in such dealing They vvill say all things are to be done decently in order To vvhich vve vvillingly consent but alledge agayne that vve cannot apprehend these Cerem to be necessary for order decency They as our Lords tell us it is enough for our Consciences that They esteeme them so Our Consciences tell us this is to usurp the place of God vvhat can vve say lesse then that vve vvill follovve our Consciences rather then their vvills To conclude the Rej. p. 285. maketh Circumcision lavvfull to be imposed upon the same grounds that our English Cerem stand on Novv if it should please our Prelats in a Convocation to apoynt that all English men should consent to the cutting of their fore-skins denounce vvarr upon those that should refuse this goodly Canon vvas it not a graue Accusation to lay all the mischiefes of such a vvarr upon those vvhich vvould not conforme to such a Ceremony But the vveakest must alvvayes goe to the vvall the Lamb must dye for troubling the vvater if it please the Lyon so to determine it VVe haue done vvith the disease mischeife together vvith the cause of it Vve are novv come to consider the Remedy the D r. administers vve except agaynst his dealing herein as not playne nay not profitable even by his ovvne rules 1. He deales not playnly For making the Abolishing of the Cerem by authority to be one the cheife course for cure as despayring to obtayne that he refuseth to persvvade thereunto Because forsooth to judge vvhat is most convenient to determine therof belongeth only to those vvho together vvith povver of doing vvhat they shall vvell like haue judgement to make choice of the best vvay VVhich is a vveake and a very unvvorthy conceit For. 1. D. B. cannot deny that those vvho impose urge and vvith capitall punishments inforce these Cerem upon Christs Ministers and people do therin abuse that authority vvhich they receaved for the procuring of the quietnesse peace safety of those that desire to serue God according to his vvord not for the troubling vexing scandalizing of them by opposing â—heir meere vvills in Religious affayres to mens Consciences depending vvholly and only upon Gods VVord He cannot I say deny this to be a greivous sinne of those in place yet refuseth seriously to admonish them of the same being called to giue counsell â—dvise about this very cause 2. It is to be supposed that vvorthy Ministers of the Gospell are not destitute of vvisdome and judgement concerning Religious affayres By this reason therfore D. B. might as vvell haue forborne to judge vvhat they should choose as to determine so peremptorily thereof Lastly I vvould gladly knovv of D. B. vvhether the Scriptures be not able as vvell to make Magistrates and Governoures perfect to every good vvorke as they can do Ministers vvhether either Minister or Magistrate should doe or ought to doe any thing vvhich God hath not commanded them VVhether a faythfull Minister in his office ought not to understand vvhat that vvord reveales ought not to teache all Magistrates vvhat out of the vvord he so understands If all vvhich particulars be playne undeniable it vvill appeare that it belonged to D. B. being called to giue counsell declaratively to judge determine vvhat vvas convenient to be done vvhich if he durst not declare he durst not doe his duty And that I may fasten this nayle yet more fully I thus force the conclusion VVhat ever duty of any calling the vvord teacheth that the Minister by the vvord ought to judge determine deliver Else hovv can he teach the vvholl counsell of God hovv can he giue every one his portion But the dutyes and doings if good of all Magistrates the vvord teacheth Ergo the Minister ought to judge determyne of those by the vvord so deliver them Ergo it doth not belonge to those onely vvho haue povver are in place to judge determine vvhich vvas the Doctors assertion Agayne vvhat ever God commands that and all that the Minister should teach so judge determine else the trumpet should give an uncertayne sound But vvhat ever men or Magistrates ought to doe that Christ hath commanded Both the parts of the argument are in 28. Math last v. therfore the conclusion follovves vvhat ever men or Magistrates ought to doe Ministers should teach and consequently judge and determine And as thus the Rej. dealt not playnly in his cure â—o vvhether hath be dealt profitablely in that his â—eceit is agaynst his ovvne rule as it shall appeare in â—he scanning of his defense VVhich vve except agaynst â—s insufficient in those particulars vvherin the stresse â—nd vveight of the plea lyes And those appeare in â—hree speciall obiections he makes the dynt of none of vvhich he is able to declyne The objections are pag. 12.13 the summe of them â—n short is this vvriting stirrs strife ob 2. exasperatâ—eh authority Obj. 3. hinders the remoueall of the Cerem ob 4. Heare vve novv his defense to each of these in order To the first he ansvvers in truth by deniall that this course of his is so far from stirring the fire of contention that its casting on vvater to quench â—t to this also belongs that p. 11. there is a necesâ—ity that some should speake for the cause unlesse vve shall suffer ourselues not only to be rooted â—ut of our livings but vvhich is vvorse out of the hearts of our people vvhom vve serue in the Lord. Ans bare deniall vvith-out reason yields small releife to a cause but vvhen it is contrary to the vvorâ— it self it betrayes a cause doth not defend it such is this 1. It is contrary to the vvord that staple 〈◊〉 delivered by the Apostle vvhich he setts dovvne as station shelter for the vveake in the fayth to be take them selves unto 14. Rom. 1. vvhere the 〈◊〉 toleration of those vvho are vveake in the practiseâ— things indifferent is ever the ground of contention disturbance in the Church And therfore this courâ—â— of forbearance he inferrs 19. v. as the vvay to follow peace sence teacheth it also vvhen a company of passengers are confined to one vvay to passe or one door to enter it causeth them to croud jussle 2. This Deniall is contrary to the Doctors ovvâ— doctryne delivered in 3. pag. vvhere it s granted by him and proved by the experience of threscoâ— yeares that opposition begetts opposition thâ—â— vvhich vvas giuen to stirr the humor did only sharpen it Putt vve novv the case to the Colledgâ— of Phisitions nay let D.B. himself be judge Is it rationall course Or like to vvork a cure that vvhâ—â— the body hath beene distempered many moneths vvitâ— phisick vve should still continue the same receiteâ— And its marvellous to see hovv conviction vvrests truth from a man even agaynst his ovvne passion purpose vveigh these tvvo passages see if
in short to vvit Hovv farr in vvhat cases some kynd of tartnes may be expressed in pen or speech How fâ—rr tâ—rt speeches may be used Ans ther be tvvo instances in Scripture vvhich are playne pregnant to this purpose left for our direction in this case The first is the behaviour of Elias tovvards Idolaters their Idolatrous practises vvhom he jeares to their faces out of a holy kind of indignation sâ—iâ—gs vvith a bitter a deriding Irony For so the 〈◊〉 And it came to passe at noone that Eliah mocked them 1. Kings 18.26 sayd crye aloud for he is a God either he is talking or is pursuing or he is in a journey peradventure he sleepeth must be avvakened And hence it is the Lord casts such loathsom terms of detestation upon the Idoll that he besparckles the vvorshippers therof vvith disdayne The second instance is touching ambitious false teachers 56. Isay 10. or Idoll sheapherds So Isayah his vvatchmen are blynd they are dumb doggs they cannot bark they are greedy doggs they can never have enough So the Apost Paul gyrds the consciences of those silken Doctors of Corynth their follovvers vvhich slighted the simplicity of the Gospell 1. Cor 4.10 vve are fooles for Christ ye are vvise in Christ vve are vveake ye are Strong ye are honorable vve are despised These tart Ironicall speeches stable the heart vvith a secret disdayne of their groundlesse ambitious folly And indeed vvhen the Lord enjoyns it as a duty makes it a note argument of a happy man 15. Psal. 4. that a vyle person is contemned in his eyes vvhat expression of vvords can sute such a contempt in the heart unlesse they cary some tartnes of diâ—dayne vvith them VVe novv see our limitts allovvance let the judicious Reader according to this rule consider of some Keene passages of the Reply and I suppose it vvill be found that the most of theÌ„ if not all are poynted agaynst the unvvarrantable standings places the intollerable ambitious courses of our Prelats or else their seeming self-deceaving arguments If in any he hath exceeded the bounds of sobriety I professe neither to defend nor excuse it I knovv the Replyer himself vvill not allovve it For he hath silenced all such expressions in this second Reply though he had never so just cause to provoke him thereunto never so great advantage given him by the miserable mistakes of the Rej. in many places vvhich if the Rej. had found in him He that can haulke after vvords vvith such eagernes vve should have had exclamations Proclamations outcryes enough to haue filled up a vvordy vvyndy volume Hovv ever vvas the Reply never so vvorthy to have the reproach of scurrility cast upon him or his vvork the Rey vvas most unvvorthy unfit te doe it vvho hath I dare say much exceeded in this kynd Quis tulerit Gâ—aecos Hovv unseemely is it hovv ill sounds it to heare theeves complayne of Robbers harlots of adulteresses The proverb is homely but true it s a hard vvorld vvhen heerring-men revile fisher-men For proofe vvhereof I appeale to thyne eyes to be vvitnesses Christian Reader And that I may proceed according to Allegata probata I vvill not look beyond my lyne Only that picture vvhich the Rej. hath made of himself I judge it not only lavvfull but in this case necessary to present agayne to his veivv that the vvorld may knovv if God vvill Doctor Burgesse also may knovv himself vvhat his spleen hath beene agaynst the people of the most High God blessed for ever A tast of the tartnes of Doctor Burgesse his Spirit in the severall passages of his ansvver This tartnes vvill appeare in 3. kindes 1. His heavy Censures and that of the very hearts consciences of men 2. His open reviling of the persons of the noÌ„ conformists or secret inducements to bring them into distast 3. His Keene scornefull jests vvhich are his pastime frequently expressed through the vvholl Heavy Censures 1. They vvho tell us that all the Church may doe touching rites is but the application of circumstances vvhich are in nature Civill Adding that the Church may not ordayne any Cerem meerly Ecclesiasticall do Manifest a spirit vvhich lusteth after contradiction p. 37 of manuduc In the ansvver 2. If it seeme so to him indeed God hath smitten his contentious spirit vvith Giddines for vvho but a man forsaken of all vvisdome c. 62. p. 3. The Convocation house is not so likely to conclude c. as this Libeller is to come to shame for his factious intollerable comparison unlesse God humble him p. 62. 4. For vvhosoever thinksnot as they must either be condemned of grosse corruption or excused as having some good meaning yet much vveaknes vvith all scil in comparison of them And this pride makes them so scornefull p. 65. 5. It is so palpablely false that I should hardly beleeue any Fryar durst haue sett it dovvne in print p. 67. 6. And see hovv these men that talke vvrite in so haughty magistrall a fashion doe but gull deceiue them vvith the names of vvorthy men Vvhich is so great shamefull a sinne in this Replyer so frequent that I vvonder he dares dispute about Cerem before he have learned the substance of common honesty p. 83. in his alligations 7. Hovv can you beleeue any truth crosse to your opinion vvhen as you seek glory one of another presume of your nevv traditions as if the spirit of truth came to you or from you alone p. 103. 8. As for tearmes of excrements vvhich he vvould be loath one should apply to the hayre of his heade It savoureth of a spirit of rancor as doth the like Foule speech in the Scotch Dialogue God vvill judge them for these reproches by vvhich they labor to breed scorne and abhorring of these in the minds of ignorant men p. 131. 9. This flim-flam Master Iacob lent you and both he and you take it up merely for a shift Not out of conscience or judgement but of hauty desire of defending vvhat you have once spoke 207. 10. This Replier in a common course giving the name of a good Christian to some unconformable The Rej. breaks out into these vvords This Addition savores Strongly of that spirit of seperation vvhich hath beene hunted after in the chase of unconformity For this shovves that vvith these men the adversaries of Ceremonies Bish. are the only good Christians p. 216. 11. Doth this Repl. such as he vvho vvithout lavv vvithout calling vvithout reason vvithout conscience doe smite vvith their toungs and condemne to the put of darkenes â—he Bish. the conformed Ministers in a manner all that are not of thâ—ir party 216. pa 12. Nor is it rightly taken up that these men are counted factious for neglect of Ceremonious Canons upon conscience but
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
