admitted from the highest Court suche as the Convocation is As if eyther the Convocation were the highest court or any court at all for ought that I ever heard of the Court of Convocation as I have of a Court of Parliament or as if so muche libertie were left unto a poor Minister now standing at the Bishops barre as to appeal to the next Convocation The Rejoynder surely did not well consider what he spake 4. Wheras the Def. granted that we have reason perhaps to wish that some poenalties were released the Rejoynder interpreteth this reason to be suche as all men that feel the smart of punishment for whatsoever offence may have Which is nothing else but to looke on with laughter at all the greivous thinges which any Ministers have suffered for this cause And yet every foot the Rejoynder putteth on another person and as I am perswaded hath another heart After this the Rejoynder commeth to the slanders of Puritamisme and Schisme And as for Puritanisme he sayth the Def. slided by it as a terme not imposed upon us by him As if we may not complaine of or inferre a consequence from any terme except it be imposed upon us by D. Morton or D. Burgesse or at the least they were not bound to answer for any termes except suche as they themselves have imposed For Scisme and Separation after some sparkeling wordes of rash-blasphemous and firie Sirs he telleth us 1. 1. that nothing may be established in the Churche which God hath not commanded in his wâ—rd 2. that all formes of worhip and all mâ—re Ecclesiasticall rites not praescribed are will-worship 3. That the calling of our Bishops and consequently of our Ministers is Antichristian 4. That our Ceremonies are idolatrous are the first principles of Separation Now if it would please the Rejoynder eyther to declare what is Separation or what is a principle this question would be easilie decided In the mean time I answer 1. the first principle is from Moses if it be understood as we mean it thou shalt not adde any thing therto 2. The second confounding mere rites with formes of worship is not ours but onely by the Rej. his fiction 3. The third supposeth that which we utterly denie that the calling of our Ministers doeth essentially depende upon the Bishops calling 4. The fourth is made scismaticall by a scismaticall conceyt of the Rej. namely that every Church is to be utterly condemned and so separated from that hath any thinge in it by participation idolatrous His ever being of this opinion may be answered in that fashion which he answereth the like phraze withall pag. 216. He hath not ever been the best Logician His profession of separating this day ere he sleep if he did beleeve these principles is nothing else but a rhethoricall flourish which he would twice recall before he would separate from those that bowe to Altars or even those which worship an ubiquitarie bodie in the Lords supper though these are more palpablie idolatrous in his conscience then the Ceremonies questioned are in ours As for the addition with a yea that Mr. Bradshaws very arguments are pretended for Separtion so as they cannot be denied with any forehead etc. It is not worth a refutation because Mr. Bradshaw himself in a booke intituled the unreasonablenesse of the Separation hath sufficiently shewed how unreasonably they are pretended and abused If the Rejoynder hath any thing to rejoigne therto I would willingly see with what fore-head he can doe it The other talke of this section as also the recounting of a confutation in the 15. section I leave to be counted as it deserveth by him that will compare what hath been sayd with the wordy rejoynder to it so vainely opposed and so often repeated Only in few wordes let it be noted 1. how in the 15. section he slighteth the sentence of D. Covell as not worth any answer who confuted his Apologie and in that writing at the least was a kinde of publick wrighter having had as muche approbation as this Rejoynder hath for his rejoynder as appeareth out of the Rejoynder his Praeface pag. 18. namely of the then L.A. D. Bancroft etc. 2. How he maketh the imposers sentence to be an adequate rule of observance de facto 3. How he denieth some divine worship onely to be unholy in the kinde as if some singular true divine worship may be unholy 4. What a wilde consequence he buildeth upon if the crosse be no part of the Sacrament then it is no part of worship because it may not in the Repl. his opinion be a part 5. How unreasonablie he defendeth this consequence our Ceremonies are changeable and therfore not essentiall worship when yet he confesseth the Popish Ceremonies to be changeable and yet essentiall worship 6. What science ther is for a Rejoynder upon suche groundes to charge the Repl. for violating his conscience CHAP. 3. The third Argument taken from the significant nature of our Ceremonies SECT 1. and 2. Concerning certayn miscelaneall notions and testimonies against humane relegious significant Ceremonies 1. THis Argument pleadeth that no humane Ceremonies appropriated to Gods service ordeyned or instituted to teache any spirituall dutie by misticall signification are lawfull About this the Rejoynder threateneth blowes But we have had now suche experience of his forcelesse indevours in other Arguments that the fear of his blowes is past 2. The first proof of our proposition was taken from the second Commandement which the Def. omitted in this place and the Rejoynder will not have any man to take exception against the sayd omission but with what reason let his reader judge 3. A second proof was that Christ is the onely teacher of his Churche and appointer of all meanes wherby we should be taught and admonished of any holy duty and all Christs doctrine with the meanes therof is perfectly conteyned in the holy Scripture Here sayth the Rejoynder the Def. forgot to tell how absurd this collection is Christ is the onely authentique teacher of his Churche etc. therfore they may be no meanes of teaching or admonishing unto duties but suche as be ordeyned as necessarie As if it were sufficient for the Def. or Rejoynder to tell us any thing as they please how litle ever it be to the purpose He maketh shew of a distinction betwixt an authentique teacher and another what doe you call him to which we cannot say muche untill he remember to tell us the name style and office of that other by-teacher Onely this by the way I would learne how we can acknowlege and receyve any meanes of religious teaching with faith except it appear to be appointed by an authentique teacher and lawgiver And how our Prelates in oppointing meanes of spirituall teaching which Christ appointed not can be accounted therin Ministeriall teachers under him as their and our onely authentique teacher As also if Christ be our Authentique Teacher in all good that we learne about religion who taught
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
whom the Def. would not vouchsafe an answer One thing heere the Def. noteth that in the Abridgment mysticall and carnall are unsoundly confounded But I say this is unsoundly collected for these two are joyned together there onely in respect of Iewish worship and that which imitateâ—h it And therefore it is to no end to instance in the Sacraments instituted by Christ of cleere signification and accompanied with the promise and lively working of the Spirit The same poore instance hath Bellarmine de cult l. 3. c. 7. for significant ceremonies But it savoureth of the flesh sayth the Def. to call our ceremonies carnall Why so I pray the Iewish ceremonies deserved that name you your selfe say even when they were in force and surely ours devised by man abused by idolaters without necessary use destitute of all promise and spirit are farre more worthy to be called carnall then Gods owne Ordinances Those were onely carnall because in comparison they were externall heavie dull things but ours are more heavie and dull and beside they are sinfully carnall as hath beene proved But what souÌ„dnesse doth this savour of that the Def. sayth generally of the Iewish Ceremonies they signifyed first and primarily outward and carnall promises shadowing heavenly things onely under a second veile I will not exagitat this assertion because it is in the by SECT VI. HEre an objection is fained out of the Abridgment pag. 34. I say fained because there is none such found in the place quoted That which is there spoken concerning other Popish ceremonies is a sixt proofe of the second Argument distinct from the fift wherto that of Christian liberty doth belong That also is handled by the Def. c. 3. l. 7. and there maintained against him So that this might well be omitted Yet because there is some force in the consequence let us heare his Defence The objection which he frameth is this If these Ceremonies do not take away our Christian liberty and in snare the consciences of men by their imposition how shall not the Popish Ceremonies be excusable and free from accusation in this behalfe His answer is that Popish Ceremonies doe infringe Christian liberty both in regard of their nature and also in regard of their number And of both these M. Calvin giveth witnesse I answer 1. for the nature it hath beene shewed before that a multitute of Popish Ceremonies have no other nature necessity allowed unto them by the learned Papists then ours have by the Defendant himselfe See for this Bellarmine de effect sacr c. 30. That which M r. Calvin saith of this point is true notwithstanding in regard of the conceit which is commonly among the simple Papists fostered by unlearned Monkes Friers and other Priests for filthy lucre sake 2. The comparisons which M r. Calvin use viz. That it is held among the Papists a greater wickednesse to omitt auricular Confession then to live impiously eat flesh on fasting dayes then to live in fornication to worke on Saints holy dayes then to act mischiefe c. These he gathereth principally froÌ„ that practise of the Papists whereby they punish more severely the breach of their Ceremonies then of Gods Law Now this is not onely practised by our Prelates but also maintained by this Defendant chap. 2. sect 12. with such faire pretence as the Papists may well use for the Defense of their practise 3. As for the multitude of Ceremonies among the Papists that maketh their bondage greater then ours but doth it make ours none at all Besides when a few mysticall humaine Ceremonies are admitted the gate is set open for a multitude even untill the Convocation will say there be too many For Bellarmine himselfe will grant that Ceremonies are not to be multiplyed over much Fatemur Ceremonias non esse nimis multiplicandas de effsacr c. 30. but what is too much that must be left to to the judgement of the Church or Convocation saith he and the Defendant both SECT VII VIII IX X. IN all these Sections the Def. goeth about to teach us the doctrine which concerneth binding of mens consciâ—nces In the first his conclusion is good and sound God therfore and not man doth properly and directly binde the conscience of man It is sufficient therefore to note that it is an improper phrase to say that mens lawes doe binde mens consciences in respect that God commandeth to obey the just lawes of men for so as Gerson observeth the Phisitions praescripts should also binde a â—ick mans conscience in respect of Gods will whereby a sick man is tied to follow the good and wholesome counsell of his Phisition In the 8. Section two of our Divines are brought-in to prove that men are bound in conscience to observe the just lawes of Magistrates which none of us ever doubted of The 9. Section is spent in proving that Ecclesiasticall lawes have as great force in respect of conscience as politicke Which if it bee granted yet nothing can from thence be concluded for the advantage of ceremonies unlawfully imposed But 1. it is diligently to be observed