To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Pag. 11. l. 5. for answer that, r. answer, saith that. p. 25. l. 2. for ad∣ventious, 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. devi∣sed out of singularity. l 22. r. fall together by the eares. p. 272. l. 1. r. Ca∣nem 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 pon∣teficall 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.
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
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.
2. 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
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 in∣differencie, judge, whether this be contradicted, by that, something is warranted which is not praescribed.
3. 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 affec∣ted to say muche upon litle or no occasion, that his an∣swer might seem abundantly complete.
1. The Repl. once for all noteth, that the Def. his distributing of our confirmations, from Scriptures, fa∣thers, 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 fa∣thers testimonies, judgements, and others confessions, the
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 mo∣ment, 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 ac∣counted 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
things which might be well spoken to another, were spoken to a Bishop.
2. 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 Ceremo∣nies whereof some are substantiall Divine, and Doctri∣nalls, and have particular determination in Scripture, some are not substantiall, called, Rituals, and mere Ceremo∣nie••: 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 determi∣nation 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 Rejoyn∣der or any considerate man for them, will denie. The Rejoynder himself for instance of substantiall, Divine, Doctrinall Cerem: putteth al those of Moses,
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.
3. For defence yet of this distinction of Ceremo∣nies 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 distin∣guishing 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, con∣cerning 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 Sacrae∣mentis, De cultu Sanctorum:
Ergo the distinction of Ceremonies into, Dogmaticall and Ritual or mere Ceremoniall, is allowed.
The second place is in the 71. pag. of the same booke: the Apostles elsewhere have written nothing in the dogmati∣cal kinde, which Paul had not preached to the Galatians. Where Dogmaticall is opposed to Prophetical•• prae∣dictions, suche as S. Ihon in the Revelation taught, as Bel. there alledgeth. And not to any thing, not particu∣larly 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 angu∣lum.
4. The Repl. sayd that Ceremoniall is sometime op∣posed to morall, and sometime to Substantiall, but not to Doctrinall. Heerupon the Rej. concludeth, that ther∣fore, 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 doctri∣nall Ceremonies, and some other.
Where 1. the consequence is suche as the former: Sometime Ceremoniall is opposed to morall, and sub∣stantiall: 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.
5. 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 Doc∣trinall, because they cannot be at their pleasure Cere∣moniall.
6. Concerning the rest of the third section, all that is rejoyned, dependeth onely upon the terme mereCere∣moniall 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 Cere∣monies are not onely suche as the Rejoynder p. 33. called single Ceremonies, for in the same place, he ma∣keth significant rites, having relation to a further wor∣ship, suche as ours are, double, or triple Ceremonies. So that this mere Ceremonie can be nothing else, but a Cere∣monie which God hath not instituted for his wor∣ship: 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 evident∣ly true, that it cannot escape the imputation of idlenesse, eyther to dispute for, or against it. Onely this I note,
that by this distinction, God cannot appoint a mere Ce∣remonie 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.
7. 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 how∣soever this be true, yet if it were Gods revealed will, that more immediate meanes of worship should be insti∣tuted in the Christian Churche, then Christ hath insti∣tuted, 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 faithful∣nesse of Christ, was not so extended to all the ne∣cessities of the Churche, as Moses his faithfulnesse was.
8. 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.
9. The Def. addeth, that as Moses appointed Ce∣remonies,
so Christ removed them. Whiche explication of Scripture being blamed by the Replier, the Rejoyn∣der 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 Cere∣monies, before necessarie, then be neede not praescribe other Ceremonies then simplie necessarie, and so not all mere Ce∣remonies. 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 autho∣ritie: 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 Ceremo∣nies, 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 ap∣pointed by authoritie divine. 3. It is added by the Re∣joynder 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.
10. About the Repl: his answer to a place cited
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? be∣cause (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 hey∣nous 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, espe∣cially those which concerne a Bishop, as ungodly, irreli∣gious, 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
is, that the same words, whiche the Def. citeth out Cal∣vin, are found in Bellarmine, de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. the con∣trary wherof, the Rejoynder doeth averre upon his cre∣dit. Now here is to be marked, that the Repl. spake not of every word the same, nor understood indivi∣duall 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,* 1.1 that law might Easily determine all things in Special, as in deed it aid, for in special it praescri∣bed 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 sup∣posed 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 Sa∣craments and articles of faith to be ordered by the Apostles and their Successours according as circumstances of time and place should require.
Let ther also a comparison be made betwixt this, and that translation which the Rejoynder maketh of Cal∣vins 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 com∣mon 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 diver∣sitie of laws and ritualls, according to the diversitie of Na∣tions 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 Cal∣vines 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,
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 Bel∣larmin, then of Calvin.
11. About Calvins meaning the Rejoynder striveth muche, but cannot draw it to his purpose. 1. He gran∣teth, 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 re∣quire, 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
speaketh ther obscurely, he doeth in this 36, sect inter∣pret plainly:
* 1.2I witnesse that I do onely approove such Humane constitu∣tions 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 neces∣sarie in their kinde. I answer yes: because the kinde under which they were found, was absteining from scan∣dall. 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,* 1.3 Can say that, So a new law was made by them, who onely as appeareth, went about to praevent scan∣dals, 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?
5. The Rejoynder objecteth further, that the par∣ticulars, and not generalls are appointed as necessarie.
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 necessa∣rie, and so appointed, sometime not necessarie, and so not to be appointed. 6. When the Rejoynder per∣ceyved that this testimonie of Calvins maketh nothing for significant Ceremonies, he at last denieth the quae∣stion here to be of significant Ceremonies, but of Ce∣remonies. 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 quae∣stion to be of one kinde of rites onely, to bring an ar∣gument which concerne rites in deed, but not of that kinde?
12. After some pretye phrases of the Repl. his run∣ning 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 na∣ture, use, and signi••ication. i. e. suche as Crosse and Sirplice are, as if we, disputed here of an inde∣termined
idaea. And upon this miserable shift, not kno∣wing 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 a∣way, & 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 un∣lawfull, 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 ge∣nerally 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.
THis passage will soon be dispached, if the quae∣stion may be cleared. The purpose of David, was eyther conditionall onely, if God should al∣low and second the businesse, or else absolute, with∣out 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
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 argu∣ment 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 Da∣vid, ••••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 allo∣wance was a failing in being too absolute, Davids pur∣pose 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 be∣came 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 revela∣tion. 4. The Def. sayth, and the Rejoynder maintey∣neth it, that ••od did interpret Davids affection for a deed. But no imperfect velleities of good, are so inter∣preted. The will which is accepted for a deed, must be absolute, and hindered onely by defect of power. How∣soever, out of the Rejoynder his grantes, we are furni∣shed
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 dou∣ble 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 com∣m••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) with∣out his guide, and sayling without his compasse.
These things being considered, it were but vaine la∣bor to prosecute the Rejoynder in particular litigations about this matter, which would be litle else then repe∣tition of the same things. I will onely therfore consi∣der 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 pro∣vocation) advanced above their measure.
The Def. his retortion is thus. This Act of Davids
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 Re∣joynder) 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 tea∣cheth 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 pur∣pose to build (til that forbidding by Nathan, was lawfull. I answer 1. the conclusion (being understood of a condi∣tionall 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 war∣rant, 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 abso∣lutely 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
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 repel∣led 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.
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
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 for∣bid••ing.
2. 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 autho∣ritie, 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 Di∣vine 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
sayth God forbad other fire etc. to be used that he might ex∣clude all adventious rites, and teach that he detested what∣soever 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.* 1.4
Mr. Attersoll also in his learned and grave Commen∣tarie upon Numb. 3.4. doeth largely declare out of this example, how God disliketh, and disclaimeth mens de∣vises in his service, as trash, trumperie, and mere dotage: instancing (among other devises) in Ceremonies added unto Baptisme.
3. 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 mise∣rable conceit, that Gods not commanding doeth for∣bid 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
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 cere∣monie, 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 deter∣mination 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 determi∣ned 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.
4. 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 di∣stinction) 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
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 quae∣stion, he sayth generally, in divine things to coyne new lawes is nothing but to decline.* 1.5 Yet the Rej. will have it, that Iunius in that place cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10. doe••h re∣fute 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.* 1.6
Which are the words also of our Defender and Re∣joynder. 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 confes∣sed
to use the same distinction, but in another mea∣ning. 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 ordina∣rily 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 Pa∣pists 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 Vni∣versitie of Cambridge: these which a little after he appli∣eth 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 inconsi∣derate phantasie, easily uttered, but hardly excused.
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 con∣fession.
What should a man say to suche Rejoyners, that know full well our meaning, and yet will never leave threa∣ping another meaning upon us.
Wee never sayd, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decencie, are punctually deter∣mined 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 tre∣ble 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 un∣wary
reader. 2. It is secondly answered by the Def. that the ancient writers speak of doctrines, not of ceremo∣nies. 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 Ce∣remonie, is a bush to hide I know not what in.
Now for the former charge Compare here the A∣brigment 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 occasi∣on, when we are to speak of the questioned kinde of ce∣remonies, 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 re∣ductively, 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 diffe∣rence, whether those Ceremonies which bear all those
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.
2. To Tertullians wordes: Prohibetur quod non ultro est permissum: that is prohibited, which is not permit∣ted, the first answer made by the Def. was, that our Ce∣remonies are permitted. Heerunto it was replied, that Tertullians meaning must needs be of other permission then the Def. can challenge to our Ceremonies, other∣wise 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 unprohi∣bited.
The Rejoynder here for resolution of this dif∣ficultie 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, conside∣ring 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 prohibe∣tur 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
against it, can have no reasons out of the word made against it. Suche ••ustian is that clause of the Rejoynder, our mea∣ning 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••ohi∣bited 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 parti∣cular 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 Rejoy∣ning 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 prae∣scribed 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.
this occasion, especially with his affected exaggerations if it be not impossible.
And that the Rejoynder cannot prove this, D. Mor∣ton 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 corrup∣tions.
Moreover, how the best of those ancient writers allowed of sundrie humane Ceremonies, then in use, Augustine shewe••h, epist. 119.* 1.7 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.* 1.8 Augustine will have us be content with those very few Ceremonies which are conteyned in the Canonical Scrip∣tures. 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 Ce∣remonies did assault the Churche. The fathers (in them) decli∣ned 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
dumbe signes, and dead images, which things he hath forbid∣den.
1. THe first quotation by the Def. chosen to an∣swer, 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 Ceremo∣niall, 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 as∣keth, 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 par∣tialitie to take up the word mere in this place, and not sect. 3. But this doeth rather shew, that though the Replier
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 un∣true, 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 Cere∣monies are, and mere order is not. 4. Hee is styled a de∣ceyved man, that thinketh signification put upon a Ce∣remonie, 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 Cere∣monie double or treble more then mere single rites of order.
2. 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 Cere∣monie should be accounted more doctrinall, or more unlawfull, then the Crosse in Baptisme.
To the former part of this quaere, the Rejoynder an∣swereth
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 appoin∣ted all Ceremonies properly religious, which are to be used. They answer, that this is true of all doctrinall Ce∣remonies, 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 instituti∣ons, 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
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. Addi∣tion also is some alteration, if not of the things institu∣ted, yet of the institution, as making it unsufficient, or incomplete, by it self alone.
2. 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 particu∣lam 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.
3. Sopping of bread in wine, considered abstractly from bread and wine, was no signe instituted as an in∣strument 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,* 1.9 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
excluded, though some part of the bloud was represen∣tatively 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. Hi∣therto therfor appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang downe his head. Let us see if more cause be in the com∣parisons 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.
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 sop∣ping 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 an∣swereth, that this argument would prove as well, that the eating of a Paschall lambe before the Sacra∣ment, 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
1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremonie di∣stinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used. 2. It is very probable that the Apostles goeing in∣to the colder part of the world, did use sprinkling.
3. Concerning a Paschall lambe, used before the Sacrament, as a Ceremonie morally significant and re∣ductively 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 sod∣den, 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 sop∣ping communion excused. In the second, ther is ob∣servable partiallitie, in that he calleth setting an addi∣tion 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.
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 acti∣ons, 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, imme∣diatly 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 no∣teth 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 cros∣seth his owne definition of a Ceremonie, an action &c. in other places he defendeth images, in this very secti∣on, he leaned even now, upon couches, as upon safe Ce∣remonies amonge the Iews.
3. The outward neernesse or likenesse of a humane
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 unallow∣able, 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 cru∣cified.
See heer what further is to be sayd of Iuel, and Whi∣takers, after the Def. and they are conferred.
3. 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 accu∣seth not onely the Repl. but I know not how many (they, them) of being scornfull out of pride of spririt.
Who would have thought that one word (used accor∣ding 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, conclu∣ding 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.
D. 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 Ce∣remonies, for ornament, and for signification, he gran∣teth that of ornament▪ as he doeth after of order, but no suche consent is given of signification, but rather the
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 Ca∣nonicis Scri••turis cont••nentur.
The trueth is, that our Divines doe ordinarily reject the Popish Ceremonies, upon this ground, So Galla∣sius 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.
4. 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 que∣stion, 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: whe∣ther the Scripture doeth condemne suche Ceremonies, as it leaveth indiff••rent, or onely those which it some way forbid∣deth? 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,
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.
5. 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 Ce∣remonies, that they should be needfull, and profitable, for aedification, the more comely and orderly performance of Gods instituted service, which being wanting in our Ce∣remonies 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 Abrid∣gents 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
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 estee∣med unlawfull, it is very necessarie, that at least the con∣ditions of lawfull Ceremonies should be Demonstra∣ted 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 Ce∣remonies 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 compendi∣dious 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 Mathe∣matickes. 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 Cere∣monies agreable to those rules about which this que∣stion is moved. If the Def. had performed this before, what need the Rejoynder to have made here a solemne
digression, touching the rules for Ceremonies. Which di∣gression of his, shall now have a hearing.
1. IN the first place, he taketh great exception a∣gainst 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 con∣versatiō, so these two are not apposite one to the other. 2. that the eating of thinges offered to idols, was a hea∣thenish 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, comeli∣nes••e
and order:) because none of these are proper unto Ceremonies.
The third is that a negative (suche as not to be scan∣dalous) 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.
2. Another rule urged by T. C. (that Ceremonies tende to the glorie of God) is also rejected by the Rejoyn∣der as the former. But no new reason is brought, but onely that it is a comon rule, not proper to Ceremo∣nies, 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 Ce∣remonies, our Divines notwithstanding doe usually apply these and suche like generall rules unto Ceremo∣nies, because the breache of these rules is common to (and as it seemeth inseparable from) humane signifi∣cant 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 re∣ceyved their being. They are scandalous both to Pro∣testants and Papists, as afterward is declared.
So Vrsine, tom. 1. pag. 365. giveth one rule for Ce∣remonies, 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
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. re∣quireth 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 opini∣ons are proper to Ceremonies.
3. H. I. is in the last place brought in, as not hol∣ding 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 obser∣ved 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 acknow∣lege 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
true. Whether this discretion of his betwixt Circum∣stances, and properly religious Ceremonies, be justifia∣ble or no, that question belongeth not to this digres∣sion, 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 writ∣ten 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 see∣meth, the Defend, and Rejoynder making suche cour∣tesie 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 re∣ferre 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 obser∣ved: and this is registred in the table, Rules about Ceremo∣nies 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
profitable for the aedification of the people, by the more come∣ly and orderly performance of that service, whi••h God hath expressely praescribed in his word) and so to put of the bui∣sinesse 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?
The onely place (by the Rejoynder his confession, for Ecclesiasticall power, in constituting Eccle∣siastical Ceremonies.
THe Defender beginning to confronte and con∣fute our tenent, neyther bringeth, nor can bringe any Scripture, for the authoritie of
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 war∣ranto.
If this place then faileth them, or serveth not their turne, are not our Ceremonies confessed to be appoin∣ted 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 Cere∣monies 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 appear∣eth 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 immedi∣ately draweth out of the text, which he doeth not.
Neyther doeth he so muche as name that other thing
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 refer∣reth 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 repeti∣tion, over and over againe.
2. 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 ad∣versaries 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 wal∣king as if a man goe upon his handes, with his feet up∣ward. Ambrose extendeth it no further then to things mentioned, in that Chapter: secundum ordinem sup∣pra dictum Oecumenius also maketh it a recapitulation of thinges formerly mentioned, of speaking by course, and womens being covered etc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He Summarily gathers together all that wēt before. Basil
expoundeth it of time and place, ed. gr pag. 530. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and of proportion to be observed be∣twixt divers members. pag. 459. These are some Fa∣thers▪* 1.10 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 Cere∣monies proper to religion, out of this place. Thomas in his Comm. upon it, doeth so interpret it, that he lea∣veth no ground for any suche conclusion: Honestly] 1. e. while one Speakes that other be silent,* 1.11 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.
* 1.12Amonge later writers, these words are often ap∣plied 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 Cal∣vin by name. ••ccius (sayth Musculus upon this place) In his Commune places, in the title of humane traditions ci∣teth 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 prae∣script of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopall tra∣ditions, but the Apostles owne, to wit such as he had delivered to the Churches.
Our Divines (f••w of note excepted) doe onely from hence conclude rites of mere order and decencie. And some of the graver, Papists,* 1.13 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 Scrip∣ture, 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 li∣cence, and authoritie, to doe that, which by the law of nature, they might doe, and by the light of nature, know they might.
3. The Def. was requested to shew, by what Lo∣gick 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 au∣thoritie to all Churches, to ordeyne any Ceremonies, that may
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 ve∣ry 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 Circum∣stances, Civill, or Occasionall, and Ceremonies meerly Ec∣clesiasticall. What a miserable cause is this that our Op∣posites defende, which deeply concerneth the Con∣sciences 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?
1. THe Replier, seeing that all the cause (on the imposers part) dependeth on this place of Scripture, & finding nothing by any Logick
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 pa∣per 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.
2. 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 man∣ner. 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 unlaw∣full. 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.
3. First of all he denieth the proposition to be found, in the Repl. his meaning. But I can see no rea∣son of this deniall. 1. Hee sayth, that Order and Order∣ing is taken sometime largely, for all discipline, or policie, sometime strictly, for rancking of persons and actions hand∣somely 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,
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. con∣fesseth 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 Rejoyn∣der expoundeth it. Yet immediatly after he accuseth the Repl. for saying order to be the right placing and dispo∣sing 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 assem∣blie expounded, how one part of worship shall succeed another etc. without a blinde.
4. 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 Assum∣tion, he sayth, that comelinesse is nothing but the seemeli∣nesse of order. For (sayth the Rej.) beside that comeli∣nesse 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,
but it implieth so muche in this very place. So that the Rejoynder hath not given any reasō, why the Proposi∣tion, or first part of the Argument should not be ad∣mitted. Yet after that he hath fathered it upon Mr. Iacob and made the Repl. his disciple, he commeth to exa∣mine the proofes of it, though he himself (as is now shewed) hath given sufficient assent unto all conteyned therin.
5. 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 per∣teyning 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.
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 〉〈 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 assum∣tion: 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 De∣cencie unto edification, though he denie these to con∣teyne 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 que∣stion, and allways included.
6. 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 cō∣linesse 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. ex∣poundeth 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,* 1.14 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 con∣jecture, 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 ad∣versarie (author of the Sober reckoning) did not com∣pare
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 Ecclesi∣asticall 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?
6. For more manifestation of the Repl. his vacuitie of comon honestie, the Rej. referreth us to the second te∣stimonie 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 ne∣cessarie, 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.
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 in∣joined, 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 ne∣cessitie, Nor Bell. himself in that place. Neyther is the question there handled, of poyntes of faith or thinges absolutlie necessarie to sanctimonie. All double tre∣ble 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 me∣morie 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 an∣swer to Deut. 4. is the same with Bel. p. 134.3. That ex∣position of laws without backing, is of the Rej. his owne forging. No suche thinge is founde in the places quo∣ted, nor yet did Bel. professe to defēde any suche thing.
Of binding the Conscience, enough hath been sayd in the head of Difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish.
4. 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 di∣versitate: 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, be∣cause 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.
5. 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!
for Bellarmine in that very place sayth: Christ is the cheife law-giver who by his owne Authority can judge and make lawes.* 1.15
Now out of all these allegations, the Rejoynder ma∣keth 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,* 1.16 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 hu∣mane 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 concrea∣ted time and place, were new things in Creation, di∣stinct 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 calum∣niator, sic novam ferri••b ijs legem dicat, quos constant dun∣taxat
scandalis occu••rere, quae sunt a Domino satis diserte prohibita? If procuring that scandals be avoi∣ded, 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 Cere∣monies, it is a vayn thing for them to plead it, that can∣not shew it under the great Seal. I doe not thinke, that any earthly Kinge would have his subjects submit thē∣selves to that power, which is fetched out of a Patent, invisible, and onely avouched by conjectures.
7. 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 ap∣pointing new thinges. Here the Rejoynder 1. obser∣veth, 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 ministe∣riall performance of things appointed, he denieth ap∣pointing 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 Commissi∣on legative to appoint and use rites serving to order and de∣cencie. Adde to this onely, and then it is not onely that, but all that which we require. 3. He crieth out of mi∣serable perversion, eyther by grosse negligence, or mista∣king.
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 di∣stinctions: 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 Bellar∣min answereth to Calvin in the very same manner that the Rejoynder doeth: The Pope is not the cheife lawgiver but the vicar of Christ,* 1.17 & by Christes authority ma∣keth lawes. 3. He addeth that Iunius disp. de trad. distin∣guisheth 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 Assum∣tion 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.
8. 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 sit∣ting 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 un∣forbidden 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 asser∣tion 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 parti∣cular, 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 knee∣ling at prayer, to be suche thinges as the Lord could not
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 un∣derstanding 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 can∣not 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 appoin∣ted 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
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 parti∣culars. 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 di∣rection 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 Bapti∣zing, by the rule of that.
9. The Repl. having (as he thought sufficiently grounded the generall, that a perfect law leaveth no∣thing 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 pur∣pose, in many words. 1. He sayth, that Circumstances of order were not harder to determine, then those of
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, be∣cause all else was easy. I Answer, no rule of Divinitie did eyther teache the Repl. to say so, nor yet the Re∣joynder 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 cita∣tion 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.
Now though Calvin, being so excellent in his ex∣pressions, 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 de∣cencie 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 ser∣ved? 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 mat∣ter or altercation about this phraze, and that (which a∣greeth not) immediatly after he had without reason accused the Repl. of picking quarrells pag. 88.
10. A Second reason, of the Repl. his proposition, was, that whatsoever in worship is above order and de∣cencie, 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 signifi∣cant
Ceremonie for edification, is lawfull, yet commeth not under any of those heads. But he himself con∣fesseth a significant Ceremon: instituted of God, to be essentiall worship, and instituted of man to be wor∣ship, 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: be∣cause 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 Cere∣monie 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 hu∣mane 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 ap∣plied to that Civill meeting, as it ought to be? And why then shall application of Civill decencie unto
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, un∣derstanding 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 un∣profitable 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.* 1.18 Nay (to passe by our Di∣vines) let the Papists themselvs judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. confesseth those Ceremonies to be forbid∣den, which are unprofitable altogether, and vaine praecepts, unproffitable & frivolons Ceremonies, onely by humane Spirit invented.* 1.19 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?
11. 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 requi∣reth not the institution or usage of any new thinge, but onely the right placing and disposing of thinges for∣merly 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.
2. 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. appro∣priateth 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 see∣meth 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.
As for the Dignitie of divine actions, that is best sui∣ted with mans reverent and humble simplicitie, not with outward shews of dignitie, invented by man. The womans ordinarie vaile was more suitable to the dig∣nitie 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.
* 1.2012. 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 signi∣fication. 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
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 con∣fesseth 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 Decen∣cie 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 Cere∣monies, of mans inventing? If not, then the Apostles did muche forget themselves, in their publicke worship∣ping of God, before men had invented suche Ceremo∣nies, for that is no answer which the Rejoynder after giveth: all Churches are not bound to this or that particu∣lar 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.* 1.21 So Mr. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is, when the service of God is performed with convenient and fitt circumstan∣ces of time, place, person, and gesture, and heereof the Apostle speaketh. 1. Cor. 14.40.
The plaine simple trueth, without Ceremoniall af∣fectation, is, that Decencie is (in this place) nothing
but good civill fashion,* 1.22 agreable not onely to worship, but also to any grave assemblie. Decencie (sayth Pa∣reus upon the place) is opposed to vanity, Spottes, ryott it stands not in hoods, Caps, or vizardes of fond Ceremo∣nies. 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 re∣quire 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 Apo∣stles, 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,
therby inverting and perverting the holy ordinances of God.
12. The receyved definitions of Order are brought in to the same purpose, by the Replier. And the Re∣joynder yeeldeth so muche as they importe, viz. that or∣der in strict signification doeth not implie suche Cere∣monies 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 Ce∣remonies, or flie to Decencie, upon which he cannot any more fasten then upon order, as hath been she∣wed.
Nothing materiall is added in the rest of the Re∣joynd. his answer unto this Argument (where our Di∣vines are observed, to distinguish order and decencie from mysticall Ceremonies, the context of the chapter. 1. Corinth 14. Is declared to respect no mysticall Ce∣remonies, 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 a∣bout Order, and Decencie which are now sufficiently dis∣cussed.
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 unlaw∣full.
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 Advo∣cates 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, accor∣ding to the title of the digression, the Rejoynder sod∣dainly
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?
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. ac∣cusing not him alone, but others also, that they can be∣leive no trueth crosse to their opinion, because they seeke ho∣nour 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
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 te∣stimonie, 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 to∣ward the West. And why may we not conceyve the like of Easter, as well as of this East observation?
2. It was secondly answered, that those, Feasts, which the Primitive Churche is sayd to have observed, were not by Canonicall imposition, but voluntarie accom∣modation to the infirmitie of some, as appeareth by the varietie of their observation, and Socrates his testi∣monie. 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 law∣full, 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 uni∣versally thought otherwise of, & therfor left off, though no reason of inconvenience can be shewed, which did
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, with∣out proof, or colour, meerly for opposition sake: Wheras not∣withstanding 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 Cere∣monies.* 1.23 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 adver∣saries 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 intan∣gled themselves, by too muche seeking to circumvent or goe beyond others.
About the Varietie which was of olde in the obser∣vation 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 Ecclesi∣asticall imposition, nor upon any knowne groundes out of Gods word, it is the same that the Repl. affir∣meth, and Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. laboreth to con∣firme.
3. 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 ge∣nerall of universall Ceremonies by humane institution, and not Feasts alone? Now those first Ceremoniall ob∣servations 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.
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 ordinan∣ces. 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.
4. 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. in∣sinuateth 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 Poly∣carpe is sayd to have praetended, was for the fourteen day of the moneth, and is confuted by a contrarie prae∣tense 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 quo∣ted
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.* 1.24 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:* 1.25 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 ne∣cessarie to salvation, are written in the Scriptures, and (which is muche more) all thinges that are eyther ne∣cessarie, or profitable for all men to know.
1. BEllarmine was brought in by the Def. as an indifferent Adversarie, confessinge that Pro∣testants 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 re∣ferre to the Readers judgement.
2. Chemnitius was alledged, saying, there be some Ecclesiasticall Rites, which have neyther command, nor testimonie, in Scripture, which yet are not to be re∣jected. 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 testi∣monie in Scripture. But 1. It is no idle shift so to interpret an allegation objected, as that the interpreta∣tion cannot be confuted, but barely denied. 2. As Cir∣cumstances 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 Scrip∣ture.
3. The same answer is given, and no other Re∣joynder 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 sen∣tence 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 see∣meth 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 ac∣cording 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 accor∣ding 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.
4. About Iunius, ther is more adoe, because his
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 an∣swered 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 circum∣stances 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 Ec∣clesiasticall 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 re∣ject? 2. To what ende he judgeth, that thes thinges should be added unto those that are divine? For if the ende be confor∣mitie 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 Ter∣tullian is to be thought of: The will of God, is the cheif neces∣sitie,
and that the Churche of God is not tied unto mans wis∣dome 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 con∣demne our Ceremonies even because they are not commanded in the Word. But he might have remem∣bred out of sect. 2. that the argument is of warrant and direction from the word, not of direct and speciall com∣manding. Now Iunius plainely denieth authoritie or ex∣ample of the worde, or any thinge but mans will, to be the grounde of suche Ceremonies, and for that cause would have them avoyded.
2. 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 bet∣ter 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, pro∣poundeth this question: if it be not in the Magistrates
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 Cere∣monies: or affirme that to be false of English Cere∣monies, which is true of all Ceremonies. 2. When our Divines speak against Popish Ceremonies, the Re∣joynder his ordinarie answer is, that they speak of Ce∣remonies held necessarie, and therfore not of suche as ours. Now when Iunius expresly speaketh of Cere∣monies 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 Cere∣monies 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.
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 Ce∣remonies are rejected by Christ, cannot meane our Ce∣remonies. 5. Iunius speaketh of Ceremonies added to di∣vine thinges: and so (by the Rejoynder his collection, not of suche as ours, because that must needs import neces∣sitie, and worship affixed to them. And yet both Def. and Rej. cap. 2. sect. 3. can finde out many additions to Di∣vine thinges, which are intended onely for praeser∣vation of them, and the••fore (by their owne judge∣ment) 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.
5. Two thinges yet the Rejoynder noteth in the by: 1. Iunius would not resist suche thinges pertinacious∣ly, as the Repl. doeth 2. Iunius speaking against clad∣ding 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 Iu∣nius meant adorning and hiding of nakednesse, but the Def. opposed garments to members of the bodie: and therfore the
Repl. need not by his marginall note have applied Iu∣nius his clothing to the Def. his garment. Now for the first of these, ther is difference betwixt pervicatious con∣tending, without reason and measure, which Iunius mo∣desly 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 ac∣counted pervicacie, disclaimeth that, and yet doeth tho∣roughlie 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 Di∣vinitie, 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 unparti∣allnesse in the buisinesse, and alleging suche grave rea∣sons 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
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 re∣spect of Religion, pag. 95. where is sayd that they are comely formalities, suitable to the dignitie and varietie of di∣vine 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 gar∣ments, doe seem to account it (in comparison) naked without them. 3. If the Def. meant to shew, that our Ce∣remonies 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 Reli∣gion. Neyther is this snaching at words, as the Rejoyn∣der 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?
6. 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
these: the Churche must be ordered by the rule of the Apo∣stolcall 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 ap∣perteine to Conscience. As the Apostle sayd: let all thinges be doen comely and in order, so sayd he also: what∣soever thinges are venerable, or honest, just, of good report, and prayse, let them be doen.
All the particulars of these latter, are not Ceremoni∣all: 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 un∣derstood of similitude, not of aequalitie, is in the for∣mer words answered.
For no disparitie can be shewed, betwixt many particulars of Doctrinall pointes, in their cases of
practise, considered with all circumstances, and the par∣ticulars 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 other∣wise, 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 per∣suade 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 un∣lawfull.
To which I answer 1. Zanchie writ to Q. Eliz not onely that the Ceremonies should not be so severe••y ur∣ged, 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 over∣throweth
all that warrant which the Def. and Rejoyn∣der 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 pu∣blicke dissention, private perturbation of conscience, with scandall of good and bad. They make not for order, but dis∣order, 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 ridicu∣lous, idolatrous attire of this Romish whore.
2. 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.
3. 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.* 1.26 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
the people of God are tartly to be dispraised,* 1.27 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.
3. Our opposites, that defend, and commend the Ceremonies, as orderly decent thinges, tending to Edi∣fication, 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 Ceremo∣nies, 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 E∣pistles, 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 belon∣geth: Now wel-sare a good stomacke: Hee cannot resist, but hee will not yeeld.
1. THe Def. his first reason is: Whatsoever is unlaw∣full 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 agre∣able 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 unlaw∣full 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
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.
2. The second reason, brought by the Def. was: Nothing that is indifferent, can be pronounced simplie un∣lawfull. But some Ceremonies of mans invention are indiffe∣rent. Ergo, not to be pronounced simplie unlawfull. All whiche is granted of circumstances of Order, if by in∣vention, 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. A∣gainst 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 pro∣nounceth 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
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 contra∣dict he knew not what.
3. The third argument was: There must needs all∣ways 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 circum∣stances 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. con∣teyned in his etc. He addeth also varietie of solemne feasts But before those can have place here, it must be pro∣ved, that suche feasts must needes be. But (sayth he) never
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.
4. The Def. his fourth reason was, that the Non∣conformists like well, that every Minister in his Parish, should determine of Rites and Orders: whence would follow varie∣tie. Ergo they holde some rites of humane invention and or∣dination, lawfull.
To this the Rejoynder addeth, as an explication in text, and table, that Non-Conformists set up Parish-om∣nipotence without referen••e to Bishops, as some teache, or to Synods, as other. Wherby a Minister, and some of his Parishi∣oners, 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 omni∣potencie, 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 omni∣potencie, they confesse themselves, to set up Diocesan omnipotencie, Convocation-omnipotencie, etc.
2. It worse beseemeth D. B. then most other, ex∣cept he wil confesse, that he, when he was Minister at the Hagh, in Holland, and with the consent of his peo∣ple, ordered thinges in that Congregation (as to re∣ceyve
the Communion sitting at the table, to leave out the Crosse in Baptisme, and Surplice in all Divine ser∣vice) 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 admini∣stration, 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 conve∣nient; even in Churche affaires. So that our tenent is, that the Minister, and his people, may use no Cere∣monie, 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, to∣gether with Baptisme, and other buisines, more then ordinarie. 5. That which he intermixeth, of reference to Bishops, bringeth all the Churches of France, Nether∣lands, etc. under his Censoriall note, of Parish-omnipo∣tencie.
Thus much for the Rejoynder apart. Now to the Def. 1. His Argument is rejected, as supposing, all Cir∣cumstances to be of like nature with these in contro∣versie. 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 supposi∣tion Festivall days.
2. The second fault, found in the Def. his argu∣ment was, it supposeth all circumstances to be of insti∣tution. No, sayth the Rejoynder againe. Let him ther∣fore 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 Cere∣monies.
3. The third was, it supposeth contrarie circum∣stanc••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: be∣cause the question is of Ceremonies, and Ceremo∣nious practising, not of incidentall fashions. Of insti∣tution, which the Def. calleth ordeyning, not of volun∣tarie 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 mis∣understood by the Repl. Now upon these premisses,
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 facul∣tie) he would have wanted reproachefull words, to ex∣presse his indignation of suche an imputation.
5. 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 Ce∣remonies are Divine, but that in respect of permis••ive ap∣pointment, 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 ea∣sily prove. For 1. He denieth the Def. to call our Ce∣remonies 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
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 ex∣spected in vayne, when our Ceremonies may be so con∣cluded.
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 Argu∣ment, the Rejoynder thought good, to answer with si∣lence.
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 Abridge∣ment, and Mr. Hy: viz: that Ceremonies have no war∣rāt 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 Abridge∣ment, they have great wronge doen them. Whosoever will turne to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abrid∣gement, shall see, that the words which our Def. hath turned into a Proposition, are there but part of an illu∣stration, belonging to this proposition: All Ceremo∣nies 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 Ce∣remonies in question, doe swerve from those Rules. Now all this cheif pith, both of Proposition, and As∣sumtion, is by the Def. omitted: A by thinge is put in place of the Proposition. A new assumtion is for∣med: 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,
if it be true which here sayd, the Def. cannot be defen∣ded.
2. 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.
3. This of it self, is an Argument against our Ceremo∣nies. 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 Abridge∣ment. Yet this whole Argument being granted (ac∣cording 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 argu∣ment fathered upon them, as a first and cheif one, this surely cannot be excused from wrong doeing.
2. To the Def. his answer unto the Assumtion, viz. that in generall and permissive appointment, our Ce∣remonies 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 ap∣pointe, nor forbid.
Here the Rejoynder amonge many shrewed wordes,
hath this reason that the same thinges are commanded, in general, but in particular are onely permitted, And for ig∣norance of this, he twi••teth the Repl. with want of lo∣gicke. But I cannot yet see, out of any logick how a ge∣nerall can be commanded, generally, and any true spe∣ciall or particular of it be onely permitted. He that commandeth all order and comelinesse, commandeth also every speciall of it. Every generall command, ap∣plied 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 forbid∣den 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.
ALl the materiall doctrine of this Chapter is be∣fore 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 decla∣red.
1. THe Def. sayth, that by proper and essentiall worship, he understood Ceremonies so ne∣cessarily 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
of decencie and edification displeaseth God. But the contra∣rietie 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 decen∣cie, and contrarie meanes of edification, are not contrarie to order, decencie and edification. All this answer depen∣deth upon a distinction betwixt generall, and spe∣ciall.
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 gene∣rall, be essentiall worship, every true speciall of them must needs be so.
2. It is not of, or for nothing, that the Rejoynder doeth so waver in his speache: contrarie Ceremonies ser∣ving to comelinesse, and edification, contrarietie of orders, con∣trarietie of formalities of comelínesse, and meanes of edifica∣tion. 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 ge∣nerall of decencie, order, edification, but under the generall
of meanes, formalities, etc. So that the wholle distinction is confounded, by this wordy explication of it. 3. Con∣trarietie 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 gene∣rall of order, making the contrarietie: which should (if it could) have been declared. By the same propor∣tion, 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 in∣ventiō▪ 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 De∣cencie (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 tem∣per of the body, and therfore doeth admit no more contrarietie, then good health doeth.
2. Because the Def. in his distinction, placed Edifi∣cation
onely on the part of Accidentall worship, that was noted as a flaw. To which the Rejoynder answe∣reth, 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 essen∣tiall 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 essē∣tiall worship tending to worship of it self, is as broken a phraze, as the former was a distinction.
3. It was noted also, that the Def. confounded ap∣purtenances, and parts of worship. The Rejoynder an∣swereth, that those thinges which are appurtenances onely in proper, simple, and strict sense, are partes of wor∣ship improperly, and in a sorte. So in deed at the Vniver∣sitie, 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.
4. 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 substan∣ciall. 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 acci∣dentall Bishop.
5. The Repl. his last, was, that those which the Def.
calleth accidentall parts of worship, have not (by his owne expresse confession, in this sect.) so muche com∣munion 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 di∣vided worship into essentiall and accidentall parts, did not mean worship, and the complements of worship, muche lesse, parts of essentiall worship, and parts of com∣plement. 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, com∣pare thē to the hayr of a mans body, under the terme of excrement. I therfore would not be loath to hear one call
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 ob∣jected by him, that a litle before spake of Parish-omnipo∣tencie, 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.
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 wor∣ship: which onely therfore, needeth here to be discus∣sed.
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 Cere∣monies, which did not confute them by these places. The Papists have marked this: Haeretiti accusantes Cere∣monias a Deo non institutas, superstitionis, & idolatriae, fun∣dantur 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
addition is forbidden, is meant onely addition of corrup∣tion, 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 corrup∣tion, It is worth the considering, which learned Chamier answereth,* 1.28 The bringing in of a Contrarie praecept is neither used for, nor can be called Addition, for in Addition both re∣maine, 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 te∣stament, is more forbidden, then unto mans. As it were a sinne to adde any thing unto Gods Testament as di∣vine, so also were it to adde any thing unto mans testa∣ment, 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 con∣teyned in these prohibitions, so often and earnestly ur∣ged, in strict reference unto the holy ordinances, and worship of God, which by this interpretation, can chal∣lenge no privilege from them.
2. For the second part of these distinctions: humane additions of praeservation, the Repl. observed, that addi∣tion 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 Re∣joynder
answereth nothing else, but that, therfore addi∣tion 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 Chur∣ches 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 cros∣sings, 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 for∣mer.
3. 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,* 1.29 and religious. The Rej. answereth, that Cajetan doeth
allow the distinction, of additions, into corruptive, and praeservative, in Thom. p. 3. q. 6. a 8. and that in the alle∣ged wordes, meaneth additions corrupting, though pre∣tented 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) inten∣ded, that all additions for preservation, are but pretenses. But as for Cajetan his allowing this questioned distinc∣tion in 3. q. 60. (for 6. was an error) whosoever will looke upon the places, shall finde, that neyther in Tho∣mas, not in Cajetan, is any mention of addition preser∣ving, 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 preser∣vative. 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.
4. 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 Syna∣gogues, and a thousand suche. And in deed he might as well name diverse thousands, as these. But 1. if so many
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 rea∣dings, 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 divi∣ding 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, de∣privations, and excommunications, for not allowing of additions to Gods worship.
5. 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 Re∣joynder answereth no. And denieth the consequence, by example of hardning, and shewing mercy, joined toge∣ther, 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
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 preserva∣tion 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 de∣minution of preservation. Calvin in his nineteenth ser∣mon upon Deutrinomie, hath this remarkable sen∣tence.
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 law∣full for us, to take any thinge from it.
6. It was likewise observed, that this praetence hath been allways the shoeing-horne, to draw on su∣perstition 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 admi∣nicula, 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 superstiti∣ous thinges, under the praetence of bringing in onely preserva∣tive meanes, doeth witnesse that suche additions as are pre∣servative,
were allways allowed by Gods people, as confirma∣tion 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 some∣thing of their owne to the word of God.* 1.30 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.
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 Re∣joynder teaching the very same doctrine of Ceremo∣nies,* 1.31 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 imper∣fect, 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 Do∣minus 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
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 Corne∣lius 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 He∣brewes 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 ap∣peares Deut 12.* 1.32
The Rejoynder hath many wordes, wherwith he raiseth up a great dust, to darken the cause with all.
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 wor∣ships properly so called, which is the Rejoynders shift, but all that it behooveth us to doe, is limitted to Gods com∣mand.
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.
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,* 1.33 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.* 1.34
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,* 1.35 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.* 1.36 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,* 1.37 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.
1. HEere (for brevitie sake) the question was repeated, in these words: whether all will∣worship, 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 Ce∣remonies, 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 Re∣joynder 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 ordinari∣ly 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
or two Iesuites, that had been forced to let fall suche a speache, sayth of them, as we say of the Rejoynder, Do∣cere non poterunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 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. Com∣mandement sayth thus: All fained worship is forbidden: all worship which is not of God,* 1.38 but sett up by men, when wor∣ship 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. Concer∣ning the examples,* 1.39 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 spe∣ciall occasion. Some vowes are no more worship, for
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 she∣wed 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: be∣cause 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 wor∣ship, 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 ap∣pointing of this or that, doeth not follow upon the practise of free-will-offerings, and vowes, except it be
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.
2. About Vrsines testimonie, wee have suche tur∣nings, 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 un∣lawfull. 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, ther∣fore (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 con∣clude, that therfore they are affirmed to be a man im∣properly, 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
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 proper∣ly 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 ma∣keth 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. conclu∣deth the very same thing out of Vrsin, which we main∣teyne, 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 alled∣ged, 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.
that the Def. offered to confute out of Vrsin, our propo∣sition? 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 Ceremo∣nies, in a large sense, to be helde worship, the Repl. an∣swered, that thts should be proved. The rejoinder is, that the large sense it set downe, viz. as circumstances apper∣teyning to the setting out of divine worship.
As if we had not required a proofe, but onely an ex∣plication. Yet this explication hath no more truthe in this large sense, then if one should say, that all circum∣stances 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 na∣ture) 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 wor∣ship, in this uncouth manner of speaking.
One argument yet is of the Rejoynder his owne in∣vention: 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
honoring of an idoll.
If by suche thinges, he meaneth suche as crosse and sur∣plice, we not onely grant, but urge, that suche thinges doen to the honoring of an idoll, are idolatrie, and ther∣from conclude, that suche thinges doen to the hono∣ring 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 consi∣der, 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 cir∣cumstances, should be (in diverse Ci••ies) both Idolatrie, and also true worship of the true God, as being cir∣cumstances of both.
3. Concerning Zanchie. His name is by mistaking, muche abused. For howsoever he distinguisheth wor∣ship 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,
all which the Def. and Rej. call essentiall worship. His words are these: Things annexed to worship are holy ordi∣nances which among the Iewes were very many, as their tem∣ples, Altars, persons, garments, vessels, times &c. And afterward Ministers, Elders, Deacons, Lords Day &c are the holy things of the Christian Church.* 1.40 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 essen∣tiall.
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 Rejoyn∣der answereth, that the Crosse is not annexed to the Sa∣crament, 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
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?
2. If the Crosse be not an essentiall part, or mem∣ber of the solemnitie, and therfore not an annexed ad∣junct of it, no more then a mans hand is to be esteemed a thing annexed unto him, or his bodie?
3. 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 fig∣leaves, so ill-favoredly sowed together, cannot cover the nakednesse of will-worship.
1. THe 8. section was neglected by the Repl. as conteyning nothing but affirmation on one side, and negation on the other. This omissi∣on (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 se∣verall places, before, and after, litle reason had the Re∣joynder to suspect advantagious craft, in passing by the same termes in this one place. 2. Ther is no clear∣nesse at all in heaping up termes, without any explica∣tion of them. 3. When these termes, proper, essentiall, ne∣cessarie 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 advan∣tage,
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?
2. The argument was thus formed by the Repl. Those Ceremonies, which have the kinde, nature, and defini∣tion 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 au∣thor, 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.
3. 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 con∣teyned. To this diverse thinges are rejoined, not wor∣thy 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 dis∣tentment 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.
2. 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 Re∣joynder might have put that litle pamphlet into the belly of a whale, by setting it forth with a large confu∣tation, 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 wal∣kers? Mr. Bradshaw was made for accurate, short, & mere logicall fashion of writing. So muche appeareth out
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 ac∣curatenesse of mere logicall dealing.
3. Because the learning of this argument was deri∣ded 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 Carpen∣ters 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. Howsoe∣ver, 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.
4. The Rejoynd. raiseth up a report, without shew∣ing from whome he receyved it, that Mr. Bradshaw re∣versed his owne opinion of thinges indifferent. Which un∣till it be some other way confirmed, then by an adver∣saries 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
concludeth in deed cap. 3. that ther is no absolute indiffe∣rent 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 ac∣tion that a man can doe, by the power of his will, that is meer∣ly and absolutely indifferent. These passages come the neerest to that which is here fathered upon the trea∣tise: in all which this cruditie appeareth not: ther is nothing indifferent. Nay the harshest of these asser∣tions, 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 Aqui∣nas, in the great booke, called his Summe, prima secundae, q. 18. ar. 9. hath this conclusion:* 1.41 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 lear∣ning and sense.
4. 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 be∣fore? though if that were true, the soundnesse may be likely enough.
Many reasons have been in other mens heads, which never came to the knowlege of our Def. and Rejoyn∣der. And he is immediatly tould, that it is for sub∣stance 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 commande∣ment, 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 es∣sentiall 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 concer∣neth 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,
for which also we are twitted with new learning by the Def. pag. 185. where also he affirmeth that Gods institu∣tion 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 ac∣cidentall, 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 unreasona∣ble living creature.
It is in the second place observable, how the Rejoyn∣der 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 be∣fore, 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
agree.
It was required, that one of our Divines should be named, who handling the common place of wor∣ship, 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 con∣senting with our Divines, neyther treating on any com∣mon place of worship, but onely writing a breif con∣fession, teaching a difference betwixt lawfull rites of order, and proper worship, which we never doubted of. He taketh hold of those terms immediately, & of it∣selfe, 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 ho∣nour God: in which respect also, the Rej. himselfe ranketh them under the head of immediate wor∣ship.
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
how the authors of these confessions did not esteem significant Ceremonies Crosse, Surplice etc. to be mat∣ters 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 ban∣ners and Crosses, to signifie the victoríe of Christ thorough the Crosse. Of which sort is all the furniture of Massing at∣tire.
Vpon suche groundes as these, the Rejoynder con∣cludeth 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 wor∣ship, 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
immediatly, and in that act it self, is proper immediate, ex∣ternall 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 wor∣ship, which for wante of that institution is false wor∣ship.
This wilde conclusion is further confirmed by a rea∣son 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 Mai∣ster. 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. Fen∣ner 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 Mai∣ster? 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 de∣mandeth, 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
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 exter∣nall worship. In this therfore nothing is founde to purpose.
One observation is added further by the the Re∣joynder, 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 an∣swer, 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 worship∣ping, of false Gods, is worship, though both unlaw∣full.
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 enti∣tie, essence, or use of it, but onely the authoritie, or lega∣litie 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
onely used by way of bartery. In which comparison, he utterly mistaketh and varieth the qualitie wherin it con∣sisteth. 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.
2. 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 con∣tradiction 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 pro∣per immediate externall false worship. For hence it im∣mediatly 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
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 sig∣nification 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 sa∣crifizing at Hebron, without any suche speciall determi∣nation of God, Gen. 13.
When all other Essays faile, the Repl. himself is brought in as guiltie of contradiction, because he affir∣meth these two thinges: the institution of God doeth distin∣guish 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 expres∣sed, 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 reasona∣ble soule (as it is reasonable) doeth not make the com∣mon
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 wor∣ship, without Gods appointment.
5. Against the Def. his invention of indifferent wor∣ship, it was excepted (to passe by repetitions) that no Scripture, Divines, or good reason doeth acknowledge any suche worship. The ground is, because in Scrip∣ture, all worship is eyther approved as good, or condem∣ned 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 as∣sertion, 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 wor∣shiping, 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 Wor∣ship. 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, & drin∣king, 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 worship∣ped by another, when it is timed, placed, and chosen.
4. 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 (with∣out any law or canon) they may become necessarie. These examples therfore serve not the turne they were brought for.
2. 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 asser∣tion 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 re∣spect 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.
6. 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.
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 ig∣norance, 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 mode∣ration. 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 Rejoyn∣der.
As succedaneall instances to the former, which was found failling, the Rejoynder bringeth in diverse, out of the Leviticall, or Ceremoniall law, which were ar∣bitrarie 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 Re∣joynder we regard them no more, then the Popish leaden Legendes. Onely the marginall conclusion out of these Instances is observable: The Repl. fallaci∣ously supposeth, that all worship is onely true, or false, not ob∣serving a subdivision of true worship, into substantiall, and circumstantiall.
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.
2. 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 spe∣ciall, Ecclesiasticall, and domesticall, as Mr. Perkinse divi∣deth 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 (belong∣ing 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 under∣stand 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 ex∣ternall
act essentiall worship. The Rejoynder his se∣cond observation is, that our Ceremonies are hereby dis∣charged 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 lo∣gician 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 law∣fully 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 him∣self.
7. 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 effi∣cient cause not so. About this, the Rejoynder shew∣eth himself perplexed. For 1. he answereth, that this notwithstanding, actions have as it were matter, forme and essence of accidentall, though not of essentiall wor∣ship.
