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
Sic fuit ah fuit Amesius Quid funere tanto Cum grege Papali Pelagianus ovat Quid rides Hierarcha Viri nos arma tenemus Astra animam tellus ossa sed os tabula A FRESH SVIT Against HUMAN CEREMONIES IN GOD'S VVORSHIP OR A Triplication unto D. BVRGESSE HIS REJOINDER For D. MORTON The First Part. Psal. 119 113. I hate vayn inventions but thy saw doe I love Printed Anno 1633. An ADVERTYSEMENT to the Reader Occasioned by the never enough lamented death of my deare freind the Authour of this Fresh suite VNderstand Christian Reader that with the comming forth of this booke into the light the learned and famous Authour D r. Ames left the light or darknes rather of this world His name for diverse reasons not needfull here to be recited hath been hitherto concealed and that which generally was but imagined before viz. that the Repl. and this fresh suit to D. B. Rejoynder to be his work now it is certainly known to be his that none need to doubt therof It pleadeth trueth succinctly yet perspicuously and with sinewy Answeres to B.M. and D. B. poore Sophisms as indeed his veinc in all his writings and discourses did most admirably lead him to do Concerning this matter I may not keep back what I heard him speake as in the sight of God that he was in his conscience more perswaded of the evill of these reliques of Popery and monuments of that superstition then ever and yet he never had seen good in them or come from them and that moreover if D. B. or any other of them would yet be daubing with suntempered mortar and not give over to paint rotten sepulchres he was by the grace of God resolved still to maintain the cause and while he liued never let fall the uit commenced this way not that he sought victorie to himselfe no That trueth might returne out of the feild with conquest was the highest pitch of his ambition And though this worthy of the Lord be with us no more yetGod I trust who is rich in mercy and hath more then one blessing will as need shall require supply the advantage trueth had and now hath lost in the losse of this glorious instrument Together with his life God hath put an end to all his travailes wherein he shewed himself a pattern of holines a burning and a shining light and lamp of learning Arts a Champion for trueth specially while for the space of 12 yeares at least he was in the Doctors Chaire at Franequer and having foughâ— the good fight of faith whereunto he was called professed a good profession before nyamwitnesses he hath now indeed layd hold on eternall life His spirit gon to the spirits of just men and his body committed to the ground we committ his labours to thy use wherein he being dead yet speaketh and his memorie we hope shall live for ever Fare well in Christ the Fountain of all welfare To the renovvned King EDVVARD THE SIXT And so To our present Soueraigne King CHARLES his Successor IOHANNES ALASCO a Godly Learned Polonian Baron and Superintendent of the Church of strangers at London in the Epistle Dedicatory of his tractate Concerning the Sacraments printed at London An o. 1552. WEll doth that Father and vvithout doubt diserueth praise vvho having a daughter a Virgin dravvne by the guile of panders into some levvd and dishonest house and there trimmed after the vvhorish guise doth presently rescue her thence and bring her home to his ovvne house before shee be utterly spoyled But the same Father if he be vvise thinks it not enough for the safty of his daughter and the honor of his house that he hath brought her home agayne vnles he take from her vvholly vvhatsoever he knovves to be accounted in those houses a vvhorish attyre Neyther doth he inquire vvhence such attyre came first but iudgeth it dishonorable to himselfe and so unvvorthy his daughter and vvhole family that any such thing at all as strompets haue vsed for dressings in their houses should appeare in his Neyther doth hee giue eare to their persvvasions vvho beare him in hand that all things are to bee Esteemed according to the Fathers mynd in his ovvne house and so thinke that the Fathers approbation can make that honest in his ovvne house for his daughter and vvhole family vvhich in another house is most dishonest for any daughters that regard their ovvne credits ascribing so much to the Fathers prerogatiue that vvhat soever he approues must be of others vvell liked of so farre as it concernes his ovvne house For he knovves full vvell that although all those things vvhich he hath authorized in his ovvne house be there vvell thought of yet that is not enough synce the honor of his daughter and his vvhole Family must not only hee cared for vvithin his ovvne house but also throughout the vvhole Citie that he may remoue all evill suspicions from his family among all his neighbours and is heedfull that the panders haue not the least occasion left them of challenging or laying clayme to the sayd daughter as hauing some of their vvhor-house-marks upon her Even so in the Church of God as in a city Magistrates and Ministers are in place of parents having the pure and right Administration of the Sacraments committed unto them of God for to be tended and tendered as their ovvne daughter It is therfore very commendable in these parents of the church as vvee may terme them if they rescue the lavvfull pure Administration of the Sacraments from the violence and tyrany of the Romish Panders by taking it into their ovvne care and Custody But heer they ought to remember Especially they vvho are called by the holy Spirit Eminent Ministers of God and Nursing Fathers of his church I.E. Christian Kings and Monarchs that it is not enough for them thus to have brought this daughter out of the Papists stevves home into their ovvne care and keeping unles they also put of from her all that dressing vvhich they knovv to be vvhorish in the sayd stevves that no such thing may be seene vvith them vvhich may be accounted vvhorish Especially in that citty vvhere there is great Variety of judgments the ouerruling vvherof by mans Autority is not to bee expected and vvhere there are so mamy hucksters for the stevves remayning Nor let them heare the delusions of those vvho suggest that such kindes of dressing from vvhence soeuer they bee taken may bee made good honest by Authoritye For vvell they knovv they are not set ouer the vvhole church of God but only one part of it as a Family in a Citty and that therfore though they could beare out such things at home by their Authoritye yet it is their dutye as they regard publike Chastity and honesty to procure the honor of their daughter and familye not only vvithin their ovvne vvalls but alsoe throughout the vvhole citty not suffring any thing to be seene vvithin
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
vvould not breake our heads vvhyle others haue bound our hands Lett him but graunt us indifferent termes euen the common curtesy of the court an impertiall pleading vve desire no more favour then the cause by its ovvne credit vvill procure Lett the larv be open as the rigour of Iustice allovves To vvhich purpose shall he so far prevayle vvith his Lord BB. that vve may enjoy the use of our books the liberty of the presse if not the benefit of our charges yet freedome of breathing in our native soyle vvith our poore desolate families And I dare promise him he shall not vvant those that vvill joyne issue vvith him in this traverse either by vvriting or printing that vvithout any gaudy expressions vvherof he accuseth M r. Parker but by playe dynt of Syllogisme vve vvill take our oaths as he in desireth that each man of us shall vvrite his conscience vvhich I vvonder vvhy the D r. putt in since it s openly knovvne to all that vvill not shutt their eyes that all conscience doeth not liue dye alone vvith conformable men But if vve neither haue nor he vvill procure us leaue or liberty either to preach or vvrite or print yea scarce to liue then he must knovve vve are denied the benefitt of the lavv the Curtesy of the Court in vayne he braggs of his traverse To pursue all the particulars objected ansvvered in his ovvne beshalf is not vvorth the vvhyle since no vveight of the cause lyes ther upon Only one â—ravado here vented by the Rej. is not to be borne vvhich is observably sett dovvne in the 14. ob D. Burges hath parted vvith more profitt by taking up conformity