let others therfore judge When the Apost chargeth the Corinth to doe all things in order could he be so understood that he spake of order and of the ceremony of order and that by doing of things in order he meant a Cerem because there is a relation of order to things but by doing orderly he meant no ceremony because there is no relation to things Order without relation to things ordered is like the accidents in the Popish Sacrament without any subject after transubstantion If the doctrine of humaine Cerem cannot stand or be understood without such miraculous subtilties let it goe seek for those that will receave it The note added to the former example is that they who oppose matters of order to matters of ceremony as if the same thing could not be done in double relations do confound severall notions of things and oppose things coincident Here first may be marked how he crosseth that in this conclusion which he layd for the ground of it before he sayd reference or relation to some other matter doth distinguish a cerem from order because a Cerem hath such a relation and order as order hath not but now he telleth us of double relations one in order and another in ceremo Secondly he fighteth here without an adversary except he understand by matters of order meere order and by matters of Ceremo such observations as are significant by institution for no man doubteth but Cerem lawfull and unlawfull also may be done in order In the example of this rule the Rej. is so subtile in his subliming and refining of notions that he hath these words The observance of the order appointed for reading singing praying c. is in respect of that order of the substance thereof but referred to divine service is a cerem In this I say no more good sense appeares then needs must for putt those words together The observance of order in respect of that order is of the substance thereof without all quaestion as a man in respect of the same man is of his substance So also the observance of a cerem in respect of that ceremony is of the substance thereof Here is no difference neither indeed can any difference be intelligiblely fayned betwixt order of divine service and order in relation to divine service but humaine Cerem must thus be handled For a conclâ—sion of this that we may not altogether send the Reader away with these uncertainties withdrawing our selves from the Rej. his by paths we will in a word or two a little enquire what the word of truth gives us to consider touching Ceremonies and see if we can hitt the ould and the good way the Kings roade of righteousnes If then we look into the scriptures What the Scripture teacheth touching the nature of a Ceremony which are all to informe us in all things we should doe we shall fynd no other names of such Cere which the Lord hath either required or the church used but those TO RAH CHOKIM MISPAT but the Cere part of Gods service was made known most usually by the last word CHO KIM coming of a root which signifyes to grave frame carve fashion in manner of a statue or picture and is applyed as the Hebrewes observe to appoint or make the first rude draught of a thing and so it fittly imports those services which were enjoined the Israelites by meanes of outward sensible carnall things all which were but like the horne-book or prymmer for the church to be schooled by when it was in its infancy and nonage and therfore are called elements of the world carnall rites beggerly rudiments to witt because these were only supplementa to those spirituall ordinances which are called morall or substantiall for wheras there be some ordinances of God which cary a constant and perpetuall equity and necessity of our honouring of the Lord As that there should be a rule made knowne to counsell and advise us how he will be worshipped requisite it is we should heare reade meditate conferr suffer our selves to be squared by this rule and word Equiâ—y neâ—â—ssity requires we should pray The differeÌ„ce betweene substanâ—iâ—ll and Ceremomon worship that we should have seales of the covenant to confirme us in regard of our infirmity how ever ther needed none in regard of Gods immutability but to lett out his love to us in the full sourse of it Againe equall and necessary it is we should in the name of Christ cast out what is contrary and will destroy his kingdome his propheticall and preistly office and so his honour But to have outward elements carnall and sensible rites to tâ—ach our mynds to cary up our hearts to God laying asyde the minority of the church there is not a perpetuall necessity of â—hese nor add they to the substance of the service but only help me because I am weake and dymme sighted like so many spectacles to succour my dazeling eye and therfore are Cerem the first draught of outward ordinances Now all the outward types appointed â—hus by God which foretould Christ to come and those other rites which by way of signification taught our mynds and so helped and stirred our hearts outward to grace or duty all these are ceremonies And consider them and practise them as they are in the word appointed whether it be with any reference to any other worship or without reference had to any other worship they are then and ever were at all these tymes in themselves and in their use ceremonious worship Instance thus To put on frontletts before the eyes c. commanded 15. Numb and by them to be admonished and stirred to the obedience of the law take this Ceremo in the work and in its owne nature as a meane signifying teaching and so working this is a Ceremony and so to do is Ceremonions worshâ—p referr it referr it I say to no other thing but only to this unto which it is appointed of God A thing may be a ceremony referred toâ—hat whereof it is a cause as a meane to work as a cause doth work this I say look at it as a cause to work which the Rej. excepted in his definition in this sense it is a ceremony and ceremonious worship the like of the rest At a word It is the verdit and voice of the scripture and consent of all men to divyde worship into morall ceremoniall Whence I gather thus If ther be a ceremoniall worship a distinct species from morall or substantiall worship then is a ceremony in it owne proper nature as such a worship without reference or consideration had of morall or substantiall as a man in his owne nature is a living creature without any consideration of a beast Againe hence its cleare that as well as morall worship hath a compleat nature of it owne without ceremoniall So ceremoniall hath its compleat nature without morall because they are contradistinct species Againe hence it followes divine ceremonies
nijs multa sunt quae propriè nihil ad naturam Ceremon faciunt qua Ceremonia sed tantum ad naturam rei quae materiae aspectabilis modo ad Ceremoniana figuram Ceremo nialem usurpatur and those appertaine properly to the nature of types by Gods appointment others are taken in not so much for the resemblance of the things but for the nature of the figures As in these Cerem there be many things that make nothing to the nature of a Cerem as such but only to the nature of the thing which thing after the manner of some matter liable to sense is applyed about the Ceremony and the Ceremoniall figure The fourth is That the difference which some make betwixt circumstances and Ceremonies is a meere nycetye or fiction This is a strange nycety as ever I knew The turning or jogging of h houre glasse in relation to the measure of tyme for a sermon the sweeping of the church before the church meâ—ting the carying of some notes for remembrance upon occâ—sion the quoting of scripture without or by the book and a 100. such wâ—re never esteemed ceremoniâ—s properly so called before men began to bâ—ing a myst upon religious observances that humaine presumptions might not be discerned The fift hath his answere before Pag. 33. The 6. Consectary examined and found false The sixt is That divine or humaine institution doth not make an action to be a ceremony or no ceremony These consectaries follow marvellous strangely from the premises when the seeme to contradict both the premises and themselves in some particulars I would therfore intreat the Rej. to end the quarrell at his next rejoyning and make a reconciliation betweene these 1. To a ceremony Institution is essentiall pag. 30. 2. It is not apâ—nes of an action that maketh it a ceremony but Institution Cons. 2. Pag. 32. 3. Now here we are tould that Divine or humaine institution do not make an action a ceremony whence I reason thus A negotione omnium specterum ad negationem generis valet coÌ„sequentia If neither Divine nor humaine institution make a Ceremony then no institution doth for all institutions are either Divine or humaine and from the denyall of all the species to the denyall of the Genus the consequence is good as it is neither a beast nor a man therefore it is not But this sixt corallary saith it s neither divine nor humaine institution make a ceremony ergo I conclude no institution doth make a ceremony which is a direct contradiction to the second which affirmes that institution doth make a Ceremony The seventh hath beene discussed and confuted before in the substance of it Pag. 33. Pag. 34. onely that strange kynd of expression may here be observed as we passe by It is not essentiall to a ceremony simplye that it be no proper part of Divine worship where let it be observed that to be no proper part of worship is a bare negation or not being of worship now plaine it is and manifest to all that have but common sense that a bare negation cannot be essentiall to any thing that hath being neither simply nor comparatively And by the same proportion and upon the same ground he might as well say to be no part of worship is not essentiall to any thing and therfore not to a Ceremony now to what profit or purpose are such expressions which serve nothing to the cause in hand but to darken the truth with words and to dazell the mynds of the ignorant The eight is That it is not the use or end The eight consectary largely discussed found false which maketh a ceremony to be part of divine worship or not but institution Divine institution maketh any circumstance a part but humaine institution though to the same end and use maketh only an adjunct of divine worship because the observance thereof cannot incurr the act of any proper worship of God How this is a consectary following upon the premises it doth not appeare The contrary seemeth to follow from the sixt consectary where divine and humaine institution is denied to make a Ceremony or no Ceremony but rather to difference arbitrary and necessary Cerem For by the very like reason Divine and humaine institution doth not make worship or no worship but rather maketh a diffâ—rence of necessary or arbitrary will worship The reason of that is rendered because relation doth constitute a Ceremo And the same reason houldeth here because relation doth constitute worship The Institution Divine or humaine doth onely difference the efficient cause not the matter forme and end wherin the essence of worship doth consist If Gods institution did make any circumstance of worship to become worship then the ceasing from worship should be worship because ther were circumstances of tyme appointed when men should cease from solemne worship The reason which supporteth the other part of this assertion viz That humaine institution cannot make an action part of worship because the observance thereof cannot incurr the act of worship is just as much as if it had beene so sett downe humaine institution cannot make worship because that which it maketh cannot be worship If men appoint even places and tymes in the same manner to the same ends that God did they are worship as well though not so good as the other If this were not so then wherefore doth the Scripture tell us of will worship taken up at the pleasure of men or according to the institutions doctrines and traditions of men For by the Rej. his rule there can be no such thing and therfore it is vayne to forbidd it This may suffice for this consectary yet because the reflexion of it doth often occurr in the dispute I further undertake to prove that it is neither true in it self nor 2. is it truely inferred from the definition and both these charges we will indeavour to make good For our right proceeding to discover the falshood of the collection when he saith The same use and end maketh not a ceremony to be part of Divine worship The meaning explicated in what sense it is true that the same use and end makes a cere part of worship we must not understand true worship for that all the world of orthodoxe divines especially his opposites against whom he rayseth this consectary do confesse that only the Lords institution makes divine worship true but there is religious worship which is false So that the meaning is whether the same use and end of a Ceremony make it not to be in the kynd of religious worship as well without the institution of God as it s made true religious worship by it Or whether when the same use and end of a ceremony which was religious when Gods institution came the institution being taken away neither I say the same use and end is not now religious properly we â—ffirme against the Rej. that Divine Institution being â—aken away continue the same