Where he manifestly separateth the essence of wor∣ship, from essentiall worship, as if the essence of a man could exist without an essentiall man, 2. He gathereth
from that which was sayd of respect to the ende, in insti∣tutiōs, 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 Re∣joynder 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 acci∣dent 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 at∣tempted in all the Replie.
3. He in like manner concludeth, that every respect of the honor of God, doeth not make a thinge to be properly re∣ligious worship. As if the Repl. had ever spoken, or dreamt of suche a phantasie, except it were in the Re∣joynder 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?
8. It was (in the last place) demanded, whether, if the Temple of Ierusalem had been built, with insti∣tution of all the appurtenances, sacrifices, and obser∣vances, there used, without any Commandement of
God, according as they were by his appointment, whether (sayth the Repl.) they had not been essentiall false worship, erected to God? The Rejoynder an∣swereth: 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 asser∣tion 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 essen∣tiall 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) wor∣ship 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 be∣fore, made essentiall and accidentall worship to be a sub∣division 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
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 wor∣ship 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.
THe former argument being (though demon∣strative) 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 incer∣taine 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 re∣liques 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
parts of Gods worship. To which the Def. answereth, that it is no meant of operative holinesse, eyther by infu∣sion, 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 distinc∣tion 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 Re∣joynder also is vaine in limiting the matter to holi∣nesse in them.
For those thinges which are instituted to that im∣mediat ende onely, that they may breed an opi∣nion 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. opera∣tive.
It was also observed by the Repl. (onely in a pa∣renthesis, by the way) that holinesse eyther by infu∣sion 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 disjunc∣tion, eyther, or.
Where did he ever read suche a phraze: eyther love, or charitie, eyther Magistrates, or Governours?
It was also replied, that Mr. Hooker attributed opera∣tive holinesse to the Crosse, in allowing all that the Fa∣thers ascribed to it. The Rejoynder his onely mate∣riall exception is, that the instance was here not of the Crosse, but of the Surplice. Yet the question is of our Ce∣remonies, which is as well concluded from one, as ano∣ther, and the Rejoynder himself, even now, spoke of holinesse in them, as of many, not in it, as of one Cere∣monie 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 Ceremo∣niall controversies, of as publicke note, and approba∣tion, as Bellamine in any Popish.
2. 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 exer∣cise
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 re∣dounde allways to the prayse of the cause. Of this argument, the Rejoynder pronounceth, that it is a po∣wring 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 ex∣planation 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 Rejoyn∣der in answer to the Repl. his preface. pag. 61. com∣plaineth 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 pla∣ces, he telleth us that the Convocation house maketh and establisheth Canons upon & with the Kings Commission, and allowance.
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 ra∣tification of suche thinges by Civill authoritie, doeth no more take the institution of them from the Cler∣gie, then the like ratification of any point in true wor∣ship, 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 effec∣tum.
3. 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 evi∣dently of another holinesse, to all that doe not of pur∣pose shut their eyes.
4. 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 law∣fulnesse of suche a function, as they take upon them) that it is the ground of our reason, to prove their ordi∣nances holy. So that the Rejoynder might (in this place) have spared those sweet words of his: stomacke,
without wit, or learning: these men say (in effect) to all other men, stand backe, I am holier then thou, they are censo∣rious, 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.
3. 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 com∣parison 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 Re∣joynder 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 de∣fending that which hath been once spoken. And this is all that I finde rejoined to that passage. To which I say nothing.
A reason was rendred of the former assertion: be∣cause 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 ci∣vill in their application: Whiche is verie true. Nor will any Grammarian say, that good Hebrue, Greek, or Latine, are onely gramaticall in their application, be∣cause they are applied to the expressing of all kinde of trueths and falsehoods: and yet they are onely grama∣ticall 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 appropria∣tion of this or that individuall, and of the kinde. To this it is rejoined, 1. that the individualls are neverthe∣lesse appropriated. Whiche is not so: because appro∣priation of the kinde and individuall both, is more then
of the individuall alone. Individuals may be extrinsi∣callie, & accidētally appropriated, the kinde remayning intrinsically common, & indifferent. 2. That some indi∣vidualls (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 cros∣ses 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 Cere∣monies, which maketh them in their intrinsecall nature (as suche) without any further expectation of occasio∣nall 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.
4. A fourth confirmation wholly dependeth on Matth. 15. Where the Def. would have it, that our Sa∣viour 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 remai∣neth to be discussed in the following chapter.
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 acciden∣tall, arbitrarie, and improper. Neyther can any man im∣pose a double or treble religious Ceremonie without in∣tention 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 holi∣nesse 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 per∣sons, 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 mat∣ter:* 1.42 If there be any more rude among hir Catholiques, we hold them worthy to be corrected. But are not our blinde Prote∣stants, and those rude Papists, hardened in their supersti∣tion, 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 proba∣blie collected out of our Saviours following discourse, that they estemeed some defiling to follow upō the ea∣ting of the creature, not as it was a creature, but as it was so used against the tradition of their Elders. And are are
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 wa∣shing was condemned as vaine, and unprofitable, setting aside, intention, and opinion of legall, operative holi∣nesse. 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 de∣fend 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 unlaw∣full, if the actes in themselves be considered or abstrac∣ted 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,
the Pharisies washinges to have been condemned, for that (notwithstanding their vanitie; and want of Divine institution) they were made some part of Gods wor∣ship.
As for Calvine, the Rej. doeth not denie, but that pas∣sage alleged is found in the place, the inventing of Cere∣monies was an idle vanitie, before the high opinion of Reli∣gion 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 Re∣joynder 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 opi∣nion of them, as of those which God had set, wa of idle vani∣tie.
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 consi∣dered.
The Preists had brought in many Novelties, tho Moses with great terrour had threatned them not to ad any thing,* 1.43 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 Com∣mandements of God. 1. That first offence Christ doeth not praesently reproove them for saying it was a frivo∣lous and superfluous, thing, lest they should have been in∣flamed.
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 char∣ged 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.
* 1.44In Mat. 15. Marc. 7. the Commandments of men do meane such Commandments which conduce nothing at all to piety, as those Superfluous washings.
5. In the fift place, another reason (or charge) was brought out of Mr. Hy. his papers, that the Ceremo∣nies imposed, are (for their use and practise) preferred before principall parts of Gods worship: because this is the Pra∣lats 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 preach∣er is preferred before one that is factious and exorbi∣tant. 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 ob∣serve, 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 (wil∣lingly or unwillingly (for onely omission of Ceremo∣nies. 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 omis∣sion, and execute the same partly by themselves, and partly by their instruments, can be sayd to doe it
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 con∣clusion: therfore our Ceremonies are made parts of Gods wor∣ship. 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 Pre∣lates 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
muche for reforming or removing of bad Ministers,* 1.45 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 incon∣formable Ministers are suffered, and some unable, and un∣godly 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 rejoin∣der is this?
A fourth consideration is, that a farre lesse offence de∣fended, 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 un∣able and ungodly, he is not so punnishable, as he that defendeth the Ceremonies are not to be used. The re∣fusing of our controverted Ceremonies, may doe more hurt, then an unable and ungodly generation of Mini∣sters 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 fra∣med, by the Repl. Though ther cannot be found able
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 conformi∣tie. Whiche is as muche as if he should say, that who∣soever 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
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, & o∣thers 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 blemish∣ed in their bodies, to be priests, though they had no spi∣rituall 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 not∣withstanding 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. Other∣wise 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. a∣monge 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,
then the breaking of Gods law. And as for children, I am perswaded, that D.B. himself, had some trueths so evi∣dent 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 bit∣terly, and yet as very unreasonablie carped at by the Re∣joynder 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 Ceremo∣nies 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 un∣conformists 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 Ce∣remonies
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, usu∣ally, 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 judge∣ment are the onely good Ministers. For ther is as muche sinne against charitie, in rash accusing others of un∣charitablenesse, 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 praefer∣ring 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 consi∣dered (if sinister affection had not hidden it from him) that the case immediatly goeing before this answer,
was of shutting out able godly Ministers for inconfor∣mitie, when ther cannot be found able and fit conformable Ministers enough. Wherupon is inferred, that the com∣parison of the L. Chancelour will not help the Def. in this case.
Now what kinde of straine is this then in the Re∣joynder to conceal the case, and stretche the wordes as it were with his teeth, unto suche a strange odious mea∣ning 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 rela∣tion to this or that people; from whome suche Mini∣nisters 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 si∣lencing of himself, and others like him, that those (at the least) should succeed thē, which were not so wel ac∣quainted 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. Chance∣lour, 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 ano∣ther like the predecessor.
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 perfec∣tion.
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 un∣likenesse 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 pre∣sently have digressed from it: as the Rejoynder here doeth, in turning the comparison, which was made be∣twixt a L. Chancelour and a Bishop, in respect of a con∣ceyted Commissioner, and a conscionable Minister
about preferring one thing before another, into a new comparison, betwixt the consciences of Conformi∣tants, & 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 u∣ponany mans commande, we may conforme: and theirs is, that upon great urgent extremities, they may some time, and in some place conforme. I am perswa∣ded, that if it had been free in England to use these Ce∣remonies, or not to use them. D. B. himself hath no con∣science, 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
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 dis∣cerne.
2. 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.
3. The third he confesseth: But would make it im∣pertinent though it clean overthroweth the Def. his generall assertion, before expressed. He addeth also cer∣tayn frothy wordes, conteyning litle else, beside mani∣fest slanders, which if he were put to suche an oath, as they call juramentum calumniae, he would not owne.
4. 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 exa∣mined, and found nothing worthe.
5. All these considered, it will appear, that the Rej. had more will, then power, to maintayne, that the silencing
of Preachers for our Ceremonies, is the praeferring of orderly discreet Preachers, before those that are factious and exorbitant.
6. After all this, out of Mr. Hy. his papiers, it plea∣sed the Def. to bring in some peices out of the Abrige∣ment: 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 o∣pinion 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 unlaw∣full.
The just number of those that are so minded, can∣not 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 im∣posing and observing, conjunctly, as they would bear the
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 supersti∣tiously 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 su∣perstitiously abused.
It was also noted as ridiculous in the Def. that those people which thinke that Sacraments are not rightly admi∣nistred, 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 remo∣ved, 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
••erteine garments like the Ape of the preists,* 1.46 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 re∣semblance of their religious Ceremonies. Adde fur∣ther, 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.
7. The second thing brought out of the abridge∣ment, 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 di∣stinguisheth
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 consi∣sting, & another, or betwixt one impeaching, & another.
And yet both the consisting and impeaching of the Churches peace, doeth principally depend on the kee∣ping 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 Re∣joynder 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 Re∣joynder
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 ex∣cept 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.
8. The last thing noted out of the Abridgement is, that non-Cōformitants are accounted Scismatikes, Pu∣ritanes, 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 ther∣fore be looked upon, and that is enough. 2. He sayth that the ould anathema sit was as muche as to excom∣municate ipso facto.
And yet King Iames himself, in his answer to Perone, doeth shew, that the olde anathema sit,
was onely a declaring who ought to be excommuni∣cated, 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.
4. 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 of∣fence) 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.
(1. that nothing may be established in the Churche, which God hath not commanded in his w••rd, 2. that all formes of wor∣hip and all m••re Ecclesiasticall rites, not praescribed, are will-worship. 3. That the calling of our Bishops, and conse∣quently of our Ministers, is Antichristian. 4. That our Cere∣monies are idolatrous,) are the first principles of Separa∣tion. 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 un∣derstood, 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 ut∣terly denie, that the calling of our Ministers doeth es∣sentially 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 an∣swereth the like phraze withall, pag. 216. He hath not ever been the best Logician. His profession, of separa∣ting (this day, ere he sleep) if he did beleeve these princi∣ples, 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 wor∣ship an ubiquitarie bodie, in the Lords supper, though these are more palpablie idolatrous (in his conscience) then the Ceremonies questioned are in ours.
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 refuta∣tion: because Mr. Bradshaw himself in a booke intitu∣led, the unreasonablenesse of the Separation) hath sufficient∣ly 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 wrigh∣ter, having had as muche approbation, as this Rejoynder hath for his rejoynder as appeareth out of the Rejoyn∣der his Praeface pag. 18. namely of the then L.A. D. Ban∣croft, etc. 2. How he maketh the imposers sentence, to be an adequate rule of observance, de facto. 3. How he de∣nieth 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
worship; when yet he confesseth the Popish Ceremo∣nies 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 con∣science?
1. THis Argument pleadeth, that no hu∣mane 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.
2. The first proof of our proposition was taken from the second Commandement: which the Def.
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.
3. 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 ordey∣ned 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 authen∣tique 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 tea∣ching with faith, except it appear to be appointed by an authentique teacher and lawgiver? And how our Pre∣lates in oppointing meanes of spirituall teaching which Christ appointed not, can be accounted (therin) Mi∣nisteriall teachers under him as their and our onely authentique teacher? As also, if Christ be our Authen∣tique Teacher in all good that we learne about religion, who taught our Prelates suche good manners, as to
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,* 1.47 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 doc∣trine religious in England: The signe of the crosse doeth signifie unto us that we should not be ashamed of Christ cru∣cified 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 lea∣veth out of our proof, that Christ is the onely appointer of meanes, as also that those meanes are limited to admo∣nition 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 tel∣leth 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,
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 in∣stitution, but onely by their naturall relation, nay things not teaching at all any spirituall dutie directly, and im∣mediatly? Characters and suche like helps of memorie, doe no otherwise teache trueh, then error, and haeresies no more spirituall duties, then carnall lusts, as experi∣ce doeth teache. One of the ancientes, and learnedest Schoolmē of our Countrie (Alex. Alēsis, p. 4. q. 1. m. 1.) teacheth us,* 1.48 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 instituteCeremo∣nies 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 (be∣sides the former exception out of Alex. Hales) are re∣membrances of death inflicted upon suche malefactors: but neyther to be appointed by any, without that au∣thoritie, by which death is inflicted, nor in their use
imposed upon any, nor determined by institution, to the teaching of any thing, which they would not other∣wise 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 San∣ders are profitable: because they bring us in remembrance of good thinges. I denie this argument: because nothing is pro∣fitable 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.
4. 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 pro∣position 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 him∣self, and his Disciples, in refusing that Ceremonie: be∣cause (being the praecept of men) it was taught, and u∣sed, 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 forgot∣ten) answereth, that this reason (among others) of signi∣fication, 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 reprehen∣ding the Pharisies: 1. That their washing was praeferred
before the Commandements of God. 2. That it was hypocriticall. 3. That it was a vaine worship, & there∣fore sinne. If any say, it was not vayne, as significant, wee replie, it could be no outward worship, but as reli∣giously 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.
5. 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:* 1.49 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
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,
6. Of Calvin, see the former chapiter. Yet heer also let these words of his be remembred:* 1.50 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 sen∣tence, 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 abo∣lished: for he professeth (de necess. ref. Eccl.) We have touched nothing no not with the least finger to remove it ex∣cept that which Christ accounts nothing,* 1.51 seing he pronounceth God is vainely worshipt by humane traditions.
7. 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
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.
8. 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.* 1.52 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-wor∣ships, 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 cere∣monies are to be abolished Mat. 15. Marc. 7. Whence it is ma∣nifest 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 Rejoyn∣der his owne conscience, then I despaire of satisfying him about any testimonie that maketh against that
tenet which he is resolved to mainteyne (as they say) by hooke or crooke.
9. 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 she∣wed in the former part, all religious Ceremonies insti∣tuted, 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.
10. 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 interpreta∣tion 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
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 aedifica∣tion. 2. D.R. never manifested to the world in publick any reasons for that judgement, but rather for the con∣trarie, 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 mat∣ters, as experience in all ages hath shewed. But that is nothing to others as being destitute or forsaken of cer∣taine 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 Gen∣tiles 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
rites in the very kind are Iewish or as the Iewish were. Now out of these last words I argue thus:* 1.53 1. If all umbrati∣call rites be Iudaicall, and therfore unlawfull, then all religious significant Ceremonies are Iewish and un∣lawfull.
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 doc∣trine.
But the first is affirmed by D. R. therfore the la∣ter 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 doc∣drine 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.
11. In the last place, upon occasion of our disliking all the significant Ceremonies, brought in by the Pha∣risies, 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 con∣sider, 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 con∣fidence 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 Sa∣duces (sayth Epiphanius lib 1. c. 14.) omnia aequabiliter cum Samaritis observant. i. e. they observe all that the Sa∣maritans observe: and who can doubt but the observa∣tions and Ceremonies proper to the Samaritans, were all inventions of men, with the Divels helpe. The Sa∣duces 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
is not credible, that any high Preist in those times, did absteyne from all humane Ceremonies, used com∣monly 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 ac∣count) humane Ceremonies. 2. The Saduces were prophane beastes, not hoping for Heaven, nor fearing Hell, and so were allways ready to observe any Cere∣monies 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 me∣dium 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 in∣stituting mysticall Ceremonies, and whiche of them
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 Egyp∣tians, 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 my∣sticall, nor yet instituted by man. Synagoges were no more significant Ceremonies, then was the schoole of Tyrannus, Act. 19.9. The opening, closing, and deli∣vering of the Booke, Luc. 14.17.20. was no more my∣sticall 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 Ceremo∣nies?
1. AVgustine, in the Abridgement, was amonge other Divines cited, as allowing of one proof belonging to this Argument, taken from sig∣nificancie. 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
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.
2. 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 conjec∣turally 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 in∣stitutor meaneth. From whence, we gather, that our Pre∣lates instituting significant Ceremonies, can signifie no more then what they would have, and not what God would have.
3. Another place of Augustine was alledged. out of Ep. 5. Signes when they belong to divine things are called Sacraments.* 1.54 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.
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 be∣wray small acquaintance with Augustines language.
Where (because both the Defend. and Rej. would seeme so familiarly acquainted with Augustines lan∣guage) I would desire onely, that they would inter∣pret 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 signi∣ficationem non omittamus. Sacramentum est in celebratione quum rei gestae ita commemoratio fit ut aliquid etiam signi∣ficari 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 dic∣tate unto us) that all signes of holy thinges, are, Augu∣stines 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.
4. And this was that, for whiche Augustines testi∣monie was onely brough in for, viz: to shew that reli∣gious significant Ceremonies participate part of the Sacraments nature. To this (after some wordes of course) it is rejoined, that the name Sacrament impro∣perly given to other thinges, doeth not prove them to partici∣pate the propertie and nature of Sacraments, no more then the Swanne in Houlborne, or the Idols of the Gentiles, doe partici∣pate 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 rea∣son, Augustine himselfe teacheth in the for-alleged sen∣tence, concerning Easter: and Chemnitius, out of him,
doeth largely declare, in the beginning of his 2. tome, de Sacramentorum numero. Bellarmin also (de effect. Sacra∣ment. l. 2. T. 24.) giveth the same rule,* 1.55 and reason: All are called Sacraments which have a mysticall sense, and are types or figures of other things. 2. From the former an∣swer, 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 ta∣king of it away. For no man will say, that a name taken from the nature of a thing doeth argue more the na∣ture of it, then the taking away the name alone, doeth argue the taking away of the nature. The ancient na∣ming 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.
5. 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 Re∣lig. Vol. 1. tract. 3. lib. 4. cap. 14.* 1.56) They use to be styled Sa∣cramentalls, 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 a∣nalogically suche Ceremonies as are consecrated to s••gnifie and worke supernaturall effects are called Sacramenta••is. The
first of which interpretations we doe not denie: sa∣ving 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: conse∣crated 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.* 1.57 Howsoe∣ver a principall Iesuit may professe as muche at Rome, of Popish Ceremonies, as the Rejoyn∣der 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.
6. 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 in∣ferreth, that Augustine therfore is wronged, and wee are mere Navalists. But here he forgat, that all our Di∣vines, 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
Fathers did not constantly in doctrine and practise, re∣ject, 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, a∣gainst 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.* 1.58
7. To make an ende of this one testimonie, which it pleased the Defend. to take into so large conside∣ration, for advantage. Augustine Epist 119. ad Ian. is cited by all, as condemning the multitude of hu∣mane 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 Ianu∣arius. The stream of the times, bearing toward Po∣perie, made him (with others despairing of refor∣mation) 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 condem∣ned. 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
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 Ceremo∣nies so freely as his judgement did lead him: liberius improbare non andeo. 3. He calleth them servilia onera, and humanas presumptiones: servil burdens, and hu∣mane praesumtiones. 4. He accounteth the Churche, in regard of them, to be troubled with muche chaffe, & tares: inter multam paleam, multaque zizania con∣stitutam. 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 discer∣ned, how they made against faith or good man∣ners.
Let any man now judge, if Augustine did in this his clear sentence about Ceremonies, agree with our Def. and Rejoyner.
1. THe Rejoynder was not so large in the for∣mer section, about one Divine, but he is as brief, in this, about many. For first in gene∣rall, 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 al∣leged for the proof of it. But yet not trusting to this kinde of answering, he adventureth, to clear the parti∣cular 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. be∣cause he put it of before (pag. 247.) with a tale of boy, and promised after to shew, that it is nothing to the pur∣pose. 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, Po∣lanus, and others) that the Lord himself hath appointed
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.
2. 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 Gos∣pell: 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
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 Ceremo∣nies supplying the office of true Sacramentes, further then our Argument doeth importe. If not, then the Re∣joynder 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 signi∣fication in them: Our question is, whether humane Ce∣remonies of mysticall signification, be lawfull? If these testimonies be not plaine enough, I knowe not what is plaine.
3. Peter Martyr (on 1. King. 8) is the next witnesse of whome the Rejoynder sayth, that he speaketh of Exor∣cisme, 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
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 him∣self speak:* 1.59 The most wise God needeth none of our help to de∣vise 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 sal∣vation.
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 Sacra∣mentals 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. Consecra∣tion 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, ser∣ving for aedification: saying that no Carpente••, or Mason would be so dealt with in his occupation, as the insti∣tutors of suche mysticall Ceremonies doe deal with God. He accounteth humane sacred signes in Reli∣gion, 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.
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 con∣ditions 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:* 1.60 and for the two last, experience tea∣cheth, 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.
4. Sadeel is put of, with the like shift, of consecra∣tion, 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 devi∣sers 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 ordi∣nāces? what arroganice is this to ad thus to Christs institutiō?
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.* 1.61 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 con∣demned, which onely offend, in theyr mysticall signifi∣cation 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.
5. 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 oppo∣sition 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.
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 sig∣nificant Ceremonies, what doe they but confounde the most wise dispensation of God, and make a min∣gle-mangle of those thinges, which he hath separated asunder?
6. Polanus (misprinted, or uncertainly printed in the Abrigement) is sayd to allow some significant Ceremo∣nies, as feasts, Fasts, Gestures: and his definition of Super∣stition, is thought to make onely against Ceremonies Sa∣cramentall, not Morally significant. The onely way therfore is, to set down his wordes, out of which his judgement about this pointe may appear of supersti∣tion, 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 per∣teines 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 distingui∣shed 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?* 1.62
7. 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. con∣demneth 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 hu∣mane signes, ordeyned to be lay-mens teachers, in reli∣gion, 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
alsolutely abolished, but the other onely in respect of their speciall determination.
8. Maister Merbur••e was cited (out of a Manuscript, (as it seemeth) as giving the same judgement of signi∣ficant Ceremonies. But in his later time, he crossed not so muche others, as himself in blotting out this sen∣tence I leave therfore his name under that blotte, and other like, wherwith he soiled himself in his later times.
9. D. Witgift him selfe, is brought in (by Abr.) dis∣sliking any praescript apparell, should be used in Gods service, for significat••on. Def. pag, 291. To this the Re∣joynder 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, be∣cause 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 Di∣vinitie: but this reason of his, hath no more force in it, then if from the picture and apparation of An∣gels, 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.
It is answered 2. that we should beleive the sayd D. Whit∣gift in this, that our Surplices are not appointed for any mo∣rall 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 conse∣quence is given in the Abridgement (p. 35.) because no good reason can be given, why the Churche may not in∣joine 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 Au∣thors 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.
10. 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 an∣swer, of whome, Calvin is the first. Of whome it is said, that he condemneth onely suche Ceremonies, as are sub∣s••ituted to the very office of Sacraments. Where if he meaneth part of the office of Sacraments,* 1.63 he and we consent about Calvin but if he meane the wholle com∣plete 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 Sacra∣mentall 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 shew∣wen to be of God,* 1.64 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 Cere∣monies,
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 de∣clare, to be matters of mere and necessarie decencie. The end of decencie is,* 1.65 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 ap∣pointe, and Calvine onely admitteth, it is plaine, that Calvines exercises and incitementes of piette, are not his more humane 〈…〉〈…〉 Ceremonies.
11. The second witnesse, whome it pleased the Def. to take notice of, is Zepperus, or rather, sundrie Protestant Synodes, by Zepperus divulged, as he she∣weth 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 suffici∣ently provided for it here. For beside that he directed his censure of Cerem. (in a great part) against the Lu∣therans, who denie all efficacie that the Rejoynder de∣nieth, he sayth plainely that by these humane mysticall Ce∣remonies, God will nor sti•••• up devotion, faith, and repen∣tance, in the heart of Christians not at blancke crosse to
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 re∣lated out of Augustine, but no allowance of the same. Nay, if the matter be well considered, I thinke the Re∣joynder 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 praesump∣tion, against the second Commandement. Christ himself never appointed any suche mysticall reall signe neyther can that incomprehensible mysterie be fitly re∣presented 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 signi∣fie they are three Persons, is as if one should light a
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, sig∣nifie three Persons, & three days? Can men give mani∣fold 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 Bapti∣zed; 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.
12. 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 hu∣mane 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
Iuel,* 1.66 I founde these wordes Act. 1. pag. 23. The Papists have blurred Christ Sacraments with a number of Supersti∣tiou•• 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. be∣fore their multitude, and before their sanctions binding consciences to them, he did not mean their mysticall signification, upon humane institution, I would wil∣lingly learne of the Rejoynder what his meaning was?
13. 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,* 1.67 which he calleth Sacramentall, that is signifying spirituall graces, not du∣ties. 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 per∣swade his reader, that he sayth not spirituall duties, but graces. His glosse is naught. Spirituall thinges compre∣hend so well spirituall duties, as graces. How this rea∣son will be excused, I cannot guesse: except perhaps it
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 Sur∣plice and kneeling to be in their nature indifferent, and sayth that the Crosse might sometime of olde have had law∣full 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 signi∣ficants of mans making. Neyther doeth he affirme a significant Surplice to be indifferent. And as for knee∣ling, 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.
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.
14. Because the Def. made Beza a singular man, in opposing all humane mysticall Ceremonies, the Re∣plier 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 concer∣ning 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 un∣to the Abrigers, and the Replier, abusing the Reader. For (to omitte that which in the first part of our Dis∣pute, 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 Ceremo∣nies? The Afirmative of this question Bellarmine pro∣veth, from the Feast instituted by Mordechay, and that of Dedication,* 1.68 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 here∣tiques, that the church may appoint new Ceremonies not indeed to justifie us from mortal sins but to other ends. On
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 Gos∣pel: 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 mas∣sing 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 hal∣lowing 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.* 1.69 First they are blessed to signifie spirituall operations. For the sprinkling of the ashes signifieth poenance, &c. Nor
doeth the reason of Bre••tius of adumbration hinder,* 1.70 for those significations are not properly adumbratious, but outward re∣praesentations of praesent invisible things, and of things spiri∣tuall. 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. Argu∣ment, that his reason is ours: and that Bellarm. his an∣swer, so well as his tenet, is that which the Def. and Re∣joynd. doe maintayne against us. 2. A second answer, or rather objection, is used by the Rej. that Brentius al∣lowed 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 Wit∣tenburge, & 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:* 1.71 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 vehe∣mente we commend him, but that while he contended against them, he submitted to the them, we pardon in him.
Something like was the case of Chemnitius, whose words the Rejoynder thought good to passe over in si∣lence. 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,* 1.72 it is a very hard que∣stion 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 Ceremo∣nies in Gods worship. The Rejoynder sayth, it is as easy as to justifie writing by Characters. Chemnitius ma∣keth 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 re∣pugnant
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.
15. The Replier added unto the witnesses afore∣sayd, 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 confi∣dence, 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 ef∣fects, &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 distinct∣ly of the signifiyng, which Bell. would have given unto those Ceremonies: whiche how false it is, shall praesent∣ly
appear. 3. He noteth a shamefull falsification of Iu∣nius 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 falsifi∣cation, 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 Rejoyn∣der translateth that wholle passages of Iunius, and no∣teth upon it, first, that Iunius speaketh of consecrating ce∣remonies. 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,
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 significa∣tions 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. an∣not. 15. he calleth it vanitie, in opposition to the simp••i∣citie of Christ. And in the second booke, de reliquijs & imaginibus, cap. 27. annot. 29. he calleth it plainely sim∣ple superstition. In the fourteenth annotation, he main∣teyneth this assertion:* 1.73 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 Cere∣monies of the Fathers. Primum suit tolerabile: Patrum simplicitatem piam excusamus. So that Iunius being seen in his owne posture, and the reporters in their co∣lours, let the Reader judge, where is the cause of shame and blushing?
1. THe Argument dependeth on this: that hu∣mane 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) re∣presēt the wooddē crosse, wheron our Saviour was cru∣cified, & 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,
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?
2. 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 incite∣ments to thankfulnes, Exercises of pietie, & bonds under our hands to tye us to Gods service, but their cheife end is to sig∣nifie and ••igure the grace of God to us.* 1.74
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?
3. 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
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 ney∣ther 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 doc∣trine which in Sacraments is signified and sealed, doeth not participat any cheif part of their nature. 3. He an∣swereth, 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 Sacra∣ments 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 ther∣fore goeth about to multiplie significant signes, crosseth th•• very intention which was respected, in the institu∣tion
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 si∣gnificant Ceremonies, as there be particular tempta∣tions to be resisted. Whither shall we come, at length, by walking in this Ceremoniall way?
4. The second Argument, to the same purpose, by the Repl. alleged, was, that the name Sacrament, as it si∣gnifieth an oath, or obligation, doeth import, that the Sacraments signifie our dutie to God. To this the Re∣joynder answereth, that the Sacraments doe in deed im∣plie, but not represent any morall dutie. Now let any reasonable man judge, whether dipping under the wa∣ter, 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?
5. 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
needes be a Sacrament, or a significant signe of a Sacra∣ment: 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 man∣ner, 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?
6. 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,
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 ap∣perteyning.
7. Against mysticall-morall Ceremonies, of hu∣mane 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 institu∣tion.
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 devo∣tion.
This the Rejoynder confuteth first, with skorne∣full 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
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. inhae∣rent, 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 concey∣ving 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 white∣nesse 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 hand∣kerchif, about his nose, therby to thinke of the im∣perfection, spots, and blots, which are founde in Mi∣nisters 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.
8. 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 conse∣quently, 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.
9. 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
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 inter∣pretation 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 them∣selves 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 Christia∣nitie. 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 un∣lawfull, are superstitious brethren. 2. that he determineth absolutely, upon his refuted groundes, that we have stop∣ped
our own mouths, from preaching the Gospell, by calum∣niations. Wheras all England knoweth, that those which never preached, or writ against the Ceremo∣nies, 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 Cere∣monies by speaking and writing: which is greater ca∣lumnie, 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 Rejoyn∣der, 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 cla∣mours, and calumnies. We cannot then defend our practise, but with clamours and calumnies, nor an∣swer for our hearts, without rooting them out of peoples hearts.
10. 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 them∣selves truly stirred up to holynesse, by the Surplice, or to constancie in fayth, by the Crosse? The Re∣joynder
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?
11. It was added also which by experience, it is founde) that in some one Congregation, where these Ceremonies have not been used, more holi∣nesse, 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 devo∣tion, and stiffenesse therin, constancie in the fayth.
Behold the man, that even now complayned of cla∣mours, and calumnies. The reasonable part of this an∣swer is, that in Cathedrall Churches, other helpes (as di∣ligent 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 admi∣rable wisdome he extolleth, though they have power enough, doe not provide the cheif helpes of edifica∣tion, for their Churches, aequall to those that are founde in poore Congregations, which receyve not their Cere∣moniall 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 Cere∣moniall helpes? 2. How can this stand with reason: where other helpes are aequall, ther is no difference? Cer∣tainly, 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 Ce∣remonies. Nay one Cathedrall Churche exceedeth another in this kinde: as Durrham, for Ceremonies, doeth Chester, and Lichefeild.
12. 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 Rejoin∣joynder
(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 re∣quires.
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 Sacra∣ment? The Abrigement sayth onely, that suche signi∣fication 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 distinc∣tion from strangers etc. How then can the Rejoynder so resolutely determine of two onely offices, which be∣longe to them? 4. If all essentiall parts of the Sacra∣ment may be reduced to these two, yet the lesser of these may be called a principall part, without any pre∣judice to the other, in respect of those mē, which make accidentall, circumstātiall, & improper parts of Gods wor∣ship,
and so of his Sacraments, as the Def. and Rejoyn∣der 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.
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.
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.* 2.1
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:* 2.2 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.* 2.3 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.* 2.4 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 Mr. 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.
1. A Third reason brought against significant Ce∣remonies, 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 infor∣mation & incitement) are not Popish: whiche the Rej. doeth not onely grante, but also proveth it, by the con∣sent of Calvin himselfe, Instit. lib. 1. capit. 11. sect. 12. where he sayth, that Historical Images, or Pictures, may have
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 Ecclesiasti∣call 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.
2. The Replier alleged against this defense of Ce∣remoniall religiouse use of Images, especially in Chur∣ches, 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 En∣gland, as no part of the Catholicke Churche, but Secta∣ries, Sacramentarians, &c. Secondly, the historie of Luther about Images is well knowen: how in opposi∣tion to Carolastadius, whoe brake downe Images with∣out his consent, he would have them to be tolerated, onely for a tyme, untill men were more fully instructed.
But that he allowed them for good Ceremonies of re∣ligion, 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 en∣forced unto, by the slanderers, that accused Protestantes of se∣dition and tumultes, &c. This is no argument, for the Ma∣gistrate 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 tur∣ned 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 tolle∣rated in Churches, or in religious use. Fourthly, Pola∣nus (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.* 2.5 And will the Rej. then defende the Lu∣theran use of Images?
3. In the next place, the Rej. asketh, in mumminge fashion, if Vrsinus, Iunius, & Mr. Perkins be not of our Di∣vines? or if they doe not acknowlege an historicall use of I∣mages lawfull? To whiche I answer, that they are in our consenting Divines.
For Vrsine, his wordes are plaine (parte 2. pag. 45. they must needs have large consciences,* 2.6 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 Il∣liricus, 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 reli∣gious 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,* 2.7 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 Ido∣latrie.
4. 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,* 2.8 let him looke upon his Antithesis ad th••s. 4. Witen∣bergentium, in Colloquio Mompelgardensi: & ad Colloquium Mompelgardense, parte 2. And he shall finde enough to sa∣tisfie him, not onely about Bezas judgement, but (if he
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.* 2.9
The Rej. therfore fore-seeing what would be an∣swered, 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.* 2.10
Neyther can the Def. or Rej. denie all religious use of Images, properly so called; except they denie signifi∣cant 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 admit∣ted Images into the same ranke with their income significant Cerimonies, accidentall parts of religious wor∣ship. By this also is answered that which he addeth of simple hystoricall use of Images, as separated from all reli∣gious use.
5. Of having Images for religious use, the negative is defended by Calvin, and the affirmative by Bellar∣mine, de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 9. in which quaestion, it was
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, whe∣ther 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,* 2.11 never meant so to minse the matter, as to make them lawfull, but not expedient. And in deed, if Images may be used for commone∣faction, and institution, as Ecclesiasticall significant Ce∣remonies, ther can be no reason given, why they should be shutte out of the Churche, where Ecclesiasticall signi∣ficant 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 praeser∣ving of the memorie of Christ, and Saincts, he denieth (I say) this to be any part of Popis•• use or abuse about Ima∣ges, when he sayth, that Onely in regard of superstitious adoration, the use of Images is to be called Popish.
6. It was added by the Repl. that the Def. his asser∣tion is directly against the Homilie against the perill of Ido∣latrie, unto which we are bounde to subscribe. If this be true (sayth the Rejoynder) the Bishop deserveth to be suspen∣ded: the Replier, if it be untrue. Now I doe not desire
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 di∣rect 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 quo∣ted out of that Homilie: The words Idoll and Image, be words of divers tongues, and soundes: yet used in the Scrip∣ture 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 indiffe∣rent, nor tollerable. If the Def. will say, that his asser∣tion is not contrarie to these wordes, then I am conten∣ted, that his suspension should be deferred longer then Mr. Mountagues promotion was, after he had written this, and suche like scandalous doctrines, tending di∣rectly to the overthrow of our religion. And this rea∣son 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.
7. The Repl. noted also, that the Def. his asser∣tion 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 wor∣shiped,
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 contra∣rietie 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 Ima∣ges for religious use, (adoration set a part) apeareth evi∣dently, 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 significa∣tion, 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
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 memo∣rie of our Redemption; or else invent others of our owne heads? Nay if we admitte of significant Images, as religious Ce∣remonies, 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 de∣fendeth to be the common tenet of the Romish Doc∣tors. 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.
8. 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 imi∣tation 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) ex∣cept the miraculous using of any thing doeth forbid, that it should at any time after be used for signification.
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 Chri∣stian. 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 op∣posed: 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 de∣nie the Def. to be fairely inclined, to let in the use of
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 Re∣joynder 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 & profes∣sion, what will become of our Ceremonies, which the Rejoynder doeth so labour to mainteyne as Chri∣stian, 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 De∣fender his owne wordes, even now quoted, must needes wonder, what subtill difference the Rejoynder can conceyve betwixt his formall wordes as onely ma∣king 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
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.* 2.12 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,* 2.13 wherwith the Rejoynder would put off Cal∣vin: Bellarmin himselfe (de Pontif. l. 4. c. 18.) answe∣reth: It is an admonition or holy institution onely whithout any obligation to a fault if it be omitted.* 2.14 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 hu∣mane ordination can make it good. 6. The Rep. conclu∣sion: 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.
9. In the following passages, concerning abuse o•• imposing humane Ceremonies, and P. Martyrs, judge∣ment, 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 hu∣mane significant Ceremonies, in Gods worship, some∣thing must be answered unto the Rejoynder his fierce
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 cer∣taine, but wavering.* 2.15 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 Cru∣cifixe may come in, that is not greater then the Churche doore: the Rejoynder accuseth him of a steeled con∣science, if he doeth not bleed for suche an injurious jest of fals∣hood, 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 super∣stitious 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
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.
3. The Rejoynder confessing that our Prelates can when they please, open the gap, to many other Ceremo∣nies 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 ope∣ned, unlesse our janglings, and our sinnes bring Gods displea∣sure upon our land. Now alas, what involving is this of Civill powers, to say, that the Prelats, by their permis∣sion, 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.
10. One Argument is yet to be handled, eyther o∣mitted, 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,
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 un∣lawfull.
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 Reli∣gion. 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 ci∣vill circumstances, and instituted religious Ceremonies, were all one. And if this be his meaning, it requireth more then his simple testimonie, to confirme it.
11. 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 compre∣hendeth 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 under∣stand. 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 under∣stand, untill the Rejoynder explaineth him self, what that
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 reli∣gious similitudes are expresly forbidden in the second Commandement.
12. It was secondly added by the Replier, that si∣gnificant 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, ne∣cessarie, 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 Ceremo∣nies 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 judge∣ment, 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 an∣swer
something like this, of essentiall and accidentall wor∣ship, for praeventing of it, sayd that suche a distinction would help no more heer, then that of the Papists, be∣twixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
For this the Rejoynder accuseth him of an uncharita∣ble heart, and an unlearned head. But I see no cause: as hath been fully shewed in the confutation of that distin∣ction, 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 consi∣der 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,* 2.16 or some other thing, for it self, or in regard of another. Primarie or se∣condarie, 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.
13. 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
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 him∣self doeth approve in his word. Now though in that edi∣tion of Mr. Cartw. his Catechisme printed an. 1611. the affirmative part is thus expressed: Doe that which I com∣mand 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 re∣verend gestures of the body, amonge those outward meanes▪ What then? Then bodily gestures in religious actions are ey∣ther determined by God, or may be lawfully appointed for sig∣nification, 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 in∣stituted, 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 propoun∣ded was, that significant Ceremonies, which are by in∣stitution,
must needs belong vnto the second Comman∣dement; 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 signifi∣cant Ceremonies may belong rather to the third Com∣mandement, 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 argu∣ment 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
Crosse in Baptisme, should be syncerity and reverence; ex∣cept mixture of humane inventions with Gods ordi∣nances be syncerity; and presumption of doing so, be re∣verence. 3. If the second Commandement doeth pro∣vide 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 cere∣bri, cordisve humani, the very phantasies, or images of the minde, not prescribed by God, are (by the most inter∣preters) 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 signifi∣cant 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 touch∣ing 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 argu∣ment. So Bellarmine (de effectu Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 32.) to Calvin, alleging that all humane will-worship is con∣demned in Scripture, * 2.17 answereth: That is called humane
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 de∣vises 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 fai∣neth two grounds to the contrary: the first whereof is taken from supposed true worship, & meanes necessarily indu∣cing thereto, as onely forbidden in the second Comman∣dement: 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 Supersti∣tion, and partly in that of Difference betwixt our and Po∣pish Ceremonies. So that nothing need heer be added. Yet in few wordes, 1. He forgetteth himself muche, in distinguishing significant Ceremonies (which he con∣fesseth 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 ne∣cessarie 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
meaning at all. 3. He taketh the wholle quaestion for wonne, or granted, when he speaketh of our forbea∣rance of that, which God hath not commanded us to forbear: and therupon concludeth thus: God hath not comman∣ded us to forbear humane ••ignificant Ceremonies. Ergo.
1. IN this section, the Def. beginneth a confutation of the fore-proved Proposition: All humane Ce∣remonies, being appropriated to Gods service, if they be ordeyned to teache any spirituall dutie, by their mysticall signi∣fication, 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
Replier for citing Calvin and Iunius, as leaving it most probable, that is, was an ancient custome before Abra∣ham (which any man looking upon their interpreta∣tions, may see to be true) is called by the Rej. a false man in all his allegations. But let that goe.
2. 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: affir∣ming 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 Preach∣ing, Sacraments, Petitioning, is edification of men, confirma∣tion 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. Be∣side those very endes which he mentioneth, edifica∣tion, confirmation of faith, and obteyning of mercie, are ill∣favoredly 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 Re∣plier 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 pro∣per or naturall ende of it! Nay the Replier before decla∣red, that the ende of an instituted meanes, is part of the nature therof, and hath a place in the definition of it.
D. Iackson (in his Originall of unbelief, pag. 327. and 328.) by the difference given of the Replier, doeth well
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 supplica∣tions, 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 ser∣vice, &c.
3. Because the Def. proved nothing to the purpose, about this Gesture, he was required to prove it signifi∣cative 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 Re∣joynder 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 sig∣nificant 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 Argu∣ments.
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 sig∣nified in time of swearing.
Neyther is the Repliers observation (that as imposi∣tion of hands, in those parts, did allways signifie some superioritie: so this underposi••ion of hands was, by pro∣portion, 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 im∣posing 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 par∣ticular 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 ne∣ver used, but by an inferior, to his superior.
4. Yet the Rej. hath more to say: namely, that the
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 esteem∣ed. The Apostle (1. Cor. 6.) distinguisheth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 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.
5. In the last place, the Replier, supposing all true that hitherto the Def. and Rej. have striven for, yet de∣nieth that any thing could bee concluded from thence, for our Convocation-power in appointing such Cere∣monies: 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 di∣stressed and wilfull disputer, whose cause cannot bee defended and yet his stomach will not yeild. But if he had well con∣sidered,
that it belongeth not properly to the answere, but to the Opponent, to produce reasons; and how vn∣reasonable 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 consi∣dered, 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.
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) re∣maineth heere to be declared.
2. The place quoted is in 3. tom. 3. Disp. 15. Sect. 2. The words (as the Replier hath them) are these: The first
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 com∣manding, 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 pro∣pounded these three points, as three errours of the Pro∣testants: 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
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 inventi∣ons without authority or precept in Scripture:* 2.18 For they thinke it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture enjoyned. In which ground three ••rrours are contei∣ned. 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 ci∣vill circumstances, &c.
5. After those three errours, the Rej. abserveth Sua∣rez to speake of some that dissalow not Ceremonies in gene∣rall, 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 er∣rour, 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.* 2.19 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,* 2.20 as pertaining to the vertue of Religion: that they are done by us with inten∣tion of worship and as pertaining to the vertue of Religion.
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 Supersti∣tious.* 2.21
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 Cere∣monies (as Suarez sayth) then our Defender and Re∣joynder 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 ex∣poundeth 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.* 2.22
6. 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
chargeth those errors, not on Protestants, but on Anabaptists: whoe hold this negative argument: whatsoever is not com∣manded 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:* 2.23 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.
2. 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 Ana∣baptists, 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 preach∣ing & 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.
3. To put it out of doubt, that Suarez, under the name
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 cere∣monie, and all worship not praescribed of God, or not conteined in the Gospel is Superstition, yea and Idolatrie. They stand much upon Deut. 12.* 2.24 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 con∣futation 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 Les∣sius 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 some∣what 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
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 Cere∣monies, which the Defender and Rejoynder doe not main∣teyne.
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 Ceremo∣monies; 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 transla∣ted, 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
prove som new religious thing instituted, beside a cir∣cumstance of time, which the Replier (whome he see∣keth to involve in a contradiction) doeth expresly di∣stinguish 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.* 2.25
2. 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 with∣out 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,* 2.26 sayth thus: The Hebrewes solaced them∣selves with feasts. We read of a festival Solemnity instituted, and that for two dayes,* 2.27 wherein they please themselves with meates and drinks, &c. But the Iewes took up that rite vo∣luntarily 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 pub∣lick 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
be credited) the heathen King, Artaxerxes, was the in∣stituter 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.
3. Another answer is, (upon supposition of a reli∣gious 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 Sacra∣mentis, pag. 206. it standeth so:* 2.28 I answer that both Mor∣decai 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 conti∣nuation of free-will offeringes, (whiche might be of∣fered 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.
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 evi∣dently proved meerly humane, as it may be made a foun∣dation 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 extra∣ordinarie & singular revelation, not to be Exemplarie therein to us.* 2.29
2. 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 con∣science as of necessity to be observed, as Gods lawes; but it ser∣veth 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, depri∣ved, excommunicated, fined, & imprisoned, without any way (lawfull or vnlawfull) of authority. Concerning neces∣sity in conscience, see the first part, chap. 6.
Another answere of the Rejoynders is notorious: Bel∣larmine (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 Dedica∣tion and Consecration of Churches bee nothing to our question of significant Rites; the Def. and Rej. say no∣thing 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 hu∣mane Dedications lawfull; much lesse doeth it prove the lawfulnesse of other significant Ceremonies, such as ours are.
3. The Defendant for backing of this instance, ad∣ded, that our Saviour seemeth to approve that humane
Feast, by his presence, Ioh. 10. To which it was replied, that he seemeth onely: because we onely read, that he wal∣ked 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:* 2.30 Christ did not properly ho∣nour 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 Gos∣pel: 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, belon∣ged properly vnto the solemnity of that Feast. If hee had preached of Dedications and Consecrations, with al∣lowance, that had beene something.
The Rej. objecteth 1. That we plead Christs approbation of marriage, by his presence. This indeed added vnto e∣vident grounds, addeth some honour unto that state: especially, in that a miracle was wrought to the furthe∣rance 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 begin∣ing of his preaching; the other toward the end of it a
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 Tem∣ple, 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 cen∣sure 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 holi∣nesse, 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 Savi∣our condemned the one, and allowed the other?
The following 13. and 14. Sections are spent about some objections taken out of Mr. Cartwrite. But be∣cause the slitenesse of this Instance is already sufficiently discovered, I will not cloy, nor deteyne the Reader a∣bout them, at this time; but passe on to the next In∣stance.
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 tra∣verse, 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 demonstra∣tion is first made, how it agreeth to the purpose: but we are chalenged to shew how it disagreeth. Yet yeel∣ding them this libertie, we have enough to oppose.
2. 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, Babing∣ton 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 Ecclesiasti∣call, 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 re∣ligious
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. Par∣kers eyes (as the Rej. speaketh) or blear theirs, that see not the vanitie of this allegation?
3. 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 pic∣tures of thinges which we have seen, to a civill use, but not to use them in the Churche, and for Religion.
4. To passe over circumstantiall passages, the Def. (proving this Altar to be appointed unto Gods service, be∣cause it was a patterne of the Lords Altar, as our Crosse is a resemblance of Christs Crosse) was 1. reproved by the Re∣plier: because the Crosse, wheron Christ did suffer, was no more holy then Iudas: and so not to be compa∣red unto the Lords Altar. To this the Rejoynder in
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.
5. 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 men∣tion 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.
6. The Defender went about to prove, first, that this Altar did mystically signifie a spirituall dutie, in re∣spect 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 gene∣rations to come, may denie us, on this side Iordan, not
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 wit∣nesse that the Lord is God. Now let any man consider, whether they which ordinarily resorted to the Taberna∣cle, 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 pos∣session. 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
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 pre∣sent need no such monument and patterne: which is the very point in this place questioned.
7. 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 peo∣ple, 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 re∣ligious 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 mean∣ings and significations of their owne, which from the begin∣ning 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
pleaded about this Altar of Iordan.
And for further manifesting,* 2.31 that it was so in this Al∣tar, 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.
8. 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 Con∣gregation 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, be∣fore 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.
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 Al∣tar, 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.
2. 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
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 Offe∣rings, 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 Al∣tars 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. Bel∣larmine 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 Di∣vine
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 Tem∣ple: 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 Abra∣hams Altars, &c. but this is enough.
3. 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) Quic∣quid Salomon fecit, id Dei authoritate & Spiritus Sancti nu∣tu 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 ex∣ample, 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
sinne, for men, by their owne authoritie, to erect a new Altar in the Temple? And this the Def. and Rej. with Bellar∣mine 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!
4. 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, wher∣by they did other things, and it may be by speciall revelation.* 2.32 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, ha∣ving litle reason to oppose, putteth down, in stead of it, great wordes: as this is to confound Ordinarie, and Extra∣ordinarie; Speciall, and Common; Scripture-light, and im∣mediat Revelation; and so hath no sence in it. And what shew of wool for this great crie? May not one be extra∣ordinarilie, specially, and immediatly directed, to see that Scripture-light which in it self hath ordinarie, & common shining? Surely, the Apostles had ex••raordi∣narie, speciall, immediat direction, to see the meaning of divers passages in the ould Testament (as the allego∣ricall 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
Peter, who after hee was sent unto all Nations, needed after a Vision from Heauen, to send him vnto the Gen∣tiles, then this consequence is nothing worth.
