have both in opinion affection of the true Church of Christ The extent of the Churches authoritye I knovv she is the spouse of Christ yet but the spouse It is enough that she is next to her head the Lord Iesus she must not usurp to be head her povver is subordinat not supreme ministerium not imperium 28. Math. last she must deliver the lavves vvhich she hath receaved from her King not dare to make lavves And therfore vve must bevvare lest vvhyle for our ovvne es vve vvould honor the Church too much vve dishonor Christ vvrong greive both The praetensetaken from the authority dashed 1. because its a poysoned dâ—ug of popery To crush therfore the former Cavil objection I ansvver several things It is the Romish tenet to a hayre one of the most fulsom poynts loathsom dregs of the fylth of Popery The Iesuits themselves having no other bottom â—hey beare up or to biuld up their blynd obedience An opinion constantly unanimously opposed by all our Divines Chamier de votis 1. Bec it overthrovves the Soveranguty ofChrist his prophetical Kingly office lib. 11. cap. 11. abhorred by al Christian self denying and syncere-belleiving hearts For vvhat is it else but to jusle Christ out of his prophetical Kingly office to resolve our fayth obedience lastly into the determinations commands of men 2. VVhy are the Berreans commended for examining Pauls Doctrin Acts. 17. 1. Thess. 5.21 vvhy are all men enjoyned to trye all things to hold that vvhich is good If vve be bound to take our Religion upon trust from the authority of the Churche 3. If Paul an Apostle Doctor of the gentiles 3. The Apost would not chalenge this power disclaymes all such souveraignty as tyrannicall usurpation vvhat man or Church dare chalenge it But disclayme it he doeth 2. Cor. 1. last Not that vve have dominion over your fayth but are helpers of your joy for by fayth you stand 4. Had men or Curches povver to coyne Ecclesiastical Canons to forge nevv articles of fayth to make these senses of the Scripture Authentick vvhich suited their mynds and to charge these upon the consciences of men as necessary to be beleeved Beleivers should not stand by their fayth but they and their fayth should stand or fall according to the feeble determination of men 5. If the fayth of particular men depend upon the Church That the authority of the Church is not the rule the faâ—â—e rule which guides the Church doth guide each member upon vvhat doth the fayth of the Church depend Eyther they be the rule vvhich is too loathsome to affirme or else they are guided by the rule of the vvord in their determinations vvhich begets both saving light in their mynds sound faith in their hearts Eph. b. 20.10 Rom. 17. And if the vvord be ablé to give them light fayth vvhy not others as vvel as them 6. The authority of the Church unto vvhich vve must captivate our judgements Vniversale neâ— existit nec agit nâ—siâ—in individuis musteyther be the authority of the Vniversal Church vvhiche acteth nothing but in the particulars these have varied in opinion practise touching Ceremonies therfor cannot setle us in a certaine determination Or it must be the authority of a particular Churche but particular Churches have not only erred but departed from the faythe Vvho Lorded it oter the lavv did not the Church 14. Math. 10 vvho condemned crucifyd the Lord did not the Church vvho persecuted the Apostles forbad them to preach publish the Gospel did not the Church And this vvhich is sayd of Churches is true of Counâ—els of all kynds as experience of all ages hath made it good Others of this rank plead the love of their people 3. Plea of the Temporizer is the love of his pâ—ople preaching when indeed it is the love of him self living the necessity of preaching hope of doing good hovv precious mens paynes are vvhat need of laborers in the vynyard And therfore conclude if all men should sit do vvur in silence as some doe the ruyne of the Church must needs follovv They confesse its true indeed these popish reliques vvhich are the bane of the Churches peace being unprofitable needlesse nay scandalous offensive should be removed But vvhen they vveigh that heavy charge VVoe if I preach not the Gospel they are then vvilling to beare all rather then to deprive the Church of the benefit the soules of Gods people of the profit comfort of their ministerye Favour thy self is the serious arge whatever is alledged ito colour it with vvhereas alas al this pretence of mercy is a miserable mistake commonly that vvorldly vvatch vvord of favour thy self lyes closely covered under these curious florishes of care compassion for the common good For the quaestion is not vvhether preaching be precious or the paynes of faythful Ministers profitable But the doubt here is vvhether vve may come to doe lavvful things by unlavvful meanes To synne that vve may doe service As though the Lord had need of my lye or else that he could not bring his servants to his ovve haven vvithout the divels boate or that Christ could not upholde his ovvne kingdome vvithout the paynes preaching of some men novv I conceyve it is undeniably evident that the suffering in the tyme of Queene Maryes dayes did more setle enlarge the bounds of the Gospel then all the preaching did in King Edvvard the sixt his reigne A 4. plea of the temporizer Others speake out deale dovvne right professe it is agaynst the hayre their hearts to doe this drudgery but they are not able to undergoe the extreame pressure vvhich follovves the refusal of them Nay it s certayne some have openly protested that if it vvere but half an hovvres hanging I. speake but what I. know they vvould rather suffer it then subscribe But for them theirs to ly in the ditch to be cast into a blynd corner like broken vessels yea they their familyes to dye many hundred deaths by extreame misery before they could come unto their graves This they vvere not able to undergoe A condition I acknovvledge vvhich needs deserves a great deale of pity commiseration since it is true that some kinds of oppression make a man mad But oh that the God of mercy vvould put it into the mynds hearts of those vvhom it doth concerne that they vvould never suffer such refuse reliques longe to hazard not only the comforts but even the conâ—ciences happines of many distessed soules Ther is a thrid last sort of men more ingenuous then the former vvhoe vvhen they see The close hypocrite his excuses that such colours of excuses formerly propounded are not layd in oyle therfore vvillnot continue nor can give
