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 expressions 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 decencie 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 served 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 matter or altercation about this phraze and that which agreeth 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 decencie 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 significant Ceremonie for edification is lawfull yet commeth not under any of those heads But he himself confesseth a significant Ceremon instituted of God to be essentiall worship and instituted of man to be worship 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 instâ—tuted because 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 esseÌ„tiall though not lawfull worship in it self when it is instituted by man Beside that Ceremonie 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 humane considerations is not mere civilitie in sacred actions and use but sacred by application Wâ—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 applied 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 understanding 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 toleratÃng but of appointing and using Now if it be lawfull to appoint and use emptie and unprofitable 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 Mandata inutilia prorsus vana inutiles frivolae Ceremonia solo spiritu humano adiaventa Nay to passe by our Divines let the Papists themselvs judge Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. confesseth those Ceremonies to be forbidden which are unprofitable altogether and vaine praecepts unproffitable frivolons Ceremonies onely by humane Spirit invented Inanes inutiles Estius in Tit. 1.14 Supervacanca etuibil ad piet item conduâ—evicâ— 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 requireth not the institution or usage of any new thinge but onely the right placing and disposing of thinges formerly 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. appropriateth it to Bishops Rosheâ—s etc. eveÌ„ as they are distinct from Surplices the Bishops went before the Hearse in â—heir formalities the Clearks in their Surplices So that it seemeth 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 suited with mans reverent and humble simplicitie not with outward shews of dignitie invented by man The womans ordinarie vaile was more suitable to the dignitie 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
Heathen by observing their holydais condemned p. 432. see also p. 500 P. M. refused the Surplice in Oxford p. 463 A remarkable speech of his about mens devises to stir up c. p. z11 Praelats power if they pleas to command all Englishmen to be circumcised p. 107.1 p. Praelaâ—s in a praemunire p. 111. Praelats greife when forced to deprive answ p. 108 Praelats office to make canons saith the Rejoyn p. 107 Parliament against silencing for such non-conformity p. 108. r. p Parl 1610. checkt the prelats p. 106.1 p. Polanus cleered p. 148. 1. p Praying toward the East as ancient as any Ceremonie p. 82.2 p. R. REjoynders bulls frequently observed See p. 44 83.92-1 p. again p. 6.9.25.32.36.44.92.108 217.2 p. Rej. noted for palpable error concerning inward worship p. 1z7 1 p. For Error again in art p. 138. divinity p. 138. His dangerous speech that Christ had laid snares if etc. p. 68.2 p. S. SAcred proper and reductive examined p. 63.1 p. Sacramentals what p. 226. Denied by pap to work etc. p. 227. Condemned by Beza p. 244. Sacrament and Sacramentals a foolish distinction p. z33 Saduces not so praecise p. zz0 Sopping i th Sacrament p. 36.2 p. Subscription how required by parliament and refused by none p. 10â— 1 p. Superstition rightly defined p. 98.1 p. z15 236 by Polanus Superstition negative p. 101.1 p Cast by prevention on non Conformists p. 34. and finely taken off p. 95. etc. and 312. Superstition how first occasioned by yeilding too much to the infirmity of others p. 83.2 p. Sadcels testimonie mainteined p. 234. Surplice refused by a minister in Q. Eliz. dayes and why p. 435. Swearing on a booke hoâ— p. 357. Souldjers new prest by the Rej. p 43â— Scotlands judg to the ministers of Engl. p. 453. T. TExts alleged viz. Ios. 6. and Iudg. 6. for human Cer. p. 491. Trueth may be merry noted in a fine speech of Tertulian to that effect p. 437. V. Vrsins testimony about humaÌ„ Cer. p. 152.2 p W. WAldenses opposed Cerem with such answers as now be used against them p. 8.1 p. They used not the Crosse p. 39.2 