which was against Popish Recusancie of our Communion-booke and not against refusall of some few ceremonies contained therein I speake now of the Statute Law not of lawlesse canoÌ„s Or what if wee should stand upon that interpretation which fetcheth the obligation from the weight of the matter imposed which in our ceremonies is very little Some of these I am â—ure the Bishops must flye if they will defend their disuse of the Crosiers slaffe which they are bound by our lawes as well to use as the Ministers are surplusses But all this is needlesse because there can be no contempt in a conscionable forbearance of unlawfull impositions such as the ceremonies are sufficiently proved to be SECT XII HEre certaine Divines are brought in witnessing 1. that superstitions doe depâ—ive men of Christian liberty which we deny not but take their testimonies as making against our ceremonies because as I haue formerly shewed some of these superstitious opinions are inseparable from the imposing and using of them 2. That Christian liberty doth not consist in the use or disuse of things indifferent which we also willingly grant But I would haue the Defendant remember that all freedome is not in the minde conscience For where the minde is free the body may be bound else Christians should not taste so much of this worlds misery as they doe Now Christ hath left unto us not onely an inward liberty of minde and conscience but also an outward freedom of our bodies and outward man from such bodily rites in his worship as have not his stampe upon them and his Spirit and blessing promised unto them Of this the Defendant saith nothing at all Sect. XIII XIIII COncerning the profession of our Church so often brought in enough hath beene said before now it sufficeth to answer that no profession whatsoever can make humaine significant Ceremonies in Gods worship agree with Christian liberty As for superstition which the Defendant doth now the second time most ridiculously object I have answered in the beginning of this Confutation Now onely I note 1. how loosely he describeth that superstition which he calleth affirmative as if no man could use any thing superstitiously except he did hold that without it the faith of Christianity or the true worship of God could not possible consist Never was there such a description given by any man that considered what he said 2. How manfully he concludeth our negative superstition upon this ground that Christ hath left these ceremonies free which is the maine quaestion betwixt him and us 3. How he mis-reporteth our opinion in saying absolutely that wee hold a Surplice to have unholinesse and polluâ—ion in it whereas we hold that it is onely made more unfitt for Gods service then it was before through idolatrous abuse but yet unto other uses it may be applyed 4. That in stead of Scripture he bringeth forth the universall practise of men in the Church which yet hath beene formerly also refuted 5. That he can finde no Divine that calleth opposing of Ceremonies superstition but onely M. Calvin in one place speaking rhetorically as he useth to doe and not intending any definition or distributioÌ„ of that vice 6. How he corrupteth P. Martyrs words to have some colour for a new accusation P. Martyr taking there upon him the person of an adversarie unto Hoopers opinion with whom notwithstanding afterward he consented and recalled the counsell which then he gave as appeareth pag. 1125. saith that if we should refuse all things that the Papists used we should bring the church into servitude which assertion is most true because the Papists abused many necessary things even Christs own Ordinances the observing of which is liberty Now the Def. would have that precisely understood and that in the rigour of every word concerning the Surplice I have here subjoyned apart an Epistle of Zanchius who otherwaies was somewhat favourable to Bishops wherein the Reader may see his judgement concerning superstitious garments To the most renowmed Queene ELYZABETH Defendresse of the Christian Religion and most mighty Queene of England France and Ireland H. Zanchius sendeth greeting MOST gracious most Christian Queene we have not without great griefe understood that the fire of contention about certaine garments which we thought had beene quenched long agone is now againe to the incredible offence of the godly as it were raised from hell and kindled a fresh in your Majesties Kingdome and that the occasion of this fire is because your most gracious Majesty being perswaded by some otherwise great men and carried with a zeal but certainly not according to knowledge to retaine unity in religion hath now more then ever before resolved and decreed yea doth will and command that all †Zanchius it is like was misinformed for Bishops have bin the chief devisers and advisers Bishops and Ministers of the Churches shall in divine service putt on the white and linnen garments which the Popish Priests use now in Poperie yea that it is to be feared least this fire be so kindled and cast its flame so farre and wide that all the Churches of that most large and mighty kingdome to the perpetuall disgrace of your most renowned Majesty be sett on a flaming fire seeing the most part of the Bishops men greatly renowmed for all kinde of learning and godlines had rather leave their office and place in the Church then against their owne conscience admit of such garments or at the least signes of Idolatry and Popish superstition and so defile themselves wiâ—h them and give offence to the weak by their example Now what other thing will this be then by retaining of these garments to destroy the whole body of the Church For without doubt that is Satans intent by casting a seed of dissentions amongst the Bishops And that hee aimed at the infancie of the Church by stirring up discord betweene the East and West Churches about the Passover and other Ceremonies of that kind Therfore Irenaeus Bishop of Lions had just cause in his Epistle sent out of France to Rome sharply to reprove Victor the Pope of Rome because he out of a kind of zeale but not according to knowledge was minded to excommunicate all the Churches of Asia because they celebrated not the Passeover just at the same time as they at Rome did For this was nothing but by an unseasonable desire to retaine the same Ceremonies in all Churches to rent and teare a peeces the unity of the Churches I therefore so soone as I heard that so great a ruine hanged over the Church of Christ in that kingdome presently in respect of that dutie which I owe to the Church of Christ to your gracious Majesty and to that whole kingdom intended to write thither and to try by my uttermost endevor whether so great a mischiefe might possibly be withstood some that feare Christ and wish well to your Majesty exhorting me to the performance of this duty But when I had scarcely
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
interpreted by that sense which is given by the Rej. of Doctrinall and Rituall substantiall circumstantiall worship that must be essentiall which is commaunded in the word that is accidentall which is not commaunded but permitted Then the Rej. in affirming essentialls to be determined and accidentalls not sayth nothing else but that which is determined is determined and that which is not determined is not determined 4. If he meane by accidentall formes circumstances of â—yme number place and occasionall course of proceeding then he accuseth unjustly not only us but the Anabaptists themselves of opposing so manifest a truth by all men confessed 5. It would be worth a little paines of his to declare how and in what sense our Hierarchye is accidentall to the church and discipline of England The Bishops are efficient causes even in a high ranke of our Discipline they are principall members of our Diocesan churches they have an Ecclesiasticall rule and commaund over the parâ—icular congregations within their Dominion by them and in their name the essentialls of ordination institution introduction suspension deprivation excommunication c. are dispensed and disposed of who will say that these things can agree to accidentall formes 6. Concerning edging upon Anabaptists in this point it may with better reason be objected to those that maintaine Diocesan Bishops then to those that oppose them for it is well knowen that the Anabaptists in Holland Zeland and Frisland have their Bishops which have care of many congregations within a certaine circuit in all of them though ther be others that teach they only at their visitations performe some mayne things belonging to the pastorall office 7. The position that our Bishops are humaine creatures of mans making is not only to us but to many of themselves sufficient to condemne their office some of them having publikely protested that if it were so they would not keepe their places one day CHAP. IX Concerning Superstition answere to 64.65.66.67.68 of the Preface Novum crimen Iudicis â—nte hunc diem â—anditâ—m BEhold a new crime O yee Iudges and unheard of before this day These who hould the reliques of Popish confessed superstition unlawfull are in that very name indited of superstition Nay they must be content to have it for their solemne style in publique writings for so D r. Morton hath dubbed them To his superstitious brethren the non-conformists and D r. Burges will maintaine it If any man take it ill and say that such a title doth rather beseeme those which allow of religious holy water images circumcision c. besyde crosses and surplices as these two D rs doe hee is straight way scurlous But let us inquire into the Inditement 1. It was noted by the Replyer as a ridiculous peece of Rhethoricke Pag. 64. and a trick of prevention usuall with crafty men The Rej. answereth these two titles suite not well and the charge is weightye which is very true they suite not well neither to them they were intended unto nor yet betwixt themselves and the charge of superstition if it be in good earnest and upon ground is weightye But not well suting do meet often times in affected accusations and so doe here ridiculous Rhetorick and craftinesse Shee that hasted to call her party whore in the beginning of their scoulding fray for feare she should be prevented with that salutation as more deserving it was therin crafty and yet if she called her whorish Sister it was ridiculous Ridiculous I account a new unexpected toy which bringeth some admiration with it Now this accusation is such for untill now it hath scarce beene heard of The Iesuites want neither invenâ—ion nor good will in accusing such as reject their ceremonies with all kynd of reproaches and yet they could never yet hitt upon this imputation to charge them with superstition for that cause Nay Balthasar Chavasius a Iesuite lib. 2. cap. 7. s. 54. though he would fayne have â—astened some such thing upon us yet seing it would not â—ake but be accounted ridiculous even by his owne â—reinds he doth so much as say he durst not do it for â—hame We must not expect sayth he Non est quoae a Pseudoevangelicis reformatos puta superstitiones multas indebitâ— cultus expectemus ut pote quae observationes quaedam inanes ac superflua esse solent illi antâ— ceremonias poenè omnes insectantur many superstitious exâ—ressions of undue worship from those who are falsely called Evangelicall professors considering thâ—se superstitions are â—ont to be certaine vaine and superfluous observations but â—hey meaning the reformed churches do bitterly inveigh almost against all Ceremonies So our Rhemists on Acts â—7 Sect. 4. discharge us of superstition whereupon D r. Fulk saith we accept of your restimbnie as the witnesse of our adversaries And is it not admirable then that our Def. and Rej. should goe beyond the Iesuites in their owne element and teach them how and in what sense they may here after better accuse Calvin and those that agree with him of superstition then of rash irreligious or profane innovation for rejecting so many Ceremonies of theirs which not only they but also our Divines if we may beleeve the Def. and Rej. esteeme easily reformable to good use not simply unlawful And by the same reason Non-residents Pluralists Tot Quots common swearers of diminitive oaths dicers standing upon the lawfulnes of their practise may upon that supposition call those that gaynesay them superstitious brethren 2. For the exploiding rather then answering or confuting of the foresaid ridiculous accusation it was alledged That superstition is a kynd of excesse of religious worship and that an excesse or error in a negation was never called by any author superstition when he meant to speake properly except that very negation be held as a speciall worship That we doe not absteine from these Ceremo but as from other unlawfull corruptions even out of the compasse of worship That every erroneous deniall of things lawfull is not superstition and that all sorts of definitions which are given of superstition doe touch upon our Cerem rather then on the deniall or condemning of them All this could not stay the Rej. but he must maintaine and renue this weighty charge as he calleth it and pronounce that if we can avoyd it it is our witt as if he would say our book hath saved us Lett us therfore consider what the accuser can say to bringe us to this extreame passe 3. There can be no plainer reason of this accusation saith the Rej. then that out of Coll. 2.23 where will worship is instanced in negative observances Pag. 65. answere to the praface Answer to Coll. 2 23. touch not tast not handle not c. But 1. we teach no negative observances so called for observances are ceremoniall Tho. 1.2 q. 101. art 4. we make no ceremonies of our negations but make them morall duties The Prelates on the other syde
