that these Ceremonies in controversie are not convenient The Def. professing a full answer to all that is objected giveth no answere to any thing there alleged to that purpose When he was challenged by the Repl. for not shewing them convenient the Rej. pag. 167. accuseth him of more impudencie then hee would have expected from any Friar and yet directeth us not to the place where he hath gone about any such matter The Rej. himselfe undertaking to manifest their conveniencie by the Rules of Gods Word suddenly breaketh off pag. 74. and referreth that demonstration to a fitter place which place hitherto he could not finde nor ever will Beside the Rej. confesseth a multitude of godly learned men among whom were Calvin Beza Martyr Bucer Hooper Iewel Fulke Rainolds Whitakers Humphrie Perkins c. to have held our Ceremonies inexpedient or inconvenient at the least Nay he himselfe hath beene in the same haeresie All this notwithstanding he thinketh it not significent in one word to say for a shift without any proofe or declaration that they are convenient for our Church Conveniency is esteemed when as a thing after the consideration of all circumstances isfound to bring more good at the least then evill with it And I dare appeale to the Rej. his owne conscience whether our Ceremonies have beene causes or occasions of more good then evill They may doe hurt saith Beza but they can doe no good God knoweth sayth M r. Foxe they bee the cause of much blindenesse and strife among men Let this by the way be well observed out of this generall answer that the particular answers following in this argument are nothing worth but onely upon this supposition that our Ceremonies are not onely curable and indifferent but also convenient for our Church which neyther Def. nor Rej. nor any for them will ever bee able with any shew of reason and honestie to demonstrate while the world standeth So that this whole fourth Argument is heere in the first section sufficiently yeelded For all that we desire is plainely granted concerning the unlawfulnesse of all such human Ceremonies in Gods worship as are notoriously knowne to have beene and be abused unto Idolatry and Superstition if they bee now of no convenient necessary use in the Church SECT 2. Concerning the second Commandement Lev. 18.3 and 19.19.27.28 Exod. 23.24 Deut. 14 1. and 12.4 and 30.32 2. Cor. 6.14.18 Rev. 18.4 1. THe second Commandement was heer alleged in the Abridgement as forbidding all provocation unto spirituall fornication as the seventh doeth unto that which is carnall This the Def. passed by in silence and therein is defended by the Rej. because according to his method in one particular argument he taketh knowledge of it par 2. c. 2. s. 2. As if Iohn a-Stiles his plea for 3. akers of ground were sufficiently answered by Iohn a-Noxe if he cold with any shew ward it off from 1. aker His owne answer is that as the seventh Commandement doeth not forbid the use of all such things as accidentally doe or may provoke some men to base uncleannesse but onely such as in and of themselves are working incitements thereto so neither doeth the second Commandement forbid the use of all such things as the lust of some Idolaters may turne to spirituall fornication but onely of such as have in themselves or in such use of them an habitude or aptnesse to provoke thereto But 1. Our Divines generally teach as Zanchy de Red. lib. 1. cap. 14. briefely expresseth their meaning The summe of the second Commandement is that in the worship of God or Ceremonies thereabout wee are to devise nothing of our owne braine or borrow ought of Heathenish idolatrous rites Summa est secundi pracepti in externo cultu qui Deo debetur seu in Ceremonijs nihil nobis esse ex nostrâ— capite comminiscendum neque ex ritibus gentium Idololatrarum adhibendum c. 2. Let this be so the question yet remaineth whether our Ceremonies the Crosse for example hath not some habitude and aptnesse to provoke towards Idolatry I thinke it will not be denied but the Crosse is an Idol at Paris at Calis and among the Papists in England Now suppose a knowne harlot to be brought out of the Stues at Paris or Calis unto Dover and lodged there in an honest mans bed or bed-chamber as the Crosse is in the bed of our Religion the holy Sacrament would any man say that there were no habitude nor aptnesse in such a harlot and her lodging to provoke even an honest man and much more a dissolute companion unto filthy folly Difference I know none but onely that the spirituall folly may be more secretly and mystically provoked and exercised then carnall can The Rej. should have done well if hee had given us a certaine rule whereby wee might have distinguished betwixt those monuments or reliques of Idolatry which have an habitude or aptnesse in them to provoke unto Idolatry and those which have not For then more might have beene said therefrom eyther for or against our Ceremonies Now we cannot tell where to take holde saving onely in this that habitude and aptnesse of provoking towards Idolatry is in every consenting relation that any Ceremony otherwise unnecessary hath to any Idol and all such relation of our Ceremonies to Idols cannot be denied neither can their necessity to true Religion be with any shew of reason or honesty mainteyned Beside what jealous or wise husband if his wife should receive any thing from a knowne adulterer who hath also gone about to under-myne her honesty and keepe it alwayes in her bosome would take this for a sufficient excuse that such a thing hath not in it selfe any habitude or aptnesse of prouoking unto Adultery And doeth not God tell us that hee is in like sort a Iealous God From hence it is that M r. Perkins with divers others in writing on the second Commandement doctrinally without speciall medling with controversies making one head of things therein forbidden the monuments and reliques of Idolatrie 2. To Lev. 18.3.4 and 19.19.27 the Def. his answer was according to the Rejoynder his extraction that these places doe not proove the abolishing of things indifferent in nature meerely for the abuse of them to Idolatry which was saith he the point to be prooved because cutting off the flesh for the dâ—ad was evill in it selfe and sowing with divers seeds in one field was forbidden for a typicaâ—l documâ—nt of that syncerity which God required in his people Where 2. he mistaketh or perverteth the question which was not of things indifferent but not necessary nor of all things not necessary but of Ceremonies 2. Cutting off the flesh for the dead with a good meaning nor was nor is more evill in it selfe then Circumcission which both the Def. and Rej. allow as lawfull under Prester Iohn pag. 285.3 That typicall doctrine of syncerity forbiddeth plainely all mixing of Idolaters reliques with Gods holy