that the Church hath no commission for to make any lawes properly so called as I have formerly shewed in cap. 1. sect 16.2 The common received opinion of all our Divines is contrary to that which the Defendant heere saith as may be seene in Bellarmine de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 15. and Iunius Whitakers with the rest who writing against Bâ—llarmine doe not deny but defend that which he saith Lutherani Calvinistae omnes docent 3. The interrogatories which the Defendant ministreth unto us in this case doth not prove his Assertion For the Church is a Society but not compleat if it be considered as not comprehending Christ the Head and onely Law maker of it Breach of peace is not a sinne against an Ecclesiasticall but a divine law Obedience is to be yeelded unto lawfull Ecclesiasticall Governours when they bring the charge of Christ whose Ministers they are See D r. Whitakers de Pont. Rom. cont 4. q. 7. c. 2. ad 12. The Kings stamp but with an act of Parliament maketh a law in England As for Apostolicall constitution to which our canons are as like as Apples are to Oisters the same answere which Doctor Whithakers cont 4. q. 7. c. 2. ad 5. with other of our Divines giveth to Bellarmine may serve for our Defendant In the 10. Sect. he setteth downe nothing but that which he knoweth we all grant SECT XI AGainst the Accusation of contempt there was as it seemeth alledged by M. Nic. that by the same reason that Non-conformity is contempt bowling disusing of capps such habites prescribed should be contempt Heere the Defendant first bringeth divers interpretation out of the Casualists and then taketh one for granted without rendring of any reason that he may by it excuse bowling and disuse of cappes But what if wee take hold of another interpretation esteeming the obligation by the intent of the Law-makers
learned and a most prudent Princesse beginne by little and little to come back to the religion of the holy church of Rome the most holy and sacred vestments of the Clergie men being taken on againe we are to be in good hope that the day will come wherein she will at length though now they be thought to be dead recall also all the other Rites and Sacraments of the holy Church of Rome These and such like words no doubt most prudent Queen the Monkes and Iesuites will use in the Pulpits For they take all occasions to confirme their superstitions Therefore to recall these stinking garments and other rubbish of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ at this time what is it but to give the Papists an occasion and the best that may be to confirme and harden themselves and theirs in their superstitions and also to helpe them in this businesse But let us heare what the Prophet said to Iehosaphat King of Iuda when he helped Ahab Darest thou helpe the wicked and love those who hate the Lord For this thing the wrath of the Lord is upon thee And what other thing will this be then even to call backe the weake from the studie of pure Religion and to give them a privy warning to looke backe and returne into Aegipt It is an easy matter for us weak men who of our owne nature are prone to superstition to slide backe to impiety Therefore occasions of sliding backe to ungodlinesse ought to be taken away and at no hand to be given And what else I pray you meant God in forbidding to plpw with an Oxe and an Asse to sow the same field with diverse kinds of seeds and to weare a garment woven of linnen and wollen together It is an odious detestable thing with God that the same field of the Lord should be tilled by ungodly godly Bishops together If in the same Church Popish Doctrine be taught with the Doctrine of the Gospell Finally if Sacraments Ceremonies and Rites partly Apostolicke and partly Popish be used and the Church be cloathed with them as with a garment of linsey-wolsey For what agreement hath light with darknesse And therfore those things which be not of God but fâ—om them who have defiled Gods worship are utterly to be cast away which the Lord himselfe commanded to be done when hee charged utterly to destroy all things which appertained to those who should give us counsell to follow strange Gods and to burne their garments and all their stuffe with fire in the middest of the street to shew our detestatioÌ„ of such Seducers that they might be an execrable thing to the Lord. And who knoweth not that these garments are a part of the houshould stuffe of that Romish Seducer There shall cleave nothing of the execrable thing sayth hee to thy hand that the Lord may turne from the fiercenesse of his wrath and multiplie thee as he hath sworne to thy Fathers c. Wherefore to bring these garments seeing they be houshold stuffe of Antichrist into the Church of Christ what is it else then to provoke God to anger and to kindle his fury against us Certaine it is that he who is a true friend of Christ will never seeke to have the ornaments of Antichrist in his owne house and much lesse will he suffer them in the Temple of Christ. For who can indure the armes of his enemy in his owne house and specially in the chiefest roome of the same And if God will haue a thing destroyed and abolished who are we that we dare build it up againe But it is Gods will that after the death of Christ all garments of Aaron and Levi should be abolished and he hath plainly enough manifested every where that in these our dayes he would have all ungodly and vaine cerem pompes deceits and paintings of the Papists driven away by the shining brightnesse of the Gospell because these things have no power in them to kindle and increase godlines but greatly availe to the quenching of the same Neither verily can I see to what other end these garments tend then in very deed that I may now come unto the second head to defile and disgrace the faire face nay the whole body of the Church of England reformed according to the †Vntrue oâ— misinformed Gospell as if the chaste and honest daughter of a King should be attired with those very garments wherewith some famous and notable whoore used to be adorned and when she were so clothed were commanded to goe abroad in the streets Now who can allow or judge this to be tolerable Wherfore though for no other yet for this very cause such garments ought not to be thrust upon the Church of Christ because that harlot of Rome hath abused and doth still at this day abuse them though in their owne nature they be not evill to evill and to cover her fornications or rather to entice men to commit fornication For all these pompes and Popish ceremonies are nothing else but whoorish paintings invented and devised for this end that men might thereby be allured to spirituall fornication Is it not therefore a filthy and dishonest thing to have these in the Church of Christ If the brasen serpent which had beene ordained of God and that for the wholesome use of the Israelites was taken away by godly King Ezekias because the Israelites had abused it contrary to the word of God and if Ezekias be highly commended for this so doing because hee had turned that Serpent into ashes and commanded them to be cast into the running water that there might never be any print or signe of it extant any more how much more then are these uncleane garments to be banished out of the Church of God seeing the Apostles never used them but the whoore of Rome hath used them in her Idolatrous worship and to seduce men For it is a very dishonest thing that such things as are of themselves indifferent and have beene long used to the dispight and dishonour of God should be retained in the Church of God to the hazard of the salvation of godly men And much lesse that kinde of garments which is nothing but an invention of men or rather of the Divell himselfe devised to seduce the simple ones Wee all know what praise those common-wealthes deserve which make good lawes that the subjects shall not weare out-landish and strange apparrell nor bring it into the Common-wealthes because it is a corruption of good and honest manners and of the Common-wealthes themselves How then can that counsell which is given to your Majesty be commended to witt that garments unknowne to the Christian world in that time of the Apostles and Apostolicall men should be brought into the Church of Christ. And if an out-landish kinde of attire be not tolerated in well-governed Common-wealthes how much lesse are Idolatrous and heathenish garments to be borne with in the Church where God is
nijs multa sunt quae propriè nihil ad naturam Ceremon faciunt qua Ceremonia sed tantum ad naturam rei quae materiae aspectabilis modo ad Ceremoniana figuram Ceremo nialem usurpatur and those appertaine properly to the nature of types by Gods appointment others are taken in not so much for the resemblance of the things but for the nature of the figures As in these Cerem there be many things that make nothing to the nature of a Cerem as such but only to the nature of the thing which thing after the manner of some matter liable to sense is applyed about the Ceremony and the Ceremoniall figure The fourth is That the difference which some make betwixt circumstances and Ceremonies is a meere nycetye or fiction This is a strange nycety as ever I knew The turning or jogging of h houre glasse in relation to the measure of tyme for a sermon the sweeping of the church before the church meâ—ting the carying of some notes for remembrance upon occâ—sion the quoting of scripture without or by the book and a 100. such wâ—re never esteemed ceremoniâ—s properly so called before men began to bâ—ing a myst upon religious observances that humaine presumptions might not be discerned The fift hath his answere before Pag. 33. The 6. Consectary examined and found false The sixt is That divine or humaine institution doth not make an action to be a ceremony or no ceremony These consectaries follow marvellous strangely from the premises when the seeme to contradict both the premises and themselves in some particulars I would therfore intreat the Rej. to end the quarrell at his next rejoyning and make a reconciliation betweene these 1. To a ceremony Institution is essentiall pag. 30. 2. It is not apâ—nes of an action that maketh it a ceremony but Institution Cons. 2. Pag. 32. 