eyther of faith or sanctimonie or necessitie Nor Bell. himself in that place Neyther is the question there handled of poyntes of faith or thinges absolutlie necessarie to sanctimonie All double treble Ceremonies reductively Sacramentall and worship are by the Rej. his owne dictates double sacred and that is it which Iunius meaneth by divine 3. Bell sayth that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of lawes contraâ—ie to the law of God Wherunto Iunius n. 10. answereth tâ—at any lawes at all added to Gods laws are contrarie to the law of God speaking of proper laws without any backing of Gods law binding the Conscience as he sheweth cap. 16. n. 86.8 Here 1. the Rej. left out those words of Iunius neyther cantrarie nor beside the word which if he had translated then the Readers memorie might have recalled how this place cited before for the defeÌ„ce of that phraze was but shifted by the Rej. p. 46. 2. It is to be marked that the Def. and Rej. there answer to Deut. 4. is the same with Bel. p. 134.3 That exposition of laws without backing is of the Rej. his owne forging No suche thinge is founde in the places quoted nor yet did Bel. professe to defeÌ„de any suche thing Of binding the Conscience enough hath been sayd in the head of Difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish 4. Iunius n. 12. answering to Bellarmines his saying that God in the N.T. gave onely the common laws of faith and Sacram. leaving the specialls to the Churche etc. affirmeth Gods laws to be perfect re ratione modo and those of the Churche to be but Canons and disposings of conveniencie for better observing of divine lawes Where note 1. an example of an etc. for a blinde or blindinge which the Rejoynder formerly tould of For in that ete is conteyned pro locorum temporum diversitate quia non possunt diversissimi populi conuenire in ijsdem legibus ritibus 1 e. for this cause speciall laws of rituall thinges are left to the Churches libertie because of varietie which falleth out now by occasion of times and places Which is the very thinge that the Rejoynder pawned his credite Bell. never sayde pag. 15.16 Note also 2. that Iunius doeth not in this place meÌ„tion Canons as the Rej. pleaseth to alter his words in reciting of them But Cautions and dispositions Now a Caution about the performance of any thing is not an institution of a new thing 3. Iunius is found to say as muche as he was alledged for and to the contrarie we have from the Rejoynder a nihil dicit 5. Iunius n. 13. sayth onely that Christ is the onely law-giver that is to give lawes that in themselvs and by the very authorite of the law-maker doe binde the conscience As if Iunius in confuting of Bell. did onely say the very same thing with him that he goeth about to confute for Bellarmine in that very place sayth Christ is the cheife law-giver who by his owne Authority can judge and make lawes Christus soluteâ—â— legislator crimaâ—us qui potest suâ propriâ authoritate judicare leges ferre Now out of all these allegations the Rejoynder maketh his interrogatories 1. Where be these words all that is requisite as spoken of Rites and Ceremonies Answer the sense of these words as spoken of all Ceremonies above mere order and decencie is cap. 16.86.2 Where finde you in IunÃus that the Churche may constitute no new thinge Ans. cap. 17. n. 9. this in things Divine is to turne aside Hoc in diviniâ— rebut est declinate for the Rejoynder his interpretation of those words that they mean poynts of faith and necessarie rules of sanctimonie is confuted by conference of Bellarmines words there opposed who in that place instanceth in Ceremoniaâ—l and Iudiciall laws and speaketh not at all of faith and necessarie sanctimonie 3. Where are those words ordering in seemly manner Ans. cap. 16. n. 86. those onely humane lawes are necessarie in the Churche which make that all thinges be doen decently and in order 1. Cor. 14.40 4. If the Churche may appoint no new thinge but onely see to decencie and order then sayth the Rej. what patent hath she to make particular ordinances for time and place unlesse these be no new things I Ans. 1. Time and place considered as mere occasionall circumstances are no more new thinges in Gods service then concreated time and place were new things in Creation distinct from the created world And Calvin inst l. 4. cap. 10. sect 22. severely censureth those that call suche kinde of determinations new lawes Quis nisi calumniator sic novam ferriâ—b ijs legem dicat quos constant duntaxat scandalis occuâ—rere quae sunt a Domino satis diserte prohibita If procuring that scandals be avoided be no new thinge then neyther is procuring that disorder and undecencie for time place etc. be avoyded any new thinge As for a patent to appoint double treble sacred Ceremonies it is a vayn thing for them to plead it that cannot shew it under the great Seal I doe not thinke that any earthly Kinge would have his subjects submit theÌ„selves to that power which is fetched out of a Patent invisible and onely avouched by conjectures 7. A reason was given of the foresaid proposition out of Iun. de Transl. Imp. l. 1. c. 2. n. 26.27.31 viz. that the Churche hath onely a Ministerie to observe suche thinges as Christ hath appointed not authoritie of appointing new thinges Here the Rejoynder 1. observeth that those words new things have no foot steps in Iunius As if new things could be appointed lawfully without authoritie of appointing Surely he that denieth all authoritie of appointing and leaveth onely ministeriall performance of things appointed he denieth appointing of new thinges 2. He argueth thus If the Churche have a ministerie to appoint and doe suche thinges as Christ hath commanded then must she needs have a Commission legative to appoint and use rites serving to order and decencie Adde to this onely and then it is not onely that but all that which we require 3. He crieth out of miserable perversion eyther by grosse negligence or mistaking And why so I pray Because forsooth all that Iunius sayth is good to prove that no Ecclesiasticall person hath any power by his calling over temporall Princes But this is nothing against their delegated dependant power by Commission But 1. these are very strange distinctions they have not any power by their calling but some by commission They have not any power over temporall Princes though they be members of the Churche but over the Churche they have 2. The Rejoynder maketh Iunius onely to denie that which Bellarmine never affirmed viz. absolute independent power of Ecclesiasticall persons as supreme Lords Nay Bellarmin answereth to Calvin in the very same manner that the Rejoynder doeth The Pope is not the cheife lawgiver but the vicar of Christ Pontisex non est legislator primarius â—ed Vicarius
Bishops the Copie bearing this inscription A letter sent to the Bishops from Doct. Laur. Humphrey president of Magdalen College in Oxford and Reader of Divinity lecture there YOur Lordships letters directed unto us by our vice-Chancelour although written in generall words yet hath so hearted our adversaryes that wee are now no more coÌ„pted brethren friends but enimies syth the old masse attyres be so straightly commanded the masse is selfe is shortly looked for A sword now is put into the enemyes hands of these that under Q. Mary have drawn it for Popery under preteÌ„ce of good order are ready without cause to bewreck their popish anger upon us who in this wil use extremitye in other laws of more importance partialiâ—y I would have wished My Lords rather privy admonition then opeÌ„ expulsion yea I had rather have received wounds of my brother then kisses of myne enymye if wee had privily in a CoÌ„venient day resigned then neyther should the punisher have ben noted of cruelty neyther the offender of temerity neyther should the pap have accused in their seditious book protestants of contention Religion requireth naked Christ to bee peached professed Glorifyed that Graviora legis by the faithfull ministrye of feedinge pastours should bee furthered after that orders tending to edification not to destruction advanced finally the spouses friends should by all meanes be cherished favourd defended not by counterfite false intruders condemned overborne defaced But alas a man qualified with inward gifts for lack of outwarde shews is punished a maÌ„ onely outwardly confornable inwardly cleane unfurnished is let alone yea exalted the painfull preacher for his labour is beaten the unpreaching Prelate offending in the greater is shot free the learned man without out his cappe is afflicted the capped man without learning is not touched Is not this directly to breake Gods laws Is not this the Pharises vae It not this to wash the outside of the Cup and leave the inner part uncleansed Is not this to praeferre mint and anis to faith and Iudgement and Mercie Mans tradition before the ordinance of God Is not this in the schoole of Christ and in the Methode of the Gospel aplayn disorder hath not this praeposterous order a woe That the Catechisme should be reade is the word of God it is the order of the Church to preach is a necessary point of a Priest to make quarterly sermons is law to see poore men of the poore mens box relieved vagabonds punished Parishes Communicate Roode lofts pulddowne monuments of superstition defaced service done and heard is scripture is statute that the oath to the Q. Majesty should bee offered and taken is required as wel by ordinance of God as of man These are plaine matters necessary Christian and profitable To weare a Surplys a Coape or a cornerd cappe is as you take it an accidentall thing a devise onely of man and as wee say a doubt or question in Divinitie Syth now these substantiall points are inall places of this realme almost neglected the offendes either nothing or little rebuked and syth the transgessors have no colour of conscience it is sinne and shame to proceede against us first having also reasonable defeÌ„ce of our doings Charity My Lo. would first have taught us equitie would first have spared us brotherlinesse would have warned us pitty would have pardoned us if we had beÌ„ found trespassers God is my witnesse who is the beholder of all faith I thinke of your Lordsh. honourably esteeming you as brethren reverencing you as Lords and Masters of the congregation alas why have not you som good opinion of us why doo you trust knowne adversaries and misttrust your bretkren wee confesse one faith of Iesus we preach one doctrine we acknowledg one ruler upon earth in all things saving in this we are of your judgement shall we bee used thus for a surplus shall Brethren persecute BrethreÌ„ for a forked Cappe devised singularly of him that is our enemy Now shall we fight for the Popish Coate his head and body being banished shall the controversy so fall out in conclusion that for lacke of this necessary furniture as it is esteemed labourers shall lacke wages Churches preaching shall we not teach shall we not exercise our talents as God hath commanded us Because we will not wante that which our enemies have desired and that by the appointement of friends Oh that ever I saw this day that our adversaries should laugh to see bethren fall together to the eares Oh that Ephraim should thus eat up Manasses Manasses Ephraim My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church the Crests and triumphs of Anti Christ. The laugher of Satan the sorrow and sighs of a number the mysery and sequel of the tragedie I write with zeale without proofe of my matter at this time present but not without knowledge of it nor without greife of minde God move your spirit at this praesent to fight against Carnem Circumcisionem imo Concisionem against literam et legem which principally is now regarded rewarded Speake I humbly beseech you to the Queenes Majesty to the Chancelour and to Mr. Secretary and the rest that these proceedings may sleepe that England may understande your zealous minde toward the worshippe of God your love toward the poore welwillers your hate towarde the professed enimies your unity in true conformity the other neither be needfull now neither exacted in any good age So shall the little flock be bounde to you so shall the great sheepherd be good to you By this we may judge of some others whome he onely nameth 3. That all allowed some â—ignificant Ceremonies is manyfestly proved false in the former allegations 4. We glory no more of synceritie in refusing the Ceremonies then the Rejoynder doeth in using of them 5. It is no abusing of the world to allege generall sentences of men condemning that which they seeme to allow in their practise If it were I can name one protestant writer who hath more abused the world in this kinde then any or all of us and that is no other then our Def. D. Morton For he hath written many bookes of good use against the Papists the cheif grace wherof is that having a good Librarie and using it with deligence and discretion he hath alleged many thousands of their owne testimonies for the disproving of those errors and superstitions which the same Authors in other places or at least in their practise doe apparently eyther allow or admitte of This is the wordy answer which the Rejoynder giveth unto the testimonies alleged in the Abr. pag. 33.34 for to praevent our bragging now let us trie if the Argument naked of testimonies will not stand 3. The Argument is this If those Ceremonies which God himself ordeyned to teache his Churche by their signification may not be used muche lesse may those which man hath devized The Def. his first answer
