for stiffe opposition to Ecclesiasticall lavves vvhich they despitefully speake vvrite agaynst for contempt of these statute lavves by vvhich the book of common prayer is established For that they dravv as fast as they can into a body of themselves ingrossing a forehand the name of brethren The Godly the Church the good Christians as though vve had lost our Christ they had found him quite avvay 222 pag 13. The tearming of our Cerem Popish is done out of faction to make the imposers Observers of them hatefull vvith the people of God vvhich I beleeue no Church vvould suffer I am sure it should not pag 238. 14. This man forceth his vvitt I feare his conscience also doth not beleeue himselfe vvhen he sayth that these Cerem are imposed as parts ofGods vvorship but only for faction opposition vvould fayne haue it thought so that their opposition might be justifyed before men 243. p. 15. For a vvrangling spirit yea an ill conscience is so playnly to be observed vvhile he studies to persvvade vvhat himself beleeues not 243. 16. But vvhat should I presse these men vvith the authority of men vvho have themselues in estimation for soundnes of judgement before all men p. 370. 17. But the Repl. seing no interpretation vvill help agaynst the cleare Testimonies of the Learned by us alleadged confesseth they vvere men as if he his partners vvere more then men that ther is a little variety So vvilling are men rather to cast dirt in the faces of others then to confesse any mistaking in themselues Is this any thing but the spirit of pride thus masterly to judge the Lords vvorthyes 387. p. 18. This ansvver you think good to give because you are resolved to sinke the reputation of all men auncient or latter hovv learned zealous soever they vvere ratherthen to confesse your ovvne mistaking Open Revilings of the Persons of Non-conformitants or secret inducements to bring them into distast In 52. pag of the Praeface some Noncōformists are brought in sayd to be of that temper that vvhen the remove all of Cerem only vvas mentioned Their ansvver vvas They must not have a hoof-behinde them And the note in the Margent tells us 1. This S r. Fran VValsingham told M r. Knevvstubs of vvhom I had it 2. It is a ridiculous supposition it s a malitious surmise all this scurrilous bundle is of no use unlesse it be to ingraft himselfe into the affections vvhich he calleth the consciences and applause of his ovvne partie p. 633. Preface 3. These tvvo notes note you to be an egregious vvrangler p. 6. 4. Did ever sober-man reason thus p. 61. 5. I should be sory to fynde so much vvayvvardnes falshood in any man of our Religion but cannot but vvonder at it in a man pretending more then ordinary sincerity p. 15. 6. Hovv ever these men vvho in effect say to all other men stand backe I am more holy then thou c. 7. VVhat a shame is it for men to glory of sincerity for refusing Cerem And use no sincerity in alleadging authors 284. 8. But that use vvhich the learned divines call Historicall these men call Religious that they might by a false eare-mark bring us into suspicion abroad into hatred vviht our Religious people at home and yet they vvould be counted sincere men 303. Certaine Quaeres by vvhich these passages may be weighed in the balance ofserious consideration Of all in generall the quaeres are these 1. If the Replier did any where give sentence of conformists consciences 2. If he uttered any one bitter speache against all Conformists 3. The former being negatiuely true if the Rejoyner in his over under-lashings was not overcome of his owne evill rather then the Repliers Quaere 1. 1. If a man upon probability affirme such a poynt or out of ignorance mistake conclude it certaine so relate it as by him conceaved doth he hereby necessarily manifest a spirit of contradiction or the weaknes of his owne apprehension 2. If charity hopes the best that can be conceaved in reason to iudge mens spirits by grounds weake feeble out of which nothing can be concluded Quaere whether it be not uncharitable censuring 3. Do all those who contradict the like conceites of the Rej as false manifest a sinful spirit in lusting after contradiction Quaere 2. Whether may not a man mistake a thing plaine be of no contentious spirit Whether in such a mistake is it certaine God smites with giddines Whether is not this to iudge mens consciences beyond warrant of any word of God or the nature of the work wil beare But is not this not only unreasonable but intollerable if the thing be true Quaere 3. 