3. Now here we are tould that Divine or humaine institution do not make an action a ceremony whence I reason thus A negotione omnium specterum ad negationem generis valet coÌ„sequentia If neither Divine nor humaine institution make a Ceremony then no institution doth for all institutions are either Divine or humaine and from the denyall of all the species to the denyall of the Genus the consequence is good as it is neither a beast nor a man therefore it is not But this sixt corallary saith it s neither divine nor humaine institution make a ceremony ergo I conclude no institution doth make a ceremony which is a direct contradiction to the second which affirmes that institution doth make a Ceremony The seventh hath beene discussed and confuted before in the substance of it Pag. 33. Pag. 34. onely that strange kynd of expression may here be observed as we passe by It is not essentiall to a ceremony simplye that it be no proper part of Divine worship where let it be observed that to be no proper part of worship is a bare negation or not being of worship now plaine it is and manifest to all that have but common sense that a bare negation cannot be essentiall to any thing that hath being neither simply nor comparatively And by the same proportion and upon the same ground he might as well say to be no part of worship is not essentiall to any thing and therfore not to a Ceremony now to what profit or purpose are such expressions which serve nothing to the cause in hand but to darken the truth with words and to dazell the mynds of the ignorant The eight is That it is not the use or end The eight consectary largely discussed found false which maketh a ceremony to be part of divine worship or not but institution Divine institution maketh any circumstance a part but humaine institution though to the same end and use maketh only an adjunct of divine worship because the observance thereof cannot incurr the act of any proper worship of God How this is a consectary following upon the premises it doth not appeare The contrary seemeth to follow from the sixt consectary where divine and humaine institution is denied to make a Ceremony or no Ceremony but rather to difference arbitrary and necessary Cerem For by the very like reason Divine and humaine institution doth not make worship or no worship but rather maketh a diffâ—rence of necessary or arbitrary will worship The reason of that is rendered because relation doth constitute a Ceremo And the same reason houldeth here because relation doth constitute worship The Institution Divine or humaine doth onely difference the efficient cause not the matter forme and end wherin the essence of worship doth consist If Gods institution did make any circumstance of worship to become worship then the ceasing from worship should be worship because ther were circumstances of tyme appointed when men should cease from solemne worship The reason which supporteth the other part of this assertion viz That humaine institution cannot make an action part of worship because the observance thereof cannot incurr the act of worship is just as much as if it had beene so sett downe humaine institution cannot make worship because that which it maketh cannot be worship If men appoint even places and tymes in the same manner to the same ends that God did they are worship as well though not so good as the other If this were not so then wherefore doth the Scripture tell us of will worship taken up at the pleasure of men or according to the institutions doctrines and traditions of men For by the Rej. his rule there can be no such thing and therfore it is vayne to forbidd it This may suffice for this consectary yet because the reflexion of it doth often occurr in the dispute I further undertake to prove that it is neither true in it self nor 2. is it truely inferred from the definition and both these charges we will indeavour to make good For our right proceeding to discover the falshood of the collection when he saith The same use and end maketh not a ceremony to be part of Divine worship The meaning explicated in what sense it is true that the same use and end makes a cere part of worship we must not understand true worship for that all the world of orthodoxe divines especially his opposites against whom he rayseth this consectary do confesse that only the Lords institution makes divine worship true but there is religious worship which is false So that the meaning is whether the same use and end of a Ceremony make it not to be in the kynd of religious worship as well without the institution of God as it s made true religious worship by it Or whether when the same use and end of a ceremony which was religious when Gods institution came the institution being taken away neither I say the same use and end is not now religious properly we â—ffirme against the Rej. that Divine Institution being â—aken away continue the same
WaldeÌ„ses who first reformed their churches purged out all their popish leveÌ„ renouÌ„ced all such humaine Cer. or Traditious as unlawfull as manifestly appeareth by all Papists and Protestants that have sett downe their confession practise 4. If Analogically Sacramentall Cere be impious aemulators of Gods holy Sacraments as the Rej. confesseth what can be sayd why humaine significant Cer. analogicall to divine significaÌ„t should not by parity of reason be esteemed impious aemulators of Gods holy signes Is it forbidden to aemulate Gods Sacra only not all his holy ordinances After all these come in morall significaÌ„t Cer. which are only to expresse some benefitt whiâ—h God giveth us or to notify professe or expresse some duty which we owe to him or one to another But I do not see wherein these differ froÌ„ reductive Sacra Cer. except it be in this that it may so fall out that these sometymes are not affixed to SacrameÌ„ts This head therfore seemeth to be added only because D. Morton had used it before and for his sake let us a little further weigh it when therfor the Rej affirmes that morally significant are ordeined to expresse some benefitt on Gods part some duty on ours By some benefitt or duty he must meane any spirituall benefitt or duty besyde the covenant which he professedly mentioneth excepteth How the Rej. divisionâ— interfere and croâ—â—e one the other for if one benefitt may be signifyed why not any one this morally significant are religious or sacred significant in the generall the Species as large as the Genus Hence againe morally significant will be a genus to sacramentall reductively significant for that is but a particular signification of some benefitts duties in the Sacrament which are included under this Generall so one species of the distributioÌ„ shall become a Genus to the opposite member contradistinct species If it be here replyed that reductive significative sacramentall is annexed to the Sacrament I answer that is nothing to the nature of the significancy for take use a crosse out of baptisme in the same manner to the same end as in it it will be the same in the specificall nature of significancy only so much the worse because it is sett cheek by jole with baptisme 2. I aske what he meanes by those words expresse professe is it barely to declare if so then let him show who is his adversary unlesse he will fall out with his shadow for do not all his opposites graunt that signâ— indicantia or showing sygnes are lawfull but not symbolica Lastly when he affirmes that these Cerem morally significant are not to signifye the covenant of grace The crosse sâ—gnifyes the covenant of grace I reply if they may signifye any other spirituall duty or benefitt if they may signifye the severall essentiall duties of the covenant of each syde why may they not signifye the whole covenant 2. If the crosse signifyeth the consecration of the child to God and so entrance into the covenant the relation of a souldier to a Commaunder a servant to a master and so is continuance and faythfull perseverance in that profession to Christ and his respect and regard of us according to those relations then doth it signify the covenant By this which hath beene sayd it appeares that the quaestion is falsely stated for these Ceremo are more then holy by application in his sense formerly opened they are pressed as necessary and are used as analogically sacramentall as well as properly morall â—he state of â—â—e quaestion and in signification do pertake somthing of the proper nature of Sacraments as also in the significative teaching and stirring up the heart when it s sayd they are used in worship they are externall acts of Gods worship falsely appointed by man and serve not for order nor decency nor aedification CHAP. VIII Concerning a nationall Church answ to the 60.61.62 of the Preface OF the faythfull congregations wherein we were borne baptized and nourished up in fayth there is no quaestion made but they are our loving and beloved mothers Yet much quaestion ariseth concerning that which the Rej. teacheth viz. Pag. â—0 6â— That all those churches together have one mother and so we have a grandmother that is the Church of England considered as one church and that by way of representation as the convocation house 2. by way of association and combination into one profession worship and discipline which includeth the orders and officers that is the Hierarchye pertaining therunto but not by any other collective consideration 1. I never read either in Scripture or in any orthodoxe writer of a visible particular Church either grandmother of Christians or mother of other Churches if the Rej. hath he should do well to informe us where we may fynd this doctrine explained 2. I would willingly know whether Christians Christian churches also were not in England before this great grandmother I think the Rej. will not denye it nor yet flye for succour to his phisitians who have found out an herb which is called of them Sonne before the Father Filius antâ— Patrem to justifye his intention of Daughter before the Mother Filia antâ— Matrem He must confesse that this Grand-motheâ— is onely a mother in law The nature of a representative church and that law also to be mans not Gods 3. All the churches of England may as well be considered as one in unity of profession without any new motherhood as all the Latine Scholes of England one in the unity of the same Grammar or all Gallenicall or Platonicall Scholes one in their kynd 4. A Representative mother is the image of a mother and an image with commaunding authority in religion without Gods commaund Quod ecclesia siâ—is repraesentativa libeÌ„ter credâ—mus vera enim non estu Sed â—sten aâ—te qâ—aso â—â—de â—orâ—â—ec nomen Qui hoc nomintâ—◠〈◊〉 Quis â—acundâ— ceâ—spirandi â—obis potestatem dedit Qâ—is coÌ„deâ—di Canones decreta verbo Des disâ—â—â—miâ—iâ— vobiâ—tus fecit Quiâ— ut ista humeâ—is hominum impeâ—eretiu permisâ—t Qâ—is consitentia ut siâ— gravareitâ— vebis persw sit Vt dicâ—â—etis bâ—num malum malum benum quâ—â— iussit 〈…〉 â—â—clesia 〈◊〉 qâ—a nihil 〈◊〉 al et sed picta ceâ—iâ—la â—mnia Scanâ—n estâ— ecclesia riâ—a sâ—â—sa Christo â—râ—ua qua seâ—a veâ—it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉 is an Idoll It was well therfore to this purpose sayd of Zwinglius Explan arti 8. That you be a representative church we willingly beleeve for you are not the true church But show I beseech you whence you had this name who styled you with this title who gave you power of meeting and combyning together who graunted you authority of coyning decrees and Canons differing from the word of God who suffered you to impose these upon men who perswaded you thus to burden Consciences who enjoyned you to call evill good and
and which is his exceeding ill happ though no occasion require it he cannot conceale these crasy and ill joynted expressions we shall therfore againe lay open the whole frame thaâ— the description may be half a confutation Divine worship proper to God pa. 124. sect 5. mark those words proper to God is principa subordinate externall and thaâ— mediate done to man immediatelâ— but in conscieâ—ce to God and 〈◊〉 honour immediate proper improper determiâ—â—â—â— their use end 〈◊〉 mediately upon maâ— Where some things in the generall are very observeable 1. That improper immediate externall worship is divine worship proper to God The Rei hiâ— contradictions this conclusion will appeare to any that will but wisely apply the speciall and generall together according as they be rancked in the foregoing delineation 2. That improper immediate worship is mediate worship for thus I reason That worship which is immediatly done to man but in conscience to God that is mediate worship so the Rej. description teacheth but improper immediate worship is first done to man so the very expresse words of the Rej. declare evidently â—he acts of improper worship determine in their end and use upon men Therfore immediate improper worship is mediate by the D rs dispute If it be here replyed that the actions which make up mediate worship must be actions of the second table not of the first as these be I answer It is the verdit of the word and the common consent of all Divines that all the actions and duties which concerne our brother as the next object and end and so determine upon him are required and regulated by the second table since therfore these things of comlines and order are of this nature by the Rej. his graunt I do not see how it can be avoyded with any colour of reason but