proving this Altar to be appointed unto Gods service because it was a patterne of the Lords Altar as our Crosse is a resemblance of Christs Crosse was 1. reproved by the Replier because the Crosse wheron Christ did suffer was no more holy then Iudas and so not to be compared unto the Lords Altar To this the Rejoynder in many wordes maketh shew of saying something but I leave it to the Reader if he sayth any thinge I for my part can not discerne what it is 5. The Replier also in the second place alleged that every resemblance of a holy thing is not therfor holy because then every Ale-house picture taken from holy thinges mentioned in Scripture should be holy and a modell of the Temple caried by a Tyrian workman into his countrie for newes should have been holy To this the Rejoynder after a few wordes of course answereth that this is to separat the resemblance of a thing from the use of it As if the Def. had not argued simply meerly from the resemblance making as yet no mention of the use If ther be any Sophistrie in this argument as the Rejoynder sayth ther is it is first found in the Defender his uncouth reason 6. The Defender went about to prove first that this Altar did mystically signifie a spirituall dutie in respect of the Gileadites then living viz to teache that the Lord was God To this it was replied that it doeth not appear out of the text that ther was intended any use for the praesent age that then lived nay the contrarie may be gathered out of the 24. and 25. verses We have doen it for fâ—ar of this thing saying In time to come your children might speak unto our children c. So shall your children make our children cease from fearing the Lord. The Rejoynder opposeth that ther is afterward mention made of us and you But that is nothing because it noteth onely that the generations to come may denie us on this side Iordan not to have been joint Tribes with you on the other side of that River Vpon this the Repl. concluded that this Altar was no direct helpe unto devotion To which is rejoyned that it was not a direct that is immediat help unto devotion but immediatly significative collaterally for devotion it was Suche distinctions I never heard nor read Any man may see that a Ceremonie directly and immediatly signifying a spirituall dutie is a direct immediat help to devotion To what other help this help was collaterall I would fain know A further reason of this conclusion was added viz then most of the other Tribes should have had use of it and also reason to have set up Altars of devotion at every three-way-leet as Crosses stand The Rejoynder is 1. that the other Tribes no doubt had use of it as of a witnesse that the Lord is God Now let any man consider whether they which ordinarily resorted to the Tabernacle and Altar of God had need of a humane Altar farre remooved from their sight to put them in minde that the LORD was God And whether the two Tribes and a halfe without the consent or knowledge of the chiefe Priests the chiefe Magistrates the farre greater part of people and power to appoint vnto all Israel a solemne significant Ceremonie for their common use The Rej. addeth in the 2. place that all are not bound to the same helpes to devotion and the other tribes needed no such monument or patterne having the Altar it selfe in possession Where 1. except he holdeth the two Tribes and a halfe bound to set up this Altar hee maketh in that no difference if hee so holdeth then it is no instance of a meere Arbitrarie Ceremonie 2. The two tribes had the Lords Altar in present possession as well as divers of the other so that by this reason they also for the present need no such monument and patterne which is the very point in this place questioned 7. The Replier affirmed that in regard of posterity the immediate ende of this Altar was to testifie that those Tribes beyond Iordan belonged to the same people and so had right to the same worship with those of this side Iordan which is nothing to a Ceremony of state and immediate use in the speciall solemne worship of God The Rejoynder asketh if this were not a holy religious ende I answere It was so holy and religious as every Land-marke of a Parsons Glebe-land or every signe of a Parish-bound is holy and religious but not so as mysticall Ceremonies B. Andrewes against Perone p. 18. giveth some light to this by the ancient use of Lights and incense There were lights saith he there was incense used by the Primitive Church in their service not for any mysticall meaning but as it is thought for this cause that where the Christians in time of persecution had their meetings most commonly in places darke and so needing lights and dampish and so needing good savours they provided lights against one and incense against the other After the Churches retained these things to shew themselues the successours of those ancient Christians c. the After-ages devized meanings and significations of their owne which from the beginning were not so If this be so as it is thought then there may be signes of succession unto religious fore-fathers without any mysticall meaning which is all that by us is pleaded about this Altar of Iordan And for further manifesting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was so in this Altar let it be well considered what Iosephus one of the learnedest and most ancient Iewes now exstant saith Antiq. lib. 5. cap. 4. They placed an Altar on the banke of the river as a memorable signe of the neerenesse and affinity of them that dwelt beyond Iordan viz. with them within Canaan Againe it was not placed for worship but symbolically and as a memorandum of their relation to you 8. The Rejoynder as having sufficiently confuted all other answers bringeth in one made to himselfe in conference though he hath not found it in print as a grand absurdity namely that the Gileadites did ill in erecting this Altar and the rest also in allowing of it Now as for allowance by the High Priest Princes and all the Congregation of Israel which he speaketh of I finde it not evident in the Text. About the other I finde this 1. that D. Fulke no absurd Divine against Sanders of Images pag. 649. writeth thus in print The two Tribes and a half Iosh. 22. made not an Image but an Altar for a memoriall and yet their fact was not commendable though it was in some sort excusable 2. I finde also that Calvin before him upon Iosh. 22. sayth thus Duae tribus â—um dimidia non leviter peccarunt c. The two tribes and a half did very ill Which is the great absurditie that the Rejoynder had heard in conference but not seen in print before now SECT 17.18.19.20.21
also hold in our time If so then why is not our argument good Calvin Bucer Beza the Divines of Helvetia France Netherland c. have in their practise banished Crosse Surplice and kneeling Ergo their doctrine is against them 5. The Rej. calleth it a spirit of singular singularity to thinke the whole Church in the dayes of purest zeale and frequent martyrdome did not duâ—ly examiâ—e theâ—r Ceremâ—nies And yet the same Rej. without any spirit of singular singularity acknowledgeth that in the two first ages after the Apostles there was either want of clearnesse or a manifest touch of error about some sixteene points of doctrine very important pag. 458. Which if he will reconcile with this affected accusation he must say that Christians in those times more attended to certain humane Ceremonies then to divers points of divine doctrine though in the maine power of Godlinesse they went beyond those which are purer both in Ceremonies and doctrine But the trueth is he spake there for excessive commendation of our English-Church-doctrine and so in comparison depressed the Primitive and heere he seeketh to defend our Ceremonies by theirs and so extolleth their judgement of Ceremonies in both places according to occasion exceeding thâ— just measure as it usually falleth out to those who dispute out of affection more then out of judgement 6. The Rej. taketh it ill that the Repl. should say that the bringing in of humane Ceremonies made any way for Antichristian supersâ—ition But seeing that the Antichristian Papists argue so strongly from those first humane Ceremonies to divers of those which they use and by us are rejected that they cannot bee fully confuted but by rejecting of both I see no reason for his indignation Gideons Ephod in the argument of the eight chapter of Iudges according to our new translation was a cause of Idolatrie And was not the old crossing at every step at every comming to and going out Ad 〈◊〉 progressum atque promotum ad omnem ad itum exiitum ad vestitum calceatum ad lavacrae ad monsat ad lumina ad cubâ—iie ad sâ—dilâ—a sert aâ— Corona at the apparreling themselves at washing at eating at lighting candles at sitting c. as a great cause of that Idolatry which hath been and is-used about the crosse D. Fulke in his Rej. to Bristow cap. 3. mainteyneth that many abuses and corruptions entred into the Church immediately after the Apostles time which the Divell planted as a preparative for Antichrist The same Doctor also ibid. sect 4 proveth many Ceremonies of the Primitive times to have been unprofitable because they are abrogated And cap. 9. hee sayth plainely that the error of conceiving and using some superstitions or superfluous Ceremonies is common to the Fathers with Papists 6. A great matter is made of that which the Replier said concerning 1500. yeares experience of humane significant Ceremonies For about this the Rej. sayth that it is wonderfull rashnesse answering the spirit of montanus to challenge the whole Church of error in this matter for 1500. yeares But 1. it is rashnesse in the Rej. to accuse one of challenging the whole Church who mentioned not in his challenge either Church or whole 2. The whole Church cannot be understood except the Waldenses and all like unto them that is the purer part bee excluded out of the whole Church 3. Doctor Morton himselfe Prot. Apol. cap. 25. sect 9. maintaineth this sentence of M r. Calfhill the Fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel in Ceremonies if by simplicity be understood a vertue opposite either unto superfluitie or superstition And And are not superfluity and superstition errors 4. From the primitive times by the space of sixe hundred yeares the Church generally erred in giving the Lords Supper unto infants as D. Morton sheweth Prot. Apol. l. 2. cap. 25. sect 10. and after that for many hundred yeares it mended for the common course of errors as soure ale doth in Sommer 5. The Rej. cannot name any Church in all that time free from errors neither can he denie but the Church that erreth in doctrine may erre in Ceremonies Ergo. 6. Hee was unhappie in mentioning Montanus his spirit which breathed and broached so many humane Ceremonies that the Church hath ever since beene more wronged thereby in Ceremonies then in any other respect or by any other spirit of that time as all men know that have read those writings of Tertullian which were dictated by a piece of Montanus his spirit Montanus would have three Lents in stead of one Montanus advanced the Crosse unto more honour then ever it had before Montanus in one word was of a ceremoniall spirit SECT 30. IN this section foure or five Protestant Divines are named as allowing of some significant Ceremonies But there is not any one of them whose judgement to the contrary hath not beene manifestly declared I will not therefore so much distrust the Readers attention and understanding as to weary him with needlesse repetitions SECT 31. HEere the Defend urgeth upon us the ordinary forme of swearing upon a booke To which if the Replier hath not sayd enough I leave it to the Readers judgement after hee hath compared the Rej. opposed which speaketh 1. of Gamballing 2. of Bucklers and Quarrelling 3. of a proofe necessary to an answere 4. of swearing by a bocke 5. of Sophistication in confounding our Churches esteeme and the trueth about this forme of swearing 6. of equalitie betwixt speciall solemne worship of God and occasionall swearing in civill Assemblies I will onely adde as an explication of the Repliers answere that which D. Iackson answereth the Papists about this fashion Orig. of unbel sect 4. cap. 35. We use the booke onely as a complement of the civill act whereby we give satisfaction unto men or as a visible resemblancer partly to by standers or spectators whose eyes by this meanes may become as true witnesses as their eares that such protestations have beene made partly unto him that makes them who will be more wary and circumspect what he avoucheth and protesteth when he perceiveth his speeches must be sealed with such remarkeable circumstances as they cannot be often recalled to his owne and others memorie To the same ende men of honourable place and calling use to lay their hands upon their hearts when they take a solemne oath SECT 32. Concerning the Lords-Day Temples and ceremoniall Festivals 1. THe Def. having spoken of his much sayling in the maine and narrow Seas commeth to object the observation of the Lords Day as a fit example of a humane Ceremonie whereupon the Replier continuing his similitude sayth that he was at this time eyther sea-sicke or sleepy with his much sayling This the Rej. calleth a scurrilous jest and scoffe so liberall is he of termes when reasonable answers are not at hand But if he had thought of the ordinarie sayings Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus animi perturbatio est quaedam ejus
for the holding of our places and when we have done all that depart against our wills with sorrow Non discedit a statione qui cedit invitus See M. Parker p. 1. c. 4. s. 14. But the Defendant undertaketh to prove that the cause of silencing is not in the Bishops that suspend and deprive us but in our selves He is as it seemeth a great adventurer For he commeth forth upon this peece of service with flying colours Know you well what you sâ—y sayth hee when you lay the cause of your silencing upon the Bishops Yes surely very well For a cause is that which bringeth force or vertue to the being of another thing Now the first vertue or rather vice which tendeth to silencing of Ministers in this case is in the Bishops canons they therefore are the first cause The second vertue is in the Bishops and their officers which are executioners of those unconscionable canons they therefore are the secondarie cause Non-conformity hath no vertue in it of it owne nature nor by Gods ordinance to bring forth such an effect as the silencing of Gods Ministers is though it be made an occasion by the perversenesse of our Prelats I know well what I say and will make it good against the Defendants vaine pretences The case standeth thus sayth he Titus it had been more proper to say Diotrephes the Bishop doth deprive Titius a factious and schismaticall minister that he may place Sempronius a peaceable and discreet man in his stead In this proceeding the intendement of Titus is not absolutely to deprive Titius as he is a Minister but as he was factious yet so onely respectively that Titius being deprived he may constitute Sempronius for the charge of a Bishop is not determinate to appoynt precisely this minâ—ster but indefinite to ordaine a minister so that the course of Gods plow is still preserved and continued But as for Titius who will rather be silenced then conforme it is evident that the cause of his silencing being his owne refractarinesse which is onely personall proper to himselfe and yet hath no faculty in himselfe to appoynt or admit of a successor he may be sayd to have properly caused his own suspension and deprivation This case needeth no long demurring on for there is not one sentence in all the length of it which doth not smell without any uncasing 1. are all those factious and schismaticall men that refuse to conforme was Hooper such a kynd of man was Peter Martyr and M. Perkins such when one at Oxford and the other at Cambridge refused to weare the Surplice was