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
it vvas a root of bitteâ—nes or Godlines vvhence such things issue I leave it to the Almighty to judge to the vvise hearted to discerne These be the vvitnesses vvhich I haue to produce out of the Rej. his ovvne vvritings All that I desire is that their depositions may be impartially vveighed in this desire indeavour ther is no vvrong done to any rule of piety or charity VVe haue also the Rej. his open practise as an apparant evidence to contradict vvhat himself professeth in his Praeface touching the constancy of his opinion about the inconveniency onely of these Cerem hovveuer he beares the vvorld in hand to the contrary that vvith great confidence To vvhich purpose vve intreat the follovving Allegations may be indifferently heard from those vvho as vvitnesses can testify his vvalking by their experience That faythfull servant of Christ M r. Arthur Hildersham novv at rest vvith God upon his sicke bed vvith great regrate greif thus expressed himself to a fellovv Brother Doctor Burgesse his conscience knovves that I knovv he speaks untruly And that it may appeare these vvords vvere neyther spoken passionately by him nor forged by me he hath left the proof of them under his ovvne hand upon record vvhich I novv haue by me shall be bould for fuller satisfaction to sett dovvne his ovvne mynde in his ovvne vvords In the 19. pag. of the Praeface The Rej. expresseth him self on this manner I doe ingeniously confesse tvvo errors in that my Apology one that I trusted too much to the quotations of the Abridgement vvhich then I had in vvriting To vvhich M r. Hildersham thus replyes in his notes Hovv false the quotations are in the Abridgement vvill be seene hereafter But this is manifestly false that he vvas before the vvriting of his Apologye deceaved therby or that he had a Copy of it in vvriting before that tyme. For the Abrigdement vvas not made till after he vvas deprived therfore no man could haue any coppy of it either in print or vvriting Nay the large book vvhere of it is an Abridgement vvas not delivered to his Majesty before that day he vvas deprived the Abridgement vvas made sundry months after He proceeds Ibid 19. p. It s true that the Ministers vvere resolved to haue chosen him for one of those three that should haue disputed for them such profession he had made unto them of his full consent vvith them in judgement he had beene one of the disputants if that not the Deane of the Chappell but the King himself had not expressely in his message excepted agaynst him vvhich also argues that his Majesty did hold him to be fully of the mynd that the rest vvho had sent him the foresayd book vvere of In his notes of the 20. pag he hath these vvords That ther is no colour of truth in this that he sayth here i. e. That vvhen he vvas chosen to be one of those that should mayntaine their cause by disputation he professed to his Brethren that he could not speake against the things as unlavvfull but only as inconvenient may appeare evidently to any reasonable man For seing they had in their book delivered to his Majesty our Kings Father stated the quaestion not against the inconveniency but the unlavvfulnes of these things VVho vvill imagyne they Vvould euer haue chosen him to be one of the 3 to dispute for them if he had professed to them at that tyme that he had nothing to say agaynst the unlavvfulnes of them These be the dying vvords of that deare servant of God as I haue them to shovve in black vvhite If yet the vvitnes of the dead deserue no credit The Rej. may vvith some small consideration recall to mynd hovv after the Revolt or change of his former opinion in an occasionall concurrence meeting of many fellovv Brethren vvhen they out of humane Civility desired him to take his place according to his yeares gifts I say he may if he vvill bethink himself easily recall vvhat vvords he then openly uttered to this or like effect He told theÌ„ he vvas unvvorthy to sitt vvith them to haue respect from theÌ„ since he had betrayed them their cause Novv the cause vvhich they mayntayned vvas not inconveniency but unlavvfulnes in these things If the Rej. his memory serue him not about this particular let him repayre to Bambury syde to his auncient friends there they can testify so much to his face If then the construction that the King state made of his course the apprehension his fellovv Brethren had of his practise nay his ovvne profession may be trusted Lett all the vvorld D r. Burgesse his ovvne heart judge vvhether he hath changed his opinion yea or no In his praeface ther is not much that expects ansvver For to omitt his biting language devouring vvords vvhere vvith vve haue cloyed the Reader in the foregoing Catalogue and unto vvhich ranke many Gibes here may be referred as That pag. 5. These do commonly call any small company of their party The Church the Christians of such a tovvne As if Christ vvere I say not divided amongst us but vvholly taken avvay from us to them vvhat vvants this of Schisme in the heart And that pa. 9. The glory of suffering for as they call it the good cause And that pa. 12. Others ayme