4. 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 an∣swer to Bellarmine, Cont. lib. 1. cap. 19. To this the Defender answered nothing, which either the Replier thought worthy any answer, or Rejoynder of impro∣ving. 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 ne∣cessity 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 Al∣tar, and the intent of the Law was no other, then that they should not offer in divers places, but heere was but one conti∣nued place.* 2.33
TO this simple instance, the Replier answered, 1. that Synagogues were no significant Cere∣monies. 2. That it is most likely, they were
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 represen∣tation of the Sanctuary. But I aske, How? Was this repre∣sentation in matter, or forme, or use? He seemeth to re∣ferre 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 sup∣pose the Synagogues had been a repraesentation of the Sanctuarie, which was a Ceremonie; is every reprae∣sentation 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 Syna∣gogues by Prophets) which the Repl. sayd, is most like∣ly, 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 a∣gainst? The third (of no humane significant Ceremo∣nies used in Synagogues) is absolutely pronounced false. But no reason of this sentence is given out of the Scrip∣tures, 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 Pur∣chas his Pilgrimage, are wandring Pilgrimes, without house or home, and therfore worthy no other answer,
but that which our law hath provided for Vagabondes
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 ap∣point 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 institu∣tion 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 Apo∣stles.
2. 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: be∣cause 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
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 A∣postolicall institutions: the answer is of that which the A∣postles did, but not as Apostles, that is not properly Apostoli∣call. 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.
3. 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 Apostoli∣call traditions but such as are delivered from God.* 2.34
4. 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
Pastors, and yet having the same authoritie with their wri∣tings: Now let the Reader mark, that the Defender his charge of unlearned rudenesse, depended on this, if Apo∣stolicall traditions may be called Divine, as being commanded of God. To talke heere of faculty, ordinary, pastors, autho∣rity 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.
5. When the Repl. spake of more learned men al∣lowing of the foresaid position, and rejecting the di∣stinction made betwixt Divine and Apostolicall traditi∣ons; 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 neigh∣bours, for such extreame want of learning, when you•• opposite learning can scarce stand in any sense.
6. After these testimonies, the Replier inquired in∣to 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 Apo∣stles. 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 occasi∣onally.
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 confuta∣tion of this selfe same distinction. 2. By the same or somewhat like reason, a distinction may be made, be∣twixt 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?
7. 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 Apo∣stolicall. 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.
8. 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 significa∣tion 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.
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?
9. 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 assem∣blies, that is, to the reliefe of the poore, and mainte∣nance of brotherly love. The Rejoynder, First, oppo∣seth appropriation: as if all things used in the Church, were appropriated to it! So common salutations used at Church should be appropriations. He secondly con∣cludeth from thence, that (by this reason) Eating of things offered to Idols, in the idols Temple, should not be reli∣gious. 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 De∣fender 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 re∣ligi••us.
10. It was finally replied, that the Ordination of these feasts cannot be shewed, to have beene Apostoli∣call: and to that pu••pose P. Martyr was alleged, in 1, Cor. 11.22. The Rejoynder opposeth 1. that t••e Argume••••
so much the stronger:* 2.35 because then they were meerely of hu∣mane institution, and yet had Apostolicall approbation. Se∣condly, that P. Martyr confesseth the same feasts to be men∣tioned 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 Argu∣ment which was taken from the ordination of the Apo∣stles, cannot possibly be strong at all,* 2.36 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 Corin∣thians did, setting up these feasts without warrant from the word. To P. Ma••tyr, adde Calvin, upon the same place:* 2.37 We may see hence, that their manner of feasting wholly ••is∣pleased 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 in∣stitution. 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 pesti∣lent superstitions.
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 an∣swer also is the same with that before: It is a naturall in∣dicant 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 Iud∣ges. It may proove this charge hath as little ground, as the other of an extreame unlearned Position.
2. 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, Ter∣tullian, 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:* 2.38 The kisses of the Gentils being tokens of peace and love are not
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 accor∣ding to his hyperbolicall fashion, ascribeth so muche to this Kisse, as smelleth of Superstition:* 2.39 What prayer is there perfect which is separated from a holy kisse? He sheweth not∣withstanding that it was used in privat houses as well as in the Congregation:* 2.40 At home perhaps you may put of till another time the Salutation of peace. 4. He discovereth a custome something contradictorie to his former asser∣tion. At Easter we do well to lay aside the Kisse. 5.* 2.41 Ther were even in Tertullians time, divers superstitions cree∣ping 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 testi∣monie?
Cy••••ll is the next, whoe calleth it Signaculum reconcilia∣tionis, quo in sacris utim••r: the Seal of reconciliation used in Divine Service. But 1. we may well quaestion the Au∣thor
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 pro∣digall of dealing significations, according to his pleasure, that we may say of him, as Ierom of Origen, His braines were the Churches Sacraments:* 2.42 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 Reconcilia∣tion. 4. The same Cyrill, in the same place, Cat. 5. gi∣veth 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.* 2.43 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 (dilecto∣rum 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 be∣fore was given them?
3. 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
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 Com∣munion? 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.
4. The Rejoynder thinketh it strange, that constant Application by direction, or custome, should not be In∣stitution. 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 a∣mong Christians commonly applied unto Christian Love, without any new institution.
5. 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.
6. He affirmeth, that the ordeyned seating of a Mini∣ster in an higher place, in way of Reverence to his Function, is
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 Pray∣ing, is as Mysticall a Ceremonie, as the Kisse of Peace. And what need any other institution, then constant ap∣plication of suche gestures, by the Rejoynder his rule?
7. 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 de∣clared.
8. Notwithstanding all this weaknesse of his prae∣misses, 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 jud∣ment, 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.
1. THe last example of Apostolicall Humane, Sig∣nificant Ceremonies by Institution, and Ap∣propriated 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 re∣membred, that we are heere in answering, not in proo∣ving, and concluding, which is the Def. his part. Se∣condly, 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••i∣on: that it was no more religious, then Womens proper apparell, long garments, &c. (to which Chrisostome up∣on 1. Cor. 11.) compareth the Vaile, as one part to ano∣ther, or their shooes, or slippers are. 3. Concerning Trum∣pets,
in some use of them, wee have their instituted sig∣nification, 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.
2. 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 chec∣ked, 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 interrogato∣ries propounded to the prejudice of our cause!
3. 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 unco∣vering in signification. And will the Def. and Rej. say, that Beards are religious mysticall Ceremonies?
4. 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 judge∣ment: which yet is no mysticall Ceremonie of religion. The Rej. (altering first▪ the case, into a throne set up to
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 a∣side his changing of the question, and take him as an∣swering, that everry Seat, of judgement among all Hea∣then, is such a Ceremonie; and then, let any man con∣sider, if hee hath not brought his pigges to a faire mar∣ket? Seats of Iustice, are religious Ceremonies, even a∣mong 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 where∣with 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 Chil∣dren can afford examples enough, and more then enough.
5. It was added, by the Repl. that the Def. allegeth nothing out of Divines, which may not as well bee ap∣plied to the Iudges Bench, as to the Vaile of Women. Yes,
this (sayth the Rej.) that the one used in civill actions, is religious in use onely, not in state: the other used in reli∣gious 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 ex∣plained, 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 Cri∣ers O wize Religious in use, because, or as it is used in civill actions? And is the Paraters citation religious in state, be∣cause, 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.?
6. The Repl. also observed, that the Vaile was of the same nature with long haire, such as becommeth wo∣men; 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 wo∣man 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.* 2.44 where he sheweth that it is so naturall, that it cannot be imitated without some violation of na∣ture, by any woman, though no new institution impose
it upon her. 2. Chrisostome (upon the same place) hath this: That is from nature it selfe,* 2.45 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 cove∣red 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 vai∣ling of women is no Ceremonie; much lesse religious, and mysticall significant, by institution humane.
7. The Def. his third demand was, whether these Ceremonies of covering, and uncovering, were not in∣stituted to bee observed in Gods publike worship? An∣swer was given (by the Repl.) that this indeed was re∣quired, 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 requi∣ring his subjects to observe Christs institutions, did there∣fore institute the Sacraments, &c. 2. His second answer is, that application, by injunction, was (as it were) an insti∣tution. So that by and (as it were) the Lords Sacraments have beene so often instituted, as they have beene ap∣plied, and injoyned; that is an hundred thousand times, and more. But if any man will needs use the terme in∣stitution in such a sense, that is nothing to our question;
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
which is of Ceremonies, whose first author and appoin∣ter, in speciall, was man. Otherwise, all Divine Cere∣monies 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 con∣futation, I may well againe repeat (as justified) the Repl. conclusion: Seeing the Def. could finde but three exam∣ples of humane Ceremonies, in all the new Testament; and none of those there can be shewed, to be of mysti∣call signification, or appropriated onely to Gods wor∣ship, or of humane institution; the Prelates may be asha∣med in such domineering fashion, to urge humane Ce∣remonies vpon the consciences of Ministers and People of the new Testament.
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 in∣firmitie, then were to bee looked for in the Scrip∣ture fountaines. This the Rej. thought not worthy of any answer. Let the Reader yet take knowledge, that we
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.
2. The oldest Records we have (saith the Rej.) doe mention humane misticall Ceremonies in Gods wor∣ship, as Apostolicall traditions. Which 1. is not true: be∣cause 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 one∣ly 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 A∣postolicall: as Chamier sheweth (De jejunio, cap. 7.) Not out of any certaine law, but out of private devotions, and con∣sequently Superstition.* 2.46 In the next place, for a maine ground of this assertion (that the universall Church ob∣serving humane Rites, tooke them to have beene of A∣postolicall allowance) the Rej. bringeth in the com∣mon text of Papists, out of Augustine, ep. 118. Such u∣niversall 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
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 A∣postles 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 Chur∣ches: which will fall hard upon most Christians. 5. Au∣gustine (in the same place) complaineth of mens pre∣sumptions 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 Sacra∣ments, to be still preserved in the Church. Now those Ce∣remoniall 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 o∣ther 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:* 2.47 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? Cer∣tainely, to exced or equall the Heathen, in humane ob∣servations, was not agreeable to the Apostles rules, nor
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.
4. The Fathers practise (sayth the Rej.) interpreted their rules touching the perfection of Scripture, and pu∣rity of Gods worship, to be vnderstood of necessary do∣ctrine, and proper worship. The contrary whereof ap∣peareth, partly by the fore-mentioned place of Au∣gustine, 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 do∣ctrine) is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this place onely let fall. But for the interpretation of doctrine, by practise, if the Rejoyn∣der 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 knee∣ling, Ergo, their doctrine is against them?
5. 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 Ceremo∣nies and doctrine. But the trueth is, he spake there for excessive commendation of our English-Church-do∣ctrine, 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 dis∣pute out of affection, more then out of judgement.
6. 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 confu∣ted, but by rejecting of both, I see no reason for his in∣dignation. 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 eve∣ry step, at every comming to and going out,* 2.48 at the apparrel∣ing 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 cor∣ruptions, entred into the Church, immediately after the Apo∣stles time, which the Divell planted, as a preparative for An∣tichrist. 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.
6. 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 monta∣nus, 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
the primitive times by the space of sixe hundred yeares, the Church generally erred, in giving the Lords Sup∣per 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 o∣ther 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: Monta∣nus (in one word) was of a ceremoniall spirit.
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 attenti∣on,
and understanding, as to weary him with needlesse repetitions.
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 Buck∣lers and Quarrelling; 3. of a proofe necessary to an an∣swere; 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 resem∣blancer 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 avou∣cheth 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
hands upon their hearts, when they take a solemne oath.
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 ex∣ample 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.
2. 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 analogi∣call instructions, instituted Ceremonies: as if nothing could be gathered from any fact, or text, in the Scripture,
by analogie, or proportion, but it must bee straight a cere∣moniall 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 Ceremo∣nies, which our Convocation may change at their plea∣sure? Awake, awake, both Def. and Rej. and see the vanity and scandall of this allegation.
3. 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 faith∣fulnesse and constancy of men morally honest; then it is lawfull for men to institute sacred signes for confirmati∣on of the Covenant of Grace, and so new Sacraments properly so called.
4. Concerning Ceremoniall Festivals, of mans m••king, our practise cannot bee objected: because wee observe none. We take occasion of hearing,* 2.49 and pray∣ing 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 nativi∣ty, resurrection, and ascension o•• Christ. And this might be
the reason, why the Repl. passed over this example, as of no moment. For we doe not feare (as the Rej. ima∣gineth) 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.* 2.50) 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 supersti∣tions 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 o∣ther feasts beside the Lords Day should be abolished. He insi∣nuateth 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.
IN this Section (which the Repl. thought to require no answer) the summe is, that we are crosse and con∣trarie 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 Ceremo∣nies, 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 rea∣son: why they retayned, or rather tolerated these, more then them, we see none, that experience hath not con∣futed.
1. IN this last section, this reason is brought (accord∣ding to the Rej. his construction) If all Ceremonies (properly so called) must some way be significant; then
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 Cere∣monies 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 que∣stion is in this chapter, as is to be seene in the first secti∣on. 3. If all Ceremonies be significant, then there is no sense in exposing double Ceremonies to significant: be∣cause none are, or can be dumbe. A••d yet this opposi∣tion is made use of by the Def. and Rej. as other where, so in these two last sections.
2. The Repl. taking from the Def. this proposition: Nothing is properly called a Ceremony, if it bee altogether de∣stitute of signification; sayth that this convinceth not us at all: because, if this be true, then our tenet is, that all ce∣remonies 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 Cere∣monies
of mans invention.
3. 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 symbo∣lically: 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, diffe∣ring in phraze from other Divines, meaneth by Symbolicall, Sacramentall signes, pag. 264.265. Heere therefore to di∣stinguish them, is to confesse their former dealing not faire.
4. 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
colour of it; not distinct speaking onely, but every Prea∣chers proper Tone, are sacred, significant, ceremoniall Weights, Rushes, Bezomes, Caps, Beards, Colours, Tones, &c.
See what an argument the Def. made against us, ac∣cording 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 in∣stituted 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.
5. Calvin (said the Def.) and some other, doe ac∣cuse some Popish Ceremonies, because they are dumbe. They accuse them also (answereth the Repl.) for spea∣king: as the Scripture doth condemne images, both for being dumbe, and also for teaching lies.
Well said, (saith the Rej) When the Ceremonies are al∣together 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, spake in the Church, to Bernard▪ good morrow Bernard, good morrow; Bernard answered, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Madam you forget your
Sexe: it is not lawfull for a woman to speake in the Church.
The Scriptures also condemned the same image for standing (at other times) dumbe in the Church. Even so we condemne humane Ceremonies, both for standing in the Church dumbe and unprofitable; and also for speaking in such a place, idely, and above that which be∣seeme their Sexe or degree. I repeat therefore againe, not as a meere jest, in which name the Rejoynder put∣teth it off, but as a sad and serious trueth, that which the Replier concluded this Argument withall: Lay all toge∣ther which our Divines say, and you shall finde, that in their judgements, Humane Ceremonies in Gods worship, are like a foole in a place of honor, who whether he speaketh, or holdeth his peace, still sheweth himselfe unworthy of that place.
IN the former Argument as being most essentiall, I suffered my pen to run a larger course, then in the be∣ginning I intended. Heere I purpose to hold it shor∣ter. Passing over therefore by-matters,
1. The Argument was thus propounded in the A∣bridgement: It is contrary to Gods word, to use (much more to command the use of) such Ceremonies in the worship of God as man hath devized, if they bee notoriously knowne, to have beene of olde, and still to be abused unto Idolatrie, and Super∣stition, by the Papists, especially, if the same be now of no ne∣cessary use in the Church. But our Ceremonies are such. Ergo.
The Def. his answer was so set downe, that (by the Rej. his owne confession) no sense could be discerned in it. But the said Rej. (after three patchings of the words, and the distinctions, about abolishing, abused, and necessa∣ry) bringeth, for account, this answer, out of all: If by
abolition, be meant, Abscission, and not Cure, the Propo∣sition being meant of things indifferent, is false. But if in the exception, of things, necessary, be meant not an ab∣solute, but a convenient necessitie, the Assumption is false, which sayth: that our Ceremonies are of no necessary use in the Church. Heere we have three distinctions, be∣twixt 1. abscission, or cutting off, and curing; 2. things evill in their nature, and indifferent: 3. necessity absolute, and convenient. Now 1. see how they agree among themselves: In the first, the Ceremonies are conside∣red as members of our Religion, or worship, which must be eyther cut off or cured (for so the Def. explaineth it of cutting off the members by the joynts) whereas they were never members joynted to our religion, or worship, but to the Harlot of Rome. In the second, they are con∣sidered as no members, but things indifferent; and in the third (at the best) onely convenient. 2. For the first, it is well knowne that they are cloutes, which have lien vp∣on the plague-soares of Idolaters, many hundreds of yeares: and what wise Physition, or Surgeon, was ever knowne, to goe about the curing of such clouts? 3. For the second, it is a meere affectation of casting a myst be∣fore the Readers eyes. For both the Def. and Rei. knew well, that the Authors of this Argument, holde our Ceremonies not indifferent, but unlawfull in their na∣ture, and yet upon supposed indifferency, undertake to make good their Proposition; as having all sense on their side, namely, that things otherwise meerely indif∣ferent, receive some difference, by their notorious abuse to Idolatry. 4. For the last, The Ceremonies are heere,
onely in a blinde distinction, (as it were in a parenthesis) affirmed to be of convenient use in our Church. Now let any man consider of this dealing, whether it be not more necessary for the Def. and Rej. then convenient for the Reader. In the Abridgement, pag. 42. and 43. &c. it is largely prooved, that these Ceremonies in controversie, are not convenient. The Def. (professing a full answer to all that is objected) giveth no answere to any thing there alleged to that purpose. When he was challen∣ged by the Repl. for not shewing them convenient, the Rej. pag. 167. accuseth him of more impudencie, then hee would have expected from any Friar, and yet directeth us not to the place, where he hath gone about any such matter. The Rej. himselfe, undertaking to manifest their conveniencie by the Rules of Gods Word, suddenly brea∣keth off, pag. 74. and referreth that demonstration to a fitter place: which place hitherto he could not finde, nor ever will. Beside, the Rej. confesseth, a multitude of godly learned men, (among whom were) Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Bucer, Hooper, Iewel, Fulke, Rainolds, Whitakers, Humphrie, Perkins, &c.) to have held our Ceremonies in∣expedient, or inconvenient, at the least. Nay he himselfe hath beene in the same haeresie. All this notwithstan∣ding, he thinketh it not significent, in one word, to say (for a shift) without any proofe or declaration, that they are convenient for our Church. Conveniency is esteemed when as a thing after the consideration of all circum∣stances, isfound to bring more good (at the least) then evill with it. And I dare appeale to the Rej. his owne conscience, whether our Ceremonies have beene cau∣ses,
or occasions of more good then evill? They may doe hurt (saith Beza) but they can doe no good. God knoweth (sayth Mr. Foxe) they bee the cause of much blindenesse and strife among men.
Let this (by the way) be well observed out of this ge∣nerall answer, that the particular answers following, in this argument, are nothing worth, but onely upon this supposition, that our Ceremonies are not onely curable and indifferent, but also convenient for our Church: which ney∣ther Def. nor Rej. nor any for them, will ever bee able with any shew of reason, and honestie, to demonstrate, while the world standeth. So that this whole fourth Argument is heere in the first section, sufficiently yeelded, For all that we desire, is plainely granted, con∣cerning the unlawfulnesse of all such human Ceremo∣nies in Gods worship, as are notoriously knowne to have beene and be abused unto Idolatry and Superstiti∣on, if they bee now of no convenient necessary use in the Church.
1. THe second Commandement was heer alleg∣ed, in the Abridgement, as forbidding all pro∣vocation unto spirituall fornication, as the se∣venth
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
doeth unto that which is carnall. This the Def. passed by in silence; and therein is defended by the Rej. because, according to his method, in one particular ar∣gument, he taketh knowledge of it, par, 2. c. 2. s. 2. As if Iohn a-Stiles his plea, for 3. akers of ground, were suffici∣ently answered by Iohn a-Noxe, if he cold with any shew ward it off from 1. aker. His owne answer is, that as the se∣venth Commandement doeth not forbid the use of all such things, as accidentally doe, or may provoke some men to base uncleannesse; but onely such, as in and of themselves, are wor∣king incitements thereto; so neither doeth the second Comman∣dement forbid the use of all such things, as the lust of some I∣dolaters may turne to spirituall fornication; but onely of such, as have in themselves, or in such use of them, an habitude, or aptnesse, to provoke thereto. But 1. Our Divines gene∣rally teach (as Zanchy de Red. lib. 1. cap. 14. briefely ex∣presseth their meaning) The summe of the second Comman∣dement is, that in the worship of God, or Ceremonies therea∣bout, wee are to devise nothing of our owne braine, or borrow ought of Heathenish idolatrous rites.* 2.51 2. Let this be so: the question yet remaineth; whether our Ceremonies, the Crosse (for example) hath not some habitude, and apt∣nesse, to provoke towards Idolatry? I thinke it will not be denied, but the Crosse is an Idol, at Paris, at Calis, and among the Papists, in England. Now suppose a knowne harlot to be brought out of the Stues at Paris, or Calis, unto Dover, and lodged there in an honest mans bed, or bed-chamber (as the Crosse is in the bed of our Religion, the holy Sacrament) would any man say, that there were no habitude nor aptnesse, in such a harlot, and
her lodging, to provoke, even an honest man, and much more, a dissolute companion, unto filthy folly? Diffe∣rence I know none; but onely that the spirituall folly may be more secretly, and mystically provoked, and ex∣ercised, then carnall can. The Rej. should have done well, if hee had given us a certaine rule, whereby wee might have distinguished, betwixt those monuments, or reliques of Idolatry, which have an habitude or aptnesse in them to provoke unto Idolatry, and those which have not. For then more might have beene said therefrom, eyther for, or against our Ceremonies. Now we can∣not tell where to take holde, saving onely in this; that habitude and aptnesse of provoking, towards Idolatry, is in every consenting relation that any Ceremony (otherwise unnecessary) hath to any Idol: and all such relation of our Ceremonies to Idols cannot be denied: neither can their necessity to true Religion be with any shew of rea∣son, or honesty, mainteyned. Beside, what jealous or wise husband, if his wife should receive any thing from a knowne adulterer, who hath also gone about to under∣myne her honesty, and keepe it alwayes in her bosome, would take this for a sufficient excuse; that such a thing hath not in it selfe any habitude or aptnesse of prouoking unto Adultery? And doeth not God tell us, that hee is in like sort, a Iealous God? From hence it is, that Mr. Perkins, with divers others, in writing on the second Commandement, doctrinally, without speciall medling with controversies, making one head of things therein forbidden, the monuments and reliques of Idolatrie.
2. To Lev. 18.3.4, and 19.19.27. the Def. his answer
was (according to the Rejoynder his extraction) that these places doe not proove the abolishing of things indifferent in nature, meerely for the abuse of them to Idolatry, which was (saith he) the point to be prooved: because cutting off the flesh for the d••ad was evill in it selfe; and sowing with divers seeds in one field, was forbidden for a typica••l docum••nt of that syncerity which God required in his people. Where 2. he mistaketh, or perverteth the question: which was not of things indifferent, but not necessary, nor of all things not necessary, but of Ceremonies. 2. Cutting off the flesh for the dead, with a good meaning, nor was, nor is more evill in it selfe, then Circumcission, which both the Def. and Rej. allow as lawfull, under Prester Iohn. pag. 285.3. That typicall doctrine of syncerity, forbiddeth plainely all mixing of Idolaters reliques, with Gods ho∣ly ordinances.
3. The Repl. alleged, that the words Lev. 18.3.4. are generall: after their doings ye shall not doe: neither shall ye walke in their ordinances. To this the Rej answereth, that these generall words are to be restrained unto the ma••ter spoken of, that is, incest, and such mad doings of the Egypti∣ans, and Canaanites. But 1. why are these words more to be restrained unto the matter spoken of in the same chapter, then those, 1. Cor. 4.40 Let al things bee done decently and in ord••r, which the Def. and Rej. extend as farre as it pleaseth our Convocation to call things de∣cent, and orderly. 2. That they cannot be so restrained, is manifest out of the context; where the ordinances of Idolaters are opposed to all those Ordinances, Statutes, and Iudgemenes of God, to the doing whereof is promised
life. 3. Iunius a judicious Interpreter, in his Analysis of the place, maketh the four first verses of this 18. chap. to perteyne unto divers chapters following, and not, to the 18 onely: ne alienis exemplis, aut legibus vivant. Pelican also upon the place, speaketh home, in this manner: God, by this one law, would have them cast away and abborre, whatsoever had (in worship) pleased the Gentils. Muche more care ought Christians to have of this; whoe being taught to worship God in spirit and truth, ought, first and last, to have abhorred the idle, unreasonable, and deceitfull formes and rites of Idolaters. Whiche if the ancient Bishops had wel con∣sidered, the Churche had never been pestered with so many profane rites, and base Ceremonies; by which it came to passe, that some Christians differ litle from Gentils, save in the names of their Idols.* 2.52 Lyra also (a Papist) on Lev. 18. sayth plainlie: He intended to exclude from the children of Israel every rite of the Gentils.* 2.53 And on Lev. 19.19. This is commanded, for detestation of Idolatrie: because Idolaters did so, the Israelites may not doe so.* 2.54
4. Exod 23.24. (sayth the Rej.) Speaketh of supersti∣tion, or vitious worship. And this (say we) is the point by us intended: viz: that Ceremonies borrowed from Ido∣laters, are vitious and superstitious worship.
5. To Deut. 12.4. (Thou shalt not doe so to the Lord thy God) the Rej. after many words, answereth (with the Def.) that not unlawfulnesse, or abuse, but another reason produced this Law. To which it shall suffize to answer, that the other reason was, as Pelecan upon the place no∣teth;
In Ceremonies, we must holde us strictly to the word of God; least we should transgresse eyther in number, or in forme, if mens traditions were to be followed.* 2.55
6. Deut. 30.32. was (as it seemeth) misprinted, for Deut. 16.22. and so commeth after to be handled in the next Section.
7 As for 2. Corint. 6.14. (sayth the Rej.) that place condemneth onely mariage or familiar societie with infi∣dels, and v. 17. partnership with men in uncleannesse, by con∣senting therto. But he should have remembred 1. that the generall condemnation of Fellowship, implieth more then mariage, or familiar societie. 2. That using of I∣dolaters Ceremonies, is more religious fellowship with them, then falimiar societie civill. 3. That Idolaters Ce∣remonies cannot be wittingly and willingly used, with∣out implicit consent unto them, hitherto, that their Ce∣remonies are lawfull.
8. To Rev. 18 4. the Rej. answereth in many words; but to the purpose thus: As concerning Ceremonies onely separating from those of Babylons Ceremonies is injoyned, which cannot be separated from sinne. Which if it be un∣derstood of sinne in the religious use of them about Gods solemne worship, is as muche as we desire: we onely adde (which is our defense) that suche an use of them is sinne in it self.
9. Calvins grave collection, on Lev. 19.27. was by the Replier alleged, which thus soundeth, according to the Rej. his owne emendation of the translation: Al∣though rounding, or cutting the hair, was in it self indifferent, yet God would not have it indifferent to his people that they as
litle children, might learne by small rudiments, that they could not have his favour, unlesse they should be unlike to the aliens, and uncircumcised, & be altogether and farr different from their examples, especially in those Rites wherin religion was shewed. The Rej. answereth 1. that the cause of this restraint, was the Iews childlike estate, by Calvins owne words. But Calvins meaning is removed from the right center. For that he meant not to exclude our age, he sheweth in the next words: Experientia docet, &c. Experience doeth (not did) teache. And this childlike estate was the cause (according to him and truth) not of the doctrine taught, concerning unlikenesse unto Idolaters, but of the manner, or meanes, wherin it was taught, namely, by absteyning from that fashion of hair, and beards, which Idolaters used. God teacheth us to teache our children, agreablie to their age, not that afterward they should forget, that which was taught them, but that they may remember what they were then taught, and not depart from it, when they are olde. Prov. 22.6. And did he give us a contrarie example? The praecepts given in the Churches minoritie, are her direction (by proportion) in her ripest years. And what direction is in these prae∣cepts, for us, the Rej. doeth not shew. Surely, I should thinke, if the common sort ofGods people might not fa∣shion themselves then to Idolaters, then neyther now our Ministers: if not then in a matter of passion, muche lesse now in actions pertayning to Gods worship: if not then in a tuft of hayr, much lesse now in a Ministring garment, a Ceremonie consecrating us and our children to Christ, and a solemne manner of receyving him in
his mysteries. The difference of child-hood, from per∣fect age, may teache us, that we should not look for suche particular warnings now what thinges of Idolaters we are to shunne, as were given in the Churches infancie, but make use of them; being now also generally war∣ned to flie from all Idolatrie, & that in the same formes of speache which then were used. 2. He answereth, that It pleased God to set up a partition-wall betwixt Iews and Gentiles, in thinges otherwise lawfull. Whiche is very true: but among those thinges, otherwise lawfull (as Calvin clearly insinuateth) Rites of human invention, wherin re∣ligion was shewed, had no place. 3. The Rej. addeth, that neyther Calvin, ever affirmed, nor any learned and advised man, dare affirme, that no conformitie with Idola∣ters in any Rites, abused by them to Idolatrous superstition, is lawfull to be used of Gods people in his service. To which I answer 1. that if he taketh any Rites so largely, that among them he reckoneth Gods ordinances, then he sayth nothing but truth, and yet nothing to the purpose. For the quaestion is, of Rites devized by man, not necessarie in the Churche: as may be seen in the termes of our Ar∣gument, expressed in the Abrigement, though in part o∣mitted by the Def. which omission was so approved by the Rej. that he accuseth the Repl. of wrong-doeing for mending it. Pag. 404. We see now for what advantage. 2. If we may have leave to put in that part of the quae∣stion, as it standeth in our Argument (Rites devized by man, not necessarie) then hear Calvins and some other learned and advized mans judgement.* 2.56 Calv. Resp. ad Versipellem: It is more right and sound, to say, that the in∣stitutions
of God may not be abolished for any abuse: but hu∣mane institutions, being defiled, and so proving hurtfull, and offensive to our brethren, are to be absteyned from. The super∣stitions against which true worshipers of God doe fight, came (for a great part of them) from unknowne pudles: and all of them are soiled with ungodly errors, which never can be re∣mooved, but by utter abolishing of their use. Why then doe we not simply acknowledge that which is trueth, namely, that this remedy (of abolishing their use) is a necessary remedie, for ta∣king of drosse from the Church? Mr. Farrel Calvins fel∣low-minister, and in some sort, Father, Epist. Calv. 49. disputing against a popish fellow, whose name was Ca∣rolus, saith thus: When Carolus would obtrude his significati∣ons, in garments, and other magick-like signes; we opposed, that Christ hath taught us a purer manner of worshipping the Father, in spirit and trueth, without shadows. And Princes may learne by Hezechias his abolishing of the brazen serpent, what they are to do in those Rites which idle men have erected, and added significations unto, according to their owne pleasure. Beza, their sonne, Disp. Genev. 66.* 2.57 The trifles which had proceeded unto manifest superstition, we have abolished as will-worship. We also affirme, that they which reteyne the reliques of unprofitable Ceremonies, and (out of preposterous judgement) correct them rather then abolish them, deserve ill of the Chur∣ches.
Yet some there are,* 2.58 who would have Pastors put on gar∣ments, which if not by their first bringing in, yet by their abuse, are Baals garments. You Papists have so abused these Ceremo∣nies, that without violating of religion, we cannot retein them.
D. Morton, our Defend. Appeal. lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 25. Pope Stephen prescribed in such like cases of humane inventi∣ons: If our Ancestors have done any thing which is afterward turned into superstition, it is to be abolished without delay. Which was also the onely remedie which the ancient Councell of Eliberis propounded against Idolatrie. To omit particulars; it hath hitherto beene received for a ruled case among our Divines, as Rivetus (one of our last writers) sheweth, on the fourth Commandement: It is a rule, that things indifferent, not being necessary, if they be polluted with hor∣rible Idolatry, are to be abolished.* 2.59 The Rejoynder his con∣fidence therefore in this point, did exceed all comely measure. The opposite assertion may be better maintai∣ned: viz. that no learned and advised Divine, can be na∣med, free from manifest prejudice, arising from the use and urging of such Ceremonies in that Church where he lived that doeth not condemne all conformity with Idolaters, in their religious unnecessary Ceremonies.
1. IT was said by the Repl. that for preventing of an evasion, or stopping of a muse, the Abrigers ad∣ded; that even such things are to bee cast away, which had a good originall, and use, (if they be not still necessary and commanded of God) when once they are found to be defiled by Idolatry, as Lev. 26.1. &c. To this the Rej. (abounding as it seemeth with leisure, and words) sayth divers things in generall, not worth much refutation. 1. He objecteth Tinkers-lucke, because then all our Churches must downe. But this Ting-tong shall not have the lucke to stay us: because we hold our Churches commanded, in generall, though not for their particu∣lar places and formes; which particularity was neither mentioned, nor meant in the Argument. 2. Hee seeketh more then one knot in that rush (necessary or commanded) as if in either sentence that particle or must needs be disiunctive, and not the same with and; which hee himselfe will not affirme in his second thoughts. 3. He affirmeth some distinction to be betwixt things originally evill, and those that are successively evill: which we deny not; but only say, that distinctiō doth not make such a difference, as that therefore one should be
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
rejected, and the other received. 4. He denieth the 2. sertion plainely: which he might have done with ••ewer words, to as good purpose.
2. Concerning Lev. 26. it was alleged by the Rep••. that those (at lest some of those) titular pillars were firs••▪ onely set up for civill use. To which the Rej. answe∣reth, that this was not the first beginning of their religiou•• use: which is nothing to the purpose, except no use be good but religious. 2. that though many statues which after∣ward onely for worship, were at the first, for civill respects and had still a civill use, (for this antecedent onely is the Re∣pliers) yet it doeth not follow, they were civill at the first▪ which answer is by it selfe confuted.
3. Calvins collection or conjecture, was objected: that these statues were erected, to represent God: and this was answered, that according to Calvins phrase, there is a representation of God, in all pictures that cor∣rupt Gods spirituall worship. The Rej. opposeth, that Calvin on Deut. 12.3. sheweth his meaning to be onely of such representation as was in the golden Calfe, and Michas Sera∣phim; not such as Iacob set up for a monument. Which may be Calvins Conjecture of that place in Deut. though not of this in Lev. Yet to such a monument as Iacobs was, being grossely abused unto Idolatry, Hezechias would have showne no more courtesie, then he did to the Brazen Serpent. So Pelicanus, upon the place, col∣lecteth: We must ceremonize according to Gods Word onely.* 2.60 as upon Lev. 26.1. Even triumphall statues were forbidden.* 2.61 And Lyra, The memory of Idolatry is totally to be wiped out.* 2.62
4. The Def. objected Iacobs pillar, Gen. 28.18. So
(••ayth the Replie•• he did offer sacrifices, in other man∣ner, and place, then after the Law, was lawfull. To this the Rejoynder answereth, 1. that that which Iacob did, was not unlawfull by the morall Law. But he is mistaken; not dis••inguishing betwixt the morall Law forbidding religious Ceremenies of meere human appointment, and allowing the same derived from Divine inspiration. So Tertullian (de Idol. cap. 5.) answereth him that defen∣ded Images by the brazen Serpent: Idem Deus, qui lege ••etuit similitudinem fieri, extraordinario praecepto, serpentis ••imilitudinem indixit. Si eundem Deum observas, habes le∣••em ejus. Imitare tu Mosem, ne facias adversus legem, simu∣••achrum aliquid, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. 1. e. The same God which in his Law forbad images, did extraordinarily command the image of a Serpent. If thou wilt obey that God, thou hast his law. Imitate thou Moses, not making any image (contrarie to the Law) except God commande thee. So all our Divines in answer of Papists, objecting this & such like examples for will-worship) referre these doeings to Di∣vine revelation or instinct. Among these (for this cause) •• reckon D. Iackson: whoe in his Originall, pag. 332. gi∣veth us this Catholick remedie and rule, seriously to be considered. Such actions as have been menaged by Gods Spirit, suggested by secret instinct, or extracted by extraordi∣nary and speciall occasions, are then onely lawfull in others, when they are begotten by like occasions, or brought forth by like impulsions.
5. To Hos. 2.16.17. (where the very name of Baal seemeth to be forbidden, because it had been given un∣to Idols) the Defend. answered (sayth the Rej.) impli∣citly,
i. e. so as I have now answered to all that he hath brought about this fourth Argument. But he underta∣keth, by a litle change of wordes, to make that answer satis∣factorie. For this end, he allegeth first, that the word Baal, in religious use and application, was originaly, o•• from the first use of it, evill: because before Moses was borne, the great and common Idoll of the Gentiles was marke•• out by it, as by a proper name. But 1. If the civill use of this word was originaly good, that is sufficient to our pur∣pose. For our Argument speaketh onely generaly o•• good originals and beginnings. 2. If this word Baal did o∣riginaly signifie Lord, Maister, Husband, (as it is generaly taken) then by the Rej. his interpretation, it did origi∣naly signifie a religious relation. For he holdeth every signe of a servants dutie for conscience sake, to be a mystica•• signe of a spirituall dutie: pag. 314. And is not every signe of a Lords, Maisters, or Husbands dutie, or state, for con∣science sake, of the same nature? 3. Ther is some quae∣stion among the learned, whether Baal was derived from King Bel, or King Bels name from Baal? The most pro∣bable opinion is the later: as Sir Walter Raughly sheweth lib. 1. c. 10. sect. 6. because Bel, Beel, or Baal, was as muche to say as God. And Arias Montanus, in Hos. 2. sayth it signifieth Numen, or the cheif soveraign power, what∣soever it be, without restraint to this or that Idol. Now if this be so, what more evill was ther in the first use of the name Baal, then of God?
6. In the next place, the Rej. undertaketh to prove, that all religious use of this word Baal, in application to God, is not forbidden; but onely as it might further
••he practise, or bear the appearance of grosse Idolatrie. In which answer, if he doeth not distinguish grosse Idola∣••rie from slight; nor hath any mental reservation, about ••ppearance, nor yet taketh might further, otherwise then ••he wordes sound, he sayth nothing but that which we ••ot onely grant, but also make our plea. To this end ••e allegeth the use of it in Is. 54.5. Ier. 31.33. Nah. 1.2. ••o which I answer 1. The Lord, in this place of Hos. did ••ot speak of every time, but of that day. 2. He did not ••orbid himself to use this or that terme, at his pleasure, ••ut men. 3. The word Baal Is. 54. Ier. 31. seemeth to be ••sed in an allusion onely reproving, and upbraiding the ••dolatrie of the people, which had followed Baal; as ••••ewing that what they had sought for in Baal, was to ••e found onely in Iehovah. Otherwise it may be answe∣••••d, that the word appellative is used, without any re∣••••exion unto the proper. And Nah. 1. it is no more gi∣••en to Iehovah, then the name Idol is given to men, whē ••n worthy teachers are called Idol-shepheards; or then ••he name Iehovah is given to dumbe creatures, when ••hey are called Iehovah Iireh Gen. 22. Iehovah Nissi, Ex. 17. ••ehovah shammah, Ezech. 48.
7. He bringeth four interpretations of the place: of which, the first onely (as he sayth) may serve our turne ••n any part. But the first, third, and fourth, are in di∣••ers Interpreters conjoined. And ther is scarce any grave Interpreter, which doeth not gather so much from the context, as we require. See Ierom, Arias Mon∣tanus, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Zanchie, Tremelius, Iunius. Sir W. Raughly, himself, in the fore-noted place, obser∣veth
the summe: Although the name of Baal be justly to be used toward God; yet in respect that the same was given to Idols, God both hated it, and forbad it. And it is not cre∣dible, that so many, and such Divines, should make a collection, which hath no foundation in their intrepre∣tation of the text.
1. THe third proof (sayth the Replier) in the A∣brigement standeth thus: The aequitie of these Commandemens is thus set downe in Scrip∣tures: 1. The detestation which our jealous God bear∣reth unto all instruments and tokens of Idolatrie, Exod. 20.5.6. Deut. 7.25.26. 2. That we cannot be sayd sin∣cerly to have repented of Idolatrie, &c. except we be ashamed of, and cast away the instruments and monu∣ments of it. 1. Chron. 33.15. Is. 1.29. and 2.20. and 3••. 22.2. Cor. 7.11. See Calvin in Deut. serm. 52. Eph. 86. 3. that we shall be in danger to be corrupted. Ex. 34.1••. 15. Deut. 7.25.26. Iudg. 2.13. Gal. 2.5.4. We shall harden Idolaters. Ezech. 16.54. 1. Cor. 6.10. 5. Ther is more danger in Popish Ceremonies, because the Pope is Anti∣christ, and we converse more with Papists, then with other Idolaters. Now of all these reasons, and allega∣••ions,
the Def. answereth directly to nothing, but onely to those wordes: See Calvin. The Rej. doeth not denie, but the proofe was suche as hath been sayd: neyther could he say, that the Def. had answered to any thing, but See Calvin.
Yet 1. he goeth about (by many words) to perswade ••he Reader, that heer was no fault. To this end he speaketh of a Marke sh••t••••t, and hit by the Def. of the Def. his professed method (to professe a full answer unto all ob∣••ected, and answer what he pleased to object to himselfe) of perverse and injurious dealing, that he should be told of this trueth; of welts, guards, and gallant shewes, and gar∣nish onely, in so many reasons, and Scriptures: What aile you? (saith he) What meane you? To all this, I answer nothing. 2. He himselfe undertaketh to answer all. To this there∣••ore I will attend, according to the skill I have.
2. His generall answer is, that these five reasons of e∣quity, doe not prove, that we are bound unto all and the ve∣ry same wayes of repressing Idolatrie, &c. which the Iewes were bound to. This we confesse, as the Rej. testifieth, nei∣ther could they, upon that supposition, be called five reasons of equity onely, but of rigor. And what a kinde of answering is this; to say, reasons doe not proove that which they were not brought to proove? The question is, whether they do not proove, that it is contrary to Gods Word to use (much more to command the use of) such Ceremo∣••ies in the worship of God, as man hath devized, if they be no∣toriously knowne, to have beene of olde, and still to be abused unto Idolatry, by the Papists, especially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church? This was the opppsition,
for proofe whereof, these five reasons of equity were brought. And for this we have all our Divines that con∣found Popish Images, out of the selfe-same places of Scripture, as Vrsine on the second Commandement, Po∣lanus, Syntag. lib. 9. cap. 26. and whom not?
His answer in particular, is first, to Exod. 20.5.6. Deut. 7.25.36. Isai. 1.29. and 30.32. that these places speake o•• Idols themselves, or their garnish, not of indifferent Ceremo∣nies. But 1. these places were not alleged against indiffe∣rent Ceremonies; but against Ceremonious instrumen•••• and tokens of Idolatry, not necessary unto true worship, 2. If they make against the use, or urging of those thing•• which are either Idols, or Idols garnish (as is confessed) it is sufficient. For the Crosse is an Idol, and both Crosse▪ and Surplice, are the Garnish of Idols.
4. Some of these places (sayth the Rejoynder) a•••• grossely mistaken, misalleged, and abused. as Isai. 1.29. an•• 2.20. where confusion, and not Godly shame for sinne is spoke•• of: Ezech. 16.54. not speaking of hardening others: 1. Cor. 8.10. speaking of a thing in it selfe evill: Exod. 34.12. an•• Deut. 7.4. speaking of marriage and league with Heathen•• and Gal. 2.5. not respecting Ceremonies abused. To the first, I answer, 1. that the shame and confusion judiciall which is brought upon Idolaters, is because they are not ash••∣med unto repentance. 2. All those of whom the Pro∣phet speaketh, were not judicially confounded, but pe∣nitentially ashamed. Ier. 31.19. Ezech. 16.54. should have beene joyned to the former allegations, as speaking of mens shame in themselves, not of hardening others. 1. Cor. 8 10. condemneth embolding others to sin, by
eating things offered to Idols, though it were otherwise ••awfull, as appeareth, 1. Cor. 10.29. And a question may ••e made, whether it had beene more unlawfull, to eat ••uch things in the Idols Temple, then to take from ••hence things notoriously knowne to be such, and eat ••hem in Christian Congregations, at Love-feasts? Exo. ••4.12. Deut. 7.4. speake not onely of a civill, but also of •• religious league, such as should hinder them from brea∣••ing downe their Altars, Images, Groaues, &c. as Iuni∣••s (in his Anal.) noteth, and the words immediatly fol∣••owing shew. Gal. 2.5. placing danger in conformity to ••ewish Ceremonies, doeth insinuate as much (at the ••east) in conformity to Idolaters.
5. The Rejoynder addeth, that Isai. 1.29. and Iude 23. ••••nfute our Assertion: because men may pray in Gardens; and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 garment spotted with the flesh, being washed, might be used. ••nd such confutations the Rejoynder aboundeth with. ••ut wee can distinguish betwixt Gods good necessary ••reatures, and mans inventions of Idolatrous abuse, and ••nnecessary use.
Yet Gardens might not be used by the Iewes, for their ••eremoniall solemne worship. Neither is every washing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 polluted garment sufficient to make it fitting for an ••onest man, that hath other clothes to put on. The wa∣••••ing of a Crosse, is like the washing of a piece of clay, or ••f a Leopards spots.
6. Now Sir (sayth the Rejoynd.) You have your will. ••he third proofe is examined, and found to be light, facing, ••o bee repented of, as having abused men. Bate an acequoth ••oulton: The whole proofe is not examined. Nothing
is said to the substance of the reasons, but only to the testi∣monies, which yet are not found to be leight, facing, a∣busive, &c. And nothing at all is said to the fifth reason: Seeing the Pope is revealed to be that great Antichrist, 2. Thes. 2. Apoc. 17. and his Idolatrie troubleth the Church, at this day, more then any other, and our people converse more with Papists, then with any other Idolater, there is more danger, in retaining the Ceremonies and reliques of Popery, then of any other Idolatry whatsoever: Lev. 18.3.
7. Calvin was alledged in his 52. Sermon on Deut. speaking thus: If we have any drop of good zeale in us, it must needs vexe and grieve us, to see the markes and signes of Idolatry: and that wee must to the utmost of our power, deface them. The Rejoynder answereth, that hee spake this of proper instruments and monuments of Idolatry; and namely of Images. Which we willingly grant except he meane by proper such as never any beside Ido∣laters, either before, since, or at the same time, did use. And we adde, that the Crosse is more then a proper in∣strument of Idolatry: because it is an Idol: Neither hath either the Defend. or Rejoynd. denied, as yet, that it is an Idol. We adde also, that mysticall Ceremonies, are (in Calvins phraze) Images, either living, such as Gods institutions, or dead, as mens inventions. Inst. lib. 8. cap. 11. sect. 13. Adde lastly, that seeing the Def. and Rej. haue admitted historicall Images, as of the same nature with other mysticall Ceremonies (in the former Chap∣ter) it is too late now to distinguish their natures.
8. A second place of Calvin, is out of epist. 87. where he warneth the L. Protector of England, that nothing upon pretence must be tolerated in the Church, which came eyther from Satan, or from Antichrist. To this the Rej. (calling for all Calvin) answereth, that Calvin in that Epistle, speaketh against precise extremities about Ceremonies: and that he professedly intended rather to exempt our Ceremonies from those hee condemneth: as appeareth by his judgement of the Service-booke in Q. Maries time, the heads wherof were sent unto him from Franckfort, by M. Knox, and M. Whittingam, not one whit bettered (as the Rej. sayth he dare say) & out of his Epist. to Bull. an. 1551. &c. Now 1. because he will have all Calvin, he shall have enough of Calvin.
Thus therfor he writeth unto the L. Protecteur, I come to the other head about abolishing and plucking up by the very roots ••buses and corruptions,* 2.63 which the Devil in the ages past hath brought into Gods ordnance. It is evident that the Chri∣stianity or religion of Poperie is bastardly and false. Where∣fore if we resolve to bring the people out of that gulfe, we must follow the Apostles example 1. Cor. 11. From whence is gene∣raly ta••ght: that when men would reforme as th••y ought to do and acceptably to God, they must then betake themselves to the pure word of God. For look how many mixtures (which mans braine hath hatched) do remaine; so many pollutions are there which distract men from the right use of those things which the Lord had appointed for their Sa••vation. Wherefore while such a sink as that, is but in part pumpt out, things cannot be said to be as they should be, specia••y when religion appeares ra∣ther masked, then sincere and with open face, which I therefore
note because I perceive many now a-dayes of another judgmēt; as if petty abuses were to be let alone, as long as grosser maters be remooved. Whereas contrari-weise experience it selfe she∣weth what a fertil soyle and fruitfull seed-plot of lyes, mans in∣vention is, that being but thin sown (as it were) with lesser graines, groweth to such a heape as if his nature did intend no∣thing els. Now the Scripture is farr different from this. When David speaks of Idols, he professeth their names should not go in or out at the dores of his lips, to shew extreme detestation. Let us remoove our foot as far as possibly we can from all the leaven of Satan. For what were all thos•• Ceremonies but so many who••rish inticements to lead s••ely soules unto mischeif▪ yea even snares to catch them in? But if we talke that the people may be warned (forsooth) lest they stumble, yet notwithstan∣ding who doeth not behold men hardned by them? So little doth that warning availe to any purpose. Therefore if any such thing b•• left untouched, it will be but the foment and fuel of greater mischeif, and a very blind sett up to hinder sincere Doctrine from all entrance as were meet.
Then follow the words which the Rejoynder citeth for all Calvin. Let any understanding Reader judge now of Calvins judgement: if we require any more praecise rigor then Calvin did not onely wish, but also contend,
for, and that with such Arguments, as no De••ender or Rejoynder will ever answer? 2. Wheras he sayth that he dare say Mr. Knox and Whittingam sent the heads of the Service-booke not one whit bettered, insinuating that they made the worst they could of it, quoting the D••scourse of Frani••so ••t troubles, it is as much as to say, he dare denie, that which those good men sayd, and proved (by reprae∣senting their writing) concerning their owne fact, with∣out any reason. Surely their conclusion was this: Other thinges not so much shame, as pitie, compelleth us to keep close: &c.