M r. Goodman M r. Deering M r. More M r. Rogers and such like heavenly men the lights glory of our churches were all these factious and schismaticall In the presence of God it is well knowne they were not But our Prelats have this prerogative they may dubb whom they please factious and schismaticall after that there is no redemption they must be such be they otherwise never so full of all grace 2. Are all peaceable discreet men which are placed in the deprived ministers stead For the best of them they are still as great eye-sores to our Bishops almost as the other because they reprove a great deale of Episcopall darknesse by their practises For the rest the congregations over whom they are sett cannot finde it the voyce of all the countrey is otherwise for many of them yet according to the Prelats measure who meat as it seemeth the vertues and vices of a minister by certaine ceremonies of their owne imposing it cannot be denied but the most of them are very peaceable and discreet Even so as many of the Bishops themselves were knowne to be afore they were Bishops and shew themselves to be still for Episcopatus plures accepit quam fecit bonos 3. What sence can this have The Bishop depriveth Titius respectively that he may constitute Sempronius Doth he know before-hand whom he shall constitute then there is grosse legerdemaine betwixt him and that Sempronius For with what conscience can one seek and the other assigne the place of him that is in possession This is but some time in those benefices which are fatter and whose patrons are more foolish Ordinarily the vilest minister that is to be found may succeed in the place of him that is deprived for ought the Bishop knoweth or for ought he can doe except he will endure a quare impedit which in case of morall unworthinesse hath scarce beene ever heard of 4. The charge which he sayth our Bishops have of appointing Ministers I wonder from whence they have it or by what conveyance They say that they themselves are the proper pastors of all the parishes in their Diocesse It is well if they have an ubiquitary faculty and will to performe the office of pastors to so great a people but who made them such Christ his Apostles never knew of ordinary pastors having charge of so many Churches But suppose they did by whom doth Christ call one of our Bishops By the Kings congedelier the Chapiters nominall election or by the Archbishops consecration There is none of these that can beare the triall of Scripture nor of the Primitive Churches example 5. Is the Bishops power of appointing a minister no wayes determinate to this or that minister then it seemeth his meere will determineth of the particular person without any just reason For if there be certaine causes or reasons which the Bishop is bound to follow in designing of this or that minister rather then another then is the Bishop determinate The Councell of Nice it selfe determined the authority even of Patriarches in this case viz. that the Elders should first nominate fitt men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secondly that the people should elect or choose out of that number per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thirdly that the Bishop should confirme the elected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. x. p. 177. What exorbitant power is this then which our Bishops doe now-a-dayes chalenge unto themselves All Classicall Divines do consent to that which Iunius setteth downe Conc. 5. l. 2. c. 6. n. 73. that no Bishop can send or appoint a Minister sine certa ac justa ecclesiae postulatione without the certaine fore-choyce of the Church Id enim esset obtrudere non mittere for that were to obtrude him not to send him 6. How is the course of Gods plow preserved when for the most part the succeeding Minister is thrust upon the people against their wills and so pernitious contentions arise of which the Bishop is cause procreant and conservant by depriving the people of their minister and obtruding his owne minister upon them and upholding him in all those courses whereby he grieveth the poore people 7. As the Minister hath no faculty in himselfe to appoint a successor so hath not the Bishop neither of himselfe and by himselfe Thus much for the Defendant his case Whereas he addeth
of popish superstition Those superfluous trifles M r. Fox in M r. Hoopers Story â—rifles tending more to superstition then otherwise like â—nto stage players attyre 6. All humaine religious mysticall Cer. are the byrths of folly because every man â—s foolish in fynding out of religious worship according to his owne imagination 7. These Cer. are of the same â—ynd with confessed fopperyes as the placing of mysteries in every weather cock upon church steeples as some doe the Ludi Sacri among the papists in frequent use like unto stage playes The rocking of a babe in a cradle all night at the Nativity tyme the Harrowing of hell at Easter The representation of fighting horse and foot according to the Custome of Mozarabo Hist. Concil Trident. P. 642. If a May pole should be brought into the church for children to dance about and clyme upon in signe of their desire to seek things above If a stiffe strawe were putt into the childs hand for a signe of fighting against spirituall enemies as with a speare ther would be no more folly in these theÌ„ is in the crosse 8. All experieÌ„ce telleth us that such humaine inventions are not aptae to any spirituall use as they are appointed unto and therfore may justly be called according to the notation of the word ineptae Againe it was opposed that these Cere were found by wofull experience to be very nocent and hurtfull in that use which hath beene and is still made of them To this the Rej. answ that these mischeifs which he cannot deny to follow upon our Ceremon as they have beene and are urged are accidentall events or sequells not proper effects of them and that the extreame opposing of them as unlawfull hath beene the cause or occasion of these evills But 1. these mischeifs have followed upon these Cerem by more continuall or contiguall succession then the Pope can plead for his chayer even from the tyme of the first urging of them untill this day M r. Fox speaking of a wicked persecutor one Blumfeild who threatned a good man one Symon Harelson to present him for not wearing the Surplies Addeth it is pitty such baites of Popery are left to the enemyes to take the Christians in God take them away from us or us from them For God knoweth they be the cause of much blyndnesse and strife among men Ceremonies are nocent In his Iudgm the Cer. were then nocent and infamous for these sequells and yet the Rej. fayd they were not untill of late so extreamely opposed as unlawfull 2. Our opposition of them is no more guilty of these mischeifs then the message of Moses and Aaron were of the cruelty which Pharoahs taske masâ—ers used towards the poore Israelites Exod. 5. though â—ome people now may think so as many Israelites did â—hen 2. When the Anabaptists in Helvetia opposed humaine Ceremonies as unlawfull they were by puâ—like authority and with common consent abolished And the very Anabaptists were thanked for that opposition So Zwinglius their arch-adversary Tom. 1. P. 70. And here truely I shall graunt to the Catabaptists and will freely confesse that some commodity hath accrewed from that contention which they have stirred about Baptisme For hence it hath come to passe that those things which the foolish superstition of humaine conceits had added as namely the use of Exorcisme spittle and salt and many other of the like kynd which were brought to light are accounted of all for vayne and frivolous Atqui hie lâ—bens equidena Catabaptistis concedam fatebor aliquid â—ultatis ex contentione illa quam ipsi de Baptis instituerunt evetum eâ—se Hinoenim factum est ut ea quae humanae rationis stulta superstitio addiderat qualia sunt Exorcismi sputi salisque usus alia hujus geneâ—is coÌ„plura in lucem protracta ab omnibus pro vanis futilibus habita sunt Who or what is in the way that the contention of so many worthy I dare say of no lesse respect then Anabaptists against the same kynd of Ceremonies should be accounted a just cause or occasion of so different a resolution as the severest urging of them is from the utter cashyering of them Certaine it is the proper cause is to be sought in some other box then extreame opposition and esteeming of them unlawfull 3. Suppose these Cerem in regard of some places tymes and persons not unlawfull and the mischeifs accidentall yet that maketh not the generall urging of them innocent no more then feirce gallopping of horses through London streets where many men women and children are indangered want of intending mischeif would make that mudd hurry innocent 4. The mischeifs being so great as fearfull horror of conscience in some Rej. P. 9. hardening fopling and distempering the conscience in other silencing of so many hundred good ministers and keeping off more from the ministery troubling unsetling and vexing of thousands among the people encoraging of Popish and prophane men with discoraging and martyring the myndes of many good the mischeifs I say being so unaestimable that they can in no proportion be recompensed by all humaine ceremonies that are in the world the ceremonies which have such sequells yeare after yeare are much more hurtfull then the Cart and horse that are driven over children in the street and their urgers of them more guilty then such Carters or Coach men as drive them The Def. therfore Rej. which pronounce both innocent and do not rather fynd the Cerem forfeited and call the drivers of them to the barre are neither good Crowners nor fit to be of that Iurye Luther Annot. in Math. 15. giveth a better verdit Viz. all humaine traditions or ceremonies even those which in his judgment may in some cases be observed have two properties of the Divell as being lyars and murtherers when they continue and are not contemned Such innocents God deliver his people from Ceremonies as they be urged are more then causes by accident of evill 5. It is the very nature of such humaine ceremonies as ours where they are urged and used as with us to do hurt 1. because they are vayne toyes as formerly was shewed and therfore prejudiciall to so grave a businesse as Gods worship They trayne up the people of God in subjecting themselves and their worshipping of God unto the pleasure of men 3. They make way for open imagery and other grosse superstitions 4. they challenge that to themselves which is proper to Gods ordinances c. â— It is the very nature of our Ceremonies as they are imposed upon all our ministers and congregations in such dispositions and relations as they are knowne to have to scandalize many in and out of the church to disgrace the ministery to force the consciences or undoe the outward state of many good Christians to encorage Papists to arme the prophane and to quench zeale against both CHAP. IIII. Concerning the nature and definition of a Ceremony Pag. 29.30
HEre we have the cheif hynges whereupon the doores and wyndowes of the Rej. doe alwayes both open and shutt brought as it were into one box by the examining of these therfore we shall perceave what strenght is in all the building The beginning of this doctrine is orderly taken from the definition of a Cerem Pag. 29.30 A Ceremony is an outward action designed and purposely observed and done in reference to some other thing to the substance whereof it is neither a cause nor a part I will noâ— here use Scalligers saying Nothing more unhappy then a Grammarian adventuring to define For this is not the fault of this DefinitioÌ„ Nihil infâ—â—licius Grammatico definiente that it is too Grammaticall because no Hebrue Greek or Latyn GraÌ„mar no nor Dictionarie neither hath any such word as beareth the sense of the thing here defined Let any man make triall and he shall fynde this true that there is no word Hebrue Greek or Latyn that hath any such meaning But I may well apply that rule of Lawyers A definition is a dangerous thing in law i.e. in those humaine lawes which have no ground but mans will such as those are wherby our Ceremonies have theire being The unhappines of this Definition is that as it is recorded of Doria the Admirall of Genua in a great Sea-fight against the Turkes he fetched his course so farr about to gayne the wynd that he could never come to strike one stroke before the fight was ended So this Rej. seeking to get some advantage of wyndye words doth in this definition goe so farr about that by this course he is not likely to come orderly unto the graple The vanity of the definition discovered in the generall An outward action may be designed or referred to another thing very many wayes now the Rej. taking in to his definition reference to another thing in generall and excepting nothing but causes and parts he maketh all other references as they are found in outward actions Cerem D. B. wrote this his Rej. in Reference to the Church of England his Diocesan and other ministers and people as also in reference to the Replyer neither is his book any proper cause or part of these shall we say therfore that his book is a Cerem of all these In reference to D r. B. many taylors shoomakers bookbynders Apothecaryes Chyrurgions Sextons Paritors Church-wardens and who not have performed many actions which yet were never esteemed his Cerem The Bishops corrupt and cruell dealing in troubling of many congregations and depriving many better then themselves have reference to the Ceremonies but are no proper cause nor part of them are they therfore the Cerem of Ceremonies To prosecute the wyldnes of the definition was too taedious a chase but yet we must consider how he explaineth the termes of it remembring alwayes that this explication is a Cerem to that definition and is no proper cause nor part of it Concerning the generall that a Ceremon is an action and externall Zwarez a great Master of the Ceremonies telleth us that a Ceremony is not only a transient action but also a permanent thing De Resig vol. 1. ar â— lib. 4. cap. 14. and that Ceremonies may be distinguished according to the number of the tenn predicaments of which action maketh but one and an externall action but half a one But let us heare the Rej. expresse himself The Crosse and Surplice are not Cerem but â—he wearing of the Surplice c. P. 30. Touching which we must understand Things are to be