1. Whether these words come from a calme loving merciful spirit 2. Whether God may not abate a man for his fals in executing iudgments here or may lay many punishments on him beside open shame 3. Whether these definitive determinations of iudgments upon men for some light differences those not so cleare be not to jussle God out of the place of iustice to cast thunderbolts where he doth not But if the replier make his expression good by his defense as he hath is not this a strange censure upon so smal a thing so strange a mistake Quaere 4. Whether this charge issues not out of a principle desirous to make the Persons of non conformists odious to all proclayming them as such whose intollerable pride scornes contemnes all men in regard of themselves Whether the Rej. his passion did not transport him beyond himself in this accusation when it makes him contradict his owne confession preface p. 5. Ther be some moderate learned Godly loving c. VVhether his spleen is not great that would spare none but even destroy the Nation of Nonconformists in the esteeme of men As Haman the Iues For of all he speakes They Them Quaere 5. VVhether he be not more charitable to Fryars then Nonconformists since he knowes what they haue printed Quaere 6. VVhether if this Repl. was faulty was it reasonable to fly in the face of all Nonconformists These men VVhether the Rej. his conscience in cold blood dare say that their is not amongst the NonConformists the truth of worthines but only the names VVhen in his preface he thus writes p. 3. some peacable very VVorthy Ministers were cast out Quaere 7. Whether they that cannot entertaine truth crosse to their opinion seeke honor one from another can have any truth of grace our saviour seemes to gainsay it 5. Iohn And therfore Whether there be any colour of argument for the Rej. to condemne al Nonconformists as such whom this charge condemnes Quaere 8. Whether doth the vilefying of a relique which one conceaves superstitions argues a spirit of rancor How came the Rej to be sure that God will judge them for these VVhether may they not repent
is that the use of some Iewish rite without any Iewish opinion as Circumcision and Easter In which answer nothing is found that toucheth any terme of the Argument Yet upon the occasion of it the Def. was asked how a Iewish Rite can be used without some part of a Iewish opinion The Rejoynd answereth materially but not formally and in use But he should have remembred that the Argument is of significant rites using and the Def. his answer is of Iewish significant rites using so that in his grant ther must needes be granted some formall use for signification Beside in all using of humane mysticall rites upon due consideration ther is some part of a Iewish opinion I prove it thus All they that consideratly use carnall beggerly rudiments in Gods service have this opinion that suche rites as the Iewish set praefiguration aside which no Christian ever admitted are good in the Christian Churche But all that so use humane mysticall rites use carnall beggerly rudiments in Gods service Ergo. The assumption I prove thus All that use mysticall rites wherto there is no Spirit annexed by God as unto the Euangelicall institutions of the new Testament use carnall beggerly rudiments in Gods service But they whiche use humane mysticall rites use mysticall rites wherto there is no Spirit annexed by God Ergo. The Proposition cannot be denied untill a better definition of suche rites be given nor the assumption except an Euangelicall promise can be shewed of Spiritual blessing upon the use of humane mysticall rites Concerning Circumcision 4. Because the Def. for an example of a Iewish rite lawfull for Christians to use named Circumcision the Repl. concluded that belike he houldeth Circumcision as it is used under Prester Iohn to be lawfull The Rej. therfore resolveth us that He doth so and also chalengeth the Repl. for saying nothing to disprove him Vpon this provocation it is necessarie to say some-thing against these patrones of Circumcision Where it is to be marked that the quaestion is of Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies devized by man for signification of morall duties whether it be lawfull for a Churche repraesentative suche as our Convocation to appoint and urge Circumcision in this kinde and to this purpose upon those Christians whoe are under their power 5. Now of this quaestion in the formal state of it I finde not that scarce any doubt was amonge understanding Christians before this Def. and Rej. being urged therto by direct consequence from their principles have now found it necessarie to mainteyne the affirmative part for defence of our beggerly Ceremonies Ther was some difference betwixt Hierome Augustine about observing of legall Rites in speciall about Circumcision as appeareth out of the Epistles which passed betwixt them yet exstant but both of theÌ„ agreed on this that as well to Iew as Gentile all religious use of Circumcision for Ceremonie c. is now after due publication of the Gospel unlawfull or deadly All that have written since agree about the same trueth except Caietan in one place who is forsaken opposed