WaldeÌ„ses who first reformed their churches purged out all their popish leveÌ„ renouÌ„ced all such humaine Cer. or Traditious as unlawfull as manifestly appeareth by all Papists and Protestants that have sett downe their confession practise 4. If Analogically Sacramentall Cere be impious aemulators of Gods holy Sacraments as the Rej. confesseth what can be sayd why humaine significant Cer. analogicall to divine significaÌ„t should not by parity of reason be esteemed impious aemulators of Gods holy signes Is it forbidden to aemulate Gods Sacra only not all his holy ordinances After all these come in morall significaÌ„t Cer. which are only to expresse some benefitt whiâ—h God giveth us or to notify professe or expresse some duty which we owe to him or one to another But I do not see wherein these differ froÌ„ reductive Sacra Cer. except it be in this that it may so fall out that these sometymes are not affixed to SacrameÌ„ts This head therfore seemeth to be added only because D. Morton had used it before and for his sake let us a little further weigh it when therfor the Rej affirmes that morally significant are ordeined to expresse some benefitt on Gods part some duty on ours By some benefitt or duty he must meane any spirituall benefitt or duty besyde the covenant which he professedly mentioneth excepteth How the Rej. divisionâ— interfere and croâ—â—e one the other for if one benefitt may be signifyed why not any one this morally significant are religious or sacred significant in the generall the Species as large as the Genus Hence againe morally significant will be a genus to sacramentall reductively significant for that is but a particular signification of some benefitts duties in the Sacrament which are included under this Generall so one species of the distributioÌ„ shall become a Genus to the opposite member contradistinct species If it be here replyed that reductive significative sacramentall is annexed to the Sacrament I answer that is nothing to the nature of the significancy for take use a crosse out of baptisme in the same manner to the same end as in it it will be the same in the specificall nature of significancy only so much the worse because it is sett cheek by jole with baptisme 2. I aske what he meanes by those words expresse professe is it barely to declare if so then let him show who is his adversary unlesse he will fall out with his shadow for do not all his opposites graunt that signâ— indicantia or showing sygnes are lawfull but not symbolica Lastly when he affirmes that these Cerem morally significant are not to signifye the covenant of grace The crosse sâ—gnifyes the covenant of grace I reply if they may signifye any other spirituall duty or benefitt if they may signifye the severall essentiall duties of the covenant of each syde why may they not signifye the whole covenant 2. If the crosse signifyeth the consecration of the child to God and so entrance into the covenant the relation of a souldier to a Commaunder a servant to a master and so is continuance and faythfull perseverance in that profession to Christ and his respect and regard of us according to those relations then doth it signify the covenant By this which hath beene sayd it appeares that the quaestion is falsely stated for these Ceremo are more then holy by application in his sense formerly opened they are pressed as necessary and are used as analogically sacramentall as well as properly morall â—he state of â—â—e quaestion and in signification do pertake somthing of the proper nature of Sacraments as also in the significative teaching and stirring up the heart when it s sayd they are used in worship they are externall acts of Gods worship falsely appointed by man and serve not for order nor decency nor aedification CHAP. VIII Concerning a nationall Church answ to the 60.61.62 of the Preface OF the faythfull congregations wherein we were borne baptized and nourished up in fayth there is no quaestion made but they are our loving and beloved mothers Yet much quaestion ariseth concerning that which the Rej. teacheth viz. Pag. â—0 6â— That all those churches together have one mother and so we have a grandmother that is the Church of England considered as one church and that by way of representation as the convocation house 2. by way of association and combination into one profession worship and discipline which includeth the orders and officers that is the Hierarchye pertaining therunto but not by any other collective consideration 1. I never read either in Scripture or in any orthodoxe writer of a visible particular Church either grandmother of Christians or mother of other Churches if the Rej. hath he should do well to informe us where we may fynd this doctrine explained 2. I would willingly know whether Christians Christian churches also were not in England before this great grandmother I think the Rej. will not denye it nor yet flye for succour to his phisitians who have