considered to make us coÌ„ceave a right of a Ceremony such outward things have a fourfold consideration 1. According to their nature as they arise â—ut of their principles as the lynnen cloth of a Surplice â—he wood of a crucifixe 2. That artificiall frame or â—ashion that appeareth in these 3. The impression or â—rdination which is put upon these to this or that end â— The using of these or stirring up the heart by these â—n practise So in the brasen Serpent we may attend â— the brasse or metall out of which it was made 2. the â—ashion of it 3. the impression of God in or by this so â—ashioned to such a purpose 4. the using of this erecâ—ing of it up by Moses the seing and beholding of it by â—he people whence it is easy to see the deceit of the Rej. his assertion Things in the second third senses formerly mentioned are by all writers truely called cerem either not attending yea excluding in our consideration the fourth respect which is the use Namely that habitude or impression which was imprinted upon a crucifix or brasen Serpent by which they had a morall fitnes either lawfully or unlawfully putt upon them for their severall ends are Cerem lawfull or unlawfull Thus the current of writers Papisticall confesse the church hath power to make and appoint Ceremonies and enjoine the using of them so that they are ceremonies befor they be used their high Altar is a ceremony yea holy all the tyme before it be used in bearing the unbloody sacrifice Thus all Interpreters terme the types of the ould law cerem for that spirituall disposition they have and typicalnes which the Lord set upon them as well when no man used them as when they were used The Brasen Serpent being once sett up had beene a Ceremony in the wildernes though the people would never looke upon it yea I ask whether the massing vestments of Papists such which carry a consecrating virtue with them are not ceremonies when they are kept as well as when they are worne All men so speake so write so judge and the like may be said of our Surplice c. In a word These which were properly types were properly Ceremonies but Legall institutions rites amongst the Iewes were properly rites as well before and after they were used as in the using And therfore they were properly ceremonies â—ome â—hâ—â—gs are Ceâ—emoâ— tâ—â—â—gh they be â—ot actâ—alâ—y used as well when they were not used as when they were in use in the night as in the day when men are in sleepe and cannot use them as when they were awake and did imploy them in worship 2. If we be truely and properly said to use Cerem then Cerem are properly such besyde their use Some things are Ceremon though they be not actually used True it is some Cere consist in actions and all actions being in motion when the actions cease the Ceremonies grounded upon them must needs cease but it is not because they are Cerem but because they be such Cerem whose foundations are in actions In summe then it appeares that the being or existence of the fashionablenes of the brasen serpent and the morall impression or appointment to its end this being or existence I say is a ceremony when it is not used by any and therfore some being or existence is a ceremony poynt blank to the
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
idle and vayne or superfluous worship is condemned by Christ Mat. 15. let these testimonies and reasons be wel considered The Preists had brought in many Novelties tho Moses with great terrour had threatned them not to ad any thing Plurima nova introduxerant sacerdotes quamvis Moses magno cum terrore comminatus suerat no quid adderent ex quibus illasuere de lotiâ—nibus Duplex fuit culpa Nam innovatio ipsa non parvum erat crimon quia illas observationes magis curabant quam mandata Dâ—â— Crimen illud prius non statim aâ—guit Chirstus non â—rivolum id esse atque superfluum dicit ne inflammarentur Tolet upon Lic c. 11. annot 84. Altora causa propter quam has lotiones sprevit fuit illorum superstitio Pharisai induxerant has lotiones non ob civileÌ„ quandam naturalem decenriam mun diâ—iem sed quasi ad religionem pertinentes ut qui contemnerent contra Dei cultum agere â—enserentur quivero servarent Deum in eis colore viderentur Hoc autem eis non licebat quibus proh bituÌ„ erat à Deo Deut. 4. no quid adderent Obid quasi superstitiosas lotiones hujusmodi Christus rejeciâ— Quam causam indicat Matheus cap. 15. Omnis plantatio quam non plantavit Patermeus eradicabitur Similiter Marcus cap. 7. in vaâ—um me colunt dâ—â—entes doctrinas praecepta hominum c. Qua propria inventione constituâ—nt contra Dei mandatum of which number of additions were those things of washing There was a double fault for the innovation it selfe was not a slight metter and then this that they stood more upon those observations of their owne then they did on the Commandements of God 1. That first offence Christ doeth not praesently reproove them for saying it was a frivolous and superfluous thing lest they should have been inflamed Another cause for which he despised these washings was their superstition The Pharises had put in the sayd washings not for any naturall and civill decentie or cleanelinesse but as perteining to religion who so did contemne theÌ„ were judged to offend against Gods worship and who so did observe them seemed cheifly to regard Gods worship in them But this was in no wise lawfull for them to doe who were so streightly charged of God Deut. 4. that they should add nothing For this Christ rejected these washings as superstitious which reason Mat. 15. ch intimates when he sayth Every plant which my heaveÌ„ly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out And Marc. ch 7. In vaine do they worship me teaching the Doctrines and praeceps of men c. Such things as men sett up of themselves against any Commandement of God Estius in Tit 1.1 Mandâ—ta homanum ad piâ—tatem nihil conducentia intelliguntur Mat. 15 Mar 7. in loâ—ionibus multis supervacuis In Mat. 15. Marc. 7. the Commandments of men do meane such Commandments which conduce nothing at all to piety as those Superfluous washings 5. In the fift place another reason or charge was brought out of Mr. Hy. his papers that the Ceremonies imposed are for their use and practise preferred before principall parts of Gods worship because this is the Pralats Canons wear a Surplice or preache not Crosse or baptize not This the Def. accused of dull Sophistrie because by this meanes onely an orderly discreete preacher is preferred before one that is factious and exorbitant Of this base Bonnerly speache the Repl. shewed his just detestation For which he is censured by the Rejoynder of casting it out of the mouth of his stomacke of malice intemperat railings and a furious spirit All which I leave to the readers judgement Onely this I observe that he would excuse all or most of the Prelats from willing silencing any able and godly ministers for omission of our Cerremonies and doeth absolutely denie that the Def. ever silenced any Minister willingly or unwillingly for onely omission of Ceremonies Concerning which termes willingly and onely omission some light of explication were needfull For onely omission of Crosse or Surplice by oversight or other accident the Pope himself will not silence a Preist as all Popish Divines tell us in affirming that to be no mortall sinne And how those which make Canons for silencing upon purposed continued omission and execute the same partly by themselves and partly by their instruments can be sayd to doe it unwillingly this requireth interpretation which will certainly be found tardy For clearing of this charge from the imputation of dull Sophistrie the Repl. first propounded it in this manner an able godly Minister without the use of these Ceremonies is not suffered in the Ministerie wheras an unable ungodly one with the use of them is suffered therfore they are praeferred before maine thinges Vpon this the Rejoynder 1. observeth that from hence doeth not follow that conclusion therfore our Ceremonies are made parts of Gods worship As if this conclusion were once named by Mr. Hy. or by the Def. in this charge If he will make it supposed he must shew us Mr. Hy. his concealed papers for the proof of that supposition He addeth 2. that all Prelats are to be charged with this practise and that they have no suche power for depriving of bad as they have for depriving of good Ministers To which I answer the question is not here of all but of that which standeth by our Canons and Canonicall practise Yet neyther any authors nor any defenders of the Canons can be excused from partaking in this practise no not the Rejoynder himself And as for those Praelats which have great power to doe evill and litle or none to doe good or which is all one power effectually to hinder good and not evill they have a very dangerous standing dangerous I say as well for others as for their owne selves Yet when our Prelates procured that authoritie of doing evill they might as easily and more lawfully have procured the other of doeing good not to say that none of them doe so muche for reforming or removing of bad Ministers Estius in Ti. 1.1 Manâ— honunum piâ—tatem conducentia intelliguntur Mat. 15 Mar 7. â—â—ionibus â—tic superv as is in their power to doe eyther by themselves or by other meanes Nay is it not knowen how suche kinde of catle are not onely borne with but borne up by the Prelates in bad causes The third Rej. is of a calumniation because some inconformable Ministers are suffered and some unable and ungodly deprived But 1. this calumniation concerning some inconformable suffered for a time extraordinalie besides nay against Canonicall order 2. He can scarce name one that he hath knowen deprived for that he was unable 3. The Turkes and Infidels would cashier their Preists for some ungodlinesse What a poor rejoinder is this A fourth consideration is that a farre lesse offence defended is more punishable then a greater confessed and that certayn evills in themselves
the other distinction he disliketh nothing but typicall signification so that in his imagination any Iewish Ceremonie may be now used and by our Convocation-house imposed upon us if typicall signification of Christ to come be taken from it And is not this a Christian doctrine of Ceremonies that sacrifying of a lamâ—e to signifie Christ allready come as D. Reinolds ag Hart. cap. 8. div 4. doeth conclude from the like answer of Hart â— is now lawfull It may be he will answer that he doeth not allow of Ceremonies signifying Christ at all But it hath been formerly shewed that our signe oâ— the Crosse doeth immediately and directly signifie Christ his death upon the Crosse. But let all this be as the Rej. would have it what iâ— this for the defense of the Def. whoe sayd even now that a Iewish Rite without a Iewish opinion is not unlawfull and then addeth that yet it is more safe to invenâ— new Ceremonies then those Iewish rites now abolished Is â— Iewish Rite used without a Iewish opinion typicall Or is it onely lesse safe to use abolished types then new invented Ceremonies This is nothing else but to make ropes of sande 12. Vpon the former grante that all those Iewish rites which were once Gods institutions are now abolished the Repl. concluded in the wordes of D. Whitakers Num verò veteres figurae sublatae sunt ut locus esset novis Num Divinae sublatae sunt ut humanae succedeâ—ent Are Divine Ceremonies abolished that humane may be erected in their place The Rej. heerupon complaineth of manifest abusing and perverting D. Whitaker his wordes And why so I pray 1. D. Whitaker spake of Divine figures and the Repl. by corrupt translation maketh him to speak of Divine Ceremonies As if D. Whitakers did understand by â—igures typicall praefigurations of thinges to come onely in his diâ—pute against the Papists whoe by Bellarmine in that place confesse the Ceremonies of the old Testament were figures of the new Testament and therefore when the thing it selfe is come should cease Ceremoniae veteris Testamenti figurae erant Testamenti novi proinde re ipsa praesente cessare debuerunt And what else could he understand but significant Ceremonies Doeth not the Rej. rather pervert D. Whitakers meaning in making him to conclude against typicall praefigurations which Bellarmine did as well disclaime as himself 2. He cuts off by the wast D. Whitakers his sentence sayth the Rej. Let us therfor take-in the next wordes according to the Rej. his owne translation Therfore if the Ceremonies of Moses were removed because they were typicall why should not the Popish Ceremonies be removed which are not lesse typicall Is not this above the wast against significant Ceremonies Certainely It was not the meaning of D. Whitaker to charge the Papists with typicall praesignifications of Christ yet to come and therfore he must needes understand by typicall significant Ceremonies 3. The whollâ— intention sayth he wâ—s to condemne the Popish Ceremonie as necessarie or Sacramentall But this could not be so because Bellarmine in that place first answereth about their figurative nature and then after addeth Ad id quod obijcitur de unmero graviâ—ate legum Pontificiarum to that which is objected of the number and weight of popish lawes 4. D. Wh. addeth he did allâ—w of humane signiâ—icant Rites as certayn Feasts Now if D. Wh. yeelding something to the streame of time and custome did account some suche humane institutions tolerable that is nothing to the purpose For we urge here his generall rule onely of Feasts we shall after answer In the meane time concerning D. Wh. his generall sentence of humane significant Ceremonies let these his wordes be considered Bellarmin saith the Ceremonies are instituted of the Church to help the ruder sort I answer the rude are not to be instracted with Ceremonies God hath given Scripture that out of them the rude may draw instruction Bellarminus ait Caeremonias ab Ecclesia institutas ad juvandâ—s rudiores Respondeo rudae non esse Ceremonits erudiendâ—s dedit Deus Scripturas ut ex â—is rudes insâ—itutionem necessariamhaurirent etc. De Sacram. pag. 203. And it is to be observed that D. Wh. in that place confuteth the one and thirtie Chapter of Bell. his sâ—cond booke de effectu Sacram. But the confutation of the two and thirtie Chapter is wholly wanting in whiche this Argument was to be handled in defence of Calvins Chemnitius and Brentius his reason God would have this difference betweene us and the Iewes teaching