at Schisme Anabaptisticall delusions to lett passe these pangs of spleene other distempered cariages vvhich he himself cast upon some passionate people Strongly conceited All vvhich being justly blamed it neither hurts the cause against vvhich he vvrites nor helps that vvhich he defends since the most glorious Gospell of Christ hath such blotts cast upon it by reason of the sinfull vveaknesses of some vvho take up the profession therof Leaving I say all these as not vvorthy the consideration vve shall intreat the Rej. at his returne to giue some satisfaction to these quaeres 1. VVhy Atheists Papists prophane varletts brutish drunkards hellish blasphemers together vvith the accursed crevv of the most riotous vvretches yea the Generation of Nevvtralists morall formalists ignorant sotts of all sorts are so zealous for these Cerem Are so violent to urge so carefull to practise them vvho never had care of piety in all their liues 2. After the Lord hath cast in some saving illumination into the mynd convicted the conscience converted the hearts of scandalous sinners after such haue gayned svveet peace of conscience assured evidence of Gods loue sealed unto their soules vvhy do the hearts of such rise in some strong indignation agaynst these Popish reliques vvhen they haue never beene persvvaded therunto by teachers nor had tyme from their ovvne invvard troubles to consider of them That this is the disposition of many I can speake by proof I vvould haue the Rej. speake to the reason of it 3. VVhen it is notorious to all the English vvorld that the most of the
the imposers or users of them doe holde that God is better pleased with them then without them in themselves or that they are as pleasing to him as if he had commanded them The consequence of which heerby conclusion no logician in the world can make good Yet taking out in themselves as an intrusion all the consequent part may be mainteyned For if ther be any more good hâ—lde in the imposing and observing of them then in the omitting of them then God is better pleased with them then without them And that which is lawfully and justly commanded by men authorized therto is as pleasing to God as if he had commanded it Nay â—t must be receyved as commanded of God himself 7. It was also by the Repl. brought into the Def. his remembrance that matter and forme doe usually make up the essence of thinges and that to instituted meanes a proper ende is also required but a right efficient cause not so About this the Rejoynder sheweth himself perplexed For 1. he answereth that this notwithstanding actions have as it were matter forme and essence of accidentall though not of essentiall worship Where he manifestly separateth the essence of worship from essentiall worship as if the essence of a man could exist without an essentiall man 2. He gathereth from that which was sayd of respect to the ende in institutioÌ„s that therby their assertioÌ„ is cleared viz. that Cer. respecting the honour of God mediatly are not properly parts of Divine worship As if here had been any mention or questioÌ„ of mediatly or immediatly proper or improper and not onely of essentiall But for so muche as the Rejoynder would needs heer cite D. Abbot for his terme immediatly I would desire him to coÌ„sider of the wholle sentence in that place pronounced by him viz. Def. of Mr. Perk. pag. 844. Order and comlinesse sayth the popish Bishop is some part of Gods worship But sayth D. Abbot Who taught him this deep point of Philosophie that an accident is a part of the subject that the beautie or comelinesse of the body is a part of the body Order and comelinesse properly and immediatly respect men and therfore can be no parts of the woship of God If this be not a plaine refuting of the Def. and the Rejoynder their assertion then none is attempted in all the Replie 3. He in like manner concludeth that every respect of the honor of God doeth not make a thinge to be properly religious worship As if the Repl. had ever spoken or dreamt of suche a phantasie except it were in the Rejoynder his name His wordes are beside the respect of the ende is also required institution of means to an ende What Paracelsian can draw so wilde an assertion from suche a grounde as this 8. It was in the last place demanded whether if the Temple of Ierusalem had been built with institution of all the appurtenances sacrifices and observances there used without any Commandement of God according as they were by his appointment whether sayth the Repl. they had not been essentiall false worship erected to God The Rejoynder answereth Yes no doubt if we may call as the manner is essentiall disworship essentiall false worship eyther in respect of the thinges themselves or in the opinion conceyved in their use Now marke all readers that have sense how this Rejoynder here in the conclusion of all is constreyned to confesse that to be true which he hath hitherto striven against as false 1. The Repl. his assertion was that Gods institution doeth make that worship which being used in the same manner and to the same ende were otherwise no worship or as it pleaseth the Def. and Rejoynder to speake no essentiall worship The Rejoyn-hitherto hath contended against this as against a great errour Now in the winding up of the wholle Argument he confesseth that some essentiall worship may be without any institution of God Certaynly if this be so then the institution of God is not required to essentiall worship neyther is it of the essence of essentiall worship that it be instituted of God 2. He affirmed before pag 125. that proper immediat or essentiall worship are onely suche thinges as God hath to that ende ordeyned Yet here he confesseth that essentiall worship may be without any commande of God 3. The Rejoynder before made essentiall and accidentall worship to be a subdivision of true worship Now he confesseth that ther is an essentiall worship under the head of false worship 4. He acknowlegeth that in all the