with prejudice that to my poore power I would disburden it a litle if I can SECT 25.26.27.28 Concerning the Defender his Reasons 1. THe Def. his first reason by the Rejoynder his interpretation is that by our assertion the Church shall loose a part of her Christian liberty because if she may not use human Ceremonies aâ—used unto Idolatry and superstition she may use none at all Now 1. The Replier granted the conclusion being understood of human significant Ceremonies And thereto the Rej. opposeth nothing but that there is the same reason of all other Ceremonies and that one Didâ—clave doeth not grant this of sitting at the Lords Supper though he confesse it to be a human significant Ceremonie But both these answers are voyd of trueth For Circumstances of Order and Decencie which are sometime called Ceremonies and heer understood are neyther meer human institutions nor unnecessarie which is part of the quaestion but commanded of God as often hath been shewed Neyther doeth Didoclave any where confesse Sitting at the Lords Supper to be a human Ceremonie 2. It seemeth very strange to me that appointing using of human significant unnecessarie Ceremonies notoriously knowen to have been and be abused unto Idolatrie should be fetched from Christian Libertie I have considered what is spoken of Christian libertie in the Scripture and what I could finde written of it by Divines and therout observed much against these Ceremonies as is alleged in the sixt general Argument which the Rejoynder was not hastie to come unto in eight or nine years but nothing eyther for their imposing or their using The Rejoynder meaneth by the Church in England the Convocation house and by Christian libertie their licentiousnesse in Abridging Gods people of that libertie which Christ hath left unto them So that as in some parts of Germanie and Polonia the Noble men stand mightilie for the Libertie of their Countrie And yet when the course of thinges is well weighed that libertie is onely licence for them to oppresse the common people or Boores whome they keep under as slaves or litle better whose goods they take from them upon every slight praetence whose lives in some places can scarce satisfie them for the life of a stagge if they shoot one spoiling their corne even so this Christian libertie is onely for our Convocation-house to oppresse the Congregations of Christ as they doe 2. The Defender his second reason was such as the Repl. could finde no conclusion in but that somethings abused may afterward be rightly used which he granted The Rejoynder addeth that his reason did conclude this of some human Ceremonies from the Law of shadowes He sayd in deed among other instances that a Man or Woman legally unclean might he legally cleansed or purged And can he conclude from Men and Women to human unnecessarie Ceremonies He may as well conclude that because in a fretting leprosie the leprous mans head may not be cutt off nor his body burned therfor his infected garments were not to be burnt nor the hayre of his head and beard cutte off The Replier also granted that Surplices might be turned into under garments for poor people and wooden Crosses given them for firing The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is no use of Ceremonies as Ceremonies As if he himself did allway speak formally The sentence immediatly goeing before was of things abused And so this addition was of those thinges which are made Ceremonies Yet if that be true which the Rejoynder affirmed pag. 570. that a Surplice as a Ceremonie is in the kinde of a Garment then it must needes follow that this Ceremonie may be given to the poor for a garment And if he flie to Vse as necessarie to make a Ceremonie as he doeth in his Definition of a Ceremonie it may be as well quaestioned whether a Shirt be a garment out of use when it is off a mans bodie For a garment is a Ceremonie by the Rejoynder his Definition And so it may be quaestioned whether any Shirt or other Garment was made or washed when no man had it on His 2. answer that M. Parker calleth them Devills and jarring on the same stringe would fright men from burning of Idols as he did in Germanie whoe when men were burning of wooden Idols bored a hole in one into which he stopped some gunpouder so that the Idol being in the stove to burne the gun-pouder brake the stove together with the windows of the room in peices and that was imputed by some to the Idol or Saint and by others to the Devil But sayth the Rejoynder from hence it followeth that thâ—re is a change of Law because the Iewes might not convert the matter of Idols to their privat use And so much we grant urging onely the aequitie of those Laws Then addeth he the Abrigement hath abused the World in alleging those Laws as binding Christians now as much as they did the Iewes But with this out-cry no man will be troubled that noteth how they are to be understood onely according to their quaestion of human unnecessarie Ceremonies as they are such For the Second Commandement doeth binde us as much as it did the Iewes and so the aequitie of particular Lawes as they illustrate the contents of that Commandement binde us as much though not in every other particular to so much as they did the Iewes The summe is those lawes binde us as much from all religious use of human unnecessarie Ceremonies used or abused in Idolatrie as they did the Iewes 3. In the 27. Sect. the Replier could finde no shew of reason beside meer affirmations The Rejoynder findeth this Argument If two other ways of reforming Ceremonies beside Abolition may be used then abolition is not the onely way But two other ways namely changing or correcting may be used Ergo. To this shew of reason the answer is easy 1. If those two other ways be understood as partial and insufficient then the Proposition is false if as sufficient by themselves without abolition then I denie absolutely the Assumtion as being a meer affirmation of that which is in quaestion according to the Repliers observation 2. Eyther this is understood of all Ceremonies abused or onely of some If of all our Reformation is to be blamed which hath used abolition without any necessitie If of some onely the Defender ought to have tould us which they are or by what marke we may know them And omitting this he sayth neyther Argumentation nor certain affirmation in this Section 4. The last Reason is because Poperie and Popish Rites are not to be esteemed of aequal abomination with Paganisme and Paganish Rites The Rejoynder bringeth it to this that the Idolatrie of Papists and Pagans considered in themselves are not like The Replier answered that though this were true every way as it is not yet in this they may agree that both alike are to be detested and abandoned You speak monsters answereth the Rejoynder because if they be not