so farr it is from following from the definition naturally that all the cords of reason cannot drawe them together as it will appeare if any man will putt it to triall by all the topick places of invention we will therefore rest untill we heare what Balsame the D r. brings to heale this wound The nynth and last Consectary is The nynth Consectary grosse contradictions That Ceremonies may in regard of their generall kynd and end be worship so farr as they are in their kynd parts of order and decency and yet in their particulars not be of the substance of order comlines worship We are at last therfore come to a strange reckoning Pag. 38. Cer. are in their kynd parts of order yet as we were tould pag. 31. that order so farr as it is order is in that respect no ceremony 2. A Ceremo in respect of the genus and end is worship and yet in the consectary immediately going before it was peremptorily pronounced that use and end maketh not a Ceremony part of Divine worship I take the cause of this crosse Doctrine to be that humaine ceremonies in divine worship are such a crosse knott that he who seeks to open the conveyances of it must needs run crosse in his thoughts and words To make this crossing more plaine let us first debate a little more fully the truth of this corallarie The Consect opened and then see what followeth therefrom We here have three conclusions 1. Ceremonies in their kynd as they are parts of order and decency may be acts of religion 2. Yet the particulars may not be of the substance of order 3. That the particulars are not Divine which propositions are plainly expressed in the corallary if they be not contradictious one to another I must confesse I must bidd all reason and logick farewell or else the Rej. hath a new logick which yet never saw light And therfore I reason thus If every particular have the whole nature of the Genus in it then the generall being divine 1. Contradiction the particulars must be divine but every particular of order and decency are species to generall nature of order c. therfore they have the whole nature of order in the generall ergo are divine to affirme the contrary which here is done is to say a living creature hath sense but the species man and beast hath none Or the nature of man is reasonable but the particulars Thom. or Ihon are not reasonable and thus the 3. conclusion implyes a contradiction to the first conclusion 2. Againe the second also is more grosse if more may be added If the generall give his whole substance nature to the particulars then if ther be any substance of order the particulars have it but the generall nature of order gives all the substance to the particulars ergo they have it the maintaining of the contrary conceit is to bidd battell to all reason and to deny a confessed common and receaved principle of art Genus est totum partibus essentiale Generall is that kynd of whole which gives his essence to the particulars For now farr should a man be forsaken of common sense who should affirme that manhood or the nature of man in generall should have the substance of reason but considered in his species and particulars Tho. and Ihon they should be wholly destitute of the substance of reason And assuredly good reader when I considered the wonderfull confidence of the disputer arrogating so much subtility and learning and yet to fall so foule and offend so heavily against the very rudiments of logick and principles of reason I could not but look up to heaven and lawfully as I could and tremblingly remember Isay. 29.14 that of the Prophet That the Lord is sayd to putt out the understanding of the Prudent Thus we have discussed the falshood of the Corallary we will now reason from it for our owne advantage taking the false graunt of the Rej. in this place Genus species ad idem spectant predicamentum Every species under a commaund stands by virtue of the same commaund the Genus doth as that is a common rule in reason the generall and speciall appertaine to the same place and it is a rule in Divinity receaved without gaynsaying the generall commaund by the same stroke and compasse comprehends all the particulars under it and when that by way of precept is enjoyned all the rest by the same rule by virtue of the same commaund are also required We must preserve the life of our Brother that is the generall of the 6. Commaund by the same precept all the particulars of wayes and meanes which are the specialls of preservation are required but the particulars of order and decency are under the generall of order and decency ergo these particulars stand by virtue of the same commaund they do And by the Rej. graunt these standing by a commaund of divine worship and being proper acts thereof ergo it must needs follow that the particulars stand by vertue of the commaund of Divine worship and are proper acts thereof we see by this tyme whither the D rs Divinity hath brought him Againe if they be so commaunded and be such proper acts of worship of such acts the Rej. confesseth the Negative arg from Scripture concludeth well Such acts of proper worship cannot be imposed by man or the Church significant ceremonies which cary such acts of worship are unlawfull and thus by one graunt he hath yeilded there of the arguments which he strives after to answere and to overthrowe CHAP. V. Of the sorts and differences of Ceremonies THe first partition of Ceremo into private or publike close or open may passe for the evidence of it but yet it may be quaestioned seing institution is essentiall to a Ceremony as before we have beene taught to whom the institution of private Ceremonies do belonge whether the convocation house may appoint men when they eat and drink goe to bedd and rise up to signe themselves with the signe of the Crosse The second partition into Ceremon civill sacred or mixt Civill when theire immediate object and end is civill Sacred The distribâ—tion is imperfect and excludes naturall Cerem out of the world when the immediate object and end is matter pertaining to religioÌ„ requireth more attention And 1. it is to be noted that by this division all naturall Ceremo are abrogated or excluded for else the first distribution should have beene Ceremo are either naturall or instituted Now Bellarmine himself more considerately maketh some ceremon naturall De effect Saeram lib. â— cap. 29. Qâ—aedam Ceremoniae sunt ab ipsa natura â—uodammodo institutae quae naturales dici possunt quale est respicere in â—â—â—lum tollere manus â—â—ectere genua cum Deâ—â—m oramus Certaine Cerem receave institution as it were from nature it self which may be called naturall Cerem as to looke
the old rites of the law or to devise new in their place to signify the trueth of the gospel now come to light as for example to use banners and Crosses to signe Christs victorie on the Crosse of which kind of iâ—ly devised repraesentions is the whole furniture of Masse accontrements which they say doeth set forth the whole passion of Christ and many such like things Of which sacred ceremonies Christ preacheth out of Isajah In vaine they worship me teaching for doctrines the preceps of men Whiche last wordes are in every syllable of them founde Marc. 7.7 Is not this so muche as a glance at Marc. 7 Suerly heer the Rej. had more affection to his cause then attentation to the place in quaestion 6. Of Calvin see the former chapiter Yet heer also let these words of his be remembred Omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnars miniâ— me obscurunâ— est Eos errare Christus pronunciat qui loco doctrina obtrudu ut hominum mandata fixum illud maneat fictitios omnes cultus coram Deo vanos esse In these words it is evident that all will worships are condemned Christ pronounceth them erroneous which for Doctrine obtrude mens pâ—aeceps Let this stand firme all devised worships are most vaine before God Vnder whiche censure and sentence that he includeth suche significant Ceremonies as ours are it appeareth as out of his condemning them in the Lutherans against Westphalus so out of his owne practise in Geneva and France where all suche are abolished for he professeth de necess ref Eccl. We have touched nothing no not with the least finger to remove it except that which Christ accounts nothing Nil vel minimo digito attigimus nisi quod pro nihilo Christus ducit cum frustra coli Deum humanis traeditionibus pronunciâ—t seing he pronounceth God is vainely worshipt by humane traditions 7. Virel in Catechism in praecep 2. extendeth the second Commandement unto the forbidding of every humane religious likenesse The Rej. also confesseth that the same Virel there condeÌ„neth all superstition to which he if he had added his definition of superstition viz that it is a worshiping of God by rites and Ceremonies devised of man all would have been plaine Neyther is it materiall that Virel pointeth not to Marc. 7. as the Rej noteth seing he groundeth his doctrine upon Matth. 15.9 where the same words are found which in Marc. 7.7 are repeated The Rej. therfore had no shew of reason to say that Virel was abused in that he was cited as interpreting Marke because by his owne confession he doeth interpret the same wordes which are found in Marke 8. Zepperus his testimonie which was not his alone but the common sentence of diverse Protestant Synodes as appeareth out of his praeface is so full that the Rejoynder in him forbare his common accusation that he was abused His words are these de Pol. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 10. reg 3. Cum Dâ—us per humanas traditiones frustra colatur Mat 15.9 perque illas in hominum cordibus efficax esse non velit oneras illas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse opinionem tantum sapientiae habentes per quas nullam animorum devo tionem fidem invocationem poenitentiam veram in cordibus excitare velit reg 4. Ceremonia ab hominibus administrationi Sacramentorum assutae tetidem sunt varierum errorum idololatriae superstitionum seminaria fomenta Tales Ceremoniae sunt abolendae Mat 15 6. Mar. 7.9 Hinc manifestum evadit abroganda esse circa Baptismum oleum sal aquaem lustralem cereos characterem Crucis etc. Sith God is worshipped in vaine by humane traditious Mat. 15.9 Nor will be of an efficacie by such things in the hearts of men and being meere will-worships Carrying but an opinion of wisdome through which God will never stir up devotion prayer faith and repentancâ— in us c. And againe The ceremonies Cobled or botcht by men to the administration of the Sacraments are so many seminaries and nurseries of errour idolatrie and superstition such ceremonies are to be abolished Mat. 15. Marc. 7. Whence it is manifest that about Baptisme oyle salt holy water tapers the signe of the crosse c. are to be abrogated If these words be not to the purpose in the Rejoynder his owne conscience then I despaire of satisfying him about any testimonie that maketh against that tenet which he is resolved to mainteyne as they say by hooke or crooke 9. D. Fulke sayth the Rejoynder did not thinke humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant when no religion or service of God is placed in them Which is as muche as if he had sayd D. F. did not think humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant when they are not significant For as hath been shewed in the former part all religious Ceremonies instituted by their signification to raise up the heart unto the honoring of God have some religion and service of God placed in them And that D. Fulke did mean by placing of religion or Gods service in them the using of them unto religious use it appeareth by a like place in Act. 17. sect 5. Though it be not simplie unlawfull to expresse in painting the visible shapes shewed in Visions to the Prophets yet to make those shapes for any use of religion is abominable idolatrie 10. For D. Raynolds the Rejoynder answereth 1. that he giveth no hint touching the interpretation of this place 2. that he onely inveigheth against the multitude and burthen of Symbolicall rites shewing their use in Poperie to be Iewish 3. that D.R. judged our â—ignificant Ceremonies lawfull to be used in case of silencing and deprivation Now for the first I answer that as ther are hints of interpretation for many places of the olde Testament in the new which yet are not cited there so may it be that D. R. gave a hint without quoting About the third point I 1. observe that by the Rejoynder his owne relation D. Rain was not of his and D. Mortons judgemen For he judged our Ceremonies onely tollerable in case of extremitie but they allow the very institution of them as good and profitable for order decencie and aedification 2. D.R. never manifested to the world in publick any reasons for that judgement but rather for the contrarie as by and by we shall hear 3. Ther is a kinde of suspensive judgement suche as Cyrill Peter Lombard as Estius in 2. d. 21. alledgeth and interpreteth them say Eve had about the Serpents speaking to which the iniquitie of times doe draw many godly and learned men not onely about Ceremonies violently urged by with greivous poenalties but also about greater matters as experience in all ages hath shewed But that is nothing to others as being destitute or forsaken of certaine groundes or supportes Concerning the second and mayne poynt the best way is to set downe D.R. his owne wordes which are these