them as children by sencible signes us as men more simply without signes Deut hoc discrimen esse voluâ—t inter Iudaos nos quod illos ut pueres docuit per signa sensibilia nos ut viros simplicius sine talibus signas Now that D. Wh. in his Lectures passed over that Chapter with silence it is not credible but it seemeth rather that honest Mr. AlleÌ„son found his sentence there so crosse to our English tenents about Ceremonies that he durst not set forth his wordes in printe For of D. Wardes fidelitie in setting forth what M r. Allenson had praepared for the presse ne verbulo immutato cannot without wronge be doubted of 13. For the backinge of the former consequence this reason was added by the Repl. If it had been the will of God that we should be taught by other signes then those which are appointed in the N. Testament He could easily and would surely eyther have chosen some of the olde for that use or appointed some new in their places The Rej. his answer is that God willeth humane significant teaching Ceremonies onely permissively not praeceptively Of which distinction I know not well what to make as being uncertayn whether he meaneth that God hath onely permitted in generall that Christians may be taught if men shall thinke fitting by humane signes or that he hath commanded that in generall and onely permitted the particulars to mens discretion Howsoever those whoe usurpe this authoritie must shew good evidence of this permissive will of God before we can finde our selves eyther praeceptively or permissively willed of God to subject our selves unto their institutions But that evidence we have hitherto exspected in vayne The Rej. to darken the cause objecteth that It is Gods will that we should worship him constantly in one set place at suche an houre in suche an order and yet these are not praescribed by God Where it is not true that it is Gods will to have us bound constantly to one place time and order of worship 2. So farr as we can discerne Gods will for to have us use any one place time and order we discerne that will to be praeceptive and not meerly permissive For all knowe that God hath commanded most convenient place time and order for to be observed in his service When therfore all circumstances considered we finde this place time and order most
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
imago unquam ne Christi aut Sanctorum imago de causa religiosae in loco ullo praesertim religioso temporo sine authoritate sius statuatur Profecto ista Imagines non inter superflua selum sed etiaÌ„ inter vetita damnosa sunt numerandae but Scathie and Forbidden things M r. Perkins being in every mans handes may be easily consulted with upon the second Commandement and in his treatise of Idolatrie 4. Beza with his fellow Ministers of Geneva are next brought in whoe allowed many pictures to be set forth in the Frenche Bible Beza his judgement even of Lutheran Images is plaine in his answer to Westphalus a Lutheran capit 36. The placing of Images in Churches we thinke a 1000. times flatly forbidden by the word of God Whosoever would see Bezas resolute judgement about the Lutheran use of Images which the Def. approveth of Imaginum statuarum collocationem in Templu putamuâ— expresso Des Veâ—bo millies interdictam let him looke upon his Antithesis ad thâ—s 4. Witenbergentium in Colloquio Mompelgardensi ad Colloquium Mompelgardense parte 2. And he shall finde enough to satisfie him not onely about Bezas judgement but if he be a good Protestant concerning the cause or quaestion it selfe For no answer of moment could ever be brought forth by any eyther rigid or gentle Lutheran from that time unto this day As for those pictures in the Frenche Bible they are not significant Ceremonies of religious use by speciall institution but suche signes as Characters or letters concerning whiche answer is given in the first section of this Chapter out of Alexander Hales They signifie holy things not as they are holy but as they are things Significant sententias aâ—â— res sacrae non in quantum sacra sunt sed in quanturâ— res The Rej. therfore fore-seeing what would be answered goeth about to praevent it by saying that the Def. condemneth all religious use of Images properly so called 1. e. whose determination must be to God-ward as Polanus in 2. Praecep expresseth the meaning Whiche expression I cannot finde in Polanus but this to our purpose Images are not to be allowed in Churches for laymens books Non sunt Imagines in Templis tollerande quae pro libriâ— sint imperitae multituduâ—i Neyther can the Def. or Rej. denie all religious use of Images properly so called except they denie significant Images appointed for commonefaction and institution of men in religious duties to be a religious use Whiche if they could have doen they needed not have admitted Images into the same ranke with their income significant Cerimonies accidentall parts of religious worship By this also is answered that which he addeth of simple hystoricall use of Images as separated from all religious use 5. Of having Images for religious use the negative is defended by Calvin and the affirmative by Bellarmine de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 9. in which quaestion it was observed by the Replier that the Def. taketh Bell. his part The Rejoynder heere first maketh a kinde of doubt whether Calvin did not therin contradict himself But not trusting to that he addeth that the quaestion was whether Images may be well rectè placed in Churches because thinges lawfull in them selves are not lawfull in all times places to be used Now the meer looking upon that Chapter of Bell. will praesently manifest that Calvin calling Images in Temples Idolatrous signes sett up wherewith the Churches are defiled Erecta signa Idololatriae quibus Templa dehonestantur never meant so to minse the matter as to make them lawfull but not expedient And in deed if Images may be used for commonefaction and institution as Ecclesiasticall significant Ceremonies ther can be no reason given why they should be shutte out of the Churche where Ecclesiasticall significant Ceremonies have their cheifest use This is certayn that the Def. expressly denieth the bringing in of Images into Churches for some suche uses as Bellarmine speaketh of cap. 10. For instruction and erudition for stirring up unto Ãmitation and for praeserving of the memorie of Christ and Saincts he denieth I say this to be any part of Popisâ— use or abuse about Images when he sayth that Onely in regard of superstitious adoration the use of Images is to be called Popish 6. It was added by the Repl. that the Def. his assertion is directly against the Homilie against the perill of Idolatrie unto which we are bounde to subscribe If this be true sayth the Rejoynder the Bishop deserveth to be suspended the Replier if it be untrue Now I doe not desire that he alone separated from the rest eyther partaker of the same or guiltie of equall faults should be supended but I dare adventure my suspension against his that neyther he nor the Rej. can clear his assertion from direct contradiction unto that Homilie I will take no other wordes for proof of that which the Repl. sayth then that founde in a booke written against M r. Richard Mountague about the like sentence called A dangerous Plot c. pag. 94. and 95. where these wordes are quoted out of that Homilie The words Idoll and Image be words of divers tongues and soundes yet used in the Scripture indifferently for one thinge allways To bringe Images into the Churches is a foul abuse and great enormitie They be forbidden and unlawfull They are not thinges indifferent nor tollerable If the Def. will say that his assertion is not contrarie to these wordes then I am contented that his suspension should be deferred longer then M r. Mountagues promotion was after he had written this and suche like scandalous doctrines tending directly to the overthrow of our religion And this reason may be alleged for him that M r. Mountague in some poyntes went so farre beyonde D. Morton that he reckoneth him amonge the Puritan Bishops 7. The Repl. noted also that the Def. his assertion confirmeth Bellarmines foul wordes whoe sayth that the Apologie of the Churche of England lyeth in affirminge the Councell of Franckford to have decreed the abolishing of Images de Concil lib. 2. cap. 8. because the onely answer is that which Iunius in his notes upon that chapter giveth He that forbiddeth Images to be worshiped doeth forbid having of Images worshipable especially in Churches which answer this Def. doeth flatly denie The Rej. answereth that the meaning of B. Iuel in that place of the Apologie was not that the Councel did simplie take away Images but contrarie to the Councel of Nice which required the adoration of them But 1. If these wordes doe not shew Iuels meaning yet certainly they declare Iunius his minde and judgement plainely How then dare the Rej. avouche Iunius to have allowed Images worshipable 2. Iuel his words are Charles the Great had a Councell at Franckford contrarie to the 2. Nicen Councel concerning the taking away of Images where the taking away is not limited by contrarietie to the Nicen
illa statuae luci ara reliqua idololatria monumenta a Reg. 23.13 ad Manassem Ammonem qui excitaverant illa in eodem loco supra eadem fundamenta non ad Salomonem ante annot 250. Hezechias his father worshipped Molâ—ch which was one of those Idols by making his sonne to passe thorow the fire and was so madly given to superstition that he sacrificed under every green tree 2. Reg. 16. Nay lesse was said then some learned have with great probability affirmed namely that these Idols with their appurtenanceces were first defaced by Solomon himselfe after his repentance and being restored after by Idolaters were againe defaced Salianus in his Annals ad an 3309. saith thus We thinke also that while Solomon lived that whole shop of divels was broken up and ruined And withall the statues the groves and altars as also the rest of idoâ—atrous monuments 2. King 23.13 to have reference to Manasses and Ammon who had set them up in the same place and upon the same foundation and not to Solomon who died 250. yeares before 250. extinctum Incredibile dictu est tantum scandalum ab Asa Iosaphato Ioiada cum lat è idololatriam disperderent in oculis ipsis positum non vidâ—sse aut non ausos attingere ad annum 3406. Mirum profecto si Idola illa post tercentos 50. annos subsisterens quae Salomon ipse poenitens caeteri Reges boni sustulissent Vtique dicendum videtur ab impijs Regibus extructa suisse ejusdem generis fana Idola quae â—lim Salomon in ijsdem locis extruxerat ut illud quae aedificaveret Salomon fit idem ac si dixisset qualia aedificaverat It is incredible to speake that when Asa Iosaphat and Ichoiada did farre and neare destroy idolatry they notwithstanding suffered a skandall so apparant And to the yeare 3406. it were very strange if those Idols after 350. yeares should yet remaine the which Solomon after his repentance and other good Kings had abolished So that it is probable that such like temples and Idols were repaired and buiâ—t up againe by other succeeding ungodly Kings which Solomon in former time had made that that which Solomon builded should be all one with such like as he had builded Where he sheweth by divers instances both out of Scripture and out of common speech how that word which doeth not alwayes note the same singular substance therein confuting all the ground that the Rej. had for censuring the Repl. of rashnesse to bee repented of This sentence is the more also to be favoured because according to the other which our Def. and Rej. maintaine it will be very hard to answer that objection against Solomons repentance which Rabanus on 2. Reg. 23. groundeth on that superstition Solomon never truely repented of his idolatrie for if he had manifested fruits worthy repentance he would have taken order with those Idols which he had set up by remooving them and being so wise a man never have left them to stand for stumbling blocks to fooles as if what hee had erroneously devised had beene well and wisely done Salomon de admisso idololatriae scelere nunquaem perfecte poenituit ' Nam si fructus poenitentiae dignos faceret satageret ante omnia ut Idola quae aedificaverat tollerentur non in scandalum stuâ—torum quae ipse cum fuisset sapientissimus erronea secerat quasi sapienter aâ— recte sacta relinqueret Beside all this it is not credible that the same individuall Temples stood by Ierusalem from Solomons time to Iosias if it were but for this that the Assyrians came even unto the gates of Ierusalem spoyling and breaking downe all costly buildings such as Solomons Temples were not sparing but deriding the gods of Nations 2. Reg. 18. 4. It was added by the Replier that those Idols should have been destroyed though they had been for the time neglected because that evill for which Iosu destroied them ought as well to have been praevented as corrected To this the Rejoynder answereth 1 that this is not true except Hezekia had suspected that evill And whoe will say that ther is no cause to suspect evill of an Idol though it be for a time neglected Or can any man thinke that if Israelites had neglected them no Sidonian Moabite or Ammonite gave occasion of any evill to be suspected by those Idols The Spanish and Frenche Papists to say nothing of English when they in passing by the Crosse in Cheapside doe reverence unto it give they not cause to suspect some evill to cleave unto it 2. The same meanes sayth the Rejoynder are not allways requisite for praevention which must be used for recoverie Yes truely about Idols if we judge out of the Scripture the very same meanes Burne then sayth the Rejoynd all your Popish bockes lest they fall into the hands of Popelings to abuse them So will I certainly if you can shew me that they must be burned when Popelinges have had them in their hands and abused them which heer you grant concerning these Idols 5. Zanchius was cited by the Defend to prove that this abolishing is not the universall remedie for all abuses of Ceremonies he meaneth unto Idolatrie And because the Replier could not finde the place we are by â—he Rejoynder directed to the later edition pag. 678. where I finde these words This rule is to be observed that â—hings grown to abuse defiled by superstition Tenenda est haec regula Quae in abusum venerunt superstitionibus â—ontaminata fuerunt sisiat adiaphora tolliâ—a prorsus possunt sape ettaâ— debent if they be indiâ—ferent may yea oftentimes ought to be taken away Heere I hope is nothing against our proposition And yet the Def. hath nothing else to catch at nothing else I say but â—hose wordes they may be removed as signifying that â—hey may also not be removed As if every thinge that may â—e removed may also not be removed The Rejoynder â—ddeth that he admitteth of some Feast-days as tolerable I â—â—ant he speaketh something favorable of them but â—herin he neyâ—her speaketh to our quaestion directly nor â—heweth how that which he sayth may be accorded with â—is owne rule But pag. 800. sayth the Rejoynder he â—estrayneth the consequence to thinges manifestly Idolaâ—rous not to indifferent Rites So doe we also But the â—ejoynder as it seemeth maketh Salomons Idols if â—hey be for a time neglected indifferent rites which â—anchie never did Nâ—y Zanchie pag. 649. from this â—xample of Hezekia reprooveth those that keep in secret â—he monumens of Superstition though out of Churâ—hes True sayth the Rejoynder but betwixt such Moâ—uments and indifferent Ceremonies he distinguisheth And â—o doe we in some sense but that thinges otherwise inâ—ifferent may by becomming monuments prove unâ—awfull Zanchie never denied To Zanchie were added in the Abrigement pag. 24. as witnesses of our consequence from Hezekias his example Augustine Calvin Martyr