perfeâ—t obedience theâ—e abominable raggs palluted garments marks sacraments of Idolatry which power as you see constraineth us to weare conscience to abhor had long â—ere this day beene removed both out of sight out of memory But as now things stand behold to what narrow streits we are driven on the one side we feare the words of our Saviour Christ woe to them by whom scandals and offences come on the other syde at the Apostles speech we can not but quake and tremble if I preach not the Gospell woe unto me Being thus hardly beset we see not any other remedy but to hazard our soules the one way that we may the other way indeavour to save them Touching the offence of the weake therefore we must adventure it If they perish they perish Our Pastorall charge is Gods absolute commandement Rather then that shall be taken from us we are resolved to take this filth and to putt it on although we judge it to be so unfitt and inconvenient that as oft as ever we pray or preach so arayed before you we do as much as in us lyes to cast away your soules that are weak mynded and to bring you unto endlesse perdition But we beseech you brethren have care of your owne safety take heed to your stepps that you be not taken in these snares which we lay before you and our prayer in your behalf is that the poyson which we offer you may never have power to doe you harme This is the miserable Apology of a man putting on the Surplice which he thinketh inconvenient upon such grounds as the Rej. did hold and doth not yet condemne This all such do speake either in deeds or words that putt on a Surplice in that manner The state of the quaestion is now changed saith the Rej. and the Cerem held unlawfull wherupon many mischeifs follow It may be the compasse of our Prelats intention to which the former tenet had reference is varyed by some degrees towards the Autartique as D r. B. speaketh in his Apologye if ther be no other change but that after more mischeif don by these ceremonies then was before they are now more strictly urged then ever which the Rej. confesseth they are now at the least more hatefull if not more unlawfull then before This is also considerable beside the change is little or none the same mischeives which the Rej. imputeth to the new tenet M r. Hooker in his preface chargeth that Tenet with which this Rej calleth the ould Yet neither accusations have any force or colour but upon the supposall that the ceremonies are innocent and lawful in their imposition and use The plaine truth is that in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths dayes and before in King Edwards tyme the Cerem were accounted weeds of popery as that zealous and famous preacher M r. Anthony Gilbye doth intitle them in his letter to M r. Coverdall M r. Turner c. M r. Whittingham D. Vmphryey and others who then laboured the rooting of them out They were not curious of distinguishing of unlawfulnes and inexpediency but contented themselves to reject and oppose them Some as M r. Greenham refused to give their reasons fully untill they should be constrained In the meane tyme they utterly refused them as unlawfull for them to use This appeareth out of a booke called a part of a Register c. Synce that tyme we have beene forced to shew more distinctly what grounds we stand on and so pronounce them unlawfull In the following pages spent principally about answering of objections made or feared or at least imagined against the Author of this Rej. few things are found capable of any great dispute Neither can many passages be touched without odious grating upon D. Burges personall credit which I tender so much that I would wish more added to it by other works then is detracted from it by this I will therfore leave these things to stand or fall without any paynes or perill of myne or the cause and passe forth unto the stile of our Cerem in giving and maintaining whereof the Def. and Rej. are so tender as to proclaime them innocent CHAP. III. Concerning the just and proper stile of our Cerem Answ to the preface Pag. 54.55.56.57 IN answ to the Reply his preface after certaine words spent concerning the number and such like circumstances of M r. Sprynts arguments not worth the repeating c. The Rej. cometh to D r. Morton his title which he gave to our Cerem that they are innocent whereunto was opposed 1. That Calvin accounted them in the most favorable sense ineptias fopperyes and in proper speech noxious pernicious To this the Rej. answ that Calvin meant not these titles to our Cerem but to some other things which were in King Edwards book of common prayer as lights and crosses at the supper Concerning which answ 1. not only D. B. was wont otherwise to understand Calvin as we do but the Prelats themselves for so we read in D. B. his Apologye pag. 44. according to D. Covells disposition of it The ordinary speeches of the Lordship and other Bishops were that the Cerem are trifles raggs beggerly rudiments that in the books were multae tolerabiles ineptiae which if it pleased the King to remove they would be gladd 4. The Rej. cannot give us any probable reason why lights should be more foppish then the Surplice or crossings in the supper Nay he undertaketh to justifye both lights and crossings in the supper and a hundred other Cerem upon the same termes that he defendeth these â— Calvin did ordinarily call such Ceremon Calvins opinion of our ceremonies Adventitiae nugae mera ludibria Epist. 505. Ludicrae insipidae mixturae Epist. 260. Adventitiae nugae mera ludibria De vitand supest Pa. 4. Ceremoniae aliae aperte Idolatricae aliae stultae ineptae Epist. 177. Lineae vestis ufus cum multis ineptijs tam apud Magdeburg quam apud Wittenburgenses retinentur Non mâ—do illas ut minus utiles supervacuas omiserunt fed ut ineptas ridiculas ludicras noxias perniciosas plaerique damnandas profligandas putant Visyne Tom. 2. P. 45. Romanae superstitionis crepundia Beza disp 66. Additias illas nugas as ours by no her name then these Epist. 25.9 Adventitions triflles â—ere mockeryes Epist. 505. babish and saplesse mixtures â—gaine Epist. 260. strange trifles mere fopperyes againe Some â—erem are openly Idolatrous others are foolish and unmeet And Epist. 117. the use of the lynnen garment with many â—â—pperyes is retayned both with them of Magdenburgh and â—â—hem of Wittemberge Neither was Calvin alone in these â—â—rmes Cassander pag. 852. complaineth that most of â—â—ur writers consent in them Not only they have omitted â—hose as lesse profitable and superfluous but the most meaning â—â—ur Protestant Divines have judged them foppish ridicuâ—â—us and babish yea to be condemned and abandoned as hurtâ—ull and pernicious The puppy good