and a benefice then any novv in England hath done by his unconformity and losse of a benefice Surely he myndeth not so affectionately as he should the affliction of his brethren VVhat did D. B. part vvith Nothing but future contingent uncertayne profitt vvhich made him liable to be envied and opposed by the colledge of phisitions Profitt vvhich vvas not necessary to his life being depending upon extraordinary paynes such as in all probability he could not haue long indured or at least vvith contentement of mynd His Pshisick practise made that change vvhich Tully commendeth in Merchandize Satiata quaestu vel contenta potius ut saepe ex alto in portum sic ex ipso portu se in agros possessionesque contulit After sufficient gettings it forsooke both sea sea-hauen and betooke it self to quietnesse and plentie in the countrie On the other side vvhat haue not vvhat do not men loose by unconformity Even all their meanes of living all their liberty not only of providing for themselves their families but even of breathing in any ayre saving onely that vvhich may be dravven out of stinking prisons Nay somtyme all the Commodity of their Country or Nationall habitation being forced to flye euen unto the indians for safety to say nothing of their losse of life it selfe by cruell imprisonments Novv let our Saviour judge betvvixt us D.B. The poore vvidovv sayth he that parted but vvith tvvo mites parted vvith more then they did vvho out of their plenty parted vvith many sheckells because those tvvo mites vvere all that she had If this be true then many many a one hath parted vvith more profitt for Non-conformity then D. B. did for Conformity for soe much as they haue parted vvith all they had he only vvith part of that vvhich he had or might haue hoped to gett superfluous in comparison of that vvhich others haue lost To conclude all I suppose if vve vvere vvilling to suffer vve should be more vvilling both to search see the truth I doubt not but the Lord vvould settle the hearts of such blesse their indeauors in that behalfe All that I vvould craue at thy hands Christian reader is this that thou vvouldest read vvithout prejudice and judge vvithout partiality judge not the person or cause of the distressed the vvorse because of their pressure or paucity VVelcome Christ vvith his crosse any truth though vvith trouble Be vvilling the truth should fall on any side as vvorthy to be prised loued for it selfe That is all I desire for my money Religion conscience reason vvill not denie this Rules for to direct the weake reader hovv to read the booke vvith profitt VVhere these abbreviations occurr D.B. signifies D r. Burges Rej. signifies D r. Burges Repl. notes the Replier Def. signifieth D. Morton 2. Because the Replyer is forced to follovv D r. Burges in his farr fetched nevv coyned definition the maze of the multitude of his distinctions the vveaker understanding vvill be att a losse as not able to comprehend or catch his meaning suddenly therfore if I vvere vvorthy to aduise I vvould intreat such to craue the helpe of some judicious Minister vvho is faithfull not to betray him for hauing the booke but vvilling and able to informe him hovv to conceiue of it aright The Replyer his maner of vvriting being presse punctuall therefor setts dovvne soo much of the Rejoynders vvordes as he conceiued needfull if any difficulty arise therefrom the Reader is to be entreated to consult vvith the ansvvere at large The faults escaped correct thus pag 17. in the margent line 3. for sext reade sort pag 20. lin 22. for accuratnes reade accurate pag 24. lin 5. for captivale reade captivate Ibidem lin 18 for es reade endes pag 25. lin 1. for they reade to pag 26. lin 20. for oter reade over pag 27. lin 7. for dowur reade downe Ibidem in the margent lin 17. for ito reade to pag 37. lin 14. for there reade either pag 42. in marg lin 2. for Graecos reade Graccos pag 50. collum 2. lin 9. for these reade those pag 71. lin 9. for had reade hould pag 75. lin 2. put out by An Alphabeticall TABLE Of the Principall Occurrents in this FRESH SVIT Where note that 1. p. and 2. p. at the end sometimes of the number directing to the page stands for 1. part and 2. part A. AVgustin what he thought but durst not speak p. 33.2 p. His judgement of signes p. 223. His Condemning the very nature of such Ceremonies where some choise things are noted p. 228. Adjuncts called Parts by Ramus p. 156.2 p. Anabaptists occasioned reformation of Cermon p. 19.1 p. and 457.2 p. B. BEzas cleare judgement of Episcopall authority p. 91.1 p. Beza expresseth the Commune sentence of our Divines of the ancient Bishops viz that they were ever too busy about Ceremonies p. 228 Bucers wish about Holy-dayes viz. that there were not so much as one left besides the Lords-day p. 360. Baines his Syllogisme against our Ceremonies confirmed p. 258. Brightmans answere to Iuel p. 503. Babingtons Comment on Levit. 10.1 observable against our Ceremonies p. 24.2 p. Bradshaws opinion of indifferent things opened p. 161. Bellarmins answer to the
it then or what intend you by it here he leaves himself not a muse or a hole to escape but even a broad feild to walk at liberty in either to affirme or deny what he will For presse him thus If it be not the reference of a cause or part is it then referred by way of comparison No Is it by way of opposition No And thus where shall we hould him or make him stay Nay where will he himself fynd footehold to stand Iust for all the world as if he should defyne a man to be a living creature which is not a byrd nor a fish nor a lambe nor an oxe how senselesse and sapplesse would such descriptions be and yet this of the Rej. in this place is the like And hence it is that in stead of a clearer knowledge and apprehension of the thing which should be gayned by a definition I dare be bould to make it good for I speake but what by experience I have found that the most ordinary yea judicious readers when they thought they knew some thing of a Cerem before after they had read this definition they knew just nothing at all Thus his defining is like flinging dust in the eyes of a mans understanding to delude and deceave at the least to dazell and trouble his reason I hope by the next returne the Rej. will be content to acknowledge this fault and will tell us in plaine English what he meanes by this reference which if he do I am verily perswaded he will be forced to see how far wyde he was when he mynted and vented these feeble conceits How ever we will see what we can make of it and in this our enquiry it must not seeme strange to the D rs learning that being simple men our dull capacityes compasse severall wayes that we may fynd out the foundation upon which this assertion is built In which we professe in a word of truth our desire is not to pervert his meaning but to understand it It 〈◊〉 mâ—ny waye◠〈…〉 can be taken This reference then in the generall wherein it is propounded can carry but two significations we may consider both that we may guesse at the mynd of the author 1. It s taken for relation in open phrase Corall 6.33 and so also he declares it and in a fayre construction seemes to intend it for so he writes It is not divine nor humaine institution that makes a Câ—remon Reference in no sense can be the forme of a Cerem for that it is the relation as hath beene sayd which constituteth If this be his meaning then the two relats betwixt whom this relation is must be their action referring and the matter or thing unto which it is referred but in this sense it doth thrust it self caries a contradiction with it All relates are mutuall causes one of another And doe consist of mutuall affection betweene each other Constant ex mutua alterius affectione As there cannot be buying without selling giving without taking assume we now in this sense but the action outward to the thing wherunto it is referred are relats Therfore they are mutuall causes one of another therfore how can they be in this reference and yet be not a cause one of another which the Rej. expresseth and requireth this sense not houlding let us see how the other will serve his turne Reâ—erence takeÌ„ in the largest sense can not be the forme of a Cerem 2. This reference in a large sense implyes any kynd of notionall respect which can be considered and conceaved besyde that of a cause or part and this drawes many absurdities