they must be commaunded in the second table and so come under the definition of mediate worship directly contradictory to the Rej. his determination I might also putt the reader in mynd of these twicesod-coleworts that are sett agayne before us viz. this misty distinction of properly reductively which like a vagrant wanders up and downe in every coast and therfore should be whipped home to his owne place For it is propounded applyed upon the like mistake that formerly it was pag. 37. in the division of Cerem And is here as it was there voyd of all art and truth 1. Voyd of Art For what reason or rule doth allow any reasonable disputer to make a distribution and so an opposition of parts that are in consent and agreement one with another such is this here propounded Worship is either proper as Gods ordinances or improper as the adjuncts to these ordinances which appertaine therunto As if a man should say Ther be two kynd of byrds either an eagle or her feathers 2. It s voyd of truth For who ever accounted all the civill circumstances and attendants of decency in the discharge of Gods worship to be worship The band the preacher useth the doublet he weares are decent attendants unto him in preaching praying and it would be exceeding unseemely to see him naked in those parts rudely presenting himself amiddst the congregation in the work of the Lord yet did ever any before D. Burges say that the band and doublet of the minister were improper immediate worship A midst these many mistakes we have a ground of graunt from the Rej. his owne words That kneeling in the act of receaving cannot be improper but proper worship For we kneele not either to man or to the bread but to God directly and it is to lift up his honour immediatly in the use and end of that action and â—herfore it cannot be improper but proper worship Anna her example of serving God with fasting and prayer comes after to be scanned in the next section only before we end lett us consider in a word of that passage which the Rej. hath pag. 126. To the proper circumstantiall or accessory worship the permission of God and a right intention and use sufficeth to legitimate them Ioyne we unto these words the definition of immediate worship under which all these improper circumstantiall worships are ranged viz. Immediate worship is when any act of obedience to the first table is performed to honour God out of which I thus reason Every act of obedience to the first table is not only permitted but required in the first table But the acts of improper immediate worship are acts of obedience to the first table therfore they are not only permitted but required To this place belongs the considering and discussing of the variation of that phrase used in the premonition touching kneeling at the Sacrament cap. 3. p. 3. False worship is sayd to be of the will of man merely True is sayd to be according to the will of God wholly The mistery is that no worship is false which hath any thing in it of the will of God And ther is some worship true and good which is not of the will of God as a cause but only according to it as not hindering or forbidding This is the Papists plea just against our Doctrines for their traditions Gregor de Valent. Tom. 4. Disp. 6. Q. 11. P. 1. Christus non vetat quo minus cultum addamus qui divinae ligi non repugnet sed congruat rationi adecque uoluntati Dei Christ doth not forbidd that we make such addition of worship which doth not repugne to the law but consents to right reason and so to the will of God So Estius in Tit. 1.14 The Scripture so farr as it speaks in the worst sense touching the praecepts and traditions of men Scriptura quoties de mandatu traditionibus hominum loquitur in malam paâ—temea semper intelligit qua sic ab hominibus instituta sunt aut praecepta ut aut omnino nihil ad pietatem conducant aut etiam pietati legi Dei repugnarent Qua ab humanâ— sensu spiritu profecta sunt quatenus selicet homo a scipso movetur non a Deo it alwayes understands such which are so appointâ—d and commaunded by men as that they nothing at all conduct unto piety or plainly oppose both it and the law of God such which proceed from a humaine spirit or appetite to witt so farr as a man is acted of himself and not of God So the Rhemists on Math. 15.9 The contrary assertion is the receaved doctrine of our Divines for and out of the word of God against the Papists and one fundamentall principle of reformation Hec caput est doctrinae inostâ—ae contra electitios cultus papistarum ne quod opus suscipimus in ijs quae pertinent ad cultum de quo non habemus expressum mandatum Dei Neno cultum iactare potest nâ—si verbo quasi pauniculu involutus ac circumclusus sit So Luther Gen. 21. This is one mayne principle of
warrant as that it is any where in Scripture revealed ther should be a Crosse and Sirplice and that the places of Scripture which seem to forbid them could never yet be otherwise cleared and then see how it maketh for the Rejoynder his cause SECT 12. Concerning that phraze Ier. 7.31 etc. You doe that which I commanded not THat which the Rejoynder out of his abundant leysure would needs inlarge most vainly about sect 8.9.10 11. I passe over with sileÌ„ce because the Repl refused to mainteyne that which is there objected out of unprinted and uncertayn papers 1. In the twelf section we are to inquire whether and how that consequence in Gods worship be good I have not commanded this therfor you may not doe it The Def. and Rejoynder say it is not good except by not commanding be undeâ—stood forbidding as Lev. 10.1 Deut. 17.3 Which is thus farr true that except some forbidding be included or as the Rejoynder speaketh imported in that not commanding not commanding câ—nnot mâ—ke a thing unlawfull But that is the very quaestion whether in thinges proper to religion not commanding doeth not include some kinde of forbidâ—ing 2. The place mentioned by the Rejoynder out of Lev. 10.1 doeth most strongly make against him For the sonnes of Aron are there condemned for bringing strange or ordinarie fire to Gods worship as doeing that which God had not commanded and yet had not otherwise forbidden then by providing fire proper to his worship and not apponting any other to bee used in the tabernacle and this is the very plea which wee make against Ceremonies of humane institution in Gods worshâ—p The scope of that text we are taught by an English Bishop Babington in his notes upon that place Wee may hence learne and setle in our heartes with what severiâ—ie the Lord challengeth and defendeth his authoritie in laying downe the way and manner of his worship not leâ—ving it to any creature to meddle with but according to praescription and appoâ—nâ—ment from him Content he is that men shall make lawes for humane matters etc But for his Divine worship hee oneâ—y will praesâ—ribe it himself and what hâ—e appointed that must be doen and that onely or else Nadâ—b and Abibu their punishment expected that is Gods wâ—ath expected in suche manner as he shall please Hee was taught this by Calvin who upon the place sayth God forbad other fire etc. to be used that he might exclude all adventious rites and teach that he detested whatsoever was come from elswhere Let us therefore learne so to attend to the Commandment of God that we desile not his worship with any far fetched devises Alium ignem sacris adhâ—beri vetuit Deus ut adventitios omnes ritus excluderet ac doceret se detestaâ—i quicquid aliundè profectum erat Discamnus ergo siâ— attendere ad Dei mandatum 〈◊〉 ejus cultum ullis extraneis commentis vitiemus M r. Attersoll also in his learned and grave Commentarie upon Numb 3.4 doeth largely declare out of this example how God disliketh and disclaimeth mens devises in his service as trash trumperie and mere dotage instancing among other devises in Ceremonies added unto Baptisme 3. Our reason was propounded in the words of Calvin upon Ier. 7.31 Seeing God under this title onely condemneth that which the Iews did because he had not commanded it them therfore no other reason need to be sought for the confutation of superstitions then that they are not by commandement from God To which the Rejoynder answereth that M r. Calvins conceit holdeth true in proper points of religious worship which are all praescribed of God himself but not in matter of rites not praescribed of God Now if this be not a miserable conceit that Gods not commanding doeth forbid that which he hath praescribed or commanded but not that which he hath not praescribed or commanded let any man of sense judge Other meaning I cannot gather eyther out of these words or out of the Rejoynder his doctrine of worship which was before distinctly weighed in the head of Worship M r. Cartwrites conjecture as the Rejoynder calleth it is the very same with that which he calleth Calvins conceit The Rejoynder his answer also is the same for substance that it is true in matterâ— particularly determined by God but not in matters of order and ceremonie of which God hath not determined particularly The sense of which is that we must depend upon God so farr as he hath determined particularly but in other things we must depend upon men and in England upon the Convocation house But to depend upon God and his mouth being to follow onely his determination and what sense then is this you shall onely follow Gods determination in those things which he hath particularly determined but if you please to doe any thing in his woâ—ship which he hath not determined particularly you may therin depende upon whom you pleaâ—e For matter of Ceremonie enough hath beeÌ„ spokeÌ„ before and of order wee shall after dispute 4. The rest of this 12. section is spent about the Def his wonderfull wondring at our symbolizing with Bellarmine and other Papists because that as they distinguish sinnes into mortal and veniall so wee sayth he make a distinction of against and beside the word About which the Rejoynder granteth that Chrysostom did well use this distinction in matters of doctrine yet he sayth it is not to be extended unto matters of Ceremonie But the question being onely about the distinction it is in the Def. and Rejoynder their opinion farr more appliable to ceremonies then to doctrines because they holde many Ceremonies lawfull beside the word which are not against it though they holde no suche difference of doctrines Now this distinction was used by us according to their conceit more then our owne The like is acknowleged of Iunius that he distinguisheth well betwixt beside and against the Word in the question of traditions devised for divine worship 1. e. essentiall worship particularly determined by God Which is not so for in that place Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an 10. Iunius hath no question eyther about essentialls or worship or traditions but onely about Ecclesiasticall laws binding the conscience And if he had yet that clause particularly determined by God would spoile all because in suche thinges ther can be nothing eyther against or beside the Word But if it were true what is the difference betwixt Iunius and us The Rejoynder sayth that wee confounde rites with worship and yet confesse rites not to be particularly described as the other Which is neyther so nor so except he meane those rites which he calleth double or treble ceremonies and therin we have Iunius so for us that not onely in other places but also in the words next goeing before this in quaestion he sayth generally in divine things to coyne new lawes is nothing but to decline In divinis rebuâ— novas leges ferre nihil abâ—ud