use and the same end â—here is still religious worship properly though false Againe this also is especially to be mynded that we â—re then sayd to keepe the same use and end not when we imploy the same thing or action but when we use â—hem as under the act of the same rule as in the same way as in the like virtuall respect unto the same end I often mention that particle of similitude as because â—hough the ordinances of man cannot have the same virtue as Gods have nor can attaine the same end of honouring of God as his doe yet if we take them and use them as such they are false worship to us so abusing of inventions as the use of Gods owne ordinances are true worship So that where both these are the same meanes in a proper religious use to attaine the end properly religious there is Divine worship And this thus opened now comes to be confirmed Where the essentiall causes are of Divine worship there is Divine worship Where there is the same use and end properly religious there be the essentiall causes of Divine worship Ergo there is Divine worship First reason That the â—ame use and end make Cerem a part of worship reasons The first part is beyond all exception nor cannot suffer a denyall of a man that hath not forsaken and denyed reason The second part or the minor proposition is thus made good Where there is the same operari i. e. working or act of essentiall causes of worship ther is the same esse or being of the same causes It being an ould receaved rule amongest not only Logitians but even reasonable men idem operari ideâ—esse the same working and the same being goe botâ— together But where the same use and the same end is properlâ— religious there is same operari or acting of the essentiall causes of worship Ergo there must need be the same essentiall causes For when God hath appointed such meanes to be used to such an end the appointment being past the worship is not yet before those meanes and end come and they cary the essence of the action 2. We may borrow the ground of another argument from â—he Rej. owne graunt elsewhere for pag. 38. speaking of superstitious Ceremoniâ—s he hath these words Ceremonies are superstitious when men worshiping only the true God yet place and â—utt upon their owne Ceremonies the title of Divine as in efâ—ect when the proper service of God is placed in them or merit â—r necessity holines and efficacy though by vertue of the churches institution For what can be sayd more of Gods ordiâ—ances then this nay not all this truely I meane for merit c. â—hence I reason diversly If the superstitious incroaching in Gods service by â—ppointing meanes of the same use efficacy and end with the Lords be a breach of worship properly divine â—hen also is it really and properly though falsely divine worship Opposita sunt in codem praedicaments for a synne directly contrary to the duty of a â—ommaund is even of the same kynd with the duty but â—he appointment and use of such meanes in such a virtue â—o such an end is a breach of true worship really divine â—rgo it is really divine false worship 3. Againe That which makes a Ceremony properly species of divine false worship that adds more then an â—djunct to divine worship for an adjunct doth not vary â—he kynd or make a new species but only alters the â—ame species But institution thus superstitious makes an action a species of divine false worship by the Rej. consent nay by the confession of all Divines orthodoxe that knew what they writt or spake Ergo it adds more then an adjunct to Divine worship for it makes it a species which is professedly contrary to that which the Rej. hath in this consectary namely that humaine institution makes an action an adjunct to divine worship not a part whereas here its plaine it makes it a species and so a part of Divine false worship 4. Againe its lawfull to add an adjunct which is properly Divine to Gods worship by the Rej. learning Pag. 36.37 but it is not lawfull to add the meanes of the use to the same end which God hath appointed As iâ— was not lawfull to the Iewes to use other braceletts about there necks frontletts upon their foreheads wherein they should write the law answerable to the Frontletts and fringes which God appointed That which the Rej. adds touching the appointmenâ— of the place of meeting Rej. his straÌ„g mistake is a most miserable mistake Hiâ— words are The Lords appointment of one place for sacrifices and of some sett dayes for the solemne worship of God aâ— the Sabbath and their feasts to Israel made the observance of that very place and these tymes to be part of worship But the churches appointment of a sett place Pag. 3â— or tyme unto the â—elebration of the acts of religious worship because it incurreth not the worship it self leaves the observance thereof as a mere ceremony Herein I say the Rej. missed the mark miserablely For the Temple was a type of Christs body Pull down this temple and I will rayse it up within three dayes but he spake of the temple of his body Iohn 2.19.21 and the very frame of it by Gods institution and ordination was holy had an efficiency and virtue through God appointment to cary up the heart to God by that virtuall respect and efficacy which it had as his meanes to that end Now lett the Church institute and appoint a place and put this virtue efficacy in it by their institution to the same end to which the temple was appointed and I suppose the Rej. himself will say its superstition and false worship But our temples have no such thing putt upon them to no such end therfore are not in the same end and use unlesse the Rej. will â—hould that prayers better ascend in Paulls church when he rounds a pillar in the eare then when he prayes abroad and that he is of opinion with Bishop Andrewes that we are heard Non qui praecatur sed quia ibi not because of the prayer that is made but because of the place in which it is made but I hope the Rej. is farr of from such delusions The second thing we charge upon this consectary is that it is collected by any force of reason from the foregoing definition for cast it into a forme and the very expression will be confutation enough for the frame must stand thus If a Ceremony be an outward action instituted and purposely observed in relation to some thing wherof it is neither cause nor part then it followes that the same use and end maketh not a Ceremony part of Divine worship These things have so ill connexion and sement of reason that when they are sett in a forme they fall all in peeces as though the consequent was afrayd of the antecedent