therin by all Papists the Iesuites themselves not excepted Our Divines are so confident of this that from the unlawfulnesse of Circumcision they usually dispute against other humane Ceremonies and the Iesuits in answering are forced to flie unto this which must be our Def. and Rej. their answer that the Ceremonies of the olde Testament are not absolutely abrogated but onely in regard of their speciall manner end intention Greg. Valent. tom 2. disp 7. quaest 7. punct 7. Bellar. de effect Sacr. l. 2. c. 32. whiche answer is called by D. Fulke ag Saund. of images pag. 672. a beastly doctrine But because it were an infinite and needlesse labor to allege the testimonies whiche may be easily alleged against Ceremoniall Circumcision amonge Christians as unlawfull I will passe on to reasons against it that the Rej. may no more say You say nothing to disprove it 6. First The onely place in the New Testament by which all Divines as the Rejoynder speaketh pag. 75. prove a power in the Churche to constitute Ceremonies is 1. Cor. 14.26.40 Edification decencie order But the Apostle in that chapter doeth no way give leave eyther unto our or any other Churche to constitute Circumcision for a Ceremonie Therfore no Churche hath power to constitute Circumcission for a Ceremonie For Order and Decencie no man in his right wits will say that Circumcision commeth under their notion And as for Edification it hath been formerly shewed that it doeth not require new instituted significant Ceremonies muche lesse a rejected or abrogated Ceremonie but onely is the ende of orderly and decent cariage of thinges instituted by God 7. Secondly no part of the partition wall betwixt Iewes and Gentiles may by any Convocation-house or other Churche be reared up againe But Circumcision is a part nay a principall corner-stone of that partition-wall howsoever it be interpreted so it be appointed Ergo. 8. Thirdly Circumcision cannot be esteemed more lawfull to be instituted for a significant Ceremonie then a Paschall lambe and they two being brought into the Churche what shall hinder if it please our Convocation house but the greatest part of the olde Ceremoniall law may in like manner follow For the Rejoynder cap. 2. sect 6. acknowlegeth no other limites or boundes for nomber of suche Ceremonies then the judgement of those to whose discretion it belongeth to judge therof 9. In the fourth place It is not lawfull for any Churche to impose Ceremoniall burdens upon Christians But Circumcision is a great burden to them upon whome it is imposed as our Convocation men would confesse if it were imposed upon them Ergo. 10. Fiftly It is not lawfull for any Churche or Convocation-house to usurpe authoritie over the bodies of men especially unto bloud But appointing of Circumcision is usurping of authoritie over mens bodies to the shedding of bloud Ergo. Adde unto this that the Convocation-house may better appointe that all English men should have their lippes or their eares pared or theyr eares nayled to theyr Parish-Churche dore for signification of that dutie which they are bounde to performe with their eares and lippes then suche Circumcision as is in use with the Iewes and Prester-Iohn These thinges considered I thinke ther is no reasonable man but will sooner reject our Ceremonies for bringing suche a foul tayle after them as that our Convocaâ—ion may cause all English-men to be Circumcized then admitte of Circumsicision for love of our paultrie Ceremonies 11. Presently after the Def. had excused Iewish Rites if they were used without Iewiâ—h opinion he coÌ„fesseth without distinction that all Iewish-Rites are abolished Wherin the Repl. noted a contradiction But the Rejoynder to helpe at a dead lift distinguisheth betwixt Iewish Ceremonies as they were typicall or figurative and necessarie and Iewish Ceremonies as they are morally significant and free Now for necessitie and freedome enough hath been spoken in the first part In
Churches which were infected with many errors and declining in many things to superstition then in Hezekias Church most purely at that time reformed Surely the Rej. in a great part of his glosse forgot his text otherwise he would never have in this manner confuted it Cathedrall musick with Organs 2. THe first question was If the Primitive Church had such chaunting Idol-service as is in out Cathedrall Churches The Rejoynder after some words spent about singing about which he bringeth not the least resemblance of that in question untill the fourth age after Christ excepteth first that Organall musicke was gods ordinance in the old Testament and that not significant or typicall and therefore is sinfully callâ—d Idol-service 2. That all men whose hearts are not averse by distraction stupidity or prejudice feele such musicke to worke much upon their affections To this I say 1. that his