occasion may not be founde in mens nay fathers Ceremonious praesumtions 4. It was finally answered by the Repl. that the allways of these Feasts cannot include the Apostolicall times and for other allways Bellarmine Cont. 1. l. 4. c. 9. hath the same plea and the answer given unto him by our Divines may serve here The Rejoynder here 1. insinuateth that it is very likely these Feasts or some of them were on foot while some Apostles lived because Polycarpe praetended Iohn to have taught Easter On foot indeed was the mysterie of Antichristian corruption in the Apostles times But that which Polycarpe is sayd to have praetended was for the fourteen day of the moneth and is confuted by a contrarie praetense of the latine Churches from Peter and Paul Socrat. l. 5. cap. 22. He 2. addeth under Augustines name that it is insolent madnesse to thinke that not to be well doen which hath been doen by all the Churche though it beganne after the Apostles times Now though I finde no suche saying of Augustines in the epistle quoted for it but to the Contrarie I finde this rule that it is lawful or not lawfull to beleeve or not to beleeve other witnesses or testimonies besides that of the Scriptures so far as you see they beare or do not beare weight to make us give more credit to a thinge Alijs testibut vel testimonijs preterquam Divinarum Scripturarum câ—edere vel non credere liceat quantum ea moments ad faciendam sulem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis Which being granted the fact of the Churche cannot so confirme this or that to be right and well as that it should be madnesse to denie it Yet let it be his saying I answer if this be true then it must needs follow that giving of the Communion and that as is most likely sopped upon opinion of necessitie cannot be denied well and good for that as is well knowen was doen generally in Augustines time and longe before It must follow also that they were speciall insolent mad men that first began to disalow eyther that or any other ancient thinge of generall observatioÌ„ Ecclesia Dei intermultam palâ—am multaque Zizanta constituta multa toleravit which Augustine would never have sayde whoe professed of his time that the Churche of God sett in the heape of chaffe and tares did onely suffer many things onely ep 119. He 3. distinguisheth betwixt Bellarmines and the Defendants alledging of traditions because Bell. spake of doctrines necessarie to salvation Which is not true for Bell. in that chapter maketh no mention of doctrines necessarie to salvation and in the next chapter but one cap. 11. he confesseth that all thinges absolutely necessarie to salvation are written in the Scriptures and which is muche more all thinges that are eyther necessarie or profitable for all men to know SECT 18.19 Concerning Protestants witnessing against the Negative argument from Scripture 1. BEllarmine was brought in by the Def. as an indifferent Adversarie confessinge that Protestants holde the Apostles to have instituted some thinges perteyning to rites and order which are not written Which was also granted unto him as making nothing against us Onely the vanitie of that allegation was in some particulars declared which how they are cleared it being a matter of no moment I referre to the Readers judgement 2. Chemnitius was alledged saying there be some Ecclesiasticall Rites which have neyther command nor testimonie in Scripture which yet are not to be rejected Answer was made that this in a right sense is granted by us The Rejoynder taxeth this as an idle shift because 1 Chemnitius did not intende suche a restrictive sense 2. Circumstances of Order have command and testimonie in Scripture But 1. It is no idle shift so to interpret an allegation objected as that the interpretation cannot be confuted but barely denied 2. As Circumstances of order and decencie have their generall command or testimonie in Scripture so have those Rites which Chemnitius understandeth or else his sentence is without any grounde out of Scripture 3. The same answer is given and no other Rejoynder made about Calvin Danaeus Whitakers and Zanchie saving that of Zanchie it is observed urged by the Rejoynd that he sayth some Ceremonies may help for the furtherance of pietie which have no foundation in the word giving instance of the solemnities of Easter etc. Tract de Sacra Scriptura For whom I answer that his sentence must be understood of no particular foundation or else he should give more then any Papist will require concerning their humane Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies As for his instances in the solemnities of Easter it seemeth he reckoned them amonge Ceremonies of order and decencie because as the Def. and Rej. confesse that is the onely place authorizing humane institutions in Religion If he meant otherwise he did as a man crosse his owne rules as after God willing shall be shewed For the present let that testimonie of Zanchie be well considered which he setteth downe in Col. 2.8 It is certayn that this consequence is very good this or that is not according to Christ therfore it is not to be admitted This ought to be enough to any Christian man It is not according to Christ therfore I admitte it not in the buisinesse of atteyning to salvation Where is to be noted 1. That according to Christ is opposed by the Apostle to according to the traditions of men and therfore is all one with not appointed by Christ. 2 that all Ceremonies instituted to teache the doctrine perteyning to salvation are part of the meanes wherby we are supposed to be helped directed in seeking and atteyning salvation 4. About Iunius ther is more adoe because his wordes are set downe at large on both pars But as for that which the Def. and Rejoynder cite out of him pag. 109. I cannot say much more then hath been answered to the other Divines untill a consequence be framed out of them more effectuall to the purpose then is in that which the Rejoynd onely quaestioneth And doeth the rule 1. Cor. 14. concerne nothing but circumstances of Order Or can our opposites be accorded with this saying For it hath been formerly manifested what that rule doeth require and how it may be accorded with our tenent On the other part this professed sworne sentence of Iunius is alledged If any man eyther by Civill or Ecclesiasticall authoritie will adde thinges not necessarie nor agreeable to Order wee would not pertinaciously contend with him but desire onely that he would seriously consider of three thinges 1. By what authoritie or example he is led to thinke that the holy Churche of God and the simplicitie of the mysteries of Christ whose voyce onely is heard by his sheep must be clad with humane traditions which Christ doeth reject 2. To what ende he judgeth that thes thinges should be added unto those that are divine For if the ende be conformitie
suche Ceremonies And so all they that adde their Ceremonies to Religion as usefull garments doe seem to account it in comparison naked without them 3. If the Def. meant to shew that our Ceremonies are not essentiall limbes of the bodie of Religion so did Iunius mean to shew that those which adde their Ceremonies to Gods ordinances doe pretend they adde onely clothing not members to the body of Religion Neyther is this snaching at words as the Rejoynder termeth it For it is and hath been an ordinarie commeÌ„dation of Ceremonies that they are as a garment to Religion Whence it was that a Scottishman as I remember at the first comming of King Iames into England hearing them mainteyned under that name answered that he wondred then how Religion did live and thrive in the colde countrie of Scotland without suche linsiewoolsy garments 6. Vnto this full testimonie of Iunius the Repl. added the words of Zanchie anoâ—her witnesse of the Defend His words in his epistle to Q. Elizabeth are these the Churche must be ordered by the rule of the Apostolcall Churche as well in Ceremonies as in doctrine The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is no more contrarie to the Def. then to Zanchie himself acknowleging elsewhere some Ceremonies lawfull which have neyther commande nor testimonie of Scripture which he would never say of doctrinals Now 1. If it be also against Zanchie himself yet it disableth his testimonie for the Def. 2. This which is alledged out of him for Ceremonies without testimonie or foundation in Scripture hath been answered before that it must needs be understood of particular foundation And so he might well say the same of doctrinalls For in this ther is no difference betwixt Ceremonies and many other thinges which are not Ceremonies and yet apperteine to Conscience As the Apostle sayd let all thinges be doen comely and in order so sayd he also whatsoever thinges are venerable or honest just of good report and prayse let them be doen. All the particulars of these latter are not Ceremoniall and yet many hundreds of suche thinges have no more command or testimonie in Scripture then the particulars of order and Decencie Neyther have the generalls of order and Decencie lesse command and testimonie in Scripture then the generall of these His 2. answer that Zanchies comparison is to be understood of similitude not of aequalitie is in the former words answered For no disparitie can be shewed betwixt many particulars of Doctrinall pointes in their cases of practise considered with all circumstances and the particulars of Decencie and Order muche lesse betwixt their generalls As for exaÌ„ple it is as difficult for D. B. to fetche from any doctrine in Scripture this particular It is venerable just and of good report for him to write suâ—he a Rejoynder as he hath doen as this particular the Crosse in Baptisme is orderly decent and to edification I take both to be impossible But suppose both to be probable the former being no Ceremonie is no more determined in Scripture then the later There hath been a fashioÌ„ taken up of speaking otherwise but no reason can be rendered of it Let any man shew the reason and I will yeeld The epistle out of which this quotation is was written in deed against our Ceremonies yet the Repl. leaving to a fitter place noted onely for the present purpose that it was written of them But the Rejoynd being great with an observation or two addeth about that Moreover Zanchie when he wrote to Q Eliz. to persuade her not to urge the Ceremonies so severly did write at the same time to B. Iewel that Ministers should rather yeeld to them then leave their places because they are not simplie unlawfull To which I answer 1. Zanchie writ to Q. Eliz not onely that the Ceremonies should not be so severeâ—y urged but also that they ought not to be urged imposed or allowed of at all but abolished And of this his judgement he gave suche effectuall reasons as can never be answered Amonge other one is proper unto this place and fit here to be remembred because it overthroweth all that warrant which the Def. and Rejoynder have hitherto or can heerafter plead for them out of 1. Cor. 14. Order Decencie Edification These Ceremonies saith he make not for edification but for publicke dissention private perturbation of conscience with scandall of good and bad They make not for order but disorder and confusion of good Ministers with evill or Popish who ought even in garments to differ They make not for decencie of Christs Spouse because they are a strange ridiculous idolatrous attire of this Romish whore 2. Zanchie when he writ unto B. Iewel gave no reason of this counsel for yeelding but left them to be invented by B. Iewel Now because those reasons of yeelding were never yet made knowen wherby the former reasons directed by Zanchie against urging can possibly be overborne I cannot otherwise thinke but this later counsel was more out of charitie guided by humane erring prudence then out of judgement grounded on Scripture Howsoever our question is not onely of yeelding in case of extreame necessitie but also of appointing and urging men to that extreame necessitie 3. Zanchie doeth not perswade to allow of these Ceremonies by subscription or silence but onely in extreme necessitie to yeeld unto them and that with Protestation Etsi fortitorestistendum est Magistrâ—it illis traditionum et leges Poâ—tificum acriter vâ—tuperandâ— quibâ—s in Populum Dei Now this was according to a kinde of charitable Pollicie which Luther is author of about all Popish Ceremonies de Libertate Christiana in these wordes Although we must manfully resist those Masters of traditions and the lawes of the Popes wherwith they overrun the people of God are tartly to be dispraised â—t assantur tarbae tamen pavi dae parcendum est quam captivam tenent eisdem legâ—â—us impij illi tyranni donec explicentur In liges legissatores ivehuâ—is et tamen simoul serves 〈◊〉 infirmis donec et insi tyrannidâ—m cognosâ—ant libertaâ—â—m suam intellegaus yet the timorous multitude whome those wicked Tyrants lead captive with the same lawes must stoop till they be plâ—inely layd open You may inveigh against the lawes and law makers but withall you may observe them with the weake untill both they do know the Tyranny and come to understand their liberty But 1. what warrant have we for suche a course but of Gods word 2. M r. Hooker pag. 247. derideth this course as a Theorie neyther allowable nor any way practicable in England 3. Our opposites that defend and commend the Ceremonies as orderly decent thinges tending to Edification cannot without contradiction assent unto this counsel D. B. in deed did formerly beginne after some manner to put some peice of this course in practise But the ill successe that he found in it hath since made him others keep farr from that part of it
