ceremonies, then to divers points of divine doctrine, though in the maine power of Godlinesse they went beyond those which are purer both in Ceremonies and doctrine. But the trueth is, he spake there for excessive commendation of our English-Church-doctrine, and so, in comparison, depressed the Primitive; and heere he seeketh to defend our Ceremonies, by theirs, and so extolleth their judgement of Ceremonies; in both places (according to occasion) exceeding th• just measure, as it usually falleth out to those, who dispute out of affection, more then out of judgement.

 

  1. The Rej. taketh it ill, that the Repl. should say, that the bringing in of humane Ceremonies, made any way for Antichristian supers•ition. But seeing that the Antichristian Papists, argue so strongly from those first humane Ceremonies, to divers of those which they use, and by us are rejected, that they cannot bee fully confuted, but by rejecting of both, I see no reason for his indignation. Gideons Ephod, in the argument of the eight chapter of Iudges (according to our new translation) was

 

a cause of Idolatrie. And was not the old crossing, at every step, at every comming to and going out,*at the apparreling themselves, at washing, at eating, at lighting candles, at sitting, &c. as a great cause of that Idolatry which hath been, and is-used, about the crosse? D. Fulke (in his Rej. to Bristow, cap. 3.) mainteyneth, that many abuses and corruptions, entred into the Church, immediately after the Apostles time, which the Divell planted, as a preparative for Antichrist. The same Doctor also (ibid. sect. 4) proveth many Ceremonies of the Primitive times, to have been unprofitable; because they are abrogated. And (cap. 9.) hee sayth plainely, that the error of conceiving and using some superstitions, or superfluous Ceremonies, is common to the Fathers, with Papists.

 

  1. A great matter is made of that which the Replier said, concerning 1500. yeares experience of humane significant Ceremonies. For about this the Rej. sayth, that it is wonderfull rashnesse, answering the spirit of montanus, to challenge the whole Church of error, in this matter, for 1500. yeares. But 1. it is rashnesse in the Rej. to accuse one of challenging the whole Church, who mentioned not, in his challenge, either Church or whole. 2. The whole Church cannot be understood, except the Waldenses and all like unto them, that is the purer part, bee excluded out of the whole Church. 3. Doctor Morton himselfe (Prot. Apol. cap. 25. sect. 9.) maintaineth this sentence of Mr. Calfhill: the Fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel, in Ceremonies; if by simplicity be understood a vertue, opposite, either unto superfluitie, or superstition. And And are not superfluity and superstition, errors? 4. From

Page  356

the primitive times by the space of sixe hundred yeares, the Church generally erred, in giving the Lords Supper unto infants, as D. Morton sheweth (Prot. Apol. l. 2. cap. 25. sect. 10.) and after that for many hundred yeares, it mended (for the common course of errors) as soure ale doth in Sommer. 5. The Rej. cannot name any Church in all that time free from errors: neither can he denie, but the Church that erreth in doctrine, may erre in Ceremonies. Ergo. 6. Hee was unhappie in mentioning Montanus his spirit, which breathed, and broached so many humane Ceremonies, that the Church hath ever since beene more wronged thereby, in Ceremonies, then in any other respect, or by any other spirit of that time, as all men know, that have read those writings of Tertullian, which were dictated by a piece of Montanus his spirit. Montanus would have three Lents, in stead of one: Montanus advanced the Crosse unto more honour, then ever it had before: Montanus (in one word) was of a ceremoniall spirit.

 

SECT. 30.

IN this section, foure or five Protestant Divines are named, as allowing of some significant Ceremonies. But there is not any one of them, whose judgement to the contrary, hath not beene manifestly declared. I will not therefore so much distrust the Readers attention,

Page  357

and understanding, as to weary him with needlesse repetitions.

 

SECT. 31.

HEere the Defend. urgeth upon us, the ordinary forme, of swearing upon a booke. To which if the Replier hath not sayd enough, I leave it to the Readers judgement, after hee hath compared the Rej. opposed: which speaketh 1. of Gamballing; 2. of Bucklers and Quarrelling; 3. of a proofe necessary to an answere; 4. of swearing by a bocke; 5. of Sophistication, in confounding our Churches esteeme, and the trueth about this forme of swearing; 6. of equalitie betwixt speciall solemne worship of God, and occasionall swearing, in civill Assemblies. I will onely adde, as an explication of the Repliers answere, that which D. Iackson answereth the Papists, about this fashion (Orig. of unbel. sect. 4. cap. 35.) We use the booke, onely as a complement of the civill act, whereby we give satisfaction unto men; or as a visible resemblancer partly, to by standers, or spectators, whose eyes by this meanes may become as true witnesses as their eares, that such protestations have beene made; partly unto him that makes them, who will be more wary and circumspect what he avoucheth and protesteth, when he perceiveth his speeches must be sealed with such remarkeable circumstances, as they cannot be often recalled to his owne and others memorie. To the same ende, men of honourable place and calling, use to lay their

Page  358

hands upon their hearts, when they take a solemne oath.