denying of Organall musicke to have beene significant or typicall is without reason and against the current of our Divines taken as it may seeme out of Bellarmine de missa lib. 2. cap. 15. who useth this evasion against those words of P. Martyr Musicall organs perteyne to the Iewish Ceremonie and agree no more to us then Circumcision So that we may neglect it and take him as saying that nothing which was ordained in the old Testament no not sacrificing of beasts is now an Idol-service 2. For that and the other both together it is fit the Rejoynder should be put in minde how many and what kinde of men he accuseth of distraction stupidity or prejudice 1. Thomas Aquinas in whose time this faction was not in generall request Instrumenta musica non assumit Ecclesia in divinas laudes ne videatur Iudaizare Musica instrumenta magis animum movent ad delectationem quam ut per ea forractur bona dypositio In et Test. usus erat taiium instrumentorum tum-tum quia aliquid figurabant Operosam quandam theatricam musiâ—am in sacâ—as aâ—es induximus tumultuosum diversarum vocum garritum qualem non opinor in Graecorum out Rom morum theatris unquam auditumsuisse In hunc usum magnu salaâ—ijs aluntur puororum greges quorum omnis aet as in perdiscendus hujusmodi garnitibus consumitur tantus sumptibus oneratur Ecclesia ob rem pestiseram c. much lesse in the Primitive in 22. q. 91. a. 2.4 opposeth thus The Church useth no musick for divine praises lest it should seeme to Indaize and answereth thus Musicall instruments doe more stirre up the minde to delight then frame it to a right disposition In the old Testament there was some need of them both c. and also because they did figure out something Erasmus in 1. Cor. 14. sayth thus We have brought a tedious and player-like musicke into the Church a tumultuous noyse of many voyces such as I thinke was not heard among the Theaters of Grecians or Romans For which purpose whole flockes of boyes are maintained at great charges whose age also is all spent in learning such gibble gabble At such cost is the Church â—or a pestiferous thing c. It is evident that that some Ecclâ—siasticall chanting and roarings in our Temples scarse also understood of the Priests themselves is a most foolish and vaine abuse Zuinglius Act. Disp. 2. pag. 100. Ecclesiasticum ittum cantum templorum boatus ab ipsis quoque sacerdotibus non intellectos abusum stultum inanem â—â—â—pietatis verae temoram pernitiosissimam esse constat Calvin in Psalm 23 Mihi dâ—bium non est quin totum illud musicae genus pars fuerÃt legalis padagogia In solemni Dei cultu nihilo 〈◊〉 ad canendas Deì laudâ—s congruere arbitror musica instrumenta quam si quis suffitus lucernas similes legis 〈◊〉 bras in usum revocet Vltra progredi quam docemur 1. Cor. 14. impiam pervicaciam esse dico and a most pernicious let to piety I make no question but all that kinde of musicke was a part of the legall pedagogie In the solemne worship of God I doe not judge it more sutable then if we should recall the incense tapers and other shadowes of the Law into use I say againe to goe beyond what we are taught is most wicked pervicacy It would be too tedious if I should reckon up all that have assented to these I will adde onely the two and thirty grave learned men which were chosen in King Edwards dayes to reforme Ecclesiasticall lawes and observances they judged this law fitting De divinis officijs cap. 5. Vibratam illam operosam musicam qua figurata dicitur aufetri placâ—t It likes us well to have this tedious kinde of musicke taken away Certainely these were neither distracted nor stupid men whence their prejudice came let the Rejoynder himselfe judge Chancelours Commissaries and Officials 3. The second question was about these children of the earth dealing with the keyes of Christs Heavenly Kingdome whether they can bee founde in the face or body of the Primitive Church The Rej. 1. answereth plainely and roundly No. Yet these human creatures are those that keep most mis-rule among poore Christan men and Ministers also in Ecclesiasticall censures of suspension and excommunication with intolerable exactions That assertion therefore of the Defend that the Church of England doth most lively expresse the face and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church is in one great part of it dashed by the Rejoynder his No. 2. The Rejoynd addeth nor did any Presbyters execute any Church censures without leave or consent of their Bishops or unpreaâ—hing Elders at all execute any censures of the Church Now 〈◊〉 this is nothing to the purpose but a meere diversion â—hat something might seeme to be said beside No. 2. For â—he first I answer with Iunius in Bel. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. â—4 an 27. Censures are in common to be acted by the Presbytery so that as the other Presbiters did not act them without the consent of the chiefe Presbyter or Bishop â—o neither could any Bishop do it without them of and â—y himselfe That Bishops afterward dared so to doe it was tyrannidis indignae meere tyranny 3. For the confuâ—ation of the second I propound a remarkable place in â—rigen against Celsus lib. 3. extant also in his Philocalia â—ollected by Gregorie Naz. and Basil set forth in greeke â—nd latine by Tarinus were cap. 18. Vnto Celsus obâ—ecting that Christian teachers sought for simple foolish â—uditors Origen answereth that Christian teachers did â—irst discerne and try their auditors and of the approoâ—ed they had two orders Nonnulli praepositi sunt que in vitam mores â—orum qui admittuntur exquiranâ—s ut qui turpia committunt ijâ— communi coetu interdicant quâ— verâ—ab istis abhorrent ex animo complexi meliores quotidie reddaâ—â— one of beginners that were â—atechised and another of those which had made furâ—her progresse And among these latter distinct from â—eachers
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
proving this Altar to be appointed unto Gods service because it was a patterne of the Lords Altar as our Crosse is a resemblance of Christs Crosse was 1. reproved by the Replier because the Crosse wheron Christ did suffer was no more holy then Iudas and so not to be compared unto the Lords Altar To this the Rejoynder in many wordes maketh shew of saying something but I leave it to the Reader if he sayth any thinge I for my part can not discerne what it is 5. The Replier also in the second place alleged that every resemblance of a holy thing is not therfor holy because then every Ale-house picture taken from holy thinges mentioned in Scripture should be holy and a modell of the Temple caried by a Tyrian workman into his countrie for newes should have been holy To this the Rejoynder after a few wordes of course answereth that this is to separat the resemblance of a thing from the use of it As if the Def. had not argued simply meerly from the resemblance making as yet no mention of the use If ther be any Sophistrie in this argument as the Rejoynder sayth ther is it is first found in the Defender his uncouth reason 6. The Defender went about to prove first that this Altar did mystically signifie a spirituall dutie in respect of the Gileadites then living viz to teache that the Lord was God To this it was replied that it doeth not appear out of the text that ther was intended any use for the praesent age that then lived nay the contrarie may be gathered out of the 24. and 25. verses We have doen it for fâ—ar of this thing saying In time to come your children might speak unto our children c. So shall your children make our children cease from fearing the Lord. The Rejoynder opposeth that ther is afterward mention made of us and you But that is nothing because it noteth onely that the generations to come may denie us on this side Iordan not to have been joint Tribes with you on the other side of that River Vpon this the Repl. concluded that this Altar was no direct helpe unto devotion To which is rejoyned that it was not a direct that is immediat help unto devotion but immediatly significative collaterally for devotion it was Suche distinctions I never heard nor read Any man may see that a Ceremonie directly and immediatly signifying a spirituall dutie is a direct immediat help to devotion To what other help this help was collaterall I would fain know A further reason of this conclusion was added viz then most of the other Tribes should have had use of it and also reason to have set up Altars of devotion at every three-way-leet as Crosses stand The Rejoynder is 1. that the other Tribes no doubt had use of it as of a witnesse that the Lord is God Now let any man consider whether they which ordinarily resorted to the Tabernacle and Altar of God had need of a humane Altar farre remooved from their sight to put them in minde that the LORD was God And whether the two Tribes and a halfe without the consent or knowledge of the chiefe Priests the chiefe Magistrates the farre greater part of people and power to appoint vnto all Israel a solemne significant Ceremonie for their common use The Rej. addeth in the 2. place that all are not bound to the same helpes to devotion and the other tribes needed no such monument or patterne having the Altar it selfe in possession Where 1. except he holdeth the two Tribes and a halfe bound to set up this Altar hee maketh in that no difference if hee so holdeth then it is no instance of a meere Arbitrarie Ceremonie 2. The two tribes had the Lords Altar in present possession as well as divers of the other so that by this reason they also for the present need no such monument and patterne which is the very point in this place questioned 7. The Replier affirmed that in regard of posterity the immediate ende of