p. Wittenburgh Confession p. 231. Whipping out of the teÌ„ple twise don p. 320. Worship ridiculously defined examined p. 125.1 p. Worship in what properly Consisting p. 132.2 p 163.168 Worship is that which is above order and decency in worship p. 7z z. p Worship must be esseÌ„tial if worship p. 113. z. p. Worship figurative what p. 147.1 p. ult Worship applied to the Cer. by the Rej. p. 154. z. p. Worship proper essentiall necessarie how understood by the Rej. p. 158.2 p. Worship Circumstantiall or accessorie not permitted onely prooved by a Sillogism from the Rej â—elfe contradictions p. 139.1 p Worship true and good if according to the will of God not hindering it the Papists Plea as well as our mens ibid. Worship the parts of it whaâ— p. 113.2 p Worship indifferent none p. 171. Worship whatsoever necessarie p. 138. 2. p Yet will-worship may be without that opinion ibid. Worship Popish and Sacrilegious mainteined under the same Colours of reverend manner order decencie among Papists p. 143.1 p. Worship in Cer p. 38.1 p. Will worship distinguisht into lawfull and unlawfull p. 136. 2. p Will worship not defended by papists p. 150.2 p. Z. ZAnchies judgement of our Cer. p 97. z. p. also of annexions and essentials p. 155. c. z. p Zeppers noble testimonie of human traditions p. z16 GEntle reader take noâ—ice that through some oversight or casualty there are the secoâ—d and third answers wanting in the 16. page of the first part neare tâ—e beginning of the 3. chap. which the author finding after the impression he sayd he would supply after but death now preventing speach with him I cannot as yet finde it in his papers BEcause many orthodox writers have been abused and others in them by spurious bookes which have been obtruded upoÌ„ the world under their names â—t was thought meet to represent to the reader in this insuing Catalogue the names of al such bookes as were vndoubtedly knowne to be made by this Author Catechismus Puritanismus Anglicanus Amesij Bellarm. Enervatus 12. printed A 0 1630. Amesij Casus Conscientiae 12. 1632. Amesij Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem 12. 1628. Amesij Medulla Theologiae 12. 1628. Amesij Antisinodalia 12. 1633. Amesij Contra Grevinchovium 12. 1633. Amesij Demonstratio Logica 12. 1633. A Replye to Bishop Morton This fresh suit against Ceremonies A first and second Manuduction In Psalmos commentaria yet to be printed FINIS A FRESH SVIT Against HVMANE CEREMONIES IN GODS WORSHIP OR A Triplication about Ceremonies Opposed unto D. BVRGESSE HIS Rejoinder for D. MORTONS Defence of 3. Nocent Ceremonies With a Catalog 1. Of the cheife heads here handled 2. Of the Rejoinder his vnworthy personal speaches 3. Of divers errours which crept into the presse The First Part. Printed in the yeare of our Saviour 1633. A direction to the Reader THe author being constrayned to be absent from the presse by reason of vrgent occasions and being altogither destitute of any help from otâ—er wâ—o were willing and able to correct the Impression as it is the common Lott to poore men vnder pressures to be forsaken of freinds and meanes there be many faults escaped in the printing some such which pervert the sense and will preiudice the truth and Reader and therfore he is to be intreated before he read the book to mend the grosser mistakes with his penn or else so attend and â—onsider of them that he may have recourse to them as occasion shall serve the other faults which are of lesse consequence common curtesy will easily pardon and passe by Faults escaped thus to be corrected Pag 3. lin 21. read tartnes p 4 l. 14. for acquired r. aymed p â— in the margyne for vt r. ne p. 13. l. 18 r. polluted p. 16. l. 16. for theâ— your p 19. l. lâ—st for nâ—udd r. mad p. 20. l. 2. for fopling r. stiflâ—ng p 29 l. 15. r. noveltyes p. 29. l 22. for if r. of those p. 31. l. 8 for thrustâ— crosse p 32. l. 8. for conserving r. conferring p. 32. l. 23. for is an action r. are actions p. 33. l. 3. for acts r. arts p. 35. l. 10. for are all are abâ—e p. 36. l. 22. for outward r. onward p. 39. l. 13. for ioyned r. coyned p. 42. l. 28. add a living creature p. 45. l. 15. for nâ—ther r. whether p. 48. l. 12 for the meanes of the vse r. meanes of the same vse p. 49. l. 17. in the marg for qui r. quia p. 49. l. 20. for it is r. it is not p. 52. l. 8 for lawfully r. awfully p 53. l. 11. for there r. three p. 55. l. 8. for waketh r. worketh p. 56. l. 6. for are supposed r are not supposed p. 63. l. 9. for neded to r. needed not to p 66. l. 1. for if r. of p.