Note (sayth the Author of that Discourse) that the de∣scription is very favorably put down. If you conferre it with the Booke, and the usage of the same in many Churches of this Realme▪ you can confesse no lesse. And therof you may ga∣ther, what M. Calvin would have written, if they had noted al the abuses of the same. Beside the Letter it self (written by M.K. and M. Wh. unto Calvin) is to be seen & read, in that Discourse; where mention is made of the Sur∣plice, Kneeling, and Crosse; But none of Confirmation, Of∣feringes, Womens Purification, and such other thinges as the Rejoynder would have Calvin onely to have respec∣ted▪
3. For Calvines Epistles to Bullinger, 1551. they were two: and in the first, epist. 120. he excuseth onely as to∣lerable in extremitie, the Cornerd cap, and Rochet: and what is this to our Ceremonies using and urging? In the second epist. 121. he exhorteth the Protectour, to help Ho••per, standing even against those fopperies, What can the Rejoynder gleane from hence. 3. As for
that the Rejoynder addeth, that Calv. Instit. lib 4. cap. 17. sect. 37. (for Easter day was handled before) professed∣ly alloweth our Kneeling, it is nothing so. For he spea∣keth onely against the Papists kneeling unto the Hoste in Procession; and for aggravation of that Idolatrie, sayth▪ that in the Supper it self, we may kneel to Christ. There is not one word of such kneelinge as ours is. There is no Non-Conformist, which refuseth to kneel unto Christ, in the celebration of the Lords Supper.
9. But Calvin (sayth the Def.) hath these words: that in labouring to remoove such things as may seeme to nou∣rish Idolatry, we must take heede of being too supersti••ious, i•• urging too vehemently things in their owne nature i••diffe∣rent. To which there needeth no answer, then this: we assent to those words, without any exception. Afte•• Calvin, the Replier made mention of Martyr, Gryncu••, Wolphius, Vrsinus, Machabeus, Zanchius, Simlerus, Z••ppe∣rus, Fulke, and the Authors of our Homilies, as quoted i•• the Abrigement (pag. 24.) to the same purpose. Bu•• the Rejoynder thought not them worth the answering in special: and therfore I must leave them to considen∣tion onely. To the rest of this Section I answer nothing but, Nihil dicit.
HEere nothing is handled but Daniels example, Dan. 1.8. Neither doeth the Rejoynder adde a∣ny thing to the Defendant, but onely, that Da∣niels forbearance of the Kings meat, was grounded on speciall ceremoniall injunctions of God, and not upon our morall rule, that the abuse had made the use unlawfull; nor was this a Ce∣remony in Gods worship. To which I answer 1. that our ar∣gument is also grounded on the equitie of Ceremoniall injunctions, and that equity is our morall rule.
2. It must needs be, that if good meats (not other∣wise uncleane) were unlawfull unto Daniel, then it was because they were defiled by Idolatry: which is all that this place was alleged for.
3. If this was not a Ceremonie of Gods worship, the Argument is so much the stronger: because all Chri∣stians know, that whatsoever is unlawfull out of Gods worship, the same (not being by God appropriated to his worship) is much more unlawfull in it.
1. THis example is so pregnant, that it hath by all sortes of Divines beene used and improoved to so much as our Proposition doth require from it. The Superstitious Authors of the Canon-law, could not shut their eyes wholly against this light. For so D. Abbot (Def. of Mr. Perk. part. 1. pag. 168.) transla∣teth that law, Dist. 63. cap. Quia. If our Pred••cessors have done some things which at that time might be without fault, and afterwards bee turned to error and superstition; wee are taught by Hezekias breaking the brazen Serpent, that the Po∣sterity may abolish the same, wit••out any delay, and with great authority. And the same Doctor Abbot confesseth, the force of this consequence from Hezekias his example, to make against such private use of the Crosse, now, as Constantine, and the ancient Christians had of it▪ What then but the time, did hinder that good and learned man, from seeing that it maketh much more against the pub∣like use of the same Crosse in Baptisme? I never yet could meet with that Papist, which denied the conse∣quence: The brazen Serpent (having beene Gods owne ordi∣nance) was for Idolatrous abuse, to be abolished. Therefore hu∣man inventions, for like abuse, much more. Yet the Def.
and Rej. denie it. With what reason, shall appear••.
2. The Def. gave five reasons for Hezekias his abo∣lishing the Serpent. To which it was replied, that no man doubteth, but Hezekias had reasons, more then five, for that he did: and that the like may be alleged for abo∣lishing of our Ceremonies. This last (saith the Rej.) should have beene shewed. So it is (say I) in the following dispute.
Let them (addeth the Replier) be abolished by pub∣like authority, and I will undertake, reasons to justifie the action done, will easily be acknowledged, even of those that now can see none to perswade unto the do∣ing of it. Like enough; (answereth the Rej.) and well e∣nough: because it is lawfull, and just to abolish them as in∣convenient. Now let this be well noted. In the generall answer to this Argument, it was pleaded (pag. 406.) that Ceremonies abused to Idolatry are to be abolished, if they be not conveniently necessary. Heere our Ceremo∣nies so abused, are confessed to be such, as that, if they were once abolished by publike authority, reasons could easily be found to proove them justly abolished as inconve∣nient. So that nothing but publike authority, doth make them justifiable, or free from such inconvenience as deser∣veth and requireth the abolishing of them. And who can conceive such a vertue in publike authority, as to make that morally convenient which before was inconvenient? or to make reasons forceable, for justifying an action done; which are not forceable for justifying the same, as to be doen? Our cause by this confession, wanteth no∣thing but one Fiat, or act of publike authority, to make it justifiable; so farre at least, as concerneth this questi∣on:
whether the Ceremonies are to be abolished or no?
3. Because the Def. did make this one ground of denying our consequence from Hezekias zeale against the monuments of Idolatry, that Hee did not abolish the Idols which Solomon suffered to bee set up in favour of his strange wives; because they were (at that time) neglected Idols. It was replied, that it may well be thought, they were destroyed by Hezekiah, and set up againe before the time of Iosiah. This the Rej. calleth rashnesse to be repented of: because it is said (2. Reg. 23.13.) that Io••iah destroyed those high places, which Solomon had set up. And was it such a rashnesse, to say that it may be thought so? the phraze is more modest then theirs, who peremptorily affirme those Idols to have beene neglected untill after Heze∣kias time; when the Scripture testifieth plainely, that Ahaz,* 2.64 Hezechias his father, worshipped Mol••ch (which was one of those Idols) by making his sonne to passe thorow the fire; and was so madly given to superstition, that he sacrificed under every green tree. 2. Reg. 16. Nay lesse was said, then some learned have with great pro∣bability affirmed: namely, that these Idols with their ap∣purtenanceces were first defaced by Solomon himselfe, after his repentance; and being restored after by Idola∣ters, were againe defaced. Salianus (in his Annals ad an, 3309.) saith thus: We thinke also that while Solomon lived, that whole shop of divels was broken up and ruined. And with∣all, the statues, the groves, and altars, as also the rest of ido∣••atrous monuments 2. King. 23.13. to have reference to Ma∣nasses and Ammon (who had set them up in the same place, and upon the same foundation) and not to Solomon, who died
250. yeares before.* 2.65 It is incredible to speake that when Asa, Iosaphat, and Ichoiada did farre and neare destroy idolatry, they notwithstanding suffered a skandall so apparant. And to the yeare 3406. it were very strange if those Idols after 350. yeares, should yet remaine, the which Solomon after his repen¦tance, and other good Kings had abolished. So that it is proba∣ble that such like temples and Idols were repaired, and bui••t up againe by other succeeding ungodly Kings, which Solomon in former time had made: that that which Solomon builded should be all one with such like as he had builded.
Where he sheweth by divers instances, both out of Scri∣pture, and out of common speech; how that word which, doeth not alwayes note the same singular substance; therein confuting all the ground that the Rej. had for censuring the Repl. of rashnesse to bee repented of. This sentence is the more also to be favoured; because accor∣ding to the other, which our Def. and Rej. maintaine, it will be very hard to answer that objection against So∣lomons repentance, which Rabanus on 2. Reg. 23. groun∣deth on that superstition: Solomon never truely repented of his idolatrie: for if he had manifested fruits worthy repen∣tance, he would have taken order with those Idols, which he had set up by remooving them, and (being so wise a man) ne∣ver have left them to stand for stumbling blocks to fooles, as if what hee had erroneously devised, had beene well and wisely done.* 2.66 Beside all this, it is not credible, that the same in∣dividuall Temples stood by Ierusalem from Solomons
time, to Iosias; if it were but for this, that the Assyrians came even unto the gates of Ierusalem, spoyling and breaking downe all costly buildings, (such as Solomons Temples were) not sparing▪ but deriding the gods of Na∣tions. 2. Reg. 18.
4. It was added by the Replier that those Idols should have been destroyed, (though they had been for the time, neglected) because that evill for which Iosu destroied them ought as well to have been praevented, as corrected. To this the Rejoynder answereth 1 that this is not true, except Hezekia had suspected that evill. And whoe will say, that ther is no cause to suspect evill of an Idol, though it be for a time neglected? Or can any man thinke, that if Israelites had neglected them, no Sidonian, Moabite, or Ammonite, gave occasion of any evill to be suspected by those Idols? The Spanish and Frenche Papists (to say nothing of English) when they, in passing by the Crosse in Cheapside, doe reverence unto it, give they not cause to suspect, some evill to cleave unto it? 2. The same meanes (sayth the Rejoynder) are not allways requisite for praevention, which must be used for reco∣verie. Yes truely, about Idols (if we judge out of the Scripture) the very same meanes. Burne then (sayth the Rejoynd.) all your Popish bockes, lest they fall into the hands of Popelings to abuse them. So will I certainly, if you can shew me, that they must be burned when Pope∣linges have had them in their hands, and abused them which heer you grant concerning these Idols.
5. Zanchius was cited by the Defend. to prove, that this abolishing is not the universall remedie for all abu∣ses
of Ceremonies (he meaneth) unto Idolatrie. And because the Replier could not finde the place, we are by ••he Rejoynder directed to the later edition, pag. 678. where I finde these words: This rule is to be observed: that ••hings grown to abuse & defiled by superstition,* 2.67 if they be indi∣••ferent may, yea oftentimes ought, to be taken away. Heere (I hope) is nothing against our proposition. And yet the Def. hath nothing else to catch at, nothing else (I say) but ••hose wordes: they may be removed, as signifying, that ••hey may also not be removed: As if every thinge that may ••e removed, may also not be removed! The Rejoynder ••ddeth, that he admitteth of some Feast-days, as tolerable. I ••••ant, he speaketh something favorable of them: but ••herin, he ney••her speaketh to our quaestion directly, nor ••heweth how that which he sayth may be accorded with ••is owne rule. But pag. 800. (sayth the Rejoynder) he ••estrayneth the consequence to thinges manifestly Idola∣••rous, not to indifferent Rites. So doe we also: But the ••ejoynder as it seemeth, maketh Salomons Idols, (if ••hey be for a time neglected) indifferent rites, which ••anchie never did. N••y Zanchie pag. 649. from this ••xample of Hezekia, reprooveth those that keep in secret ••he monumens of Superstition, though out of Chur∣••hes. True (sayth the Rejoynder) but betwixt such Mo∣••uments, and indifferent Ceremonies, he distinguisheth. And ••o doe we, in some sense: but that thinges otherwise in∣••ifferent, may by becomming monuments, prove un∣••awfull, Zanchie never denied. To Zanchie, were ad∣ded (in the Abrigement, pag. 24.) as witnesses of our consequence from Hezekias his example, Augustine,
Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Sadeel, Iewel, Bilson, Fulke, Rainolds, Andrues, and Perkins. To all these it was unseasonable (sayth the Rejoynder) to answer at full, in this place. We must therfor wayt (though in vayne) for a place which will seeme seasonable.
6. The Defender in fine, noted two disparities be∣twixt the brasen Serpent, and our Ceremonies: 1. That the Idolatrie of the Iews about that was publicke, gene∣rall, and in the same Churche; which is not so with our Ceremonies. 2. That ther was no other meanes to cure the Idolatrie of those times; as now ther is. To the former it was answered 1. that these circumstances are not rendred as reasons of abolishing the brazen ser∣pent, in the Text, but invented by the Def. True (saith the Rej.) yet any man may conceive that they might be rea∣sons. But for generality, I cannot conceive how it can be prooved: and the publike abuse, though it might be a reason, yet not such a one, as that with it, abolishing should be used, or suspended. But our Ceremonies (ad∣deth the Rej.) must in comparison be likened to the bra∣zen Serpent used well, at Ierusalem; which ought not to have beene abolished, for such another in relation to that, set up at Bethel, and made an Idol. Wherein he mistaketh much, For first our Ceremonies were never good, or well used. Calvin is allowed of by the Def. and Rej. for his mode∣ration about them. Let him therefore speake: I answer the turne-coate, What is there in the Papacy unlike the brazen Serpent, except onely the originall? Epist. 265. The Popish Ceremonies are naught from the beginning.* 2.68 2. The Papists did not take these Ceremonies from us, but we from
them. 3. It may be very well questioned, whether the serpent at Ierusalem, considered as no way commanded of God, should not have beene abolished, if the ten Tribes should have taken occasion by it of Idolatry? It was answered 2. that private idolatry is also to be remoo∣ved, as well as publike. That cannot be de facto, saith the Rejoynder. Yet thus farre it may be very well de facto, that nothing be used in publike, which is knowne to nourish idolatry in private. It was answered 3. That all these circumstances did more then agree to our Cere∣monies, in the beginning of our reformation. To this it is rejoyned 1. that our Ceremonies were never the object of grosse idolatry: which he would not have said, if he had thought of the Crosse, or that the proper meanes of idolatry are as well to be abolished, as the objects. The 2. rejoynder is, that though they ought to have beene re∣mooved; in the beginning of reformation, yet now not: which is as if a debter should pleade, that he owed indeed so much money to his creditour long agoe, but now (though it hath beene every yeare called for) he is quit by deferring the payment. Sure (sayth the Repl.) our Ceremonies are not growne better since the refor∣mation, by any good they have done. That is not heere considered (answereth the Rejoynder) but if they bee not growne to lesse abuse? As if lesse superstition, with much mischiefe, were not enough to cashiere such Ceremo∣nies as doe no good!
To the second disparitie, it was replied, that this is the very quaestion, whether any other meanes be suffi∣cient to cure the disease of human Ceremonies idola∣trously
abused, beside abolishing? This (sayth the Rej.) you make a quaestion of. And was not the Defend. dispu∣ting against us? what reason then had he, to make ou•• quaestion an argument, or answer against us? It was re∣plied also, that experience ha••h shewed the disease of our Ceremonies is not cured, in the Dominions of our Hezekia. Yet (sayth the Rej.) the meanes (without abo∣lishing) may be sufficient, if they were well applied, that is, gi∣ven and receyved. As if the same meanes would not have been in like manner sufficient in Hezekias time, against the Idolatrie of the Serpent, if they had been well applied i. e. given, and receyved! Heerin certainly is no dispa∣ritie.
1. Because the Def. 3. or 4. times, repeated, and ur∣ged, (as much making for his cause) that our Churche is so truely reformed, that it doeth most lively expresse the face, & full body of her Primitive Mother-Churche; the Repl. ther∣for at last, was forced to say somthing to this; especially in this place, where it is quaestioned, if we will allow it to be called a reformed Churche. He answered therfor in ge∣nerall, that in the maine pointes of doctrine, and the grossest superstitions, our Churche is reformed; but in regard of Ecclesiastical government, and some Cere∣monies, it is not. To this it is rejoyned, 1. That by face and body, was meant onely doctrine and religion, not go∣vernement, or Ceremonies. The Defend. therfor under∣stood
this terme, as Cardinall Perone; and the Replier as D. Andrues, whoe in the beginning of his answer, hath these wordes: Points of faith seeme rather to pertayne to the inward parts, then to the face. It is the Agend (of the Churche, ••e should have held him to. In that is the face of the Churche, &c. After this, the Rejoynder making all the Primi∣••ive Church, that was within divers hundreds of years af∣••er the Apostles age, out of the Centurie-writers, and others, gathereth a catalogue of errors and defects, in doctrine, and observances, which by little and little, began in those times; and thence concludeth, that our doctrine is purer then it was in the Primitive Church, and al∣so some observances. Now 1. this extention of the Primi∣tive Church is taken without leave. 2. Those errors of doctrine may no more be attributed to the Primitive Church, then the errors of Mr. Mountague, and others like him (who are neither few in number, nor meane for power, as things goe) may be to the English Church, 3. In the other matters of Ecclesiasticall Policy, and Ce∣remonies, we hold that for which the Rejoynder for∣merly objected unto us, as a spirit of singular singularity, pag. 384. and now confesseth to be true; namely, that the Apostolicall purity began presently after to be corrupted, and so proceeded in defection more and more. Yet all this doth not hinder, but divers corruptions may be found among us, which were not knowne in the first primitive ages. Nay let it be marked well, how strange an asserti∣on is made up by this reckoning of the Rejoynders! In Hezekias time (saith the Defendant) the idolatry about the Serpent, could not be cured but by abolishing the Serpent: but
in our most truely reformed Church, which doth most lively expresse the face and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church, this disease would be found curable without any such extremi∣ty. The meaning is according to the Rejoynder his in∣terpretation: the disease of idolatry is more easily cured, in that Church, which doeth lively expresse the face, and full body, of those Churches, which were infected with many er∣rors, and declining in many things, to superstition, then in He∣zekias Church, most purely at that time reformed. Surely the Rej. in a great part of his glosse, forgot his text: other∣wise he would never have in this manner confuted it.
2. THe first question was, If the Primitive Church had such chaunting Idol-service, as is in out Cathedrall Churches? The Rejoynder after some words spent about singing, (about which he bring∣eth not the least resemblance of that in question, untill the fourth age after Christ) excepteth first, that Organall musicke was gods ordinance in the old Testament, and that not significant, or typicall; and therefore is sinfully call••d Idol-service. 2. That all men whose hearts are not averse, by di∣straction, stupidity, or prejudice, feele such musicke to worke much upon their affections. To this I say 1. that his de∣nying of Organall musicke to have beene significant or typicall, is without reason, and against the current of our Divines; taken (as it may seeme) out of Bellarmine de missa. lib. 2. cap. 15.) who useth this evasion against
those words of P. Martyr: Musicall organs perteyne to the Iewish Ceremonie, and agree no more to us, then Circumcision. So that we may neglect it, and take him as saying, that nothing which was ordained in the old Testament (no not sacrificing of beasts) is now an Idol-service. 2. For that, and the other, both together, it is fit the Rejoynder should be put in minde how many, and what kinde of men, he accuseth of distraction, stupidity, or prejudice!
1. Thomas Aquinas (in whose time this faction was not in generall request,* 2.69 much lesse in the Primitive) in 22. q. 91. a. 2.4. opposeth thus: The Church useth no mu∣sick for divine praises, lest it should seeme to Indaize, and an¦swereth thus: Musicall instruments doe more stirre up the minde to delight, then frame it to a right disposition. In the old Testament there was some need of them, both, &c. and al∣so because they did figure out something. Erasmus, in 1. Cor. 14. sayth thus: We have brought a tedious and player-like musicke into the Church, a tumultuous noyse of many voyces, such as I thinke was not heard among the Theaters of Grecians or Romans. For which purpose, whole flockes of boyes are maintained at great charges, whose age also is all spent in lear∣ning such gibble gabble. At such cost is the Church ••or a pe∣stiferous thing, &c.
It is evident that that some Eccl••siasticall chanting and roarings in our Temples (scarse also understood of the Priests themselves) is a most foolish and vaine abuse,* 2.70 and a most per∣nicious let to piety. I make no question but all that kinde of
musicke was a part of the legall pedagogie. In the solemne wor∣ship of God, I doe not judge it more sutable, then if we should recall the incense, tapers, and other shadowes of the Law, into use. I say againe, to goe beyond what we are taught, is most wicked pervicacy.
It would be too tedious, if I should reckon up all that have assented to these. I will adde onely the two and thirty grave learned men, which were chosen in King Edwards dayes, to reforme Ecclesiasticall lawes, and observances they judged this law fitting,* 2.71 It likes us well to have this te∣dious kinde of musicke taken away. Certainely these were neither distracted, nor stupid men: whence their prejudice came, let the Rejoynder himselfe judge.
3. The second question was about these chil∣dren of the earth, dealing with the keyes of Christs Heavenly Kingdome, whether they can bee founde in the face, or body of the Primitive Church? The Rej. 1. answereth plainely and roundly, No. Yet these hu∣man creatures, are those that keep most mis-rule among poore Christan men and Ministers also, in Ecclesiasticall censures, of suspension, and excommunication, with intole∣rable exactions. That assertion therefore of the Defend. that the Church of England doth most lively expresse the face
and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church, is in one great part of it, dashed by the Rejoynder his No. 2. The Rejoynd, addeth, nor did any Presbyters execute any Church censures, without leave or consent of their Bishops, or unprea∣••hing Elders at all, execute any censures of the Church. Now 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this is nothing to the purpose, but a meere diversion, ••hat something might seeme to be said beside No. 2. For ••he first, I answer with Iunius in Bel. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. ••4. an. 27. Censures are in common to be acted by the Presbytery: so that as the other Presbiters did not act them without the consent of the chiefe Presbyter, or Bishop, ••o neither could any Bishop do it without them, of and ••y himselfe. That Bishops afterward dared so to doe, it was tyrannidis indignae, meere tyranny. 3. For the confu∣••ation of the second, I propound a remarkable place in ••rigen, against Celsus lib. 3. extant also in his Philocalia, ••ollected by Gregorie Naz. and Basil, set forth in greeke ••nd latine, by Tarinus: were cap. 18. Vnto Celsus, ob∣••ecting that Christian teachers sought for simple foolish ••uditors, Origen answereth, that Christian teachers did ••irst discerne and try their auditors; and of the approo∣••ed, they had two orders,* 2.72 one of beginners (that were ••atechised) and another of those which had made fur∣••her progresse. And among these latter (distinct from ••eachers) he relateth thus: Some are appointed who are to ••ook to the life and mann••rs of such as are admitted, that they which doe ought unseemely, may, as need shall require, bee ex∣••luded the Congregation, and they which doe otherwise, may ••e cherished, and dai••y grow better. This is the translation of Tarinus. The rest of the Rejoynder to this question
hath nothing in it but wordes.
4. The quaestion is if any suche were in the Primi∣tive Churche? The Rejoynder 1. answereth concer∣ning Pompe, that Peace and beneficencie of Princes brought in this difference of outward state. But all difference of outward estate was not meant by Pompe. For so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ministers, that have convenient meanes for a libe•••••• kinde of life, with hospitalitie, should be pompous. W•• are not so simple, as to account the Pastor of Sutton Col••••¦feild, (as such) pompous. Ther is certainly a pomp•••••• that doeth not agree to a Minister of the Gospel: as th•• pompous state of a Baron, or Earl (which the Defende•• himself, at his third flight, unto Durrham, is risen to that requireth many idle attendants, for no other us•• but onely for Comportment, & Luster of state; that whic•• must have so much time spent in brideling of the Bi∣shops horses, as the ancient B b. tooke to preache dive•••• sermons in, as M. Hooper speaketh; that which make•• a poor man afraid to speak unto his Minister, withou•• such trembling, as Majestie breedeth; that which woul•• make it ridiculous, for a meane man to desire a visitatio•• of him, for himself, his wife, or children, in sickness•• or other perplexitie; that which requireth a Chaplain•• not onely to doe other duties of religion for him, bu•• even to give thankes at his table, and that standing, whi••••
he sitteth; that (to omit other characters) which ma∣keth all his doeings Lord-like, by way of Commande∣ment: I will not heer speak of, draw an excommunication against him; take him Pursiva••t; Iailour, see to your pri∣son••r; as being notorious in divers of them: but onely note one example, out of mine owne experience, which many others can parallel by ••heirs: I w••s once, & but once (I thank God) before a Bishop: and being prae∣sented unto him, by the cheif Magistrates of ••n Incor∣poration, for to be preacher in their towne; the lowly man first asked them, how they durst choose a preacher, without his consent? You (sayd he) are to receyve the preacher that I appoint you. For I am your Pastor, though he never fed them. And then, turning to me, how durst you (sayd he) preache in my Diocesse, with∣out my leave? So that without any other reason, but meer Lordship, the wholle Incorporation, and I, were di∣missed, to wayt his pleasure: which I (for my part) have now doen this twenty year, and more. If this kinde of Pompe were in the Primitive Churche, or if it be not in ours, the Replier may be blamed for mention∣ing Pompe in his Quaere.
2. Concerning Ordination, the Rej. his answer is, that the Bishop do••th it not (regularly) all alone. What is this to sole power of doing it? If an Irish or Welch Bishop, ordei∣neth one at London in his chamber, or in some Chap∣pell, and admitteth him that commended the person to him, for to joyne with him, for fashion sake, in the ge∣sture of hands-imposing, be he of what place or Dio∣cesse soever, in whom is the po••er o•• Ordination? If the
Bishop of London, ordeyneth a minister at large, and biddeth his Chaplaine, or Chaplaines, doe so much as adde their hands to the businesse, isthere power in the Chaplaine, more then in any other, that by chance may be present? Power of Ordination is not given (by our Lawes) to individua vaga, that is to say, Vagrant men, of whom the Law taketh no notice, such as were wonte to be called Hedge-Priests, but to authorized Prelats. These are toyes, to mocke the Churche (if not God) with. Such doeings were never heard of in that Church which deserveth the title of Primitive. Of Excommu∣nication, the same answer is given; and so the same an∣swer may serve.* 2.73 Let this onely be added, that therin, the Bishop hath such absolute power, that he may derive the same to his Chancelours, Commiss••ries, Officials, & such like Vnderlings, to be dispensed by them, even unto the commanding of Gods Ministers for to denounce their Censures, without any discerning what aequitie ther is in the cause, and what assistance of Ministers is required, appeareth by this style: Iohn Hone, Dr. of Law official &c. to al Rectors, &c. For as much as we (proceedi••g rightly and lawfully) have adjudg••d all and every one, whose names are under-written to be excommunicated; and since the discree••e Mr. Rouland Allen Preist, hath excommunicated them, by our meere office in writing; we do therefore committ to you &c. to denounce openly, &c. given under the Seale of our Officia∣lity, such a day, and such a yeare. If any footsteps of such an approved power could be shewed in the Primitive Bishops, all Christians might merveyl at so suddain and monstrous a defection. But both Defend. and Rejoynd.
know, that it is a relique of Popedome.
5. The quaestion was whether any such tingh was in the Primitive Churche? The Rejoynder his answer is ••ffirmative; that it seemes ther was such a thing: because ••••. It is sayd onely of the Apostles, that they ordeyned Elders ••o the Churches, Act. 14.23. and Titus, Tit. 1.5. appointed ••he Ministers. 2. Sometime Ministers were chosen by prophe∣sie; and sometime by lot. 3. The peoples consent was not held ••f divine necessitie. For the grave Councel of Laodicea, Can. ••3. restrained the people from choice of their Ministers. Beside, ••he people of this Land have given their implicit consent in Parliament, to such as the Patrons and Bishops call: And if ••hey doe their parts, it is as well, and sometime better, then if ••hey were chosen by the people. Finally, God hath not forbidden our manner of calling Ministers, nor commanded the other. Wher 1. let it be marked, that the quaestion was onely of ••he peoples consent; concerning which the Rejoynder ••n all these wordes, answereth just nothing. 2. The first place he bringeth against the peoples election, Act. 14.23. is the cheif place, which Protestants use to bring for it; as Bellarmine (de Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 7.) obser∣veth of it.* 2.74 This argument is the cheife foundation of Illyri∣••us, Calvin, Chemnitius, and ••thers. Of Bellarmines an∣swer, the Rejoynder mak••th an Argument, against our Divines, whoe have confuted that answer, and so suffi∣ciently answered his Argument, long before he framed
it: which yet he taketh no knowledge of, but nakedly propoundeth it, as if this were the first time of beating it off the stage. It is (sayth he) onely sayd of the Apostles, & not of the Churches, that they did ord••yn Elders. Act. 14.23. So (say I) it is onely sayd of the Apostles, and not of the Churches, in the very same verse, that they did pray and f••st: doeth it follow from hence, that the Churches had no hand, part or consent, in prayer and fasting? If not, then neyther doeth the onely mentioning of the Apo∣stles in creating Presbyters, exclude the peoples formal choise, much lesse their consent. If any man desires large and full clearing of the place, he may find it in I••∣nius his Notes on Bellarmine, Contr. 5. lib. 1. cap. 7. an∣not. 59.63.64. where the Conclusion is, that Bellarmine doeth in this argument nugari, nothing but trifle, disioyn∣ing thinges that ought to be conjoined, as if ther were a contradiction betwixt these two Propositions: The A∣postles ordeyned; the Churches ordeyned. If the Rejoynder would have brought a fitting example, he should have shewed us, that Paul, or Barnabas, being at Ierusalem, or∣deyned a Minister, and sent him to Antioche, Iconium or Lystra, signifying by letters, that such a man was appoin∣ted their Pastor, though they never knew, or heard of him before. For that had been something like unto the practise of a Bishop, whoe upon the Patrons praesenta∣tion, whersoever he be, sendeth his Minister from the place, or Palace of his residence, unto a Congregation 20.30. or 40. miles of; which poor despized People, must be content, with towling of a Bell, as sufficient notice given of their Ministers fitnesse, and their necessitie to
••cknowledge the same. 3. In the second place Tit. 1.5. wheras our translation hath, that Titus was to ordeyne Ministers, the Rejoynder turneth ordeyning into ap∣••ointing, and I may better turne it into setting, or placing. Now (which soever translation be admitted) the Rejoy. ••is argument is lighter then a feather, except it be sup∣••osed that Titus could not effect that Ministers should be in every Church of Creete, neither by, nor with the Churches consent: which is too absurd a proposition for ••ny resonable man to father. Take the Rej his translati∣on in ordinary rigour; Our King doeth appoint Bishops; and yet they are not placed in their Seats, without some kinde of consent and election of others. And yet I hope the Rej. himselfe will not say, that Titus tooke so much upon him, as this commeth to.
4. As for choosing Ministers by Prophesie, that was very extraordinary, and therefore hath no place in the question of ordinarie calling. Yet 1. Prophesie did no lesse require the concurrence of the Churches consent, in an ordinary Minister, then it did the Presbyteries or∣dination in Timothies person. 1. Tim. 4.14. It was one∣ly an extraordinary cause of that consent, which other∣wise should have beene grounded on the persons quali∣fication. Prophesie also or Vision did sometime follow the Churches election, as in Celerinus, of whom Cypri∣an (Epist. 34. ed. Goulart.) recordeth:* 2.75 When hee wavered about consenting to the Church, by a vision of the night he was forced to assent.
5. As for election by lot, I do not thinke any example can be given of it, wherein the Churches election of
divers persons betwixt whom the lot should designe, with their consent, did not concurre.
6. As for the Primitive Churches tenet of Divine authority, nothing can be prooved out of the Councell of Laodicea, which was after Iulians time. The Synod of Africa (Epist. 68. Cypr. ed. Goul.) doeth informe us thus: The people it selfe hath power both to chuse worthy Priests, and to refuse unworthy ones. The which also we see to come from Divine authority.* 2.76 Yet Calvin answereth, that even that Laodicean Councell did not restraine from election, but onely from disorderly electing, by themselves. And is therin learnedly seconded against Bellarmines rejoynder, by Iunius, in Bell. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 7.
7. As for implicit consent in Parliament, it maketh nothing to the question. And yet it cannot be prooved, that every thing decreed by Parliaments, have the Chur∣ches implicit consent. For then the Church did impli∣citly consent unto all the alterations of religion, in King Henries, King Edwards, Q. Maries, and Q. Elizabeths dayes, how opposite soever they were one to another, neither can it be shewed lawfull, for the Churches of Christ, to leave their priviledges which Christ hath gi∣ven them, to the pleasure of any Parliament.
8. To say, that the Patrons and Bishops sending without the Churches consent, is as good, or better then the Churches free consent, well ordered, and directed; is all one as to say, it is as good, or better, that Women should be married without their consent, then with it.
9. As for the finall answer, I referre the Reader part∣ly to that already sayd, and partly to D. Ames his an∣swer
unto Bellarmine, tom. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3.
6. The question is, if this was knowne in the Pri∣mitive Church? It is rejoyned 1. that Bishops were often inquestion at Synods, about their title to their places, which was as much. But 1. This was not in the Apostles time. 2. Questioning before Synods, about Ecclesiasticall af∣faires, is of Ecclesiasticall nature; going to law, not so. In Synods all things ought to be determined by Gods Word: at the Kings Bench, and Assizes, the Iudges pronounce sentence by mans law. Yet the good anci∣ent Bishops, were so farre from seeking a title to their places, by Synodicall judgement, that they withdrew themselves, as being afraid to have such a title put vpon them, either by Churches or Synods: examples of which modesty, we have even in declining times, Basil, Grego∣rie &c. A law we finde also (Cod. de Epist. & Cler.) mentioning the same disposition:* 2.77 The Prelate ought to be so farre from ambition, that nothing but compulsion should draw him, though he be desired, let him give backe, and when invited, let him shift, &c. For certainely he is unworthy the office of Priesthood, unlesse he be ordained unwillingly. Cer∣tainely, these men would never have sought those places by course of law, which they hardly accepted, being ob∣truded upon them. 2. The Rejoynder sayth, Lawing a∣bout places ariseth upon the title of Patronage, a civill inheri∣tance. Whereas the question is not from whence it ari∣seth, but if it appeared in the face of the Primitive Mother-Church?
This answer is as much as to say, our Church hath a speciall wound, or sore in her face, which the Primitive Church had not; and therefore must have a plaister upon it now, in those times unknowne: that is, our face doth not lively represent that face, which is the question. Beside, if the lawing be necessary, about the Patrons civill title, what hath the Minister to doe with it, except ambition or covetousnesse, doth cause him to take other mens businesse upon him, for his owne ad∣vantage?
7. About these, the Rejond. confesseth that they are the sore of our Church, but not allowed, or tolerated, fur••her then Mr. Hooker sheweth. Now 1. If they be sores, being also in the face, that is, our chiefe eminent, Convocation men, bearing them in their ••ore-heads, surely they must needs dis figure the Primitive face. 2. Though I have no more leisure to seeke and confute Mr. Hook••rs mitigati∣ons, then the Rejoynd. had to allege them; yet I dare say, if the Stues be tolerated, and allowed at Rome, th••se sores are tolerated, and allowed in England, they are as well knowne; more publikely professed; they are pra∣ctised in the Bishops Palaces; and not onely the Court of Faculties, but most Bishops doe gaine by them. But (saith the Rej.) If you can tell us the Certaine and safe remedie of this sore, I am perswaded the Church will thanke you. But I am neither so perswaded of the Convocation-Church, not yet that the Rejoynder himselfe is so perswaded Men
doe not usually give thankes, for that which formerly they did not desire, and if this Church had desired a re∣medie, the Convocation-men would long since have begun (according to their skill and power) with them∣selves, their Chaplaines, the Benifices in their gifts, &c. They would also have hearkened unto Parliament-reme∣dies of wise and carefull Physitians, which have been of∣ten prescribed, prepared, tendered, & almost applied, but by the Convocation-men, refused, and opposed, as the world knoweth, and the Rej. is not ignorant of it. In the clouse of this question, the Rej. insinuateth, and (as halfe ashamed) onely insinuateth a secret distinction, be∣twixt carelesse-Non residents, and another kinde, of them that are carefull: the former of which he affirmeth to have beene often condemned, though never remooved. Of which distinction, as being left obscure, I cannot speake so much as I muze. Onely this: Carefull Non-residents seeme to be such as have great care to get some pretense in Court, Vniversity, or some great mans house, for absenting themselves from their charges (which God hath laid upon them, if they be lawfully called) and some care to provide a tolerable Curate, for supplying their places. Now these the Rej. seemeth to excuse, for which they are more beholding to him, then the Chur∣ches are, upon whose spoyles they live, and aspiring by them unto higher places. And as for the carelesse Non-residents, how commeth it to passe, that non conformi∣ty can as easily be remooved, as condemned; and such condemned fellons as these, be so long reprived, after their condemnation? Certainely, if they were as great
enemies to the Bishops kingdome, as they are to Christs, a quicker dispatch would have beene made of them.
8. Of this, it was asked, if it were so ordinary either in the Primitive Church, or (almost) in the Popish, as it is in England? Heere the Rejoynd. venteth a proverb, that almost saveth many a lye; adding, that the Papists fa∣ces are washed with faire water, and foule water cast up∣on us: and then telleth of a Canon imposing an oath for prevention of Simony: and not onely the guilty man looseth his place, but the Patrone his title, for that time. Now though all this be nothing to the Primitive Churches face, yet it is not so to be passed over. For (to begin with the last) 1. The course taken against Simony, which he speaketh of, is no Canon of the Convocation house, but a Parlia∣ment-law. Canons (I hope) doe not deprive Patrones of their title, which they have by civill inheritance, as the Rejoynder told us even now. 2. This oath imposed (if it bee generally urged) doeth make our English Simony worse then that which is found among Papists, as ad∣ding perjury unto it. 3. Because the Rej. will not take the considerate limitation of almost, in other sense, then as if it were the cover of a lye, I am content it be left out, and then desire him to proove the assertion a lye. If he cannot, it had beene sufficient for him (who so famili∣arly accuseth others of scurrility) to have denied that which was said, putting us to proove it. And proove it
we can (so farre as vices of that nature use to be prooved) by the generall voyce, even of conformable men. Do∣ctor Andrewes (long since) in a latine Sermon before the Convocation, tolde them enough, after his playing fashion: They give out,* 2.78 that not onely we Minorites doe with money, or more basely purchase our Parsonages, but also you Majorities doe either with great summes of money, or with the spoyles of the Churches, unworthily hukster your Cathedrall places, of which disease our Church hath long beene sick, and for which it hath long beene ill spoken of: Did his fere, or almost all save a ly? Ifit did then, now it hath not so much to save. For many conformable men, will almost (if I may use that word with good leave) sweare, that nothing hath hindered them all their dayes, from Bene∣fices, and kept them in Curateships, but onely the gene∣rall abuse of Simony. Every Page, and Lackie, at the Court, and many Scriviners, can tell, how much this and that Bishop, or Deane, gave to such or such a Buc∣kingham; and how much the said Bishop received from his under Officers, and other, by him promoted. Nei∣ther is all Symony in buying of Benefices, and Bishop∣rickes. Selling of Visitations (which is an usuall practise of our Prelates) and such like trickes are in the same na∣ture in the fourth degree. 4. As for washing the Papists fa∣ces with faire water, the Rejoynder may as well say, that hee washed Sodoms face with faire water, who said, that Israel, and Iudah, had justified Sodome in her abo∣minations.
9. The question was, if so many such, were members of any Primitive Church? This the Rejoynder doeth not affirme: but denieth any members of our Church to contemne professedly our Religion. Which I leave to the judgement of every Reader; if he doeth not know some in England, who contemne Religion? I would to God, the Rejoynder were (in this point) on the true part, and and the Replier on the false. But when the practise of Religion is derided on stages, and that derision applau∣ded by so many spectators, when those that make consci∣ence of sinne, be they never so conformable, are scor∣ned by so many, as Puritans; when in all Pulpits that are possessed of good Preachers, warning is ordinarily gi∣ven, of scoffers and scorners at Religion: I thinke the Rej. will not finde so many assenting to this negation, as he shall to the point of Conformitie. His meaning is such, that by the same reason, it may be sayd, ther is no pro∣fessed contemner of all Christian Religion, among the Papists, nor of all Religion, among the Turkes.
10. The quaestion was, if suche courses were in the Primitive Church? The Rejoynder confesseth no. But (sayth he for excuse) they are not instituted, nor allowed by
our Church. The confession I accept: the excuse cannot be excused. Are not those courses instituted, or allo∣wed, which are every day practised, in the Bishops, Chancelours, Commissaries, and Officials Courts? Is it not the Church that practizeth these things? Doeth the Church neyther institute, nor allow that which it conti∣nualy practizeth? The Rejoynder in his Definition of a Ceremonie, confoundeth Institution and Observation: now, constant observation is without any institution. Is our Church a Medea, in professing, she alloweth better thinges, and professedly practiseth worse; meliora video, pro∣••oque; deteriora sequor? If this be true, what need any man make any conscience of those Excommunications, which sent from our Spiritual Courts, flie about the wholle land, to fetch in mony? the Church doeth not ••llow them. It is no scurrilitie (I hope) to repeate that which D. Andrues preached to the Convocation-house: The Church-Censures now a-dayes do onely touch the purse.* 2.79 Evil doers when they have payd their fee returne scot-free. If no money then have at the offendors with the Episcopal ••word; praesently one blow they are cut off from the Church delivered over unto Satan, proclaimed Publicans, Heathens, Anathema. For the most ridiculous things, and against every good man, these brutish thunderbolts do fly up and downe, and onely to be feared of the purse.
11. Concerning any shew of these abuses, in the Primitive Church, our Rejoynder hath nothing to say▪ He turneth himself therfor to denie, or defend them, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our Church, so well as he canne. 1. No man with •••• (sayth he) may take mony for Ordination. To which I an∣swer, if may be understood of a lawfull may, I think it i•• true, not onely of our Church, but also of Rome, as may be gathered out of the fift Session at Trent. But such mays are kept in the pocket, both there, and heer, whe•• the contrarie may, de facto, appeareth publickly in the face and forehead. If any one Minister be ordeyned, o•• instituted, without giving of mony, a hundred other may wonder at him, and the Starre or Planet, that was then over the place. 2. As for Citations, and Absolution••▪ they (sayth the Rejoynder) are things of industrie, necessa∣rily to be recorded, and therfor mony may be taken for them. As if ther were more industrie in Absolution, then in Or∣dination, in Baptisme, or any other Ecclesiastical Act! o••¦ther were more necessitie of recording Absolution, then Ordination, or Baptisme! And if ther were such a diffe∣rence, or if all these required industrie in recording of them, I hope the revenues, and in-comings of our Bi∣shops may suffize for that industrie, without new exac∣tions of mony. 3. He affirmeth Commutation, or Pa∣nance to be grounded on Exod. 21.29.30. where it is
written, that the price of an Oxe, or Bull, may be taken for he head: and it is allowed (addeth the Rejoynder) by ••. Ames, Cas. Consc. lib. 5. cap. 54. num. 48. where he ••••yth, that the party condemned to pay twenty pound fine, may ••••wfully pay it, before it be required, to escape the extorting ••f forty pound, or a greater mischeif. But if eyther this, or ••hat, make any thing for changing the publicke confes∣••ion of a scandalous sinne, into paying of money; I leave (with this wholle comparison o•• faces) as the Rejoyn∣••er doeth, to the Iurie of discreet, unpartial, and honest ••en.
THese testimonies were as illustrations breifly brought in of the Abrigers: but largely ran∣ked by the Defender into so many sections, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the main burden did lye upon them. The Replier ••••erfore conjoined them in brief: and so will I not pas∣••••ng upon the Rejoynder his many words; whoe sayth 〈◊〉〈◊〉. That in the Abrigement, they fill seven whole pages: ••hen as these answered by the Defend. in 14. Sections, make in the Abrigement, litle more than one page. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. He desireth us also to help their dulnesse, whoe cannot ••istinguish, betwixt testimonies, and proofes. To which, ••hough it be but skornfully propounded of them that
accuse us of dull Sophistrie, cap. 2. sect. 11. I answer, that common use of speach doth shew a difference, betwixt some testimonies or witnesses, and proofs. For all good Christians are sayd to give witnesse unto God and his truthe, but not properly to prove eyther God, or his Word.
2. Out of a Carthaginian Synod, two thinges were alleged: 1. that certaine Altars in high wayes, erecte•• in memorie of Martyrs, should be abolished. 2. Tha•• all reliques, and monuments of Idolatry should be utter∣ly destroyed. In the first, the Replier confessed, that there is nothing expresse to our purpose: because those Altar are noted which are destitute of Martyrs reliques. Ye•• (sayth he) there was as good reason, for abolishing other as them. No (answereth the Rejoynder) because by th••s•• Altars destitute of reliques, the Church was mocked. And s•• was the Church mocked (say I) by those which had re∣liques in them: not onely because they had no certaine rule of discerning true reliques from false; but also, be∣cause they were by such meanes induced, to place a spe∣ciall holinesse in those places, and led-on to the invoca∣tion of Saints departed.
The second place is expounded by the Defend. an•• Rejoynd. onely of Idols and immediate instruments of Idola∣try: which cannot bee true, except all places groves an•• greene trees (there mentioned) which had serued to the use of notorious Idolatry, were immediate instruments. And if that were so, why not, or were not once ou•• Ceremonies as immediate? Because (sayth the Rejoynd, they were rather subjects of superstition. Which is a new
nothing. For subjects often are al one with objects, and ma∣••y objects of superstition are Idols. Places were rather ••ubjects (distinct from objects) then Images, such as our Crosse is. The summe is (••ayth the Rejoynder) that ••ynode in the former Canon, reformed and continued a hu∣••an Ceremony notoriously abused to superstition: and in the ••ater, were zealous against all monuments of idolatry. Zea∣••ous indeede they were against knowne Idolatry: but ••hey did not discerne all the superstitious and idolatrous ••eedes, which at that time were springing up among ••hem, in immoderate and unwarrantable honouring of ••aints. As for their reformation of Altars with reliques, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was no more, then divers Popish Synods have profes∣••ed to doe. But this I would have marked, that Altars ••ith Reliques honoured as they were in those dayes, are now with the Rejoynder accounted good religious Ce∣••emonies.
3. A councell of Braca, or some other (it is all one) ••orbad Christians to decke their houses, &c. in such ••aner, and at such time as Idolaters did, that is sayth the ••ef. and Rej. at the same time, in the same place, and man∣••er. This the Replier accepted: and assumeth, that ours ••iffer not in these circumstances, but in opinion onely.
The Rejoynder heere first rejoyneth, that this Canon ••s to be understood so, as if it had sayd, we must not keepe the festivall-dayes of Pagans, with them, as they doe: but may ••eepe in a Christian manner unto God, the same dayes, which ••hey observed impiously to the service of the Divell. Now let this be understood, for me (though his marginall quo∣••ations proove it not) in his sense, Chrysost. hom. 1. de
Laz. speaking of no more Christian observing that day, then the day following. Hesternum diem, &c. A••e it••∣que & hodie, &c. And more ancient testimonies may be brought even against sending of Newyeares gifts, at tha•• time (Tert••ll. de Idol. cap. 14.) Let this (I say) be gran¦ted: yet the allegation is strong to our purpose, except it can be shewed, that our Ceremonies have no mo•••• agreement with the Papists, then preaching and praying upon New-yeares day, hath with the Pagans idolatrou•• luxury, upon the same day; or that they have not th•••• proportion unto Popish Ceremonies, which bay leave•• and greene bowes used of Christians would then have ha•• to Pagans bay-leaves, and greene bowes.
After this, the Rej. taketh great paines in a large di∣gression, that our Ceremonies differ from the Papists Cere••••∣nies in time, place, person, and not in opinion onely. Whic•• is very little to the purpose except lawfulnesse and unla••∣fulnesse doe depend on that difference of time, place, an•• person. For the Replier did heere respect those passa¦ges, wherein the Defendant flieth onely to opinion fo•• succour, in differencing our Ceremonies from Popis•••• that ours may be lawfull, though the Papists be unlaw¦full: as cap. 2. sect. 6. Yet ••ee in short what the Rej. ha•••• found out.
1. It must (sayth the Rej.) among Papists be hallowed or consecrated. But this is nothing to time, place, and per∣son:
neyther is consecration of Surplices more unlaw∣••ull, then of Altars, Churches, and Church-yards.
2. Among Papists, no act of ministeriall service may be ••awfully performed without it, except the masse. This is not ••rue in either part. For they preach without Surplices though divers in England hold them on in the Pulpit) ••nd the Masse-garment of linnen, Pontificall surplice; ••nd many times put over the Surplice. So the Rejoynd. ••imselfe testifieth in his third difference: which there∣••ore answereth it selfe, and their practise of putting on more magnificall vestures, at high Masses, or high pla∣••es, eyther upon that, or without that, is sufficiently practised, according to our Canons, in Cathedrall Chur∣••hes, Coapes.
4. They in Popery pin a number of mysticall significations upon the parts of it. But this pertaineth to opinion, not to ••ime, place or person: and containeth no difference, save onely in number.
1. The Minister (sayth the Rejoynder) with us, may not crosse himselfe, the people, or other things. Now though this be nothing to the purpose, yet I would faine know, out of what Canon, hee fetcheth this may not with us? And if there were any such, upon what reason it is grounded, that will not take our crossing of the baptized person, by the nose?
2. With us, the childe may not be crossed before Baptisme,
nor after, with Chrisme-oyle. But of that same may not be∣fore, I aske as before. And as for crossing with oyle, I would be informed, what religious difference there is, betwixt drie Crosses, and oyle, as G. Parisiensis distinguisheth them?
3. The Crosse is so used with us, that it neither addeth ver∣tue to the Sacrament, nor capacity of grace to the childe. No more it is among the Papists, by the judgement of ma∣ny learned, as hath beene shewed in the first part of this writing (though this be but matter of opinion, which concerneth not the present question) See Thomas Aqui∣nas, 3. q. 66. a. 10. But why is it used? To intimate what Baptisme bindeth unto. That is, to doe that by mans insti∣tution, which Baptisme had done by Gods appoint∣ment. Whether this be a good reason or no, I heere inquire not: this I affirme; The Papists professe the same.
1. This gesture (saith the Rejoynder) may before, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by occasion of any of Gods ordinances, be performed lawfully to God. By occasion, I grant: but before importeth more, Might the Iewes kneele before the Cherubims of the Vaile, as they might before the Arke? Might they kneel before the Brazen-Serpent? Might they before every E∣phod? May we before every Pastor? When the Rej. hath resolved these questions, we shall further consider.
2. The gesture of kneeling, in the act of receiving, was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome. Then
the Rejoynder deceived us, when in his Manuduction, pag. 30. he tolde us, that institution, and intended observa∣tion, are all one. For he himselfe confesseth, in the next page, 479. that among the Papists, the receivers of the Hoste, doe kneele, of an ancient custome. Custome surely, ancient, and constant, hath (by all law) more in it, then every intended observation.
3. Bellarmine and the Masse-booke, mention not knee∣ling in the act of receiving. They mention not indeed the peoples kneeling; because they make small account of their receiving, the masse being complete without it, and that being (with them) an accidentall complement of it. But they mention the Priests bowing to the Hoste many times, in his receiving.