light of the Gospel or to carry banners crosses to signifie the victorie of Christ thorough his Crosse. Of which sort is all the massing attire Of this ConfessioÌ„ Brentius was the penman and therefore Bellarm. citeth the same as Brentius his sentence about Ceremonies The Rejoynder answereth 1. that Bellarm. sayth onely that Brentius reproveth the hallowing of water oyle c. consecrated to signifie and worke supernaturall effects because the mysteries of faith should not now be shadowed out De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. Whiche to be nothing so the very words of Bellarm. will shew for neyther out of Brentins nor against him doeth Bel. make any mention of consecrating suche thinges to worke but onely to signifie spirituall effects Primo benedicuntur ad significando ispiritâ—â— ales 〈◊〉 ut Nam cinaris aspersio significat poenitâ—â—tiam c. First they are blessed to signifie spirituall operations For the sprinkling of the ashes signifieth poenance c. Nor doeth the reason of Breâ—tius of adumbration hinder Neque obâ—at râ—tio Brentij de adumbratione Nam istae significaâ—iâ—tes on sunt proprie â—dâ—mbrationâ—s sed reprâ—sentationes externae Iâ—rum praesâ—ntâ—um â—nvisibilium spiritu alium vel etiam reâ—um praeteriâ—a um quae utilisitmae sunt â—d affectuÌ„ oncitandum for those significations are not properly adumbratious but outward repraesentations of praesent invisible things and of things spirituall Or els of things past most usefull to stir up the affection Hence it is plaine that Brentius is opposed by Bellarm. for houlding the Proposition of this our third Argument that his reason is ours and that Bellarm. his answer so well as his tenet is that which the Def. and Rejoynd doe maintayne against us 2. A second answer or rather objection is used by the Rej. that Brentius allowed Lutherun Crosses and Images as being a Lutheran Now it is well knowen that Brentius at the first did write as became a grave Divine but after broke out into the Vbiquitary faction siding against those whome he called Zwinglians and Calvinists That which we allege was written in the name of the Churche of Wittenburge so praesented unto the Counsell of Trent out of his and others best judgement If eyther out of securitie or out of faction he did and writte otherwise after it ought not to be put in ballance against this Confession It is no great mervayll if a Lutheran doeth crosse his owne Doctrine even about Ceremonies For in the same kinde they have Luther himself for their example Nemo sayth Calvin 2. Def. de Sacram. â—â—â—rius quam Luâ—herus covectus â—st in illas nugas quoâ— tamâ—n prâ— temporis infirmitate â—â—tinuiâ— Quod tantâ vehementiâ usus est loudabile est quum ita exigeret necessitas Quod non abâ—â—usit 〈◊〉 â— predis ignosetinus No man did more hardly inveigh against those triffles then Luther did and yet reteined them for the times sake That when occasion required he was so vehemente we commend him but that while he contended against them he submitted to the them we pardon in him Something like was the case of Chemnitius whose words the Rejoynder thought good to passe over in silence They are these de ritib. Sacr. ad Can. 13. When Christ himselfe so instituted the Sacraments that he required them to be used with such and such rites Cum ipse filiu Dei Sacramenta ita instituerit ut ea certis institutis ritibus praeceperit administraeri valde ardua est questio an hominibus permissum sit alioâ— praeterca et quidem multâ—s ac varios ritus quocunque confilio supperadderâ— quasi Ceremoniae illae qua in administratione Sacramentorum Divinitus institutae sunt non satis sunt vel idonea vel sufficientes Institutioni Divinae sicut nihil detrahendum ita etiam nihil addendum est Quod vero bratendunt per illos ritus ab hominibus additos multa pié utiliter significari monerâ— doceri ad illud responderi potest figuras propriat esse Veteriâ— Testamenti quae vero in Novo Testamento Christus moâ—eri ac doceri voluit non umbtis sed luce Verbi tradi ac proponi voluit Et de Verbi non antem de figuratum ab hominibus inventarum efficacia habemus prom 〈◊〉 nem quos veâ—â— ritus veâ—bo adhiberi voluit eos ipse instituit etc. it is a very hard question whether it be lawfull for men to add other and that so manyover and above As if what rites Christ himselfe prescribed were either not enough or not fit enough In divine institutions as we must take nothing from so we must adde nothing to them But whereas they say by such rites many things are proffitably signified we answer that belonged to the State of the Old Testament but what Christ in the New Test. would have learned must be taught with the light of the word not by shadowes And we have a promise of the force of the word but not of the efficacie of shadowes devised by men And what rites he would have used by the word those he himselfe appointed etc. Ther was some cause why the Rejoynder did not care to insist on these wordes For Chemnitius maketh it a very hard thing to justifie humane significant Ceremonies in Gods worship The Rejoynder sayth it is as easy as to justifie writing by Characters Chemnitius maketh them additions to Gods Institution Nothing lesse sayth the Rej. no more then a Cabinet wherin a Iewel is kept is an addition to it Chemnitius judged them repugnant to the New Testament The Rej. sayth that there is manifest allowance for them and authoritie left unto men for instituting of them as forsooth in those words of Order Decencie and Aedification 15. The Replier added unto the witnesses aforesayd Iunius Daneus But concerning Daneus we have already considered what the Rej. had to except Iunius onely remayneth whose wordes were quoted out of his animadversions upon Bell. de cultu Sanctorum lib. 3. cap. 7. an 12. Heer the Rej rouseth up himself as if he had gotten a great advantage putting on suche confidence or rather forth suche shews of it as if it had been meer folly in the Repl. to make mention of Iunius His rejoinder therfore is to be considered in all the parts of it 1. First he concludeth that the Repl. is no wise man in not telling them to what objection or assertion Iunius doeth there answer because forsooth the Repl. himself had sayd it was no wisdome for any man to take up an answer made to an objection before he considereth the assertion against which the objection is made As if it were all one to consider the assertion and to tell them what it is Is not this a fine consequence 2. He attributeth unto the Repl. a Sophisticall wit in concealing that the assertion of Bell. by Iunius opposed was that the Churche may of her power consecrate creatures to signifie and worke
of grace cannot partake the office or speciall nature of Sacraments Wherby he gaineth nothing but his owne ideal shadow 2. He gathereth that unlesse signifying without sealing be a more principall part of the nature of Sacraments then sealing suche signes as communicat with them onely in signifying doe not participat any cheif part of their nature Which is as mere non sense as if one should say that unlesse teaching without sealing be a more principall part of Sacraments theÌ„ sealing then the preaching of the doctrine which in Sacraments is signified and sealed doeth not participat any cheif part of their nature 3. He answereth that the Sacraments doe confirme our obligation unto sanctimonie in generall but not signifie any morall dutie in particular Here then is the mysterie the Sacraments to confiâ—me by signification all our duties but not this or that dutie If our Convocation had been of the Counsel when Sacraments were appointed they would as it seemeth have made them more perfect But this is certain our Saviour meant to put a difference betwixt the olde A. B. C. and the new maner of tâ—aching fitting for riper yeares and therfore did not sâ—oâ—ll out every letter concerning our dutie in signes as of oulde but give us the summe in a few signes Whosoever therfore goeth about to multiplie significant signes crosseth thâ— very intention which was respected in the institution of two Sacraments onely Beside the Crosse it self doeth not signifie our dutie of constant fighting under Christ in paâ—ticular against this or that temptatioÌ„ of sinne the world or the Devill but onely in generall so that by this reason we should or may have as many significant Ceremonies as there be particular temptations to be resisted Whither shall we come at length by walking in this Ceremoniall way 4. The second Argument to the same purpose by the Repl. alleged was that the name Sacrament as it signifieth an oath or obligation doeth import that the Sacraments signifie our dutie to God To this the Rejoynder answereth that the Sacraments doe in deed implie but not represent any morall dutie Now let any reasonable man judge whether dipping under the water and rising up againe or taking of food for strength and growth doeth not more represent spirituall duties then making a Crosse with ones finger in the ayer 5. The third reason mentioned was taken from the name Eucharist notifiing thankfulnesse and the taking of the same in remembrance of Christ. The Rejoynder his answer is that the word Eucharist is no Sacrament but a terme brought in by men to put them in minde of their dutie in receyving it But that word doeth notifie the nature of the Sacrament at least in the judgemeÌ„t of al Divines â—hat have in this meaning used the terme though it be not a Sacrament And they are more then that the Rej. his judgement can counter-ballance Yet if significant Ceremonies be like unto wordes and characters as the Rejoynder formerly maintayned that very word must needes be a Sacrament or a significant signe of a Sacrament because it was brought in to put men in minde of their dutie in receyving as the Rej. speaketh He addeth 2. that ther is no element nor action of that Sacrament so particularly repraesenting thankfulnesse as kneeling doth reverence or humilitie Where first he maketh kneeling a significant Ceremonie whiche hitherto he hath seemed to denie 2. I answer that the very action of receyving so great a gift in a cheerfull humble manner doeth repraesent both thankfulnesse and humilitie so far as Christ would have it repraesented by signes The very celebration of a great benefit receyved is a signe of thankfulnesse Otherwise let the Rejoynder tell us what repraesentation of thankfulnesse was in the Passover for that benefit of passing over the Israelites houses when the first-borne of the Aegyptians were slaine 6. Instance was given by the Replier that both sanctitie and constancie which are the thinges â—ignified by Surplice and Crosse are signified in Baptisme The Rej. his answer is that they are not barely or onely signified in Baptisme as duties nor by any distinct signe repraesented As if this were the question and not this if Sacraments doe signifie morall duties Certainly if Sacraments doe signifie these vertues as graces and duties as is proved and also confessed no Christian need desire to have them â—ignified over againe barely and onely as duties no more then after an instrument made betwixt the Lord of Manner and his Tenent conteyning the conditions of both partes the tenent should seek for a new instrumeÌ„t signifijng his conditions a part and not onely so but after that his conditions had been expressed generally that he should keep all the land in good culture according as he found it he should seek for one instrument about the woodes another for the â—arable land another for the medowes another for the pastures and another for the broome feilds or for every aker one that not from the Lord of the manner but from some Iustice of peace or high Constable of the Hundred Neyther is it a thinge profitable for Christians to remember their dutie without remembrance of Gods grace therto apperteyning 7. Against mysticall-morall Ceremonies of humane institution the Repl. brought this Arg. in Mr. Baines his wordes To be a teacher of my understandâ—â—g and an exciter of my devotion are suche effects as require vertue inhaerent or assistant to those thinges which should be causes of them But no signe of mans divizing hath any suche vertue in it or with it For then it must come eyther from the word of creation or from Gods after institution But from neyther of these have the signes of mans divizing any suche vertue Therfore no signe of mans divizing can be a teacher of mine understanding or an exciter of my devotion This the Rejoynder confuteth first with skornefull wordes as a sickly childish and long some objection After he answereth that our monitorie Ceremonies are onely externall occasions and objects wherby the minde of man worketh upon it self not causes working by some vertue in them Where 1. observe how he mangleth and marreth the Argument that he may maister it the wordes are that suche effects require vertue inhaerent or assistant he interpreteth them onely of vertue in them i. e. inhaerent leaving out assistant and yet dareth affirme that upon this fiction of vertue in them which is his owne fiction the wholle objection is builded 2. He maketh our Ceremonies to be onely occasionall objects and no causes wheras every instituted signe is a meanes and so a cause of that effect for which it is appointed as Logick teacheth And if they were mere occasions of conceyving that which they signifie then a white Surplice would not prove half so significant a Ceremonie of Ministers sanctitie as a white Cocke especially when it croweth nor an aeriall Crosse so significant as a Gallowes Beside if our Ceremonies be occasionall objects onely then no man is tied to