found out an herb which is called of them Sonne before the Father Filius antâ— Patrem to justifye his intention of Daughter before the Mother Filia antâ— Matrem He must confesse that this Grand-motheâ— is onely a mother in law The nature of a representative church and that law also to be mans not Gods 3. All the churches of England may as well be considered as one in unity of profession without any new motherhood as all the Latine Scholes of England one in the unity of the same Grammar or all Gallenicall or Platonicall Scholes one in their kynd 4. A Representative mother is the image of a mother and an image with commaunding authority in religion without Gods commaund Quod ecclesia siâ—is repraesentativa libeÌ„ter credâ—mus vera enim non estu Sed â—sten aâ—te qâ—aso â—â—de â—orâ—â—ec nomen Qui hoc nomintâ—◠〈◊〉 Quis â—acundâ— ceâ—spirandi â—obis potestatem dedit Qâ—is coÌ„deâ—di Canones decreta verbo Des disâ—â—â—miâ—iâ— vobiâ—tus fecit Quiâ— ut ista humeâ—is hominum impeâ—eretiu permisâ—t Qâ—is consitentia ut siâ— gravareitâ— vebis persw sit Vt dicâ—â—etis bâ—num malum malum benum quâ—â— iussit 〈…〉 â—â—clesia 〈◊〉 qâ—a nihil 〈◊〉 al et sed picta ceâ—iâ—la â—mnia Scanâ—n estâ— ecclesia riâ—a sâ—â—sa Christo â—râ—ua qua seâ—a veâ—it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉 is an Idoll It was well therfore to this purpose sayd of Zwinglius Explan arti 8. That you be a representative church we willingly beleeve for you are not the true church But show I beseech you whence you had this name who styled you with this title who gave you power of meeting and combyning together who graunted you authority of coyning decrees and Canons differing from the word of God who suffered you to impose these upon men who perswaded you thus to burden Consciences who enjoyned you to call evill good and
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. insinuateth 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 Polycarpe is sayd to have praetended was for the fourteen day of the moneth and is confuted by a contrarie praetense 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 quoted 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 Alijs testibut vel testimonijs preterquam Divinarum Scripturarum câ—edere vel non credere liceat quantum ea moments ad faciendam sulem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis 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 observatioÌ„ Ecclesia Dei intermultam palâ—am multaque Zizanta constituta multa toleravit 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 necessarie to salvation are written in the Scriptures and which is muche more all thinges that are eyther necessarie or profitable for all men to know SECT 18.19 Concerning Protestants witnessing against the Negative argument from Scripture 1. BEllarmine was brought in by the Def. as an indifferent Adversarie confessinge that Protestants 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 referre 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 rejected 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 testimonie in Scripture But 1. It is no idle shift so to interpret an allegation objected as that the interpretation cannot be confuted but barely denied 2. As Circumstances 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 Scripture 3. The same answer is given and no other Rejoynder 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 sentence 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 seemeth 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 according 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 according 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 answered 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 circumstances 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 reject 2. To what ende he judgeth that thes thinges should be added unto those that are divine For if the ende be conformitie
for stiffe opposition to Ecclesiasticall lavves vvhich they despitefully speake vvrite agaynst for contempt of these statute lavves by vvhich the book of common prayer is established For that they dravv as fast as they can into a body of themselves ingrossing a forehand the name of brethren The Godly the Church the good Christians as though vve had lost our Christ they had found him quite avvay 222 pag 13. The tearming of our Cerem Popish is done out of faction to make the imposers Observers of them hatefull vvith the people of God vvhich I beleeue no Church vvould suffer I am sure it should not pag 238. 14. This man forceth his vvitt I feare his conscience also doth not beleeue himselfe vvhen he sayth that these Cerem are imposed as parts ofGods vvorship but only for faction opposition vvould fayne haue it thought so that their opposition might be justifyed before men 243. p. 15. For a vvrangling spirit yea an ill conscience is so playnly to be observed vvhile he studies to persvvade vvhat himself beleeues not 243. 16. But vvhat should I presse these men vvith the authority of men vvho have themselues in estimation for soundnes of judgement before all men p. 370. 