Concerning the Brazen Altar built by Salomon 1. King 8.64 1. THe Defender bringeth for instance a Brazeâ— Altar built by Salomon It was replied that in the Text ther is no mention eyther of Altar or Brasse or Building but onely of Sanctifying the inner part of the Court The Rejoyner answereth thaâ—â—he word Brazen slipt in by oversight the Court may well be called an Altar in respect of praesent use The Rej. before upon farr lesse occasion talked of slipperâ—â— trickes c. but I leave this slipping in and out unto the Readers censure so that no advantage be made of it in prosecution of this Instance 2. Yet because not onely the Defender named aâ— Altar but the Rejoynder also mainteyneth it for good let us see what may be answered unto the Replier hiâ— collection therfrom namely that if man may on hiâ— owne head appoint an Altar as they say then man may appoint not onely accidentall worship but also suche aâ— is greater then some essentiall worship because the Altaâ— which sanctifieth the Offering is greater then the Offering Mat. 23.19 The Rejoynder heer accuseth the Replieâ— for want of Iudgement in this allegation because thaâ— which our Saviour sayth is proper to that one onely Altar in the Temple by reason of the speciall command of God to use them and their superadded mysticall signification wheras other Altars were onely permitted and so helpes to the Offerings but not sanctifiers of them nay they were sanctified by the Offeringes as also the Altars of Gods appointment in the time of Moses Salomon Ezra and Machabeus were first sanctified by the gift that was offered on them and so installed in their peculiar privilege of sanctifying the Gifts which were afterwards offered upon them For all this no consent is shewed of any Divine Onely we are bidden to see Zanchie de Redem lib. 1. cap. 16. thes 2.3 Now 1. Zanchie hath nothing to the Rejoynder his purpose he doeth not distinguish betwixt Altars commanded and Altars permitted but sayth of the commanded Altars that they were annexed unto the acts of worship And so he doeth of the Arke it selfe and all the principall most essentiall meanes appointed by God What can the Rejoynder make of this 2. The speciall command of God was as well for the Offeringes as for the Altar so that cannot be the reason why the Altar did sanctifie the Offering more then the Offering the Altar And the same aequalitie is in the superadded mysticall and typicall signification 3. I am sory to hear from D.B. that the Altars built by Abraham Iacob c. before Moses were onely permitted He may as well say that all the Sacrifices before Moses were onely permitted Bellarmine himself de Eff. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 31. confesseth that they were by inspiration and impulsion Divine and all our Divines disputing against Papists about will-worship make that Divine instinct for substance a Divine command 4. How could Altars be sanctified by Offeringes when the Offerings themselfs were not in state of sanctification actually and properly before they came to the Altars He that left his gift at the Altar that is ready to lay it theron and then went to be reconciled with his brother had not yet actually sanctified the same 5. The Altars of Moses and Salomon were not first Sanctified by Offeringes upon them but by Moses his Annoynting the manifestation of Gods glorious praesence in a Cloude filling the Tabernacle and Temple and by that fire which came downe from heaven to consume the Sacrifice Ex. 40. Lev. 8. 9 1. King 8. 2. Chr. 7.6 If Salomons sanctified Court did not sanctifie the Sacrifices offered theron then eyther those Sacrifices were lesse holy then those which were offered on the Altar and sanctified therby or else they had more sanctifying vertue in them then the other which did not sanctifie their Altar as those did their Court. The like may be sayd and more also of Abrahams Altars c. but this is enough 3. Our first answer is the same that D. Whitakers D. Sutlife c. giveth to Bellarmine whoe de Pont. lib 4. cap. 19. hath the same objection against Calvin Quicquid Salomon fecit id Dei authoritate Spiritus Sancti nutu fecit sayth D. Whitakers that is Salomon did this by Divine authoritie and instinct of the H. Ghost The Rej. excepteth 1. that Bellarmine would prove by this example proper essentiall worship by man ordeyned But if he had looked upon the chapter quoted he might have seen that the onely quaestion there is whether it was sinne for men by their owne authoritie to erect a new Altar in the Temple And this the Def. and Rej. with Bellarmine denie against Calvin 2. He addeth that all our Divines doe not give this answer alone As if we also did not follow them in adding other answers to this 4. Our second answer for I will not dwell on wordes is that Salomon did this from aequitie of the Law This is Iunius his answer to Bellarmine Cont. 3. lib. 4. cap. 9. It was done extraordinarily and by singular occasion and acâ—ording to the Analogie of the commune ground wherby they did other things and it may be by speciall revelation Hoc factum est extrà ordinem occasione singulari on necessitate prasenti cui per analogian communis juris prospectum eâ—â— a Salomone Rege forté etiam particulars revelatione To this the Defend answered that this interpretation overthroweth the former Nothing lesse sayth the Replier because Salomon might be directed to see and authorized to follow that aequitie The Rej. heer having litle reason to oppose putteth down in stead of it great wordes as this is to confound Ordinarie and Extraordinarie Speciall and Common Scripture-light and immediat Revelation and so hath no sence in it And what shew of wool for this great crie May not one be extraordinarilie specially and immediatly directed to see that Scripture-light which in it self hath ordinarie common shining Surely the Apostles had exâ—raordinarie speciall immediat direction to see the meaning of divers passages in the ould Testament as the allegoricall meaning of Sara and Hagar Sinay and Sion c. which was before conteyned in the Scripture Yet addeth the Rejoynder Salomon by this reason needed no speciall Authoritie Whiche I grant if he be considered as a perfect man but if he be conceived as Peter who after hee was sent unto all Nations needed after a Vision from Heauen to send him vnto the Gentiles then this consequence is nothing worth 4. Passing over the third answer in pitie the fourth is that this sanctification of the Court by Solomon was no addition of a divers kinde This is Danaeus his answer to Bellarmine Cont. lib. 1. cap. 19. To this the Defender answered nothing which either the Replier thought worthy any answer or Rejoynder of improving So that I need not adde any thing to it but onely a fitting explication which I finde in Tostatus in 3.
