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 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 Cere∣monies into Gods worship now, then it was under the Law. For God hath abrogated his owne (not onely suche as prefi∣gured 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,

and the Rejoynder have to say of that.

2. 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 Re∣joynder 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. ne∣glected, 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 sim∣ple 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 Cere∣monies 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 pro∣positions, and then fayth, that they are two falsifica∣tions: 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

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.

2. 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 Au∣thors. 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 affir∣med onely, but not proved. Onely some generall sup∣positions 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 Cere∣monies, 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 pre∣sident of Magdalen College in Oxford and Reader of Divi∣nity lecture there.

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 straight∣ly 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 be∣wreck their popish anger upon us, who in this wil use extremitye, in other laws of more importance partia∣li••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 resi∣gned, 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 Gra∣viora legis, by the faithfull ministrye of feedinge pa∣stours, should bee furthered, & after that orders ten∣ding to edification, & not to destruction, advanced, & finally, the spouses friends should by all meanes be cherished favourd & defended & not by counter∣fite & false intruders, condemned & overborne, & de∣faced. But alas a man qualified with inward gifts for lack of outwarde shews is punished, & a mā onely out∣wardly confornable, inwardly cleane unfurnished, is let alone, yea exalted, the painfull preacher for his labour is beaten, the unpreaching Prelate, offen∣ding in the greater is shot free, the learned man with∣out

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 be∣fore the ordinance of God? Is not this in the schoole of Christ, and in the Methode of the Gospel aplayn dis∣order? 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

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 adversa∣ries? 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 fur∣niture (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. Be∣cause 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, Ma∣nasses Ephraim. My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church, the Crests and tri∣umphs 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 know∣ledge of it, nor without greife of minde. God move

your spirit at this praesent to fight against Carnem, Circumcisionem, imo Concisionem, against literam et le∣gem, 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 wor∣shippe of God, your love toward the poore wel∣willers, your hate towarde the professed enimies your unity in true conformity, the other neither be need∣full 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.

3. That all allowed some ••ignificant Ceremonies, is manyfestly proved false, in the former allegations. 4. We glory no more of synceritie, in refusing the Cere∣monies, 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 deli∣gence, and discretion) he hath alleged many thousands of their owne testimonies, for the disproving of those errors and superstitions, which the same Authors, in

other places, or at least in their practise, doe apparently eyther allow, or admitte of. This is the wordy an∣swer which the Rejoynder giveth unto the testimo∣nies 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.

3. 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 an∣swer 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 Ar∣gument. 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 Ie∣wish 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 car∣nall, beggerly rudiments, in Gods service. Ergo. The assump∣tion I prove thus: All that use mysticall rites, wherto there

is no Spirit annexed by God, as unto the Euangelicall insti∣tutions of the new Testament, use carnall beggerly rudi∣ments, in Gods service. But they whiche use humane mysti∣call 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.

4. Because the Def. for an example of a Iewish rite, lawfull for Christians to use, named Circumcision, the Repl. concluded, that belike, he houldeth Circumci∣sion, 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 Eccle∣siasticall Ceremonies devized by man for signification of morall duties; whether it be lawfull, for a Churche repraesentative, (suche as our Convocation) to ap∣point, and urge Circumcision, in this kinde, and to this purpose, upon those Christians whoe are under their power?

5. Now of this quaestion in the formal state of it, I finde not, that scarce any doubt was amonge under∣standing Christians, before this Def. and Rej. being

urged therto by direct consequence from their princi∣ples, have now found it necessarie, to mainteyne the affirmative part, for defence of our beggerly Ceremo∣nies.

Ther was some difference betwixt Hierome, & Augu∣stine, 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 unlaw∣fulnesse of Circumcision, they usually dispute against other humane Ceremonies: and the Iesuits in answe∣ring, 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 dis∣prove it.

6. 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 Ceremo∣nies, 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 Ceremo∣nie. 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 signi∣ficant Ceremonies, muche lesse a rejected or abrogated Ceremonie, but onely is the ende of orderly and de∣cent cariage of thinges instituted by God.