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 Ceremonies whereof some are substantiall Divine and Doctrinalls and have particular determination in Scripture some are not substantiall called Rituals and mere Ceremonieâ— the former have particular determination in Scripture but not the later Now to let passe that this distinction concerneth not â—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 determination 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 Rejoynder 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 parâ—icularly appointed of God And to put the matter out of aâ—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 Ceremonies 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 distinguishing betwixt Doctrinall and Ceremoniall points of religion Whiche if it be so what makeâ—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 concerning which wee dispute not and they were too lâ—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 Sacraementis 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 dogmatical kinde which Paul had not preached to the Galatians Where Dogmaticall is opposed to Propheticalâ— praedictions suche as S. Ihon in the Revelation taught as Bel. there alledgeth And not to any thing not particularly 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 angulum 4. The Repl. sayd that Ceremoniall is sometime opposed to morall and sometime to Substantiall but not to Doctrinall Heerupon the Rej. concludeth that therfore 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 doctrinall Ceremonies and some other Where 1. the consequence is suche as the former Sometime Ceremoniall is opposed to morall and substantiall 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 qâ—â—estion and not be Ceremoniall teachings or teaâ—â—ing Ceremonies which is all one with Ceremoniall â—oâ—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 Doctrinall because they cannot be at their pleasure Ceremoniall 6. Concerning the rest of the third section all that is rejoyned dependeth onely upon the terme mereCeremoniall 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 Ceremonies are not onely suche as the Rejoynder p. 33. called single Ceremonies for in the same place he maketh significant rites having relation to a further worship suche as ours are double or triple Ceremonies So that this mere Ceremonie can be nothing else but a Ceremonie which God hath not instituted for his worship 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 evidently 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 Ceremonie 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 howsoever this be true yet if it were Gods revealed will that more immediate meanes of worship should be instituted in the Christian Churche then Christ hath instituted who was ordeyned to institute the
thinges the first answer is that this was spoken in opposition to Bellarmines consecrating of creatures to signifie and worke supernaturall effects Whiche is very true but this must be added that in this seÌ„teÌ„ce 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 manâ—fest as one dealeth with growen men They then that thrust in significant Ceremonies what doe they but confounde the most wise dispensation of God and make a mingle-mangle of those thinges which he hath separated asunder 6. Polanus misprinted or uncertainly printed in the Abrigement is sayd to allow some significant Ceremonies as feasts Fasts Gestures and his definition of Superstition is thought to make onely against Ceremonies Sacramentall not Morally significant The onely way therfore is to set down his wordes out of which his judgement about this pointe may appear of superstition 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 perteines 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 distinguished 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 Superstitio est in eligendo cultu Dei vel modum excedit in colendo Vera religio colit Deum verum modo verbo Dei prascripto falsa i.e. superstitio vâ—rum Deum aliter colit quam ipse vult mandat lib. 8. c. 1. Quicquid ad cultum Dei pertinet a Deo mandatum esse aportet lib 9. c. 38. Inopta est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cloeicorum Papistorum qui vestitu theatriâ—â— in sacris utuâ—tur et vestitu laicis distingui volunt Illa defiintio varieras erat in V. T. â—ypica veritate autem ixhibita quid amptiuâ— typos reguirunt 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. condemneth 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 humane signes ordeyned to be lay-mens teachers in religion 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 Ceremonieâ— 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 Merburâ—e was cited out of a Manuscript as it seemeth as giving the same judgement of significant Ceremonies But in his later time he crossed not so muche others as himself in blotting out this sentence 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. dissliking any praescript apparell should be used in Gods service for significatâ—on Def. pag 291. To this the Rejoynder 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 because Angel appâ—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 Divinitie but this reason of his hath no more force in it then if from the picture and apparation of Angels 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. Whitgift in this that our Surplices are not appointed for any morall 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 consequence is given in the Abridgement p. 35. because no good reason can be given why the Churche may not injoine 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 Authors 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