he relateth thus Some are appointed who are to â—ook to the life and mannâ—rs of such as are admitted that they which doe ought unseemely may as need shall require bee exâ—luded the Congregation and they which doe otherwise may â—e cherished and daiâ—y grow better This is the translation of Tarinus The rest of the Rejoynder to this question hath nothing in it but wordes Pompoâ—s Bishops with sole power of Ordination and Excommunication 4. The quaestion is if any suche were in the Primitive Churche The Rejoynder 1. answereth concerning Pompe that Peace and beneficencie of Princes brought in this difference of outward state But all difference of outward estate was not meant by Pompe For so 〈◊〉 Ministers that have convenient meanes for a libeâ—â—â— kinde of life with hospitalitie should be pompous Wâ— are not so simple as to account the Pastor of Sutton Colâ—â—feild as such pompous Ther is certainly a pompâ—â—â— that doeth not agree to a Minister of the Gospel as thâ— pompous state of a Baron or Earl which the Defendeâ— himself at his third flight unto Durrham is risen to that requireth many idle attendants for no other usâ— but onely for Comportment Luster of state that whicâ— must have so much time spent in brideling of the Bishops horses as the ancient B b. tooke to preache diveâ—â— sermons in as M. Hooper speaketh that which makeâ— a poor man afraid to speak unto his Minister withouâ— such trembling as Majestie breedeth that which woulâ— make it ridiculous for a meane man to desire a visitatioâ— of him for himself his wife or children in sicknessâ— or other perplexitie that which requireth a Chaplainâ— not onely to doe other duties of religion for him buâ— even to give thankes at his table and that standing whiâ—â— he sitteth that to omit other characters which maketh all his doeings Lord-like by way of Commandement I will not heer speak of draw an excommunication against him take him Pursivaâ—t Iailour see to your prisonâ—r as being notorious in divers of them but onely note one example out of mine owne experience which many others can parallel by â—heirs I wâ—s once but once I thank God before a Bishop and being praesented unto him by the cheif Magistrates of â—n Incorporation for to be preacher in their towne the lowly man first asked them how they durst choose a preacher without his consent You sayd he are to receyve the preacher that I appoint you For I am your Pastor though he never fed them And then turning to me how durst you sayd he preache in my Diocesse without my leave So that without any other reason but meer Lordship the wholle Incorporation and I were dimissed to wayt his pleasure which I for my part have now doen this twenty year and more If this kinde of Pompe were in the Primitive Churche or if it be not in ours the Replier may be blamed for mentioning Pompe in his Quaere 2. Concerning Ordination the Rej. his answer is that the Bishop doâ—th it not regularly all alone What is this to sole power of doing it If an Irish or Welch Bishop ordeineth one at London in his chamber or in some Chappell and admitteth him that commended the person to him for to joyne with him for fashion sake in the gesture of hands-imposing be he of what place or Diocesse soever in whom is the poâ—er oâ— Ordination If the Bishop of London ordeyneth a minister at large and biddeth his Chaplaine or Chaplaines doe so much as adde their hands to the businesse isthere power in the Chaplaine more then in any other that by chance may be present Power of Ordination is not given by our Lawes to individua vaga that is to say Vagrant men of whom the Law taketh no notice such as were wonte to be called Hedge-Priests but to authorized Prelats These are toyes to mocke the Churche if not God with Such doeings were never heard of in that Church which deserveth the title of Primitive Of Excommunication the same answer is given and so the same answer may serve Iohannes Hone Legum Doctor Offiâ—ialu c omnibus singulis Rectoribus c. Cum nos rite legitimâ— procedentes omnes singulos quorâ—m nominae subscribuntur c. excommunicandoâ— fore decre verimus cumque discretus vir M Roulandus Allen Presbyter eos dâ—m ex officio nostro mero excommunicaverit in scriptu vobu igitur committimus c. ut palam denuncietis c. Datum sub figillo Officialitatis nostra die tali anno tali Let this onely be added that therin the Bishop hath such absolute power that he may derive the same to his Chancelours Commissâ—ries Officials such like Vnderlings to be dispensed by them even unto the commanding of Gods Ministers for to denounce their Censures without any discerning what aequitie ther is in the cause and what assistance of Ministers is required appeareth by this style Iohn Hone D r. of Law official c. to al Rectors c. For as much as we proceediâ—g rightly and lawfully have adjudgâ—d all and every one whose names are under-written to be excommunicated and since the discreeâ—e M r. Rouland Allen Preist hath excommunicated them by our meere office in writing we do therefore committ to you c. to denounce openly c. given under the Seale of our Officiality such a day and such a yeare If any footsteps of such an approved power could be shewed in the Primitive Bishops all Christians might merveyl at so suddain and monstrous a defection But both Defend and Rejoynd know that it is a relique of Popedome Calling of Ministers without expresse consent of the Congregations over which they are set 5. The quaestion was whether any such tingh was in the Primitive Churche The Rejoynder his answer is â—ffirmative that it seemes ther was such a thing because â—â— It is sayd onely of the Apostles that they ordeyned Elders â—o the Churches Act. 14.23 and Titus Tit. 1.5 appointed â—he Ministers 2. Sometime Ministers were chosen by prophesie and sometime by lot 3. The peoples consent was not held â—f divine necessitie For the grave Councel of Laodicea Can. â—3 restrained the people from choice of their Ministers Beside â—he people of this Land have given their implicit consent in Parliament to such as the Patrons and Bishops call And if â—hey doe their parts it is as well and sometime better then if â—hey were chosen by the people Finally God hath not forbidden our manner of calling Ministers nor commanded the other Wher 1. let it be marked that the quaestion was onely of â—he peoples consent concerning which the Rejoynder â—n all these wordes answereth just nothing 2. The first place he bringeth against the peoples election Act. 14.23 is the cheif place which Protestants use to bring for it as Bellarmine de Clericis lib. 1. cap. 7. observeth of it Hoc Argumentum â—ex Act. 14 est prâ—cipuum sundamentum Illyrici Calvins Kemniâ—ij aliorum This
Domâ—ni in câ—nâ— ultimo acceperunt in the last words of the second part of his Tractate concerning the Masse which is the tenth question of his fourth part that the Pope was wonte to receive sitting in imitation of Peter and the other Apostles Confirming that which our Defend and Rejoynder doubt of If it be asked wherefore S r. Pope receives sitting it may be answered in memory of B. Peter and other Apostles who ate the last Supper sitting This may by some be imputed to the Popes great pride for that as it is in that booke of Ceremonies which the Rejoynder quoteth Romanus Pontifex nemini exonino mortalium overentiam facit assurgendo manifestè aut caput inclinando seu detegendo pag. 160. The Romish Bishop doeth reverence to no man under heaven by rising up to him or by inclining or uncovering his head So it may be thought from the same principle he doeth not reverence to the Hoste But I the rather assent to Alexander Hales because I have reade some where I thinke it is in Hospinian de Templis that the Pope hath no Organ-piping-musicke in his Church or Chappell And these I account the reliques of ancient simplicity in worship which the Pope received from the first Bishops of Rome and regarded not to make alterations of without advantage 5. The People which receive not doe reverently bow themselves Much more therefore they that receive 6. True it is the receivers doe kneele of an ancient câ—stome but onely for conveniencie of putting the Hoste into their mouthes by the Priest The former part indeed is true But the latter is so false that the Lutherans themselves who as Apes of the Papists in this part put the Hoste into the receivers mouth in like manner as they have received the custome from the Papists Tarnovius de ministerio lib. 2. cap 31. Pratermittendo hanc venerastionem Christi externam genu flectionem scit communicantes praesentiam Christi secundum corpus negare se Calvinianis conjungere viderentur professe and mainetayne that they doe it for adoration By omitting this outward veneration of Christ viz. kneeling the people seeme to deny Christs bodily presence with the Calvinists All these things being well considered it will be found that opinion of some set aside our Ceremonies differ not so much from Papists as the Popish shaving of Crounes doe differ from that which was in use among Iewes and Gentiles of shaving whole heads according to Baronius his distinction and an 58. or then the Britons square shaving of crownes did differ from that round shaving which Augustine the Monke sent by Gregory inforced upon them wherein Pitsens a Papist in his historicall relations of England pag. 19. doeth note one part of that Controversie to have consisted or rather to returne unto the argument of this section the difference is by the Rej. his plea as if Christians should have in olde time hung out bay-bowes unconsecrated out of an upper-chamber in the afternoone when the Heathenhung them out consecrated before noone in their lower chamber and that upon institution when the Heathen did it onely upon an ancient received custome Are not these fine distances from idolatrous and superstitious abuses 4. An African Councell condemned certaine Feasts used in memory of Martyrs because they were drawne from the errors of the Gentiles This the Replier affirmed to make against our Ceremonies The Rejoynder answereth 1. That this is not enough to defend the Abridgement nor to oppose the Defendants answer But if the Ceremonies be hereby condemned it is all that the Abridgement sought for and as much opposition to the Defend as the Replier cared for He answereth 2. That the Councell doeth not condemne any Feasts used by Christians Illad etiam petendum ab-Imperatoribus ut quae contra praecepta divinae convivia multis in locis exercentur quae aberrero Gentili attracta sunt c. vetari talia iâ—beant but onely the very Feasts of the Heathens But it seemeth otherwise so farre as I can conster these words of the Councell And this we are to seeke of the Emperors that such Feasts as are in many places contrary to Gods Word and from the errors of the Gentiles be forbidden I remember not any such phraze of those times wherein Gentiles are said to draw from the errors of Gentiles They did certainely traduce Feasts unto Christians findeing them too ready for to draw such things from them They were not Heathens that are spoken of in the third Councell of Toledo cap. 22. The people that should attend divine Service give themselves to unseemely dancings Fopule qui debens offâ—cia divina attendere saltationibus turpibus inâ—igilant c. Hospinian de Orig. Fest. after Beat. Rhenanus in Terâ—ul de Coron mil. speaking of these and such other Feasts declareth the trueth in these words The old Bishâ—ps were wonte when they could not call men from the superstitions of the Heathens by the preaching of the Word to seeke at least to doe it by observing their holy dayes with their owne worship But this was to drive out one nayle with another no way to take off the Superstition Albeit then the beginning of these Solemnities were tolerable at first yet at last they grew to such a heape of superstitions that they became the fountaine and beginning of most horible things Voluere veterâ—s Episcopi quum ipsi pradicatione verbi non possunt homines à superstitionibus Gentilium avocare saltem hac ratione mitigare in fuam religionem transferre voluere suiâ— Sanctis sosdem dies ritus consecrando fuit autâ—m hoc clavum clavo â—rudere superstitionem non â—ollere Licet igitur principia hujusmodi solemnitatum tolerabilia primo fuerunt admâ—xtiâ—tamen palarim superstitionibus tandem fons origo horribilium errorum superstitionum fuâ—runâ— Yet suppose the meaning to be of Heathen Feasts the reason notwithstanding drawne from the errors of the Gentiles pertaineth to Christians except Christians may draw froÌ„ the error of Gentiles though Gentiles may not In the 3. place the Rej. undertaketh to proove that the Councell did establish those Feasts of Marâ—yrs because the petition made for abolishing Heathen Feasts was to provide for the due and free observation of the Martyrs Feasts Whereupon he concludeth that the Church may lawfully make use of an human Ceremonie for her good though the same kinde of Ceremonie have beene notoriously abused by and to Idolatry And in the parting he giveth us gentle thankes for these Witnesses Now 1. for his thankes the matter is not so much worth We can affoord him without any damage to our cause ten times as many witnesses whoe in their practise have confuted that which sometime in their doctrine they have taught concerning Ceremonies 2. I will grant him also that it was not the inâ—ention of that Councel wholly to abolish the Celebraâ—ion of Martyrs birth or death-days Yet those Feastings Convivia which were