17. But the Repl. seing no interpretation vvill help agaynst the cleare Testimonies of the Learned by us alleadged confesseth they vvere men as if he his partners vvere more then men that ther is a little variety So vvilling are men rather to cast dirt in the faces of others then to confesse any mistaking in themselues Is this any thing but the spirit of pride thus masterly to judge the Lords vvorthyes 387. p. 18. This ansvver you think good to give because you are resolved to sinke the reputation of all men auncient or latter hovv learned zealous soever they vvere ratherthen to confesse your ovvne mistaking Open Revilings of the Persons of Non-conformitants or secret inducements to bring them into distast In 52. pag of the Praeface some Noncōformists are brought in sayd to be of that temper that vvhen the remove all of Cerem only vvas mentioned Their ansvver vvas They must not have a hoof-behinde them And the note in the Margent tells us 1. This S r. Fran VValsingham told M r. Knevvstubs of vvhom I had it 2. It is a ridiculous supposition it s a malitious surmise all this scurrilous bundle is of no use unlesse it be to ingraft himselfe into the affections vvhich he calleth the consciences and applause of his ovvne partie p. 633. Preface 3. These tvvo notes note you to be an egregious vvrangler p. 6. 4. Did ever sober-man reason thus p. 61. 5. I should be sory to fynde so much vvayvvardnes falshood in any man of our Religion but cannot but vvonder at it in a man pretending more then ordinary sincerity p. 15. 6. Hovv ever these men vvho in effect say to all other men stand backe I am more holy then thou c. 7. VVhat a shame is it for men to glory of sincerity for refusing Cerem And use no sincerity in alleadging authors 284. 8. But that use vvhich the learned divines call Historicall these men call Religious that they might by a false eare-mark bring us into suspicion abroad into hatred vviht our Religious people at home and yet they vvould be counted sincere men 303. Certaine Quaeres by vvhich these passages may be weighed in the balance ofserious consideration Of all in generall the quaeres are these 1. If the Replier did any where give sentence of conformists consciences 2. If he uttered any one bitter speache against all Conformists 3. The former being negatiuely true if the Rejoyner in his over under-lashings was not overcome of his owne evill rather then the Repliers Quaere 1. 1. If a man upon probability affirme such a poynt or out of ignorance mistake conclude it certaine so relate it as by him conceaved doth he hereby necessarily manifest a spirit of contradiction or the weaknes of his owne apprehension 2. If charity hopes the best that can be conceaved in reason to iudge mens spirits by grounds weake feeble out of which nothing can be concluded Quaere whether it be not uncharitable censuring 3. Do all those who contradict the like conceites of the Rej as false manifest a sinful spirit in lusting after contradiction Quaere 2. Whether may not a man mistake a thing plaine be of no contentious spirit Whether in such a mistake is it certaine God smites with giddines Whether is not this to iudge mens consciences beyond warrant of any word of God or the nature of the work wil beare But is not this not only unreasonable but intollerable if the thing be true Quaere 3. 1. Whether these words come from a calme loving merciful spirit 2. Whether God may not abate a man for his fals in executing iudgments here or may lay many punishments on him beside open shame 3. Whether these definitive determinations of iudgments upon men for some light differences those not so cleare be not to jussle God out of the place of iustice to cast thunderbolts where he doth not But if the replier make his expression good by his defense as he hath is not this a strange censure upon so smal a thing so strange a mistake Quaere 4. Whether this charge issues not out of a principle desirous to make the Persons of non conformists odious to all proclayming them as such whose intollerable pride scornes contemnes all men in regard of themselves Whether the Rej. his passion did not transport him beyond himself in this accusation when it makes him contradict his owne confession preface p. 5. Ther be some moderate learned Godly loving c. VVhether his spleen is not great that would spare none but even destroy the Nation of Nonconformists in the esteeme of men As Haman the Iues For of all he speakes They Them Quaere 5. VVhether he be not more charitable to Fryars then Nonconformists since he knowes what they haue printed Quaere 6. VVhether if this Repl. was faulty was it reasonable to fly in the face of all Nonconformists These men VVhether the Rej. his conscience in cold blood dare say that their is not amongst the NonConformists the truth of worthines but only the names VVhen in his preface he thus writes p. 3. some peacable very VVorthy Ministers were cast out Quaere 7. Whether they that cannot entertaine truth crosse to their opinion seeke honor one from another can have any truth of grace our saviour seemes to gainsay it 5. Iohn And therfore Whether there be any colour of argument for the Rej. to condemne al Nonconformists as such whom this charge condemnes Quaere 8. Whether doth the vilefying of a relique which one conceaves superstitions argues a spirit of rancor How came the Rej to be sure that God will judge them for these VVhether may they not repent
they vvill accord The Doctor must vvrite that he may not be vvrought out of the hearts of his people pag. 11. And yet he confesseth by vvriting he hath vvrought himselfe out of the hearts of the godly His defense to the 2. obj is yet more feeble though more ingenious For his ansvvere is nothing but yeilding the cause in some compasse and circumlocution of vvords For 1 vvhen he graunts that he forbore some yeares this course of vvriting that he might not exasperate authority he privily yea playnly yeilds the objection had such rationall face in it that it did not only presse him but prevayle vvith him also vvhere as 2. ly he adds that by this meanes he hath some hope to persvvade some to conforme so to avoyd the lash of authority By this he doth not only yeild the objection but confirme establish it For if only those vvho are persvvaded by his ansvvere shall avoyd the lash therfore they vvho vvill not