also hold in our time If so then why is not our argument good Calvin Bucer Beza the Divines of Helvetia France Netherland c. have in their practise banished Crosse Surplice and kneeling Ergo their doctrine is against them 5. The Rej. calleth it a spirit of singular singularity to thinke the whole Church in the dayes of purest zeale and frequent martyrdome did not duâ—ly examiâ—e theâ—r Ceremâ—nies And yet the same Rej. without any spirit of singular singularity acknowledgeth that in the two first ages after the Apostles there was either want of clearnesse or a manifest touch of error about some sixteene points of doctrine very important pag. 458. Which if he will reconcile with this affected accusation he must say that Christians in those times more attended to certain humane Ceremonies then to divers points of divine doctrine though in the maine power of Godlinesse they went beyond those which are purer both in Ceremonies and doctrine But the trueth is he spake there for excessive commendation of our English-Church-doctrine and so in comparison depressed the Primitive and heere he seeketh to defend our Ceremonies by theirs and so extolleth their judgement of Ceremonies in both places according to occasion exceeding thâ— just measure as it usually falleth out to those who dispute out of affection more then out of judgement 6. The Rej. taketh it ill that the Repl. should say that the bringing in of humane Ceremonies made any way for Antichristian supersâ—ition But seeing that the Antichristian Papists argue so strongly from those first humane Ceremonies to divers of those which they use and by us are rejected that they cannot bee fully confuted but by rejecting of both I see no reason for his indignation Gideons Ephod in the argument of the eight chapter of Iudges according to our new translation was a cause of Idolatrie And was not the old crossing at every step at every comming to and going out Ad 〈◊〉 progressum atque promotum ad omnem ad itum exiitum ad vestitum calceatum ad lavacrae ad monsat ad lumina ad cubâ—iie ad sâ—dilâ—a sert aâ— Corona at the apparreling themselves at washing at eating at lighting candles at sitting c. as a great cause of that Idolatry which hath been and is-used about the crosse D. Fulke in his Rej. to Bristow cap. 3. mainteyneth that many abuses and corruptions entred into the Church immediately after the Apostles time which the Divell planted as a preparative for Antichrist The same Doctor also ibid. sect 4 proveth many Ceremonies of the Primitive times to have been unprofitable because they are abrogated And cap. 9. hee sayth plainely that the error of conceiving and using some superstitions or superfluous Ceremonies is common to the Fathers with Papists 6. A great matter is made of that which the Replier said concerning 1500. yeares experience of humane significant Ceremonies For about this the Rej. sayth that it is wonderfull rashnesse answering the spirit of montanus to challenge the whole Church of error in this matter for 1500. yeares But 1. it is rashnesse in the Rej. to accuse one of challenging the whole Church who mentioned not in his challenge either Church or whole 2. The whole Church cannot be understood except the Waldenses and all like unto them that is the purer part bee excluded out of the whole Church 3. Doctor Morton himselfe Prot. Apol. cap. 25. sect 9. maintaineth this sentence of M r. Calfhill the Fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel in Ceremonies if by simplicity be understood a vertue opposite either unto superfluitie or superstition And And are not superfluity and superstition errors 4. From the primitive times by the space of sixe hundred yeares the Church generally erred in giving the Lords Supper unto infants as D. Morton sheweth Prot. Apol. l. 2. cap. 25. sect 10. and after that for many hundred yeares it mended for the common course of errors as soure ale doth in Sommer 5. The Rej. cannot name any Church in all that time free from errors neither can he denie but the Church that erreth in doctrine may erre in Ceremonies Ergo. 6. Hee was unhappie in mentioning Montanus his spirit which breathed and broached so many humane Ceremonies that the Church hath ever since beene more wronged thereby in Ceremonies then in any other respect or by any other spirit of that time as all men know that have read those writings of Tertullian which were dictated by a piece of Montanus his spirit Montanus would have three Lents in stead of one Montanus advanced the Crosse unto more honour then ever it had before Montanus in one word was of a ceremoniall spirit SECT 30. IN this section foure or five Protestant Divines are named as allowing of some significant Ceremonies But there is not any one of them whose judgement to the contrary hath not beene manifestly declared I will not therefore so much distrust the Readers attention and understanding as to weary him with needlesse repetitions SECT 31. HEere the Defend urgeth upon us the ordinary forme of swearing upon a booke To which if the Replier hath not sayd enough I leave it to the Readers judgement after hee hath compared the Rej. opposed which speaketh 1. of Gamballing 2. of Bucklers and Quarrelling 3. of a proofe necessary to an answere 4. of swearing by a bocke 5. of Sophistication in confounding our Churches esteeme and the trueth about this forme of swearing 6. of equalitie betwixt speciall solemne worship of God and occasionall swearing in civill Assemblies I will onely adde as an explication of the Repliers answere that which D. Iackson answereth the Papists about this fashion Orig. of unbel sect 4. cap. 35. We use the booke onely as a complement of the civill act whereby we give satisfaction unto men or as a visible resemblancer partly to by standers or spectators whose eyes by this meanes may become as true witnesses as their eares that such protestations have beene made partly unto him that makes them who will be more wary and circumspect what he avoucheth and protesteth when he perceiveth his speeches must be sealed with such remarkeable circumstances as they cannot be often recalled to his owne and others memorie To the same ende men of honourable place and calling use to lay their hands upon their hearts when they take a solemne oath SECT 32. Concerning the Lords-Day Temples and ceremoniall Festivals 1. THe Def. having spoken of his much sayling in the maine and narrow Seas commeth to object the observation of the Lords Day as a fit example of a humane Ceremonie whereupon the Replier continuing his similitude sayth that he was at this time eyther sea-sicke or sleepy with his much sayling This the Rej. calleth a scurrilous jest and scoffe so liberall is he of termes when reasonable answers are not at hand But if he had thought of the ordinarie sayings Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus animi perturbatio est quaedam ejus
Wolphius Lavater Sadeel Iewel Bilson Fulke Rainolds Andrues and Perkins To all these it was unseasonable sayth the Rejoynder to answer at full in this place We must therfor wayt though in vayne for a place which will seeme seasonable 6. The Defender in fine noted two disparities betwixt the brasen Serpent and our Ceremonies 1. That the Idolatrie of the Iews about that was publicke generall and in the same Churche which is not so with our Ceremonies 2. That ther was no other meanes to cure the Idolatrie of those times as now ther is To the former it was answered 1. that these circumstances are not rendred as reasons of abolishing the brazen serpent in the Text but invented by the Def. True saith the Rej. yet any man may conceive that they might be reasons But for generality I cannot conceive how it can be prooved and the publike abuse though it might be a reason yet not such a one as that with it abolishing should be used or suspended But our Ceremonies addeth the Rej. must in comparison be likened to the brazen Serpent used well at Ierusalem which ought not to have beene abolished for such another in relation to that set up at Bethel and made an Idol Wherein he mistaketh much For first our Ceremonies were never good or well used Calvin is allowed of by the Def. and Rej. for his moderation about them Let him therefore speake I answer the turne-coate What is there in the Papacy unlike the brazen Serpent except onely the originall Epist. 265. The Popish Ceremonies are naught from the beginning Resp. ad Versipellem Quid in Papatu non simile serpenti aneo prater originem Epist. 265. Ceremoniae Papales à suo principio vitiosa sunt 2. The Papists did not take these Ceremonies from us but we from them 3. It may be very well questioned whether the serpent at Ierusalem considered as no way commanded of God should not have beene abolished if the ten Tribes should have taken occasion by it of Idolatry It was answered 2. that private idolatry is also to be remooved as well as publike That cannot be de facto saith the Rejoynder Yet thus farre it may be very well de facto that nothing be used in publike which is knowne to nourish idolatry in private It was answered 3. That all these circumstances did more then agree to our Ceremonies in the beginning of our reformation To this it is rejoyned 1. that our Ceremonies were never the object of grosse idolatry which he would not have said if he had thought of the Crosse or that the proper meanes of idolatry are as well to be abolished as the objects The 2. rejoynder is that though they ought to have beene remooved in the beginning of reformation yet now not which is as if a debter should pleade that he owed indeed so much money to his creditour long agoe but now though it hath beene every yeare called for he is quit by deferring the payment Sure sayth the Repl. our Ceremonies are not growne better since the reformation by any good they have done That is not heere considered answereth the Rejoynder but if they bee not growne to lesse abuse As if lesse superstition with much mischiefe were not enough to cashiere such Ceremonies as doe no good To the second disparitie it was replied that this is the very quaestion whether any other meanes be sufficient to cure the disease of human Ceremonies idolatrously abused beside abolishing This sayth the Rej. you make a quaestion of And was not the Defend disputing against