former senselesse assertions he did not speake as the manner of speache is That was therfore against the manner of speache which the Def. he used before 5. He graunteth some worship to be essentiall in respect of the thinges themselves separated from mens opinion Yet hitherto he would have made us beleive that opinion did varie the nature of worship as sect 6. If this be not a plaine yeilding and granting of the wholle Argument ther can be none save onely in plaine termes to say I yeeld SECT 10.11.12.13.14 THe former argument being though demonstrative yet to the Def. his apprehension new was derided as new learning these following are excused from that censure as being more popular and seeming more fadomable Of which it is to be observed that moste of them are fetched out of incertaine papiers under the name of Mr. Hy. and others upon the Def. his credit wherin what aequall dealing hath been used it is very suspicious to any judicious reader and some of those others for Mr. Hy. is past writing to being asked have testified that in diverse passages they are muche abused Yet even these reliques of Arguments are defensible 1. The first is because they are imposed to breed an opinion of holinesse by Mr. Hookers doctrine and therfore as parts of Gods worship To which the Def. answereth that it is no meant of operative holinesse eyther by infusion or inhaesion but onely significative Whence he concludeth a perverse purpose of calumniation and the Rejoynder adding another distinction betwixt holinesse in them and in the users of them maketh mention also of dotage But 1. the Def. his distinction is vaine because even significative holinesse is also a part of Gods worship Otherwise some holinesse must be fained which having no other immediat ende but that which directly and immediatly tende to the honoring of God is no part of his honor The Rejoynder also is vaine in limiting the matter to holinesse in them For those thinges which are instituted to that immediat ende onely that they may breed an opinion of holinesse and so holinesse in others doe in all reason deserve the opinion of holinesse some way causall or operative in themselves because all breeding is causing or working 1. e. operative It was also observed by the Repl. onely in a parenthesis by the way that holinesse eyther by infusion or inhaesion were unreasonablie by the Defend disjoyned This the Rejoynder excepteth against and
our Prelates suche good manners as to put fescues of their owne making into his hand and so appoint him after what manner and by what meanes he shall teache us P. Mart. in Reg. 8. thus disputeth For as much as God is most wise he needs not our devise for instrumeÌ„ts to stirre up faith in us which also no tradesman in his kind would indure Cum Deus sit sapientissimus non opus babet ut nostro cogitatu illi parâ—mus instrumenta ad fidem in nobis excitandam quod etiam quisquam Artifex in sua facultate minime serret se dipsomat velles suâ— arbitratu sibi deligere but would chuse to himselfe at his owne plâ—asure what he should think most fitt Nay I would be resolved of this doubt whether this be not a doctrine religious in England The signe of the crosse doeth signifie unto us that we should not be ashamed of Christ crucified etc. If it be as no Conformist can denie then I would know whether and where Christ our onely Authentique teacher doeth teache this doctrine or if our Prelates may bringe in a new doctrine into the Churche and cause Ministers to preache it He leaveth out of our proof that Christ is the onely appointer of meanes as also that those meanes are limited to admonition of a holy dutie and in stead of our conclusion he bringeth in another of ordeyning as necessarie The support also of our collection he omitteth to acknowlege any other meanes of teaching and admonishing us of our dutie then suche as Christ hath appointed is to receyve another teacher into the Churche beside him and to confesse some imperfection in the meanes by him ordeyned Yet in the middest of this shufling and cutting he telleth us that our collection is absurd His reason is not by manifesting the fault of our consequence but onely by objecting some instances and those also nothing to purpose Then sayth he it should not be lawfull to use any helpe of Art Memorative nor to set up a gybbett or a traytors head on a pole to give men warning against murder or treason Had he so soon forgotten that the question is of Ceremonies appropriated to Gods service teaching by ordination or Ãnstitution If he had not what did he mean to instance in thinges that were never called Ceremonies before this Rejoynder made all things in the world in some respect Ceremonies by his wilde definition of a Ceremonie thinges that have no use in Gods service muche lesse appropriated therto thinges not teaching by vertue of any ordination or institution but onely by their naturall relation nay things not teaching at all any spirituall dutie directly and immediatly Characters and suche like helps of memorie doe no otherwise teache trueh then error and haeresies no more spirituall duties then carnall lusts as experice doeth teache One of the ancientes and learnedest SchoolmeÌ„ of our Countrie Alex. AleÌ„sis p. 4. q. 1. m. 1. teacheth us Literae significantes sacras sententias non significant eas in quantum sacra sunt sed in quantum suâ— tres that Letters that signifie sacred sentences do not signifie them as they are sacred but as they are things And if it be lawfull to institute significant Ceremonies for all things that we may note in characters for memorie sake theÌ„ certainly our Convocation may instituteCeremonies properly Sacramentall even suche as doe signifie and seale the Covenant of grace For ther is no doubt but that we may note in characters or writing all that belonge to that Covenant Gibbets traytors heads besides the former exception out of Alex. Hales are remembrances of death inflicted upon suche malefactors but neyther to be appointed