this Altar was to testifie that those Tribes beyond Iordan belonged to the same people and so had right to the same worship with those of this side Iordan which is nothing to a Ceremony of state and immediate use in the speciall solemne worship of God The Rejoynder asketh if this were not a holy religious ende I answere It was so holy and religious as every Land-marke of a Parsons Glebe-land or every signe of a Parish-bound is holy and religious but not so as mysticall Ceremonies B. Andrewes against Perone p. 18. giveth some light to this by the ancient use of Lights and incense There were lights saith he there was incense used by the Primitive Church in their service not for any mysticall meaning but as it is thought for this cause that where the Christians in time of persecution had their meetings most commonly in places darke and so needing lights and dampish and so needing good savours they provided lights against one and incense against the other After the Churches retained these things to shew themselues the successours of those ancient Christians c. the After-ages devized meanings and significations of their owne which from the beginning were not so If this be so as it is thought then there may be signes of succession unto religious fore-fathers without any mysticall meaning which is all that by us is pleaded about this Altar of Iordan And for further manifesting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was so in this Altar let it be well considered what Iosephus one of the learnedest and most ancient Iewes now exstant saith Antiq. lib. 5. cap. 4. They placed an Altar on the banke of the river as a memorable signe of the neerenesse and affinity of them that dwelt beyond Iordan viz. with them within Canaan Againe it was not placed for worship but symbolically and as a memorandum of their relation to you 8. The Rejoynder as having sufficiently confuted all other answers bringeth in one made to himselfe in conference though he hath not found it in print as a grand absurdity namely that the Gileadites did ill in erecting this Altar and the rest also in allowing of it Now as for allowance by the High Priest Princes and all the Congregation of Israel which he speaketh of I finde it not evident in the Text. About the other I finde this 1. that D. Fulke no absurd Divine against Sanders of Images pag. 649. writeth thus in print The two Tribes and a half Iosh. 22. made not an Image but an Altar for a memoriall and yet their fact was not commendable though it was in some sort excusable 2. I finde also that Calvin before him upon Iosh. 22. sayth thus Duae tribus â—um dimidia non leviter peccarunt c. The two tribes and a half did very ill Which is the great absurditie that the Rejoynder had heard in conference but not seen in print before now SECT 17.18.19.20.21
which was against Popish Recusancie of our Communion-booke and not against refusall of some few ceremonies contained therein I speake now of the Statute Law not of lawlesse canoÌ„s Or what if wee should stand upon that interpretation which fetcheth the obligation from the weight of the matter imposed which in our ceremonies is very little Some of these I am â—ure the Bishops must flye if they will defend their disuse of the Crosiers slaffe which they are bound by our lawes as well to use as the Ministers are surplusses But all this is needlesse because there can be no contempt in a conscionable forbearance of unlawfull impositions such as the ceremonies are sufficiently proved to be SECT XII HEre certaine Divines are brought in witnessing 1. that superstitions doe depâ—ive men of Christian liberty which we deny not but take their testimonies as making against our ceremonies because as I haue formerly shewed some of these superstitious opinions are inseparable from the imposing and using of them 2. That Christian liberty doth not consist in the use or disuse of things indifferent which we also willingly grant But I would haue the Defendant remember that all freedome is not in the minde conscience For where the minde is free the body may be bound else Christians should not taste so much of this worlds misery as they doe Now Christ hath left unto us not onely an inward liberty of minde and conscience but also an outward freedom of our bodies and outward man from such bodily rites in his worship as have not his stampe upon them and his Spirit and blessing promised unto them Of this the Defendant saith nothing at all Sect. XIII XIIII COncerning the profession of our Church so often brought in enough hath beene said before now it sufficeth to answer that no profession whatsoever can make humaine significant Ceremonies in Gods worship agree with Christian liberty As for superstition which the Defendant doth now the second time most ridiculously object I have answered in the beginning of this Confutation