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
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
be to all Churches an imitable exaÌ„ple of religious order for the Councel of Trent sess 22. professeth their masse Ceremonies to be invented That the Majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out Quo Majestas tanti Sacrificij commendaretur 12. To shew further that Order requireth not suche Ceremonie as ours the notation of the word was brought in signifying no suche thing Now the Rejoynder granteth that originally the word doeth not conteyne within the compasse of it suche kinde of Ceremonies though by usage it may Which is very true but helpeth not except the Def. or Rejoynder whose principall Argument is taken from this place and onely retorted by us can prove that in this place the word order is extended beyond his originall signification He will not therfore stand with us about the signification of the word in this place let order sayth he in this place signifie no more then placing But he maketh his retrait to the word Comelinesse asking if comelinesse be nothing I answer yes it is some thing but the Replier did not insist in that word because he tooke the force of the Def. his Argument from this place principally to lie upon order But seeing the Rejoynder hath given up Order I will adde a word or â—wo concerning Comelinesse I take this for granted that seing the Rejoynder confesseth Order heer to be taken in strict signification as opposed onely to confusion pag. 78. he will also consent with us that Decencie in the same place and sentence is to be taken in strict signification as opposed onely to the vice of undecencie Now hence it followeth that Decencie requireth nothing but that which is necessarie to the avoiding of undecencie I aske therfor if undecencie in Gods worship cannot be avoided without double treble sacred significant Ceremonies of mans inventing If not then the Apostles did muche forget themselves in their publicke worshipping of God before men had invented suche Ceremonies for that is no answer which the Rejoynder after giveth all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of Comelinesse All Churches are bound to avoide undecencie and to doe that which Decencie requireth or bindeth them unto If yea then Decencie doeth not require suche kinde of Ceremonies Neyther doeth it in deed any more theÌ„ Order Decentiae est cum cultut Dei idoneâ—t atque convenientibut temporis loci personae gestus cireâ—â— stantijs absolvitur De haâ— Decentia Apostolus loqui tur 1. Cor. 14 4â— So M r. Perkins lat to 2. p. 888. Decency is when the service of God is performed with convenient and fitt circumstances of time place person and gesture and heereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 14.40 The plaine simple trueth without Ceremoniall affectation is that Decencie is in this place nothing but good civill fashion Dâ—â—â—rum apponitur vanitaâ—i sordibut â—uxni non est in casuliâ— capplâ— aut ceremoniarum larâ—is etc. agreable not onely to worship but also to any grave assemblie Decencie sayth Pareus upon the place is opposed to vanity Spottes ryott it stands not in hoods Caps or vizardes of fond Ceremonies etc. I dare appeall to D.B. his conscience if Baptisme be not as decently administred without the Crosse as with it and publicke prayers made as decently without a Surplice as with it Let Conscience here speak and the Rejoynder hearkening unto it wil without doubt confesse that Decencie in this place doeth no more require eyther Crosse or Surplice then Order and that both of them together doeth no more require those Ceremonies then a hundred other which in England though not at Rome are denyed unto them To this purpose M r. Attersoll in his second book of the Sacram. cap. 5. sayth well If they referre all this trash and trumperie of humane Ceremonies in Baptisme to order and comelinesse as Hosius doeth doe they not therby blasphemously accuse the Baptisme of Iohn and of the Apostles of uncomelinesse and disorder wheras the comelinesse and dignitie of the Sacraments is to be esteemed by the word of God by the institution of Christ by the simplicitie of the Gospell and by the practise of the Apostles Nothing is more comely decent and orderly then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth nothing is more uncomely and unseemly then that which man inventeth in the service of God and in the celebration of the Sacraments therby inverting and perverting the holy ordinances of God 12. The receyved definitions of Order are brought in to the same purpose by the Replier And the Rejoynder yeeldeth so muche as they importe viz. that order in strict signification doeth not implie suche Ceremonies as ours He must therfore eyther prove that in this place 1. Cor 14.40 that word is not taken strictly which he himself formerly granted or give up this place which is by his owne confession the onely place of all the New Testament for warranting of suche Ceremonies or flie to Decencie upon which he cannot any more fasten then upon order as hath been shewed Nothing materiall is added in the rest of the Rejoynd his answer unto this Argument where our Divines are observed to distinguish order and decencie from mysticall Ceremonies the context of the chapter 1. Corinth 14. Is declared to respect no mysticall Ceremonies the phrase of Scripture is shewed to consent nothing I say and the Reader may see is added but onely the same thinges are repeated about Order and Decencie which are now sufficiently discussed So that the Rejoynder hath nothing to say to the contrarie but that wee may safely conclude Ergo to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we doe is not left to the libertie of the Churche 1. e. it is unlawfull If ther were nothing else against them in all the Scripture then this place beside which the Def. and Rejoynder can finde none in all the New Testament for them any indifferent man would say they are not allowed Those that are devoted to the Ceremonies may shufle up and downe first to order and when they are beaten thence to Decencie and from Decencie when they can defend that no longer to Edification as the Rejoynder doeth but all will not helpe Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds without starting I will pawne my head their anchor will come home to them againe as finding no fast grounde eyther in Order or Decencie or edification for double significant Ceremonies suche as ours to ride at The Def. could frame no Consequence out of any of these words the Rejoynder sayth ther is one but he cannot shew it To the contrarie consequence nothing is answered of any moment And is not this a miserable cause which hath no place in all the New Testament which the best Advocates can allege for it but onely that out of which it is utterly confounded To the Defend and Rejoynders mainteyning such a cause this testimonie may be given that they would willinglie so farre as they can favour thinges
which the times favour and therfore strive to make somthing of that which maketh nothing for them In the former section when Order Decencie and Edification should have been handled as Rules according to the title of the digression the Rejoynder soddainly breaketh off referring them to a fitter place Now here in this place he was constreined to touche upon them but so softly and sparinglie that it appeareth he founde this no fitter place then the former for those reserved considerations When shall we come to the fitter place SECT 17. Concerning the ancient Fathers allowing of Humane Ceremonies 1. OF these the Repl. answered it cannot be proved nor is probable that from the first beginning of the Primitive Churche they brought in any new inventions Vpon this the Rej. accusing not him alone but others also that they can beleive no trueth crosse to their opinion because they seeke honour one of another praesume of their new traditions as if the spirit of trueth had come onely to them or from theÌ„ alone answereth that it is a matter of fact proved by Records of Churches against which nothing can be sayd But if he could keep-in his passion so longe as to hear this onely word that there are no sufficient Records of any suche thing exstant from the beginninge then he might see that sufficient answer is given unto the name of all Fathers allways Yet I will adde one conjecture to shew that those observations which seem to have been universall in the Primitive Churche were not so in deed without exception Praying toward the East hath as ancient testimonie as any other humane Rite Tertullian Apol. cap. 16. witnesseth that that was one cause why the Christians were esteemed to worship the Sunne And yet Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. doeth witnesse that at Antioche which was the first Churche of Christians by name they used not to place their Mysteries which directed their posture of prayer toward the East but rather toward the West And why may we not conceyve the like of Easter as well as of this East observation 2. It was secondly answered that those Feasts which the Primitive Churche is sayd to have observed were not by Canonicall imposition but voluntarie accommodation to the infirmitie of some as appeareth by the varietie of their observation and Socrates his testimonie Marke now what a Rejoynder is given 1. Hee telleth us of a strange conjecture of his even from this answer viz. that the Churches held it not onely lawfull but also convenient to impose upon themselves suche Feasts As if occasionall accommodation were all one with imposition or voluntarie joining in action for the good that is in it were always a certaine argument of holding that opinion which others doe affixe unto it But if they had thought them so coÌ„venieÌ„t yet that Arg. would be of litle force For many Ceremonies were thought then convenient which longe since are universally thought otherwise of therfor left off though no reason of inconvenience can be shewed which did not agree to those times as well as to succeeding times except further abuse which cannot be denied of our Ceremonies in question as religious use of milke hony absteyning from washing ones hands for certayn days after Baptisme etc. 2. That which was mentioned of infirmitie occasioning this accommodation the Rej. after his manner crieth downe as a fiction boldly delivered without proof or colour meerly for opposition sake Wheras notwithstanding it is so clear that the infirmitie of men newly converted from Iudaisme and Gentilisme did bringe into Christian Churches customes like unto those in use amonge Iews and Gentils that Cardinall Baronius from that ground mainteyneth many Ceremonies Quid mirum si imolitat apud Gentiles adde etiam Iudaeos consuetudines a quibus eos quamvis Christiani effecti essent penipus posse divelli impossibile videretur easdem in Dei cultum transferri sanctissimi Episcopi cineessetunt ad an 58. p. 606. What wonder if the growen customes among the Gentiles and we may add the Iewes also were such as from which tho they were converted to Christianisme they were yet so hardly taken that it might seeme impossible to putt them quite off what wonder I say then if the most holy Bishops have graunted them place in the worship of God Doctor Iackson in his Originall of Idolatrie sect 4. chap. 23. sheweth the first occasion of Superstition in Christians to have been the infirmities wherby it came to passe that heathenish and Iewish Rites wherto men had been longe accustomed could not easily be extirpated Where also about suche accommodations he hath this remarkable observation To outstrip our adversaries in their owne policies or to use meanes abused by others to a better ende is a resolution so plausible to wordly wisedome that even Christians have mightilie overreached and intangled themselves by too muche seeking to circumvent or goe beyond others About the Varietie which was of olde in the observation of these feasts the Rejoynder answereth that it notwithstanding the agreement for the thinges themselves was universall Which if he would take with a graine of salt viz. that after some space of time it was for ought we know universall but not upon any Ecclesiasticall imposition nor upon any knowne groundes out of Gods word it is the same that the Repl. affirmeth and Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. laboreth to confirme 3. Mention was further made of the mischeife that came in by those humane observations To which the Rejoynder answereth that the Anniversarie solemnities have not obscured but praeserved that simplicitie of the Gospel And if they had so doen by accident Satans malice and mans frailtie that is nothing but what may be affirmed of Divine ordinances But 1. the Def. his position was in generall of universall Ceremonies by humane institution and not Feasts alone Now those first Ceremoniall observations are guiltie of opening that gate for all the humane praesumtions to enter into Gods house which pressed in after them which gate could never be shutte from that day to this 2. Those very Feasts made a composition or mixture of humane institutions with divine and therfore did not praeserve simplicitie They also were from their first rise not onely aequalled unto but also extolled above the Lords day Easter brought in a superstitions Lent to attend upon it made Baptisme wayt for her Moon and conformed our Lords Supper unto the Iewish Passeover in unleavened bread etc. It was the first apple of contention amonge Christians the first weapon wherwâ—â—h the Bishop of Rome played his prises against other Churches after slew so many Briâ—tons with by Austin the monke Holie-days in honor of Christ invited unto them Saints holy Days etc. 4. It is praesumtion to make mens inventions as guiltlesse of evill consequences as Gods holy ordinances They are active efficacious occasions given of evill these are onely passive occasions taken Neyther is ther any corruption of Gods ordinances whose originall