be persvvaded must expect the blovv and shall be sure to feele it 3. He adds for his ovvne intention Sure I am that I desire not the vexation of any sober man But his ovvne bond vvill not be taken because he hath so often broke his vvord he must seek for other suretyes Quid verba audiam cum facta videam Little povver have vvords to persvvade any of common understanding vvhen the practise goes the contrary vvay Nor yet can I discerne hovv to judge of any mans desire but only by his indeavour Those heavy accusations uncharitable censures vvherby he chargeth that vvith much bitternes the generation of Non-conformists from vvhat root they come vvhat desire they imply let any rational man determine For it cannot be to ingratiate them or procure favor for them in the affections of the Governors vvhen he makes them appeare such as deserve none nay such as ought to receyve none but the contrary at their hands Lastly vvhen it is objected That this course hinders the removeall of these things vvhich authority othervvise might possibly remove His defense is That he vvill never beleive that authority vvill remove them vvith dishonor of it self as yeilding the things to be unlavvfull vvhich it hath so long mayntayned In vvhich ansvver these tvvo particulars offer themselves to consideration 1. To remove Cerem as unlavvfull being long mayntayned is a dishoner to Authority 2. D.B. beleives authority vvill not thus dishonor it self Ansvv The first of vvhich is a most dangerous assertion is made a cheife barr to stay Papists others from reforming of any thing that others haue opposed they defended And its usuall in the mouth of false flatterers back freinds to all reformation I vvould hope that D.B. did utter more in this by his penne then he meant in his heart Beside the consequences are not so dangerous but the ground is as vveake For the long continuance or mayntenance of a thing if evill unlavvfull is so farr from bringing dishonor upon any for the removeall of it that retayning therof encreaseth both his sinne shame it argues a greater measure of humility povver of grace to abandon it Nay vvere the thing lavvfull if yet by circumstances it did appeare that Gods Honor the common good the aedification of our brethren might more be promoted by the remoueall of it though it vvere hoary headed vvith antiquity continuance it argued greatest love to God man to alter it rather then to keepe it in use that vvould bring greatest honor to him that should so doe since by the verdict of Gods Spirit he is most honorable that most honoreth God 2. From these grounds hovv rotten unsavory the second particular of the Rej. his defense is vvill easily be graunted For if in such a remoueall the duty of Authority doth consist the povver of grace doth appeare the glory of God good of the Church common vvealth vvill be advanced To be of that beleife vvith D. B. that Magistrates vvill never be brought to doe vvhat they ought hovv uncharitable is it thus to lay their honor in the dust And not to presse them hereunto vvhen vve may by our calling ought hovv unconscionable is it And hovv contrary to that loue vve ovve to the Almighty our Governours The crovvd of objections vvhich he makes concerning himself I conceyve as so many Strugglings of Spirit vvhich stood in the vvay to vvithstand him in his course His conscience as it should seeme gaue the â—nsett let in some such intimations as these to him VVhy is not Popery coming in fast enough but you must make a preparation thereunto yea become a purveyer harbenger to make Roome lay in provision for it Is it not sufficient that the vvicket is sett open that the Popish pack may be dravvne in but you must sett open the great gate that a Sumpter horse may amble in vvith a load of reliques Cerem For if the patent of the Church be so enlarged to appoynt Cerem at their pleasure to admonish and teach and it is in their povver to appoynt vvhat hovv many as seemes good to them vvhy then let images be erected let crosses Crucifixes be sett up in every corner These are lavvfull admonitors instructers vve cannot haue too many good Companions to putt us in mynd of our duties Consider beside hovv many poore Ministers are under pressure some fled some imprisoned many suspended themselues families undone VVhy vvill you not suffer them to lye in the dust but vvill you trample upon them even unto death Is it not enough they make brick but must they be beaten also Oh consider as before the Lord to vvhom you must giue an account Doe you vvell to blovv the fire in the Chymny vvhyle the flame is in the thach Is not the fury of the BB. yet feirce enough their rage sharpe enough but you must sett them on and strenghthen their hands to strike harder lastly is not Cringing at Altars bovving at the name of Iesus like to be brought in practised vvith great forvvardnes vvill you dare you encorage in such courses yea giue an approbation and commendation to them For they vvill say they are but significant Cerem they place no merit putt no efficacy in them only they are admonitors of our dutyes Thus is the foundation of superstition layd the Gospell Stopped and an open vvay made for Popery and you are the persvvader the encorager yea defender of all these hovv vill you ansvver this at the great day Yet do I not speake this as though I vvere troubled vvith the vveight of any thing he hath vvritt For I professe unfaynedly the vvay of his traverse fynds vvelcome vvith me vvherin the nakednes indefensiblenes of his cause I hope vvill be discovered Only one thing I vvould most earnestly intreat that he vvould shovv us but fayre play in these proceedings to vvitt that he