with it 1. That which belongs to substantiall worship as well as ceremoniall that cannot be the difference or proper nature of a Ceremony for then they should not be distinct one from another but to be referred to some thing not as a cause or part belongs even to substantiall worship as well as Ceremoniall For each worship of God hath proper and particular causes of which it is made and unto which it is referred as an effect not as a cause or part 2. The Induction of particulars will make it undeniable profession of the true God and the truth of the Gospell is referred to both not as a cause or part of either ergo sound profession is a ceremony Prayer in all the kynds of it confession to God petitioning from God are referred to him not as causes or parts ergo they are ceremonies Hearing attending conserving examining things heard are referred thereunto not as causes or parts of the things ergo they are ceremonies Nay to beleive and hope in God to love and feare him are referred to God not as causes or parts ergo these are Ceremon If it be here said yea but these are inward actions whereas our Cerem are said to be outward by the Rej. I answ be it graunted yet this kynd of reference being the proper forme of a Ceremon the reason still houlds good though we have no need of this example having so many before mentioned for wheresoever the forme or proper nature of a thing is there the thing formed will be as its a sound kynd of reasoning where ther is a reasonable soule as a forme there is a man Lastly to deride contemne rayle revyle Christ his truth and servants is an outward action purposely observed with reference to these by persecutors not as causes and parts of them ergo these are but Ceremon synnes and is not here wyld work thinks thou Christian reader 3. That which is common to all actions and all things can not be a forme and difference of a Cerem to make it differ from all other but thus to be referred to another not as a cause or part is common to all outward actions naturall civill religious yea to all naturall artificiall things Thus all acts may be referred one to another and all other to Divinity not as causes or parts of Divinity are they therfore all Cer Nay all precepts of art are referred the former to the latter not as causes or parts ergo are they in this Rej. conceit and by the verdiâ—t of this definition Ceremo Amongst the examples of this difference the last is to be attended unto because it hath a remarkable note added unto it Convening in one set place at an honore appointed unto worship saith the Rej. is in that relation a ceremony of worship and yet as it is an observance of order it is no Ceremo Of this ther can be no doubt but the observation of tyme and place in reference to another thing is according to the definition of the Rej. a ceremony But how an observation of this tyme and place can be considered as an order without reference to some thing to be ordered in that tyme and place that so it may be differenced from the same order as it is a ceremony this is a metaphisicall abstraction as I cannot conceave of
so farr it is from following from the definition naturally that all the cords of reason cannot drawe them together as it will appeare if any man will putt it to triall by all the topick places of invention we will therefore rest untill we heare what Balsame the D r. brings to heale this wound The nynth and last Consectary is The nynth Consectary grosse contradictions That Ceremonies may in regard of their generall kynd and end be worship so farr as they are in their kynd parts of order and decency and yet in their particulars not be of the substance of order comlines worship We are at last therfore come to a strange reckoning Pag. 38. Cer. are in their kynd parts of order yet as we were tould pag. 31. that order so farr as it is order is in that respect no ceremony 2. A Ceremo in respect of the genus and end is worship and yet in the consectary immediately going before it was peremptorily pronounced that use and end maketh not a Ceremony part of Divine worship I take the cause of this crosse Doctrine to be that humaine ceremonies in divine worship are such a crosse knott that he who seeks to open the conveyances of it must needs run crosse in his thoughts and words To make this crossing more plaine let us first debate a little more fully the truth of this corallarie The Consect opened and then see what followeth therefrom We here have three conclusions 1. Ceremonies in their kynd as they are parts of order and decency may be acts of religion 2. Yet the particulars may not be of the substance of order 3. That the particulars are not Divine which propositions are plainly expressed in the corallary if they be not contradictious one to another I must confesse I must bidd all reason and logick farewell or else the Rej. hath a new logick which yet never saw light And therfore I reason thus If every particular have the whole nature of the Genus in it then the generall being divine 1. Contradiction the particulars must be divine but every particular of order and decency are species to generall nature of order c. therfore they have the whole nature of order in the generall ergo are divine to affirme the contrary which here is done is to say a living creature hath sense but the species man and beast hath none Or the nature of man is reasonable but the particulars Thom. or Ihon are not reasonable and thus the 3. conclusion implyes a contradiction to the first conclusion 2. Againe the second also is more grosse if more may be added If the generall give his whole substance nature to the particulars then if ther be any substance of order the particulars have it but the generall nature of order gives all the substance to the particulars ergo they have it the maintaining of the contrary conceit is to bidd battell to all reason and to deny a confessed common and receaved principle of art Genus est totum partibus essentiale Generall is that kynd of whole which gives his essence to the particulars For now farr should a man be forsaken of common sense who should affirme that manhood or the nature of man in generall should have the substance of reason but considered in his species and particulars Tho. and Ihon they should be wholly destitute of the substance of reason And assuredly good reader when I considered the wonderfull confidence of the disputer arrogating so much subtility and learning and yet to fall so foule and offend so heavily against the very rudiments of logick and principles of reason I could not but look up to heaven and lawfully as I could and tremblingly remember Isay. 29.14 that of the Prophet That the Lord is sayd to putt out the understanding of the Prudent Thus we have discussed the falshood of the Corallary we will now reason from it for our owne advantage taking the false graunt of the Rej. in this place Genus species ad idem spectant predicamentum Every species under a commaund stands by virtue of the same commaund the Genus doth as that is a common rule in reason the generall and speciall appertaine to the same place and it is a rule in Divinity receaved without gaynsaying the generall commaund by the same stroke and compasse comprehends all the particulars under it and when that by way of precept is enjoyned all the rest by the same rule by virtue of the same commaund are also required We must preserve the life of our Brother that is the generall of the 6. Commaund by the same precept all the particulars of wayes and meanes which are the specialls of preservation are required but the particulars of order and decency are under the generall of order and decency ergo these particulars stand by virtue of the same commaund they do And by the Rej. graunt these standing by a commaund of divine worship and being proper acts thereof ergo it must needs follow that the particulars stand by vertue of the commaund of Divine worship and are proper acts thereof we see by this tyme whither the D rs Divinity hath brought him Againe if they be so commaunded and be such proper acts of worship of such acts the Rej. confesseth the Negative arg from Scripture concludeth well Such acts of proper worship cannot be imposed by man or the Church significant ceremonies which cary such acts of worship are unlawfull and thus by one graunt he hath yeilded there of the arguments which he strives