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

SECT. 6. Concerning our Divines judgement about Ceremonious worship invented by man.

THough those three staple sections of the manu∣duction. 5.6.7. may be sufficient also for clea∣ring of all the materialls here exstant, yet refer∣ring 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 mon∣sters. 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 cen∣sure? 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 ac∣cidentall worship, whether op••nion did make the diffe∣rence? 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.

3. 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 mentio∣neth 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 spea∣king 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

sinne of scandall and presumtion, though a man goe not thi∣therto 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 Ori∣gen is well knowen, how he delivered Palme, to those that offered it to the image of Serapis, with this ex∣pression 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 pur∣pose concerning this very case, of goeing to Masse with suche an opinion, accuseth them that doe so, of external∣ly professed idolatrie: and therin was justified by Me∣lanchton, 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 Si∣drac.

Misach, and Abednego, if they had then lived, in suche a fashion: Miserable men, yow may doe that exter∣nall 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 se∣cond answer is that those which are present at false worship, by violence, are not false worshipers, and upon this he tri∣umpheth, 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 Mas∣mongers 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 Convo∣cation 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 can∣not 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 Rejoyn∣der had shewed that we more need the Crosse, then those other.

2. 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,

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 sancti∣fied, 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?

3. 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 di∣scharge 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

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 Ceremo∣nies 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 defi∣neth 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 distin∣guish 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 wor∣ship? 3. Crossing with suche expression of the signi∣fication 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.

4. The first witnesse brought in for us, is Calvin, inst. l. 4. cap. 10. sect. 8. All those constitutions are wic∣ked, in the observation wherof we place any worship to God. The Def. answereth, he meant not by worship, cir∣cumstances of order. Which the Repl. readily gran∣ted: 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,

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 im∣posed 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 wor∣ship 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 cō∣tradiction to the former sentence. All the rest of the Rejoynder his allegations out of Calvin, about this an∣swer have their answer, in the staple sect. of the Manu∣duction. 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 opi∣nion of holinesse and justice. The Repl here justly noted the ill sound of those words: the inward vertue of wor∣ship 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 oc∣casion, he should have declared, how, and how farre worship doeth constift in opinion? As for inward

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 ju∣stice, 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 ho∣linesse, 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 gran∣ted, if justice (in this forme of speache, wherby our Di∣vines 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 wor∣ship, and least of all, the inward vertue of worship.

2. 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

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 appropria∣ted 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 Re∣joynder, in that, he maketh Pulpits etc. to be onely simple Ceremonies, and ours in question, double and tri∣ble. For by that it followeth, that our questioned Cere∣nies are twice, or thrice more appropriated to worship, then Pulpits.

5. 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 con∣vertible, 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, ac∣cording to the Rejoynder his owne translation: If it be well and throughly looked unto, what it is, that doeth so

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 ab∣horreth them. This (sayth the Repl.) is a direct confuta∣tion of the Def. (and I adde, of the Rejoynder.

For if all humane Ceremonies flowed from affecta∣tion of will-worship, then a Pulpit, and suche like mat∣ters 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 wri∣tings as he doeth in that private epistle. As to adde one place of note, opusc. pag. 356. disputing against Cas∣sander, 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 Rejon∣der his second is, that Calvin spake of mysticall Cere∣monies excescively multiplied. As if both these could not stād together, for to speak against any sinne excessively

multipied, and yet withall against sinne. The Prophets often speak of multiplying idols altars, fornications, accor∣ding to the number of cities, or townes, on every ••igh hill, under every green tree. Doe they not withall speak sim∣plie against all idolatrie? But Calvin (as the Rejoynder addeth) alloweth in some case, the mixture of a like wa∣ter 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 Re∣joynder 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 Ro∣chet 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 pro∣bem, though I doe not allow of suche thinges.) Which many∣festly 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 accu∣sed 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.

5. 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

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 Di∣vines) 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 de∣nieth 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 pro∣perly worship? Or no improper worship come meerly

from the will of man? It is rather a propertie of Cere∣monies, 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 wor∣ship, 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 in∣ternall. Secondly, those externall expressions, are as es∣sentiall 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 inter∣nall. Thirdly, Though those expressions, be not accep∣table

of, or in themselves, being separated from the in∣ternall, 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 accep∣table 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 Chem∣nitius, he was desired, at the least, to shew, that ther is some worship, which is not necessarie: because other∣wise he must needs sincke under Chēnitius his charge To this the Rejonder answereth, 1. that Chemnitius un∣derstandeth 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 acknow∣leging 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 substan∣tiall, 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.

And this answer may serve for all that is further rejoy∣ned about Chemnitius. For it beareth wholly upon perpetuall necessitie of the same particularities. The ex∣pressions 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 Sur∣plice?