Reg. cap. 8. thus expressed It was lawfull to doâ— what Solomon did because though it were forbid to offer sacrifice elsewhere then at the Altar of whole burnt-offerings yet now upon necessity 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 Altar and the intent of the Law was no other then that they should not offer in divers places but heere was but one continued place Licinâ—â— fuit quod 〈◊〉 Solomon quia licet prohibitum asset ofâ—erri sacrificia alibi quam in Altari Holâ—caustorum tamen nunc ex necessitate licuit cum non possint capi sacrificia super Altarâ— Etiam non videbaturagi contra legem quia nunc cremebantur sacrificia apud Altare simul in Altari â—ic videbatur totum Atrium Sacerdoâ—â—m esse tanquam unum Altare Intentio autem Legis erat ut non offerrerentur sacrificia in diversis locis SECT 22. Concerning Synogogues TO this simple instance the Replier answered 1. that Synagogues were no significant Ceremonies 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 representation of the Sanctuary But I aske How Was this representation in matter or forme or use He seemeth to referre 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 suppose the Synagogues had been a repraesentation of the Sanctuarie which was a Ceremonie is every repraesentation 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 Synagogues by Prophets which the Repl. sayd is most likely 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 against The third of no humane significant Ceremonies used in Synagogues is absolutely pronounced false But no reason of this sentence is given out of the Scriptures 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 Purchas his Pilgrimage are wandring Pilgrimes without house or home and therfore worthy no other answer but that which our law hath provided for Vagabondes SECT 23.24.25.26 Concerning Love-Feasts 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 appoint them I mervayl sayth the Apostle according to Erasmus his Paraphrase on 1. Cor. 11. Quis ritus istos iâ— vos invexerit whoe brought-in these Love-Feasts No man can tell us what religious signification was by institution 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 Apostles 2. To this it was 1. answered by M r. Nic. that if they were of Apostolicall then they were of Divine instiâ—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 because 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 Apostolicall institutions the answer is of that which the Apostles did but not as Apostles that is not properly Apostolicall 2. That which is manifested by the Holy Ghost shining â—n the Word they are the Rejoynder his wordes is deâ—ied to be Divine 3. No example is or can be brought of a new significant Ceremonie instituted by the Apostâ—es without immediat revelation The allegations opâ—osed may fill up paper but not satisfie any reasonable Reader 3. For removing of that Magisteriall censure of the â—reat unlearnednesse of the fore-sayd Position it was noâ—ed that some learned men were authors of it or partaâ—ers in it Iunius is one who Cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. an 6 â—ayth that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostoliâ—all traditions is almost imaginarie and superfluous Wher â—he Rejoynder hath nothing to catch at but onely that â—article almost Take therfore another place of the same â—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 Apostolicall traditions but such as are delivered from God Falsò divinae traditiones aâ— Apostolicis distinguuntur quae unum reipsa sunt nam Apostolicae nullae sunt nisi a Deo traditâ— 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 writings Now let the Reader mark that the Defender his charge of unlearned rudenesse depended on this if Apostolicall traditions may be called Divine as being commanded of God To talke heere of faculty ordinary pastors authority 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 allowing of the foresaid position and rejecting the distinction made betwixt Divine and Apostolicall traditions 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 neighbours for such extreame want of learning when youâ— opposite learning can scarce stand in any sense 6. After these testimonies the Replier inquired into the Logicke of this distinction betweene Divine and Apostolicall traditions But the Rejoynder correcteth his interpretation and saith this distinction is
good evill You are therfore an hypocriticall church which hath nothing sound in it and substantiall but all things fayned and paynted But you are not that true church that bride beseeming our Saviour who stayes her self upon the truth alone and the Spirit of God He speaketh these things of thâ—se which under the name of Representative churches imposed their inventions upon true churches without Scripture which is a true representation of our representative convocation 5. The Rej. confesseth that this Hierarchicall convocation is humaine and not divine and he will not denye but Christians and Christian congrâ—gations are Divine Now what a monstrous and preposterous generation then doth he make as it were in a Chymaericall dreame of Divine Children proceeding from humaine mothers and grandmothers Our Saviour was of another mynd when he made these two opposite from earth and from heaven The Rej. hath found out so great consent betweene these two that earth may be the mother and grandmother of heaven Besyde the humaine mother of Divine children is not of their heavenly fathers choise nor by him appointed to beare the person of their true mother But she was first putt into this office by the presumption of men and afterward authorised by the Archmother of Rome continuing her profession by sleight might to represent those from whom she can show no other