after to answere and to overthrowe CHAP. V. Of the sorts and differences of Ceremonies THe first partition of Ceremo into private or publike close or open may passe for the evidence of it but yet it may be quaestioned seing institution is essentiall to a Ceremony as before we have beene taught to whom the institution of private Ceremonies do belonge whether the convocation house may appoint men when they eat and drink goe to bedd and rise up to signe themselves with the signe of the Crosse The second partition into Ceremon civill sacred or mixt Civill when theire immediate object and end is civill Sacred The distribâ—tion is imperfect and excludes naturall Cerem out of the world when the immediate object and end is matter pertaining to religioÌ„ requireth more attention And 1. it is to be noted that by this division all naturall Ceremo are abrogated or excluded for else the first distribution should have beene Ceremo are either naturall or instituted Now Bellarmine himself more considerately maketh some ceremon naturall De effect Saeram lib. â— cap. 29. Qâ—aedam Ceremoniae sunt ab ipsa natura â—uodammodo institutae quae naturales dici possunt quale est respicere in â—â—â—lum tollere manus â—â—ectere genua cum Deâ—â—m oramus Certaine Cerem receave institution as it were from nature it self which may be called naturall Cerem as to looke
the Rejoynder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Crosse. 1. because the crosse maketh no alteration of what Christ did ordayne saying doe this 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptisme as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper 3. it is not esteemed an instrumentall signe of any grace given by the use of it as they took their sops to be 4. their sopping destroied the very Sacrament And for these differences the Repl. is bidden to hang downe his head for asking suche a quaestion But 1. Addition is as evill as alteration For when Christ sayd doe this he meant as well doe this onely as doe this all Fac hoc totum fac hoc tantum as Zanchie expoundeth it Addition also is some alteration if not of the things instituted yet of the institution as making it unsufficient or incomplete by it self alone 2. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine but were bread and wine Neyther were they first or onely or for any thing appeareth at all used by Haereticks as the Rejoinder for his advantage without ground avoucheth but by ancient Churches at least in some cases as is manifest out of Prosper de Promissionibus Dimidium temporis cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit etc. Sopping was so farre from being a matter of Haeresie that as it seemeth it was receyved among the Fathers so longe as infants communicating in the Lords Supper which was as D. Morton confesseth Appeale lib. 2. cap. 13. sect 3. for sixe hundred yeers 3. Sopping of bread in wine considered abstractly from bread and wine was no signe instituted as an instrument of grace For so sayth Cassander pag. 1027. out of Ivo this custome of Sopping prevailed onely through feare of shedding and not by direct authority 4. It is too severe a sentence Invaluit hac intingendi consuâ—tudo non autâ—ritate sid timore effusionis against those ancient Christians in Prospers time and which is more as Cassander and Hospinian judge in Ciprians that they destroyed the very substance of Sacrament The setting forth of Christs death was not excluded though some part of the bloud was representatively joined unto the body A man is dead that lieth in his bloud though some of it soak againe into his body The Fathers sixe hundred yeers together did not destroy the substance of the Sacrament Hitherto therfor appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang downe his head Let us see if more cause be in the comparisons he maketh betwixt sopping and crossing The first was the bread and wine the onely things used in sopping were ordeyned by Christ so is not the Crosse. The Rejoynder answereth here nothing to the purpose save onely that they were ordeyned to be used apart From whence it followeth onely that it is unlawfull to use them not apart And so it followeth that Baptisme must as well be used apart orseparated from the Crosse because it was ordeyned so to be used and the Crosse was not ordeyned for any religious use eyther apart or with other thinges The second is that sopping hath some agreement with reasoÌ„ Crossing hath none The Rejoynder hence maketh two consequences 1. Ergo Christ in ordeyning the Sacrament otherwise hath doen some thing not agreable to reason 2. Ergo the Churche in Crossing hath been void of all reason fifteeÌ„ hundred yeare And upon these groundes he crieth out of madnesse But so madnesse may be found in any assertion if it be first put out of the right wittes or sense as this is For the meaning was not that Sopping is agreable to right reason in the Sacrament but in civill use where the aeriall Crosse hath none Yet it may be added if it were lawfull for men to adde to Gods ordinances in the Sacraments then ther would be founde more probabilitie of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread wine as a manner of food theÌ„ a mysticall aereall crosse into the use of water which is no manner of washing As for the Churche it hath not universally used the crosse so longe except the Waldenses and others like unto them were none of the Churche The same Churche that used crossing used also for divers hundreds of years to give the Sacrament of of the Supper unto infants without reason and the continuation of the Crosse more hundreds of years addeth no reason unto it except reason in suche things doeth increase with their age Many thinges have been used in the Churche without reason or else ther is reason wee should still use all that have been used caeteris paribus If ther be any good reason in the crosse let that be tried by reason and not by slipperie conjectures taken from the persons using it The third comparison was that Sopping was used by Christ at the very table of the Supper but Crossing was never so muche honored by him or his Apostles as to use it at any time The Rejoynder answereth that this argument would prove as well that the eating of a Paschall lambe before the Sacrament to be better then Sprinkling of water on the foâ—ehead of the Baptized Because CHRIST did that and not this But this is not so well For that 1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremonie distinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used 2. It is very probable that the Apostles goeing into the colder part of the world did use sprinkling 3. Concerning a Paschall lambe used before the Sacrament as a Ceremonie morally significant and reductively Sacramentall I see not why it should not be praeferred before the Crosse or any suche invention even because Christ did use it if that Circumcision be now a lawfull Christian Ceremonie as the Def. and Rejoynder professe and mainteyne pag. 285. It is also crediblie reported a great Bishop not long since living that every Easter day he used to have a wholle lambe praepared after the Pascall manner brought to his table D. B. knoweth well who it was and of whom he hath heard it The fourth comparison was that sopping was no new signe but Crossing is The Rejoynder opposeth that it had been an abomination to eat the Pascall lambe sodden but the addition of sitting or leaning on couches though a new signe added by them selves was lawfull etc. Of which speache the first part is granted viz. a sodden lambe had been an abomination neyther isa sopping communion excused In the second ther is observable partiallitie in that he calleth setting an addition to the Passeover and yet in the same answer with the same breath denieth the crosse to be any addition unto Baptisme The ground of all is rotten viz. that sitting was a religious significant Ceremonie instituted by men These thinges considered let any man judge what cause the Rejoynder had to talke in this place of the Repl his roome-conscience contentious spirit smitten with giddinisse forsaken of wisdome In that
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