4. The Pope himselfe receiveth the Hoste standing. The Pope is a lawlesse man, and may doe what he please, as also impose what he please upon others. But yet, in the place quoted (Sacrae Ceremoniae, lib. 2. pag. 181. Colon. 1558.) no such thing appeareth. In the page next be∣fore, I finde this: The Pope boweth low, at the ••omming of the Sacrament, and reverently adoreth it. And one thing (worthy of observation) concerning the Popes recei∣ving, I finde in Alexander Hales,* 2.80 (in the last words of the second part of his Tractate concerning the Masse, which is the tenth question of his fourth part) that the Pope was wonte to receive sitting, in imitation of Peter and the other Apostles, Confirming that which our Defend. and Rejoynder doubt of. If it be asked wherefore Sr. Pope receives sitting, it may be answered, in memory of B. Peter, and other Apostles, who ate the last Supper sitting. This may by
some be imputed to the Popes great pride, for that as it is in that booke of Ceremonies which the Rejoynder quoteth,* 2.81 pag. 160. The Romish Bishop doeth reverence to no man under heaven, by rising up to him, or by inclining, or uncovering his head. So it may be thought from the same principle, he doeth not reverence to the Hoste. But I the rather assent to Alexander Hales, because I have reade some where, I thinke it is in Hospinian de Templis, that the Pope hath no Organ-piping-musicke in his Church or Chappell. And these I account the reliques of anci∣ent simplicity, in worship, which the Pope received from the first Bishops of Rome, and regarded not to make alterations of, without advantage.
5. The People which receive not, doe reverently bow themselves. Much more therefore they that receive.
6. True it is, the receivers doe kneele, of an ancient c••∣stome; but onely for conveniencie of putting the Hoste into their mouthes, by the Priest. The former part indeed is true. But the latter is so false, that the Lutherans them∣selves, who as Apes of the Papists in this part, put the Hoste into the receivers mouth, in like manner as they have received the custome from the Papists,* 2.82 professe, and mainetayne, that they doe it for adoration. By omit∣ting this outward veneration of Christ (viz. kneeling) the people seeme to deny Christs bodily presence with the Calvi∣nists. All these things being well considered, it will be found, that (opinion of some set aside) our Ceremo∣nies differ not so much from Papists, as the Popish shaving of Crounes doe differ from that which was in use among Iewes, and Gentiles, of shaving whole heads, according to
Baronius his distinction, and an. 58. or then the Britons square shaving of crownes did differ from that round sha∣ving, which Augustine the Monke, sent by Gregory, in∣forced upon them: wherein Pitsens a Papist, in his hi∣storicall relations of England, pag. 19. doeth note one part of that Controversie to have consisted: or rather (to returne unto the argument of this section) the difference is (by the Rej. his plea) as if Christians should have in olde time, hung out bay-bowes, unconsecrated, out of an upper-chamber, in the afternoone; when the Heathenhung them out consecrated, before noone, in their lower chamber; and that upon institution, when the Heathen did it onely upon an ancient received custome. Are not these fine di∣stances from idolatrous, and superstitious abuses?
4. An African Councell condemned certaine Feasts used in memory of Martyrs, because they were drawne from the errors of the Gentiles. This the Replier affir∣med to make against our Ceremonies. The Rejoynder answereth 1. That this is not enough to defend the Abridge∣ment, nor to oppose the Defendants answer. But if the Cere∣monies be hereby condemned, it is all that the Abridge∣ment sought for; and as much opposition to the Defend. as the Replier cared for. He answereth 2. That the Coun∣cell doeth not condemne any Feasts used by Christians,* 2.83 but one∣ly the very Feasts of the Heathens. But it seemeth other∣wise, so farre as I can conster these words of the Coun∣cell: And this we are to seeke of the Emperors, that such Feasts as are in many places contrary to Gods Word, and from the errors of the Gentiles, be forbidden. I remember not any such phraze of those times, wherein Gentiles are said to
draw from the errors of Gentiles. They did certainely tra∣duce Feasts unto Christians, findeing them too ready for to draw such things from them. They were not Hea∣thens, that are spoken of, in the third Councell of To∣ledo, cap. 22. The people that should attend divine Service, give themselves to unseemely dancings.* 2.84 Hospinian (de Orig. Fest.) after Beat. Rhenanus, in Ter••ul. de Coron mil. spea∣king of these, and such other Feasts, declareth the trueth in these words: The old Bish••ps were wonte when they could not call men from the superstitions of the Heathens by the prea∣ching of the Word, to seeke at least to doe it by observing their holy dayes, with their owne worship. But this was to drive out one nayle with another, no way to take off the Superstition. Al∣beit then the beginning of these Solemnities were tolerable at first, yet at last they grew to such a heape of superstitions, that they became the fountaine and beginning of most horible things.* 2.85 Yet suppose the meaning to be of Heathen Feasts, the reason notwithstanding (drawne from the errors of the Gentiles) pertaineth to Christians, except Christians may draw frō the error of Gentiles, though Gentiles may not. In the 3. place the Rej. undertaketh to proove, that the Councell did establish those Feasts of Mar••yrs: because the petition made for abolishing Heathen Feasts, was to provide for the due and free observation of the Martyrs Feasts. Where∣upon he concludeth, that the Church may lawfully make use of an human Ceremonie, for her good; though the same kinde of Ceremonie, have beene notoriously abused, by, and to Idolatry. And in the parting, he giveth us gentle thankes for these Witnesses. Now 1. for his thankes, the matter is not so much worth. We can affoord him (without any dam∣age
to our cause) ten times as many witnesses, whoe in their practise have confuted that, which sometime in their doctrine they have taught concerning Ceremo∣nies. 2. I will grant him also, that it was not the in∣••ention of that Councel, wholly to abolish the Celebra∣••ion of Martyrs birth or death-days. Yet those Feastings (Convivia) which were used at them, in imitation of the Heathen, they did (in all probabilitie) labour to abolish. For Augustine, whoe was then alive, and is likely to have had a hand in the Decree, did wish them abolished. This ••ppeareth every where in his writings: As Epist. 64. and ••19. And great reason ther was for that, and more also. For the superstition, and luxurie of them was intolera∣ble. Those luxurious banquets (sayth he▪ Epist. 64.) are supposed of the sory people to be as well the solace of the dead as ••he honour of Martyrs, whosoever carry their meates thither which the better sort of Christians do not and almost all the World over is neglected) yet whosoever doth that will have ••hen sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs.* 2.86 And as for ••he Celebrations themselves, they were partly used by Christians, as the same Augustine sayth (cont. Faustum.) For the Prayers and merits-sake of the Martyrs. If the Re∣••oynder houldeth this a due observation of a human Cere∣monie, and so teacheth, we have no cause to thank him for it.
The Papists confesse in deed, that ther is no example of such Feasts in Scripture, much lesse praecept: but yet they will hardly grant them to be human.* 2.87 Baron. ad ••n. 58. We grant them to be human: but the common doctrine of Protestants denie them to have been duely
observed at the least in that time, & in that manner which Augustine declareth, it being not onely without exam∣ple or praecept of Scripture, but also directly against the rules of it.
D. Abbot (Def. of Perk. pag. 886.) sayth more, na∣mely, that Offerings yeerly made for the dead, and for birth∣days, were first brought in by the Haeretick Montanus, whoe made gaine of them.
5. Tertullian (out of Coron. milit.) was cited in the Abr. thus: We may give nothing to the service of an I∣dol; nor borrow any thing from it. If it be against re∣ligion, to sit at table in an Idols temple; what is it, to be seen in the habit of an Idol. The Defender answe∣red, he spake of habites then dedicated and appointed unto the service of Idols: but our Ministers are not ur∣ged, to reverence the Masse-Priests brazen Idol, or to put on the very same Romish Surplice, now used at their Masse, even therfor, because it is Popish. Of this the Replier proveth, that this samenesse is vainely alleged, and lesse then nothing. The Rejoynder for succour, sayth that this individual samenesse was a stragling souldier, and confesseth it to be taken prisoner. But in an answer grounded on dissimilitude, where the same qualitie is af∣firmed of one thing, and denied of another, if that qua∣litie be stragling, in eyther part, and so taken prisoner, the wholle answer must needs be held captive. And this captive souldier may easily be taught to fight against him from whome he was taken; as once (by report) it was in this manner: A Minister in Qeen. El. her days, was urged by his Ordinarie to wear the Surplice, whoe
after other delays, alleged, that the Surplice proffered him to put on, was the very same that the Masse-Priest was wonte to sacrifice in: the Ordinarie admitting that excuse, commanded another to be made: which being doen, when it was brought him in the Church, he tooke it up, and spake thus to those praesent: Good peo∣ple, the Bishop himself confessed, that the former mas∣sing Surplice, was not to be worne by a Minister of the Gospel; and judge you if this be not as like that, as one egge to another? let this therfor goe after the other: and so he justly c••st it away.
Yet let us see what other soldiers the Rejoynder can finde in this squadron, not stragling and taken? Ther are words set down (sayth he) in a different letter: dedicated and appointed. As if a different cassok did save a soldier from stragling! The buisinesse dependeth on him that weareth the cassok: and whoe was that soldier in the Defender his answer? or what was the thing dedicated and appointed, but the same individual habit? if other, then first shew the congruitie of the Defender his dissi∣militude; and then shew also, that other Crosses, and Sur∣plices are not dedicated and appointed unto the service of Idols, by Papists. The Defender also (addeth the Rej.) addes, that the comparison betwixt Papists, and Pagans is not altogether so aequal. He sayd in deed, that he would heer∣after shew such a thing: but with soldiers promised, or threatned onely, I never knew any serious combat fought.
After this, the Rejoynder allegeth, that it cannot be sayd of these our Ceremonies, (as Tertullian sayd of the habits
he opposed) that they were dedicated and appointed to the ser∣vice of an Idol, from the first, and never used by any godly men. But first, this can be no good explication of those words: we may borrow nothing from an Idoll: i. e. no∣thing which hath not been used by some godlyman. Secondly, he sayth not, that no godly man had ever used Crounes. Thirdly, Every olde usage of godly men, doeth not les∣sen the Idolatrie of it. For then sacrifizing of Oxen, should now be lesse Idolatrie, then of unclean Beasts. After these skirmishes, the Rejoynder finding that ther was no houlding of ground with such soldiers as the Defender had mustered, presseth new▪ at his owne char∣ges. And first he bringeth in one persuasion, that Tertul∣lians clear and professed judgement, was directly against our assertion, and for conformitie: because he sayth▪ Finaly those things agree to our,* 2.88 and the use of others above us, and to the things of God, and to Christ himselfe, which indeed are proffitable to the life of man. Meaning the Sunne, the Moone, the Starrs, Fire, Earth, and such like good creatures of God. If this be against us, then we are also against our selves. For never any Non-Conformist, in England, or (as I think) in the World, dreamed (no not in an ague) any thing to the contrarie. And that this may directly make for Conformitie, the Rejoynder must shew, how our Ceremonies are meer profitable helps unto the necessitie of mans life? In the next place he maketh use of Diversion, alleging that Tertullian brought other arguments withall, against the Garland. But we keep our standing upon the argument of borrowing from the service of Idols: let o∣thers shift for themselfs.
Thirdly, he adjoyneth Accusation, that Tertl••ian di∣••••emper••d; in bitter contention, and factious opposition, wrote ••hat b••oke against the Church: quoting for it, Renatus, or ••as I understand him) Rhenanus, and Doctor Abbot. But ••eyther of these can helpe. For Rhenanus in the Argu∣••ent of that booke (de Coron. mil.) defendeth Tertul∣••••an, about the Garland; and sheweth him to have main∣••••ed the same sentence in his Apollogie, which was his Master piece, written without distemper, and not equal∣••ed by the best tempered writing extant, of the same kinde. ••octor Abbot. speaketh sharpely of Tertullian, for his ••aintaining of ceremoniall traditions; wherein he was to ••e blamed: but not for his generall rule of not borrowing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the service of Idols: whereas the Defendant and Re∣••oynder allow those traditions, as appeareth in this Re∣••oynder, pag, 493. and oppose this rule. And it is most ••••rtaine, that Tertullian did not receive any distemper, or ••••ctious disposition from Montanus, against Ceremonies ••••used to Idolatry. For Montanus brought in the blood 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Children into the Supper, but about the Crosse he did ••n the judgement of Doctor Abbot, and all our best divines.
I have somewhat merrily answered, in this passage, ••y occasion of the Rej. his mentioning of a stragling ••ouldier: if any man will accuse me therefore,* 2.89 of this or ••••at fault, as the Rejoynder doeth the Replier, upon like ••ccasion, Tertullian, whose cause I pleade, shall make ••••y Apology: It will agree to trueth to laugh, because it is ••f a pleasant disposition; and to sport with her competitors, ••••cause it is secure, and feares not the wals of her Bulwarke. ••nely this would be regarded, that our laughter be not un∣worthy
lest it be laught at, but if it bee worthy, it may be a dutie.
6. Another place Tertullian (de oratione, cap. 11. & 12.) was objected, where hee sayth, that Christians might not wash their hands (for a Ceremony) or lay a∣side their cloakes, before prayer; nor sit upon their beds, after prayer; because the Heathen used to doe so. The Def. his first answer being that these Ceremonies were not condemned meerely for resemblance with Idolatry, but for opinion of necessity; it was replied, that Tertul∣lian speaketh plainely: therefore it d••servethto be prooved in us, because it is observed in the service of an Idol. To which the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that the Heathens might use their Idolatrous Ceremonies with opinion of necessi∣ty. Let it be so: yet Christians may be reprooved for meere likenesse unto them, though either they have not the same opinion, or the consideration of that opinion set apart. Meerely doeth not alwayes signifie onely; nor can it so stand in the Def. his answer. For then thus he should speake: not onely for resemblance, but (without any also) for opinion. If he did meane so, we say on the contrary, not onely for opinion, but also for resemblance. So farre as I can understand the word meerely for, it noteth not more, then is implied in Tertullians therefore it de∣serveth. A deserving cause is meerely a cause, or else malefactours are not punished meerely for their evill de∣serts. In the former testimony, out of Tertullian, pag. 484. the Rej. translated meras utilitates, any commodious use. If meere commodities, be all one with any commo∣dities, then meerely for resemblance is any thing at all for
resemblance: and so the Def. denieth Tertullian to have condemned those Ceremonies he speaketh against, any thing at all for resemblance with Idolatry; which yet Tertullian doeth as plainely speake, as ever he spake any thing at all.
B. Iewel (said the Replier) doeth urge these Testi∣monies of Tertullian, meerely in regard of resemblance: of others it is not needfull to speake. The Rej. answe∣reth 1. that Iuel doeth not urge these Testimonies of Tertullian. But it is to be seene in his Def. Apol. par. 3. cap. 5. div. 1. how he citeth Tertullian de Coron. mil. and de Idol. with which the Rejoynder will not deny, this (de Orat) to consent. 2. He citeth them (addeth the Rej.) not for unlawfulnesse, but for inconveniency of resembling Idolaters. Concerning this distinction, enough hath beene said in the first part. Yet this heere is worthy of observation; that both the Def. and Rej. in the first se∣ction of this fourth chapter, confessed, that human Cere∣monies abused to Idolatry, are therefore unlawfull, except they be of convenient necessity, as the Rejoynder speaketh, pag. 406. What reason then had Iuel, or hath the Rejoynder in his name, to confesse such Ceremonies inconvenient, and yet make them lawfull? But that Iuel understood Ter∣tullian, to speake against such Ceremonies, as unlawfull, it appeareth out of these his words: Tertullian disputes sharpely therein, that a Christian may not weare a lawrell-crowne, and that for no ot••er cause, but because the Gentiles did so.* 2.90 I have onely the latine edition at hand; and there∣fore quote it. But eyther the interpreter failed much, or else Iuel expresly ••pake there of unlawfulnesse (non licere)
and not of other inconveniencie. The Rejoynder his next answer dependeth onely on that which was for∣merly confuted, namely, that meerely is onely.
The Replier added, that it doeth not appeare out of Tertullian, that he respected opinion of necessity and effica∣cy, in these Ceremonies. For which, he is charged by the Rejoynder, with offence, against men, simple, and lear∣ned, as also against God himselfe. And why all this? Be∣cause (forsooth) Tertullian sayth, that such washings and cleansings, as many superstitiously affect, against every prayer, are not true; but those which we have in Christ, and in purifi∣cation of the heart. But this is no sufficient ground for so deep an accusation. For if now one should admonish a Non-resident, who sendeth a reading Curate, to supply his place, in these words: This is not true fulfilling of your Ministery; but those personall offices, which are in Scripture in∣joyned; and the meaning of these words being questio∣ned, one should deny, that by them it was implied, that the said Non-resident held it necessary for him, in con∣science, to be absent, and send such a Curate for supply; would any man accuse the denier of offending against God and man? It was further observed by the Replier, that the washing condemned by Tertullian, had relation to Christs delivering by Pilat, after washing of his hands, and so like unto our signe of the Crosse, in regard of the originall signification and use of it. The Rejoynd. answereth many words: but to the purpose (beside re∣petitions) he sayth, that those washers did beleeve Pilat to have beene cleansed by his washing, and so themselves by theirs, from guilt of sinne. And this he gathereth from Tertulli∣ans
confutation: We adore Christ, and not deliver him: we should abhorre the example of him that did deliver him. But out of these words no such collection can be made; any more then some like invention out of these: we adore Christ, and not crucifie him: we should abhorre the exam∣ple of them that did crucifie him, and left a Crosse in the place, for a signe and memoriall that he was crucified. That wash∣ing was a signe immediatly of Pilats washing, and so of Christs delivering: our Crosse is immediately a signe of Pilats Crosse, and so of our Saviours crucifying. This is the likenesse which the Replier truely noted.
Concerning the Ceremony of Dossing cloakes, before prayer, the Defender put it off to opinion of necessity; because Tertullian in condemning it, hath these words: si sic oporteret, i. e. if it must be. It was replied, that our Prelates say also of our Ceremonies, sic oportet. i.e. It must be so, and yet disclaime absolute necessity. But (an∣swereth the Rejoynd.) they held an internall simple ne∣cessity of conscience; not externall onely for order sake, as our Prelates doe. Of this distinction, see the first part of this Suite. The collection of this opinion, from Tertullians scoffe; nisi si qui putant, except there be any so foolish as to have such an opinion is so palpably vaine, that any man may see, he durst not impute that opinion unto those washers he spake against; but onely sheweth, that from their pra∣ctise, such a fond and absurd opinion, which themselves would condemne, might perhaps by some be collected, Tertullian spake, as we now speake. If Crossing ought to be used in Baptisme, the Apostles in their doctrine concerning baptizing would have made some mention of it: except perhaps
some thinke, that they did not then know, or cared not to use, the right or best way of signifying Christian valour, and con∣stancy, in fighting under Christs banner.
In oppsition to that which was alleged for Tertulli∣ans respect unto opinion of necessity, and efficacy, in con∣demning those Ceremonies, it was replied, that he con∣demneth them onely (that is, if they had but this fault a∣lone) that they were empty observations,* 2.91 and to be worthily upbraided with vanity, as being done without any warrant from Christ or his Apostles. For such things serve not to re∣ligion, but to superstition, and are affected, and forced, and ra∣ther over-curious, then any thing rationall at all, and even therefore to be restrained, they do so suit the Gentiles. Heere the Rejoynder after a little touch upon the particle one∣ly, now expounded, answereth, that this was because of a•• opinion of necessity, which is properly superstition: because the same Tertullian (de Coron. mil.) alloweth sundry huma•• signi••••cant Ceremonies, held as free, and used for instruction. In which answer, the first part is manifestly false; if Ter∣tullians owne wordes may be heard: those Ceremonies are supervacuous and vaine, which are us••d without any autho∣rity of Divine or Apostolicall command, and are to be accoun∣ted superstious: and even therefore to be repressed, because they make us (in some sort) like the Gentiles. The second part, which containeth a reason, is voyd of all trueth. For 1. Tertullian did not account those Ceremonies human, but of Apostolicall though unwritten tradition: Traditio auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, & fides observatrix. 2. For freedome, to allege this, is cleane contrary to Tertullians intention: because he went about to proove the necessi∣tie
of absteyning from the Lawral-Croune, by the ne∣cessitie of observing these unwritten traditions. 3. For instruction, I would be informed, what instruction ther was, in Crossing, at every step,* 2.92 and goeing forward and at every turne, at clothing ones selfe, at washing, at bed, at board &c. 4. D. Abbot (whose judgement of Tertullian, the Rejoynder commendeth, pag. 485.) in that very place which he commendeth (Def. Perk. pag. 883.884. &c.) sayth plainly, that Tertullian defended those traditions a∣gainst the Church; that therin he contradicted himself; and that those traditions were partly heathenish and haeretical de∣vises. About Tertullian, nothing material followeth.
7. Melchiades decreed, that no Christian should fast on the Lords day, or friday, because it was a knowen cu∣stome of Pagans, to fast on those days.
The Rejoynder 1. sayth one answer was, the incongrui∣tie of fasting unto the Lords day. But this not being fetched out of Melchiades, the Replier justly passed by, and so will I, though enough may be sayd against it, as the Reader may see in the Altar of Damascus, pag. 669. &c. 2. He telleth us also of another answer, by a distinction, be∣twixt a light Ceremonie, and a sacred solemnitie. But this neyther is in Melchiades, nor holdeth congruitie eyther with Scripture, forbidding symbolizing with Idolaters in light Ceremonies; nor with it self, the light Ceremonie being sacred, and also a solemnitie. 3. The Rejoynder ad∣deth out of his owne store, that the prohibition was onely of open and solemne fasting, not appointed by the Church. Which is as wreched an evasion, as the former: because the quaestion is of open and solemne Ceremo∣nies;
and Melchiades disalowed that any Church should appoint it, in condemning the thing without any distin∣ction, or limitation, for a reason, that layeth more fault upon the Churches, if they should appoint it, then upon privat persons, if they should observe it without appoint∣ment. For he groundeth his condemnation upon 2. Cor. 6. What concord hath Christ with Belial? What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? May the Temple of God have agreement with Idols, in Ceremonies, if the Church appoint so? 4. The Rejoynder addeth a note out of a later Councel, being a Iurie of twelve Bishops, wherin other phrases are used. Much good might it doe them that can make any thing of it.
The passage being thus cleared, let us now come to that which the Replier tooke for the Def. his onely an∣swer: Melchiades for bad fasting at the same time with Pagans, because they lived in the same Countrie, at the same time, and place. This (sayd the Replier) could not make the difference▪ because so litle a distance may be betwixt one Countrie, and another, that it can bring up no dif∣ference of moment. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that it was a reason of inconvenience onely. But Melchiades sayd out of 2. Cor. 6. that it was to make the Temple of God agree with Idols. Is that onely inconvenient, and not un∣lawful? And if it were nothing but inconveniencie, was it not confessed, in the beginning of this Chapter, that Ceremonies Idolatrously abused, if they be not of convenient necessitie, are unlawfull? If this be so, then much more unlawful are they, if they be inconvenient. He addeth 2. that some place & time may make a difference:
which the Replier denied not; but onely sayd, that e∣very distance of Countrie (such as is betwixt Dover and Calise, is not sufficient.
8. Ambrose taught Monica, Augustines mother, to leave bringing of Wine and Cakes to Churche, because it had a shew of conformitie with the Gentiles funeral-feasts. The Defender answered, that it was an act of sa∣crificing, &c. as Bellarmine doeth, de Sanctor. Beat. lib. 1. cap. 14. Nay sayth the Rejoynder Bellarmine neyther so answered, nor had occasion so to answer. But if he had considered, that the Defender maketh this fact of Monicas, to be a sacrifice, derived from the Collyridian haereticks; and that Bellarmine there answereth to the argument taken out of Epiphanius, against those Collyri∣dians, as may appear by comparison of cap. 11. in the ende; and that in the objection, ther is no mention of sacrificing, but Bellarmin answereth by covert of that terme; he would have forborne this censure.
It was also pronounced an incredible thing, that Au∣gustines religious mother, should then sacrifice to a crea∣ture, which the Papists now will nor professe to doe. To this the Rejoynder is, that the Defender never sayd Monica did sacrifice. Consider therfor his words, re∣printed by the Rejoynder pag. 501. The act (objected) was sacrificing: You compare our Ceremonies, with Ceremo∣nies of sa••rif••cing. Did we object an act as comparative to our Ceremonies, any act, beside that of Monica? Cer∣tainly no. If therfor the act objected & compared, were a sacrifice, then Monicas act must needs in the Defender his account, be sacrificing.
The other passages depend upon the difference now touched, until that answer of the Replier commeth in: Neyther Ambrose, nor Augustine, nor Monica, his mo∣ther, regarded any thing in condemning that act, but onely, lest any occasion should be given to intemperate ones of filling themselfs beyond measure; and because these funeral rites as it were resembled the Superstition of the Gentiles.* 2.93 The Rejoynder heer 1. denieth that Ambrose, Augustine, or Monica did condemne this act. Which is very strange; seing Ambrose did publick••y forbid it, by the Rejoynder his confession; Monica hearing the reasons, was affected with them in her conscience, to forbear it; and Augustin applandeth them both. Yet the Rejoynder hath r••a∣sons for his denial, such as they be: 1. Augustine sayth his Mothers intention was good. 2. It was usual in Africa. 3. He thought that his Mother would not have been so taken-off from that custome by any beside Ambrose. 4. Ambrose did onely restrayne Monicas privat devotion, as having publickly forbidden that manner, for a double inconveniencie, not for unlawfulnesse.
Now the first of these reasons import, that Augustin condemned nothing that was doen of a good intention. The second implieth, that he condemned nothing that was usual in Africa. The third supposeth, that Chri∣stians are not more easily drawn from unlawful cu∣stomes, by one man, then by another. The fourth con∣tradicteth first it self, conjoyning the restrayning onely of privat devotion, with publick forbidding; and secondly, the Defender and Replier whoe (in the beginning of this chapter) confesse Ceremonies Idolatrously abused,
to become unlawfull, except they be of convenient neces∣sity; and so much more, if they have a double inconveni∣ency in them. The rest of this section doeth onely jarre upon the same strings.
9. To a grave sentence of August. (Hom. 6. de verb. Dom. in Matth.) If you aske how the Pagans may be wonne, inlightened, called▪ leave all their solemnities, and forsake their toyes. The Defendant answered, that those solemni∣ties and toyes, are not to be used together with Pagans. The Rejoynder addeth, that Augustine meaneth feasting with Idolaters, in the Temples of Idols, which could not be used a∣part from Idola••ers. Suppose it were so: yet the question remaineth, whether using such toyes of theirs apart, as may be used apart, make more for their conversion, or for their hardening, according to Augustines judge∣ment? But it is not so as the Rejoynder imagineth. For 1. Augustine spake of them, which were present at feasts, made at the solemnity of the Genius or Patron of Car∣thage, whom those Christians, he reprooveth, denied to be an Idol. 2. All the Citizens of Carthage could not celebrate that feast in one Temple. 3. It doeth not ap∣peare, that the Patrone had any proper Temple. 4. The Citizens being parted into divers places of feasting, why might not the Christians that would keepe that feast, have one place apart? 5. Suppose the Christians had ta∣ken some part of the Banket, or made one like it, and carried it into their owne Temple, to use it there, with another opinion then the Heathen had; would Augu∣stine have allowed it; 6. The case was at Carthage, as it was in Popish times, with the Company of Smithes at
London, who after some worship done to their Patron, Dunstan, had a Feast in their Hall. Now if some Prote∣stants refusing to be at their worship in Dunstans Church should yet have beene at their Feast in the Hall. I would know, whether they had more symbolized with Papists, in the worship of Dunstan, then our Conformists doe in the worship of the Crosse?
That which is after added by the Rejoynder out of o∣ther places of Augustine, concerne not our present que∣stion: because there Augustine considereth not any re∣lation unto idolatrous abuse. Neither by citing one ge∣nerall rule of Augustines, did we binde our selves to fol∣low all his counsels.
10. Concerning the Councels of Nice forbidding Easter to be kept on the same day with the Iewes Passe∣over, the Rejoynder maketh long worke, to little pur∣pose. 1. He sayth (with the Defendant) that it was not for unlawfulnesse. 2. He confirmeth that answer, by a story of the businesse, marking, that the Councell said about Easter, onely, It seemed good to us. 3. He excepteth against the words, as they are cited in the Abridgement. And so spendeth many good words, and phrazes, not requiring any confutation. Now. 1. Concerning the words, as they are found in constantines letters patents, they were cleared before, cap. 3. sect. 6.2. The same, or like forme of words, is used in the same Councell about things unlawfull, though not so desperately evill, as de∣nying the Faith. 3. The succeeding practises, and cen∣sures, doe shew, that unlawfullnesse was understood. For presently after, those which kept Easter with the
Iewes, were accounted a sort of Heretickes, styled Quar∣tadecimani. And what ruffeling, Augustine sent into Eng∣land by Gregorie, made against the ancient Britons, for dissenting in that observance, after, and out of other stories, Mr. Foxe doeth at large relate. But for such mat∣ters, I leave them (with the Replier) to those that are skilfull in human traditions; not regarding that judge∣ment of the Rejoynders. If you bee not skilfull in human traditions, you may hazzard your selves and others: because I doubt not, but skill in Gods word alone, is sufficient against all such hazzard.
The reasons rendred by the Defendant, for the Ni∣cene prohibition of keeping Easter as the Iewes, are three: 1. Hatred of the Iewes. 2. Because of the Iewes insultations. 3. For uniformity. Of the last, it was Re∣plied, that uniformity might have beene, if all could have beene drawne to the same time with the Iewes. Which the Rejoynder confesseth to be true, if they could have beene drawne thereto as well. Where 1. He taketh it for granted, that all were well drawne to the time deter∣mined; the contrary whereof appeareth, as in others, so in our ancient Britons. 2. Well or ill, that is, easily or hardly, these make no difference in uniformity, but one∣ly in the meanes of accomplishing the same. The other two reasons are sayd by the Replier, to agree unto our Ceremonies; because we are to hate the Idolatrous su∣perstitions of the Papists, with a perfect hatred; and the Papists insult over us, for borrowing our Ceremonies from them. About this (because it could not be denied) the Rejoynder spendeth many words and phrazes, partly
Rhetorically good, and partly Morally not good; which I leave as I found: because there is no doing with them, but in greate leisure, or in idle time.
In the conclusion, it was asked by the Replier, for what causes many other Ceremonies of the Papists were abolished, if not for these two last named? or if the same causes that abolished them, would notsweep away these, if it pleased them who have the beezoms in their hand? About this the Rejoynder first, referreth the Reader to a preface set before the Service-booke, and I am contented he should seeke if he can finde any such reasons there. Secondly, he addeth, that wee which have not the bezome in our hands, should not shuffle abroad the dust with our feete. No more doe we (say I) but onely keepe it out of our eyes, and throates, so well as we can, giving reasons, why the Sweepers should not thrust it upon us, nor us for it out of the doores
11. About the Gangren forbidding fasting upon the Lords-Day, many words are spent by the Rejoynder. The summe is, that such fasting is there spoken of, as was performed out of an H••reticall opinion, either of necessity so to doe, or of contempt of the Lords-Day. But this cannot be prooved. For there being divers different editions of that Councell, none of them mention opinion of necessity: and in the ordinary greek copy, there is neither contempt, nor contumacy, named, as Binius noteth. Beside, opinions and contempts, as they are inward, cannot be noted by the Church. If they were outward, in word; then not so much the fasting upon opinion, as the opinion it selfe, was to be condemned. If the act it selfe was taken for a ma∣nifestation
of such an opinion, that is it which we urge As for that accusation which is layd upon the Replier, for relating the Defendant his answer, so as if he had re∣ferred the matter unto contempt of Christian profession, that is remooved by the Defendant his owne words, related by the Rejoynder, pag. 521. Contempt, to wit, of the Chri∣stian profession. See before, in Melchiades his decree.
12. The Councell of Bracara, forbad abstinence from flesh, for avoyding of all suspicion in consenting to the Priscillian Hereticks. This (sayth the Rejoynder) was in respect of inexpediency onely. Let it be so: yet 1. They that forbad it, held it not lawfull to be comman∣ded, as our Ceremonies are. 2. Inexpediencie, or incon∣veniency of Ceremonies notoriously knowne to be Ido∣latrously abused, maketh them unlawfull, by the Defen∣dant and Rejoynder their owne confessions, in the first section of this chapter: where convenient necessity is requi∣red, to make them lawfull.
13. Thrice dipping in Baptisme, was condemned, by a Councell of Toledo. It was added in the Abridge∣ment, that Gregory alledged and approoved this decree: and the Replier, named Leo in stead of Gregory. Heere the Rejoynder catcheth holde of the names of Gregorie, and Leo, and findeth matter for many words, in the ac∣count of their lives, not agreeing to the fourth Councell of Toledo, where this was decreed. Now the Replier was (through haste) mistaken, as understanding the first Councell of that place, for the fourth: and the Authors of the Abridgement, or their Scribes pen, misplaced the word alledgeth: because the Councell doeth alledge
Gregory,* 2.94 and not Gregory the Councell: Let that man∣ner be held, which Gregory the first defined. These are not stragling Souldiers, such as formerly were taken from the Defendant as the Rejoynder spake, but Souldiers boyes, or Bedees, upon whom little or nothing dependeth in the bartell. Let them therefore goe; or by exchange be dismissed. Gregory hath the same sentence, lib. 1. Epist. 41. and therefore approoved the decree of Toledo, be∣fore it was there decreed. For reall answer, it is rejoy∣ned, 1. That all things forbidden, are not condemned at unlawfull. But yet (by his leave) whatsoever is forbid∣den lawfully, and reasonably, is held unlawfull upon some reason; and therefore so farre condemned for un∣lawfull, as it is lawfully forbidden. Certainely, in Lawes, forbidding doeth as well imply some unlawfull evill, as commanding doeth necessary good. 2. The Rejoynder denyeth the Papist to make any superstitious construction of our use of the Crosse. But this is plaine enough: and it commeth after to be handled, yet in this place it is e∣nough, if they make a superstitious construction of the Crosse, which we make use of, though not of our use, which the Rejoynder addeth, that he might with some colour accuse the assertion of falshood. More was not, nor needed be affirmed by the Replier, in this point. 3. He pronounceth it a male volent calumniation, that our owne Canons, and Canonicall Imposters make a superstitious construction of it. But this hath beene prooved before, especially in the second Argument, where it hath been convinced of will-worship. 4. He formeth a new propo∣sition; and thereupon girdeth at sitting in the Lords-Sup∣per:
which is not worth the answering. All the rest of his words turne upon the loose hingel of inconveniency without any unlawfulnesse, now often confuted. This there∣fore shall suffize for this testimony; and so I end, the head of Fathers, and Councels. For Leo's words, make not di∣rectlytothe purpose.
This head was passed over by the Defendant, but the Rejoynder undertaketh to cleare it: wherein, either his skill, orhis confidence, must needes occasion wondering.
1. The generall Assembly of Scotland (anno. 1566.) writ thus to the Bishops of England. If Surplice, Corner-Cap, and Tippet, have beene badges of Idolaters, in the very act of Idolatry, what have the Preachers of Chri∣stian liberty, and the open Rebukers of superstition, to doe with the dregs of the Romish Beast? And in their Confession: We detest all the Ceremonies and false doctrine of the Romish Antichrist, added to the ministration of the true Sacraments: we detest all his vaine Allegories, Rites, Signes, and Traditions, brought into the Church without, or against the Word of God. To the former testimony, the Rejoynder answereth 1. That these words are not the definitive judgement of the Assembly, but onely spoken as the Plea of some tender-hearted men, which suffered for refusall of those things. Now if this were so as the Rej. maketh it, yet this we may gather from thence; that the Plea of many godly ministers of England, in those dayes,
was, that our Ceremonies are unlawfull. For so it is there sayd: many thousands, both godly, and learned, have their consciences continually stricken, with these sentenses: what hath Christ to doe with Belial? what fellowship is there be∣twixt darkenesse and light? &c. in the words formerly cited. What meant the Rejoynder then, to perswade his Rea∣ders, in his Preface, and upon all occasions, that our Ce∣remonies were not by Non-Conformists held unlawfull, but onely inconvenient, untill of late? If nothing else can, yet this his owne (not confession, but) peremptory an∣swer, may so convince him, that he must acknowledge his accusing of us, as dissenting therein from the first see∣kers of reformation, in the Ceremonies, and so the oc∣casion of his bitter writing, is a meere conceyt, built up by desire of putting some colour upon that, which, na∣kedly beheld, would be offensive. Observe further, that a definitive judgement, is vainely heere denyed, where it was never sought for. The Ministers of England did not send into Scotland, for a definitive sentence, concerning the use or abuse of things in England. Neither were they of Scotland so simple, as to take that authority of defining upon them. But for their advizing judgement, is plaine enough to all that read their words with any indifferency. They were not ignorant of our English question: there were among them, that had beene at Frankford, as Mr. Knoxe, Mr. Good-man, &c. They did not so farre forget themselves, as to send allegations in other mens names, into England, to be admitted there, which themselves did not allow of. Beside, they directly call them unpro∣fitable vaine trifles. Yea (sayth the Rejoynder) but they
disclaime the very question; they supposed the refusers of the Ceremonies, not to damne the consciences of the users: and call them vaine trifles in comparison of preaching the Gospel. They disclaim indeed professed entering into the ground of that question, as mediators use to doe, but yet insinu∣••te their judgement of it. Ceremonies may be damned, ••hough the consciences of all that use them, be not con∣demned. Vnprofitable vaine trifles, found not of compa∣••ison. Neither is there any thing in the letter, that gives ••ny inkling of such a limitation.
To the second testimonie, taken out of the Scottish Confession, the Rejoynder answereth 1. that it respecteth all Ceremonies, as they were Antichrists, formally, and not all materialy. After which manner, it is easie to answer any ••estimonie that ever was alleged. For in the Confes∣sion, there is no difference made betwixt all, and some; neyther can the Rejoynder give any apparent reason of his formal interpretation; and it is well knowen, that the ••ery material Popish Ceremonies were then detested by Mr. Knoxe, with those that agreed unto his direction, as ••hey also have been, ever since the Reformation, abhor∣••ed generally in Scotland, untill of late, when that which one of them calleth an Altar of Damascus, came into that Countrey.
The Rejoynder his 2. answer is, that they of the Assem∣bly professed, what liked them best in Scotland; not what they thought others bound to do; as appeareth by our late King Iames, the chiefe of them. But before this can stand, it must be shewed, in what Synode, we detest, is taken, for wee like ••ot so well in our Country; and then, how the after-inter∣pretation
of one, who was then but fifteene yeares old, can over-sway the common interpretation of the whole Church?
2. Oecolampadius requireth a Minister of Scaphusium (Epist. 1. lib. 1. pag. 129.) utterly to cast off all the Cere∣monies of the Papists, in celebration of the Lords Sup∣per, as those which cannot be continued, without nou∣rishing of the superstition and impiety, whereunto they served of olde. The Rejoynder answereth 1. That this was not Oecolampadius his owne advise, but that which some others would have had him given. But he propounding it, and onely excusing himselfe modestly that he was slow in put on others so farre (insinuating that though he himselfe was so resolved, yet he durst not urge others thereto, and therefore onely requireth conveniency without offense, suf∣ficiently testifieth his allowance of that advise. And who (thinke you) were the Authors of that advise, but zuinglius &c▪ He 2. addeth, out of divers Epistles, that Oecolampadius would not have all that country tye themselves in Ceremonies, to Basil, Tigure, or Bern that he holde gold•••• silver, glasse, or wooden vessels in administration of the Sacra∣ment, indifferent. As if any of us were of another minde this is a meere colour of something, where nothing is to be found.
In the third place, he sheweth, how Oecolampadius, allowed of the termes of Sacrifice, Altar, and omitted no won∣ted Ceremonies, but onely the latine tongue, in reading the E∣pistle, and Gospel. But if the Rejoynder had considered, that termes are no Ceremonies; and that Oecolampadiu•• allowed and Practised this last mentioned imperfect re∣formation,
when he was (in comparison) but a Novice in religon, before he came to Basil, he would not have so exulted in this quotation, as he doeth: The Abrid∣gers (sayth he) never (I thinke) read Oecolampadius his Epi∣stles. But he hath no just reason to thinke, but some of them had read those Epistles; unlesse he can shew from whence else they had this testimony. I have read them long since, and remember well, that to be true which now I sayd. How it stood at Basil, with Popish Cere∣monies, when Oecolampadius was Minister there, it ap∣peareth out of Zuinglius, his Fellow-Minister (de Baptis∣mo) in these words, worthy to be recited, though some∣what too large for this place:* 2.95 I will easily grant the Cata∣baptists, and confesse, that the strife which they made about Baptisme, hath not beene altogether without benefit: For hence it comes to passe, that those things which the foolish superstition of human reason had added thereunto (as Exorcismes, Spit∣tings, Salt, and such like more) being brought into question, are now become vaine & unprofitable in every mans judgmēt. Wee deny not but wee received those things from our Fathers. — Howsoever it is evident they were not of God, but set up of man; which also it may be, (consideration had to that time) might have beene borne; because that as the Israelites hereto∣fore affected with a desire of Aegypt, looked backe to the deli∣cacies thereof, so they which lately are come over to Christ, were a little propence and prone to Heathenish religion, which con¦t••ined many such rites.
And these,* 2.96 Christian m••n were wonte to turne i••to other use, that they might in time the bett••r be freed from that supersti∣tion. But how much better had it beene, if all and every of those things had beene abolished at the first.
3. Concerning Calvin, I say, as the Rejoynder sayth, that which is alleged out of him, hath suffici••ntly been handled before. As for the new addition, which the Rejoynder heere bringeth, as making against us (that gold and silver, come and wine, and usefull meeting places, may be retained, after Idolatrous abuse of t••em) he know∣eth, and all the world knoweth, it maketh nothing for such Ceremonies as ours are; nor any thing against us, who continually professe the same trueth. Except he meant to abuse the Reader, I know not wherefore he should bring in such impertinent allegations.
4. Mr. Bucer was alleged (in the Abridgement) as scarce esteeming them syncere Christians, who can abide the Ceremonies of Antichrist, or such as have affinity with his. The Rejoynder opposeth other places, where he speake••h for a toleration of some such Ceremonies. Neither of these allegations can be denied. What then shall we say?* 2.97 surely 1. That Pucer though he was a reve∣rend zealous man, yet he was a man; and so shewed him∣selfe sometime about Ceremonies. So Calvin obser∣ved, Epist. 13. Bucer was so zealous for the propag••tion of the Gospel, that contented with the maine, he was sometime more remisse then was meete, in allowing petty matters as he tooke them, but yet for all that, they had their weight. To the same purpose he gently admonisheth Bucer himselfe, even concerning the matters of England, Epist. 39.
This by name I commend to thee,* 2.98 by all meanes to free thy selfe from envy, under which thou sufferest (though unjustly) a∣mong many, as thou thy selfe knowest. For they still taxe you by middle dealing, to be either Author or Abettour. And according to this observation, we finde, that Cassander, and Baldwine, writing against Calvin himselfe, about Ceremonies, oppose unto him every where the name of Bucer. 2 It is to be noted, that when Bucer looked simply to his Rule, he condemned all ceremonious re∣liques of Idolatry as much as any: but in some particular perplexity, other impressions did sometime draw him to an unwilling toleration of some such reliques. But then he doeth it so fearfully, and with so many cautions, that any may see, it was but a suspensive sentence of to∣leration, extorted by a kinde of necessitie, not any al∣lowance, out of constant judgement. Thus Beza in his Answer to Baldwine, whoe alleged Bucers allowance of our English Ceremonies, answereth:* 2.99 As for that En∣glish reformation, which you ascribe to Bucer you do the good man not a little wrong. To manifest this, he allegeth these wordes of Bucer: There be who with the leaven of Anti∣christ, would joyne together God and Belial.
All these thinges considered, that which Bucer spake against such Ceremonies, is to be taken for his judge∣ment: and when he occasionally varied therfrom, that is to be imputed unto his good, but excessive affection.
5. The wordes cited out of Musculus (loc. com. de Trad. pag. 421.422.) are: It is not fit, that those thinges which are rather superstitious, then religious, or have so much as a shew of superstition, should be reteyned in the Church. God
forbid, that I should mainteyne any traditions, Rites, or wor∣ships, which are Popish. And I call them Popish, which ey∣ther of their owne nature or by abuse, do serve unto Popish im∣piety, superstition, and blindenesse: all which I am perswaded ought to be detested, as much as is possible. Now marke the Rejoynder his answer: 1. He sayth, Musculus sheweth onely what is meete, not what is unlawfull. This he ga∣thereth out of the first words: it is not fit. But first, may things not meete, be appointed, and urged, as our Cere∣monies are? Secondly, Musculus speaketh of such things as he holdeth unlawfull to mainetaine: God forbid that I should maintaine them. 1. Would he then have main∣teyned our Ceremonies (as the Def. and Rej. doe) some∣time as lawfull though unm••et, and sometime as meet, and of convenient necessitie? Thirdly, he speaketh of such thinges as are to be detested as much as is possible: are they lawfull? 2. The Rejoynder addeth, that Musculus spea∣keth of such human traditions, as had been formerly under abuse, but were now reduced to another use. In which wordes, (if they be right printed) he maketh Musculus to speake as directly against our Ceremonies, according to his owne interpretation, as the Abrigement doeth. If not be left out by the Printer, then he may be convinced by those words of Musculus: so much as a shew of supersti∣tion.
But (sayth he) our Ceremonies considered as Ceremo∣nies, (otherwise then in their materials) have no outward shew of Popish superstition, which consisteth onely in the reason and intention of their use. As if eyther outward shew, or outward superstition, consisted onely in inward inten∣tion!
Such miserable answers have at the least, an out∣ward shew of no syncere intention. His 3. answer is, that Musculus speaketh of such traditions as in their praesent, and publick professed use were Popish. He doeth not in¦deed exclude such out of his censure: but if he spake onely of such, what need was ther, that he should so care∣fully interpret what he called Popish traditions? or what meant he in his description of them, to leave out prae∣sent publick professed use, and use such wordes, as every ordinary impartial Reader must needs take to be more general?
6. P. Martyr giveth for a Rule, to the Ministers of Poland, that such order in the administration of Sacra∣ments, is to be kept, as differeth most from the toys and Ce∣remonies of Papists. It is an excellent Rule (sayth the Rejoynder) but he sayd not, that human Ceremonies abused unto superstition, in Poperie, are now unlawful for us to use. As if he that sayth, we ought to keep that order which dif∣fereth most from Popish toys and Ceremonies, did not say, we ought n••t to use Popish Ceremonies! He speaketh (without quaestion) of an internall oug••t, or sic oportet, which the Rejoynder (pag. 492.) confesseth to binde the conscience.
The same P. Martyr sayth: Certainly, if we did from the heart hate superstition, we would doe our endevour, cleane to put out and deface all the footsteps, and monu∣ments therof. He spake this (answereth the Rejoynder) when Missalattire, Altars, and Crucifixes, were as yet remay∣ning. Now for Missal attire, I know none then remay∣ning, which remayneth not now. Altars also have
ever since remayned in diverse Churches, and are now (for countenance of other Ceremonies) comming up a∣gaine where they were abolished, with an Idolatrous ad∣dition of bowing unto them. Crucifixes will soon fol∣low, and that by good right, if the Defender and Rejo. their groundes be good. For the doctrine being chan∣ged, and the materials onely of Popish Crucifixes remay∣ning, what can be sayd, to make them simplie unlawfull? And for their conveniencie, whoe may judge of that, but those that have authoritie of praescribing and imposing matters of order and decencie? But to let that passe, P. Martyr spoke of that time, when he supposed the doc∣trine reformed; and manifestly riseth in his discourse, from those specials, to the general to all footsteps of super∣stition, and not those onely. But (sayth the Rejoynder) the same P. Martyr professeth, no separation would be made for such matters. He sayth so in deed of the Surplice, pag. 1127. and so say we; especialy upon the same con∣dition, that we may be suffered to abrogate them for our owne practise: Ferremus, nobis gratulando quod eas abroga∣verimus. To this the Rejoynder addeth diverse senten∣ces of P. Martyrs, somewhat favoring a toleration (for a time) of our Ceremonies, especialy in M. Hoopers case. To which I answer 1. that this was in perplexitie, caused by the mischief of our Ceremonies, which are therfor so much the more to be hated, even that they have allways bred such trouble unto good men, whoe should have troubles enough,* 2.100 though they were abolished. Quaestions of this kind, are to us somwhat difficult. There is somwhat more hard I confesse, of those garments they call holy, & which
somwhat troubleth me, that I wo••d••r they are so strictly retei∣ned. He himself refused to wear the Surplice, and that upon such ground as may move us to refuse it, as he pro∣f••sseth: When I was at Oxford, I would never use those white ••arments in the Quire, though I were at that time a Canon.* 2.101 •• had a reason for it. But that which mooved me then and ••••ill doeth moove, and perhaps may justly moove you, is name∣••y; that, that is not to be d••n, which sh••ll confirme, what my ••onscience cannot allow of. 3. He telleth us plainly, ••hat these Ceremonies are merae Papatus reliquiae, meere Popish reliques condemned by Bullinger, and that he was, upon hope of their abolishing, onely tardior ad sua∣dendum, loath to persuade unto suffering of deprivation for h••m. All these thinges are found in the places quoted by the Rejoynder. Let any indifferent reader gesse by ••hem, what was P. Martyrs judgement, in his free, and ••nperplexed thoughts? Certainly it was not that which ••he Defender and Rejoynder have rep••aesented unto us ••or theirs; whoe accuse all those (beside o••her faults, many, and great) of ••uperstition that refuse them as un∣lawful; they being Rites both orderly and also decent.
7. Bezas wordes are: that the footsteps of Idolatrie ought not to appear in the Church, but to be utterly ba∣nish••d. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this toucheth not our Ceremonies, in Bezas judgement, Epist. 12. It touched our Ceremonies in the eyght Epistle of Beza; but not in his twelf: what difference was ther betwixt these two Epistles? Onely this: in the former, he writte to a Bishop, and so sheweth him the foulnesse of our Cere∣monies plainly; but in the later, he speaketh to poor
Ministers, persecuted for those Ceremonies, whose great affliction, with the Churches detriment, made him to conceal some part of his judgement.
Yet in that twelf Ep. he insinuateth the same judge∣ment of our Ceremonies:* 2.102 They which began to hate su∣perstitions so far as to curse their footsteps; how greatly are they offended?