Bishops the Copie bearing this inscription A letter sent to the Bishops from Doct. Laur. Humphrey president of Magdalen College in Oxford and Reader of Divinity 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 coÌ„pted brethren friends but enimies syth the old masse attyres be so straightly 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 preteÌ„ce of good order are ready without cause to bewreck their popish anger upon us who in this wil use extremitye in other laws of more importance partialiâ—y I would have wished My Lords rather privy admonition then opeÌ„ expulsion yea I had rather have received wounds of my brother then kisses of myne enymye if wee had privily in a CoÌ„venient day resigned 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 Graviora legis by the faithfull ministrye of feedinge pastours should bee furthered after that orders tending to edification not to destruction advanced finally the spouses friends should by all meanes be cherished favourd defended not by counterfite false intruders condemned overborne defaced But alas a man qualified with inward gifts for lack of outwarde shews is punished a maÌ„ onely outwardly confornable inwardly cleane unfurnished is let alone yea exalted the painfull preacher for his labour is beaten the unpreaching Prelate offending in the greater is shot free the learned man without 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 before the ordinance of God Is not this in the schoole of Christ and in the Methode of the Gospel aplayn disorder 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 defeÌ„ce 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 beÌ„ 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 adversaries 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 BrethreÌ„ 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 furniture 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 Because 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 Manasses Ephraim My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church the Crests and triumphs 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 knowledge of it nor without greife of minde God move your spirit at this praesent to fight against Carnem Circumcisionem imo Concisionem against literam et legem 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 worshippe of God your love toward the poore welwillers your hate towarde the professed enimies your unity in true conformity the other neither be needfull 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 â—ignificant Ceremonies is manyfestly proved false in the former allegations 4. We glory no more of synceritie in refusing the Ceremonies 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 deligence 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 answer which the Rejoynder giveth unto the testimonies 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 answer
imago unquam ne Christi aut Sanctorum imago de causa religiosae in loco ullo praesertim religioso temporo sine authoritate sius statuatur Profecto ista Imagines non inter superflua selum sed etiaÌ„ inter vetita damnosa sunt numerandae but Scathie and Forbidden things M r. Perkins being in every mans handes may be easily consulted with upon the second Commandement and in his treatise of Idolatrie 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 Imaginum statuarum collocationem in Templu putamuâ— expresso Des Veâ—bo millies interdictam let him looke upon his Antithesis ad thâ—s 4. Witenbergentium in Colloquio Mompelgardensi ad Colloquium Mompelgardense parte 2. And he shall finde enough to satisfie 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 Significant sententias aâ—â— res sacrae non in quantum sacra sunt sed in quanturâ— res The Rej. therfore fore-seeing what would be answered 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 Non sunt Imagines in Templis tollerande quae pro libriâ— sint imperitae multituduâ—i Neyther can the Def. or Rej. denie all religious use of Images properly so called except they denie significant 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 admitted Images into the same ranke with their income significant Cerimonies accidentall parts of religious worship By this also is answered that which he addeth of simple hystoricall use of Images as separated from all religious use 5. Of having Images for religious use the negative is defended by Calvin and the affirmative by Bellarmine 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 whether 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 Erecta signa Idololatriae quibus Templa dehonestantur never meant so to minse the matter as to make them lawfull but not expedient And in deed if