the old rites of the law or to devise new in their place to signify the trueth of the gospel now come to light as for example to use banners and Crosses to signe Christs victorie on the Crosse of which kind of iâ—ly devised repraesentions is the whole furniture of Masse accontrements which they say doeth set forth the whole passion of Christ and many such like things Of which sacred ceremonies Christ preacheth out of Isajah In vaine they worship me teaching for doctrines the preceps of men Whiche last wordes are in every syllable of them founde Marc. 7.7 Is not this so muche as a glance at Marc. 7 Suerly heer the Rej. had more affection to his cause then attentation to the place in quaestion 6. Of Calvin see the former chapiter Yet heer also let these words of his be remembred Omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnars miniâ— me obscurunâ— est Eos errare Christus pronunciat qui loco doctrina obtrudu ut hominum mandata fixum illud maneat fictitios omnes cultus coram Deo vanos esse In these words it is evident that all will worships are condemned Christ pronounceth them erroneous which for Doctrine obtrude mens pâ—aeceps Let this stand firme all devised worships are most vaine before God Vnder whiche censure and sentence that he includeth suche significant Ceremonies as ours are it appeareth as out of his condemning them in the Lutherans against Westphalus so out of his owne practise in Geneva and France where all suche are abolished for he professeth de necess ref Eccl. We have touched nothing no not with the least finger to remove it except that which Christ accounts nothing Nil vel minimo digito attigimus nisi quod pro nihilo Christus ducit cum frustra coli Deum humanis traeditionibus pronunciâ—t seing he pronounceth God is vainely worshipt by humane traditions 7. Virel in Catechism in praecep 2. extendeth the second Commandement unto the forbidding of every humane religious likenesse The Rej. also confesseth that the same Virel there condeÌ„neth all superstition to which he if he had added his definition of superstition viz that it is a worshiping of God by rites and Ceremonies devised of man all would have been plaine Neyther is it materiall that Virel pointeth not to Marc. 7. as the Rej noteth seing he groundeth his doctrine upon Matth. 15.9 where the same words are found which in Marc. 7.7 are repeated The Rej. therfore had no shew of reason to say that Virel was abused in that he was cited as interpreting Marke because by his owne confession he doeth interpret the same wordes which are found in Marke 8. Zepperus his testimonie which was not his alone but the common sentence of diverse Protestant Synodes as appeareth out of his praeface is so full that the Rejoynder in him forbare his common accusation that he was abused His words are these de Pol. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 10. reg 3. Cum Dâ—us per humanas traditiones frustra colatur Mat 15.9 perque illas in hominum cordibus efficax esse non velit oneras illas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse opinionem tantum sapientiae habentes per quas nullam animorum devo tionem fidem invocationem poenitentiam veram in cordibus excitare velit reg 4. Ceremonia ab hominibus administrationi Sacramentorum assutae tetidem sunt varierum errorum idololatriae superstitionum seminaria fomenta Tales Ceremoniae sunt abolendae Mat 15 6. Mar. 7.9 Hinc manifestum evadit abroganda esse circa Baptismum oleum sal aquaem lustralem cereos characterem Crucis etc. Sith God is worshipped in vaine by humane traditious Mat. 15.9 Nor will be of an efficacie by such things in the hearts of men and being meere will-worships Carrying but an opinion of wisdome through which God will never stir up devotion prayer faith and repentancâ— in us c. And againe The ceremonies Cobled or botcht by men to the administration of the Sacraments are so many seminaries and nurseries of errour idolatrie and superstition such ceremonies are to be abolished Mat. 15. Marc. 7. Whence it is manifest that about Baptisme oyle salt holy water tapers the signe of the crosse c. are to be abrogated If these words be not to the purpose in the Rejoynder his owne conscience then I despaire of satisfying him about any testimonie that maketh against that tenet which he is resolved to mainteyne as they say by hooke or crooke 9. D. Fulke sayth the Rejoynder did not thinke humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant when no religion or service of God is placed in them Which is as muche as if he had sayd D. F. did not think humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant when they are not significant For as hath been shewed in the former part all religious Ceremonies instituted by their signification to raise up the heart unto the honoring of God have some religion and service of God placed in them And that D. Fulke did mean by placing of religion or Gods service in them the using of them unto religious use it appeareth by a like place in Act. 17. sect 5. Though it be not simplie unlawfull to expresse in painting the visible shapes shewed in Visions to the Prophets yet to make those shapes for any use of religion is abominable idolatrie 10. For D. Raynolds the Rejoynder answereth 1. that he giveth no hint touching the interpretation of this place 2. that he onely inveigheth against the multitude and burthen of Symbolicall rites shewing their use in Poperie to be Iewish 3. that D.R. judged our â—ignificant Ceremonies lawfull to be used in case of silencing and deprivation Now for the first I answer that as ther are hints of interpretation for many places of the olde Testament in the new which yet are not cited there so may it be that D. R. gave a hint without quoting About the third point I 1. observe that by the Rejoynder his owne relation D. Rain was not of his and D. Mortons judgemen For he judged our Ceremonies onely tollerable in case of extremitie but they allow the very institution of them as good and profitable for order decencie and aedification 2. D.R. never manifested to the world in publick any reasons for that judgement but rather for the contrarie as by and by we shall hear 3. Ther is a kinde of suspensive judgement suche as Cyrill Peter Lombard as Estius in 2. d. 21. alledgeth and interpreteth them say Eve had about the Serpents speaking to which the iniquitie of times doe draw many godly and learned men not onely about Ceremonies violently urged by with greivous poenalties but also about greater matters as experience in all ages hath shewed But that is nothing to others as being destitute or forsaken of certaine groundes or supportes Concerning the second and mayne poynt the best way is to set downe D.R. his owne wordes which are these
can be interpreted onely of I knowe not what mysteries of the Gospell or Ceremonies supplying the office of true Sacramentes further then our Argument doeth importe If not then the Rejoynder granting the premisses denieth the conclusion as he did before The Confession condemneth banners by name and Crosses signifying the victorie of Christ through his Crosse Our men defende the signe of the Crosse signifying that Christians shall not be ashamed to fight manfully against Satan under Christs Banner The Divines of France and the Lowe Contries with the Confession reject all Ceremonies that cary some mysterie or signification in them Our question is whether humane Ceremonies of mysticall signification be lawfull If these testimonies be not plaine enough I knowe not what is plaine 3. Peter Martyr on 1. King 8 is the next witnesse of whome the Rejoynder sayth that he speaketh of Exorcisme oyle spittle and exsufflation to all which the Papists ascribe operation and to that ende doe consecrate some of them by prayer Beside sayth he Martyr did approve these our Ceremonies as lawfull and bowing of the knee at the name of Iesus so that he wondereth Martyr should be alleged in this cause Now therfore let us hear P. Martyr himself speak Cum Deus fiâ— sapienti simus non opus habet ut nostro cogita tu vel industria illi paremus instrumenta ad fidem in nobis excitandam Quod etiam quisquam Artifex in sua facultate minime ferret sed ipsemet vellet suo arbitratis sibi deligere Magna est it aque audacia horum hominum qui Deo velint organa praescribere quibus ad nostram salut emoperetur Signa multâ—plicant quae sacra esse volunt adhibendo oleum sputum exsufflationes et alia hâ—jusmodi Quo circa unum Baptismâ— Sacramentum in multa de geneâ—at Nec audiendi sunt quando ut simplicibuâ— illudant distinctionem