by any without that authoritie by which death is inflicted nor in their use imposed upon any nor determined by institution to the teaching of any thing which they would not otherwise teache not yet suche remembrances as may be brought into Gods worship Nay from them some good Divines doe reason against images in Churches and suche like significant Ceremonies D. Fulke against Sanders of images hath these words Images sayth Sanders are profitable because they bring us in remembrance of good thinges I denie this argument because nothing is profitable in religion but that whâ—ch is instituted by God For otherwise wee might bringe the gallows into the Churche which bringeth us in remembrance of Gods justice 4. To passe by those exceptions of the Repl. against the Def. which the Rej. calleth wranglinges though they be defensible enough The first proof of our proposition is taken from Mar. 7. and Matth. 15. where as we allege our Saviour by this argumeÌ„t among others condemneth the Iewish purifijnges and justifieth himself and his Disciples in refusing that Ceremonie because being the praecept of men it was taught and used as a doctrine by way of significatioÌ„ to teache what inward puritie should be in them and how they ought to be clensed from heathen pollutions To this the Rej. supplying againe that which the Def. had forgotten answereth that this reason among others of signification is our fiction Now though these places of Scripture have formerly been handled in the second chapiter let any man considerthis observation wee finde in our Saviours answer three reasons of reprehending the Pharisies 1. That their washing was praeferred before the Commandements of God 2. That it was hypocriticall 3. That it was a vaine worship therefore sinne If any say it was not vayne as significant wee replie it could be no outward worship but as religiously significant For washing without signification had been meer civill And Marc. 7.4 The Pharisies are reproved for meer undertaking to observe washinges no mention being made of any other reason but onely that observance which must needes be understood of all observance which was not civill but by institution intention religious 5. For this interpretation and collation many good Divines were cited as fathering the same They are all abused sayth the Rej. Now of Chrysostome enough hath been sayd in the former chapter D. Whitakers his approbation of the same sentence is shifted of with binding of conscience and holinesse placed in them But these shiftes are sufficiently discussed in the former part of this book To the Confession of Witenberge it is answered 1 That it doeth not so muche as give anie glance at Marc. 7. Which how true it is may appear by these their wordes Non liceâ— vel vetâ—res legis vitus restaurare vel novâ—s comminisci ad adumbrandam veritatem Euangelicam jam patefactum quales sunt Uti vexillis crucibus ad significandam victoriam Christs per crucem quod genus est universa panopliae vestium missalium quam aiunt adumbrare totum passionem Christi multa id genus alia Da hoc â—enere Ceremoniarum sacrorâ—m Christus ex Isaia concionatur fâ—ustra inquiens colunt me docâ—ntes doctrinas praecepta hominum Nor is it lawfull to restore either
of grace cannot partake the office or speciall nature of Sacraments Wherby he gaineth nothing but his owne ideal shadow 2. He gathereth that unlesse signifying without sealing be a more principall part of the nature of Sacraments then sealing suche signes as communicat with them onely in signifying doe not participat any cheif part of their nature Which is as mere non sense as if one should say that unlesse teaching without sealing be a more principall part of Sacraments theÌ„ sealing then the preaching of the doctrine which in Sacraments is signified and sealed doeth not participat any cheif part of their nature 3. He answereth that the Sacraments doe confirme our obligation unto sanctimonie in generall but not signifie any morall dutie in particular Here then is the mysterie the Sacraments to confiâ—me by signification all our duties but not this or that dutie If our Convocation had been of the Counsel when Sacraments were appointed they would as it seemeth have made them more perfect But this is certain our Saviour meant to put a difference betwixt the olde A. B. C. and the new maner of tâ—aching fitting for riper yeares and therfore did not sâ—oâ—ll out every letter concerning our dutie in signes as of oulde but give us the summe in a few signes Whosoever therfore goeth about to multiplie significant signes crosseth thâ— very intention which was respected in the institution of two Sacraments onely Beside the Crosse it self doeth not signifie our dutie of constant fighting under Christ in paâ—ticular against this or that temptatioÌ„ of sinne the world or the Devill but onely in generall so that by this reason we should or may have as many significant Ceremonies as there be particular temptations to be resisted Whither shall we come at length by walking in this Ceremoniall way 4. The second Argument to the same purpose by the Repl. alleged was that the name Sacrament as it signifieth an oath or obligation doeth import that the Sacraments signifie our dutie to God To this the Rejoynder answereth that the Sacraments doe in deed implie but not represent any morall dutie Now let any reasonable man judge whether dipping under the water and rising up againe or taking of food for strength and growth doeth not more represent spirituall duties then making a Crosse with ones finger in the ayer 5. The third reason mentioned was taken from the name Eucharist notifiing thankfulnesse and the taking of the same in remembrance of Christ. The Rejoynder his answer is that the word Eucharist is no Sacrament but a terme brought in by men to put them in minde of their dutie in receyving it But that word doeth notifie the nature of the Sacrament at least in the judgemeÌ„t of al Divines â—hat have in this meaning