Ther is yet fresh superstition of the signe of the Crosse, mo•••• detestable. They therefore have don wonderful well, who have once banisht that rite out of the Church, whereof for ou•• parts we see no good.* 2.103 Because by kneeling at receiving, it sprung that most abominable Bread-worship, and still clea∣ving to the minds of many, is worthily abolished.
The Rejoynder noteth 2. that in Bezas judgement, many thinges may and must be tolerated, which are not right∣ly imposed. Which is true: but 1. let it be then openly confessed by the Rejoynder, that our Ceremonies are not rightly imposed, before he abuse this rule. 2. Let him tell us, if approving by subscription, and use, be a meer toleration? 3. The same Beza telleth us: Toleran•• quaedaem putaemus quae omninò ferri non debent. con. Westph. We think somthings may be tolerated, which altoge∣ther may not be born.
In the 3. place, it is added by the Rejoynder that Beza sayth of some, that reteyne the Crosse, they may use their owne libertie. But in the next words he addeth: If they have any just Causes of reteining this signe in their Churches. So that he limiteth that libertie unto such causes as he was not privie to;* 2.104 nay to such as they at Geneva, found to be clean contrarie: As for us, we have many necessarie
reasons why wee doe no way tolerat that signe. & their cau∣ses, alleged in the 8. Epistle, were not peculiar to any time or place, but perteyne as well to England, as to Ge∣neva. So that this was but to stop a Papists mouth, with using of gentle words, and suppositions concer∣ning our unwarrantable course. Of the surplice he spea∣keth sometime more indifferently: but in the same pla∣ces, he will have it not subscribed to, not defended, or rejoyned for, but by all meanes hastened out of the Church, as a ridiculous stage-play garment, or a Fooles∣coat.
8. Many other Divines were named, as Zanchius, Pe∣zelius, Mollerus, Zegedinus, Daneus, Machabeus, Zeppe∣rus, Wigandus, and Sadeel; but their words not cited, ex∣cept onely Sadeels, for avoyding of unnecessarie te∣diousnesse, they all speaking to the same purpose with the former. The Rejoynder hath one general answer for diverse of these; that they allowed some human Feasts, which have been abused to Superstition. Now though this be no direct answer, and the Authors may in part forget their owne general rule, in some particular; yet this may be further sayd; that they accounted not these Feast-days such kinde of Ceremonies, as we speak of. This appeareth in Zepper, whoe put them under the head of Order, cap. 13. wheras he handleth the Crosse under the head of Sacramental Ceremonies, cap. 10. In particular, 1. Daneus and Zegedinus (sayth the Rejoynder) speak not to our purpose. Daneus I have not at hand: but Zege∣dine in his tables of Baptisme, calleth them Popish addi∣tions, by which Baptisme is prophaned. 2. Zanchies judge∣ment
hath been shewed. Namely that it was contrarie to all such Ceremonies.
And this doeth abundantly appear out of his Epist. to Q. Elizabeth, printed before, in English. 3. Zepper alloweth the ancient use of the Surplice. If he did, therin he should not have crossed his rule given, cap. 10. reg. 4. out of the Scriptures, at least in his opinion, except he judged the Surplice before that ancient use to have been notoriously abused unto Idolatrie. But the trueth is, Zepper doeth but comparatively excuse a supposed an∣cient use of that garment, which in ancient times was not knowen, but as a civil habit, usual in hote countries. 4. Wigandus (sayth the Rejoynder) was Illyricus his asso∣ciat in the furious opposition of the Surplice. Wheras the trueth is, Illyricus himself did not furiously oppose, but use the Surplice, as Calvin testifieth, Epist. 117.
5. Sadeels words are: We reject whatsoever remayneth in the Church of Rome, which came eyther from Iews, or Pagans. The Rejoynder answereth, that Sadeel sheweth what Ce∣remonies the Refor. Churches of France did reject; but not what were necessarily to be rejected of all Churches: He useth also the limitation of Iewish and Paganish Ceremonies. But he clean mistaketh Sadeels meaning: Iewish and Paganish, are no wordes of limitation, but of explication by way of reason. Our use of his testimonie is 1. thus: Whatsoe∣ver Ceremonies they of France have rejected, are in Sa∣deels judgement Iewish or Heathenish, which can have no lawful use in Gods worship. But the Churches of France have rejected our Ceremonies in controversie. Ergo. 2. Thus: If Iewish and Heathenish Ceremonies are
to be rejected; then Popish also, they being in their na∣ture, or kinde, Iewish, and having evermore been noto∣riously abused unto Popish Idolatrie.
9. M. Rogers, Martyr, in King Edwards days, would not consent to conformitie in Cap, and Tippet, unlesse the Papists might be constreyned to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice and Hoast. True (answereth the Re∣joynder 1.) but other good Martyrs did. Therfor (say I) not they, but M. Rogers was alleged. Yet beside zealous Hooper, with whome after Ridly and others agreed, Hea∣venly M. Bradford might have been added, whoe in his letters to Erkinald Rawlins, calleth forked caps, and tip∣pers, Antichristian pelse and baggage. He 2. answereth, that the quaestion was for inconveniencie, not unlawful∣nesse. But he knoweth well, that M. Hooper, and so (in all likelyhood) M. Rogers stood upon such inconvenien∣cie, as in their learning was unlawfulnesse.
His 3. and 4. answer is of different intentions, in the same materials. But this was in King Edwards days, by all professed: and yet M. Rogers and such could not see it sufficient. 5. M. Rogers would (sayth the Rejoynder) allow the same thinges with some marke of difference. Not allow, but tolerate; not upon every marke of difference, but such as he knew would never be consented unto; that is, not at all.
10. Publick injunctions were wonte to forbid all Mo∣numents of Superstition; and the Canons 1571. did forbid the gray Amice, and all other garments defiled with like superstition. Therfor (sayth the Rejoynder 1.) ••hey did not take our Ceremonies for suche Monuments. But
that is nothing to the Proposition: Neyther yet maketh it much to the Assumption of this Argument, what these or those did then take our Ceremonies to be. What they are in deed, we shall see in the Assumption. He 2. allegeth, that the Su••plice was none of the Missal garments, as the Amice. But first Bellarmine, whome the Rejoynder made (of late) the Canon of Missal gar∣ments, maketh no more mention of the Amice, then of the Surplice. Durandus, or G. Minatensis, Rational. lib. 3. cap. 1. sayth, In some things about the Altar they must use the Surplice.* 2.105 Steven Mephem. cap Linteam. No clarck may be suffred about the Service of the Altar, unlesse he have the Surplice on at Masse.* 2.106 3. The Rejoynder addeth, that it is a strong imagination, to thinke that the very Injunctions, and Canons of this Church, could prove her to judge her owne impositions unlawful. Which if he meant of formal par∣ticular judgement, it is his owne weak imagination; if of general and virtual judging, ther is neyther strongnesse, nor strangenesse in it: because this Church hath no pri∣vilege that way above other Churches, of which none were ever found nor can be, imposing any thing unlaw∣ful, which did not professe that trueth, who••e contents did prove that unlawful imposition to be unlawful. D. Morton hath plentifully shewed so much of the Popish Church, as the Rejoynder will not denie.
11. B. Iewell was cited, as approving Tertullians judge∣ment concerning the unlawfulnesse of Garlands, though not evill of themselves, because they had appearance of evill. Well (sayth the Rejoynder) then they were not evill in themselves, by abuse. That is, abuse did not make
them evill, before they were abused. which is true. But ••f B. Iewel allowed Tertullians judgement (as the Rej. granteth) by the abuse they became evill, and unlawfull. Appearance of that which is evill in it selfe, is evill in it selfe: but the abuse was evill in it selfe, and the after use was an appearance of that abuse, in Iewels judgement. Ergo. It was also alleged out of Iewels Ap. c. 2. div. 9. that the Papists had so misused sundry Ceremonies, that wee may not longer continue them without great conscience. The Rejoynder answereth, 1. That this was spoken of other Ceremonies, not of those in quaestion. 2. That Iewel was a Bishop, and used Episcopall garments. 3. That upon his death-bed, he professed, that he would not grieve any of his brethren, who were of contrary opinion, con∣cerning the Ceremonies. Now 1. If other Ceremonies (a∣mong which yet holy Garments were objected by Harding, in that place) may by abuse, become unlawfull, what priviledge hath the Crosse, as much abused as any? 2. As Iewel was a Bishop of England, so Cajetan was a Cardinall of Rome; and therefore as Cajetan condemned many Romish superstitions, in so much as when he died, he re∣fused to be buried in a Church, as the story of his life, prefixed to his Commentaries on Iob testifieth, so might B. Iewel condemne some superstitious Ceremonies in England. As for his wearing of Episcopall Garments, let D. Fulke answer in his Repeale of Heskins Parliament, pag. 412. Mr. Heskins girdeth at the proclaimer (B Iewel) as ••earing Aarons garments for a Bishopricke. But if the Popish Priests had no more pleasure to say Masse in their vestiments, then the Proclaimer to minister in Coapes, I thinke the common
sort of Papists would have lesse devotion to the Masses, the•• Gods people have to the Communion, when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attire. 3. Those words which the Rejoynder allegeth out of his Godly speech, a little be∣fore his departure, make much against the Rejoynder, because they shew 1. That many then opposed our Ce∣remonies as unlawfull, which the Rejoynder denyeth. For how else could they more dislike them then Bishop Iewel himselfe, who held them (by the Rejoynder his confession) very inconvenient? 2. That B. Iewel would not grieve or prejudice those that were so minded, which our Defendant and Rejoynder labour to doe with all the strength they have, and all the advantage they can catch holde on. Iewel durst not have called them Superstition brethren, factious and exorbitant men, &c. Moreover, two faults are committed by the Rejoynder, in reciting those words of Iewel: one, that he leaveth out the word pa∣dagogia, wherein he accused our Ceremonies as belong∣ing to the infancy of the Iewish Church: and the other, that he tooke no knowledge of the following words, wherein he accuseth the Pope as the fountaine of those evils,* 2.107 which gave cause and occasion of strife, and as it were thre•• bones to the dogs. Where he maketh our Ceremonies reliques of Popery, and cause of dissention. Adde unto this, that in his Epistle to Q. Elizabeth, before the De∣fence of his Apollogie, he prayeth to God, that she might live to abolish all groves and high places, in England and it will appeare how lawfull our Ceremonies were in the judgement of that good learned man, as well in his life time, as at the houre of his death.
12. B. Pilkinton sayd, that it is our fault generally, ••hat we differ no more from the Papists, in all our mini∣stery. True (answereth the Rejoynder) but he thought not ••hese things to be simply unlawfull. As if B. Pilkington had ••earned, and taught a distribution of faults in religion, some unlawfull, and some lawfull faults! It is a new distin∣ction coined since his time.
13. B. Westphaling (with Augustine) peremptorily ••ffirmeth, that Iewish Ceremonies cannot be used, no not with an intent differing from that of the Iewes, with out danger of damnation. We allow this (answereth the Rejoynder) because God hath repealed them; and to use them ••ere to call the comming of Christ into question. And is it so great a sinne, to use Iewish Ceremonies, without a ••ewish intent? How then durst the Defendant and Rej. pag. 285. affirme, that to use some Iewish rite (even Circum∣••ision it selfe) without a Iewish opinion, is not damnable? In one, or both of these places, they much forgat them∣selves. And they that disallow of a Iewish Ceremony, used without a Iewish opinion, how can they allow of a Popish Ceremony, in any use?
14. D. Bilson, alloweth in reformed Churches, that they can by no meanes digest one dram of Popish Ceremonies. It was well spoken (answereth the Rejoynder) in defence of those Churches which had cast off all the Ceremonies of the Papists, for the consequence sake; but prooveth not, that all Churches are bound to doe so; or that this Bishop thought so, who used and urged these Ceremontes. Where he would perswade us 1. That our Church can (lawfully) doe that, which Reformed Churches cannot by any meanes doe.
2. That whereas Reformed Churches regard the evill consequence of such Ceremonies, ours need not. 3. That Doctor Bilson Warden of Winchester, either did write otherwise then he thought, or else changed his thoughts, when he was risen to be Bishop of Winchester. The judgement of these conjectures I leave to the under∣standing Reader. We urge onely his plaine words: V••∣leant quantum valere-pessint.
15. To Doctor Humphrey, the Rejoynder had no∣thing to oppose, but that afterwards he did weare the Sur∣plice. Now the trueth of this dependeth on the Rej. his heare-say, so farre as I know. Yet be it so: doeth not affliction, and poverty, make many a wise man, turne a little aside out of his way? The histories of all ages testi∣fie such infirmities to have beene found in many Godly and learned. And after-yeelding to the Surplice with∣out giving any publike reason for it, doeth not argue that he did not formerly holde that (and constantly the other) unlawfull, upon those groundes which he hath left in print, unrecalled. I doe not believe that there can be so much shewed under D. Humphres hand for ou•• Ceremonies, as his Epistle, represented in the forme Chapter, hath against them.
16. Concerning Doctor Fulke, one sentence of his was alledged, that he which disliketh our forme of ser∣vice, as not differing sufficiently from the Papists, shew∣eth his zeale in detestation of Idolatry. This (sayth the Rejoynder) was a charitable excuse of them. The urging then, defending and rejoyning, for our Ceremonies in that manner as now is used, is an uncharitable accusation
not agreeable to the minde of Doctor Fulke. A second sentence of the same D. Fulke, is: We abhorre whatsoever hath but a shew of Popery. Therefore (concludeth the Rejoynder) he did not judge our Ceremonies to have any shew of Popery: Nay rather, therefore he abhorred our Cere∣monies. For that of their Popish shew, he doubted not, ••it appeareth out of divers passages, in his writings: as in his Rejonder to Martiall, art. 4. Mr. Calfhill answereth well, that the Ceremony of the Crosse, once taken up of good intent, being growne into so horrible abuse, is justly refused of us. And art. 5. Although the elder and better age used and received the signe of the Crosse tolerably, yet considering the shamefull abuse of it, it ought now, of right and conscience, to be condemned. Martiall will none of that: for (sayth he) things good in their owne nature, must not be taken away, or condemned, for the abuse. Very true; but who will grant him, that the signe of the Crosse is good of it selfe? It is as much as may be borne, to grant it a thing indifferent. But (sayth the Rejoynder) our Ceremonies Doctor Fulke hath (of my know∣ledge) used and defended as lawfull. Of this knowledge, for his using and defending all our Ceremonies, his writings doe constraine me (at the least) to doubt. He was once so farre of from using all, that rather then he would use the Surplice, he went out of St. Iohns Colledge, in Cambridge, with his pupils, and hired chambers for him∣selfe, and them, in the towne: Mr. Travers is my author for this. If afterward he was bowed something by the times, unto a little use of one Ceremony, that he might in some manner, and measure, excuse: but if he had pur∣posed to defend that, and the other Ceremonies, some
foot-steps of that defence would be found in his wri∣tings, as there are divers of his opposing them. The knowne trueth is, that many good men through the in∣iquity of the times, have beene brought to be distressed, betwixt desire of liberty in the Ministery, and hatred of superstition; so that they have sayd with the Apostle, I know not which to choose; and so afterward, have given some place unto the later. To judge their persons, it is farre from us. We onely make use of their free and un∣distressed judgement.
17. Of D. Andrues, and Mr. Merbury, I have not to say: because their Catechismes I never saw. D. Sutliffe, though he were a Deane (as the Rejoynder noteth) yet he writ in his latter time, as a Divine, not as a Cathedrall man: and so he was cited. His proposition is this: All Ceremonies taken from Iewes and Pagans are unlawfull. We onely adde, that Ceremonies taken from Papists, are sub∣ject to the like censure; because Popish superstition, or Idolatry, is no more lawfull then the other. Of Mr. Greenham, (beside that which hath beene often confuted) the Rejoynder sayth onely, that he did not perswade men against the use of our Ceremonies; and that he was loath to be put unto the solution of that objection: weare the Surplice or preach not. In which there is nothing pertinent. For to give proportionable answers, I my selfe was present, when an honest Conformist perswaded another not to conforme: For (sayd he) though I have not strength enough to stand out, yet I would not have you that have strength, for to yeeld. If all should yeeld, the trueth concerning these mat∣ters would be buried, and more superstition is to be expected.
This was more then not to perswade unto Conformity. And as for the second, I thinke the Defendant and Rej. would be loath to be put to the solution of this objecti∣on: Confesse the Ceremonies to be unlawfull, or loose your li∣vings, and liberties, with disgrace. Thus (sayth the Rej.) I have broken thorow the army of Protestants. That is, just so, as a naked body breaketh thorow a thicket of thornes, getting more gashes, then he made steps for his passage.
1. THat this was the Assumption, or second part of this Argument, no man can doubt, that readeth the Proposition, or former part, set downe in the first section of this Chapter, and under∣standeth the processe of reason. The Defendant there∣fore was blamed, for setting downe the Assumption thus: Our Ceremonies have beene Idolatrously abused by Papists. The Rejoynder not willing to forsake him in any failing, allegeth 1. That the Defendant tooke the sub∣stance
of the Assumption from the Abridgement, and others. Which might indeed have occasioned him to adde some thing unto the Abridgers assumption; but in no wise to detract any thing from it: at least, not out of them and others, to patch up a false sylogisme (the whole medium, or third argument, which was used in the proposition, not being repeted in the Assumption) which every pun••e in Logick can put off with a wet finger. He addeth 2. That the clause (of no necessary use) is no part of the Ar∣gument, but an exception, answered before. sect. 1. And yet see how he contradicteth hims••lfe! The Defendant answered it: but it was no part of their Argument. He answered it was a part of the Assumption: If in their ex∣ception of things necessary, they meane a convenient necessity, he denies their Assumption. pag. 406. Yet now he denieth that to be any part of the Assumption. The trueth is, both the Defendant and Rejoynder, were loath to med∣dle, (more then of necessity they must) with the conve∣nient necessity of our Ceremonies, least they should evi∣dently either wrong their consciences, or betray their cause. In the 3. place, he denieth him to have omitted these words (human inventions, or devises) saying, that the Replier hath untruely added them: because neither they, nor any like them, are in the Abridgement, pag. 26. or 27. But let him, or any other, looke once againe upon the Abridgement, in those pages, and he shall see upon the margent, these words: All the Ceremonies in question, are human inventions, &c. After this, he accuseth the Repl. for not observing every word of the Abridgement, in re∣peating the Assumption: but he could shew no sens••
changed: let that therefore passe.
2. The Defender his answer to the foresayd Assump∣tion, was by the Replier thus collected: These Ceremo∣nies are eyther generally, or individually, and numerally the same, that have been abused to Idolatrie. If generally, then it hindereth not, but they may still be lawfully used, though they have been so abused: If individually, then it is not true, which is affirmed (in the Assumption) neyther doeth it follow from thence, that they must be abolished, because they have been so abused, except they be the same formally, that is, in intention and opinion of those that impose & practise them. For this he is accused by the Rejoynder of doeing no ju∣stice, but playing a theefes part, whoe changeth coates with an honest passenger. Now for this, to spare the labor of writing out againe many lines, I desire the Reader to looke upon the Defender his wordes as they are reprin∣ted by the Rejoynder himself, pag. 561. & compare them with the Replier his summe. If he can discerne any diffe∣rence, let the Defender be the honest man, and the Re∣plier, what it pleaseth the Rejoynder to make him. No material difference is noted by the Rejoynder but onely that the Defender hath not those words (if generally, then it hindereth not, but they may still be lawful••y used, though they have been so abused) nor any thing which will bear such a collection. To which I oppose those words of the Def. If you take it in the generalitie, then cannot you justifie any one of your Ceremonies, belonging to Order and Decencie. For they have been some way abused. Was it not his meaning, to say, that as other Ceremonies of Order, so these in quaestion, if they be onely generally the same with those
that have been abused, may be justified, that is, lawfully used? Let the Defender hold his owne coate: then he cannot so easily escape, without being discerned, as the Rejoynder by changing, would have him. Certainly the Replier did not the evishly take his coat from him nor had he any cause to wish eyther it to himself, or his to the Defender for any advantage that he might get by that change.
3. Against the foresayd answer, it was opposed, that by this meanes, any kinde of Popish, Iewish, or Heathenish Ceremonie, may come in, so ther be new particulars, and a new intention used. To which it is rejoyned, that though they be not excluded, upon that sole poynt, of ha∣ving been abused, yet they may, upon other just exceptions, be shut out. But the Rejoynder should have shewed those just exceptions, which remaine, after the particular matter, and the evill intention be removed. For accor∣ding to the Defender and Rejoynder their groundes, I cannot guesse, what they should be. The Rejoynder mentioneth dumbe, darke, numerous, burthensome, incorri∣gible, foolish, ridiculous Ceremonies. But all these excep∣tions have been discussed before: where we have shewed that all these vertues are founde in our Ceremonies, as well as in Popish, beside numerousnesse, which in this place cannot be applied to the purpose: because the in∣ference was of any kinde, not of any number. Dumbnesse in deed is denied to be in ••ignificant Ceremonies: but what is ther amonge the Popish Ceremonies, which is not made by Durand of Mystical signification? It is not darke, what men say our Crosse doeth signifie: but how
••t can lawfully signifie any such thinge, is very darke, &c.
4. While the Replier was goeing on in confutation of the Defender his answer, namely, that in Ceremonies ••bused to Idolatrie, those are not forbidden, which are gene∣••ally the same, but onely the same individuals; the Rejoynd. ••inding that undefensible, out of curtesie, as he sayth, set∣••eth up another answer, which he calleth a Faire Marke; ••amely, that sometime, when the particulars or individuals, ••hich have been prostituted to Idolatrie, may not lawfully be ••sed; yet others of the like kinde, may be lawfully used with ••awful intentions. But this is litle curtesie, or faire deal∣••ng, when the Repliers arrow was shotte, and stucke in ••he Defender his White, cliving the very Peg of it; to set ••p another Marke, and then accuse the shooter, that his ••rrow doeth not sticke in this Marke, set up after the ••hotte was made. Beside, this concerneth not our As∣••umption, which should be the Rejoynder his Marke: be∣••ause there is nothing in it of human Ceremonies, not ne∣••essarie.
5. It was replied also, that by the Defender his rule by paritie of reason) it might be gathered, that of Ce∣••emonies instituted by Christ, those onely are com∣manded, which he did sanctifie in particular. No: (sayth ••he Rejoynder) because in institution of the Sacraments, ••her was ordeyned a continuance in the like kinde. Doe this. And was ther not also, in the prohibition of Ceremo∣nies human, Idolatrously abused, ordeyned a conti∣nuance in the like kinde, in those wordes, Deut. 12. thou ••halt not doe so to the Lord thy God?
6. From the same rule, the Replier sayd, it may be
concluded, that no Popish Ceremonies are Iewish, or Heathenish: because they are not the same individually, or in particular. Not so neither (sayth the Rejoynder) be∣cause they use Iewish Typicals; and others, as still in force by the Iewes lawes; and Pagan Rites, with the like intention. But 1. The Papists doe not use Iewish Typicals, as types of Christ yet to come; and therefore according to the Def. and Rej. their sentence, must be excused: because they holde Circumcision it selfe lawfull to Christians, pag. 285. 2. They doe not hold any Ceremoniall Iewish lawes to binde Christians. See Bellarmine, de justificatione, lib. 4. cap. 6. It is neither good, nor safe, to accuse any beyond their deserts. 3. Likenesse of intention, betwixt Pagans and Papists, is such as admitteth much dislikenesse. And such likenesse there is betwixt our Ceremonies, and Popish.
7. It was inquired, whether the Scripture, forbid∣ding conformity with Heathen Idolaters, in shaving of heads, and cutting of beards, did meane the same heads and beards onely? No: (answereth the Rejoynder) be∣cause the like in kinde was forbidden. And this is that which the Replier sought. For then by proportionable equity, Ceremonies like in kinde to Idolaters, are forbidden to Christians, at this day, and not the same particulars onely.
8. Because the Defendant objected, that all circum∣stances of Order and Decency have beene abused to Ido∣latry; the Rejoynder noted, that this is one advantage he maketh of leaving out of our Assumption, those limita∣tions: Ceremonies devised by man, of no necessary use: be∣cause
Circumstances of Order, and Decency, are neces∣sarie in their kinde, and not meere devises of men; Bel∣larmine himselfe being Iudge, de effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 29. Vpon this the Rejoynder having little reason to oppose thereto, after some repetition of confuted shifts, commeth on with a current of words, like a flood from the hils, after a great raine, which carrieth much mud with it. For after some rouling of Circumstances in their particulars, with adding of divers, neither meere circum∣stances, nor allowed by us, as he supposeth (which make nothing to the purpose) this muddy stuffe is found in the valley: The matter comes to this issue: you a••e the godly men; other reformed Churches are the Churches of Christ, All other men are Carnall, Time-servers, Formalists, that have no con∣science, no syncerity, no godly wisedome, no zeale; you are the onely men. I cannot devise, what occasion he had of this extraordinary passion, but that he was angry, to see he could not confront reason with reason. In his could blood, I dare say, he will recall these words of distem∣per, which cannot be fastened upon us, and therefore rebound upon him from whose violence they pro∣ceeded.
With more shew of reason, he addeth, that for necessi∣ty in the kinde, a Surplice in the kinde of a garment; the Crosse, in the kinde of admonition to professe the faith; and kneeling, in the kinde of a reverent gesture, are as necessary, as any cir∣cumstance of Order, and Decency. But this comparison hath beene largely confuted in the first part of this Wri∣ting, in the heade of Ceremonies, &c. Heere, it shall suf∣fice to note, that time, place, and such like circumstan∣ces,
are so manifestly necessary in their kinde, that the particulars may be deduced from them, by particular considerations, without any institution: but no man can deduce our Ceremonies from those kindes named. Mans will is the onely reason, of them; as Gods will is the onely reason of Ceremonies truely divine by institu∣tion. No man can conclude thus: we must every where have some garment, and therefore in England, a Sur∣plice. We must alwayes in Baptisme, have some admo∣nition to professe the faith; and therefore in England a Crosse. We must use reverent gestures in receiving the holy Communion; and therefore in England we must kneel in the act of receiving. But we may conclude thus: We must have a fit place to meete in; and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation: therefore we must have this. We must have a convenient time to meete in; and this houre is generally most convenient for our Congregation: therefore this. The Monkes may as well conclude: We must have some garments: there∣fore we must in one order have blacke; in another, white; in a third, blacke over white, or white over blacke; in a fourth, gray; a fifth, party coloured; in some, all wollen; in some, all linnen; &c. ad infinitum; as well (I say) every whit, as the Rejoynder can conclude from a garment to a Surplice; from admonition, to the signe of a Crosse; or from reverence in a table-gesture, to kneeling.
To Bellarmine, the Rejoynder answereth, that he spea∣keth of naturall Ceremonies. Which is true: but are not these conteined under the generality of the Defend••nt his words: there is no gesture, or circumstance of worship,
which hath not beene abused? And as for other circumstan∣ces, which are called civill, many of them admit onely of such variety, as nature doth lead unto, by occasion of this or that determination, common to religion with o∣ther affaires.
9. That our Ceremonies are not individually, or sin∣gularly the same which Papists have solemnely abused, the Replier said, it is no marvell: because it is impossible to carry the same particular signe of the Crosse, from the Fonte, to the Church doore; or to keep it being so long as it is in making. That is therefore no great myste∣ry. The Rejoynder answereth nothing to this, save one∣ly that he descanteth upon the terme mystery.
10. It was added (as an overplus, not for necessity of the Argument) that as it seemeth, Papists doe give divine honour unto the signe of the Crosse, as it is us••d among us: because they ascribe divine operation un••o it, as it was used by Iewes, Heathens, and Iulian the Apostata. Bell, de effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 31. and they doe not account us worse then them. The Rejoynder opposeth 1. That the Papists honour not the Lords Supper in our hands. The difference is, that unto that Sacrament, they require a right-ordained Priest; but not so to the Crosse. 2. He answereth, that they ascribe this divine operation unto it, onely when there is an intention of such an operation, in him that maketh the Crosse. Be it so: the Patrones of our crossing, defend that use which the Crosse had a∣mong the Fathers, who allowed that intention, as Bellar∣mine (in the place now cited) sheweth. And how shall the inward intention of them be discerned?
This at the least seemeth to follow, that as for uncer∣tainty of the Priests intention, divers Papists worship the Hoaste, onely upon condition, if it be changed into the body, by the Priests intention; so they must ascribe di∣vine honour unto our Crosses, upon the like condition of such an intention, as was in the Fathers.
11. About materiall formall samenesse, the Replier refused to dispute: that was (sayth the Rejoynder) be∣cause if he had, he must either have opposed all learning and common sense, or else have yeelded to the D••fendant, that change of essentiall forme maketh the same materiall to become another thing; as in the changing of water into wine. But 1. with consent of all common sense, we may say, that our Crosse differeth not so from the Popish Crosse as the wine did from water, Ioh. 2. 2. It were no opposi∣tion to all learning (whatsoever Aristole teacheth) if one should say, that not the forme onely, but also the mat∣ter was in a great part changed, when water was turned into wine. 3. Opinion, and intention, is not the essen∣tiall forme of a ceremoniall Crosse. For one and the same ceremoniall Crosse, is used by Papists, to divers in∣tentions, as to represent a Mystery, to cure diseases, to drive away divels, &c. Bellarmine in the fore-cited place. And opinion belongeth to the efficient or making cause, not to the forme. 4. The very making of a Crosse▪ in such a manner, or with such circumstances, as put upon it a relation to religion, maketh both matter and forme of that Ceremony: and so after idolatrously abused, car∣rieth with it at least a shew of an Idolatrous Ceremony. But this shew the Rej. referreth unto the fifth chapter:
and heere opposeth onely, that likenesse and samenesse are not one. Which is true of individuall or singular same∣nesse, not otherwise: for those things are like which have one and the same qualitie. But he himselfe will not say, that onely the same individuall or particular Cere∣monies, which Idolaters abuse, are forbidden to us. He hath hitherto in all this section declined the defence of that absurdity. This quidity therefore is not to the pur∣pose.
12. It was added by the Replier, that we have no intention, or opinion, in the use of the Crosse, but the Papists have the same (though they have others more) and therefore there is some formall samenesse in their Crosse and ours. To this the Rejoynd. in many words, answereth nothing, but that this replie stifles it selfe: be∣cause, if we have not all the same opinions, which they have, then they have not the same with us. But it doeth not fol∣low of positive opinions, concerning the Crosse it selfe. For we may want some of their opinions, and yet they have all that we have, the same. Doeth not he that knoweth most, of this or that, know the same thing with him that knoweth little, though he knoweth more?
13. Another odde reason was framed by the Repl. thus: If this doeth make a Ceremony not the same, that men have not altogether the same opinion of it; then among the Papists, there are as many kinde of Ceremo∣nies, Crosses, Surplices, as there are diversities of opini∣ons, about their nature and use; which no man will say. Yes (sayth the the Rejoynder) I will say it of Ceremo∣nies: and he that shall denie this, must lay aside both learning,
and conscience, not knowing what to say. But he is too too confident, upon the ground which he is driven to by force of a contrary winde. For without laying aside of learning, and conscience, we may thus argue: If this be so, then all human Ceremonies used among the Papists, and brought in (as hitherto all have used to speake) by Popes, are not Popish. For they may be this or that Hedge-Priests Ceremonies, who hath added his opini∣on and institution unto them. 2. The Pope) by the same reason) cannot know, when his Ceremonies ar•• observed, or omitted▪ because he cannot know all opi∣nions and intentions of men. And the like reason hol∣ding with us, our Church must inquire into the opini∣ons and intentions of men, before she can know, whe∣ther her Ceremonies be observed, yea, or no. I leave it then to a Convocation-consultation, if it be not neces∣sary, that in the Bishops Articles, the Church-Wardens should be asked, upon that oath, which they usually take, and breake, With what opinion, and intention, their Mini∣ster doeth weare the Surplice, and use the Crosse? For other∣wise, it cannot be knowne, whether he useth the Cere∣monies of the Church of England, or others of his owne making? 3. When men have no opinion or inten∣tion of such Ceremonies, but onely that they are neces∣sary to stand betwixt them and deprivation, or excom∣munication, or other vexation (which is the case of our best Conformers) then, though they use Crosse, Sur∣plice, &c. they doe not conforme to the Ceremonies of our Church, but in hypocrisie, and so with great sinne.
Three wordy exceptions (he useth to call such things quarrels) the Rejoynder heer maketh: one that the Re∣plier put in not altogether the same opinion, for not the same: an other, that he mentioned onely opinion, wheras the Defender joyned to it, intention: the third, that Crosses and Surplices, are wrought upon, as they are material. But the two later of these are now voided, by my repe••ition of the reason: and the former is the Re∣joynder his owne interpretation, pag. 575.576. namely, if our opinion be not altogether the same, then it is not simplie the same.
14. Instance was made (by the Replier) in the Al∣tar erected by Vriah, 2. King. 16. which was idolatrous, like that of Damascus, though for another intention.
The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this Altar was not formaly the same with that of Damascus. But the formali∣tie of that Altar, conteyning all the idolatrousnesse that was in it, or belonged unto it, and that Idolatrie being in part common to Vrias Altar, with that of Damaskus, it must needs be in that part the same, though not alto∣gether. Idolatrie against the second Commandement, hath some formal communitie with that which is against the first. He addeth 2. that if Achaz had intention of offering to false Gods, then his intention was the same with theirs at Damascus. But yet there would be found a diffe∣rence of intention in Achaz, in that he intended wor∣ship both to the true God, and to those false; wheras they at Damascus were onely for the false. And Vrias intention might be (as it seemeth to have been) onely to satisfie the Kings minde, that he might keep his fa∣vour,
upon which intentions, Courting Praelats use to goe very farre.
15. In the last place, it was observed by the Replier, that this answer of the Defender is the very same with that which Papists give unto our Divines, when they are accused for using of Heathenish and Iewish Ceremo∣nies.* 2.108 Although in the outward signe there be some likenesse, yet absolutely there is great difference: for outward actions take their kind from the end and intention of them. Bellarm. de ef∣fectu Sacr. l. 2. cap. 32.
The Rejoynder being angrie, useth divers sharp wordes, and after answereth, that this plea is unsufficie•••• for the Papists: because they retayne Iewish Ceremonies to the like Iewish ends; and Pagan Ceremonies to like superstitious ends: but our intentions are no way like the Papists. Bellar∣min sayth as much for their Ceremonies in the place noted: The rites of the Gentiles were done for the worship of Devils: but ours are for the worship of the true God: there∣fore there is as much difference betweene ours and theirs, as be∣tween Sacred, and Sacrilege; as b••twe••ne piety and impiety, as betweene God and Satan. Iewish rites signified Christ to come ours are partly in memorie of things past, and partly to signif•••• the glorie to come.* 2.109 And yet our Divines cease not to ac∣cuse them of Iewish and Pagan Ceremonies. In their judgement therfore, such differences cannot excuse ou•• Ceremonies from being Popish.
IN this Section, ther is nothing material, save onely, that the Rejoynder undertaketh to prove, that the Church of England hath utterly and cleane taken away the Ceremonie of the Crosse, which was amonge the Papists a∣bused: or, that wheresoever, and howsoever the signe of the Crosse was a Ceremonie abused in Poperie, it is taken away in the Church of England.
But because in common understanding, this is to prove day, night, and night, day, he requireth two po∣sitions to be granted him (which before have been con∣futed) 1. that nothing is a Ceremonie properly so called, but in respect of, and in the use of it, as a Ceremonie. 2. That the signe of the Crosse, though it be but one kinde of thinge, yet is made so many several Ceremonies, as ther be several uses therof. And these things being taken for granted, he gathereth a Catalogue of many Popish abuses, which (thorough Gods mercy) we are freed from. Yet in his very first instance, he betrayeth his cause. For he ma∣keth it a Popish Ceremonie, to signe the breast with the forhead (and so the forehead) in signification, that the mysterie of the Crosse is to be beleeved in the heart, and confessed with the mouth. This Ceremonie (sayth he) we have not. Yes surely we have the very same formal
opinion and intention, so farre as signification com∣meth to. For not to be ashamed of confessing faith in Christ crucified, &c. is nothing else but to believe with the heart, and confesse with the mouth, hand, and feet, the mysterie of the Crosse.
But it is not worth the while, for to consider the se∣verals of this Catalogue. This onely I would know; if we have not taken the Ceremonie of the Crosse from Papists, from whom we took it? The beginning of it was (so farre as appeareth by bookes) from the Valen∣tinian haeretickes. The first honorable mention of using it among Christians, is in Tertullian, when (by the Re∣joynder his sentence) he was infected with haeresie: & his use our Defender and Rejoynder (I dare say) will not allow: at bordes, and beds, putting on apparel, and shoes, &c. Tell us (I pray you) from what Author, or Age, this Ce∣remonie of the Crosse was taken, which now is urged upon us? I have more then a doubt, that such exception may be taken against that propagation, and such proofes for the taking away utterly of the Crosse, as you have brought for the abolishing of the Papists Crosse. If it be a new Ceremonie, invented in England, just at the time of Reformation, the Author of that invention should be made knowen: and if he can approve his Ce∣remonie, to be grounded rightly, his name may be added in Polidor Virgil, de Inventoribus rerum.
1. THe Replier his wordes are these: No example can the Defender finde in all the booke of God, for lawful reserving of Idolatrous Ce∣remonies, but onely two; one of Gideon, Iud. 6.26. and another of Ioshua, Iosh. 6.19. These wordes the Rejoynder accuseth of dishonestie, not to be used against a Pagan. And why so? 1. Because the Defender under∣took onely to prove, that some Ceremonies, which have been formerly abused, are not therfor necessarilie to be abo∣lished, if they may be reduced to their indifferent use. Now by abused he meant Idolatrously abused, or else he touched not this fourth Argument, whose assumtion himself repeated thus: Our Ceremonies have been Idolatrously abused. The Replier in stead of Idolatrously abused, put Idolatrous: because (as such) they are Idolatrous. And that, which is not necessarily to be abolished, may be retay∣ned: therfore the Replier (seeking brevitie of speach) used the word retayned. So doeth Beza adv. Harchium, de Coena, speake: Non desunt, qui Pastores vellent in illis, si non origine, at c••rte usu Baaliticis v••stibus apparere. So that in this, ther was no unchristian dealing.
The Rejoynder his second reason for so deepe a cen∣sure, is, that the Defendant grounded not his proposition upon these two examples, but from the ••quity of the prec••pt of God, unto these two men. The Defendant indeed sayd, that his proofe was by the generall equity of Gods Law; and then bringeth these two examples. Wherein he was spared, that nothing was opposed to his gathering of generally equity of the Law, from two examples, which (accor∣ding to his interpretation) are manifestly beside, and in some sort, against the Law. But if his proofe was from the equity of two speciall precepts, those specials are ex∣amples: and the Defendant his words are of one of Gi∣deons acts: Which example we have propounded, to proove, &c. And the Rejoynder himselfe, in this same page, calleth the other act of Gideon, an Instan••e, in the same sense: I beleeve the Iewes gathered their rule from this instance: and pag. 591. he calleth that which is alledged of Gideon, and the other of I••shua, two instances. In all this charge therefore of un••hristian dealing, there is not found any fault at all. But it is too commō with the Rej. when he cannot reasonably rejoyne, to breake out into angry words.
2. Of Gideons example, the Defendant himselfe (sayd the Replier) confesseth, that it was by speciall com∣mand from God: and that it is not every way imitable. The Rejoynder 1. affirmeth this to have beene the Def. his objection, rather then his confession. Be it so: His obje∣ction therefore answereth it selfe; and toucheth not our Argument, which did not conclude any thing unlawfull that is by God specially commanded, but onely sheweth
what is ordinary unlawfull by the generall rule of his Word. He 2. telleth us, that the Iewes hold it lawfull to make use of the wood of a tree, under which an Idol hath beene placed. And so doe we hold it lawfull to make use (for a fire in colde weather) of the wood of an Idoll; which is more, I beleeve (addeth the Rej.) they gathered the rule from this instance. If they did gather any speciall rule of ordinary use from hence, it was when the Vaile was over their eyes. For there is a generall rule, in the light of nature, to the contrary: Qu••d ex concessione speciali factum est, non debet trahi in consequentiam. The Def. therefore did not well to imitate them in his blinde gathering. 3. He citeth out of P. Martyr, that God herein shewes, that the usurpation of an Idol, doeth not disposesse him of his Lord∣ship over all things, but that they may be turned to his service. But P. Martyr doeth manifest his meaning to be, that such things may not so be turned to Gods service, with∣out Gods speciall appointment.
For (answering the generall Law which maketh to the contrary) he sayth:* 2.110 God made such Lawes as these for us, and not for himselfe. Wherefore he could use things dedi∣cate to Idols, unto his owne burnt offerings. So Pelicanus: It was in no wise lawf••ll, unlesse God had enjoyned it. 4. For that which was mentioned of a not imitable example, that spake the Defendant (sayth the Rejoynder) onely of Gide∣ons sacrificing under an Oake. Which is true: but the rea∣son of this imitablenesse, is the same in both of Gideons acts: justly therefore, both were taken as confessed not imitable.
3. Of Ioshua 6.19. it was added by the Replier, that
there is no mention made of things, (much lesse Cere∣monies) appropriated unto Idolatry; and that in probabili∣ty, the vessels there spoken of, were melted, and onely the metall brought into the Lords treasury. The Rej. opposeth 1. That some of this treasu••y (in all likelyhood) was appropriated to Idols. Be it so: for that some there was a double answer given, God speciall command; and that it was melted, or passed thorow the fire. But heere the Rej. an∣swereth 1. That it doeth not appeare, they were to be melted. As if the Defendant his Argument did proove well his p••o∣position (as he sayth it doeth) if confutation of it doeth not appeare in the text he allegeth! surely proofes should be fetched from that which at least appeareth, and not from that whose contrary doeth not appeare. But it doeth appeare, that this was the order appointed for such things, Numb. 31.22.23. and from thence Interpreters gather so much of these things, Ioshua, 6. So Tostatus, They did melt all mettals that could be melted,* 2.111 they were mel∣ted by fire, and turned into the masse. 2. If this be granted (sayth the Rejoynder) melting did not make them other things. Yes surely by the Defend. his Learning brought to illuminate our judgements (as he speaketh pag. 562. in this Rej.) be sound, namely, onely forme giveth the being to every thing, as naturall; to naturall; artificiall, unto artifici∣all; ceremoniall, unto Ceremoniall. For by this reason, mel∣ting of the vessels, made them cease to be the same things either artificiall, or ceremoniall. And hereby the Def. his instance falleth to the ground: as not prooving any Ceremonies abused unto Idolatry, to have beene by Io∣shua retained.
4. Out of the former premises, the Replier conclu∣ded that the Defendant had wreched penury of Scripture proof••s, for retaining of human unnec••ssary Ceremo∣nies, notoriously knowne to have beene, and be abused unto Idolatry. This was his meaning, according to the state of the question. Heere the Rejoynder first oppo∣seth, that two instances from the holy Scripture, rightly ta∣ken, are proofe enough. Which is very true: but that same rightly tak••n, was heere wanting, as hath beene sufficient∣ly declared.
In the second place, to supply the Defendant his pe∣nury, the Rejoynder bringeth abundance of instances, out of his olde store. 1. Kneeling, bowing, prostrating, lif∣ting up of the eyes, and of the hands, shouting, and dancing for joy. But these we absolutely deny to be human inven∣tions. The Rej. knew this: and therefore by preventi∣on, replieth: to say these are not human inventions, because they partly spring out of naturall light, is as much as to say, they are not, because th••y are human inventions: for what are human inventions, but such as spring out of naturall light? What? the Crosse, and Surplice; the Cornerd-Cap, and tippet; the B••shops Rochet, and Coap; with a thou∣sand such like; which whoesoever will aequal, or (in re∣gard of naturalnesse and willfull invention) liken unto l••fting up of eyes and hands, &c. in prayer, must for that time, lay aside right natural invention, and judgement. I think it would trouble all the Graduates in England to finde out that natural light, from whence Bachelors of Art, Maisters of Art, Bachelors and Doctors of Divinitie receyved their several kindes of Hoodes; even as much as
to finde out light of nature, for all the several habits of Monkes. But (sayth the Rejoynder) all came from na∣turall light, better or worse, more or lesse agitated. Iust as mens long haire, and womens short, which nature it selfe teacheth to be uncomely (according to the Apostles light) came from the light of nature. It is naturall to a childe, for to sucke the dugge; and after to put the hand to the mouth; and after to creepe or goe: Is it like naturall to sound a certaine distinct sound upon a Trumpet? to dance a certaine Round, or Galliard, after every Fidle? It is natu∣rall for a childe to signifie his discerning of those that it is used to, by some such sound as Dad and Mam: but not to make Verses in a certaine number.
After these, the Rej. instanceth in sitting, or lying along, leaning on the left side; covering of the head and face, in wor∣ship; dividing of a beast in covenant-making; erecting of Al∣tars upon hils; erecting of religious monuments; Trophees of victory, in Temples; set dayes for solemne worship; wine and victuals for mourners; Marriage feasts, &c. But in all these, he was so set upon number, that he cleane forgot weight, and pertinency to the question in hand. For the questi∣on is of Scripture-proofes, for such Ceremonies, as man hath devised, without necessary use, in the worshop of God, notori∣ously knowne to have beene, and be abused unto Idolatry. For there is not one of these instances, which doeth agree to this question. 1. It cannot be prooved out of Scripture, that sitting, or lying, was a lawfull religious Ceremony, appropriated unto Gods worship. The Rej. his proofes are onely from superstitious Rabbines; who are no more witnesses of true lawfull Ceremonies, for the olde Te∣stament,
then Papists are for the new. 2. As for vayling and covering the head and face, in worship, I know not out of what place of Scripture it can be prooved a religi∣ous Ceremony, except (perhaps) from 1. Corinth. 11.4. Every man praying or prophecying, having his head cove∣red dishonoureth his head. He quoteth Ierome on Eze. 44. Where these words are found:* 2.112 We must not have our heads shaved as the Priests and worshippers of Isis and Serapis had. According to the seven••y Interpreters, we learne that our haire is to be suffered to grow out so long, that the skin be covered, and appeare not naked. Or verily that the Priests must alwayes cover their heads, according to that of Virgil, Purpureo velare comas, &c.
But this is a violent interpretation. Will this helpe the Rejoynder? He quoteth also P. Martyr, on 1. King. 19.13. where he sayth, that Moses and Elias, not being able to endure the glory of Extraordinary apparitions, cove∣red their faces; adding, that some thinke they did it of modesty; which he doeth not reject, will this helpe?
3. For dividing of beasts, in covenant-making, he brin∣geth Gen. 15. and Ier. 34. But in the first place, it is ma∣nifest, that God did immediately, and extraordinarily appoint it; and that in such a manner, as can never be shewed in any idolatrous use among Heathens, much lesse before Abrahams time. In the second, there seem∣eth onely to be an allusion of phraze: because in all the solemne Covenants which we read of in the History of the Iewes, made, or renewed, we never finde any men∣tion of this manner; though circumstances of farre lesse moment are recorded distinctly. But if it was a reall act,
it is most likely, that the question then in hand, being about the freedome of Abrahams Children, which be∣longed to that Covenant confirmed unto Abraham, Gen. 15. they were by the Prophet directed, to use the same kinde of sacrifice. Howsoever, it cannot be proo∣ved a meere human Ceremony: nor yet a meere Ce∣remony: because it was a sacrifice, as all grant. Beside, to ground so large a conclusion upon one darke phraze, is fitter for the Patrons of Purgatory (who allege there∣fore, triall by fire, and baptizing for the dead) then for the Rejoynder.
6. Erecting of Altars, was not in use after the Law, by the Rej. his owne confession. Before, it was no more a human Ceremony, then sacrifizing was.
7. Of Monuments and s••t dayes of solemnity, enough hath beene sayd in the third Argument. For Trophees, brought into Gods house, Colias sword is produced: which was no Ceremony of worship. For then David would not have taken it away, for civill use; as he did, 1. Sam. 21.
8. Mourning and Marriage feasts, have no shew of religious Ceremonies. Iunius in deed (in his notes on Deut. 26.14.) calleth some cost about the dead, religious but in his Analysis of the same place, he expoundeth himselfe, to meane religiosum, humanum, aut superstitio∣sum. And religious is often used for all offices of strict obligation.
Notwithstanding all this weaknesse, and wrinesse of these instances, the Rej. doth so triumph in them, that he doubteth not to pronounce them enough to confut••
foure Arguments of the Abridgement. But such confuta∣tions are like his, who sayd he would confute a great part of Bellarmine, with one word: Bellarmine thou liest.
1. THe Replier beginneth thus: I had thought ve∣rily, that the Def. would have brought some pregnant testimonies out of the Fathers, though he could finde none in the holy Scriptures. Then belike (sayth the Rej.) you knew that there might preg∣nant testimonies be brought out of them. And so it is:* 2.113 though their doctrine, in generall, were against such Ceremo∣nies, yet from their practise, so pregnant testimony may be brought for divers superstitious Ceremonies, that the Church rueth the pregnancy of them unto this day. Baronius, ad an. 44. in the end, bringeth many examples; and from them concludeth: It was lawfull to apply those things which the Gentiles had abused in superstitious worship, and purged from uncleannesse by holy worship unto pious uses, that Christ to the greater dishonour of Satan, might be honou∣red with those things wherewith Satan himselfe sought to be worshipped. By the same reason whereby the Temples of the Heathenish gods were laudably turned into the Churches of Christians, other rites also of the Gentils cleansed by our pray∣ers, are rightly turned to holy use. And ad an. 58. about the
midle, he hath, upon the same examples, these words: What wonder is it, if holy Bishops did consent, that those won∣ted customes of the Gentiles, from which it was imposs••ble to draw them utterly, even after they were professed Christi∣ans, should be changed into the worship of God? Venerable an∣tiquity changed superstition into religion, and brought to passe that what was spent upon Idols, should be carefully converted into the worship of God.* 2.114 From hence it came, as Polidore de Invent. in the preface, sayth, that A vast forrest of Iew∣ish Ceremonies, did by little and little, invade and possesse the Lords fielde.
A true reason, and censure also of these practises, is given by Doctor Iackson (Originall of unbeliefe, Section, 4. chapter, 23.) in these wordes: To out∣strip our adversaries in their owne pollicies, or to use meanes a∣bused by others, to a better end, is a resolution so plausible to worldly wisedome (which of all other fruits of the flesh, i•• for the most part, the hardliest, and last renounced) that almost no sect or profession in any age, but in the issue mightily over-rea∣ched or intangled themselves, by too much seeking to circum∣vent or goe beyond others.