inter Sacraementa Sacramentalia confingunt qua omnino Sopâ—istica est The most wise God needeth none of our help to devise meanes to excite faith nor would the meanest Mechanie endure to c. See before how bold then are these men who will praescribe to God wherewithall to help forward our salvation They multiplie signes which they will leave to be sacred as oyle spittle exsufflations etc. that one Sacrament of Bapt. is much degenerate Nor are they to be heard when to abuse the simple they use to distinguish betwene Sacrament and Sacramentals meer Sophistrie As for operation we have ofte shewed that many Papists ascribe no more of that nor no other wise to many of their Ceremonies then the Def. and Rejoynder doe allow of in ours Consecration by prayer may as well be used about a Surplis as about a Churcheyard It is playne by the wordes that P. M. doeth condemne all meanes instituted by man for the stirring up of our faith which are in the Def. and Rejoynder his language mysticall morall ceremonies serving for aedification saying that no Carpenteâ— or Mason would be so dealt with in his occupation as the institutors of suche mysticall Ceremonies doe deal with God He accounteth humane sacred signes in Religion to be humane Sacraments and will not admitte of suche distinctions as the Rejoynder hath multiplied Sacred properly and reductively rightly or abusively sacred simple or double sacred Sacramentall or morall reductive or analogicall Sacramentalls etc. Yet we denie not but the same P.M. being somtime perplexed in the case of England did suffer his affection to cary him so farr that he seemeth to make some of our Ceremonies in some case tollerable But then any man may perceyve wavering in his wordes as when in his epist. to Hooper he requireth five conditions in suche Ceremonies 1. that the Churche hath libertie to ordeyne them 2. that the worship of God be not placed in them 3. That they be few 4. Not burdensome 5. Not a hinderance to better thinges The two first of which conditions are the very question viz whether the Churche hath any suche libertie and whether all suche Ceremonies be not part of worship Quid pro sunt in Baptismo Exorcismus consecratio aquae cereus sal sputum oleum vâ—stis candida nolae etc. Nunc ad Baptismi ornatum additamenta illa pertinent Num igitur sunt prudentiores Iesu Christo qui instituit Baptismum tanta cum simplicitatâ— puritate quique melius novit quam â—mnes simul homines quae illi conveniant ornamenta Qua est hac arrogantia adjiâ—ere institutioni Iesu Christi Gal. 3. and for the two last experience teacheth how burdensome our Ceremonies have been and are still to many good mens consciences and how muche good hath been hindered by the urging and practizing of them 4. Sadeel is put of with the like shift of consecration necescitie efficacie Sacramentall Now these terms have been sufficiently unmasked before in the first part Let Sadeel here onely be heard and he will tell his owne meaning The exorcisme holy water taper salt spittle white garment the little bells c. what good do they do in Baptisme Do they indeed being added to Baptisme ad at all to its ornament but what are these devisers of such things wiser then Christ Iesus who instituted Bapt. with such simplicity and purity as knowing better then all men besides what ornameÌ„ts suite best with his owne ordinaÌ„ces what arroganice is this to ad thus to Christs institutioÌ„ Gal. 3. the unction added to Bapt. we allow no more theÌ„ that of Confirmation Bec. it belongs to God onely to appoint SacrameÌ„ts The old pastors of the ChristiaÌ„ church did more then was mete accomodate themselves to Iewes and Gentiles whence many cere crâ—pt into the Church but Experience shewes God blessed not such Counsel Chrismae soâ— unctio Bapt. adhibita non magis novis probatur quam Chrisma Confirmationis quia unius est Dei constituerâ— Sacramenta Veteres Ecclesia Pastores plus aequo sese voluerunt tunâ— Iudaeis cum Et buicis accoÌ„modare Vndê multa Caremonia in Ecclesiam irrepferunt At experientia declaravit Deum non be nedixisse hiâ—c consolio etc. adverb Mon. Burdâ—g â—rt 1â— 13. In these wordes 1. all humane addition to Gods institutions are absolutely condeÌ„ned 2. Those that undertake to adde suche Cerem are censured of intolerable arrogancie as presuming to be wiser then Christ. 3. Lights and white garments are by name condemned which onely offend in theyr mysticall signification upon mans will 4. Chrisme or oyle in Baptisme is esteemed a Sacrament though the Papists denie it conferreth grace as the Sacraments 5. The first bringers in of Ceremonies onely significant into the Churche are taxed for departing from the simplicitie of Gods word as therin finding rather the curse then the blessing of God upon their presumptions 5. Daneus is the next whoe maketh it blasphemie to thinke and teache that any outward thinges of humane institution may be made a signe in the Churche of spirituall
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
Councel but manifestly explaineth the sentence wherin that contrarietie did mainly consist 3. Learned Iuel knew how to write plainely so that his wordes and meaning may be understood Now what his judgement was of Images for religious use adoration set a part apeareth evidently as in his 14. Article so especially in that notable and Propheticall sentence of his concerning the Image of the Crosse of Christ as it was in some place or places of England Si illa mala Crux stat nos cadimus If that evill Crosse stand wee or our religion must fall This is related by D. Humphrie in the historie of B. Iuels life and death a litle before the ende And in very deed except those which write against the Papists doe refute all Images instituted for religious signification they doe not make any difference bewixt us and a great part of Popish Doctors For as Bilson against the Iesuites Apologie pag. 572. well observeth this is the doubt betwixt us and the Papists whether we should not content our selves with suche meanes as God hath devized for us and commended unto us therby dayly to renue the memorie of our Redemption or else invent others of our owne heads Nay if we admitte of significant Images as religious Ceremonies I would fain know how we in England can condemne those that worâ—hip before them or them commemoratively or recordatively as Petrus de Crabrera in 3. q. 25. a 3. disp 2. n. 35. speaketh and Vasquez defendeth to be the common tenet of the Romish Doctors For that is nothing else but at the beholding of a Crucifixe or suche like Image and calling to minde Christ and our dutie to him upon the same to worship him whiche upon the supposition of their religious signification lawfull can hardly be condemned by those which hould kneeling at the Communion good Concerning Oyle Lighte Spitle Creame and H. Water 8. In the Abrigement unto Images were joyned Oyle Lights Spitle Cream and Holy Water But it pleased the Def. to passe over Lights and Cream untouched And concerning Oyle and Spitle by the Rejoynder his owne correction of the Repliers collection his answer is that they having their birth and being from an Apish imitation of a miraculous imployment of them are therfoâ—e to be kept out of doores though some significant Ceremonies be let in Now this is no answer as the Replier observed except the miraculous using of any thing doeth forbid that it should at any time after be used for signification Whiche the Rej. would neyther affirme nor denie but onely calleth it a flout But it is suche a flout as being granted it caâ—hiereth the Crosse as being above all other Ceremonies for fame of miracles wrought by it and the Surplice also as being in part an Apish imitation of the Angels miraculous apparitions in white But the trueth is our Prelats doe place it in the Churches power to retayne as Ceremonies of Baptisme Chrisme Salt Candles Exorcismes Ephata and the Consecration of the Water so well as the Crosse. These are the very wordes of Lancelot Andrues the late famous B. of Winchester in his answer to the 18. Chapter of Cardinall Perrons Replie pag. 12. or sect 17. For Holy Water his more distinct answer was that their i. e. Papists sprinkling of water upon the People for remembrance of their Baptisme if it were applied onely for to make them often mindfull and carefull to keep their vow of Christianitie made once to God in