6. About Peter Martir his testimonie, beside the re∣petition 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 circum∣stances 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 acci∣dentall worship belike may be called worship, but not some worship, without ambiguitie. 2. He answereth, that P.M. condemneth onely the framings of essentiall wor∣ship. But first P.M. his words are, lest any thing should seeme to make for worship the Apostle absolutely damns all will wor∣ship.

Secondly he discerneth all worship f••om order and decencie, Thirdly he opposeth order, to significant Ce∣remonies, of mans institution, admitting the one and

rejecting the other. Others argue thus: the people is un∣learned 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.

7. 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 mee∣ting. 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 in∣vited) taketh occasion to say something, o•• Melancton, Bullinger, Bucanus, Polanus, Cartwright, Fenner, Tile∣nus, Chamier, and Perkins.

But he bringeth no answer of moment, but that we∣ther-beaten distinction of essentiall and accidentall wor∣ship, 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.

8. Melancton (sayth the Rejoynder) reckones it an error, in constitution of thinges indifferent, to ac∣count them worship: but he meaneth, with opinion of rightousenesse, and necessitie, worship of themselves, whose immediate ende is Gods honor, not vestments, Feasts, and

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 or∣dinances. 2. The signe of the Crosse, to signifie our cou∣rage, 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 eve∣ning. 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 allo∣wed by the Rejoynder pag. 45.46. of his manuduc∣ction, 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.

It followeth not: the Apostles reteined the rite of blood and things strangled, therefore we may sett up new things as mat∣ters 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 hurt∣full 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.

9. Bullinger (sayth the Rejoynder) undoubtedly condemneth all worship of God, which is meerly of mans tradition: but not Ecclesiasticall laws, nor wor∣ship 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, un∣derstanding onely by holy-days fit times of preaching and praying and by days of fasting, occasionall times of extraordinarie humiliation.

10. 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 vo∣wed to drinke no wine for a certain time, his abstey∣ning from wine perteyneth to worship, onely by acci∣dent. So if in solemne prayer for a Prince, his titles, and style be rehearsed, or any speciall termes of honor, this

perteyneth to prayer, by accident. What is this to suche instituted worship, as the Crosse?

11. Mr. Perkins (sayth the Rejoynder) condem∣neth that worsh••p instituted by men, which is so simple, and in it self. For he granteth a bodilie worship neces∣sarie (as kneeling, lifting up of hands, and eyes etc.) ter∣ming 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.

12. 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 Rejoyn∣der

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 all∣together as importable a burden.

13. 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 wil∣lingly 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 rea∣sonable, 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

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, & mul∣tiplying 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 que∣stion did, both in horses, & treasure. 1. King. 10. And so what assurance have our Consciences, from their judge∣ments of discerning? Kings multiplying of treasure, and horses, concerneth (in conscience of acting) onely themselves, and their officers. but the Ceremonies (in

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 deter∣mine, how muche treasure, and how many horses, ordi∣naily 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 Con∣vocation 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 obser∣ved 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 ridi∣culously, 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

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 Sa∣crifice 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 mar∣ked: the Def. and Rejoynder have hitherto sayd much upon the generall rules for Ceremonies, Order, Decen∣cie, 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

against the dignitie both of Conscience, and also of Wor∣ship: because neyther of them are subject to any mere pleasure or custome of men. Mr. Latimer Serm. 3. be∣fore 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 con∣jecture of D. B. his judgement, in suche a case, by his practise, it will be very uncertayn.

Notes

• Cum velit Deu•• ex prae∣scripto legis sua coli•••••• proinde fictitios ••ultus det••ste∣tur, fide•• certe¦re•• ugnat, quic∣quam o••us mandatis addi, hominum arbi∣tri••.
• Ceremonia est observatio quaedam vel modus specia∣lis colendi Deum, deter∣minatus ex solo mandato legis∣latoris.
• No quid bute∣tur facere ad cultum, Apo∣stolut prorsus damnat omnem cultum volun∣tarium.
• Alij ita ratio∣••inantur: Po∣pulus est in doc∣tus & rudis: ergo tenendus est Ceremonijs. Sed hoc discri∣men est inter nos & veteres, ilii plurimas habu••runt Ce∣remonias, nos paucifsimas. Esse tamen o∣portet aliquas quae faciu ut ad ordin••m & de∣••••rum.
• Non valet con∣sequentia: A∣postoli ritum de sanguine, & suffecate, retinu••runt. Ergo licet nova instituere tan∣quam cultus. Neganda est consequentia: quia Apostoli non instituerunt sed retinuerunt hunc ritum. Deinde, etiamsi quid novi instituissent, non sequitur, innovationem concessam esse: Semper haec imitatio nacuit Ecclesia. Episci∣pus est auditor, et accepet verbum, & ritus, ab Apostolis, cum certo mandato, ut haec non mutata tradat Ec∣clesiae.