letters of credence for the power she usurpeth then she maketh her self or hath gotten by stealth from civill power 6. This representative mother is very seldome exstant viz when ther is a Parliament which now we have not had these diverse yeares And when she appeareth she can give no milk to her children further then she hath commission from man None of her children can have accesse unto her only she appointed many yeares since certaine servants of hers with restraint of their fathers allowance to dyet them with drye ceremonies and scourge them with silencing deprivation excommunication if they fynd fault with that provision which is very pap with a hatchet Is not such a mother worthy grand titles and honor 7. The examples of such motherhood which the Rej. fetcheth from the assemblyes of Israell Scotland and our Parliament have no agreement For 1. we read of no assemblyes of Elders by office in Israell from whence all other were excluded stiled either Mothers of Israell or all Israell Neither was there in any such assemblyes this motherly authority exercised of appointing humaine sacred Ceremo unto Israell 2. The assemblyes of Scotland before Perth had no such state as our convocation nor power of commaunding but only advized of and directed those things which God had appointed and the churches were knowen to desire yet might their judgment be well called the judgment of the church of Scotland because they pronounced nothing but that which all the churches of Scotland did publikely professe even in their solemne confession 3. Our Parliament is not stiled the Mother common wealth of England yet in civill affaires more liberty is left for stile and power unto publike assemblies then in religious But if the lower house of Parliament were not more freely chosen and of greater power then the poore lower house of Convocation a quaere might be made whether the state or common wealth of England were there or no. Now for the second way of one church by association and combination of all particular churches into one profession worship and discipline This is good thus farr and the very same with that collective consideration which the Repl. mentioned and the Rej. termed a new mistie inexplicable nothing except combination doth mistyly cover under it the swallowing up of particular congregations by Nationall Provinciall Diocesan churches But â—s for that clause that this must needs include such orders and offices as our Hyerarchye this is either a begging or a stealing of the mayne quaestion For 1. this Hierarchye consisteth of officers and orders by the Rej. owne confession humaine not divine now associaâ—ion of profession worship and discipline may certainly be had by officers and orders divine 2. The reformed churches of France have their association and combinaâ—ion without any Hierarchye 3. The Hierarchye doth not associate churches under it but subdue all to it self so that as the Pope is sometyme esteemed the Church of Rome and sometyme he with his assistants so is our Hierarchye in England Beza de ecclesia notis paulo ante finom Ego Pontifieijs libâ—nter relinquo totum istuÌ„ Episcopatuâ— gradum cuius aperté dicâ— Spiritum Sanctum non suissâ— authorem sed humanam prudentiam cui nisi animadvertimus Deum maledixissâ— corte nihil nâ— nunc quidem videmus viperam insinu fovemus quae tursus matrem neâ—abit Beza in his notes of the church not farr from the end giveth warning of this I most willingly leave the wholl frame of Episcopall authority to the Papists of which I openly professe the Holy Spirit of God was never the author but humaine policy which if we do not observe to be accursed by God we certainly as yet see nothing at all and nourish we do a viper in our bosomes which will kill the mother This prophecy is too true of the Hierarchye as in other respects so in this that it seemeth to devoure our mother churches title liberty right and power and in a great part hath prevailed 9. It was added by the Replyer that the Hyerarchye is a creature of mans making and may more lawfully be removed when it pleaseth man then ever she was by him erected To this the Rej. answereth confessing that sundry offices and orders in our church are humaine and not divine adding that accidentall formes of discipline are not determined in the word of God but left in the churches liberty to devise as all but Anabaptists and such as edge too neare upon them consent Which words are worthy of a note or two For he 1. acknowledgeth our Hierarchye of Archbishops Bâ— Deanes Archdeacons c. to be creatures of mans making not divine Now of these principally consist our convocated mother church as it s well knowen a few ministers being added to her for fashion sake so that this church is a church of man not of God by his owne confession and this church is sayd to be devised by the church now it soundeth strangly A church of the churches devising Nor know I well what the devising church of England can be The Rej. telleth us that there be but two wayes of considering the Church of England as one either in the convocation house or in that combination which must needs sayth he include the orders and officers pertaining therunto Now in both of these wayes Hierarchicall orders and officers are supposed and included so that the Church of England neither of these wayes could possibly devise these orders and officers 3. The distinction used betwixt the essentialls of discipline and the accidentall formes thereof is oâ—scure And if these termes may be