 

SECT. 32. Concerning the Lords-Day, Temples, and ceremoniall Festivals.

  1. THe Def. having spoken of his much sayling in the maine, and narrow Seas, commeth to object the observation of the Lords Day, as a fit example of a humane Ceremonie: whereupon, the Replier continuing his similitude, sayth, that he was at this time, eyther sea-sicke, or sleepy, with his much sayling. This the Rej. calleth a scurrilous jest, and scoffe: so liberall is he of termes, when reasonable answers are not at hand. But if he had thought of the ordinarie sayings, Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus; animi perturbatio est quaedam ejus aegritudo; he would have spared an innocent usuall phraze of speech, and not markt it with so foule pich or tarre as Scurrilitie.

 

  1. Now let us heare, how hee can excuse the Def. his allegation, from all sicknesse, and drowsinesse! The observation (saith he) of the Lords Day, in place of the Iewes Sabbath, is not a humane institution: but the analogicall and allegoricall instructions, lawfully rais•d from that Day, are of humane institution, not divine. I say againe, as the Repl. sayd, (without feare of the Rej. his Spitte of scurrility) this is a sicke or drowsie answer. For 1. it maketh all analogicall instructions, instituted Ceremonies: as if nothing could be gathered from any fact, or text, in the Scripture,

Page  359

by analogie, or proportion, but it must bee straight a ceremoniall institution! 2. These analogicall instructions, are, (as the Def. expresseth them) meditation of Christs resurrection, and of our eternall rest to come. And who ever heard or read, that these were humane insti•utiō? what mā instituted them? when? by what authority? upon what necessity? Are they ambulatorie, or mooveable Ceremonies, which our Convocation may change at their pleasure? Awake, awake, both Def. and Rej. and see the vanity and scandall of this allegation.

 

  1. As a Parallel of the former example, Temples were added by the Defend. And to make it agree, the Rej. is driven to this issue, that if it be lawfull by accommodation, to put men in minde of heavenly things by earthly; then it is lawfull to institute things to that use. Which is as if hee should argue thus: if it bee lawfull, by accommodation, to put men in minde of Gods faithfulnesse in keeping his Covenant of Grace, by the constant course of nature which he hath set in heaven and earth, or by the faithfulnesse and constancy of men morally honest; then it is lawfull for men to institute sacred signes for confirmation of the Covenant of Grace, and so new Sacraments properly so called.

 

  1. Concerning Ceremoniall Festivals, of mans m•king, our practise cannot bee objected: because wee observe none. We take occasion of hearing,* and praying upon any day, when occasion is offered. Wee say (with Hospini•n de Orig. Fest. Christ. cap. 2.) Not the day, but the Word of God, &c. puts us in minde of the nativity, resurrection, and ascension o• Christ. And this might be

Page  360

the reason, why the Repl. passed over this example, as of no moment. For we doe not feare (as the Rej. imagineth) lest all the Churches of God will condemne us herein. Those that consent with Geneva, nor those of Scotland; (except some of the new edition) no nor any that follow Bucers judgement (in Mat. 12.*) I would to God that every Holy-day whatsoever beside the Lords Day, were abolished. That zeale which brought them first in, was without all warrant of the Word, and meerely followed corrupt reason, forsooth to drive out the Holy dayes of the Pagans, as one naile drives out another. Those Holy dayes, have beene so t•inted with superstitions that I wonder wee tremble not at their very names. See the place. Occolampadius (in Isaiam, cap. 1. v. 4.) thinketh that no wise Christian will condemne us. I never heard wise man yet, who did not judge that a great part at least of other feasts beside the Lords Day should be abolished. He insinuateth manifestly more then hee speaketh. Zanchie (how favourable soever hee speaketh of some festivals) cannot condemne us by that sentence of his, (in 4. praec) It is most agreeable to the first institution and Apostolicall writings, that onely one day in the weeke be kept holy.

 

Page  361

SECT. 33.

IN this Section (which the Repl. thought to require no answer) the summe is, that we are crosse and contrarie to the Authors of our Seruice-booke, who thought our Ceremonies to be the better for being significant. Now if this be understood so, as if we disliked the significancy of them, because those Reverend men did like it; then we are uncharitably wronged by rash judgement. If so, that though such excellent men did thinke so, yet wee thinke otherwise; then our answere is they were men; and though they saw much evill in Popish Ceremonies, yet not all; and therefore judged some tolerable for a time, which were free from some faults, that others were guiltie of; though they banished divers, which were as free from darkenesse and dumbnesse, as those they reteyned. Why they removed those, we see good reason: why they retayned, or rather tolerated these, more then them, we see none, that experience hath not confuted.