used the terme though it be not a Sacrament And they are more then that the Rej. his judgement can counter-ballance Yet if significant Ceremonies be like unto wordes and characters as the Rejoynder formerly maintayned that very word must needes be a Sacrament or a significant signe of a Sacrament because it was brought in to put men in minde of their dutie in receyving as the Rej. speaketh He addeth 2. that ther is no element nor action of that Sacrament so particularly repraesenting thankfulnesse as kneeling doth reverence or humilitie Where first he maketh kneeling a significant Ceremonie whiche hitherto he hath seemed to denie 2. I answer that the very action of receyving so great a gift in a cheerfull humble manner doeth repraesent both thankfulnesse and humilitie so far as Christ would have it repraesented by signes The very celebration of a great benefit receyved is a signe of thankfulnesse Otherwise let the Rejoynder tell us what repraesentation of thankfulnesse was in the Passover for that benefit of passing over the Israelites houses when the first-borne of the Aegyptians were slaine 6. Instance was given by the Replier that both sanctitie and constancie which are the thinges â—ignified by Surplice and Crosse are signified in Baptisme The Rej. his answer is that they are not barely or onely signified in Baptisme as duties nor by any distinct signe repraesented As if this were the question and not this if Sacraments doe signifie morall duties Certainly if Sacraments doe signifie these vertues as graces and duties as is proved and also confessed no Christian need desire to have them â—ignified over againe barely and onely as duties no more then after an instrument made betwixt the Lord of Manner and his Tenent conteyning the conditions of both partes the tenent should seek for a new instrumeÌ„t signifijng his conditions a part and not onely so but after that his conditions had been expressed generally that he should keep all the land in good culture according as he found it he should seek for one instrument about the woodes another for the â—arable land another for the medowes another for the pastures and another for the broome feilds or for every aker one that not from the Lord of the manner but from some Iustice of peace or high Constable of the Hundred Neyther is it a thinge profitable for Christians to remember their dutie without remembrance of Gods grace therto apperteyning 7. Against mysticall-morall Ceremonies of humane institution the Repl. brought this Arg. in Mr. Baines his wordes To be a teacher of my understandâ—â—g and an exciter of my devotion are suche effects as require vertue inhaerent or assistant to those thinges which should be causes of them But no signe of mans divizing hath any suche vertue in it or with it For then it must come eyther from the word of creation or from Gods after institution But from neyther of these have the signes of mans divizing any suche vertue Therfore no signe of mans divizing can be a teacher of mine understanding or an exciter of my devotion This the Rejoynder confuteth first with skornefull wordes as a sickly childish and long some objection After he answereth that our monitorie Ceremonies are onely externall occasions and objects wherby the minde of man worketh upon it self not causes working by some vertue in them Where 1. observe how he mangleth and marreth the Argument that he may maister it the wordes are that suche effects require vertue inhaerent or assistant he interpreteth them onely of vertue in them i. e. inhaerent leaving out assistant and yet dareth affirme that upon this fiction of vertue in them which is his owne fiction the wholle objection is builded 2. He maketh our Ceremonies to be onely occasionall objects and no causes wheras every instituted signe is a meanes and so a cause of that effect for which it is appointed as Logick teacheth And if they were mere occasions of conceyving that which they signifie then a white Surplice would not prove half so significant a Ceremonie of Ministers sanctitie as a white Cocke especially when it croweth nor an aeriall Crosse so significant as a Gallowes Beside if our Ceremonies be occasionall objects onely then no man is tied to
non asperguns se aquâ â—ustrali quandò Templum ingrediuntur They sinn not who without contempt do not Sprinkle themselves with Holy Water when they enter the Church Iunius his wordes are so full and plaine that they admitte no answer no humane ordination can make it good 6. The Rep. conclusion that suche sprinkling of water as the Def. alloweth may perhaps be called Iâ—wish but not Christian without taking Christs name in vayne cannot be eluded by the Rejoynder his comparatively Christian no more then some uncleannesse may be called Christian in comparison of filthinesse contrarie to nature 9. In the following passages concerning abuse oâ— imposing humane Ceremonies and P. Martyrs judgement nothing is worth the answering which hath not been formerly cleared Onely about that which the Def. affirmeth concerning the shutting up of the gap which was sayd to be opened by this doctrine of humane significant Ceremonies in Gods worship something must be answered unto the Rejoynder his fierce accusations 1. The Rejoynder asketh If any more significant Ceremonies have been brought-in this threescore yeares To whiche I answer first that ther have been of late more bringing in of Altars with bowing unto theÌ„ then was before and at Durrham the third Seat of our Def. more superstitious observations are now sayd to be urged then in threescore yeares before Secondly it is wel knowen that in threescore yeares ther have scarce any generall significant Ceremonies been newly brought into the Churche of Rome yet Chamier tom 2. pag. 1299. answereth to the like evasion We are to regard not onely what is brought in but what may be brought in For while such authority is challenged the â—oke ìs not certaine but wavering Rituum non tantum inductorum habenda