A notable example we have of this pollicy, in Grego∣ries direction unto Augustine the Monke, then in Eng∣land, lib. 9. ep. 71. which was, that sacrificing of Oxen with feasting, in the Idol Temples, should be turned in∣to slaying of Oxen for fasting about those Temples, made Christian by holy-water.
2. In that which the Replier collected out of the Defender his allegations, it is confessed, ther is litle or nothing to the purpose. The Rejoynder therfor, ac∣cusing the Replier, for picking the Defender his purse, un∣dertaketh to restore it unto him againe, by making this new collection: 1. If the celebritie of the Feast of Easter was held by many to be lawfully kept on the same day which the Iews superstitiously (as then) observed. 2. If they, avoy∣ding Pagan Fasts, and Feasts, did freely institute other. 3. If superstitious habits were lawfully reteyned. 4. If Circumci∣sion, after it became a meer human Ceremonie, was lawfully used: Then the anci••nt Fathers and Churches were of opinion, that godly men may lawfully use some Human Ceremonies, abu∣sed by others. But this is a meer empty purse (not worth the picking) which the Rejoynder sticketh into the De∣fender his pocket; as his owne. For 1. It hath not in it our quaestion, of Ceremonies devised by man, not necessarie, notoriously knowen to have been abused unto Idolatrie, or su∣perstition. 2. In the first instance ther is onely many noted, from whence cannot be concluded, in a kinde of generalitie, the Fathers and Churches opinion. 3. Easter was by them that kept it, not held as a meer human in∣vention, but as Apostolical tradition, as all knowe. 4. Easter was not invented by men, but onely by men superstitiously continued. 5. The second Argument stifles it self. For if they so carefully avoyded Pagan Fasts, and Feasts, though they might have pleased many professed Christians, and drawn on other by retayning of them, it seemeth, they held them unlawfull, because of the Idolatrie wherwith they had been defiled. 6. We
absolutely denie, with all Divines, that Circumcision, after the Date of it, was fully expired, which was in the Apostles time, was ever lawfully used as a religious Ce∣remonie. 7. Concerning Ceremonious habits, the Defen∣der bringeth no proof at all. The Rejoynder 1. alle∣geth Tertullian, de Corona mil. as allowing the use of a white linnen garment, he meaneth for a Ceremonie: wheras Tertullian onely sheweth, that our Saviour did lawfully use a linnen towell, in washing his Disciples feet, Ioh. 13. notwithstanding linnen garments had been abused to Idolatrie.
In the 2. place, he referreth us to B. Iewel his Defence, for our belly-full of instances. And it is true, that godly learned man (par. 3. cap. 5. div. 1.) allegeth divers instan∣ces, and Authorities: neyther would he have omitted that of Tertullian, if he had esteemed it. But (because it is necessarie) I will set downe the examination of them, which I finde in certayn papers of Mr. Brightman (one Author of the Abrigement) neyther ungodly, nor unlearned; wherby it shall appear, that they doe not so fill our Bellies, but that we can well digest them.
The learning of it, will answer for the length, to every studious Reader.
IVSTINE MARTYR preached the word of God in a Philosophers habit, which was his ordinary garment, such as our students at Vniversitie and Innes of Court weare, no Surplice nor any such ministringe attire. But con∣cerning the Bishops brouch, which M. Iewel saith Iohn the Euangelist did weare, as if he had bene a Bishop of the Iewes, I take it, it was no material brouch, but a figurative speech one∣ly. For Polycrates describinge Iohn first by the singular love our Lord bore him, in whose bosome he leaned at his last sup∣per, then of the great holines wherein this noble disciple excel∣led, he contented not himselfe to declare the same properlye, but allegorically said of him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [which was the Pr••ist that carried the brouch,] not that he ever used any such thinge, but that he expressed by his holy conversation the force of that [Sanctitas Iehovae] written in that golden plate, which the high Preist carried in his bonnet. For shall wee thinke Iohn was a Preist, neyther of Aarons family, nor of the tribe of Levi? or were the holy
thinges of the Temple not so much as to be seene by the people of the Iewes at Ierusalem, nowe exposed to the veiwe of the Gentiles at Ephesus? Would the Iewes have borne this propha∣ninge of theire holiest mysterie, by a man of another tribe, amonge the heathen, and by a Christian? Besides, the Apostles by common consent had decreed the legal cerem. should not be used by the Christians. Act. 15. And Paul taught Circumci∣sing to be fallinge from the grace of Christ. Gal. 5.2, Would Iohn then bringe a Ceremonie of the Levitical Preisthoode into the Church? D. Fulke was not of that judgement that the wordes in Eusebius are to be taken literaly, but by that figura∣tive allusion allreadie remembred; Rhem. test. Apoc. 1. sect. 7. This figurative speach therefore should not have bene turned into a material brouch, much lesse into a longe Preists garment, as the Rhemists doe, who have battered out this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and shaped it into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apoc. 1.13. These wordes then make nothing for any garment at all.
Augustines indifferencie what apparell be worne, is onely of that in common life, not in Ecclesiastical and administringe function.* 2.115 Truly it nothing perteines to that citie, what habit or fashion any one followeth, so it be not against the word, and that faith whereby we come to God. Whence it never Compelled the very Philosophers when they became Christians to change their garments or manner of diet, but onely to lay aside their false opi∣nions. De civit. lib. 19. c. 19. As for proper administring ap∣parell he speaketh not one word of it, neither doe I finde there was any in his tyme.
I had not Hilary to consider his wordes, but the spoiles of
the Gentiles in persons, places, learning and such other things, may be many wayes divided to the ornament of the Church, without borrowing any Ceremony from them, to be used in the service of God. For this is not to spoyle them as the Israelites did the Aegyptians, who had the word of God for their war∣rant, but as Achan did Iericho, fu••l dearely to his cost, and of the whole hoste of Israel. Iosh. 7.
Hierom hath the words you cite, lib. 1. adv. Pelag. pag. 416. much urged by Bellarmine and the Papists for their apparrell, and no lesse vehemently pr••ssed by our men, for ours, but duely considered, without ca••se. The Candida vestis Hierome speakes of, was no peculiar garment of the Ministers, but the ordinary cl••thing of the common people,* 2.116 in former time gene∣rally used by all, and daily, but afterwardes onely by those of the better sort, and upon Festivall dayes. So Aulius Gellius writeth of Africanus: That when he was guilty, neither was his beard shaven, nor his white garment off, nor was he of the common attire of the guilty. The Ambas∣sadors of Rhodes comming to Rome, were first seene in white, but finding things contrary to their expectation, they were forced presently with a viler garment to compasse the houses of Princes. Liv. decad. ••. lib. 5. pag. 254. Yea, the ve∣ry mariners and passengers in a ship of Egypt, seeing Augustus to passe by, shewed themselves in white, and crowned. The same Augustus was angry when he saw a company in mourning, and thereupon made a law, That none should sit among the mourners. From thence grew a difference a∣mong the Citizens, not heard of in former ages, whereby some were called Candidate, some Pullati: Candidati, not such as sued for offices, as in times past, but the Citizers of better
ranke: Pullati, the lowest of the people, and the vulgar multi∣tude:* 2.117 both, from the colour of their garments which they used. Tertullian sayth of the manumitted servants (who upon their first infranchising appeared in their gownes, that is, the com∣mon vesture of the Citizens) If thy servant be free and ho∣noured with the brightnes of the white garment, & the grace of the gold ring, and the name of a Patron, & with the tribe and table. Yea the Papists themselves (as Baronius) allege to this purpose [Simeon Metaphrastes] in the acts of [Indes and Domna,] where it is said of the multitude, Some wicked ones were present in white and magnifi∣cent garments, celebrating the feast of their owne ruine, but Indes onely was in blacke. And of Honofrius [qui alba induit vestimenta] least he should be discovered to be a Christian put on white. For the devoater Christians began to take themselves to darker colours, as more modest and decent, especially after the Monkes once began to growe in credit. 2. It is plaine out of Hierome himselfe, that [Candida ve∣stis] was no garment belonging to the Minister a••one in di∣vine service, but an honest, decent▪ and cleanly vesture, op∣posed to a foule, sluttish, and ragged habit. For the Pelagians condemned glorious garments, as he there saith, Whence you adde, the shew of garments, and ornaments is con∣trary to God. In confutation whereof he demandeth, But wherein is that against God, if I have a cleaner garment? And then presently after the words you cite▪ Looke to it O Clarks, take heede O Monkes, Widowes, and Virgines: you are in danger, unlesse the people see you in foule apparrell. I say nothing of Secular, against whom warre is proclaimed, and enmity against God, if they use fine
apparrell. By which it is evident, he defended comely, honest a••tire, such as was common to Monkes, Widowes, Virgins, [& homines saeculi] not proper to any office of the Mini∣ster. So in Eccl. 9.8. expounding what [Candida vesti∣menta] be, he saith,* 2.118 Beware thou put not on at any time polluted garments, because sinners have mourned in ob∣scure garments, but put thou on the light, and not cur∣sing. If [Candida vestimenta] should be onely Ministers apparrell, then Solomons exhortation is onely to Ministers, and they are the men he willeth to be merry, and alwayes to have on their Surplices, not onely in their Ministereall duty. In his precepts to Nepotian he adviseth,* 2.119 Avoid sad garments as well as white, Ornaments, as well as Spots, one savou∣reth of delights, the other of too much glory. Would he have willed him to avoid white garments in common life, (for make it a Ministeriall garment, and then you have Hie∣roms counsell against it) had they not beene usuall? In divine service therefore, the Ministers used the white garment of the people, but in ordinary life, Hierome thought a meaner clothing fitting, and so some devoter, as Nepotian, and such like practised, though others differed nothing in their attire from the Laity. 3. There was no set Mini∣string garment in Hieromes time, and therefore [Candida vestis] was no such. For Coelestinus, who was not Bishop till after Hieroms death, writeth thus to the French Bishops con∣cerning apparrell in divine service, among whom this super∣stition began to spring,* 2.120 Wee are to be distinguished from the common sort by doctrine and not by garment, by conversation, and not habit; by the purity of minde, not by apparrell. For if we study innovation, we tread
that which our Fathers delivered us under foote, to make way for idle ••uperstitions. Wherefore, the weake mindes of the Faithfull must not be led to such things, they mst rather be instructed then played withall. We must not blinde their eyes, but helpe their mindes with wholesome precepts.
I know Marianus Victorius, in that Nepotian when he died, be queathed his garment to Hierome, which he had used in the ministery of Christ, Hierom, ad Heliod. de morte Nepotian. As also out of that forementioned place against the Pelagians, thinkes he hath found their Albe, Pl••net, Ca∣missa, Casula, and I know not what. But N••potians garment was no other then what ••ath beene shewed, onely as he was a man hum••le▪ and of modest, and meanest attire in ordinary life, so in matters of his Ministery, he was fine, neate, and mag∣n••ficent; [Solicitus si niteret Altare, si parietes absque in∣ligine, si pavimenta tersa, &c.] and t••erefore no doubt in that action arraying himselfe without any note of p••ide after the best mann••r of the people, he might well b••queathe that garment to Hierome, who had i•• beene never so meane would have esteemed it for the donours sak••. But observe, Nepotians ministring garment was non•• of the Churche goods, but provi∣ded at his owne cost. It is objected also that Stephanus ••ishop of Rome in Cyprians time, ordained peculiar ministring gar∣ments, as it is recorded by Polyd. de Invent. lib. 6. c. 12. and by Issidor. writing de Stephano. Vnto which you may adde Gra∣tian if you will, de consecrat. dist. 1. Vestimenta Ecclesiae.
But though Stephanus flourished before Antichrist was hatched, yet he is too yonge to be a lawfull Authour of any such garments.
Besides who seeth not, by that alleged out of Caelestine 160. yeares at least after Stephen, that decree of Stephen to be a meere forgerie? was it a Novel••ie to bringe in any such appa∣rel in Caelestínes time, and yet had prescription of such anti∣quitie? But the [Century writers] have discovered the for∣gerie by many arguments, that I mervaile any man of lear∣ninge should seeke any strength from such a rotten founda∣tion.
Hierome is also alledged in Ezech. 44.* 2.121 By which we learne to enter the holy of holyes, not with commune and defiled garments, but to hold the Sacraments in a cleane Conscience and garments unpolluted.
Where first he interpreteth the garments to be a cleane con∣science. And secondly that he requireth for the outward garments, is onely they be cleane without any note of differe••ce betweene the Ministers garment and the peoples.
So a litle after, Divine Religion hath one habit in the Ministerie, and another for ordinarie use.* 2.122
To admitt these wordes spoken not of the Preists in the Temple, but of Christian Ministers, this [alter habitus] was a better garment for the time of publike duetie, as Nepotian had, not any d••fferinge attire from that of the assembly. Thus much for Hi••rome.* 2.123
Chrysostome when he saith, [This is your dignity, stabi∣lity▪ crowne, not that you walk through the Church in a white coate. Hom. 83. in Mat. necessarily requireth the same interpretation. For this most white coate was no
other then the better sort of people did usually weare, as wel in other Countries, as at Rome, as hath bene shewed by the Embas∣sadours of Rhodes, and the shipmen of Aegypt. Onely the Bishops in humili••ie thought it too sumptuous for daily use, and reserved it for the tyme of their publike function.
And therefore Sisninius a Novatian Bishop; livinge in Constantinople at the same tyme with Chrysostome, and cloth∣inge himselfe not onely in his Ministery, but for his ordinarie rayment, in white, was demaunded by one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. where it is to be observed,* 2.124 It was an unwonted garment in ordinary use for a Bishop, no•• for other men: and unwonted in ordinarie use, not in divine use, in which the Bishop was allowed without any grudge, such dignitie of apparall as was then received by men of best place.
That of Chrysostome hom. 6. ad popul. Antioch. is [pa∣lea.] I have troubled you with many wordes, but the truth is so overswayed with prejudice, that to my poore power I would disburden it a litle if I can.
1. THe Def. his first reason (by the Rejoynder his interpretation) is, that by our assertion, the Church shall loose a part of her Christian liberty: because if she may not use human Ceremonies a••used unto Idolatry and superstition, she may use none at all. Now 1. The Replier granted the conclusion, being understood of human sig∣nificant Ceremonies. And thereto the Rej. opposeth no∣thing, but that there is the same reason of all other Cere∣monies; and that one Did••clave doeth not grant this of sitting at the Lords Supper, though he confesse it to be a human significant Ceremonie. But both these answers are voyd of trueth. For Circumstances of Order and De∣cencie▪ which are sometime called Ceremonies, and heer understood, are neyther meer human institutions, nor unnecessarie (which is part of the quaestion) but com∣manded of God, as often hath been shewed. Neyther doeth Didoclave any where confesse Sitting at the Lords Supper, to be a human Ceremonie. 2. It seemeth very strange to me, that appointing & using of human signi∣ficant unnecessarie Ceremonies, notoriously knowen to have been, and be abused unto Idolatrie, should be fetched from Christian Libertie.
I have considered what is spoken of Christian libertie, in
the Scripture, and what I could finde written of it by Divines: and therout observed much against these Ce∣remonies (as is alleged in the sixt general Argument, which the Rejoynder was not hastie to come unto, in eight or nine years) but nothing eyther for their impo∣sing, or their using.
The Rejoynder meaneth by the Church (in England) the Convocation house; and by Christian libertie, their li∣centiousnesse, in Abridging Gods people of that libertie which Christ hath left unto them. So that, as in some parts of Germanie, and Polonia, the Noble men stand mightilie for the Libertie of their Countrie; And yet when the course of thinges is well weighed, that liber∣tie is onely licence for them to oppresse the common people, or Boores; whome they keep under as slaves, or litle better; whose goods they take from them upon every slight praetence; whose lives (in some places) can scarce satisfie them for the life of a stagge, if they shoot one, spoiling their corne, even so, this Christian libertie is onely for our Convocation-house to oppresse the Congregations of Christ, as they doe.
2. The Defender his second reason, was such, as the Repl. could finde no conclusion in, but that somethings abused, may afterward be rightly used: which he granted. The Rejoynder addeth, that his reason did conclude this of some human Ceremonies, from the Law of shadowes. He sayd in deed, among other instances, that a Man or Wo∣man, legally unclean, might he legally cleansed or purged. And can he conclude from Men and Women, to human un∣necessarie Ceremonies? He may as well conclude, that be∣cause
in a fretting leprosie, the leprous mans head may not be cutt off, nor his body burned; therfor his infected garments were not to be burnt, nor the hayre of his head and beard cutte off.
The Replier also granted that Surplices might be turned into under garments for poor people; and woo∣den Crosses given them for firing.
The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is no use of Cere∣monies, as Ceremonies. As if he himself did allway speak formally!
The sentence immediatly goeing before, was of things abused: And so this addition was of those thinges which are made Ceremonies. Yet if that be true, which the Rejoynder affirmed pag. 570. that a Surplice, as a Cere∣monie, is in the kinde of a Garment, then it must needes follow, that this Ceremonie may be given to the poor for a garment.
And if he flie to Vse as necessarie to make a Ceremo∣nie, as he doeth in his Definition of a Ceremonie, it may be as well quaestioned, whether a Shirt be a garment out of use when it is off a mans bodie? For a garment is a Ce∣remonie, by the Rejoynder his Definition. And so it may be quaestioned, whether any Shirt, or other Gar∣ment was made, or washed, when no man had it on? His 2. answer, that M. Parker calleth them Devills, and jarring on the same stringe, would fright men from bur∣ning of Idols, as he did in Germanie, whoe when men were burning of wooden Idols, bored a hole in one, into which he stopped some gunpouder; so that the Idol being in the stove to burne, the gun-pouder brake the
stove together with the windows of the room, in pei∣ces; and that was imputed by some to the Idol, or Saint, and by others, to the Devil. But (sayth the Rejoynder) from hence it followeth, that th••re is a change of Law: because the Iewes might not convert the matter of Idols to their privat use. And so much we grant; urging onely the aequitie of those Laws. Then (addeth he) the Abrigement hath abused the World, in alleging those Laws, as binding Christians now, as much as they did the Iewes. But with this out-cry no man will be troubled, that noteth how they are to be understood onely according to their quaestion, of human unnecessarie Ceremonies, as they are such. For the Second Commandement doeth binde us as much as it did the Iewes; and so the aequitie of particular Lawes, as they illustrate the contents of that Commandement, binde us as much, though not in every other particular to so much, as they did the Iewes. The summe is; those lawes binde us as much from all religious use of human unnecessarie Ceremonies, used or abused in Idolatrie, as they did the Iewes.
3. In the 27. Sect. the Replier could finde no shew of reason, beside meer affirmations. The Rejoynder findeth this Argument: If two other ways of reforming Ce∣remonies, beside Abolition, may be used; then abolition is not the onely way. But two other ways, (namely changing or cor∣recting) may be used. Ergo.
To this shew of reason, the answer is easy: 1. If those two other ways be understood as partial and insufficient, then the Proposition is false: if as sufficient by them∣selves, without abolition, then I denie absolutely the As∣sumtion,
as being a meer affirmation of that which is in quaestion, according to the Repliers observation.
2. Eyther this is understood of all Ceremonies abused, or onely of some? If of all, our Reformation is to be blamed, which hath used abolition without any necessi∣tie. If of some onely, the Defender ought to have tould us, which they are, or by what marke we may know them? And omitting this, he sayth neyther Argu∣mentation, nor certain affirmation in this Section.
4. The last Reason is, because Poperie and Popish Rites are not to be esteemed of aequal abomination with Paganisme, and Paganish Rites. The Rejoynder brin∣geth it to this: that the Idolatrie of Papists, and Pagans, con∣sidered in themselves are not like. The Replier answered, that though this were true every way (as it is not) yet in this they may agree, that both alike are to be detested and abandoned. You speak monsters (answereth the Re∣joynder) because, if they be not alike detestable, they are not alike to be detested: and Abandoning hath no degrees. But 1. The substance of this assertion was wonte to be ac∣counted no Monster. For D. Fulke (Rejoynder to Bristow, pag. 288.) maketh open profession of it, not onely in his owne name, but of other Divines: This we say; that Popish Images, although they be not the same that were the Images of the Heathen, yet they are as abominable I∣dols, as theirs; and the worshiping of them, as much to be abhorred of all true Christians, as the worshiping of the Ima∣ges of the Gentiles.
2. When the Replier spake of like detestation, he did not mean to aequal the ballance unto a hayre, or hal••e
an Ace; but according to usual speach. Hearbs hote in the fourth degree, are sayd to be alike hote, though there may be found some difference. Willfull disobe∣dience is sayd to be as the sinne of Witchcraft; and stubber∣nesse as Idolatrie, 1. Sam. 15.
Yet there may some difference of degree be found be∣twixt these sinnes. Monsters therfore heere was too ex∣cessive a word.
3. Abandoning I take to be all one with putting or casting away: and one thing may be cast into the bot∣tome of a ponde, when another is cast into the bottome of the Sea. It hath therfore degrees.
To the Repliers assertion, that we are by the Scrip∣tures warned to flie as well, and as farre, from Popish, as from Paganish Idolatrie, the Rejoynder (with some liti∣gation about Rev. 18.) consenteth: but addeth that it is not necessarie to flie from every human (he should have added unnecessarie) Ceremonie, which eyther Papists or Pagans have Idolatrously abused. Now this is the maine quaestion of this wholle chapter: and therfor not heer to be discussed. Onely this: the Defender in this Section, founding himself upon a disparitie betwixt Po∣pish and Paganish Idolatrie, seemeth to grant, that if they were aequal, then we were to flie from the Cere∣monies abused in Popish Idolatrie: and this grant the Rejoynder doeth not well to recal.
The Replier not being willing to spend time about the comparison betwixt Popish, and Paganish Idolatry, re∣ferred the Defendant to the Abridgement, and Mr. Par∣ker. Hereupon the Rejoynder taketh upon him to an∣swer
what is found in them, about this comparison. In which discourse, because many things before answered are repeated, to ease my selfe, and the Reader, of tedious labour, I will onely note the maine grounds of his an∣swers, pertaining directly to that comparison, and then set downe some plaine testimonies of our divines a∣bout it; because he partly denieth, and partly shifteth off Mr. Parkers quotations. His principall ground of an∣swer is, that the Papists doe not sinne against the first Com∣mandement, in worshipping a false God; but against the second onely, in worshipping the true God, in a fa••se manner. This he produceth (pag. 618,) as Doctor Ames his judgement:* 2.125 this he repeateth, pag. 624. and 630. But this is not so. For the wiser of the Heathen, knew well, that there was bat one true God, Creator of all things, and the ruder of the Papists, worship Creatures, more devoutly as divine ob∣jects, then those Heathen were wonte to doe.
The case is plaine, and plentifully confirmed by our Divines, in every dispute against Popish Idolatry. Doctor Ames hath not one word to the contrary: but this he hath for it, Bellar. Encrv. ••om. 2.238. The Gentiles wor∣shipped the creatures in Idols, after the same manner almost that the Papists doe. For so they answer upon August. in Psa••m. 96. We doe not worship a stone nor dev••ls: whom ye call Angels doe we worship, the V••rtues of the great God, and his Ministe∣ries. And Maximus Madaurensis, in the same Aug. 43. ep. Certainely, who is mad, or voyd of sence, that ••e wi••l once doubt, whether there be more Gods then one. Now we invocate the vertues of this one God, under many names, diffused tho∣row the frame of the whole world.
Another ground of the Rejoynders is, that the Po∣pish Idolatry may be, in some respect as great a sinne, but not simply so great Idolatry. pag. 622. &c. To which I answer briefely, that there are such sinnes accompany∣ing Popish Idolatry, as make it as detestable, as if it were one simply. As for example; the worst of the Heathens Idolatry was, that they sacrificed men unto their Idols: and the Papists burning of so many godly Martyrs, for the maintenance and promoting of their Idolatry, may be equalled thereto, in horrour of sinne.
The third ground which the Rejoynder buildeth on, is, that Achabs Baal was worse then Aarons or Ieroboams calves, &c. pag. 629. About this, Calvin shall answer, Hom. 1. de Fug. Idol.* 2.126 Although I yeeld, that the Idolatry of the Gentiles of olde, and of the Papists now, doe differ, yet they cannot deny, that God did as severely forbid that wicked wor∣ship of Bethel, as all other superstitions which were set up in o∣ther places. But I say, that all they who truely feare and wor∣ship God, ought with so much the more detestation, and bitter hatred be against the Masse (by how much the more grossely it violates, and prophaneth the holy institution of Christ) then if it had not beene so Diademiterly contrary to it. Calvin see∣meth heere to utter greater Monsters, then those were which the Replier even now was accused for.
Vnto Calvin I will adde the sentences of some others, about the question: because Mr. Parkers marginall quo∣tations are not so easily found. Beza, Epist. 1. The Pa∣pists
have turned one Sacrament into that horrible Idolatry which is not heard of among the Gentiles,* 2.127 and of ••he ta••le of the Lo••d have made it the Table of Devils. When I leave Bread-worship, there is no such kinde of Magicall Idolatry un∣der the Sunne as that of the Cr••sse. Againe, there is no grea∣ter Idolatry in the world, then that which was, and is com∣mitt••d in the wo••ship of the Crosse. The Lords Supper is chan∣ged of the Papists into that ab••mination, the like whereto there never was, nor can ever be devised for execrablenesse.
Blessed Bradford, in his ep. to the Lady Vane, hath these words sealed with his bloud: There was never thing upon the ••arth, so great, and so much an adversary to Gods true service, to Christs Death, Passion, Priest-hood, Sacrifice, and Kingdome; to the Ministery of Gods Word and Sacraments; to the Church of God; to Repentance, Faith,* 2.128 and all true godli∣nesse of life, as the Masse. Doctor Whitakers, de Sacram. pag. 582. Popish adoration built on the fiction of transubstan∣tiation, is the foulest of all Idolatry. These testimonies con∣cerne the Masse, and the Crosse. It were easie to adde o∣thers, conc••rning divers particulars: as Sadeel, ad. Mon. Bur▪ Ar. 58. Pray for us most holy table-cloth or handkercheife of God What Idolatry is this? was there ev••r the like amōg the Gentiles? But for particulars, I refer the studious Reader, unto our Divines: and among them, in this pointe, I re∣kon Doctor Iackson, in his Originall of Vnbeliefe, Sect. 4.
Cap. 22. &c. where the title is, Of the Identity, or Equiva∣lency of Superstition, in Rome Heathen, and Rome Christian, and cap. 38. he bringeth pregnant Instances, as among other, of Vrbanus, the Patrone of pleasant Companions; Gutmanus, the Warden of pudding-makers; and of S. Christo∣pher, and S. George, men of the Painters or Heralds making; and yet adored as Gods. Nay alloweth of Sr. David Linsey, denying any difference to be betwixt Heathenish and Romish Idolatry. I will onely adde the words of Hospinian, de Orig. Templ. pag. 84.* 2.129 That some goe about to lessen the Idols of Papists in comparison of that which was among the Hea∣thens, is (that I say no more) most childishly done. Is not their Idolatry plainely recalled, the names onely changed?
Yet it shall not be a misse, to give some reason of that which our Divines say. And this (for the present) is at hand: The Heathen gods (take them at the worst) were workes of cunning Artificers, made of silver, golde, or some precious thing curiously wrought, sumptuously ad∣orned, representing a Majesty. But the Papists Masse∣god is made by every sacrificing Ideot, of a bready sub∣stance, by uttering of a word, without forme or beauty. The Heathen knew, their Idols were not Gods: and the greatest estimation they had of them, was, a certaine Di∣vinity might lodge in them. The Papists beleeve their bread (or Hoste of starch) is very God, not by acciden∣tall residence of some Divinity in it, but as Christ him∣selfe is God. The Heathen seat their Idols in Temples, and consecrated places, to be adored. The Papists ha∣ving lifted up their god, and adored him, devoure him. Will any man spoyle (much lesse eate, hearke said one,
how his bones crackt, when he swallowed him downe) his god? sayth the Prophet, Mal. 3.8. Vpon such consi∣derations Coster, a Iesuite, (Enchirid. cap. 8.) confesseth, that if the substance of bread remaine in the Sacrament, then the Idolatry of Papists is more intolerable, then the Egyptians was in worshipping of an Oxe, or a Crocodile.
This may suffize for the 28. Section: but that the Rej. will needs have us take notice of some sharpe phrazes, and sentences he passeth upon us. To passe by therefore his prescribing of Hellebore, for Mr. Parker (which in us he would call skurrility, if it were spoken of a Prelate, though in all intellectuals, and morals, much inferiour to M. Par∣ker) to omit (I say) this, and such like single reproa∣ches, he gathereth a bundle together, pag. 628.
The first is, that we have wrought the faithfull Servants of Christ, out of the love and estimation of many. By Faith∣full servants of Christ, he must needs meane Conformists, as they are Conformists; and that Generally: for if he except any kinde of them, they will cast upon him that imputation, which he layeth upon us: you say unto other men; stand a loofe off; we are more holy, or more faithfull then you, &c. Now 1. let any man consider, if it be any faith∣fulnesse to Christ, to observe and urge those religious Ceremonies, which he never commanded, but rather forbidden, as hath beene prooved? 2. Those which are in other things faithfull, we goe not about to worke out of the love and estimation of others, but them out of the love and estimation of unfaithfull conformity. May not a man speake against Non residency, if some honest man be come to it? But it becommeth not the Rej. to
speake of bringing Christs servants out of love and esti∣mation with many; while he writeth in defence of those courses, which have brought thousands of them out of house and home, into so extreame misery, as our Pre∣lates could possibly bring any, and more then they bring the servants of Antichrist into.
The second is, that we have brought the publike prayers into contempt. Because (forsooth) we would have pub∣like prayers free from those contemptible fashions which are taken out of the Masse booke.
Thirdly, wee have brought the preaching of the Gospel, by any conformed Ministers into disgrace. As if we did not re∣joyce in the preaching of the Gospel, even by Frier Paul, or Fulgentius &c. at Venice!
Fourthly, we have brought the Sacrament to be of lesse e∣steeme then the gesture. Which is the proper fault of our Prelates, and those who deny the Sacrament to all that cannot bring their consciences to kneeling, though Christ hath invited them to his Table.
Fiftly, we question, whether it be lawfull for one to marry with one that conformeth to the Lawes. Now of this questi∣on I never heard any newes, before the Rej. proclai∣med it. It may be, that some, observing how divers godly women, having given themselves in mariage to some Ministers, upon a great aestimation of that calling, without making just difference of the persons, have war∣ned others to use more discretion. But this I am sure of, that all Subscribers, doe testifie under their hands; that all whoe refuse to conforme, may lawfully have their Baines and Mariages forbidden: because it is provided
in the Service-booke, that none shall marry, except they communicate, wherto is annexed kneeling, and that none shall eyther communicate, or marry, except first they be Bishoped, or Confirmed.
Sixtly, we quaestion whether it be lawfull to hear a confor∣mable Minister, if another may be heard; or safe to relie upon their Ministery? which quaestions he seemeth to invent, and teach, rather then receive from vs; except, he mea∣neth by relying, taking all for good that they say, or doe.
Seventhly, we have appropriated the surnames of Chri∣stians, the title of Syncere, the very name of the Church, the Brethren, the Godly, unto our selves.
From all which slanders we are so free, that I doubt not to say (according to my conscience) that among those which live under the tyranny of the Pope, and doe not utterly seperate from him, through ignorance, there be many Christians, Syncere according to their knowledge, belonging to the true Catholike Church, and so to be accounted our Godly Brethren. But on the contrary part, Our Prelates, appropriating unto them∣selves the name of the Church of England, really pro∣claime us (by their extreame hostile courses) to be farre from the account of their Christian Brethren. If some time some of us, call those among the godly that con∣sent with us, the Brethren, the Godly, &c. the Rejoynder should not have excepted against it, at least in this roule of accusations, in the first front whereof, he styleth and surnameth Conformists, the Faithfull Servants of Christ.
IN the 29. Section, onely Calvin, Martyr, and Zep∣perus, are brought in as witnessing something against us. But their judgements have beene so declared before, that it would be a tedious repetition, to insist on them againe.
In the 30. or last Section, a contradiction being sought∣for in vaine, betwixt our conclusi••ns, and our confessions and practises, the Replier thought it sufficient to dispatch all briefely, in a few questions, to which the Rejoynder answers; but so, as he bringeth little or nothing that re∣quireth a new confutation.
The first question was about Temples, Bells, Table∣cloths (objected by the Defendant) whether they have such Idolatry put upon them by Papists, as the Crosse hath? The Rejoynder answereth 1. that if they have as much as the Surplice, that will serve the turne. It would indeed, in part; though nor in whole. But that cannot be proo∣ved. His second answer is, that such a Crosse as ours is, was never abused at all in Popery. Which is a Metaphi∣sicall conceit, sufficiently before confuted. His third is, that Temples and Bells, were as well abused. But the que∣stion was of such Idolatry. His fourth is, that the white linnen Altar cloth was as much abused as the Surplice.
But the quaestion was of the Crosse. And 2. The Pa∣pists Altar-cloath, differeth much from the Table-cloath which we allow of.
2. The second was, if the Defender his owne heart did not tell him, that ther is a civil use of the thinges fore-named; which cannot be imagined of the Crosse? The Rejoynder granteth a civil use of Bells; th••ugh not of Churches, or Communion table-cloathes: Adding, that ther may be a civil use of some Crosses, though not of Transient Grosses (such as ours) and also of Wafers. But he attended neyther to those wordes of the Replier: If his owne heart doe not tell him; nor to those: such thinges. For his bringing-in first of termes, which involve the use together with the thinges, and that use also immedia••, which is but mediat, in Churches, and Communion ta∣ble cloathes; with his contrarie changing of such Crosses as ours, into some Crosses, and Wafer-Gods into Waf••r-seales for letters, declare both. Concerning the difference, enough hath been sayd in the first part of this Fresh-suit, in the head of Ceremonies.
3. The third was, what Superstition was in the meer signification, given by Durandus unto Bells, and Bell-ropes, which is not to be found in our Crosse and Surplice? The Rejoynder heer answereth nothing; but onely noteth many more superstitious significations to have been then conceited, of diverse thinges, and also of Bells, then we have in our Ceremonies. But the quaestion was onely of the weight, not the number of su∣perstitious significations.
4. The 4. was, whether the Pagans use of Bay-leaves
(objected by the Defender) about 1000. yeares past, doeth cast such a reflexion upon our civil use of Bay∣leaves, as Popish Superstition doeth upon our Ceremo∣nies? The Rejoynder his answer consisteth onely in wordes; save that he aequalleth the Countries (of Papists) to those of ancient unknowen Heathens; the time (be∣fore or after Baptisme) unto a 1000. yeares distance; the place (crowne of the head and fore-head) unto farre-re∣moved and unknowen Landes. Heer againe he negle∣cted that item of the Repliers: If his owne heart doeth not tell him?
5. The fift was, what sense the Defender had, to finde fault with us, for not altering the situation of Churches? Nay (sayth the Rejoynder) what face have you, to say, that he did finde fault with you, for not doeing it? Surely the plaine countrie face, of taking the Defend. his wordes, as they stand in your Rejoynder, pag. 645. Nor doe you alter the Situation of your Churches, and Chaun∣cels toward the East.
6. The 6. was, if it be all one, to call a Ship, by the name of Castor and Pollux (Act. 28.11.) and to use a re∣ligious Ceremonie, in Gods worship, taken from those Idolls? No, sayth the Rejoynder. Which is enough to shew the vanitie of the Defender in comparing the names of Wensday, Thursday, Friday, unto Ceremonies taken from Poperie.
7. The 7. was, whether it be one thinge, to change Coapes into Cushions, and to use a Masse-vestiment, in Gods worship? The Rejoynder sayth nothing worth the repeating.
8. The last quaestion was, if it be not a kinde of slander, to say, that the Church of Geneva imposeth a round Wafer-cake, like the Papists, to be used in the Lords Supper. And if it be not a wide leap, to bring in the practise of Geneva, for an instance of the Non∣conformists practise, in England? The Rejoynder an∣swereth 1. Yes, it is a slander to impute unto Geneva a round Wafer-cake, like the Papists: but addeth, that the Defender did not so. If he doeth not, what mean those wordes of his: allbeit the Church of Geneva is not ignorant, what the round Wafer among the Papists did signifie? Or what consequence made the Defender from Genevas Wafer-cake, to Ceremonies abused unto Idolatrie, if the Geneva Wafer-cake be not like unto the Papists?
In the second place, the Rejoynder confesseth, that the bread used at Geneva, is a large square Cake, which is broken in sondry parcels, unto the Communicants: and yet he addeth, that it is a Wafer-Cake, as thin, as thin may be. Where it is something, that he confesseth their bread not to be like the Papists, neyther in extensive quantitie, nor yet in Forme and Figure. But yet I am perswaded, he wrongeth that Church, in making their Cakes as thin as the Papists Host. For the Papists Host is a starchie or scummie crust, distinct from cibarius panis, bread fitting for food, by our Divines censure of it: And it is not cre∣dible, that the Church of Geneva should reteyne such a grosse corruption. But (sayth the Rejoynder) you allow their Ceremonie of Wafer-bread. Nothing lesse. We never read, nor heard from them, that they made any Wafer fashion a Religious significant Ceremonie. This
Wafer was first baked in England. And if they did, they are olde enough, let them answer for themselves.
But (addeth he) even unleavened bread hath been abused. Neyther allow we of any Ceremonious leaving out of leaven: nor can it be proved of the Geneva Church. As for that which was added by the Replier, of custome heerin praevayling against Farells, Calvins, and Virets advise; it is confessed by the Rejoynder that these Divines had brought-in a custome of using common bread; but after some knaves working upon the reliques of the former custome, brought in unleavened bread: which is enough for to confirme that which the Replier spake (as the Re∣joynder sayth) at random.
To the second part of the quaestion: whether it be nor a wide leape, to bring in the Practise of Geneva, for an Instance of the Non-Conformists practise in Eng∣land? The Rejoynder answereth, that it is an abuse, un∣ruly lightnesse, eagernesse after squibs, and scornes, which wrought the Replier out of his geares: All this it pleaseth him to lay upon this one phrase (a wide leape) a litle after he had commended Hellebore unto M. Parker, with many such Drugges unto others. And what is the cause? For∣sooth, because this Geneva Wafer-cake was given as an in∣stance of our Confessions, and not of our Practise. But this is as wide, as if it had been confessed to belonge to our Practise. For no such Confession of ours can be shewed. It had been fitting to object nothing unto us as Confessed, but that which we have eyther in practise, or in writing allowed. Neyther in deed was it the Defender his meaning to make all the rest of his instances our Practi∣ses,
and this onely our Confession: but he stumbled upon this in the ende, as a thing that must have some place among his objections; because it had been objected by others: and the Rejoynder having begunne his booke with the accusation of Scurrilitie, finding him to be ta∣ken, had no other way, but with this shew of a di∣stinction, to vente some salt phrases, like unto that, Vt ultima primis consentirent. 1. e. That both endes might agree.
SOme Reader may inquire whence came this new writing about Ceremonies? And he may please to be informed, that after the Abrigement was printed, a great silence followed in England, about these matters (as if enough had been sayd on both sides) until D. Morton, then B. of Chester, not thinking it ho∣nest, to silence Ministers, for Ceremonies, before some answer was given unto their reasons they stood upon) undertooke with great confidence to give a full An∣swer to all which was objected.
This answer being printed, was divers years neglec∣ted, as conteyning litle or nothing that had not for∣merly been confuted.
But afterward (when silence was interpreted in such sence, as if it had been a yeelding cons••nt) it was by some thought fitting, that a breif Replie should be op∣posed.
This the Bishop thought not worthy of his owne Re∣joynder; but was contented to put it off unto D. Bur∣ges, as a friend to him, ingaged in the cause, and wanting neyther will, nor witte, nor wordes, nor credit.
And he went about it, with all his might. But fin∣ding more rubbes in the way, then he had thought of, after he had spent about nine years, in Rejoyning to that which was written in some fowre we••kes, by Special Command (procured he knoweth by whome) was compelled to thrust forth his imperfect wo••ke, full of such passionate stuffe, as (it may be) upon more de∣liberation, he himself would have recalled.
Vpon these out-cries, it was necessarie to speaka∣gaine for a good cause, lest diffamation should praevayl against it.
But what good (will some say) can be exspected from this writing, when the cause appeareth d••sperat•••• Surely litle or none for the publick: Because in our Bishops courses, Will, and Power, have jus••led out Reason.
But yet Gods word is not bound. And if we must needes be oppressed by them, is it not worth a litle inke and paper, to demonstrate, that it is in a good cause?
By this meanes, our consciences are justified; our
afflictions made more tolerable; our oppressours though more angered, yet must of necessitie be lesse insulting; and our names shall suffer lesse, though our bodies and outward estate endure more: and Poste∣ritie shall not say, that (for our owne ease) we be∣trayed the cause, by leaving it more praejudiced to them, then we receyved it from our Fore-fathers.
Quia lex Te∣staments vete∣ris dabatur uni tantum populo, & ad certum tempus, nimi∣rum usque ad Christi adven∣tum, votuit fa∣cile determina∣re omn••a in speciali, ut eti∣am secit. Nam in speciali praescribit om∣nia etc, At lex Euangelica da∣tur toti mundo I. E. diversissi∣marum natio∣num populis, & duratura est us∣que ad finom mundi. E▪ iderco non o∣terat tam faci∣le determinare emnia in speci∣ali, ut non essent adhue necessariae leges aeliae. Neque enim possunt diversis••imi populi convenire missdem legibus & ritibus. Itaque Deus mil ius esse judicavit si in Evangelio traderet com••unissimas leges, de sacramentis a••∣••uarticulis fidei & alta magis specialia, pro locorum & temporum diverfitate, relinqueret instituenda, per Apo∣stolos, corumque succ••ss••res.
Testor, eas demum Huma∣nar constitutio∣nes me probate, quae Dei autho∣ritate fundatae, & ex Scriptu∣ris desumptae, adeoque pior∣sur divinae sunt. Exemplur•• sit in gericulatio∣ne, d••m solem∣nes habentur proces.
Quis, uisi callumniator, sic novam serri ab ess leg••m dicat, quos con∣stat duntaxat, scandalis occur∣rere, quae sunt a Domino satis disertè prohi∣bita? Nihilo autem magis & de Aposto∣les dici potest (Act. 15) qui∣bus nihil aliud p••opositumerat off••nsio••u•• ma∣teriam tollendo quam divinam urgero legem do vitanda of∣fensione.
Alium ignem sacris adh••beri vetuit Deus, ut adventitios omnes ritus ex∣cluderet, ac do∣ceret se detesta∣••i quicquid a∣liundè profec∣tum erat. Dis∣camnus ergo si•• attendere ad Dei mandatum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ejus cultum ullis extraneis commentis vi∣tiemus.
In divinis rebu•• novas leges fer∣re, nihil ab••ud est quam decli∣nare.
Deut 4 &. 1••. Intelligitur prohibitio so∣lum de additio∣n•• legum con∣trariarum.
Multa husu••∣modi, propter nonnullarum, vel sanctarum, vel turbulenta∣rum persona••um scandala d••vi∣tanda, liberius im••••obare non audeo:
Augustinu•• n••s illis paucissim▪ Ceremonijs content••s esse vul••, quae in Canonicis Scrip¦turis continen∣tur. Si quid us∣quam scripserit quod cum hac sententia mi∣nus conveniat, in conciliandit ejus singulus dictis, non mag∣nam operam insumam.
Invaluit hac intingendi con∣su••tudo, non au∣t••ritate, sid timore effusio∣nis.
Hen••stè, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ut uno oquente, alij taccant, & mulieres in Ec∣clesia non lo∣quantur, &c Secundum or∣dinem, •• e. ut primo unus & posteà a••rus lo∣quatur & per∣partes, &c.
Quemadmo∣dum praescripsi, cuncta siant cum deco••o & ordine, n. quid ••urpstudinis, aut tum••ltus exoriatur Pa∣raph
In locis suis ti∣tulo, de tradi∣••nibus huma∣nis, e••tat verba hac Apostols (omnia hone∣sta somnia ho∣neste & secum dum ordinem fiant) ut com∣prehet traditi∣ones Episcopo¦rum quibus etc esse anthenticat & cum consciē∣tia obedientia servandas. Ve∣rum non est praescriptum hec Apostoli ad quasvis E∣piscoporum traditiones re∣ferendum, s••d ad ca qua ips•• Ecclesijs tra∣d••derat.
Ad decentiam pertinet no mu∣lieres in Eccle∣sia loquantur ad ordinem, ne plure, simul lo∣quantur.
Quo loco, quo tempo••••, quo mod••.
Christus solute•••• legislator cri∣ma••us, qui po∣test suâ pro∣priâ authorita∣te judicare & leges ferre.
Hoc in divini•• rebut est decli∣nate.
Pontisex non est legislator primarius ••ed Vicarius Chri∣sti, & Christi authoritate leges condit De Pontif. l. 4. cap. 17.
Mandata inu∣tilia prorsus, & vana, inuti∣les, & frivolae Ceremonia solo spiritu humano adiaventa.
Inanes & inu∣tiles. Estius in Tit. 1.14. Supervacanca, etuibil ad pie∣t item condu∣••evic••.
Quo Majestas tanti Sacrificij commendare∣tur.
Decentiae est cum cultut Dei, idone••t atque conveni∣entibut tempo∣ris loci, personae & gestus cire•••• stantijs absol∣vitur. De ha•• Decentia, A¦postolus loqui tur. 1. Cor. 14.4••.
D••••••rum ap∣ponitur vani∣ta••i, sordibut, ••uxni: non est in casuli••, cap∣pl••, aut cere∣moniarum lar∣••is, etc.
Quid mirum, si imolitat apud Gentiles (adde etiam & Iu∣daeos) consuetu∣dines, a quibus eos, quamvis Christiani ef∣fecti essent, pe∣nipus posse di∣velli, impossi∣bile videretur, easdem in Dei cultum trans∣ferri, sanctissi∣mi Episcopi cineessetunt: ad an. 58. p. 606.
Alijs testibut, vel testimonijs (preterquam Divinarum Scripturarum) c••edere, vel non credere, liceat, quantum ea moments ad fa∣ciendam sulem, vel habere, vel non habere per∣penderis.
Ecclesia Dei, intermultam pal••am, multa∣que, Zizanta, constituta, mul∣ta toleravit.
Etsi fortito∣restistendum est Magistr••it il∣lis traditionum et leges: Po••ti¦ficum acriter v••tuperand••, quib••s in Po∣pulum Dei,
••t assantur, tar∣bae tamen pavi dae parcendum est, quam cap∣tivam tenent eisdem leg••••us impij illi tyran∣ni, donec expli∣centur, In liges & legissatores ivehu••is, et tamen simoul serves 〈◊〉〈◊〉 infirmis, donec et insi tyranni∣d••m cognos••ant & liberta••••m suam intelle∣gaus.
De Canone, lib. 8. cap: 6. Inductio con∣trarij pracepti, non solet, imo nec potest qui∣dem Additio nominati In Additione ••nim utrum∣que manet: at cantrariae s••in∣vicem tollunt.
(Inhibetur ad∣ditio, etiam pratextucusto∣diendi mandat•• Dei.)
Superveneran•• doct••res qu••se non ••uta••ant sat••s acutos ha••itum ••ri, nisi aliquid as∣suerent vervo Dei Nulla tollerabilis est ad legem Dei accessio Se∣cundarie illae leges a curiosis homin••bus in∣ventae sunt, quasi simplex Dei mandatum non sufficeret. Novas ablutiones comminisci, otiosa vanitatis fuit. Si acqutevissent in leg•• Dei, magis illi probata suisset modestia, quam scrupulosa anxieta••.
Statuit, Cere∣monias a Chri∣sto institutas, caste, & inte∣gré observandas nihil eornm in∣stitutions, tan quam mutila∣ti••, & imper∣fectis, adden∣dum. Est hoc quidem aliquid quamvis non totum: quia alios omnes ri∣tus obliqu•• ar∣tificio, in Eccle¦siam admittit. Sed haec dimi∣dia veritas evertitur, quā∣dò Apostolis, corumque suc∣cessoribus jus concessum esse credit, Ceremo¦nias instituendi quae in Sacra∣mentis admi∣nistrandis, or∣natus loco ac∣cederent. Ergo, qui nihil addendum conf••ssus erat, nune adve••ritias traditiones, non medò admitrit se••eti•••• commendat. Verum arguto effug••o se expediet: modo ne Sacramenta putentur mutila, aut imperfecta, fereacas esse accessiones. Ita quibuscumque mixt uris, prope in novam figurom murata fuerint Sacramenta, nihil erit vit••j, m••do ne palam Christo exprobret ur, mancum esse, vel mutilum, quod instituit, &c.
Valet insta consequ•• utia inter He••raeo••, circa observ iri∣o••em ceremoni∣al••um Auquid n••n reperitur sc••iptum in lege. Ergo non obligantur Iudae•• observare illud Im••, quod plus ••st, non licebat Indaeis, observare aeliquam ceremoniam, circa cultum Dei, nisi illud scriptum ••sset in lege, ut patet Deut. 12.
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.
Prohibitur omn••s 〈…〉〈…〉 fictitius, omnis cultus qut non a Deo, sed ab hominibus est instirutus, cum ve o Deo cul∣tus, seu honor fingitur prasta∣ri, aliquo opere quod ipse non praecepit.
Nullo alio, etiam externi & Ceremonia∣lis cultus gene∣re, colere Deum licet, quam quo ipse in sacris ••••teris se colt a nobis juss••t. A∣postolus Col. 2. omaes damnat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. e. voluntarios, extra verbum Dei, excogita∣tos & electos ab hominibus cultus.
Annexa cultui sunt s••cra, qua apud Iudae••s permulta erant templa, altaria persona, vesti∣••••enta, vaesa, tempora, etc. et postea: Mini¦••••ri, Praesbyteri Diaconi, Dies Dominicus, etc. sunt sacra Ec∣••lesiae Christia∣na.
Humanū actū ••ndividuo con∣sideratū ex de∣liberata ratione procedentem, vel bonum esse, vel malum, ne∣cesse est.
Si qui sunt in∣ter Catholicos rudioras, &c. Eos corrigen∣dos putamus, &c.
Plurima nova introduxerant sacerdotes, quamvis Mo∣ses, magno cum terrore, commi∣natus suerat, no quid adde∣rent, ex quibus illasuere, de loti••nibus Du∣plex fuit cul∣pa. Nam & innovatio ipsa non parvum erat crimon, & quia illas obser¦vationes magis curabant, quam mandata D••••. Crimen illud prius non sta∣tim a••guit Chirstus, non ••rivolum id esse atque su∣perfluum, dicit, ne inflamma∣rentur.