 

SECT. 34.

  1. IN this last section, this reason is brought (accordding to the Rej. his construction) If all Ceremonies (properly so called) must some way be significant; then

Page  303

either all Ceremonies are unlawfull, or some significant Cer•monies are lawfull. To which I answer 1. that all outward actions designed or purposely observed, and done in reference to some other thing, beside the cause or part thereof, which is the Rej. his definition of a Ceremony, Manuduct. p. 29.30. are not mystically •ignificant, by the Rejoynder his owne doctrine, ibid. pag. 32.33. Mysticall signification, or the want of it, doth not make a Ceremonie, or no Ceremonie. A character of significancie, maketh a double or treble Ceremony; Relation without signification, maketh a single Ceremonie▪ So, pag. 39. Simple Ceremonies are those, whose use is onely for order and decencie: Double are those, which serve also to edífication, 1. by some profitable signification. 2. If all Ceremonies were significant, yet it doeth not follow, that they all teach a spirituall dutie, by their instituted mysticall signification: of which kinde of signification, all the question is in this chapter, as is to be seene in the first section. 3. If all Ceremonies be significant, then there is no sense in exposing double Ceremonies to significant: because none are, or can be dumbe. A•d yet this opposition is made use of by the Def. and Rej. as other where, so in these two last sections.

 

  1. The Repl. taking from the Def. this proposition: Nothing is properly called a Ceremony, if it bee altogether destitute of signification; sayth that this convinceth not us at all: because, if this be true, then our tenet is, that all ceremonies properly so called, of mans invention, should be packed out of the Church. What? (sayth the Rej.) even Sitting at the Communion, and a communion-Table? Yea, say we, even these if they can be prooved to bee Ceremonies

Page  345

of mans invention.

 

  1. From the former consideration, the Defen. was challenged, for having gone about to deceive us, often times before, by confounding all circumstances of order and decency, with properly called Ceremonies; whereas now, in the winding up of all, he confesseth, that they cannot be properly called Ceremonies, except they be significant. The Rejoynder his answere is, that all such circumstances are some way significant, though not symbolically: because they signifie some way what is to be done, or where, or when, or why, or how. Now though every circumstance doeth some way argue that whereof it is a circumstance, and so in a large sense may bee called a signe of it; yet 1. every circumstance is not a signe of what is to be done: because some have no place, untill the thing be done. 2. Both the Def. and Rej. have hitherto confounded indicant and symbolicall signes, except onely one place, where (for a shift) the Rej. sayth, Beza, differing in phraze from other Divines, meaneth by Symbolicall, Sacramentall signes, pag. 264.265. Heere therefore to distinguish them, is to confesse their former dealing not faire.

 

  1. If all circumstances belonging to time, place, person, instruments or manner of actions sacred, be sacred significant Ceremonies; then not the Clocke onely, but the leaden weights of it, not the ground onely upon which men stand in worship, but the Rushes also strowed by occasion upon it, or the Besome wherewith it is swept; not the Preachers voyce onely, but his black Cap, his comely heard; not the Communion Table-clothe onely, but the

Page  364

colour of it; not distinct speaking onely, but every Preachers proper Tone, are sacred, significant, ceremoniall Weights, Rushes, Bezomes, Caps, Beards, Colours, Tones, &c.

 

See what an argument the Def. made against us, according to the Rej. his explication: If Signes Indicant that is, such as by the nature of the things themselves, without any religious signification put upon them by institution, are lawfull; then Symbolicall signes, that is, those which teach a spirituall duty, by their mysticall instituted signification, cannot be unlawfull. In striving to helpe the Def. out of the water, hee hath sunke, and followed him deeper in, then before he seemed to bee plunged.

 

  1. Calvin (said the Def.) and some other, doe accuse some Popish Ceremonies, because they are dumbe. They accuse them also (answereth the Repl.) for speaking: as the Scripture doth condemne images, both for being dumbe, and also for teaching lies.

 

Well said, (saith the Rej) When the Ceremonies are altogether dumbe, they condemne them for not speaking: when they speake idly, or falsely, they condemne them for speaking amisse. But you condemne them simply for not being dumbe. But heer is a great mistaking of the Rejoynders. For we condemne humane Ceremonies for speaking idely, that which Gods Ordinances doe sufficiently speak; and falsely also for their manner of speaking, as if they had just commission to speake in Gods name, when they have not. When an image of the blessed Virgine