Rej. determination He adds It is an externall action Pag. 30. because internall actions of the mynd being matters of substance cannot duely be called ceremonies Peradventure these words may have some true sense in some specialties but they serve not his turne in this place because though he only mentions outward actions yet he requires a purposed observation of them which caries the work both of mynd and will and therfore includes an internall action of the man for no man can purposely observe but he must both judge what he should doe and affect what he judgeth so that the Rej. here speakes daggers nor can I see how he can excuse a contradiction or two He that requires a purposed observation in a Cer. he Rej. contradiction â— requires an act of mynd will so an internal act But D. Burg. requyres a purposed observation in a ceremony Therfore he requyres an act of mynd and will and so an internall act whence defining a Ceremony to be an action externall and yet making it internall also he crosseth shynns with himself Or thus He that duely and of right judgment requires a purposed observation he requires an internall and so a substantiall act or a matter of substance But D r. Burg. requires duely and in right judgment I meane in his apprehension a purposed observation Therfore he requires a substantiall matter in a Ceremony which he denies should be done and that is a contradiction The second terme is designed or purposely observed and done and as he explicates himself Institution or that which is all one intended observation is essentiall to a Cerem P. 30. Which words are confused and draw with them dangerous inconveniences when Institution and intended observation are made simply all one For neither is all institution an observation because many things are instituted which are not observed 2. Neither is an intended free observatioÌ„ for one tyme used an institution 3. an institution with authority implyeth much more in it then intended observation D r. Iackson in his originall of unbeleif Institution and purposed observatioÌ„ are not all one pag. 334.335 very aptly to this purpose noteth that some expressions may sometyme be used and observed well which to use ordinarily much more to institute â—ould be ridiculous or impious As Iacob did unblameablely â—ish his sonne Iosephs coate yet to have hanged it about his â—edd or table that it might receave such salutations evening and morning or at every meale tyme might have countenanced many branches of superstition once and use it not may be discretion of those things whose continuall use degenerates into abuse All observers of Ceremonies are not instituters of them I thinke D. B. would be loath to institute the Crosse and Surplice with other Cerem which yet he doth observe In his interpretations of subscription he refuseth to defend how well these be imposed that is as I take it instituted and yet acknowledgeth the intended observation of them to be very well Besyde all this it is to be marked that the Rej. by confounding institution and purposed observance doth exclude or forget all naturall ceremonies such as bowing of the body before superiors imbracing of those who are deare unto us lifting up the hands and eyes to heaven in ordinary worship which nature it self doth teach all nations to observe without any institution though not without some government of councell nor without such variety as nature it self is subject unto Againe if by this phrase he meane that a purposed observation of an outward act with an ayme and reference to such a thing is of necessity required to make up a Cerem or a Ceremonious action in worship or otherwise it is a miserable mistake Instance thus A carnall Protestant presents himself amongst such as are at Masse he professeth to his companions before he goes in and doth in the purpose of his heart seriously loath the pix and Idoll there yet when it s lifted up he bowes as others doe Lett any man in reason tell me did he not use or abuse rather a Divine Ceremo in that bowing or no If the Rej. say yes as he must unlesse he will speake against all reason truth I then reply upon his owne grounds That outward action which is not purposely referred that is not a Cerem but this action is not purposely observed with any ayme to that end for the party intended no such thing purposed no such matter but did it as a thing of-course as a man should bow his knee for exercise when he is alone 2. Peter withdrawing himself from the Gentiles at the coming of the Iewes he did not purposely this with reference to any Iudaicall seperation as judging any legall pollution in joyning with the Gentiles or holines in parting from them and therfore he did not praâ—tise any Iewish Cere according to the Rej. conceit but directly contrary to the text there is no end of these absurdities The differenâ—ing terme is placed in reference to some other matter of the substance whereof it is neither necessary cause nor part Pag. 30. Where he seemeth to expound that which before he called a proper cause by a farr differing terme of a necessary cause what should be the intention of this variation I cannot guesse It may be the Rej. forgot that he was in giving of accurate rules and so fell into a loose varying of phrases So likewise in illustrating of this difference in stead of part he nameth a substantiall part as distinguishing parts into substantiall and accidentall of which addition I cannot tell what to make How ever this is no forme or essentiall difference of a Cerem from other actions D. B. hath preached a thousand good sermons in reference to his flock or people yet I do not think he esteemed them Cerem of his hearers This Paradoxe he enlargeth with many similitudes and examples I looked he should have alledged some scripture from whence this might have beene gathered or concluded at the least adjoyned some convicting argument which might have cleared this so mayne poynt of his definition or if none of those that yet he would have shewed some authority or author who had so writt and spoke but here is deepe sylence and we must take all upon the D rs bare word but by the D rs leave we are purposed to trye his novellies and not to take them upon trust Here 1 it is justly to be faulted The second part of the definition examined and foâ—nd faâ—lty against all rules of art that he goes against all rules of art and reason making up the cheif part of his definition of a negative and so in yssue tells us what the thing is not not what it is For having said that a cerem must be in reference the demaund might be what reference is that he adds it is not a cause or a part And any may in reason still enquire if it be not either if those two what is