their significant Ceremonies which the Defender and Rejoynder doe not mainteyne SECT 11. Concerning the Feast of Purim Ester 9. 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 Ceremomonies 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 â—uit politicum whiche words because they were translated 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 circumstance of time which the Replier whome he seeketh to involve in a contradiction doeth expresly distinguish 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 Non dies signâ—ficat aut repraesentat mysteria sed commemoratio in dic illo instituta 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 without 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 Hebrae conviâ—â—â— se consolati 〈◊〉 sayth thus The Hebrewes solaced themselves with feasts We read of a festival Solemnity instituted and that for two dayes â—olemnitas as aâ—â—das legâ—tur institâ—ta â—â—que â—â—â—iuana in qui 〈◊〉 〈…〉 〈◊〉 c. Eum autâ—m râ—tum spente suâ—repetunt Iudai proâ—â— vieres ad gaâ—â—ia vâ—ntâ—â—â— quam ad fiductum sutriâ—us in Deâ—â—mde quo illis temporiâ—us Ordentur 〈◊〉 curosse wherein they please themselves with meates and drinks c. But the Iewes took up that rite voluntarily 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 publick 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 instituter 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 religious 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 Sacramentis pag. 206. it standeth so Respondeo hoc Mardochaeum fecisse Deo inspirante forsan Prophetae cujuspiaÌ„ monitu authoritate Etsi vero non legimus aut Deum ipsum aut aliquem Prophetam hoc Mardochao mandasse tameÌ„ quia in libro Canonico hec factum reperitur and commendatur non dubium est quin divina authoritate nitatur I answer that both Mordecai 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 staÌ„ds 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 continuation of free-will offeringes whiche might be offered 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 SECT 12. Concerning the Feast of Dedication Iohn 10.22.23 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 evidently proved meerly humane as it may be made a foundation 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 extraordinarie singular revelation not to be Exemplarie therein to us Falsum est Salomon Ezras Macchabat sequnti sunt praceptum Exod. 4. Lev. 8 â—n juris legalis analogia Quod jus si non extitisset tamen dicendum fâ—ret secissâ— cot ut Prophetas revelatione extraordinaria singulari quae in exemplum non potest tralâ—â— 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. â— To this the Rej. answereth that this example served 〈◊〉 Bellarmines turne for imposition of Ceremonies upon the conscience as of necessity to be observed as Gods lawes but it serveth the Defender his turne because as Iunius saith Coâ—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 deprived excommunicated fined imprisoned without any way lawfull or vnlawfull of authority Concerning necessity in conscience see the first part chap. 6. Another answere of the Rejoynders is notorious Bellarmine 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 Dedication and Consecration of Churches bee nothing to our question of significant Rites the Def. and Rej. say nothing 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 humane 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 added 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 walked 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 Non sestum proprie honorawit Christus sed coetum piorum convenientium festo nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi Evangelij sut observabat capiebaâ— Christus Con. 3. l. 4.6.17 an 6. So Peliâ—anus in Mac. 1. cap. 4. Nec aliud in his Encoenijs Christus egisse legitur quam praedicasse in Templo Christ did not properly honour 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 Gospel 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 belonged properly vnto the solemnity of that Feast If hee had preached of Dedications and Consecrations with allowance that had beene something The Rej. objecteth 1. That we plead Christs approbation of marriage by his presence This indeed added vnto evident grounds addeth some honour unto that state especially in that a miracle was wrought to the furtherance 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 begining 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 Temple 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 censure 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 holinesse 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 Saviour condemned the one and allowed the other The following 13. and 14. Sections are spent about some objections taken out of M r. Cartwrite But because the slitenesse of this Instance is already sufficiently discovered I will not cloy nor deteyne the Reader about them at this time but passe on to the next Instance SECT 15. and 16. Concerning the Altar of Iordan Iosh. 22. 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 traverse 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 demonstration is first made how it agreeth to the purpose but we are chalenged to shew how it disagreeth Yet yeelding 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 Babington on the 2. Commandement The Rejoynder 1. opposeth out of M r. Parker par 1. sect 34. and 36. that religious in use is that which hath a religious ende and religious in state which is Ecclesiasticall belonging to Gods service Ergo. But M r. Parker in those sect tould him that religious in a sense common or mixâ—ly all thinges are that are doen to an holy ende and religious 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 M r. Parkers 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 pictures 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.