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

Concerning Circumcision.

4. Because the Def. for an example of a Iewish rite, lawfull for Christians to use, named Circumcision, the Repl. concluded, that belike, he houldeth Circumci∣sion, as it is used under Prester Iohn, to be lawfull.

The Rej. therfore resolveth us, that He doth so: and also chalengeth the Repl. for saying nothing to disprove him. Vpon this provocation, it is necessarie to say some-thing against these patrones of Circumcision. Where it is to be marked, that the quaestion is of Eccle∣siasticall Ceremonies devized by man for signification of morall duties; whether it be lawfull, for a Churche repraesentative, (suche as our Convocation) to ap∣point, and urge Circumcision, in this kinde, and to this purpose, upon those Christians whoe are under their power?

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

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

Ther was some difference betwixt Hierome, & Augu∣stine, about observing of legall Rites, & in speciall about Circumcision (as appeareth out of the Epistles which passed betwixt them, yet exstant) but both of thē agreed on this, that as well to Iew, as Gentile, all religious use of Circumcision, for Ceremonie, &c. is now after due publication of the Gospel, unlawfull or deadly. All that have written since, agree about the same trueth, except Caietan in one place; who is forsaken & opposed therin by all Papists, the Iesuites themselves not excepted. Our Divines are so confident of this, that from the unlaw∣fulnesse of Circumcision, they usually dispute against other humane Ceremonies: and the Iesuits in answe∣ring, are forced to flie unto this (which must be our Def. and Rej. their answer) that the Ceremonies of the olde Testament, are not absolutely abrogated, but onely in regard of their speciall manner, end, & intention. Greg. Valent. tom. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 7. punct. 7. Bellar. de effect. Sacr. l. 2. c. 32. whiche answer is called by D. Fulke (ag. Saund. of images, pag. 672.) a beastly doctrine.

But because it were an infinite and needlesse labor, to allege the testimonies whiche may be easily alleged, against Ceremoniall Circumcision, amonge Christians, as unlawfull, I will passe on to reasons against it; that the Rej. may no more say, You say nothing to dis∣prove it.

6. First, The onely place, in the New Testament, by which all Divines (as the Rejoynder speaketh, pag. 75.) prove a power in the Churche to constitute Ceremo∣nies, is 1. Cor. 14.26.40. Edification, decencie, order. But the Apostle, in that chapter, doeth no way give leave eyther unto our, or any other Churche to constitute Circumcision for a Ceremonie. Therfore no Churche hath power to constitute Circumcission for a Ceremo∣nie. For Order, and Decencie, no man in his right wits will say that Circumcision commeth under their notion, And as for Edification, it hath been formerly shewed, that it doeth not require new instituted signi∣ficant Ceremonies, muche lesse a rejected or abrogated Ceremonie, but onely is the ende of orderly and de∣cent cariage of thinges instituted by God.

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

8. Thirdly, Circumcision cannot be esteemed more lawfull to be instituted for a significant Cere∣monie, then a Paschall lambe: and they two being brought into the Churche, what shall hinder (if it please our Convocation house) but the greatest part of the olde Ceremoniall law, may in like manner follow? For the Rejoynder cap. 2. sect. 6. acknowlegeth no other limites, or boundes for nomber of suche Ceremonies, then the judgement of those to whose discretion it belongeth

to judge therof.

9. In the fourth place, It is not lawfull for any Churche to impose Ceremoniall burdens upon Chri∣stians. But Circumcision is a great burden to them upon whome it is imposed: as our Convocation men would confesse, if it were imposed upon them. Ergo.

10. Fiftly, It is not lawfull for any Churche, or Convocation-house, to usurpe authoritie over the bodies of men, especially unto bloud. But appointing of Circumcision is usurping of authoritie over mens bodies, to the shedding of bloud. Ergo. Adde unto this, that the Convocation-house may better appointe, that all English men, should have their lippes, or their eares pared, or theyr eares nayled to theyr Parish-Churche dore, for signification of that dutie, which they are bounde to performe with their eares and lippes, then suche Circumcision as is in use with the Iewes, and Prester-Iohn. These thinges considered, I thinke ther is no reasonable man, but will sooner reject our Ceremonies, for bringing suche a foul tayle after them, (as that our Convoca••ion may cause all English-men to be Circumcized) then admitte of Circumsicision, for love of our paultrie Ceremo∣nies.

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

and necessarie, and Iewish Ceremonies, as they are morally significant, and free. Now for necessitie and freedome, enough hath been spoken in the first part. In the other distinction, he disliketh nothing but typi∣call signification: so that (in his imagination) any Iewish Ceremonie may be now used, and by our Convoca∣tion-house imposed upon us, if typicall signification of Christ to come be taken from it. And is not this a Chri∣stian doctrine of Ceremonies; that sacrifying of a lam••e to signifie Christ allready come (as D. Reinolds ag. Hart. cap. 8. div. 4. doeth conclude from the like answer of Hart•• is now lawfull? It may be he will answer, that he doeth not allow of Ceremonies signifying Christ at all.

But it hath been formerly shewed, that our signe o•• the Crosse doeth immediately and directly signifie Christ his death upon the Crosse.

But let all this be as the Rej. would have it: what i•• this for the defense of the Def. whoe sayd even now▪ that a Iewish Rite, without a Iewish opinion, is not unlaw∣full; and then addeth, that yet it is more safe to inven•• new Ceremonies, then those Iewish rites now abolished? Is •• Iewish Rite used without a Iewish opinion, typicall▪ Or is it onely lesse safe, to use abolished types, then new invented Ceremonies? This is nothing else but to make ropes of sande.

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

esset novis? Num Divinae sublatae sunt, ut humanae succede∣••ent? Are Divine Ceremonies abolished, that humane may be erected in their place?