clouse r. close p. 227. l 7. for linneÌ„ pontificall r. linne is but a more ponteficall ibid. l. 8. for and many times r. are many times p. 452. l. 26. r. imposers p. 456. l. 20. for hold r. held p. 479. l. 13. for cliving r. cleaving p. 518. l. 22. r. diameterly for diademiterly p. 521. l. 1. for crackt r. crack l 25. for forbidden r. forbad THE DYSPVTE about HVMANE CEREMONIES CHAP. I. Of the negative argument from Scripture SECT 2. MY purpose is not to insist upon words circumstantiall exceptions as being of litle moment but onely to discusse the materiall poynts that I meet with in their order Yet because the Rej. commeth on in the beginning with suche a heat if the Repl. had marvelously offended almost in every word I will take his first accusations though not â—uche materiall into due consideration 1. The Repl. made onely mention of the all-suffiâ—â—encie or perfect fulnesse of the Scriptures Heerat the Rej. â—raesently complaineth of abuse misreporting and maâ—â—ng a false shew as if sayth hee wee denied the perfect â—â—lnesse of the Scripture etc. Now 1. the Repl. sayd no suche thing but the contrarie rather when he observe that the same was granted by the Def. as it was râ—quired by those he writ against 2. If he had sayd that thâ— Def. and Rej. also doe denie the perfect fulnes of Scripture in regard of Ceremoniall worship he had saydâ— more then trueth for they teache that some such worship is lawfull and good which is not taught 〈◊〉 Scripture that many teaching Ceremonies which Goâ— never instituted may by man be instituted and broughâ— into worship images themselves not excepted that additions to Gods word so they be not contrarie mâ—â— and ought to be made The summe of their doctrinâ— in this point is that which M r. Hooker setteth down p. 125. Mucke the Churche of God shall alway need which 〈◊〉 Scripâ—ure teacheth not Neyther doeth it help which the Rej. addeth 〈◊〉 Scripture is as perfest in giving generall rules as it should bâ— in setting downe of all particular instances For 1. this 〈◊〉 not generally true because generall rules make only thâ— proposition tending to particulars and the assumtion 〈◊〉 left undetermined they therfore doe not so fully anâ— perfectly inferre the particulars as if they were sâ—â— downe Generall rules are given in the new Testament foâ— civill policie or governement of Common wealth yeâ— no man I think will say that civill policie is so fullâ— and perfectly taught in the new Testament as it was 〈◊〉 the olde or as religious worship is now in the new The rule for cleane beasts sayth the Rej. that they be sucâ— as chewe the cudde and divide the hoof was as perfect as 〈◊〉 suche beasts had been named True but here no deâ—â—rmination of the assumtion was necessarie but suche the beasts themselves did make to every man that was â—ot blinde without any institution of man It was as â—ow it is in bread wine for the Lords Supper which â—e appointed in generall without naming of wheat 〈◊〉 mislen bread or Frenche Spannish Rhenish Italiâ—â— Greek wine but crosse and surplice I hope are â—ot so in generall appointed The generall rules which 〈◊〉 Rej. groundeth our Ceremonies upon are let all â—â—ings be done to edification with order and decencie Now these rules are suche sayth M r. Hooker p. 95. as stand light of reason and nature to be observed though the Scripâ—â—re had never mentioned them So that in them ther is no â—â—che perfection of Scripture for particulars as if the â—â—rticulars had been named 2. betwixt these generalls â—â—d suche particulars in quaestion there must come a â—umane institution suche as to make the example â—gree if it had been praescribed in the olde Test. onely â—ith cleane beasts should be used in sacrifice and left to â—â—e Priests for to determine what kinde of beasts should 〈◊〉 or holden to be clean 2. An untruth is charged upon the Replier in that 〈◊〉 sayd nothing was denied by the Def. in the 2. section Now let any man read over the section and he shall â—inde nothing denied His answers ar these wee due acâ—ept of your distinction onely the second member must be exâ—ended to generall rules permissions commoÌ„ aequitie you must â—nd unto this distinction which when you doe not you conâ—ute your selves Is here any thing denied Yea sayth the Rej. the Major is denied because it is shewed that somthing is warranted which is not praescribed The major is Scripture condemneth that which is doen eyther against or without warrant of the word of God especially in matters of Gods service Let any man of common reason and indifferencie judge whether this be contradicted by that something is warranted which is not praescribed 3. The Replier is taunted with I know not what fault for saying here that distinction to be granted which after he denieth to be the non-Conformists As if in dispute it were not usuall for one partie to observe what the adversarie doeth grant himself though hee himself doeth not owne it The Rej. might have spared all these words of this section but that he affected to say muche upon litle or no occasion that his answer might seem abundantly complete SECT 3.4.5 Concerning the faithfulnesse of Christ and Moses Heb. 3.2 1. The Repl. once for all noteth that the Def. his distributing of our confirmations from Scriptures fathers and Protestant Divines as if they were like in the intended confirmations wheras the later are onely used by occasioÌ„ of perverse praejudice in our adversaries who require suche thinges and also in constant stiling the fathers testimonies judgements and others confessions the Repl. I say noteth onely that this is some wronge except it be onely idle Rhetorick For this the Rej. flieth in his face saying he noteth himself an egregious wrangler his notes are notorious Cavills and wrangles and shews what spirit he is of I will not say this sheweâ—h what spirit D. B. is of for I doubt not but his spirit is better then here is shewed Yet this sheweth what spirit he took upon him with the person of a Rejoiner Is it so great a fault to suspect the Def. of some wrong-doeing or of using Rhetoricke without any moment in variation of phrases To doe some wronge unto an adversarie in propounding his allegations after another manner than he meant is so ordinarie that the suspicion of it and that with exception cannot be accounted so heynous a crime as those toothed termes import Praejudice is as common fault and all praejudice is some way perverse The Rej. after p. 461. accuseth all those of aversenesse by distraction stupiditie or praejudice which doe not feel that organiall musicke worke muche upon their affections in and to Gods worship though he knoweth as good meÌ„ as our adversaries denie it Yet he would not have us nor will wee from thence gather what spirit he is of Rhetoricke is no more an ill word