est ratio sed eâ—rum qui induci possunt 〈◊〉 enim authoritas talis vindicatur ingum non est câ—rlum sed in flâ—xu 2. Because the Replier sayd that the gap is every day made wider and wider by suche defences as this is which allow of Images themselves for some religious use because by this meanes any Crucifixe may come in that is not greater then the Churche doore the Rejoynder accuseth him of a steeled conscience if he doeth not bleed for suche an injurious jest of falshood tending to bring them into suspicion and hatred so that in his charitie we can no longer be accounted syncere men And I pray you why Forsooth the Def. doeth not allow all Images and in Churches too and for religious use Now if his heat be over let him consider the Def. his wordes cited allowed and mainteyned by himselfe pag. 291. the use of Images onely in regard of superstitious adoration is to be called Popish and not true What distinction is heer betwixt Images though he was not by the Replier accused as favouring all Images but onely a Crucifixe And let him tell us if he doeth or can by his groundes disalow of all Crucifixes or if ther be no use of suche Images in Churches but onely for superstitious adoration or if ther be no religious use of a significant Image beside adoration The case is so plaine that every man may see the Rejoynder in this place breaking out into an intemperat passion for want of a reasonable answer to that which he was ashamed to confesse 3. The Rejoynder confessing that our Prelates can when they please open the gap to many other Ceremonies like to these which now they urge upon us addeth notwithstanding that the Replier his spirit in saying so transported him to involve his Maiestie and the State by an uncharitable surmize And that this gap shall never be opened unlesse our janglings and our sinnes bring Gods displeasure upon our land Now alas what involving is this of Civill powers to say that the Prelats by their permission may bring in threescore Ceremonies as well as three And what humane religious Ceremonies can be brought into England without our sinnes desert As for his intermixing of our janglings as a possible cause it is not worth any jangling Concerning the second Commandement 10. One Argument is yet to be handled eyther omitted or as the Rejoynder sayth put off unto another place by the Defendant The Argument standeth thus The second Commandement forbiddeth to make unto our selves the likenesse of any thinge whatsoever for religious use as Bucer Iuel Fulke Andrews and Bilson doe interpret it Therfore to make appoint or use significant Ceremonies of mans devizing is unlawfull The Rejoynder answereth in general that Religious use by these fore-named Authors is taken 1. For worship to the Image 2. Worship to God by the Image and not simply that whiche may any ways conferre to the furtherance of Religion Wherin he sayth nothing but trueth and yet no trueth at all to the purpose except he understandeth in the that which he affirmeth onely 1. e. that they meant no more but worshiping to and by and in that he denieth by simply no difference betwixt any of those thinges that help forth or further Religion as if civill circumstances and instituted religious Ceremonies were all one And if this be his meaning it requireth more then his simple testimonie to confirme it 11. For the backing of this Argument it was first observed by the Replier that the word likenesse used in the second Commandement is generall and comprehendeth under it all religious similitudes because they are homogeneall to Images there expresly forbidden To this the Rejoynder answereth nothing but onely sayth that our Ceremonies are not religious similitudes in suche a sense as the Commandement intendeth and Divines understand And that the Replier speaketh ignorantly because the Commandement doeth as expresly forbid suche similitudes as any graven Images Now the first of these sayinges we cannot understand untill the Rejoynder explaineth him self what that sense is in which the Commandement intendeth to forbid all religious similitudes As for the second to leave the Repliers ignorance unto the readers judgemeÌ„t more in it is granted then was demanded viz that all religious similitudes are expresly forbidden in the second Commandement 12. It was secondly added by the Replier that significant Ceremonies are externall actes of religious worship even as they are used to further devotion Suarez in 3. q. 65. ar 4. Bell. de Eff. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 29 and 31. and therfore being invented by man of the same nature with Images by which and at which God is worshiped The Rejoynder here for want of a better answer flieth to his olde Sanctuarie of meritorious necessarie and immediat worship grosly held by Papists of their Ceremonies whether thâ—y be significant or not significant But he hath in the former part of this writing been so beaten out of this burrow that we need not againe spend time in digging about it Let any man looke upon the places quoted and he shall finde that merit necessitie and immediatnesse set a part significant Ceremonies are externall acts of religious worship which was all that