Images may be used for commonefaction and institution as Ecclesiasticall significant Ceremonies ther can be no reason given why they should be shutte out of the Churche where Ecclesiasticall significant 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 Ãmitation and for praeserving of the memorie of Christ and Saincts he denieth I say this to be any part of Popisâ— use or abuse about Images 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 assertion is directly against the Homilie against the perill of Idolatrie unto which we are bounde to subscribe If this be true sayth the Rejoynder the Bishop deserveth to be suspended 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 direct 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 M r. Richard Mountague about the like sentence called A dangerous Plot c. pag. 94. and 95. where these wordes are quoted out of that Homilie The words Idoll and Image be words of divers tongues and soundes yet used in the Scripture 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 indifferent nor tollerable If the Def. will say that his assertion is not contrarie to these wordes then I am contented that his suspension should be deferred longer then M r. Mountagues promotion was after he had written this and suche like scandalous doctrines tending directly to the overthrow of our religion And this reason may be alleged for him that M r. 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 assertion 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 worshiped 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
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 gather 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 Surplice Kneeling and Crosse But none of Confirmation Offeringes Womens Purification and such other thinges as the Rejoynder would have Calvin onely to have respected 3. For Calvines Epistles to Bullinger 1551. they were two and in the first epist. 120. he excuseth onely as tolerable 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 Hoâ—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 professedly alloweth our Kneeling it is nothing so For he speaketh 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 nourish Idolatry we must take heede of being too superstiâ—ious iâ— urging too vehemently things in their owne nature iâ—different To which there needeth no answer then this we assent to those words without any exception Afteâ— Calvin the Replier made mention of Martyr Gryncuâ— Wolphius Vrsinus Machabeus Zanchius Simlerus Zâ—pperus Fulke and the Authors of our Homilies as quoted iâ— the Abrigement pag. 24. to the same purpose Buâ— the Rejoynder thought not them worth the answering in special and therfore I must leave them to considention onely To the rest of this Section I answer nothing but Nihil dicit SECT 5. Concerning Daniels abstinence HEere nothing is handled but Daniels example Dan. 1.8 Neither doeth the Rejoynder adde any thing to the Defendant but onely that Daniels 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 Ceremony in Gods worship To which I answer 1. that our argument 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 otherwise 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 Christians 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 SECT 6. Concerning Hezekias his breaking downe the brazen Serpent 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 M r. Perk. part 1. pag. 168. translateth that law Dist. 63. cap. Quia If our Predâ—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 Posterity may abolish the same witâ—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 publike use of the same Crosse in Baptisme I never yet could meet with that Papist which denied the consequence The brazen Serpent having beene Gods owne ordinance was for Idolatrous abuse to be abolished Therefore human inventions for like abuse much more Yet the Def. and Rej. denie it With what reason shall appearâ— 2. The Def. gave five reasons for Hezekias his abolishing 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 abolishing 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 publike 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 doing of it Like enough answereth the Rej. and well enough because it is lawfull and just to abolish them as inconvenient 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 Ceremonies 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 inconvenient So that nothing but publike authority doth make them justifiable or free from such inconvenience as deserveth 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 nothing but one Fiat or act of publike authority to make it justifiable so farre at least as concerneth this question 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 Ioâ—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 Hezekias time when the Scripture testifieth plainely that Ahaz Existimamus etiam vivo Salomone omnem illam Daemonum officinam disruptam fuisse dilaceratam atque disperditam Videnturque referendae
