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.
TO proue that our ceremonies are imposed and used as vvor∣ship, this argument is brought: Those ceremonies which haue the kinde, nature, and definition of worship belonging to them, so that they want nothing but a right author to make them true w••rship,
those are in their imposition and use worship, and for want of a right au∣thour, are false wor••ip: but our ceremonies are such. Ergo.
The Def. his answer is, that this learning never saw print, as he thinketh, that the institution of God doth not alter the common nature of worship. 1. It may be that hee never saw it in print: but I can witnesse, that Mr. William Bradshaw, a man that knew how to frame an argument in logicall manner, as well as any Bishop in England, set this reason down in Print some 14 yeares since, in one edition (as I remember) of his treatise concerning indifferent things. But an answer to that treatise, or to this argument, was never yet seene in print, though that begging of the question be the chiefe ground of those invectiues vvhich are ordina∣rily used in Sermons and vvritings about these questions, viz. that they are things indifferent. This argument is also found in a trea∣tise of the same authors, concerning Divine worship, printed 1604. 2. Though it had never seen the print before now, yet that doth not hinder, but it may be sound. For all sound reasons are not found in print. 3. There is none of our Divines that treateth of vvorship in generall and particular, but hath for substance this lear∣ning, viz. that religious worship is that which is done to the ho∣nour of God: and if it bee according to Gods commandement, then it is true; if not, then it is false. The Def. cannot name one of all that ever handled the common place of worship, that hath ••ot so taught, which if it be true, then the institution of God doth not alter the common nature of vvorship: 1. it doth not make that vvorship which otherwise being used to some end, and in the same manner, without Gods institution, vvere no worship at all.
But Gods institution (sayth the Def.) doth distinguish necessary wor∣ship from indifferent, and essentiall from accidentall. Grant all this: what can be made of it? Doth it therefore alter the common na∣ture of worship, making that worship, vvhich without it being u∣sed in the same manner, and to the same end, is no worship? here is no consequence at all. Beside, neither scripture, nor interpreters of Scripture, nor any good reason will allow, that there is any in∣different worship of God. Neither is it the institution of God (common to all worship) which maketh one more, and another lesse principall: but the nature of the thing instituted by him.
But the offering of any coloured sheep was indifferent before the Leviticall law: afterward, the offering of an unspotted lamb, was necessa∣rie and essentiall in the worship of God. To which objection I answer, 1. This his opposition of offering any coloured sheep before the Leviticall law, to the offering of an unspotted lamb afterward, is vain and without ground from the law of God; seeing it doth no where appeare in the Scriptures, but that it was as lawfull to offer
any coloured sheep after the law given as well as before. God re∣quires by Moses, that the offerings of his people should be perfect, Levit. 1. 3. 10 &c. And this might well be notwithstanding diversi∣tie of colour. The party-coloured sheepe of Iaakob were not im∣perfect, but of the perfectest sort, and that by the speciall direction and blessing of God, Gen. 30. 41. 42. with 31. 11. 12. God complai∣neth of those that offered corrupt sacrifices, torne, lame, and sicke, Mal. 1. 13. 14. But for difference of colour, there is little colour or shew of reason, that God gaue any such charge in his law. And it is the Doctors ignorance of the story, or want of due consideration that moved him thus to write. Secondly, suppose a lambe without spot to be forbidden, then I answer, That if any man before the commandement had offered an unspotted Lamb with the same mind that after it was to be offered with, as thinking that his sa∣crifice should in that respect haue been the more acceptable unto God, because it was of a lamb unspotted, then the offering of such a lambe had been as essential worship before, as it was after, though it could not be so true and lawfull.
Did the Def. never read nor heare, that matter and forme doe usually make up the essence of things? and that in institutions which are means to an end, the respect of that end is also required to the being, but a right efficient not so? let him consider a litle of the grounds of logick, or read our most logicall Divines, such as Sadeel is, and he shall soone perceive the truth. or else without that labour, let him or any other of common sence tell me, if the Temple of Ierusalem should haue been built with all the appurte∣nances, and sacrifices with other observances there used, without any commandement of God, according as they vvere by his ap∣poyntment, had there not been essentiall false worship erected un∣to God? haue the Papists and Heathens no essential false worship, but onely accidental? It is a shame to confute such unlearned con∣ceits.