way of authority and if he can doe this he may also perswade us that we are for refusing them excluded suspended deprived excommunicated fined imprisoned without any way lawfull or vnlawfull of authority Concerning necessity in conscience see the first part chap. 6. Another answere of the Rejoynders is notorious Bellarmine saith he allegeth this feast of Dedication to proove the Dedication or Consecration of Churches which is nothing to our question of significant Rites Now surely if Dedication and Consecration of Churches bee nothing to our question of significant Rites the Def. and Rej. say nothing to the purpose when they prove this question of signifying Rites by the Maccabees Feast of Dedication And if that Feast of Dedication doeth not proove humane Dedications lawfull much lesse doeth it prove the lawfulnesse of other significant Ceremonies such as ours are 3. The Defendant for backing of this instance added that our Saviour seemeth to approve that humane Feast by his presence Ioh. 10. To which it was replied that he seemeth onely because we onely read that he walked in Solomons Perch at that Feast which he might doe without observing or approoving of it This is Iunius his answer to Bellarmine alleging that Christ by his presence honoured that Feast Non sestum proprie honorawit Christus sed coetum piorum convenientium festo nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi Evangelij sut observabat capiebaâ— Christus Con. 3. l. 4.6.17 an 6. So Peliâ—anus in Mac. 1. cap. 4. Nec aliud in his Encoenijs Christus egisse legitur quam praedicasse in Templo Christ did not properly honour the Feast but the Congregation of the faithfull at the Feast For Christ tooke all such occasions then to wit before those solemnities were abolished of sowing the seed of his Gospel Nor did Christ ought that wee read at those times but preach in the Temple And sure I am that neither walking in the Porch nor declaring that he was that Christ belonged properly vnto the solemnity of that Feast If hee had preached of Dedications and Consecrations with allowance that had beene something The Rej. objecteth 1. That we plead Christs approbation of marriage by his presence This indeed added vnto evident grounds addeth some honour unto that state especially in that a miracle was wrought to the furtherance of a marriage feast if wee had no other plea for lawfulnesse of marriage but that meere presence I for my part would as soone separate from my wife as the rejoynder saith he would from the Church of England if he were of our minde about Ceremonies that is to day before to morrow His 2. objection is that Christ whipped the buyers and sellers out of the Temple Ioh. 2. Ergo. Which maketh directly to the clearing of this cause For there were two whippings of these Merchants out of the Temple the first whereof was this Ioh. 2. in the begining of his preaching the other toward the end of it a little before his passion so that it appeareth plainely they were not so driven out but they came in againe and continued their merchandise there and yet in the meane space our Saviour was often present in the Temple without allowance of that their practise So had he often condemned the traditions of men in Gods worship and yet was present some time where they were observed Beside because the Def. and Rej. are wonte to accuse the Iewes for placing holinesse necessity efficacy and proper essentiall worship in humane traditions whereby they would avoid the dint of that generall censure which our Saviour giveth of them Mat. 15. Mar. 7. c. I would faine learne of them how it appeareth or may be conjectured that they placed not as much holinesse necessity efficacy c. in this and such like humane Feasts as in washing of hands before meat If they did as any man will thinke then how can they say that our Saviour condemned the one and allowed the other The following 13. and 14. Sections are spent about some objections taken out of M r. Cartwrite But because the slitenesse of this Instance is already sufficiently discovered I will not cloy nor deteyne the Reader about them at this time but passe on to the next Instance SECT 15. and 16. Concerning the Altar of Iordan Iosh. 22. 1. IT is the Def. and Rej. their fashion to produce Instances without proof of their fitnesse and so exspect from us that they should be disproved whiche is all one as if Iohn a Stiles should in a great traverse bringe forth against Iohn a Nokes some instrumens for evidence of his cause which few or none beside himself can read at least so as to discerne any thing in it making for him and plead that in them was evidence enough except Iohn a Nokes could prove the contrarie So it is heer about the Altar of Iordan no demonstration is first made how it agreeth to the purpose but we are chalenged to shew how it disagreeth Yet yeelding them this libertie we have enough to oppose 2. And first of all we answer that this Altar of the two Tribes was not in the state or use religious as the Crosse is by the confession of an English Bishop Babington on the 2. Commandement The Rejoynder 1. opposeth out of M r. Parker par 1. sect 34. and 36. that religious in use is that which hath a religious ende and religious in state which is Ecclesiasticall belonging to Gods service Ergo. But M r. Parker in those sect tould him that religious in a sense common or mixâ—ly all thinges are that are doen to an holy ende and religious in sense speciall or in state all those thinges are that have Order Obligation and a kinde of Immobilitie in Gods service Now the quaestion is not of the former common mixt sense but of the later speciall state according to which no man can say the Altar of Iordan to have been religious upon ground of Scripture or reason Let any man judge then whether partialitie did put out M r. Parkers eyes as the Rej. speaketh or blear theirs that see not the vanitie of this allegation 3. B. Babingtons words on the 2. Commandement are these They erected that Altar not for religion but in deed for a civil use as you may see Iosh. 22. The Rejoynd answereth that he calleth the Altar civill Analogically because it was ordeyned by consent of fellow-Citizens which is as meer a shift as any yet invented by the Rejoynder For 1. he calleth not the Altar but the use civill 2. He opposeth this civilitie not unto Divine Institution as the Rejoynder would have him but unto the same fellow-Citizens erecting of an Altar for Religion 3. What he meaneth appeareth plainly by his third Proposition there set downe in these termes It is lawfull to make pictures of thinges which we have seen to a civill use but not to use them in the Churche and for Religion 4. To passe over circumstantiall passages the Def.
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