Tolet, upon Lic. c. 11. an∣not. 84. Alto∣ra causa, pro∣pter quam has lotiones spre∣vit, fuit illo∣rum supersti∣tio. Pharisai induxerant has lotiones, non ob civilē quan∣dam & natu∣ralem decen∣riam, & mun. di••iem, sed quasi ad religionem pertinentes, ut qui contemnerent, contra Dei cultum agere ••enserentur, quivero servarent, Deum in eis colore viderentur. Hoc autem eis non licebat, quibus proh. bitū erat à Deo, Deut. 4. no quid adde∣rent, Obid, quasi superstitiosas lotiones hujusmodi Christus rejeci•• Quam causam indicat Matheus, cap. 15. Omnis plantatio quam non plantavit Patermeus, eradicabitur. Similiter Marcus cap. 7. in va••um me co∣lunt, d••••entes doctrinas & praecepta hominum, &c. Qua propria inventione constitu••nt, contra Dei manda∣tum.
Estius in Tit 1.1. Mand••ta homanum ad pi••tatem nihil conducentia intelliguntur Mat. 15 & Mar: 7. in lo∣••ionibus mul∣tis supervacuis.
Estius in Ti. 1.1. Man•• honunum pi••tatem conducentia intelliguntur Mat. 15 & Mar: 7. ••∣••ionibus ••¦tic superv.
Pradicans Lutheranus ut Sacerdotum si∣mius, vestibus certit indutur, Missam Germa nicam celebrat.
Cum Deus sit sapientissimus, non opus babet ut nostro cogi∣tatu, illi par••∣mus instrumen∣ta (ad fidem in nobis exci∣tandam) quod etiam quis∣quam Artifex in sua facultate minime serret, se dipsomat vel∣les su•• arbitra∣tu, sibi deligere.
Literae signifi∣cantes sacras sententias, non significant eas in quantum sacra sunt, sed in quantum su•• tres.
Non lice••, vel vet••res le∣gis vitus re∣staurare, vel nov••s commi∣nisci, ad adum∣brandam veri∣tatem Euan∣gelicam jam patefactum: quales sunt. Uti vexillis, & crucibus, ad si¦gnificandam victoriam Christs per crucem: quod genus est uni∣versa panopliae vestium missalium, quam aiunt adumbrare totum passionem Christi, & multa id genus alia. Da hoc ••enere, Ceremoniarum & sacror••m, Christus ex Isaia concionatur, f••ustra (inquiens) colunt me doc••ntes doctrinas, praecepta hominum.
Omnes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 damnars mini•• me obscurun•• est. Eos errare▪ Christus pro∣nunciat, qui loco doctrina obtrudu ut ho∣minum manda¦ta, fixum il∣lud maneat fi∣ctitios omnes cultus coram Deo vanos esse
Nil vel mi∣nimo digito attigimus nisi quod pro nihi∣lo Christus du∣cit, cum fru∣stra coli Deum humanis trae∣ditionibus pronunci••t.
Cum D••us per humanas tradi∣tiones frustra colatur, Mat, 15.9. perque il∣las in hominum cordibus efficax esse non velit, oneras illas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 esse, opini∣onem tantum sapientiae ha∣bentes, per quas nullam animorum devo tionem, fidem, invocationem, & poenitenti∣am veram, in cordibus exci∣tare velit. & reg. 4. Ceremonia ab hominibus administrationi Sacramentorum assutae, tetidem sunt varierum er∣rorum, idololatriae, & superstitionum seminaria & fomenta Tales Ceremoniae sunt abolendae Mat 15 6. Mar. 7.9. Hinc manifestum evadit, abroganda esse circa Baptismum, oleum, sal, aquaem lustralem, cereos, cha∣racterem Crucis, etc.
Vestri ritus ipso genere, Iu∣daici sunt, qua∣les Iudaici ex∣stiterunt.
Signa, cum ad res divinas per∣tinent, Sacra∣menta appol∣lentur••
Sacramentae dicuntur omni∣a, quae mysti∣cum sensum habent, & f••∣gue sunt & typt aliarum rerum.
Sacramenta∣lium nomin•• significari so∣lent, vel gene∣ralius omnes Ceremoniae & benedictiones sacrae, qua in Ecclesia fiunt.
Sacramentalia non operantur remissionem peccatorum ve∣nialium, nequè instituta sunt ad cam signifi∣candam, sed ad excitandum animum in de∣testationem il∣lorum.
Extra contro∣ver••iam est, in excogitandos vitibus, ple ros∣que veteres E∣piscopo•• ••lus aquo fuisse soli∣••itos etc. Hoc autem confili∣um fuit infelix
Cum Deus fi••. sapienti simus, non opus habet, ut nostro cogita tu, vel industria illi paremus in∣strumenta (ad fidem in nobis excitandam) Quod etiam quisquam Ar∣tifex, in sua facultate, mini∣me ferret, sed ipsemet vellet suo arbitratis sibi deligere. Magna est it a∣que audacia horum homi∣num, qui Deo velint organa praescribere, quibus, ad no∣stram salut em∣operetur. Signa mult••∣plicant, quae sa∣cra esse volunt, adhibendo ole∣um, sputum, exsufflationes, et alia h••jus∣modi. Quo circa unum Baptism•• Sacramentum, in multa de ge∣ne••at. Nec audiendi sunt, quando ut sim∣plicibu•• illu∣dant, distinctio∣nem inter Sa∣craementa & Sacramentalia confingunt, qua omnino Sop••i∣stica est.
Quid pro sunt in Baptismo, Exorcismus, consecratio a∣quae, cereus sal, sputum, oleum, v••stis candida, nolae, etc. Nunc ad Baptismi ornatum, addi∣tamenta illa pertinent? Num igitur sunt pru∣dentiores Iesu Christo, qui in∣stituit Baptis∣mum, tanta cum simplicita∣t••, & puritate, quique melius novit quam ••mnes simul homines, quae illi conveniant ornamenta? Qua est hac ar∣rogantia, adji∣••ere institutioni Iesu Christi Gal. 3.
Chrismae so•• unctio Bapt. adhibita, non magis novis probatur, quam Chrisma Con∣firmationis▪ quia unius est Dei constituer•• Sacramenta. Veteres Ecclesia Pastores plus aequo sese vo∣luerunt, tun•• Iudaeis, cum Et buicis accō∣modare. Vndê multa Caremo∣nia in Ecclesi∣am irrepferunt. At experientia declaravit, Deum non be nedixisse hi••c consolio. etc. adverb. Mon. Burd••g, ••rt. 1••▪ 13.
Superstitio est in eligendo cul∣tu Dei, vel mo∣dum excedit in colendo. Vera religio colit Deum verum, modo verbo Dei prascripto: falsa (i.e. super¦stitio) v••rum Deum aliter colit, quam ipse vult & man∣dat. lib. 8. c. 1. Quicquid ad cultum Dei pertinet, a Deo mandatum esse aportet. lib, 9. c. 38. Inopta est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cloeicorum Papistorum, qui vestitu theatri•••• in sacris utu••tur, et vestitu laicis distingui volunt, Illa defiin∣tio & varieras, erat in V. T. ••ypica: veritate autem ixhibita, quid amptiu•• typos reguirunt?
Si Isayat sua sponte Loc f••∣cisset merito irris••s stusset. Nihili sunt ea symbola, quae Deum Antho∣rem non habēt. Quod diligen∣ter notandura est adversus Papistas, qui manes Ceremo∣nias pro veris Sacramentis obtrudunt. Ip∣sit haec regula a•• ponenda est: Si presiciscun∣tur a Deo ea ••mplects debe∣mus: sin minus intrepidè repu diare licet, imo sine Dei contu∣melia non r••ci∣piuntur: quia∣tum ejus aut bo∣vitatem sibs usurpant mor∣tales.
Doctrina est utilis▪ nullum sacrum signum deberae inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo pro∣fecta esse con∣stat, nec esse in hominum arbi∣••rio quicquam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 udere.
Decori finis est partim ut dum adhibentur ri∣tus, qui venera∣tionem rebus sacris concilient talibi••s admini∣culis ad pieta∣t•••• excitemur. Illud nobit de∣corum erit, quodita erit ad sacrorum my∣steriorum reve∣rentiam aptum ut sit idon••um ad pietatis ex∣ercitium, &c.
Sacramenta Domini, multi∣t••din•• quadam supo••stitio sa∣rum & pueri∣lium Ceremo∣niarum comma∣cu laru••t Pon∣tificij, eisque sanctiones ejus∣modi addido∣t••••••, etc.
Graevis••ime a veterihus toti∣es peccatum esse dico, quo∣ties ullas Sa∣cramentales. i.e. verum spi∣ritualium sig∣nificativas Ce∣remonias in Dei Ecclesiam introduxerunt. Ritus omnes symbolycos se∣mol ex Ecclesia Christiana, in quam nullo un∣quam jure in∣ve•••• potuerunt, profligari op••r∣••ere, nec eti manentibus, suam Ecclesia nativā pulchri∣tudiné restitui posse existimo.
Nostra propo∣sitic solum as∣sarit, contra Haeriticos, ••i∣cere Ecclesiae ••ns••ituer•• novas Ceremonias, non ad just••fican∣dum a pec••at is mortalibus, sed ad alios fines. cap. 31.
Primo benedi∣cuntur ad signi∣ficando ispirit•••• ales 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ut. Nam cinaris aspersio signi∣ficat poenit••••∣tiam, &c.
Neque ob••at r••tio Brentij de adumbra∣tione. Nam istae significa∣••i••tes on sunt proprie ••d••m∣bration••s, sed repr••sentatio∣nes externae I••rum praes••n∣t••um ••nvisibi∣lium, & spiritu alium, vel etiam re••um praeteri••a um, quae utilisitmae sunt ••d affectū oncitandum.
Nemo (sayth Calvin 2. Def. de Sacram. ••••••rius quam Lu••herus co∣vectus ••st in illas nugas, quo•• tam••n pr•• temporis infirmitate, ••••tinui•• Quod tantâ vehementiâ usus est, loudabile est, quum ita exigeret necessitas. Quod non ab••••usit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •• predis, ignosetinus.
Cum ipse filiu Dei Sacramen∣ta ita institue∣rit. ut ea certis institutis riti∣bus praeceperit administraeri, valde ardua est questio, an ho∣minibus per∣missum sit, alio•• praeterca, et quidem mult••s ac varios ritus quocunque con∣filio supperad∣der••: quasi Ce∣remoniae illae qua in admini∣stratione Sacra∣mentorum Di∣vinitus institu∣tae sunt, non sa∣tis sunt vel ido∣nea, vel suffi∣cientes Institu∣tioni Divinae sicut nihil detrahendum, ita etiam nihil addendum est, Quod vero bratendunt, per illos ritus ab hominibus addi∣tos multa pié & utiliter significari, moner••, & doceri, ad illud responderi potest, figuras propriat esse Veteri•• Testamenti, quae vero in Novo Testamento Christus mo••eri ac doceri voluit non umbtis, sed luce Verbi, tradi ac proponi voluit Et de Verbi, non antem de figuratum ab hominibus inventarum, efficacia, habemus prom 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nem: quos ve•••• ritus ve••bo adhiberi voluit, eos ipse instituit. etc.
In rebus divi∣nis, & sacris ad Ecclesiam per∣tinentibus, mul te adumbrati∣ones in Ecclesia recte adhiben∣tur, nisi quas instituit Deus.
Sacramenta no••ae sunt ae ••essara professi∣on••s Christianae, five societatis, item ad gratia∣tum actionum incitam enta, pietatis denique exercitia, & syngrapha ad 'Dei cultum nos obligantes: finis tamèn praecipuus est, ••ratiam Domi∣•••••• testari, reprae∣sentare, atque obsignare.
Ceremoniae ve∣teris Testamen∣ti figurae erant Testamenti novi, & proin∣de re ipsa prae∣sente cessare debuerunt.
Ad id quod obijcitur de un∣mero, & gravi∣••ate legum Pontificiarum.
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.
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.
Lutheranorum Imagines, a pleris{que} Luthe∣ranu coluntur, &c. sunt igitur Idola fugienda▪
Spatiosissimos & amplissi∣mos utique illis ••p••rtet esse con••cientia re∣••essus, & li∣centiam paten∣tissimam, qui rem pessimi exempli, ex Ethnico ritu & consuetu∣dine, in Eccle∣siam, maximo cum ejus dede∣cor••, & damn••, translatam, in adiaphoris nu∣merare non eru∣bescunt.
Interest Des & nostra (ut Verbo sacro ex∣ponitur) ne ip∣sius imago un∣quam, & ne Christi, aut Sanctorum imago, de causa religiosae, in loco ullo (prae∣sertim religio∣so) & temporo, sine authoritate sius statuatur Profecto, ista Imagines, non inter superflua selum, sed etiā inter vetita, & damnosa sunt numerandae.
Imaginum & statuarum col∣locationem in Templu, puta∣mu•• expresso Des Ve••bo millies interdi∣ctam.
Significant sententias (a•••• res) sacrae non in quantum sacra sunt, sed in quantur•• res.
Non sunt Ima∣gines in Tem∣plis tollerande, quae pro libri•• sint imperitae multitudu••i.
Erecta signa Idololatriae, quibus Templa dehonestantur.
Improbabiliter dicunt quidam, aquam benedi∣ctam conferre remissionem venialium pec∣catorum ex opere operato.
Sacramentalia non o••erantur remissionem peccatorum ve∣ntalium; n••que instituta sunt ad eam signifi∣candam: sed ad excitandum animum, in de∣testationem il∣lorum.
Est admonitio, vel p••a institu∣tio▪ sine obliga∣tione ad ••ul∣pam. Non pec∣cant, qui citrà contemptum, non asperguns se aquâ ••ustrali quandò Tem∣plum ingre∣diuntur.
Rituum non tantum indu∣ctorum habenda est ratio sed & e••rum qui in∣duci possunt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 enim authoritas talis vindicatur, in∣gum non est c••rlum, sed in fl••xu.
Per se aut per accidens, pro∣prius aut im∣proprius: per se, aut per a∣liud, propter se, aut ratione alterius, pri∣marius, aut se∣cundarius, pro∣prius, aut ana∣logicus: absolu∣tus, aut respe∣ctivus: simplex, aut secundum quid: directus, aut reductivus perfectus, aut imperfectus.
Vo••atur cultus humanus & voluntarius, qui est mere humanus &c. Quae autem ab Ecclesia docen∣tur non sunt mere humanae.
Alij Ecclesi∣asticas Ceremo∣monias repre∣hendunt, eo quod sint hu∣mana inventa, absque Divino praecepto, vel authoritate in Scriptures con∣tenta. Putant enim ifri, non licere Deum colere alio cul∣tu, nisi illo qui in Scripturis nobis praeceptus est. In quo fun∣damento tres isti errores con∣tinentur &c. Putant isti, non licere Deum colere alto cul∣tu, nisi illo qui in Scripturis nobis praeceptus est.
Qui error non potest nisi ali∣quo ex supra rejectis (tribus scil. illis) fun∣dari.
q••oda nobis fiunt intentione cultus, & tanquam per∣tinentes ad virtutem Reli∣gionis.
Hoc s••••e sti∣tiosum esse di∣cunt: quia licet in Sacramentis, oporteat serva∣re modum, & debitas circum∣stantias, tamen hoc solum esse volunt propter quandam hu∣manam poli∣tiam, non vero ex intentione cultus & r••li∣gionis: nam hoc dicunt esse superstitiosum.
Ceremoniae sacramentales pertinent ad cultum secun∣darium: non solum quia con∣tinent cultum ixternum: sed etiam quia in ipsomet exter∣no cultu, sunt veluti acciden∣tia aliarum a••tionum nobi∣liorum.
Non licere Deum colere, alto externo cultu, nisi illo, qui in Scriptu∣ra nobis praecep∣tus est: Inventae bumana, quae absque Divino praecepto, vol authoritate in Scripturis con∣tenta, esse re∣prehendenda.
Hae••etici huius temporu, dicunt omnem Cere∣moniam, & omnem cultum, a Deo ip••o non praceptum, seu in Euangelio non contentum, Superstitionem esse, imo & I∣dololatriam vocant. Fun∣dantur praecepue in Deut. 12.
Non dies sig∣n••ficat, aut re∣praesentat my∣steria, sed com∣memoratio in dic illo institu∣ta.
Hebrae. convi∣•••••• se consolati 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
••olemnitas as a••••das leg••tur instit••ta, ••••que ••••••iuana, in qui∣〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈…〉〈…〉 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c. Eum aut••m r••tum spente su••repetunt Iu∣dai, pro••••. vieres ad ga••••ia v••n∣t••••••, quam ad fiductum sutri∣••us in De••••m∣de quo illis tem∣pori••us Orden∣tur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cu∣rosse.
Respondeo: & hoc Mardo∣chaeum fecisse, Deo inspirante & forsan. Pro∣phetae cujuspiā monitu & au∣thoritate. Etsi vero non legimus, aut Deum ipsum, aut aliquem Prophetam, hoc Mardochao mandasse, tamē quia in libro Canonico, hec factum reperi∣tur, and com∣mendatur, non dubium est, quin divina au∣thoritate nita∣tur.
Falsum est: Salomon, Ez∣ras, Macchabat sequnti sunt praceptum, Exod. 4. Lev. 8 ••n juris legalis analogia. Quod jus si non exti∣tisset, tamen dicendum f••ret, seciss•• cot ut Prophetas, re∣velatione ex∣traordinaria, & singulari, quae in exemplum non potest tra∣l••••.
Non sestum proprie honora∣wit Christus, sed coetum piorum convenientium festo: nam om∣nes ejusmodi occasiones se∣minandi Evan∣gelij sut, obser∣vabat, & ca∣pieba•• Christus Con. 3. l. 4.6.17 an. 6. So Peli••anus in Mac. 1. cap. 4. Nec aliud in his Encoenijs) Christus egisse legitur, quam praedicasse in Templo.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
Hoc factum est extrà ordinem, & occasione singulari, on necessitate prasenti, cui per analogian communis juris, prospectum e•••• a Salomone, Rege: forté etiam particu∣lars revela∣tione.
Licin•••• fuit quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉 So∣lomon quia, licet prohibi∣tum asset, of••erri sacrificia alibi, quam in Alta∣ri Hol••causto∣rum, tamen nunc ex neces∣sitate, licuit, cum non possint capi sacrificia super Altar••. Etiam non videbaturagi contra legem: quia nunc cre∣mebantur sacri∣ficia apud Al∣tare, & simul in Altari, & ••ic videbatur totum Atrium Sacerdo••••m esse tanquam unum Altare. In∣tentio autem Legis erat, ut non offerreren∣tur sacrificia in diversis locis.
Falsò divinae traditiones a•• Apostolicis distinguuntur, quae unum re∣ipsa sunt: nam Apostolicae nullae sunt, nisi a Deo tradit••.
Videmus ho∣loco quam sit periculosu••••, Divinis insti∣tutis addere. Quod factum est à Corinthi∣is, qui sine Ver∣bo Dei, convi∣via haec admis∣cuerunt &c.
Hinc videmiu∣in totum dis∣plicuisse Apo∣stolo conviva••∣di morem, eti∣amsi abesse•• ille superior a∣busus. Vitio∣sum est conv••r∣tere in alienes usus sacrum conventum &c.
In Agapis, hoc primum repre∣hendendum fuit quod Christi D. institutum non simplicite•• observarunt, sed ei aliquid addiderunt. Apostolot eo•• ad primam in∣stitutionem re∣vocabat. Sed non tanta ejus fuit apud po∣steros authori∣tas, quo minus, ad Corinthio∣rum exemplum multo quidem zelo pio, ac ••o∣no, inconsulto tamen institu∣erint, quae tan∣dem nocentissi∣mas superstiti∣ones p••pere∣runt.
Centilium os∣cula, pacis & amoru symbola, non tollenda, sed moderand•• in∣ter Christian••s, eurarwit Apo∣••••oli, dum ecs se invic••m sa∣lutare debera osculo sancto, se••e admonue∣runt.
Quae orati•• cum divortio sa••cti osculi in∣tegra?
Potet domi forsan differre pacem.
Die Paschae, meritò depeni∣mus osculum.
Ingenium suum Ecclesia fecit Sacramenta.
Quia per o•• nostrum ingre∣ditur corpus Christi: illud ergo osculamur, perinde ac ja∣nuas osculamur, per quas in Ec∣clesiam ingredi∣mur.
Debet mulier, cum dat asit ipsi coma à Deo, hoc illius institutum se∣qui. & imitari factorem suum, ut caput conte∣••at: quod si sa∣cere nolit, quantum in ipsae est▪ naturale t••g∣men ex••usit, &c.
Illud à natura institutum est, quod scilicet velaremus ca∣put (mulieres) & non vela∣remus (viri) Natura ut mu∣lier regeretur, voluit, ut inde docta rege∣retur.
N••t ex ul••a lege ce••ta, sed en privat••s religionibus, atgue adeo su∣perstitionibus▪
Excerpe singu∣las Solemnita∣tes Nationum, & in ordinem ••exe, Pente∣costen explor•• n••n possunt.
Ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 progressum, at∣que promotum, ad omnem ad itum, & exi∣itum, ad ve∣stitum & cal∣ceatum, ad la∣vacrae, ad mon∣sat, ad lumina, ad cub••iie, ad s••dil••a (sert. a•• Corona.
〈◊〉〈◊〉 sed Ve 〈…〉〈…〉 & a••censione 〈…〉〈…〉.
Ferias alias (prater diem Dominicum) sive Christi, &c. optarim abro∣gatas univer∣sas. Zelus ille quo introductae fuere, omni verbo & exem∣plo Scripturae caruit, mere∣que rationem secutus est, ut ferias Ethnico rum, seu cla∣vum clavo tru∣deret. Tantis sup••rtitionibus contaminata illa festa fue∣runt, ut mirer, si quisquam Christianus fit. qui ad nomina corum non ex∣horrescat, &c. Dominicum di∣om, resurrectio∣nis Christigaudium, festiviorem nobis reddidit, &c. Nullum prudentem virum audivi, qu•• non censeat magnam p••∣r••m aliorum festorum abolendam. Maximè consentaneum est cum princa institutione, & cum scriptis Aposteli••, ut unus tantum dies in s••ptimana, sanctificatur.
Summa est se∣cundi pracepti, in externo cul∣tu, qui Deo de∣betur, seu in Ceremonijs, ni∣hil nobis esse ex nostr•• capite comminiscen∣dum, neque ex ritibus genti∣um Idololatra∣rum adhiben∣dum, &c.
Voluit Deus u∣nâ lege, abomi∣nari, & abjici voluit quic∣quid istis popu∣lis pla••uisset. Idipsum fuerit longè studiosius cavendum Christianis, quos ut in spiri∣tu & veritate Deum colere edocti, à cere∣moniis otiosis, & irrationabi∣libus, deceptio∣numque multi∣plicium formis, & ritibus Ido∣lolatrarū, opor∣tuit imprimis, & deinceps maximè abhor∣ruisse, Id si olim Episcopi consi∣derassent, non tot scatuisset Ecclesia profa∣nu ritibus, non prolapsaesset in tam sordidas, & a pietate vera abhorren∣tes ceremonias, ut fere nihil immutatum cernamus a pristinis Gen∣tium ritibut. praeter idolorū vetustorum nomina, & imagines, quibus successerunt (proh dolor) nova.
Intendit excludere a filiis Israel, omnem Gentilem ritum.
Pr••cipitur hoc in detestationem Idololatriae: quia Idololatr•• faci••bant, propterea talia prohibentur.
Ceremoniandū juxta verbum Dei, no quid excederetur, mul••itudine, aut forma, si ad humanas tradi∣tiones standum fuisset.
Rectius ac sa∣nius dicitur: quae Deus ipse instituit, nullo abu•••••• aut vitio posse abo••eri: qua autem humani∣tus tradit•• sunt, postquam errore sunt vi∣tiata, si corum usus nec••at, & pariat offendi∣culum fratri∣bus, esso absti∣nendum. Mag∣na pars super∣stitionum, qui∣buscum hodie bellum gerunt veri Dei culto∣res, à lacunis nescio quibus manavit: om∣nes impijs er∣roribus delibu∣tae sunt, qui nunquam elui possunt, nisi a∣••rogato illa∣rum usu. Cur ergo non sim∣pliciter quod verum est ag∣noscimus, n••ces∣sarium hoc esse purganda à sordibus Eccle∣••••a remidium. Cum vellet suas significationes, in vestibus, & suis à magieis nihil evariantibus signis obtrudere: no•• contra proponebamus, Christum, purius docuisse Patrem (nempe spiritu & veritate) esse adorandum, sublatis um∣bris adorandum. Cumque sanctus Rex Hezechias non consuit tantum incumbendum, ut tolleretur superstitio, quod agre sciebat so impetraturum, sed prorsus serpentem ignominiesé iussit comminuendum, quid Christianis Du∣••ibus & Magistratibus non est faciendum, in ijs quorum superstitio & cultus omnem Idololatriam Iudao••um su∣p••rat? i•• ijs qua homines male seriati erex erunt, quibus significationes e•• arbitrio addiderunt?
Addititias illas innumera∣biles nugas quae mox in manif••∣stam superstiti∣onem abierunt, ut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abol••∣vimus D. 84. Male Ecclesijs suis consulere affirmamus, qui in suis ditionibus, inutilium Ceremoniarum reliquias vol retinuer••••••, ••el aliquat e••us corrigere (prapo••••••r•• qu••dam judicio) quam semel abolere maluerunt.
Idem de Coena, adv. Harchium, pag. 4. ant•• finem. Non desunt qus Pa∣stores vellent, in illis, si non origin••, at cer∣te usu, vere Baaliticis v••stibus apparere. Ieuel. Def. cap. 2. div. 9. His Ceremonijs vo•• tam estis abusi, ut nis•• maxima nos religione nos obligare malimus, retinore ista amplius nequeamus.
Regula est illa, Adiaphora non necessaria, hor∣renda Idoloma∣nia polluta, esse abolenda.
Ceremonian∣dum est secundū Verbum Dei solum.
Statuam erigi prohibet, etiam triumphalem.
Memoria Ido∣lolatriae tota∣liter delonda.
Veni•• ad capu•• alterum, de a∣bolendis & e∣vellendis radici∣tus abusibus & corruptelis, quas invexit Satan superio∣ribus seculis in Dei ordinatio∣nem Constat Christianisimi Papatus plane esse nothium & adulterinum. Quar•• si al illa voragine plibē educere est ani∣mus, exemplo Apostoli uten∣dum est▪ 1. Cor, 11 Iude colli∣genda generalis doctrina: cum de legit••ma re∣formati••ne, & qu•• Deo accep∣ta sit, agitu••, a•• ipsum pu∣rum Dei ver∣bum redeundum nobis esse. Quot enim su∣pererunt mix∣turae ex bominū ingenio pralatae, totidem exsta∣bunt pollutio∣nes, quae homi∣nes distrahant a recto corum usuquae Domi∣nus in corum ••alutem insti∣tuerat. Proinde dum istiusmodi sen∣tina ex parte tantum exhau∣ritur, res suo lo∣co verò restitu∣ta dici non po∣test, ubi Chri∣stianismus lar∣vatus pro syn∣cero & nativo deprehenditur. Atque illud a me ideo dici∣tur, quod mul∣to•• longe aliter judicare intelli∣gam, tolerandos nempe esse abusus, neque attingendos, dummodo crassissimae corruptelae sublatae dici pos••••t. At∣qui ex opposito, i••sa experientia edocuit, quam sertilis sit mendaciorum seges ••umanum ingenium, ut v••l minut••∣tis granis cons••ersum, in altissimum cumulum assurga, uti totum natu••a eo ferri constat. Longe vero a••ia est rati•• quam tradit Scriptura David de Idolis agens, ne ipsorum quidem nominis se recordaturum testatur, ut estendat, quam illa sibi omnibus modis detestanda judicet. Ab omni Satanae fermento quam longissime pedem re••eramus. Quid enim illae Cerementae fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia, quae miseras animas. Ad malum perducerent, uti ad ip••as illaqu••andas omnino positae erant? Iam si de cautione agitur (this is to our Defend. and Rejoyn a cu••e) monebuntur homines, scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant. Quis tamen non videt obdura••i ipsos nihil ominus ni••il ut infelici illa cautione obtmeri possit Quare si quid istiusmodi intactum relinquetur, certi••simum erit g••avio••i•• obfirmationis in malum somentum, idemque velamen oppositum, ne syncera doctrina quae propener••tur, adm••tat•••• ut par est.
Existimamus etiam, vivo Salomone, om∣nem illam Dae∣monum offici∣nam disruptam fuisse, dilacera∣tam, atque disperditam. Videnturque referendae illa statuae, & luci, & ara, & reli∣qua idololatria monumenta (a Reg. 23.13.) ad Ma∣nassem, & Ammonem (qui excitave∣rant illa in eo∣dem loco, & supra eadem fundamenta) non ad Salomo∣nem, ante annot 250.
250. extin∣ctum. Incredi∣bile dictu est. tantum scanda∣lum ab Asa, Iosaphato, Ioiada, cum lat è idololatri∣am disperde∣rent, in oculis ipsis positum, non vid••sse, aut non ausos at∣tingere, & ad annum 3406. Mirum profe∣cto si Idola illa post tercentos 50. annos sub∣sisterens, quae Salomon ipse poenitens, & caeteri Reges boni sustulissent. Vtique dicendum videtur, ab impijs Regibus extructa suisse ejusdem generis fana, & Idola quae ••lim Salomon in ijsdem locis extruxerat: ut illud quae aedificave∣ret Salomon, fit idem ac si dixisset, qualia aedificaverat.
Salomon de ad∣misso idolola∣triae scelere, nunquaem per∣fecte poenituit. 'Nam si fructus poenitentiae dig∣nos faceret, sa∣tageret ante omnia, ut Ido∣la quae aedifica∣verat, tolleren∣tur & non in scandalum stu••∣torum, quae ipse cum fuisset sa∣pientissimus, erronea secerat, quasi sapienter a•• recte sacta relinqueret.
Tenenda est haec. regula: Quae in abu∣sum venerunt, & superstitio∣nibus ••ontami∣nata fuerunt, sisiat adiapho∣ra, tolli••a prorsus possunt, & sape etta•• debent.
Resp. ad Ver∣sipellem. Quid in Papatu non simile serpenti aneo, prater o∣riginem? Epist. 265. Ceremo∣niae Papales à suo principio vitiosa sunt.
Instrumenta musica non as∣sumit Ecclesia in divinas lau∣des, ne videa∣tur Iudaizare: Musica instru∣menta magis animum mo∣vent ad dele∣ctationem, quam ut per ea forractur bona dypositio. In et Test. usus erat taiium in∣strumentorum, tum-tum quia aliquid figura∣bant Opero∣sam quandam, & theatricam musi••am in sa∣c••as a••es in∣duximus, tu∣multuosum diversarum vocum garritum, qualem non opinor in Graecorum, out Rom morum theatris unquam audi∣tumsuisse. In hunc usum, magnu sala••ijs aluntur puororum greges, quorum omnis aet as in perdiscendus hujusmodi garnitibus consumitur, tantus sumptibus oneratur Ecclesia, ob rem pestiseram, &c.
Zuinglius, Act. Disp. 2. pag. 100. Ecclesiasticum ittum cantum, & templorum boatus, ab ipsis quoque sacer∣dotibus non in∣tellectos, abu∣sum stultum, & inanem, ••••••∣pietatis verae temoram perni∣tiosissimam esse constat. Calvin in Psalm 23 Mihi d••bium non est, quin totum illud musicae genus, pars fuerít legalis padagogia. In solemni Dei cultu, nihilo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad canendas Deì laud••s congruere arbitror, musica instrumenta, quam si quis suffitus, lucernas, & similes legis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bras in usum revocet. Vltra progredi, quam docemur, 1. Cor. 14. impiam pervicaciam esse dico.
De divinis of∣ficijs cap. 5. Vibratam illam & operosam musicam, qua figurata dicitur aufetri plac••t.
Nonnulli prae∣positi sunt, que in vitam & mores ••orum qui admittun∣tur exquiran••s ut qui turpia committunt, ij•• communi coetu interdicant, qu•• ver••ab istis abhorrent, ex animo com∣plexi, meliores quotidie red∣da••••.
Iohannes Hone, Legum Doctor, Offi••ialu, &c omnibus & sin∣gulis Rectoribus &c. Cum nos rite & legitim•• procedentes, omnes & singu∣los, quor••m nominae subscri∣buntur, &c. excommunican∣do•• fore decre verimus; cum∣que discretus vir, M Rou∣landus Allen, Presbyter, eos d••m ex officio nostro mero ex∣communicave∣rit in scriptu: vobu igitur committimus, &c. ut palam denuncietis &c. Datum sub figillo Offi∣cialitatis no∣stra, die tali, anno tali.
Hoc Argumen∣tum ••ex Act. 14 est pr••ci∣puum sunda∣mentum Illyri∣ci, Calvins, Kemni••ij, & aliorum.
Cum consenti∣re dubitaret Ecclesiae, in vi∣sione, per no∣ctem, compul∣sus est, no negaret.
Plebs ips•• maxime habet potestatem vel aligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recu∣sandi. Quod & ipsum vide∣mus de Divina autheritate descendere, &c.
Tantum ab ambitu debet esse sepositus Antistes, ut quaeratur conge∣dus, rogatus, recedat, invi∣tatus, effugiat: sola illis suffra∣getur necesittas excusandi. Profecto enim indignus est sacerdotio, nisi ordinatus fue∣rit invitus.
Non solum nos minoritas, vel pecuniâ, vel pejori conditio∣ne, Rectorias nostras pacisci∣mur, sed & vet Majoritas, sic Cathedras ve∣stras, vel pacu∣niarum summis, vel Ecclesia∣rum spolijs, foede canponari vulgò dictitant Quo morbo male iamdiu & habet, & andit Ecclesia nostra.
Censurae Eccle∣sia, solam jam crumenam pul∣sant. Malefici, ubs stipem per∣solverint, di∣mittuntur im∣puniti. Stipem si nulli numereut, si nummus in promptu non est, tum vero disringitur in eos mucro Epis∣••opalis: confestim, uno ictu abscinduntur ab Ecclesia, Sathama traduntur, publicani, ethnici, anathema denun∣••ia••tur. Ridiculis in rebus, idque in optimum quemque volitant bruta fulmina, & soli metuenda crumena.
Si quaratu•• quare Domi∣nus Papa so∣dendo comm••∣nicat, potest dici, quod hee fit in recordoti∣onem quod be∣atus Petrus, & alij Aptstoli sedendo corpus Dom••ni in c••∣n•• ultimo ac∣ceperunt.
Romanus Pon∣tifex nemini exonino morta∣lium overen∣tiam facit, assurgendo ma∣nifestè, aut ca∣put inclinando, seu detegendo.
Tarnovius de ministerio, lib. 2. cap 31. Pratermitten∣do hanc vene∣rastionem Chri∣sti externam (genu flectio∣nem scit) communicantes praesentiam Christi secun∣dum corpus, negare, & se Calvinianis conjungere viderentur.
Illad etiam petendum (ab-Imperatoribus) ut quae contra praecepta divi∣nae, convivia multis in locis exercentur, quae aberrero Gentili attra∣cta sunt, &c. vetari talia i••∣beant.
Fopule qui de∣bens off••cia di∣vina attendere, saltationibus turpibus in∣••igilant, &c.
Voluere vete∣r••s Episcopi, quum ipsi pra∣dicatione verbi non possunt ho∣mines à super∣stitionibus Gentilium a∣vocare, saltem hac ratione mi∣tigare, & in fuam religio∣nem transferre voluere, sui•• Sanctis sosdem dies & ritus consecrando. fuit aut••m hoc clavum clavo ••rudere, super∣stitionem non ••ollere. Licet igitur principia hujusmodi so∣lemnitatum to∣lerabilia primo fuerunt, adm••x∣ti••tamen pala∣rim superstitio∣nibus, tandem fons & origo horribilium er∣rorum, & su∣perstitionum fu••run••.
Luxuriosa con∣vivia in comi∣teriis, non so∣lum honore•• Martyrum, a carnal•• & im∣perita pl••bo credi solons, sed etiam solatia mortuorum. de Civit. lib. 8. cae. 27. Queun∣qu•• epula•• suas ••o deferunt (quod quidem a melioribus Christianis non fit, & in pleris∣que terrarum ••ulla est talis consuetudo▪) ta∣men quienuqu•• id faciunt, san∣ctificari ca•• vo∣lunt per m••rita Martyrum.
Vt meritis Martyrum consocientur, atque orationi∣bus adjuventur.
••Ea d••mum no∣stra & supe∣riorum usibus, & Dei rebus, & ipsi Christo compotisse, quae ••••eras utilita∣tes, & certa subsidia, & ho∣nest•• solatia, necessaris ne∣cessitatibus vi∣ta humana pro∣••ura••
Congruit & veritats ridere, quia latans de emulu suis lu∣dere, quia so∣cura est. Cu∣randum plane, ne rifus ejus rideatur, si su••rit ìndignus. Caeterum ubi∣cunque dignus r••sus, officium est.
Acriter in eam partem dispu∣tat Tertullia∣nus, non licere homini Christi∣ano, ceronam lauram gestare, idqu•• non aliunde, nisi ob id modo, quia idem fa∣cere solebant Ethni••••.
Vacua obser∣vationes, qui∣bus vanitas merito expro∣branda est, si∣quidem sine ul∣lius aut Do∣minici, aut Apostolici praecepta au∣thoritate fiunt. Mujusmodi e∣nim, non reli∣gioni, sed su∣perstitioni de∣putantur, affe∣ctata, & co. acta, & curio∣si potius quam rationalis offi∣cij, certevel 〈◊〉〈◊〉 coercen∣da, quod Gen∣tilibus ad. ••quent.
Adomnem progressum, at∣que prometum, ad omnem adi∣tum, & exi∣tum, ad vesti∣tum, & calcea∣tum, ad lava∣cra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad subilia, & ad sedilia?
Ne ulla oc••asio ingurgitandi se, daretur eb••iosis: & quia illa quasi parenta∣lia, superstitioni Gentilium os∣sont similuna.
Te••••atur mo∣dus ille quom Gregorius pri∣mus definivit. Tolet. 4 cap. 5.
Luben•• equi∣dem Catabap∣tistu concedam & fatebor, ali∣qui dutilitatis, ex contentione illa, quam ipsi de Baptism•• instituerunt, enatum esse. Hine enim fa∣ctum est ut eae quae humanae rationis stulta superstitio ad∣d••derat (qua∣lia sunt exor∣cism, sputi sausque usus, & alia hujus generis complu∣ra) in lucem protracta, ab omnibus pro vanis & inuti∣libus habita fint— Non infi••iamur illa à Majoribus nostris ad nos usque, & nostra tempora manavisse. — Interim tamen constat, hac divinitus institut a non esse, sed ab hominibus olim addita, quae fortasse tune, pro temporum ratione ferri poterant: eo quod, ut Israelitae olim sub••nd•• Aegypti desiderio tact••, ad illius delicias respicsebant, fic qui nuper ad Christ•• pertes concesserant, ad Gentilium religioxem non nihilo promptiores propensioresque erant, quae Ceremonias ••••••usmodi plures continebat.
Has ergo Chri∣stiani homines in alium usum convertere so∣lebant, quo sacilius pristi∣na illa super∣stitione libe¦rarentur. Sed longe presti∣tisset▪ si omnia •• medio subla∣ta fu ssent & abolita, &c.
Tanto studio propagandi Evangelij fla∣grat Bucerus, ut qua praci pua sunt con∣tentus impe∣trass••, inter∣dum fit aequo lenior in cis concedendis, quae in nutula quidem ipse putat sed ha∣bent etiam su∣um pendus.
Hoc tibi nomi∣natim commen∣do, ut te in∣vidiâ liberes, qua te falso gravari apud multos non ig∣noras, nam mo∣dijs consilijs vel authorem, vel approbatorem te simper in∣scribunt.
Quod ad illam Anglicanam reformationem attinet, quum dicis eam ex Buceri consilio ac voluntate fuisse institu∣tam, magnam optimo viro in∣juriam facis. Sunt qui fer∣mento Anti∣christi conglu∣••inare veliut Deum & Belial, &c.
De vestibus quas vocant sacras fateor aliquid esse du∣••us, & quod meipsum non∣nihil pertur∣bet: ut merer illas tam mor∣dicus retineri.
Ego cum essem Oxonij, vesti∣bus illis albis in Choro nunquā uti volui, quā∣vis essem Ca∣nonicus. Mei facti ratio mi∣hi constabat. Quod verò me movit, & ad∣huc movet & te sortasse mo∣vere poterit, nempe id non esse fac••endum quod ea confir∣met, quae con∣scientia mea non probes.
Qui cuperunt superstitiones co usque d••te∣start, ut etiam illarum vesti∣gia ••••perint execrars, quan∣toperà offen∣duntur.
Signs crucis est adhuc recens superstitio ma∣nimè execrabi∣••u. Rectitissi∣mè igitur fetis∣se arbitramur, gus so••••el istum ••itum ex Ec∣clesis expula∣runt, cuius eti∣•••• non vide∣mus quae sit u∣tilitas. Quo∣niam ex genius latione dum symbola acci∣pintuur, orta est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 illa detestabilis, & adhue in multorum ani∣mis baerens, me vito sublata esse vid tur.
Nos cortè cur ••llud signum nullo modo to∣lerenous, & plurimas, & necessarias cau∣ses hab••mus.
Superpelliceo in quibuslibet ser∣vitius Altaris uti debent.
Nullus Clericus permistatur in of ficio Altaris, nisi indutus su∣perpellecio, tempore quo Missarum so∣lemnia pera∣guntur.
Istorum malo∣rum capi••s, qui contendi causas & occasiones subministravis & vel••t ossa canibus ob∣jecit.
Licet in exter∣no symbolo sit aliqua simili∣tudo, absolut•• ••amen maxi∣mum est discri∣men: nam a fine & inten∣tione sumunt externae actio∣nes speciem suam.
Ritus Genti∣lium siebant ad cuitum Daemo∣niorum: nostri sunt ad colen∣dum verum Deum: ideo tantum interest inter illos & nostros, quantū inter sacrum & sacrilegum: quantum inter pietatem & impietatem, & quantum inter Deum & dia∣bolum. Ritus Iudaiei Christum venturum praenunciabant: vestri partim sunt in memoriam r••rum praeteritorum, partim ad sig••ific•• dam gloriam suturam.
Leges hu••••••∣modi nobis, no•• sibi ipsi Deus posuit Qan••∣obr••m, rebus dedir••tis Idolis ad sua iosius holocausta uti po••est. Minime li••••∣isset, nisi D••∣minus pr••co∣pisse••.
Omnia mesal∣la liquifacti∣bilia liquifie∣bant, confla∣bantur igne, & converteban. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in massam.
Non rasis ca∣pitibus, ficut sacerdotes cul∣toresqus Ifidis atqu•• Serapis debemus esse. Iuxta Septua∣ginta Interpre∣tes, discimus in tantum ca∣pillos demit∣tendos, ut oper∣ta sit cutis. Vel certe sacer∣dotes semper operire capita sua debent, juxta illud Virgilianum: Purpureo vela∣re comas ado∣pertus amictu. Sed hac vio∣lenta inter∣pretatio est.
Licuit quae apud Gentes superstitioso cultu impid agerentur, ea∣dem expiata sacto ritu, ad pietatem transferre, ut majori Diabo∣li contumelia, quibus ipse col•• voluerit, Chri∣stus ab omni∣bus honorare∣tur. Eâ licen∣tiâ, qua Deo∣rum delubra in Ecclesias Chri∣stianorum sun•• laudabiliter commutata, alij quoque ri∣tus Gentilium à nobis, bene∣dictionibus ex∣piati, divino sunt cultui consecrati.
Quid mirum fi••inolitas apud Gentiles con∣suctudines, à quibus not, quamvis Chri∣stiani effecti essent, penitus divelli impos∣sibile videre∣tur, easdem in Dei cultum transferri, san∣••ct fimi Epis∣cop•• concesse∣runt? Vene∣tanda antiqui∣••as superstiti∣onem in religi∣nem conver∣sit, effecitque ut quod impendebatur Idolis, provide in Dei cultum converteretur. Sylva quaedam Iudaicarum & Gentilium Cer••moniarum paulatim agrum Domini occupavit.
Nihil sanò per∣tinet ad istam Civitatem quo habitu v••l more vivendi, (si non est contra divi∣••ia praecepta, istam sidera qua pervenitur ad Deum) quis∣que sectetur. Vnde ipsos quo∣que Philoso∣phe••s quando Christiani fiunt, non ha∣bitum vel con∣suetudinem vi∣••tus, quae nihil impedit Religionem, sed falsa dogmat•• mutare compellit.
Eumque cum esset reus, no∣que barbor•• desi ••sse radi, no∣que non candi∣da vesto uti, neque fuisse so∣lito cultu reorum. primò in vesto candida visi sunt,] [vesta sordida sumpea, princi∣pum domos cir∣cum ire, &c.] Liv. decad 5. lib. 5. pag. 254. [candidati, co∣ronatique] Sueton. Aug. c. 99. [visa quon∣dam pro conci∣•••••• pullatorum turba.] [N•• quis pul∣latorum me∣dia cavea sedaret.] Sueton. Aug. c. 40.44.
Si famulum tuum libertate mutavetii, & vestis albae ni∣tore, & aurei annuli honore, & Patroni nomine, ac tri∣bu mensaque honoratur. de resut. carnis. Aderant qui∣dem impij can∣didis & mag¦nificu vestibus celebrantes fe∣stum sui into∣ritus, solus au∣tem Indes atris indutus ve∣stibus.
Vnde adjungis gloriam vesti∣um & orna∣mentorum Deo esse con∣trariam.
Quae sunt rogo inimicitiae con∣tra Deum, si tunicam habu∣ero mundio∣rem?
Cavete Clerici cavete Mone∣chi, Viduae, & Virgines: peri∣clitamini nisi surdidas vos atque pannosas vu••gus aspex∣erit. Tac••o de hom••nibus sa∣culi, quibus aperte bellum indicitur, & inimicitiae con∣tra Deum, si prec••o•••• atque nitentibus utantur ex∣••••ijs.
Cave ne quan∣do pollutu ve∣stibus induatis, populus quippe peccator in ve∣stibus suscis luxisse descri∣bitur, Tu au∣tem induere lucem, & non maledictio∣nem, &c.
Vestes pullat aque devita ut candidas: Or∣natus, ut sor∣des pari modo fugiendae sunt: quia alterum delicias, alte∣rum gloriam redolet.
Discernendi •• plebe vel ca∣teris sumus doctrina, non veste, conver∣satione, non habitu, mentis puritate non cultu. Nam si studere incipi amus novitati, traditum nobis à Patribus or∣dinem calca∣bimus, ut lo∣••um superva∣cuis superstiti∣onibus facia∣mus. Ru••es ergo Fidelium mentes ad talia non debemus inducere Decendi enim potius sunt quam illudendi. N••c impo∣nandum est corum oculu, s••d mentibus insundendo praecepta sunt.
Per qua disci∣nius, non quo∣tidianu & qui∣bustibet, & usu v••ta communis, poliutu vestibus nos ingredi de∣bere insancta sanctorum, sed nounda consciē∣tia & mundis vestibus tener•• Domini Sacra∣m••nta.
Religio divine••, alterum habi∣tum habet in Ministorio terum in usu veràque com∣muns.
Hac est digni∣tas vo••tra, ha•• stabilitas, hac corona non quia tunicam indut•• candidissim••m per Ecclesiam ambulasis.
Socrat. lib. 6.23.
Gentes in Ido∣lis creaturas celeb••nts, ••••∣dem se••e modo, que Pontifici. S••c enim re∣spondent, apud Aug in Psal. 9••. Non co∣limus lapidem, non mala Dae∣monia: Ange∣los quos dicitis i••sos & nos c••limus, Virtu∣tes Dei magni. Ministeria Dei magni. Et Maximus Madan••ensis; apud cunde•• Aug Ep. 43. Ecquidem u∣num esse De∣um quis tam dement, tam mente captus, ut neget esse certissimum? Hu••us nos vir∣tutes, ••er mun∣danum opus diffusas, multis vocabulu in∣vocamus.
Quaemvis istis concedam, dis∣similem diver∣samque esse ra∣tionam Idolo∣latria Papista∣rum, atque ejus qua apud vete∣res Gentiles viguii, negare tamen non po∣terunt, Deum non minus se∣verè prohibu∣isse cul••um in Bethel impi•• constitutum, quam altas su∣perstitiones omnes, quae caeteris in locis institutae celebrataeque fuerunt. Ego vero statuo atque ass••mo, eos omnes qui Deum ve••e metuunt, ac piè colu••t, eo majore at que aoerbiore odio debere & prosequi & detestari Missam, quo apertius violat & prosanat sanctam institutionem Iesu Christi, quam si non tam opposita contrariaque ei extitisset.
A••terum Sa∣cramentum ••ontifi••aj••n horrend••m il∣am Idolomani∣am, qua ne fan∣do quidem in∣ter Gentes au∣ditur, transfor∣marunt, & ex mensa Domini mensam Da∣montorum con∣flarunt. Idem Beza, adv. Baldwin. fol. 4 ante fi∣nem. Quum ab Artolat indicessero, nulla est, sub Coelo, talis magiae & Idolomaniae species, qualis est illa Crucis signatio & adoratio. Id••m Beza, de Notu Ecclesiae, ciroa med••um: Non est ulla execrabilior, in orbe terrarum, Idoloma∣via, quam quae fuit, & est, in Crucis adoratione. Idem Beza, adv. Ha••chiam: Coenae Domini mutata est (à Pontificijs) in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quo nunquam ullum execrabilius, neque extitit, neque poterit postea excogetari pag. 4 ante finem.
Adoratio Pa∣pistarum, nixa fundamento commentitia transubstanti∣ationis, est I∣dololatria om∣nium qu•• unquam fuerunt cras∣sissima. Ora pro nobis sanctissima Dei Mappa. Quales obse∣cio, idolola∣triae sunt istae Num quid si∣mile apud Ethnicos ex∣iflit?
Quod extenu∣ant superstiti∣ones Papisti∣cas, prae Gen∣tium Idosola∣tria, in eo puo∣riliter, ne quid gravius dicam, agunt. Annon corum Idolomania, a Pa∣pistis mutati∣nomin, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est revocata?