us what reason then had he to make ouâ— quaestion an argument or answer against us It was replied also that experience haâ—h shewed the disease of our Ceremonies is not cured in the Dominions of our Hezekia Yet sayth the Rej. the meanes without abolishing may be sufficient if they were well applied that is given and receyved As if the same meanes would not have been in like manner sufficient in Hezekias time against the Idolatrie of the Serpent if they had been well applied i. e. given and receyved Heerin certainly is no disparitie A peice of a Comparison betwixt the Primitive the praesent English Churche 1. Because the Def. 3. or 4. times repeated and urged as much making for his cause that our Churche is so truely reformed that it doeth most lively expresse the face full body of her Primitive Mother-Churche the Repl. therfor at last was forced to say somthing to this especially in this place where it is quaestioned if we will allow it to be called a reformed Churche He answered therfor in generall that in the maine pointes of doctrine and the grossest superstitions our Churche is reformed but in regard of Ecclesiastical government and some Ceremonies it is not To this it is rejoyned 1. That by face and body was meant onely doctrine and religion not governement or Ceremonies The Defend therfor understood this terme as Cardinall Perone and the Replier as D. Andrues whoe in the beginning of his answer hath these wordes Points of faith seeme rather to pertayne to the inward parts then to the face It is the Agend of the Churche â—e should have held him to In that is the face of the Churche c. After this the Rejoynder making all the Primiâ—ive Church that was within divers hundreds of years afâ—er the Apostles age out of the Centurie-writers and others gathereth a catalogue of errors and defects in doctrine and observances which by little and little began in those times and thence concludeth that our doctrine is purer then it was in the Primitive Church and also some observances Now 1. this extention of the Primitive Church is taken without leave 2. Those errors of doctrine may no more be attributed to the Primitive Church then the errors of M r. Mountague and others like him who are neither few in number nor meane for power as things goe may be to the English Church 3. In the other matters of Ecclesiasticall Policy and Ceremonies we hold that for which the Rejoynder formerly objected unto us as a spirit of singular singularity pag. 384. and now confesseth to be true namely that the Apostolicall purity began presently after to be corrupted and so proceeded in defection more and more Yet all this doth not hinder but divers corruptions may be found among us which were not knowne in the first primitive ages Nay let it be marked well how strange an assertion is made up by this reckoning of the Rejoynders In Hezekias time saith the Defendant the idolatry about the Serpent could not be cured but by abolishing the Serpent but in our most truely reformed Church which doth most lively expresse the face and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church this disease would be found curable without any such extremity The meaning is according to the Rejoynder his interpretation the disease of idolatry is more easily cured in that Church which doeth lively expresse the face and full body of those
The reasons rendred by the Defendant for the Nicene prohibition of keeping Easter as the Iewes are three 1. Hatred of the Iewes 2. Because of the Iewes insultations 3. For uniformity Of the last it was Replied that uniformity might have beene if all could have beene drawne to the same time with the Iewes Which the Rejoynder confesseth to be true if they could have beene drawne thereto as well Where 1. He taketh it for granted that all were well drawne to the time determined the contrary whereof appeareth as in others so in our ancient Britons 2. Well or ill that is easily or hardly these make no difference in uniformity but onely in the meanes of accomplishing the same The other two reasons are sayd by the Replier to agree unto our Ceremonies because we are to hate the Idolatrous superstitions of the Papists with a perfect hatred and the Papists insult over us for borrowing our Ceremonies from them About this because it could not be denied the Rejoynder spendeth many words and phrazes partly Rhetorically good and partly Morally not good which I leave as I found because there is no doing with them but in greate leisure or in idle time In the conclusion it was asked by the Replier for what causes many other Ceremonies of the Papists were abolished if not for these two last named or if the same causes that abolished them would notsweep away these if it pleased them who have the beezoms in their hand About this the Rejoynder first referreth the Reader to a preface set before the Service-booke and I am contented he should seeke if he can finde any such reasons there Secondly he addeth that wee which have not the bezome in our hands should not shuffle abroad the dust with our feete No more doe we say I but onely keepe it out of our eyes and throates so well as we can giving reasons why the Sweepers should not thrust it upon us nor us for it out of the doores 11. About the Gangren forbidding fasting upon the Lords-Day many words are spent by the Rejoynder The summe is that such fasting is there spoken of as was performed out of an Hâ—reticall opinion either of necessity so to doe or of contempt of the Lords-Day But this cannot be prooved For there being divers different editions of that Councell none of them mention opinion of necessity and in the ordinary greek copy there is neither contempt nor contumacy named as Binius noteth Beside opinions and contempts as they are inward cannot be noted by the Church If they were outward in word then not so much the fasting upon opinion as the opinion it selfe was to be condemned If the act it selfe was taken for a manifestation of such an opinion that is it which we urge As for that accusation which is layd upon the Replier for relating the Defendant his answer so as if he had referred the matter unto contempt of Christian profession that is remooved by the Defendant his owne words related by the Rejoynder pag. 521. Contempt to wit of the Christian profession See before in Melchiades his decree 12. The Councell of Bracara forbad abstinence from flesh for avoyding of all suspicion in consenting to the Priscillian Hereticks This sayth the Rejoynder was in respect of inexpediency onely Let it be so yet 1. They that forbad it held it not lawfull to be commanded as our Ceremonies are 2. Inexpediencie or inconveniency of Ceremonies notoriously knowne to be Idolatrously abused maketh them unlawfull by the Defendant and Rejoynder their owne confessions in the first section of this chapter where convenient necessity is required to make them lawfull 13. Thrice dipping in Baptisme was condemned by a Councell of Toledo It was added in the Abridgement that Gregory alledged and approoved this decree and the Replier named Leo in stead of Gregory Heere the Rejoynder catcheth holde of the names of Gregorie and Leo and findeth matter for many words in the account of their lives not agreeing to the fourth Councell of Toledo where this was decreed Now the Replier was through haste mistaken as understanding the first Councell of that place for the fourth and the Authors of the Abridgement or their Scribes pen misplaced the word alledgeth because the Councell doeth alledge Gregory Teâ—â—atur modus ille quom Gregorius primus definivit Tolet. 4 cap. 5. and not Gregory the Councell Let that manner be held which Gregory the first defined These are not stragling Souldiers such as formerly were taken from the Defendant as the Rejoynder spake but Souldiers boyes or Bedees upon whom little or nothing dependeth in the bartell Let them therefore goe or by exchange be dismissed Gregory hath the same sentence lib. 1. Epist. 41. and therefore approoved the decree of Toledo before it was there decreed For reall answer it is rejoyned 1. That all things forbidden are not condemned at unlawfull But yet by his leave whatsoever is forbidden lawfully and reasonably is held unlawfull upon some reason and therefore so farre condemned for unlawfull as it is lawfully forbidden Certainely in Lawes forbidding doeth as well imply some unlawfull evill as commanding doeth necessary good 2. The Rejoynder denyeth the Papist to make any superstitious construction of our use of the Crosse. But this is plaine enough and it commeth after to be handled yet in this place it is enough if they make a superstitious construction of the Crosse which we make use of though not of our use which the Rejoynder addeth that he might with some colour accuse the assertion of falshood More was not nor needed be affirmed by the Replier in this point 3. He pronounceth it a male volent calumniation that our owne Canons and Canonicall Imposters make a superstitious construction of it But this hath beene prooved before especially in the second Argument where it hath been convinced of will-worship 4. He formeth a new proposition and thereupon girdeth at sitting in the Lords-Supper which is not worth the answering All the rest of his words turne upon the loose hingel of inconveniency without any unlawfulnesse now often confuted This therefore shall suffize for this testimony and so I end the head of Fathers and Councels For Leo's words make not directlytothe purpose Concerning Protestant Divines This head was passed over by the Defendant but the Rejoynder undertaketh to cleare it wherein either his skill orhis confidence must needes occasion wondering 1. The generall Assembly of Scotland anno 1566. writ thus to the Bishops of England If Surplice Corner-Cap and Tippet have beene badges of Idolaters in the very act of Idolatry what have the Preachers of Christian liberty and the open Rebukers of superstition to doe with the dregs of the Romish Beast And in their Confession We detest all the Ceremonies and false doctrine of the Romish Antichrist added to the ministration of the true Sacraments we detest all his vaine Allegories Rites Signes and Traditions brought into the Church without or against the Word of God To