in confessing that his Prelates even those whose admirable wisdome he extolleth though they have power enough doe not provide the cheif helpes of edification for their Churches aequall to those that are founde in poore Congregations which receyve not their Ceremoniall helpes and yet will not suffer those poore Congregations to enjoy their helpes For doe they not by this place a high poynt of devotion in their Ceremoniall helpes 2. How can this stand with reason where other helpes are aequall ther is no difference Certainly if our Ceremonies be helpes to Edification as the Def. and Rejoynder mainteine then where other helpes are aequall the Cathedrall Churches have a great advantage in helpes above other that want those Ceremonies Nay one Cathedrall Churche exceedeth another in this kinde as Durrham for Ceremonies doeth Chester and Lichefeild 12. Because the Def. to make way for an injurious accusation changed the phraze used in the Abrigemēt a cheif part of the Sacraments nature into another more obnoxious unto exception the cheif part the Repl. justly noted this as no plaine dealing The Rejoinjoynder being loath to leave any of the Def. his words un-mainteyned answereth that the Sacraments have but two parts signification and obsignation and therfore if signification be a principall part it is also the principall part so that the Defend sayth he dealt heerin fairely and pressed us with suche wordes as our Argument requires But 1. whoe authorized the Defend to change the termes of our Argument and then presse us with his changelinges Let him reserve suche faire dealing for other occasions when it may passe with lesse notice taken of it 2. What doeth the Rejoynder mean to imitate the Defend in attributing unto us that we make mere signification without any qualification or limitation eyther the or a cheif part of the Sacrament The Abrigement sayth onely that suche signification as is ordeyned mystically to teache and admonish us of spirituall duties is a cheif part of the Sacrament 3. Mr. Hooker lib. 5. pag. 3.10 sayth that ther are great store of properties belonging to the Sacraments as that they are boundes of our obedience obligations to mutuall charitie provokation to godlinesse preservations from sinne memorialls of great benefites markes of distinction from strangers etc. How then can the Rejoynder so resolutely determine of two onely offices which belonge to them 4. If all essentiall parts of the Sacrament may be reduced to these two yet the lesser of these may be called a principall part without any prejudice to the other in respect of those mē which make accidentall circumstātiall improper parts of Gods worship and so of his Sacraments as the Def. and Rejoynder upon every occasion doe shift off Arguments with those termes The rest of this section beside wordes of no weight conteyneth nothing which hath not been in the former passages sufficiently cleared SECT 6. Concerning Iewish Ceremonies 1. IN the Abrigement after the former reason now mainteyned this was brought in that In the time of the Lawe when God saw it good to teache his Churche by significant Ceremonies none might be brought into or receyved in the worship of God but suche onely as the Lord himself did institute Ergo. And after that this It is muche lesse lawfull for man to bringe significant Ceremonies into Gods worship now then it was under the Law For God hath abrogated his owne not onely suche as prefigured Christ but suche also as served by their signification to teache morall duties so as now without great sinne none of them can be continued in the Churche no not for signification Vpon which last grounde they inferre thus If those Ceremonies which God himself ordeyned to teache his Churche by their signification may not now be used much lesse may those which man hath devized Now the wisdome of the Def. was to passe over the former groundes and onely to insist upon this last inference derived from them But let us see what he and the Rejoynder have to say of that 2. About this inference many testimonies of great Divines were alleged in the Abrigement all which the Def. passeth by as not worthy answer for whiche he was challenged by the Replier The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is wranglinge spoken not out of conscience but out of a spirit of contradiction etc. To which I answer nothing But that which the Def. neglected the Rejoynder taketh to supplie least we should bragge as it pleaseth him to phrasifie See therfore how he dischargeth that which he undertaketh 1. The Nicen counsel sayth he is twice falsified first that it is supposed to condemne significant Ceremonies by man devized upon this reason that God had abolished his owne and secondly that the Councel is affirmed to condemne suche Ceremonies at all It seemeth the Rejoynder hath more skill about this cause in multiplying falsities then in dividing of them from trueths For the Nicen Councell was brought in as speaking for one proposition and the Rejoynder maketh two false assertions of that one simple axiome Beside the words of that Councel or Constantine speaking for it are in the Abrigement onely brought in as testifying this that the olde Ceremonies of the law being abrogated by God cannot without sinne be now continued in the Churche for signification In stead of this the Rejoynder faineth two other propositions and then fayth that they are two falsifications which if they be let him who is the coiner of them see how he can excuse them The wordes of Constantine are It seemed unworthy to celebrate the Passover with imitation of the Iewish custome Let no suche thinge be commune to Christians with the Iewes We have receyved another way from our Saviour a more lawfull and convenient of our holy Religion This is pat to the purpose for which it was alleged 2. The testimonie of all the rest sayth the Rej. are perverted 3. Sundrie of the witnesses are knowen to have allowed our and all some significant Ceremonies It is a shame therfore for men gloring of synceritie in refusing the Ceremonies thus to leave all synceritie in alleging of Authors In which never any protestant writers abused the world so muche as the Abrigement and this cavilling Repl. Now 1. for the perverting of all testimonies it is affirmed onely but not proved Onely some generall suppositions are brought in to support the accusation all which have formerly been confuted 2. Among those which he sayth were knowen to allow of our Ceremonies he nameth D. Humphry of whome Cambden in his historie of Q. Elizabeth observeth that he though very learned and worthy never was raised to Ecclesiasticall preferments because he allowed not our Ceremonies etc. Harding also objecteth him by name with Mr. Samson as one that had rather loose all then use our Ceremonies and Iuel Apol. c. 5. div 1. doeth not denie but defend it besides how well he allowed of our Ceremonies let all men judge by a certeine letter of his heere printed written to the
convenient we observe it as commanded of God The like cannot be sayd of our Ceremonies except first it be shewed that God hath commanded humane significant Ceremonies in generall and after it be made apparant that our significant Ceremonies are more convenient for us then others 14. The Def. having given a reason why it is safer to invent new Ceremonies then to use those olde ones of the Iewes because they might ingender an opinion of necessitie and so might bringe in all the Leviticall law was answered by the Repl. 1. that though more danger may be in some respect on the one side yet more may be absolutely on the other To this though it be evident the Rej. answereth with a bare deniall 2. The Repl. observed that the inventing of new humane Ceremonies have ingendred an opinion of necessitie in them and have brought in all the Popish law of Rites so that the comparison even in these respects may be quaestioned The Rej. heer first observeth that it was formerly alleged out of Calv. Ep. 259. that the originall of all humane Ceremonies was that men would needes forge new worships of God In whiche wordes he findeth more then any other man can opinion of necessitie and upon that accuseth the Repl. of I know not what varying uncertaintie without any reason at all Afterward he observeth that Iewish Ceremonies have more colour of necessitie because of their first Divine institution Now let that be so yet if preaching or the Churches sentence declared in a Convocation be sufficient to remove from Ceremonies all false opinion as the Def. and Rej. would persuade us that maketh no suche difference but that the comparison may still be quaestioned SECT 7. Concerning Images c. 1. A Third reason brought against significant Ceremonies was that they open a gap to Images c. where the Reader must remember or consider that the meaninge is Images instituted for signification of morall duties may as well be set up in Churches as Crosse and Surplice The Def. his answer was to passe over superfluitie of wordes that Images are not to be accounted Popish or unlawfull but onely in regard of superstitious adoration Wherunto it was replied that then Cassanders Images not for adoration but for information incitement are not Popish whiche the Rej. doeth not onely grante but also proveth it by the consent of Calvin himselfe Instit. lib. 1. capit 11. sect 12. where he sayth that Historical Images or Pictures may have some use in teaching and putting in remembrance Now for this let it be considered that Calvin in that section speaketh onely of ordinarie pictures for teaching and putting in remembrance of that which they repraesent of themselves without any Ecclesiasticall institution as certayne wordes written doe signifie a certayne meaning without any speciall institution Suche it may be would be the picture of Ananias in a white Surplice signifying with other pictures agreable to the storie that Paul esteemed and called him a whited wall Act. 23.3 But in the very next section which is the thirteenth Calvin disputing against setting up of any Images in Churches doeth sufficiently declare that he allowed of no Ceremoniall religious use of Images suche as is of our Crosse and Surplice 2. The Replier alleged against this defense of Ceremoniall religiouse use of Images especially in Churches the common consent of our Divines Against this the Rej. first opposeth Luther and the Lutherans and then asketh if they be none of our Divines To whiche I answer that they are in most maine poyntes our Divines but about this buisinesse they are no more our then about Vbiquitie Consubstantiation c. for whiche they disclaime us even the wholle Churche of England as no part of the Catholicke Churche but Sectaries Sacramentarians c. Secondly the historie of Luther about Images is well knowen how in opposition to Carolastadius whoe brake downe Images without his consent he would have them to be tolerated onely for a tyme untill men were more fully instructed But that he allowed them for good Ceremonies of religion that cannot be shewed M r. Foxe in the storie of Luther hath this Luther misliked the rashnesse of Caroâ—astadius in stirring up the people to throw down Images without authoritie and before the people were taught that Images serve to no purpose Not that he would mainteyne Images as he sayd to stand or to be suffered but that this ought to be doen by the Magistrate c. This was Luther enforced unto by the slanderers that accused Protestantes of sedition and tumultes c. This is no argument for the Magistrate to let Images stand whoe may and should remove them and will not The cause why Luther did so stand with the standing of Images was time and not his owne judgement He wished them away Nay as Zuinglius relateth he turned them some with their feet upward and some with their faces toward the wall their backes to the people for to make them not religious but ridiculous Thirdly the Lutherans make this one of their controversies against Calvin Beza c. whether Images may be tollerated in Churches or in religious use Fourthly Polanus whoe was borne amonge the Lutherans in Silesia in Ezech. cap. 11. testifieth that the Lutheran Images are worshipped of most Lutherans c. and therefore are Idoles to be avoyded Lutheranorum Imagines a plerisque Lutheranu coluntur c. sunt igitur Idola fugienda And will the Rej. then defende the Lutheran use of Images 3. In the next place the Rej. asketh in mumminge fashion if Vrsinus Iunius M r. Perkins be not of our Divines or if they doe not acknowlege an historicall use of Images lawfull To whiche I answer that they are in our consenting Divines For Vrsine his wordes are plaine parte 2. pag. 45. they must needs have large consciences Spatiosissimos amplissimos utique illis â—pâ—rtet esse conâ—cientia reâ—essus licentiam patentissimam qui rem pessimi exempli ex Ethnico ritu consuetudine in Ecclesiam maximo cum ejus dedecorâ— damnâ— translatam in adiaphoris numerare non erubescunt who blush not to recken a thing of the worst example and from heathenish rite and custome brought into the Church not without the great disgrace and hurt thereof among indifferent things Where it must be observed that he disputed against Flaccius Illiricus about Images even in the Lutheran use which our Def. and Rej. mainteine Iunius also is ours His words are these adv Bell. de Imagin lib. 2. cap. 12. v. 30. It is Gods cause and ours as is plaine out of the word that neyther his Image nor Christs nor any of the Saincts for a religious end be sett up in any place specialy that is appointed for Gods worship or at any time without his order Verily those Images are to be reckened not onely among things Superfluous Interest Des nostra ut Verbo sacro exponitur ne ipsius