Baptisme it might be called a morall Ceremonie and Christian But as it is used in Romish Churche as operative to the purging of venialb sinnes and driving away of Devills it is Popish and execrable I am constreyned to repeat the Def. his wordes that they may discover the vanitie of the Rej. his exceptions against the replie to them opposed which was that Calvin Inst. lib. 4. cap. 10. s. 20. And Iunius in Bellarmine de Cultu Sanctorum libr. 3. cap. 7. n. 8. were of another minde c. The Rejoynder 1. blameth the Replier for making shew as if the Def. were fairely inclined to let in the use of Holy Water But without any cause except he will denie the Def. to be fairely inclined to let in the use of a morall Christian Ceremonie as the Defender calleth it 2. He observeth that the Def. named not H. Water but sprincking of Water upon the People Now the Rej. sayth expresly thus Wee come to that which they the Papists call H. Water their i.e. the Papists sprinkling of Water upon the People c. confounding plainely these two termes 3. He noteth that the Defender did not say it may be but it might be called Christian that is by the Rejoynder his interpretation if superstition had not stayned it Now I cannot see any difference betwixt that which the Replier sayth it may be accounted Christian were it not for this or that and this of the Rejoynders It might be so accounted if it were not for this or that But if a staine of superstition doeth hinder that a humane Ceremonie cannot be after called Christian though that superstition be taken from it by doctrine profession what will become of our Ceremonies which the Rejoynder doeth so labour to mainteyne as Christian that he hath scarce one threed left about him drie or free from his sweating 4. He denieth the Defender to have sayd that were it not for the operative power which is ascribed unto it it might be accounted Christian. Wherin whosoever will but look upon the Defender his owne wordes even now quoted must needes wonder what subtill difference the Rejoynder can conceyve betwixt his formall wordes as onely making mindfull it is Christian but not as operative and that sense which he denieth 5. Because both the Defender and Rejoynder doe make so muche of operative vertue ascribed by the Popish Doctors unto Holy Water for cleansing from veniall sinnes as that therin they place all the Poperie and fault of it let them knowe that diverse of the best learned amonge them doe flatly denie it As Estius in 4. pag. 14. Some speake improbably that Holy Water Conâ—erreth remission of venial sinne onely by the deed done Improbabiliter dicunt quidam aquam benedictam conferre remissionem venialium peccatorum ex opere operato Vasquez in 3. disp 128. cap. 5. ar 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial sinne nor were instituted for any such end but to stir up the mind to abandon them Now as for necessitie Sacramentalia non oâ—erantur remissionem peccatorum ventalium nâ—que instituta sunt ad eam significandam sed ad excitandum animum in detestationem illorum wherwith the Rejoynder would put off Calvin Bellarmin himselfe de Pontif. l. 4. c. 18. answereth It is an admonition or holy institution onely whithout any obligation to a fault if it be omitted Est admonitio vel pâ—a institutio sine obligatione ad â—ulpam Non peccant qui citrà contemptum
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.
of the Crosse tolerably yet considering the shamefull abuse of it it ought now of right and conscience to be condemned Martiall will none of that for sayth he things good in their owne nature must not be taken away or condemned for the abuse Very true but who will grant him that the signe of the Crosse is good of it selfe It is as much as may be borne to grant it a thing indifferent But sayth the Rejoynder our Ceremonies Doctor Fulke hath of my knowledge used and defended as lawfull Of this knowledge for his using and defending all our Ceremonies his writings doe constraine me at the least to doubt He was once so farre of from using all that rather then he would use the Surplice he went out of S t. Iohns Colledge in Cambridge with his pupils and hired chambers for himselfe and them in the towne M r. Travers is my author for this If afterward he was bowed something by the times unto a little use of one Ceremony that he might in some manner and measure excuse but if he had purposed to defend that and the other Ceremonies some foot-steps of that defence would be found in his writings as there are divers of his opposing them The knowne trueth is that many good men through the iniquity of the times have beene brought to be distressed betwixt desire of liberty in the Ministery and hatred of superstition so that they have sayd with the Apostle I know not which to choose and so afterward have given some place unto the later To judge their persons it is farre from us We onely make use of their free and undistressed judgement 17. Of D. Andrues and M r. Merbury I have not to say because their Catechismes I never saw D. Sutliffe though he were a Deane as the Rejoynder noteth yet he writ in his latter time as a Divine not as a Cathedrall man and so he was cited His proposition is this All Ceremonies taken from Iewes and Pagans are unlawfull We onely adde that Ceremonies taken from Papists are subject to the like censure because Popish superstition or Idolatry is no more lawfull then the other Of M r. Greenham beside that which hath beene often confuted the Rejoynder sayth onely that he did not perswade men against the use of our Ceremonies and that he was loath to be put unto the solution of that objection weare the Surplice or preach not In which there is nothing pertinent For to give proportionable answers I my selfe was present when an honest Conformist perswaded another not to conforme For sayd he though I have not strength enough to stand out yet I would not have you that have strength for to yeeld If all should yeeld the trueth concerning these matters would be buried and more superstition is to be expected This was more then not to perswade unto Conformity And as for the second I thinke the Defendant and Rej. would be loath to be put to the solution of this objection Confesse the Ceremonies to be unlawfull or loose your livings and liberties with disgrace Thus sayth the Rej. I have broken thorow the army of Protestants That is just so as a naked body breaketh thorow a thicket of thornes getting more gashes then he made steps for his passage SECT 21. Concerning the Assumption of this fourth Argument namely that our Ceremonies are human devises notoriously knowne to have beene and still to be abused unto Idolatrie and Superstition by the Papists and are of no necessarie use in the Church 1. THat this was the Assumption or second part of this Argument no man can doubt that readeth the Proposition or former part set downe in the first section of this Chapter and understandeth the processe of reason The Defendant therefore was blamed for setting downe the Assumption thus Our Ceremonies have beene Idolatrously abused by Papists The Rejoynder not willing to forsake him in any failing allegeth 1. That the Defendant tooke the substance of the Assumption from the Abridgement and others Which might indeed have occasioned him to adde some thing unto the Abridgers assumption but in no wise to detract any thing from it at least not out of them and others to patch up a false sylogisme the whole medium or third argument which was used in the proposition not being repeted in the Assumption which every punâ—e in Logick can put off with a wet finger He addeth 2. That the clause of no necessary use is no part of the Argument but an exception answered before sect 1. And yet see how he contradicteth himsâ—lfe The Defendant answered it but it was no part of their Argument He answered it was a part of the Assumption If in their exception of things necessary they meane a convenient necessity he denies their Assumption pag. 406. Yet now he denieth that to be any part of the Assumption The trueth is both the Defendant and Rejoynder were loath to meddle more then of necessity they must with the convenient necessity of our Ceremonies least they should evidently either wrong their consciences or betray their cause In the 3. place he denieth him to have omitted these words human inventions or devises saying that the