A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the surplice, crosse in baptisme, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramentall elements of bread and wine.

SECT. XXIII. XXIIII. XXV. XXVI.

THe first example brought out of the New Testament, are the the feasts of charitie, ordained (as the Def. sayth) by the Apostles. To which our answer is ready, that if they were ordained by the Apostles, then they vvere not humane, but divine, and therefore nothing pertaining to our question. To this the Defendants reply is, that if divine be opposed unto constituti∣ons not commanded of God, then we could not haue uttered a more un∣learned position: because all Divines distinguish betwixt divine, Aposto∣licall, and Ecclesiasticall traditions. All Popish Divines indeed doe al∣low of this distinction, because it maketh for their purpose: and some of our English vvhen they vvrite in defence of the Hierar∣chie, or of the ceremonies: but so deeply to accuse those that re∣fuse it, for vvant of learning, this is too magisteriall For 1. that vvhich came from the Apostles as they vvere Apostles, that came from the spirit of God, Act. 15. 28. 1. Cor. 7. 40. and to call that divine which hath the divine spirit of God: 1. God himselfe for authour, vvhat vvant of learning is in this? 2 Iunius vvas a Divine, and learned, yet he sayth, that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostolicall traditions, is almost imaginarie and superfluous in Bell∣cont. 1. lib. 4. c. 2. an. 6. Danaeus calleth it a childish distribution, in e∣und. loc. more learned divines, might easily be named, that doe so allow of this distinction. And indeed, to examine it by that lear∣ning, by vvhich distinctions are chiefly to be tried, it hath no Lo∣gick at all in it. For 1. the distinction pretended betwixt things appoynted for perpetuall use, and those that may be altered up∣on occasion: This distinction or difference (I say) is no way contained, in the tearmes Divine, Apostolicall 2. Some things vvere immediatly by Christ appointed, vvhich vvere not perpe∣tuall:

as many things proper to the Apostles and their times. And some things appoynted by the Apostles which were to be perpetu∣all, as the essentialls of Ecclesiasticall government.

A second answer is brought in, that these feasts were abrogated by the Apostles. Then (sayth the Def.) 1. they were not of divine institution. Not in that sence indeed, which meaneth by divine perpetuall: but yet they might be divine, as gifts of tongues, healing, prophesy∣ing, &c. vvere. Then 2. (sayth he) the Church may institute and a∣brogate as the Apostles did. The consequence is but faint: yet the consequent or thing inferred, may be granted, so that the Church keep within her bounds. Our finall answer is, That these feasts of charitie were not of mysticall signification, nor yet meerly Ecclesiasticall. And indeed it is plaine, that these feasts did carry no ordained sig∣nification, but that which nature her selfe had imprinted in their foreheads. For who knoweth not that familiar feasting of poore and rich together, is a demonstration and preservation of loue, vvithout institution? and yet this is all that the Def. can say for their signification. Neither were these feasts merely Ecclesiasticall or religious, because they were used in the assemblies: for they were also used in the same manner, and to the same end, out of the assemblies. Their proper end was reliefe of the poore, and main∣tenance of brotherly loue.

Last of all, for the ordination of these feasts, it cannot be shewed to haue been Apostolicall. Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. 22. judgeth otherwise. So that in this example, the Def. can neither shew mysticall signification, religious ceremonie, nor Ecclesiasti∣call ordination: and yet except all these be proved, the instance maketh nothing at all unto his purpose. But that which hee lac∣keth in weight of arguments, he strives to make up in number.