against the Church quoting for it Renatus or â—as I understand him Rhenanus and Doctor Abbot But â—eyther of these can helpe For Rhenanus in the Arguâ—ent of that booke de Coron mil. defendeth Tertulâ—â—an about the Garland and sheweth him to have mainâ—â—ed the same sentence in his Apollogie which was his Master piece written without distemper and not equalâ—ed by the best tempered writing extant of the same kinde â—octor Abbot speaketh sharpely of Tertullian for his â—aintaining of ceremoniall traditions wherein he was to â—e blamed but not for his generall rule of not borrowing 〈◊〉 the service of Idols whereas the Defendant and Reâ—oynder allow those traditions as appeareth in this Reâ—oynder pag 493. and oppose this rule And it is most â—â—rtaine that Tertullian did not receive any distemper or â—â—ctious disposition from Montanus against Ceremonies â—â—used to Idolatry For Montanus brought in the blood 〈◊〉 Children into the Supper but about the Crosse he did â—n the judgement of Doctor Abbot and all our best divines I have somewhat merrily answered in this passage â—y occasion of the Rej. his mentioning of a stragling â—ouldier if any man will accuse me therefore Congruit veritats ridere quia latans de emulu suis ludere quia socura est Curandum plane ne rifus ejus rideatur si suâ—rit ìndignus Caeterum ubicunque dignus râ—sus officium est of this or â—â—at fault as the Rejoynder doeth the Replier upon like â—ccasion Tertullian whose cause I pleade shall make â—â—y Apology It will agree to trueth to laugh because it is â—f a pleasant disposition and to sport with her competitors â—â—cause it is secure and feares not the wals of her Bulwarke â—nely this would be regarded that our laughter be not unworthy 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 aside 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 Tertullian speaketh plainely therefore it dâ—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 necessity 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 deserveth A deserving cause is meerely a cause or else malefactours are not punished meerely for their evill deserts 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 commodities 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 Testimonies of Tertullian meerely in regard of resemblance of others it is not needfull to speake The Rej. answereth 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 section of this fourth chapter confessed that human Ceremonies 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 Tertullian 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 otâ—er cause but because the Gentiles did so Acriter in eam partem disputat Tertullianus non licere homini Christiano ceronam lauram gestare idquâ— non aliunde nisi ob id modo quia idem facere solebant Ethniâ—â— I have onely the latine edition at hand and therefore quote it But eyther the interpreter failed much or else Iuel expresly â—pake there of unlawfulnesse non licere and not of other inconveniencie The Rejoynder his next answer dependeth onely on that which was formerly confuted namely that meerely is onely The Replier added that it doeth not appeare out of Tertullian that he respected opinion of necessity and efficacy in these Ceremonies For which he is charged by the Rejoynder with offence against men simple and learned as also against God himselfe And why all this Because 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 purification 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 injoyned and the meaning of these words being questioned one should deny that by them it was implied that the said Non-resident held it necessary for him in conscience 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 repetitions 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 Tertullians confutation We adore Christ and not deliver him we should abhorre the example of him that did deliver him But out of
that Beza and M r. Cartwright determined with him in case of the Surplice I answer 1. they did not so for the crosse 2. they did not so for subscription to either 3. they did not so but by way of toleration requiring also that men did speake against the imposing of the Surplice 4. Beza was not throughly acquainted with the state of our Church M r. Cartwright as I have beene certainly informed by his owne sonne recalled that passage of his booke and desired that his revoking of it might be made knowne I thought good overseeing the Presse to confirme the Authors report by a more particular relation which I have received from a person of good credit set downe in writt as followeth MR. Cartwright being beyond the seas in printing the rest of his 2. Reply werein that indulgence is sent to the Ministers of England who sought reformation with him for their opinion of the use of the Surplice in case of deprivation 22. of whom met therabout of whom 19 joyntly agreed that it was simply unlawfull in any case but the other three sayd otherwise wherefore it was agreed by all that each part should write their opinion and their reasons to him which they did but the letter of the nineteene miscarried and that of the other three was delivered which he taking as the letter of the whole supposed their joynt consent had beene that the losse of the ministery altered the case of the unlawfulnesse so that they were all against him whereupon be mistrusting his owne judgement and being much perplexed thereabout suffered