Now onely I note 1. how loosely he describeth that superstition which he calleth affirmative as if no man could use any thing superstitiously except he did hold that without it the faith of Christianity or the true worship of God could not possible consist Never was there such a description given by any man that considered what he said 2. How manfully he concludeth our negative superstition upon this ground that Christ hath left these ceremonies free which is the maine quaestion betwixt him and us 3. How he mis-reporteth our opinion in saying absolutely that wee hold a Surplice to have unholinesse and polluâ—ion in it whereas we hold that it is onely made more unfitt for Gods service then it was before through idolatrous abuse but yet unto other uses it may be applyed 4. That in stead of Scripture he bringeth forth the universall practise of men in the Church which yet hath beene formerly also refuted 5. That he can finde no Divine that calleth opposing of Ceremonies superstition but onely M. Calvin in one place speaking rhetorically as he useth to doe and not intending any definition or distributioÌ„ of that vice 6. How he corrupteth P. Martyrs words to have some colour for a new accusation P. Martyr taking there upon him the person of an adversarie unto Hoopers opinion with whom notwithstanding afterward he consented and recalled the counsell which then he gave as appeareth pag. 1125. saith that if we should refuse all things that the Papists used we should bring the church into servitude which assertion is most true because the Papists abused many necessary things even Christs own Ordinances the observing of which is liberty Now the Def. would have that precisely understood and that in the rigour of every word concerning the Surplice I have here subjoyned apart an Epistle of Zanchius who otherwaies was somewhat favourable to Bishops wherein the Reader may see his judgement concerning superstitious garments To the most renowmed Queene ELYZABETH Defendresse of the Christian Religion and most mighty Queene of England France and Ireland H. Zanchius sendeth greeting MOST gracious most Christian Queene we have not without great griefe understood that the fire of contention about certaine garments which we thought had beene quenched long agone is now againe to the incredible offence of the godly as it were raised from hell and kindled a fresh in your Majesties Kingdome and that the occasion of this fire is because your most gracious Majesty being perswaded by some otherwise great men and carried with a zeal but certainly not according to knowledge to retaine unity in religion hath now more then ever before resolved and decreed yea doth will and command that all †Zanchius it is like was misinformed for Bishops have bin the chief devisers and advisers Bishops and Ministers of the Churches shall in divine service putt on the white and linnen garments which the Popish Priests use now in Poperie yea that it is to be feared least this fire be so kindled and cast its flame so farre and wide that all the Churches of that most large and mighty kingdome to the perpetuall disgrace of your most renowned Majesty be sett on a flaming fire seeing the most part of the Bishops men greatly renowmed for all kinde of learning and godlines had rather leave their office and place in the Church then against their owne conscience admit of such garments or at the least signes of Idolatry and Popish superstition and so defile themselves wiâ—h them and give offence to the weak by their example Now what other thing will this be then by retaining of these garments to destroy the whole body of the Church For without doubt that is Satans intent by casting a seed of dissentions amongst the Bishops And that hee aimed at the infancie of the Church by stirring up discord betweene the East and West Churches about the Passover and other Ceremonies of that kind Therfore Irenaeus Bishop of Lions had just cause in his Epistle sent out of France to Rome sharply to reprove Victor the Pope of Rome because he out of a kind of zeale but not according to knowledge was minded to excommunicate all the Churches of Asia because they celebrated not the Passeover just at the same time as they at Rome did For this was nothing but by an unseasonable desire to retaine the same Ceremonies in all Churches to rent and teare a peeces the unity of the Churches I therefore so soone as I heard that so great a ruine hanged over the Church of Christ in that kingdome presently in respect of that dutie which I owe to the Church of Christ to your gracious Majesty and to that whole kingdom intended to write thither and to try by my uttermost endevor whether so great a mischiefe might possibly be withstood some that feare Christ and wish well to your Majesty exhorting me to the performance of this duty But when I had scarcely