blessing wher the lesser is blessed of the greater as Scripture teacheth the Rejoynder hath brought but two examples to infringe the generalitie of it Act. 13.2 Lev. 1.4 and in both of these it houldeth For they that layd hands on Paul and Silas did it not onely in the name of the wholle societie which in suche cases hath some dispensative superioritie over particular members but allso by Commission from God which gave them in thâ—t buisinesse superioritie And he that brought a beast to be sacrifized Lev. 1. had certainly power over it If the Rejoynder could have shewed us where and when a servant imposed his hand upon his Maisters head or a sonne upon his fathers that had been to the purpose Wee on the contrary say with Tostatus on Gen. 47. that the putting under of the hand was never used but by an inferior to his superior 4. Yet the Rej. hath more to say namely that the signe of a servants dutie to which hee is bound by oath is a mysticall signe of some spirituall dutie because all the law is spirituall and obedience to maisters for conscience sake is a service of God Whereto I answere that I never heard the Hang-mans office which is servile called a spirituall dutie no though he bee bound to it by oath 2. The oath maketh the thing sworne to no more spirituall then a carnall obligation unto it which may concurre with the obligation of an oath maketh it carnall 3. The Law is all spirituall in the manner but yet all the workes required by it are not spirituall nor so esteemed The Apostle 1. Cor. 6. distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things pertaining to this life from spirituall things All Divines usually distinguish the common morall duties practised by light of nature from such as are spirituall 4. Obedience to maisters for conscience sake is a service or obedience to God as it commeth from conscience toward God but every signe of subjection is not a signe of it as it commeth from conscience toward God 5. In the last place the Replier supposing all true that hitherto the Def. and Rej. have striven for yet denieth that any thing could bee concluded from thence for our Convocation-power in appointing such Ceremonies because such Prophets as Abraham might doe more then our Convocation The Rej. heere would have us shew that this was done by Propheticall inspiration and because this is not done he calleth this answere a boulting hole fit for a distressed and wilfull disputer whose cause cannot bee defended and yet his stomach will not yeild But if he had well considered that it belongeth not properly to the answere but to the Opponent to produce reasons and how vnreasonable it is for to require a reason proving a thing to be done of him that iudgeth it false and onely for disputation sake granteth his adversarie to suppose and take it as true hee would never have abused so many words by misplacing of them All these things considered I doubt not as the Replier said but Abrahams servant if he were heere present and need required would sweare that his example maketh nothing for our Ceremonies SECT 10. Concerning Suarez the Iesuite his stating of the Controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists 1. IN this section an obiection of ours is brought in without ranke or file in the midle of Examples forgotten as the Rej. saith in the proper place But nothing of moment is answered thereto either by the Def. or Rej. which is not sufficiently cleared in the first part of this Writing Chapter the sixt except the state which Suarez maketh of the question betwixt us and Papists This therefore as being very observable remaineth heere to be declared 2. The place quoted is in 3. tom 3. Disp. 15. Sect. 2. The words as the Replier hath them are these The first errour is that onely those signes which are written ought to be retained and vsed in the Church The second that no outward worship of God is lawfull but onely that which is appointed by God The third that the Church hath not power of commanding and ordeyning those things he meaneth mysticall Ceremonies which are necessary for convenient celebration of the Sacraments Of which three poynts there is none wherein Suarez and the Def. doe not jumpe To this the Rej. first answereth that Suarez doeth not propounded these three points as three errours of the Protestants because hee mentioneth not Protestants but Heretickes which reason is not worth the answering because hee mentioneth Heretickes of this time which phraze is oftner in the Iesuites writings understood of Protestants then of any other as all know that have looked vpon them By the â—ame reason one may argue that he understood no speciall Sect or persons bâ—bâ—cause hee mentioneth not any by name But it shall appeare that his meaning could be of no other then Protestants 3. He addeth in the second place the wordes going before those quoted he spake of Suenkfâ—lâ—ians And this is true but nothing to the purpose For hee leaving them as desperate phantasticks passeth on to others that is Protestants as by and by shall appeare 4. In the next place saith the Rej. Suarez speaketh of such as allow some externall worship of God but refuse all Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies in his worship as the inventions of men and hold nothing to be lawfull in Gods service but what is commanded in holy Scriptures which is the ground of those three errours mentioned by the Replier This may be called trueth but it is not all the trueth which belongeth to our present purpose For Suarez his words are these Others reproove Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies as humane inventions without authority or precept in Scripture Alij Ecclesiasticas Ceremomonias reprehendunt eo quod sint humana inventa absque Divino praecepto vel authoritate in Scriptures contenta Putant enim ifri non licere Deum colere alio cultu nisi illo qui in Scripturis nobis praeceptus est In quo fundamento tres isti errores continentur c. Putant isti non licere Deum colere alto cultu nisi illo qui in Scripturis nobis praeceptus est For they thinke it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture enjoyned In which ground three â—rrours are conteined Here may a great difference be observed betwixt the Rej. his translation and Suarez his wordes especially in that for those words Thâ—y think it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture prescribed the Rej. giveth these they hold nothing to be lawfull in Gods service but what is commanded in Scripture For many things are lawfull in Gods service which are not worship as civill circumstances c. 5. After those three errours the Rej. abserveth Suarez to speake of some that dissalow not Ceremonies in generall but impugne the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome as vaine and superstitious These no doubt addeth the Rej are the Protestants to whom he imputeth there
ordinances 3. The Repl. alleged that the words Lev. 18.3.4 are generall after their doings ye shall not doe neither shall ye walke in their ordinances To this the Rej answereth that these generall words are to be restrained unto the maâ—ter spoken of that is incest and such mad doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites But 1. why are these words more to be restrained unto the matter spoken of in the same chapter then those 1. Cor. 4.40 Let al things bee done decently and in ordâ—r which the Def. and Rej. extend as farre as it pleaseth our Convocation to call things decent and orderly 2. That they cannot be so restrained is manifest out of the context where the ordinances of Idolaters are opposed to all those Ordinances Statutes and Iudgemenes of God to the doing whereof is promised life 3. Iunius a judicious Interpreter in his Analysis of the place maketh the four first verses of this 18. chap. to perteyne unto divers chapters following and not to the 18 onely ne alienis exemplis aut legibus vivant Pelican also upon the place speaketh home in this manner God by this one law would have them cast away and abborre whatsoever had in worship pleased the Gentils Muche more care ought Christians to have of this whoe being taught to worship God in spirit and truth ought first and last to have abhorred the idle unreasonable and deceitfull formes and rites of Idolaters Whiche if the ancient Bishops had wel considered the Churche had never been pestered with so many profane rites and base Ceremonies by which it came to passe that some Christians differ litle from Gentils save in the names of their Idols Voluit Deus unâ lege abominari abjici voluit quicquid istis populis plaâ—uisset Idipsum fuerit longè studiosius cavendum Christianis quos ut in spiritu veritate Deum colere edocti à ceremoniis otiosis irrationabilibus deceptionumque multiplicium formis ritibus IdololatraruÌ„ oportuit imprimis deinceps maximè abhorruisse Id si olim Episcopi considerassent non tot scatuisset Ecclesia profanu ritibus non prolapsaesset in tam sordidas a pietate vera abhorrentes ceremonias ut fere nihil immutatum cernamus a pristinis Gentium ritibut praeter idoloruÌ„ vetustorum nomina imagines quibus successerunt proh dolor nova Lyra also a Papist on Lev. 18. sayth plainlie He intended to exclude from the children of Israel every rite of the Gentils Intendit excludere a filiis Israel omnem Gentilem ritum And on Lev. 19.19 This is commanded for detestation of Idolatrie because Idolaters did so the Israelites may not doe so Prâ—cipitur hoc in detestationem Idololatriae quia Idololatrâ— faciâ—bant propterea talia prohibentur 4. Exod 23.24 sayth the Rej. Speaketh of superstition or vitious worship And this say we is the point by us intended viz that Ceremonies borrowed from Idolaters are vitious and superstitious worship 5. To Deut. 12.4 Thou shalt not doe so to the Lord thy God the Rej. after many words answereth with the Def. that not unlawfulnesse or abuse but another reason produced this Law To which it shall suffize to answer that the other reason was as Pelecan upon the place noteth In Ceremonies we must holde us strictly to the word of God least we should transgresse eyther in number or in forme if mens traditions were to be followed CeremonianduÌ„ juxta verbum Dei no quid excederetur mulâ—itudine aut forma si ad humanas traditiones standum fuisset 6. Deut. 30.32 was as it seemeth misprinted for Deut. 16.22 and so commeth after to be handled in the next Section 7 As for 2. Corint 6.14 sayth the Rej. that place condemneth onely mariage or familiar societie with infidels and v. 17. partnership with men in uncleannesse by consenting therto But he should have remembred 1. that the generall condemnation of Fellowship implieth more then mariage or familiar societie 2. That using of Idolaters Ceremonies is more religious fellowship with them then falimiar societie civill 3. That Idolaters Ceremonies cannot be wittingly and willingly used without implicit consent unto them hitherto that their Ceremonies are lawfull 8. To Rev. 18 4. the Rej. answereth in many words but to the purpose thus As concerning Ceremonies onely separating from those of Babylons Ceremonies is injoyned which cannot be separated from sinne Which if it be understood of sinne in the religious use of them about Gods solemne worship is as muche as we desire we onely adde which is our defense that suche an use of them is sinne in it self 9. Calvins grave collection on Lev. 19.27 was by the Replier alleged which thus soundeth according to the Rej. his owne emendation of the translation Although rounding or cutting the hair was in it self indifferent yet God would not have it indifferent to his people that they as litle children might learne by small rudiments that they could not have his favour unlesse they should be unlike to the aliens and uncircumcised be altogether and farr different from their examples especially in those Rites wherin religion was shewed The Rej. answereth 1. that the cause of this restraint was the Iews childlike estate by Calvins owne words But Calvins meaning is removed from the right center For that he meant not to exclude our age he sheweth in the next words Experientia docet c. Experience doeth not did teache And this childlike estate was the cause according to him and truth not of the doctrine taught concerning unlikenesse unto Idolaters but of the manner or meanes wherin it was taught namely by absteyning from that fashion of hair and beards which Idolaters used God teacheth us to teache our children agreablie to their age not that afterward they should forget that which was taught them but that they may remember what they were then taught and not depart from it when they are olde Prov. 22.6 And did he give us a contrarie example The praecepts given in the Churches minoritie are her direction by proportion in her ripest years And what direction is in these praecepts for us the Rej. doeth not shew Surely I should thinke if the common sort ofGods people might not fashion themselves then to Idolaters then neyther now our Ministers if not then in a matter of passion muche lesse now in actions pertayning to Gods worship if not then in a tuft of hayr much lesse now in a Ministring garment a Ceremonie consecrating us and our children to Christ and a solemne manner of receyving him in his mysteries The difference of child-hood from perfect age may teache us that we should not look for suche particular warnings now what thinges of Idolaters we are to shunne as were given in the Churches infancie but make use of them being now also generally warned to flie from all Idolatrie that in the same formes of speache which then were used 2. He answereth that It pleased God to set up a