The Rej. heerupon complaineth of manifest abusing and perverting D. Whitaker his wordes. And why so, I pray? 1. D. Whitaker spake of Divine figures, and the Repl. by corrupt translation maketh him to speak of Divine Ceremonies. As if D. Whitakers did understand by ••igures typicall praefigurations of thinges to come onely, in his di••pute against the Papists, whoe by Bellarmine in that place confesse, the Ceremonies of the old Testa∣ment were figures of the new Testament, and therefore when the thing it selfe is come should cease.* 1.1

And what else could he understand, but signifi∣cant Ceremonies? Doeth not the Rej. rather pervert D. Whitakers meaning, in making him to conclude against typicall praefigurations, which Bellarmine did as well disclaime, as himself?

2. He cuts off by the wast, D. Whitakers his sentence, sayth the Rej. Let us therfor take-in the next wordes, according to the Rej. his owne translation: Therfore if the Ceremonies of Moses were removed because they were typicall, why should not the Popish Ceremonies be removed which are not lesse typicall? Is not this above the wast, a∣gainst significant Ceremonies? Certainely It was not the meaning of D. Whitaker to charge the Papists with typicall praesignifications of Christ yet to come: and ther∣fore he must needes understand, by typicall, significant Ceremonies.

3. The wholl•• intention sayth he) w••s, to condemne the Po∣pish Ceremonie, as necessarie, or Sacramentall, But this could not be so: because Bellarmine in that place, first answereth about their figurative nature, and then after addeth:* 1.2 to that which is objected of the number and weight of popish lawes. 4. D. Wh. (addeth he) did all••w of humane signi••icant Rites: as certayn Feasts. Now if D. Wh. yeel∣ding something to the streame of time, and custome, did account some suche humane institutions tolerable, that is nothing to the purpose. For we urge here his generall rule onely: of Feasts we shall after answer. In the meane time, concerning D. Wh. his generall sen∣tence of humane significant Ceremonies, let these his wordes be considered: Bellarmin saith, the Ceremonies are instituted of the Church to help the ruder sort. I answer the rude are not to be instracted with Ceremonies, God hath given Scripture that out of them the rude may draw instruction.* 1.3 And it is to be observed, that D. Wh. in that place con∣futeth the one and thirtie Chapter of Bell. his s••cond booke, de effectu Sacram. But the confutation of the two and thirtie Chapter is wholly wanting: in whiche this Argument was to be handled, in defence of Cal∣vins, Chemnitius, and Brentius his reason: God would have this difference betweene us and the Iewes, teaching them as children by sencible signes, us, as men more simply without signes.* 1.4 Now that D. Wh. in his Lectures passed over that Chapter with silence, it is not credible; but it seemeth rather, that honest Mr. Allēson found his sen∣tence there so crosse to our English tenents about Ce∣remonies, that he durst not set forth his wordes in

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

13. For the backinge of the former consequence, this reason was added, by the Repl. If it had been the will of God, that we should be taught, by other signes, then those which are appointed in the N. Testament: He could easily, and would surely, eyther have chosen some of the olde, for that use, or appointed some new in their places. The Rej. his answer is, that God wil∣leth humane significant teaching Ceremonies, onely permissively, not praeceptively. Of which distinction I know not well what to make: as being uncertayn whe∣ther he meaneth, that God hath onely permitted in gene∣rall, that Christians may be taught (if men shall thinke fitting) by humane signes; or that he hath commanded that in generall, and onely permitted the particulars to mens discretion! Howsoever, those whoe usurpe this authoritie, must shew good evidence of this permissive will of God, before we can finde our selves, eyther prae∣ceptively, or permissively willed of God, to subject our selves unto their institutions. But that evidence we have hitherto exspected in vayne. The Rej. to darken the cause objecteth, that It is Gods will, that we should worship him constantly in one set place, at suche an houre, in suche an order; and yet these are not praescribed by God. Where it is not true that it is Gods will, to have us bound constantly to one place, time, and order of worship. 2. So farr as we can discerne Gods will for to have us use any one place, time, and order, we di∣scerne

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

For all knowe, that God hath commanded most con∣venient place, time, and order, for to be observed in his service: When therfore (all circumstances considered) we finde this place, time, and order, most convenient, we observe it as commanded of God. The like cannot be sayd of our Ceremonies: except first it be shewed, that God hath commanded humane significant Cere∣monies in generall: and after it be made apparant, that our significant Ceremonies are more convenient for us, then others.

14. The Def. having given a reason, why it is safer to invent new Ceremonies, then to use those olde ones of the Iewes: because they might ingender an opi∣nion of necessitie: and so might bringe in all the Leviti∣call law: was answered by the Repl. 1. that though more danger may be in some respect, on the one side, yet more may be absolutely on the other. To this (though it be evident) the Rej. answereth with a bare deniall. 2. The Repl. observed, that the inventing of new humane Ceremonies have ingendred an opi∣nion of necessitie in them: and have brought in all the Popish law of Rites: so that the comparison, even in these respects, may be quaestioned.

The Rej. heer first observeth, that it was formerly alleged out of Calv. Ep. 259. that the originall of all hu∣mane Ceremonies was, that men would needes forge new wor∣ships of God. In whiche wordes, he findeth more then any other man can: opinion of necessitie: and upon that

accuseth the Repl. of I know not what varying uncer∣taintie, without any reason at all. Afterward, he ob∣serveth, that Iewish Ceremonies have more colour of necessi∣tie, because of their first Divine institution.

Now let that be so: yet if preaching, or the Churches sentence declared in a Convocation, be sufficient to remove from Ceremonies all false opinion (as the Def. and Rej. would persuade us) that maketh no suche dif∣ference, but that the comparison may still be quaestioned.

Notes

• * 1.1

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

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

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

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