himselfe to be swayed unto what is there written but afterward understanding the right hee was much more perplexed yea as he sayd more then ever he was in that to the great prejudice of the truth he had suffered his conscience to be so defiled which was forbidden 1. Cor. 8.7 which hee bartily sorrowed to many professing that if he againe put penn to paper about that subject he would cleare the cause and blame himselfe praying them to signify the same freely in the meane tyme the which they did so that it ever since hath been currant among all his friends and constantly affirmed by them to all on due occasions and particularly affirmed to M. Sprint by a Gentleman in the presence of one Nobleman two Gentlemen 27. Ministers and many professors in his course in the scanning his booke then about to be printed divers yeares before it was printed sundry also of those ministers avouched the same some on their owne knowledge others vpon vndoubted testimony which yet is ready to be avouched in due case of need and should now be expressed were not the naming of the avouchers dangerous vnto them and so not to be done without their knowledge which now cannot be For the point it selfe when a man doth but stand in doubt betwixt using the ceremonies and suffering of dâ—privation it must needs be more safe patiently to suffer himselfe to bee thrust from his ministâ—ry then to reteine it and offend his conscience by using the Ceremonies For to bee restrained by authoriâ—y from his lawfull function because hee will not yeeld to the doing of that which to him is sinne is no more sinne in the sufferer then to surcease his publicke preaching whilest he is held in prison where he wanteth occasion Thus the use of that is avoyded which he disalloweth and the blame of leaving his standing is theirs who cast him from thence and not his So no sinn is committed eiâ—her in the use of that hee disalloweth or in susteining deprivation But to hold his place and to practise against conscience is to commit one great sinn at the least Thus having examined the Defend his adventurous charges of false presumptuous irreligious partiall and pernitious I finde them all to bee but rash words of distemper SECT XV. IN the last place the Defendant bringeth forth to answere the words of the Apostle 1. Thess. 5.22 Abstaine from all appearance of evill But as this argument is not found at all in that page of the Abridgment which he citeth so in the words or sence which he setteth downe I dare say it is not used either of them or any other against the ceremonies Yet let us heare his answer The Apostle speaketh sayth he of the opinions of private men But 1. what warrant hath he to restraine a generall praecept when the universalitie of it agreeth witâ— the law Abstaine from all appearance sayth the Apostle i. e. sayth the Def. from some private opinions 2. Why must appearance of evill be needs understood of opinions onely two or three interpreters indeed do understand it of doctrine most properly but the most otherwise and the word translated appearance signifying rather an object of seeing then of hearing leads us rather to the eye as in actions gesturs garments then to the ear in doctrines 3. For that which he addeth of private mens opinions there is no circumstance of the text nor any reason or authority that doth warrant such a glosse SECT XVII AMong his accusations wherein he chargeth us with manifold scandalls the first is that some weak ones by occasion of these differences stand amazed and so become more remisse in profession or religion Where 1. it is to bee observed that when wee spake of weake-ones sect 12. it was putt off with this pretence that they were such as we had catechised Now then who are these weak-ones I hope the Bishops provide that people of their Diocesses are well catechised whence then is this weaknesse 2. DiffereÌ„ces in matters of circumstance are not wont to breed scandall untill some authority injoyne uniformity as we may see in the primitive Churches 3. If differences be the occasion of this scandall surely those that differ from us may as well be accused therefore as we that differ from them especially when we urge nothing of ours upon them but they impose their owne devices upon us and so are causes of the differences 4. The amazement which some have wondring what will be the event of differences is no damnable error which by the Def. is required to a scandall sect 1. And if they grow remisse in religion upon it that is their sinne I am sure zeale against superstition and for pure and undefiled worship hath no fitnesse in it to work remissenesse in religion but urging of humaine devices in Gods worship tendeth directly thither SECT XVIII THe second charge of scandall is in respect of the Separatists Where 1. I aske if Gaius had made a separation from the Church wherein Diotrephes lived whether the Apostle Iohn had beene cause of that scandall because he condemned his abuse of excommunication Ioh. 3.9.10 2. If any separate from churches where Images are retained who is the cause they that dislike of Images or they that retaine them 3. The dislike of Ceremonies is not the cheife cause for which separation is made but the intollerable abuses which are in Ecclesiasticall