nullo modo tolerenous plurimas necessarias causes habâ—mus nay to such as they at Geneva found to be clean contrarie As for us we have many necessarie reasons why wee doe no way tolerat that signe their causes alleged in the 8. Epistle were not peculiar to any time or place but perteyne as well to England as to Geneva So that this was but to stop a Papists mouth with using of gentle words and suppositions concerning our unwarrantable course Of the surplice he speaketh sometime more indifferently but in the same places he will have it not subscribed to not defended or rejoyned for but by all meanes hastened out of the Church as a ridiculous stage-play garment or a Fooles-coat 8. Many other Divines were named as Zanchius Pezelius Mollerus Zegedinus Daneus Machabeus Zepperus Wigandus and Sadeel but their words not cited except onely Sadeels for avoyding of unnecessarie tediousnesse they all speaking to the same purpose with the former The Rejoynder hath one general answer for diverse of these that they allowed some human Feasts which have been abused to Superstition Now though this be no direct answer and the Authors may in part forget their owne general rule in some particular yet this may be further sayd that they accounted not these Feast-days such kinde of Ceremonies as we speak of This appeareth in Zepper whoe put them under the head of Order cap. 13. wheras he handleth the Crosse under the head of Sacramental Ceremonies cap. 10. In particular 1. Daneus and Zegedinus sayth the Rejoynder speak not to our purpose Daneus I have not at hand but Zegedine in his tables of Baptisme calleth them Popish additions by which Baptisme is prophaned 2. Zanchies judgement hath been shewed Namely that it was contrarie to all such Ceremonies And this doeth abundantly appear out of his Epist. to Q. Elizabeth printed before in English 3. Zepper alloweth the ancient use of the Surplice If he did therin he should not have crossed his rule given cap. 10. reg 4. out of the Scriptures at least in his opinion except he judged the Surplice before that ancient use to have been notoriously abused unto Idolatrie But the trueth is Zepper doeth but comparatively excuse a supposed ancient use of that garment which in ancient times was not knowen but as a civil habit usual in hote countries 4. Wigandus sayth the Rejoynder was Illyricus his associat in the furious opposition of the Surplice Wheras the trueth is Illyricus himself did not furiously oppose but use the Surplice as Calvin testifieth Epist. 117. 5. Sadeels words are We reject whatsoever remayneth in the Church of Rome which came eyther from Iews or Pagans The Rejoynder answereth that Sadeel sheweth what Ceremonies the Refor Churches of France did reject but not what were necessarily to be rejected of all Churches He useth also the limitation of Iewish and Paganish Ceremonies But he clean mistaketh Sadeels meaning Iewish and Paganish are no wordes of limitation but of explication by way of reason Our use of his testimonie is 1. thus Whatsoever Ceremonies they of France have rejected are in Sadeels judgement Iewish or Heathenish which can have no lawful use in Gods worship But the Churches of France have rejected our Ceremonies in controversie Ergo. 2. Thus If Iewish and Heathenish Ceremonies are to be rejected then Popish also they being in their nature or kinde Iewish and having evermore been notoriously abused unto Popish Idolatrie 9. M. Rogers Martyr in King Edwards days would not consent to conformitie in Cap and Tippet unlesse the Papists might be constreyned to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice and Hoast True answereth the Rejoynder 1. but other good Martyrs did Therfor say I not they but M. Rogers was alleged Yet beside zealous Hooper with whome after Ridly and others agreed Heavenly M. Bradford might have been added whoe in his letters to Erkinald Rawlins calleth forked caps and tippers Antichristian pelse and baggage He 2. answereth that the quaestion was for inconveniencie not unlawfulnesse But he knoweth well that M. Hooper and so in all likelyhood M. Rogers stood upon such inconveniencie as in their learning was unlawfulnesse His 3. and 4. answer is of different intentions in the same materials But this was in King Edwards days by all professed and yet M. Rogers and such could not see it sufficient 5. M. Rogers would sayth the Rejoynder allow the same thinges with some marke of difference Not allow but tolerate not upon every marke of difference but such as he knew would never be consented unto that is not at all 10. Publick injunctions were wonte to forbid all Monuments of Superstition and the Canons 1571. did forbid the gray Amice and all other garments defiled with like superstition Therfor sayth the Rejoynder 1. â—hey did not take our Ceremonies for suche Monuments But that is nothing to the Proposition Neyther yet maketh it much to the Assumption of this Argument what these or those did then take our Ceremonies to be What they are in deed we shall see in the Assumption He 2. allegeth that the Suâ—plice was none of the Missal garments as the Amice But first Bellarmine whome the Rejoynder made of late the Canon of Missal garments maketh no more mention of the Amice then of the Surplice Durandus or G. Minatensis Rational lib. 3. cap. 1. sayth In some things about the Altar they must use the Surplice Superpelliceo in quibuslibet servitius Altaris uti debent Steven Mephem cap Linteam No clarck may be suffred about the Service of the Altar unlesse he have the Surplice on at Masse Nullus Clericus permistatur in of ficio Altaris nisi indutus superpellecio tempore quo Missarum solemnia peraguntur 3. The Rejoynder addeth that it is a strong imagination to thinke that the very Injunctions and Canons of this Church could prove her to judge her owne impositions unlawful Which if he meant of formal particular judgement it is his owne weak imagination if of general and virtual judging ther is neyther strongnesse nor strangenesse in it because this Church hath no privilege that way above other Churches of which none were ever found nor can be imposing any thing unlawful which did not professe that trueth whoâ—e contents did prove that unlawful imposition to be unlawful D. Morton hath plentifully shewed so much of the Popish Church as the Rejoynder will not denie 11. B. Iewell was cited as approving Tertullians judgement concerning the unlawfulnesse of Garlands though not evill of themselves because they had appearance of evill Well sayth the Rejoynder then they were not evill in themselves by abuse That is abuse did not make them evill before they were abused which is true But â—f B. Iewel allowed Tertullians judgement as the Rej. granteth by the abuse they became evill and unlawfull Appearance of that which is evill in it selfe is evill in it selfe but the abuse was evill in it selfe and the after use was an
of the Crosse tolerably yet considering the shamefull abuse of it it ought now of right and conscience to be condemned Martiall will none of that for sayth he things good in their owne nature must not be taken away or condemned for the abuse Very true but who will grant him that the signe of the Crosse is good of it selfe It is as much as may be borne to grant it a thing indifferent But sayth the Rejoynder our Ceremonies Doctor Fulke hath of my knowledge used and defended as lawfull Of this knowledge for his using and defending all our Ceremonies his writings doe constraine me at the least to doubt He was once so farre of from using all that rather then he would use the Surplice he went out of S t. Iohns Colledge in Cambridge with his pupils and hired chambers for himselfe and them in the towne M r. Travers is my author for this If afterward he was bowed something by the times unto a little use of one Ceremony that he might in some manner and measure excuse but if he had purposed to defend that and the other Ceremonies some foot-steps of that defence would be found in his writings as there are divers of his opposing them The knowne trueth is that many good men through the iniquity of the times have beene brought to be distressed betwixt desire of liberty in the Ministery and hatred of superstition so that they have sayd with the Apostle I know not which to choose and so afterward have given some place unto the later To judge their persons it is farre from us We onely make use of their free and undistressed judgement 17. Of D. Andrues and M r. Merbury I have not to say because their Catechismes I never saw D. Sutliffe though he were a Deane as the Rejoynder noteth yet he writ in his latter time as a Divine not as a Cathedrall man and so he was cited His proposition is this All Ceremonies taken from Iewes and Pagans are unlawfull We onely adde that Ceremonies taken from Papists are subject to the like censure because Popish superstition or Idolatry is no more lawfull then the other Of M r. Greenham beside that which hath beene often confuted the Rejoynder sayth onely that he did not perswade men against the use of our Ceremonies and that he was loath to be put unto the solution of that objection weare the Surplice or preach not In which there is nothing pertinent For to give proportionable answers I my selfe was present when an honest Conformist perswaded another not to conforme For sayd he though I have not strength enough to stand out yet I would not have you that have strength for to yeeld If all should yeeld the trueth concerning these matters would be buried and more superstition is to be expected This was more then not to perswade unto Conformity And as for the second I thinke the Defendant and Rej. would be loath to be put to the solution of this objection Confesse the Ceremonies to be unlawfull or loose your livings and liberties with disgrace Thus sayth the Rej. I have broken thorow the army of Protestants That is just so as a naked body breaketh thorow a thicket of thornes getting more gashes then he made steps for his passage SECT 21. Concerning the Assumption of this fourth Argument namely that our Ceremonies are human devises notoriously knowne to have beene and still to be abused unto Idolatrie and Superstition by the Papists and are of no necessarie use in the Church 1. THat this was the Assumption or second part of this Argument no man can doubt that readeth the Proposition or former part set downe in the first section of this Chapter and understandeth the processe of reason The Defendant therefore was blamed for setting downe the Assumption thus Our Ceremonies have beene Idolatrously abused by Papists The Rejoynder not willing to forsake him in any failing allegeth 1. That the Defendant tooke the substance of the Assumption from the Abridgement and others Which might indeed have occasioned him to adde some thing unto the Abridgers assumption but in no wise to detract any thing from it at least not out of them and others to patch up a false sylogisme the whole medium or third argument which was used in the proposition not being repeted in the Assumption which every punâ—e in Logick can put off with a wet finger He addeth 2. That the clause of no necessary use is no part of the Argument but an exception answered before sect 1. And yet see how he contradicteth himsâ—lfe The Defendant answered it but it was no part of their Argument He answered it was a part of the Assumption If in their exception of things necessary they meane a convenient necessity he denies their Assumption pag. 406. Yet now he denieth that to be any part of the Assumption The trueth is both the Defendant and Rejoynder were loath to meddle more then of necessity they must with the convenient necessity of our Ceremonies least they should evidently either wrong their consciences or betray their cause In the 3. place he denieth him to have omitted these words human inventions or devises saying that the Replier hath untruely added them because neither they nor any like them are in the Abridgement pag. 26. or 27. But let him or any other looke once againe upon the Abridgement in those pages and he shall see upon the margent these words All the Ceremonies in question are human inventions c. After this he accuseth the Repl. for not observing every word of the Abridgement in repeating the Assumption but he could shew no sensâ— changed let that therefore passe 2. The Defender his answer to the foresayd Assumption was by the Replier thus collected These Ceremonies are eyther generally or individually and numerally the same that have been abused to Idolatrie If generally then it hindereth not but they may still be lawfully used though they have been so abused If individually then it is not true which is affirmed in the Assumption neyther doeth it follow from thence that they must be abolished because they have been so abused except they be the same formally that is in intention and opinion of those that impose practise them For this he is accused by the Rejoynder of doeing no justice but playing a theefes part whoe changeth coates with an honest passenger Now for this to spare the labor of writing out againe many lines I desire the Reader to looke upon the Defender his wordes as they are reprinted by the Rejoynder himself pag. 561. compare them with the Replier his summe If he can discerne any difference let the Defender be the honest man and the Replier what it pleaseth the Rejoynder to make him No material difference is noted by the Rejoynder but onely that the Defender hath not those words if generally then it hindereth not but they may still be lawfulâ—y used though they have been so abused nor any thing which will bear such a