7. Secondly, no part of the partition wall, betwixt Iewes and Gentiles, may by any Convocation-house, or other Churche be reared up againe. But Circumci∣sion is a part, nay a principall corner-stone of that par∣tition-wall, howsoever it be interpreted, so it be ap∣pointed. Ergo.

8. Thirdly, Circumcision cannot be esteemed more lawfull to be instituted for a significant Cere∣monie, 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

to judge therof.

9. In the fourth place, It is not lawfull for any Churche to impose Ceremoniall burdens upon Chri∣stians. 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.

10. 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 Ceremo∣nies.

11. Presently after the Def. had excused Iewish Rites, if they were used without Iewi••h opinion, he cō∣fesseth (without distinction) that all Iewish-Rites are abo∣lished. Wherin the Repl. noted a contradiction. But the Rejoynder (to helpe at a dead lift) distinguisheth be∣twixt Iewish Ceremonies, as they were typicall or figu∣rative

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 typi∣call signification: so that (in his imagination) any Iewish Ceremonie may be now used, and by our Convoca∣tion-house imposed upon us, if typicall signification of Christ to come be taken from it. And is not this a Chri∣stian 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 unlaw∣full; 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.

12. Vpon the former grante (that all those Iewish rites, which were once Gods institutions, are now abo∣lished) the Repl. concluded, in the wordes of D. Whitakers: Num verò veteres figurae sublatae sunt, ut locus

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 Testa∣ment were figures of the new Testament, and therefore when the thing it selfe is come should cease.* 1.1

And what else could he understand, but signifi∣cant 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?

2. 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, a∣gainst significant Ceremonies? Certainely It was not the meaning of D. Whitaker to charge the Papists with typicall praesignifications of Christ yet to come: and ther∣fore he must needes understand, by typicall, significant Ceremonies.

3. The wholl•• intention sayth he) w••s, to condemne the Po∣pish 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:* 1.2 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. yeel∣ding 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 sen∣tence 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.* 1.3 And it is to be observed, that D. Wh. in that place con∣futeth 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 Cal∣vins, 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.* 1.4 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 sen∣tence there so crosse to our English tenents about Ce∣remonies, that he durst not set forth his wordes in

printe. For of D. Wardes fidelitie, in setting forth what M_r. Allenson had praepared for the presse (ne verbulo im∣mutato) cannot without wronge be doubted of.

13. 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 wil∣leth humane significant teaching Ceremonies, onely permissively, not praeceptively. Of which distinction I know not well what to make: as being uncertayn whe∣ther he meaneth, that God hath onely permitted in gene∣rall, 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 prae∣ceptively, 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 di∣scerne

that will to be praeceptive, and not meerly permis∣sive.

For all knowe, that God hath commanded most con∣venient 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 Cere∣monies in generall: and after it be made apparant, that our significant Ceremonies are more convenient for us, then others.

14. 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 opi∣nion of necessitie: and so might bringe in all the Leviti∣call 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 opi∣nion 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 hu∣mane Ceremonies was, that men would needes forge new wor∣ships of God. In whiche wordes, he findeth more then any other man can: opinion of necessitie: and upon that

accuseth the Repl. of I know not what varying uncer∣taintie, without any reason at all. Afterward, he ob∣serveth, that Iewish Ceremonies have more colour of necessi∣tie, 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 dif∣ference, but that the comparison may still be quaestioned.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ceremoniae ve∣teris Testamen∣ti figurae erant Testamenti novi, & proin∣de re ipsa prae∣sente cessare debuerunt.
• * 1.2

  Ad id quod obijcitur de un∣mero, & gravi∣••ate legum Pontificiarum.
• * 1.3

  Bellarminus ait, Caeremoni∣as ab Ecclesia institutas ad juvand••s ru∣diores Respon∣deo, rudae non esse Ceremo∣nits erudiend••s dedit Deus Scripturas, ut ex ••is rudes in∣s••itutionem ne∣cessariamhauri∣rent, etc. De Sacram. pag. 203.
• * 1.4

  Deut hoc dis∣crimen esse volu••t inter Iudaos & nos, quod illos ut pueres docuit per signa sensi∣bilia; nos ut viros, simpli∣cius sine tali∣bus signas.