the Rejoynder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Crosse. 1. because the crosse maketh no alteration of what Christ did ordayne saying doe this 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptisme as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper 3. it is not esteemed an instrumentall signe of any grace given by the use of it as they took their sops to be 4. their sopping destroied the very Sacrament And for these differences the Repl. is bidden to hang downe his head for asking suche a quaestion But 1. Addition is as evill as alteration For when Christ sayd doe this he meant as well doe this onely as doe this all Fac hoc totum fac hoc tantum as Zanchie expoundeth it Addition also is some alteration if not of the things instituted yet of the institution as making it unsufficient or incomplete by it self alone 2. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine but were bread and wine Neyther were they first or onely or for any thing appeareth at all used by Haereticks as the Rejoinder for his advantage without ground avoucheth but by ancient Churches at least in some cases as is manifest out of Prosper de Promissionibus Dimidium temporis cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit etc. Sopping was so farre from being a matter of Haeresie that as it seemeth it was receyved among the Fathers so longe as infants communicating in the Lords Supper which was as D. Morton confesseth Appeale lib. 2. cap. 13. sect 3. for sixe hundred yeers 3. Sopping of bread in wine considered abstractly from bread and wine was no signe instituted as an instrument of grace For so sayth Cassander pag. 1027. out of Ivo this custome of Sopping prevailed onely through feare of shedding and not by direct authority 4. It is too severe a sentence Invaluit hac intingendi consuâ—tudo non autâ—ritate sid timore effusionis against those ancient Christians in Prospers time and which is more as Cassander and Hospinian judge in Ciprians that they destroyed the very substance of Sacrament The setting forth of Christs death was not excluded though some part of the bloud was representatively joined unto the body A man is dead that lieth in his bloud though some of it soak againe into his body The Fathers sixe hundred yeers together did not destroy the substance of the Sacrament Hitherto therfor appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang downe his head Let us see if more cause be in the comparisons he maketh betwixt sopping and crossing The first was the bread and wine the onely things used in sopping were ordeyned by Christ so is not the Crosse. The Rejoynder answereth here nothing to the purpose save onely that they were ordeyned to be used apart From whence it followeth onely that it is unlawfull to use them not apart And so it followeth that Baptisme must as well be used apart orseparated from the Crosse because it was ordeyned so to be used and the Crosse was not ordeyned for any religious use eyther apart or with other thinges The second is that sopping hath some agreement with reasoÌ„ Crossing hath none The Rejoynder hence maketh two consequences 1. Ergo Christ in ordeyning the Sacrament otherwise hath doen some thing not agreable to reason 2. Ergo the Churche in Crossing hath been void of all reason fifteeÌ„ hundred yeare And upon these groundes he crieth out of madnesse But so madnesse may be found in any assertion if it be first put out of the right wittes or sense as this is For the meaning was not that Sopping is agreable to right reason in the Sacrament but in civill use where the aeriall Crosse hath none Yet it may be added if it were lawfull for men to adde to Gods ordinances in the Sacraments then ther would be founde more probabilitie of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread wine as a manner of food theÌ„ a mysticall aereall crosse into the use of water which is no manner of washing As for the Churche it hath not universally used the crosse so longe except the Waldenses and others like unto them were none of the Churche The same Churche that used crossing used also for divers hundreds of years to give the Sacrament of of the Supper unto infants without reason and the continuation of the Crosse more hundreds of years addeth no reason unto it except reason in suche things doeth increase with their age Many thinges have been used in the Churche without reason or else ther is reason wee should still use all that have been used caeteris paribus If ther be any good reason in the crosse let that be tried by reason and not by slipperie conjectures taken from the persons using it The third comparison was that Sopping was used by Christ at the very table of the Supper but Crossing was never so muche honored by him or his Apostles as to use it at any time The Rejoynder answereth that this argument would prove as well that the eating of a Paschall lambe before the Sacrament to be better then Sprinkling of water on the foâ—ehead of the Baptized Because CHRIST did that and not this But this is not so well For that 1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremonie distinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used 2. It is very probable that the Apostles goeing into the colder part of the world did use sprinkling 3. Concerning a Paschall lambe used before the Sacrament as a Ceremonie morally significant and reductively Sacramentall I see not why it should not be praeferred before the Crosse or any suche invention even because Christ did use it if that Circumcision be now a lawfull Christian Ceremonie as the Def. and Rejoynder professe and mainteyne pag. 