be Where it is something that he confesseth their bread not to be like the Papists neyther in extensive quantitie nor yet in Forme and Figure But yet I am perswaded he wrongeth that Church in making their Cakes as thin as the Papists Host. For the Papists Host is a starchie or scummie crust distinct from cibarius panis bread fitting for food by our Divines censure of it And it is not credible that the Church of Geneva should reteyne such a grosse corruption But sayth the Rejoynder you allow their Ceremonie of Wafer-bread Nothing lesse We never read nor heard from them that they made any Wafer fashion a Religious significant Ceremonie This Wafer was first baked in England And if they did they are olde enough let them answer for themselves But addeth he even unleavened bread hath been abused Neyther allow we of any Ceremonious leaving out of leaven nor can it be proved of the Geneva Church As for that which was added by the Replier of custome heerin praevayling against Farells Calvins and Virets advise it is confessed by the Rejoynder that these Divines had brought-in a custome of using common bread but after some knaves working upon the reliques of the former custome brought in unleavened bread which is enough for to confirme that which the Replier spake as the Rejoynder sayth at random To the second part of the quaestion whether it be nor a wide leape to bring in the Practise of Geneva for an Instance of the Non-Conformists practise in England The Rejoynder answereth that it is an abuse unruly lightnesse eagernesse after squibs and scornes which wrought the Replier out of his geares All this it pleaseth him to lay upon this one phrase a wide leape a litle after he had commended Hellebore unto M. Parker with many such Drugges unto others And what is the cause Forsooth because this Geneva Wafer-cake was given as an instance of our Confessions and not of our Practise But this is as wide as if it had been confessed to belonge to our Practise For no such Confession of ours can be shewed It had been fitting to object nothing unto us as Confessed but that which we have eyther in practise or in writing allowed Neyther in deed was it the Defender his meaning to make all the rest of his instances our Practises and this onely our Confession but he stumbled upon this in the ende as a thing that must have some place among his objections because it had been objected by others and the Rejoynder having begunne his booke with the accusation of Scurrilitie finding him to be taken had no other way but with this shew of a distinction to vente some salt phrases like unto that Vt ultima primis consentirent 1. e. That both endes might agree A POSTSCRIPT SOme Reader may inquire whence came this new writing about Ceremonies And he may please to be informed that after the Abrigement was printed a great silence followed in England about these matters as if enough had been sayd on both sides until D. Morton then B. of Chester not thinking it honest to silence Ministers for Ceremonies before some answer was given unto their reasons they stood upon undertooke with great confidence to give a full Answer to all which was objected This answer being printed was divers years neglected as conteyning litle or nothing that had not formerly been confuted But afterward when silence was interpreted in such sence as if it had been a yeelding consâ—nt it was by some thought fitting that a breif Replie should be opposed This the Bishop thought not worthy of his owne Rejoynder but was contented to put it off unto D. Burges as a friend to him ingaged in the cause and wanting neyther will nor witte nor wordes nor credit And he went about it with all his might But finding more rubbes in the way then he had thought of after he had spent about nine years in Rejoyning to that which was written in some fowre weâ—kes by Special Command procured he knoweth by whome was compelled to thrust forth his imperfect woâ—ke full of such passionate stuffe as it may be upon more deliberation he himself would have recalled Vpon these out-cries it was necessarie to speakagaine for a good cause lest diffamation should praevayl against it But what good will some say can be exspected from this writing when the cause appeareth dâ—speratâ—â— Surely litle or none for the publick Because in our Bishops courses Will and Power have jusâ—led out Reason But yet Gods word is not bound And if we must needes be oppressed by them is it not worth a litle inke and paper to demonstrate that it is in a good cause By this meanes our consciences are justified our afflictions made more tolerable our oppressours though more angered yet must of necessitie be lesse insulting and our names shall suffer lesse though our bodies and outward estate endure more and Posteritie shall not say that for our owne ease we betrayed the cause by leaving it more praejudiced to them then we receyved it from our Fore-fathers FINIS AN ADDITION Of the two last reasons of the former reply unto whiâ—h no answer hath as yet beene rejoyned THE REPLYER Being not onely willing but desirous for the manifestation of the truth that the Reioyner should try his strength to the utmost CHAP. V. Sect. I. ad X. THe Authours of the Abridgment framed a strong Argument against our Ceremonies from the rules of Ceremonies prescribed in the Word P. 43. c. with this Argument when the Defendant was not able to grappell as it stood in the parts combined he thought good to sever some parcels of it and try what he could say to them apart Thus out of this one Argument he hath taken that which he calleth our first and out of the same he hath made up this fift and yet hee hath quite leâ—t out a great part of the sinewes wherewith that one reason is knit together in the Abridgement The argument is taken from the scandall or offence which the imposing and using of these ceremonies do bring unto divers sorts of men The Defendant here maketh great flourishing in nine whole Sections defining deviding and subdividing a scandall as if he would make all cleare before him but at the end of all this preparation he maketh no application of these Rules unto the matter in hand at all but onely telleth his Reader Pag. 154. That these divisions and subdivisions will expedite all difficulties so that out of them he may collect the true and false sense of Scriptures alledged It were sufficient therefore either to deny this power to be in his divisions or else to sett downe as many other subdivisions of scandall which were easie to doe and then tell him that these will expedite the controversie and that from them hee may collect the errours of his answer But I will notwithstanding briefly shew my opinion concerning some of these dâ—ctates The definition which he onely alloweth of as
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
to be worshipped in spirit and truth and where he would have few and very simple Ceremonies Also if God established by his Law that a woman may not putt on a mans apparrell nor a man a womans the one beeing so well of it selfe dishonest and contrary to nature as the other Why then should godly Bishops †Still misinformed and the servants of Christ be clothed or rather shamed and deformed with the garments of godlesse Priests and slaves of Antichrist Why should wee not rather as wee be of a divers religion from them so also be discerned from them at least in the performance of such duties as belong unto Gods worship by outward signes such as garments be Verily this was Gods will and he required of his people that it should be discerned from the prophane Gentiles as by other things so also by a divers sort of apparell and so should professe by this publicke signe that it would have nothing to doe with the Gentiles And why should not wee doe the same Are wee not the people of God abides not the equity of the same commandement And if the word honest be derived of honour what honour will it be for the church of Christ to have Bishops attired and disguised with Popish visors in the administration of the Gospell and Sacraments so as they shall rather be derided then be reverenced any whit by the people And what commendation shall it be for your gracious Majesty in true Churches and among true beleevers that you permit such trifles to be called back into your Church Therfore it standeth not with honesty that holy †Still misinformed Bishops be compelled to receive such visors neither is it indeed a matter worthy of honour and praise neither deserveth it the name of vertue For if your Majesty should command that all English men leaving that ancient and very grave and comely attire should weare Turkie coats or a souldiers weed as it is called who would ever approve this decree as honest And it is much lesse praise-worthy if godly Bishops be enjoyned laying aside or at least changing the honest and ancient apparell which the Apostles wore to wit that common and grave habit to put on the ridiculous execrable or accursed garment of godlesse Mass-priests Now concerning the third part of the Princes dutie there is nothing fitter to trouble the publicke peace of the Church then this counsell For every novelty especially in religion either by it selfe if it be evill disturbs and troubles a good peace or if it be good gives occasion of trouble by accident by causing contention betweene evill and good men But as in things which be good of themselves of which nature the reformation of the Churches according to the will of God is we are not to care for the troubling of that ungodly peace thâ—t is of the world for Christ came not by his Gospell to keep such a peace but rather to take it away to send a sword so assuredly by the urging of things indifferent to trouble the peace of Churches and to cause strife betweene good men and bad yea betweene godly men themselves is so wicked that it can by no meanes be defended so that Ireneus had just cause to reprove Victor Bishop of Rome for this cause as hath beene said afore For it must needs be that at such times the Churches be rent in peeces then which thing what is more hurtfull Many exemples in the histories of the Church prove this which I say How many and how great troubles arose in the Primitive Church betweene those who beside the Gospell urged also circumcision and the law and betweene those who upon good ground rejected them And how great evills would this dissention have brought to the Church of Christ had not the Apostles betime withstood them by that councell gathered together at Ierusalem by a lawfull examination and discussing of the cause by manifest testimonies of the Scriptures and by sound reasons If your gracious Majesty as you ought desire both to be and to seeme Apostolicke then imitate the Apostles in this matter Neither lay and impose this yoke upon the neckes of Christs Disciples your selfe nor suffer it to be imposed by others But if you see that the Bishops disagree about this matter among themselves assemble a Synod and cause this controversie to be examined by the Scriptures And then looke what shall be proved by plaine testimonies and strong reasons propound that to be observed by all and command by your decree that that be observed and so take disagreement out of the Church For your gracious Majesty ought to be very carefull that there be no innovation in religion but according to the word of God By this means shall a true peace concord unity of the Churches be preserved But if the proceeding be otherwise what other thing will it be then to take away unity and to trouble the Christian peace And this I may not passe over with silence that by this novelty of the busines not onely the publick peace shall be troubled in that kingdome but also many else-where out of that kingdome will have occasion given them to raise new contentions in Churches and that to the great hinderance of godlines and the more slow proceeding of the Gospell For all men know that the most part of all the Churches who have fallen from the Bishop of Rome for the Gospels sake doe not only want but also abhorre those garmeÌ„ts and that there be some Churches though few in comparison of the former which doe as yet retaine those garments invented in Poperie as they very stifly retaine some other things also because the reformers of those Churches otherwise worthy men and very faithfull servants of Christ durst not at the first neither judged they it expedient utterly abolish all Popish things But as the common manner is every man likes his owne best Now I call those things a mans owne not so much which every man hath invâ—nted as those beside which every man chooseth to himselfe receiveth retaineth and pursueth though they be invented to his hand by others But if there be also annexed the examples of other men they be more and more hardened in them and are not onely hardened but also doe their uttermost endeavour by word and writing to draw all the rest to be of their minde Therfore wee easily see what the issue will be if your gracious Majesty admit of that counsell which some doe give you to take on apparell and other more Popish things besides For some men who be not well occupied being stirred up by the example of your Majesty will write bookes and disperse them throughout all Germany of these things which they call indifferent to witt that it is lawfull to admit of them nay that they be altogether to be retained that Papists may be the lesse estranged and alienated from us and so we may come the neerer to concord and agreement