Replier hath untruely added them because neither they nor any like them are in the Abridgement pag. 26. or 27. But let him or any other looke once againe upon the Abridgement in those pages and he shall see upon the margent these words All the Ceremonies in question are human inventions c. After this he accuseth the Repl. for not observing every word of the Abridgement in repeating the Assumption but he could shew no sensâ— changed let that therefore passe 2. The Defender his answer to the foresayd Assumption was by the Replier thus collected These Ceremonies are eyther generally or individually and numerally the same that have been abused to Idolatrie If generally then it hindereth not but they may still be lawfully used though they have been so abused If individually then it is not true which is affirmed in the Assumption neyther doeth it follow from thence that they must be abolished because they have been so abused except they be the same formally that is in intention and opinion of those that impose practise them For this he is accused by the Rejoynder of doeing no justice but playing a theefes part whoe changeth coates with an honest passenger Now for this to spare the labor of writing out againe many lines I desire the Reader to looke upon the Defender his wordes as they are reprinted by the Rejoynder himself pag. 561. compare them with the Replier his summe If he can discerne any difference let the Defender be the honest man and the Replier what it pleaseth the Rejoynder to make him No material difference is noted by the Rejoynder but onely that the Defender hath not those words if generally then it hindereth not but they may still be lawfulâ—y used though they have been so abused nor any thing which will bear such a
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
they vvill accord The Doctor must vvrite that he may not be vvrought out of the hearts of his people pag. 11. And yet he confesseth by vvriting he hath vvrought himselfe out of the hearts of the godly His defense to the 2. obj is yet more feeble though more ingenious For his ansvvere is nothing but yeilding the cause in some compasse and circumlocution of vvords For 1 vvhen he graunts that he forbore some yeares this course of vvriting that he might not exasperate authority he privily yea playnly yeilds the objection had such rationall face in it that it did not only presse him but prevayle vvith him also vvhere as 2. ly he adds that by this meanes he hath some hope to persvvade some to conforme so to avoyd the lash of authority By this he doth not only yeild the objection but confirme establish it For if only those vvho are persvvaded by his ansvvere shall avoyd the lash therfore they vvho vvill not be persvvaded must expect the blovv and shall be sure to feele it 3. He adds for his ovvne intention Sure I am that I desire not the vexation of any sober man But his ovvne bond vvill not be taken because he hath so often broke his vvord he must seek for other suretyes Quid verba audiam cum facta videam Little povver have vvords to persvvade any of common understanding vvhen the practise goes the contrary vvay Nor yet can I discerne hovv to judge of any mans desire but only by his indeavour Those heavy accusations uncharitable censures vvherby he chargeth that vvith much bitternes the generation of Non-conformists from vvhat root they come vvhat desire they imply let any rational man determine For it cannot be to ingratiate them or procure favor for them in the affections of the Governors vvhen he makes them appeare such as deserve none nay such as ought to receyve none but the contrary at their hands Lastly vvhen it is objected That this course hinders the removeall of these things vvhich authority othervvise might possibly remove His defense is That he vvill never beleive that authority vvill remove them vvith dishonor of it self as yeilding the things to be unlavvfull vvhich it hath so long mayntayned In vvhich ansvver these tvvo particulars offer themselves to consideration 1. To remove Cerem as unlavvfull being long mayntayned is a dishoner to Authority 2. D.B. beleives authority vvill not thus dishonor it self Ansvv The first of vvhich is a most dangerous assertion is made a cheife barr to stay Papists others from reforming of any thing that others haue opposed they defended And its usuall in the mouth of false flatterers back freinds to all reformation I vvould hope that D.B. did utter more in this by his penne then he meant in his heart Beside the consequences are not so dangerous but the ground is as vveake For the long continuance or mayntenance of a thing if evill unlavvfull is so farr from bringing dishonor upon any for the removeall of it that retayning therof encreaseth both his sinne shame it argues a greater measure of humility povver of grace to abandon it Nay vvere the thing lavvfull if yet by circumstances it did appeare that Gods Honor the common good the aedification of our brethren might more be promoted by the remoueall of it though it vvere hoary headed vvith antiquity continuance it argued greatest love to God man to alter it rather then to keepe it in use that vvould bring greatest honor to him that should so doe since by the verdict of Gods Spirit he is most honorable that most honoreth God 2. From these grounds hovv rotten unsavory the second particular of the Rej. his defense is vvill easily be graunted For if in such a remoueall the duty of Authority doth consist the povver of grace doth appeare the glory of God good of the Church common vvealth vvill be advanced To be of that beleife vvith D. B. that Magistrates vvill never be brought to doe vvhat they ought hovv uncharitable is it thus to lay their honor in the dust And not to presse them hereunto vvhen vve may by our calling ought hovv unconscionable is it And hovv contrary to that loue vve ovve to the Almighty our Governours The crovvd of objections vvhich he makes concerning himself I conceyve as so many Strugglings of Spirit vvhich stood in the vvay to vvithstand him in his course His conscience as it should seeme gaue the â—nsett let in some such intimations as these to him VVhy is not Popery coming in fast enough but you must make a preparation thereunto yea become a purveyer harbenger to make Roome lay in provision for it Is it not sufficient that the vvicket is sett open that the Popish pack may be dravvne in but you must sett open the great gate that a Sumpter horse may amble in vvith a load of reliques Cerem For if the patent of the Church be so enlarged to appoynt Cerem at their pleasure to admonish and teach and it is in their povver to appoynt vvhat hovv many as seemes good to them vvhy then let images be erected let crosses Crucifixes be sett up in every corner These are lavvfull admonitors instructers vve cannot haue too many good Companions to putt us in mynd of our duties Consider beside hovv many poore Ministers are under pressure some fled some imprisoned many suspended themselues families undone VVhy vvill you not suffer them to lye in the dust but vvill you trample upon them even unto death Is it not enough they make brick but must they be beaten also Oh consider as before the Lord to vvhom you must giue an account Doe you vvell to blovv the fire in the Chymny vvhyle the flame is in the thach Is not the fury of the BB. yet feirce enough their rage sharpe enough but you must sett them on and strenghthen their hands to strike harder lastly is not Cringing at Altars bovving at the name of Iesus like to be brought in practised vvith great forvvardnes vvill you dare you encorage in such courses yea giue an approbation and commendation to them For they vvill say they are but significant Cerem they place no merit putt no efficacy in them only they are admonitors of our dutyes Thus is the foundation of superstition layd the Gospell Stopped and an open vvay made for Popery and you are the persvvader the encorager yea defender of all these hovv vill you ansvver this at the great day Yet do I not speake this as though I vvere troubled vvith the vveight of any thing he hath vvritt For I professe unfaynedly the vvay of his traverse fynds vvelcome vvith me vvherin the nakednes indefensiblenes of his cause I hope vvill be discovered Only one thing I vvould most earnestly intreat that he vvould shovv us but fayre play in these proceedings to vvitt that he