every ordinary impartial Reader must needs take to be more general 6. P. Martyr giveth for a Rule to the Ministers of Poland that such order in the administration of Sacraments is to be kept as differeth most from the toys and Ceremonies of Papists It is an excellent Rule sayth the Rejoynder but he sayd not that human Ceremonies abused unto superstition in Poperie are now unlawful for us to use As if he that sayth we ought to keep that order which differeth most from Popish toys and Ceremonies did not say we ought nâ—t to use Popish Ceremonies He speaketh without quaestion of an internall ougâ—t or sic oportet which the Rejoynder pag. 492. confesseth to binde the conscience The same P. Martyr sayth Certainly if we did from the heart hate superstition we would doe our endevour cleane to put out and deface all the footsteps and monuments therof He spake this answereth the Rejoynder when Missalattire Altars and Crucifixes were as yet remayning Now for Missal attire I know none then remayning which remayneth not now Altars also have ever since remayned in diverse Churches and are now for countenance of other Ceremonies comming up againe where they were abolished with an Idolatrous addition of bowing unto them Crucifixes will soon follow and that by good right if the Defender and Rejo their groundes be good For the doctrine being changed and the materials onely of Popish Crucifixes remayning what can be sayd to make them simplie unlawfull And for their conveniencie whoe may judge of that but those that have authoritie of praescribing and imposing matters of order and decencie But to let that passe P. Martyr spoke of that time when he supposed the doctrine reformed and manifestly riseth in his discourse from those specials to the general to all footsteps of superstition and not those onely But sayth the Rejoynder the same P. Martyr professeth no separation would be made for such matters He sayth so in deed of the Surplice pag. 1127. and so say we especialy upon the same condition that we may be suffered to abrogate them for our owne practise Ferremus nobis gratulando quod eas abrogaverimus To this the Rejoynder addeth diverse sentences of P. Martyrs somewhat favoring a toleration for a time of our Ceremonies especialy in M. Hoopers case To which I answer 1. that this was in perplexitie caused by the mischief of our Ceremonies which are therfor so much the more to be hated even that they have allways bred such trouble unto good men whoe should have troubles enough De vestibus quas vocant sacras fateor aliquid esse duâ—us quod meipsum nonnihil perturbet ut merer illas tam mordicus retineri though they were abolished Quaestions of this kind are to us somwhat difficult There is somwhat more hard I confesse of those garments they call holy which somwhat troubleth me that I woâ—dâ—r they are so strictly reteined He himself refused to wear the Surplice and that upon such ground as may move us to refuse it as he profâ—sseth When I was at Oxford I would never use those white â—arments in the Quire though I were at that time a Canon Ego cum essem Oxonij vestibus illis albis in Choro nunquaÌ„ uti volui quaÌ„vis essem Canonicus Mei facti ratio mihi constabat Quod verò me movit adhuc movet te sortasse movere poterit nempe id non esse facâ—endum quod ea confirmet quae conscientia mea non probes â— had a reason for it But that which mooved me then and â—â—ill doeth moove and perhaps may justly moove you is nameâ—y that that is not to be dâ—n which shâ—ll confirme what my â—onscience cannot allow of 3. He telleth us plainly â—hat these Ceremonies are merae Papatus reliquiae meere Popish reliques condemned by Bullinger and that he was upon hope of their abolishing onely tardior ad suadendum loath to persuade unto suffering of deprivation for hâ—m All these thinges are found in the places quoted by the Rejoynder Let any indifferent reader gesse by â—hem what was P. Martyrs judgement in his free and â—nperplexed thoughts Certainly it was not that which â—he Defender and Rejoynder have repâ—aesented unto us â—or theirs whoe accuse all those beside oâ—her faults many and great of â—uperstition that refuse them as unlawful they being Rites both orderly and also decent 7. Bezas wordes are that the footsteps of Idolatrie ought not to appear in the Church but to be utterly banishâ—d The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this toucheth not our Ceremonies in Bezas judgement Epist. 12. It touched our Ceremonies in the eyght Epistle of Beza but not in his twelf what difference was ther betwixt these two Epistles Onely this in the former he writte to a Bishop and so sheweth him the foulnesse of our Ceremonies plainly but in the later he speaketh to poor Ministers persecuted for those Ceremonies whose great affliction with the Churches detriment made him to conceal some part of his judgement Yet in that twelf Ep. he insinuateth the same judgement of our Ceremonies Qui cuperunt superstitiones co usque dâ—testart ut etiam illarum vestigia â—â—perint execrars quantoperà offenduntur They which began to hate superstitions so far as to curse their footsteps how greatly are they offended Ther is yet fresh superstition of the signe of the Crosse moâ—â— detestable They therefore have don wonderful well who have once banisht that rite out of the Church whereof for ouâ— parts we see no good Signs crucis est adhuc recens superstitio manimè execrabiâ—u Rectitissimè igitur fetisse arbitramur gus soâ—â—el istum â—itum ex Ecclesis expularunt cuius etiâ—â— non videmus quae sit utilitas Quoniam ex genius latione dum symbola accipintuur orta est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illa detestabilis adhue in multorum animis baerens me vito sublata esse vid tur Because by kneeling at receiving it sprung that most abominable Bread-worship and still cleaving to the minds of many is worthily abolished The Rejoynder noteth 2. that in Bezas judgement many thinges may and must be tolerated which are not rightly imposed Which is true but 1. let it be then openly confessed by the Rejoynder that our Ceremonies are not rightly imposed before he abuse this rule 2. Let him tell us if approving by subscription and use be a meer toleration 3. The same Beza telleth us Toleranâ— quaedaem putaemus quae omninò ferri non debent con Westph We think somthings may be tolerated which altogether may not be born In the 3. place it is added by the Rejoynder that Beza sayth of some that reteyne the Crosse they may use their owne libertie But in the next words he addeth If they have any just Causes of reteining this signe in their Churches So that he limiteth that libertie unto such causes as he was not privie to Nos cortè cur â—llud signum
As if forsooth the Papists though we for peace sake admitted of all those things would ever amend their Doctrine and banish out of their churches or at any hand lay down their false and godlesse decrees manifest and abhominable superstitions and idolatries and there will be some who will answer such bookes once dispersed So of this English fire there will rise a a new burning flame in Germanie and France on which hot coles the Papists as so many Smiths a forging will sprinkle cold water to make the flame the more vehement And is not this a goodly benefite Who therefore doth not see that this counsell tends to the troubling of all Churches To conclude that golden saying of a certaine learned man is very true and certaine and approved by long experience that indifferent things that is the question about indifferent things is that golden apple of contention So much shall suffice to have spokeÌ„ of the troubling of publick peace what should I say of the consciences of private beleevers It is manifest that they are greatly troubled with this commandement to put on these linnen garments For they doe so greatly complain that their lamenting voyces and grones doe reach unto and are heard in Germany Now how grievous and distastfull an offence it is to trouble the consciences of the godly the holy Scripture sheweth partly when it commandeth that we make not the holy Spirit sad neither offend the weak ones partly when it threatneth griveous punishments against those who feare not to do these things partly also when it propoundeth the examples of the Saints and specially of Paul who speakes thus If meat offend my brother I le eat no flesh while the world standeth that I may not offend my brother For in those words he giveth a generall rule by his example taken out of the doctrine of Christ to wit that no indifferent thing is to be admitted and yeelded unto much lesse to be urged upon others and least of all to be commended by decree if in the admitting urging and commanding of it the minds of good men and consciences of the faithfull be offended for a tender conscience which feareth God is a thing most pretious and acceptable to God How therefore can that counsell be approved which would have a law established and proclaimed by the Princes command for the use of garments to be used by Ministers in the ministery For to speak many things in few words if such garments be to be propounded to the faithfull they are to be propounded either as indifferent or as necessary if the later wee doe ungodlily because we make those things necessary which Christ would have to be free If the former then are they to be left free to the Churches But by commanding and compelling we make things that be free and indifferent to be necessary and so fall into the same trespasse Moreover either they be ordained of God by Moses or they be delivered by Christ God manifested in the flesh or they be ordained by the holy Ghost working and speaking in the Apostles or they are of men either godly or wicked Those Ceremonies Leviticall garments which were ordained of God by Moses ought all of them to have an end after the death of Christ as the Scriptures shew plainly especially the Epistles of Paul to the Coloss. and Hebr. therfore they cannot be revoked and called back without the transgression of Gods will It cannot be sayd that Christ taught them because there is no word extant to that end but rather he taught plainly oftentimes that all Moses his Ceremonies were ended And the same I affirme concerning the Apostles It remaines therefore that they be sayd to be of men If they be from godly men then were they ordained of them either to edification or for order and comelines But they availe not to edification that is to further comelines but rather tend to the overthrow of it as we saw before neither for any good order but rather they tend to disorder for there is a confusion of godly wicked Bishops wheras it is meet and equall that one of them be discerned from another even by their garments also Neither doe they make Christs spouse comely as we shewed a little before Therfore we ought not to yeeld unto them And such things as have beene invented by men voyd of Gods Spirit doe nothing appertaine to us Lastly the Apostles used not these garments For we have no authenticke testimony Now the church is to be fashioned after the rule of that Apostolicall Church in Ceremonies and garments as well as in Doctrine What doe wee then with these garments in the Church By whose authority can they be approved What profit or wholsome use can the Christian people have by them But on the contrary we have shewed that godlinesse is weakened by them the pure worship of God is violated Popish superstiâ—ion is by little and little called back the godly be offended the wicked be confirmed and hardened in their ungodlinesses the weak in faith are brought into hazard of their salvation there are occasions of many evills given Monkes and other Popish preachers are hereby helped to confirme their followers in their superstition the wrath of God is provoked against us those things which God would have to be destroyed are hereby builded againe by us the whole face of the Church is defiled and disgraced there is a foule sinne committed against honest and good lawes forbidding the putting on of strange outlandish garments and so the whole Church is dishonoured Besides the publicke peace of the Church yea of many churches is troubled one Bishop is set against another the consciences of the godly are troubled and the minds of good men are offended Gods spirit is made sad in them and this apple of contention is cast as it were upon the table of the Gods Now seeing the matter stands thus most gracious Queene not onely I but all my fellow-ministers and all the godly prostrate before you intreat your Majesty and for Iesus Christs sake whom we are perswaded you love from your heart we humbly beseech your Majesty not to embrace that counsell aforesayd neither to give eare to such counsellors For these counsells most godly Queene are not for the good of that your church and kingdome nor for the honor of your Majesty seing they neither serve to the increase of godlinesse nor to the retaining of the honesty of the Church neither to the preservation of publick peace but rather very greatly weaken all these good things In making 3 sorts oâ— officers afterwards Bishops Seniors or Elders and Deacons hee mâ—st take the word Biâ—hop in the scriâ—tuâ—◠〈◊〉 as 〈…〉 which your Princely Majesty ought chiefly to stand for Let your Majesty rather bend all your thoughts authority and power hereunto that first and above all you may have Bishops who be truly godly and well exercised in the holy Scriptures as by the blessing of God