285. It is also crediblie reported a great Bishop not long since living that every Easter day he used to have a wholle lambe praepared after the Pascall manner brought to his table D. B. knoweth well who it was and of whom he hath heard it The fourth comparison was that sopping was no new signe but Crossing is The Rejoynder opposeth that it had been an abomination to eat the Pascall lambe sodden but the addition of sitting or leaning on couches though a new signe added by them selves was lawfull etc. Of which speache the first part is granted viz. a sodden lambe had been an abomination neyther isa sopping communion excused In the second ther is observable partiallitie in that he calleth setting an addition to the Passeover and yet in the same answer with the same breath denieth the crosse to be any addition unto Baptisme The ground of all is rotten viz. that sitting was a religious significant Ceremonie instituted by men These thinges considered let any man judge what cause the Rejoynder had to talke in this place of the Repl his roome-conscience contentious spirit smitten with giddinisse forsaken of wisdome In that
essentiall false worship he should therfore have tolde us what error he meant The Def. nameth opinion of justice sanctitie efficacie or divine necessitie and the Rejoynder mentioneth often suche and such opinion held of the Papists concerning all their Ceremonies Of this enough is sayd Manud sect 7. For the present I denie that suche an erronious opinion by it self and of it self doeth not make essentiall false worship Opinion is but an adjuvant efficient cause of that affective act wherin the essence of internall worship consisteth and the externall acts of worship though efficiently differenced by opinion or faith are essentially distinguished by their forme and ende A man may have an opinion that is just holy efficacious and necessarie to performe diverse workes of the second Table nay upon some occasions to tell a lie even against the second Table Yet none speaking properly will call that essentiall false worship which is a sinne directly against the first Table Hitherto therfore I see no monster of the Repl. his making And if we consider his reason well which the Rejoynder made to it the mishaping of thinges will be found on the other side If sayth the Repl. worship did varie occording unto mens oppinions then a man may goe to Masse conceyving another privat opinion to himself then Mas-mongers use to have and our Convocation may appoint us the grossest of all Popish Ceremonies if they set another opinion upon it The Rejoynder his answers are diverse and some of them strange ones 1. His first is that goeing to masse may be a sinne of scandall and presumtion though a man goe not thitherto worship By goeing to Masse acording to the use of our speache is meant doeing all those externall actions which Mas-mongers use to performe Now the question is whether he that performeth all those externall actioÌ„s intending onely to save his life therby as having no opinion of any other good in so doeing doeth onely sinne of scandall and praesumtion or else over and beside this is guiltie of externall false worship the Rejoynder seemeth to say no he is not guiltie of false worship But when the Christians of the Primitive Churche did with suche an opinion lay but a litle incense upon the Heathens Altars they were by all Orthodoxe censured for Idolatrie The storie of Origen is well knowen how he delivered Palme to those that offered it to the image of Serapis with this expression of his intention come and receyve the bows not of the image but of Christ. Yet was he therfore censured as a worshipper of that Idol Calvin writing of purpose concerning this very case of goeing to Masse with suche an opinion accuseth them that doe so of externally professed idolatrie and therin was justified by Melanchton Bucer Martyr Opus de vitandis superstitionibus And if this be not right then all externall acts and reall professions whether symbolizing with Papists or with Turkes or Heathens may be in themselves set scandall and danger aside easily excused So Calvin argueth in the forenamed treatise and in a Homilie Opusc pag. 532. he sheweth that those wise men which thinke otherwise would have derided the simplicitie of Sidrac Misach and Abednego if they had then lived in suche a fashion Miserable men yow may doe that externall act which is required of you it is no worship so long as you have no faith trust or devotion to that idol 2. His second answer is that those which are present at false worship by violence are not false worshipers and upon this he triumpheth with fie man fie I may better say alas alas that good D. B. I speak as I thinke should be driven to suche extremities in defense of those Ceremonies which he never loved nor doeth at this day For goeing to Masse or doeing all those externall acts which Masmongers use to performe implieth more then violent carying thither and deteyning there 3. His third is that nothing but opinion doeth make humane inventions essentiall worship of God Which is an essentiall denying of the conclusion 4. For that which was inferred of the Convocation house he sayth first it is a flinge Let it be so yet it may hit that Ceremonious Goliah as it is suche in the fore head He addeth that the grossest rites of Poperie cannot posâ—iblie be washed from their opinion Which is not for a Rite being an externall thing or act any Rite may be separated from any internall opinion The last is that some other Popish rites might be lawfull if they could be clensed though we need them not As if the grossest might not be lawfull if they could be clensed or the Rejoynder had shewed that we more need the Crosse then those other 2. Because the Def. placed so muche in opinion of sanctitie the Repl. in the second place opposed that Sanctitie cannot be separated from suche Ceremonies as are proper unto Religion onely used in the solemne worship of God because they are neyther civill nor prophane and therfore holy Heer the Rejoyndâ—r being put to his shifts as before answereth that they are in deed holy by applicatioÌ„ but not with inhaerent or adhaerent holinesse in them or their use as those which God hath sanctified nor so as they sanctifie the actors and actions which is proper to Gods ordinances Now how many strange thinges are here 1. That Ceremonie whose essence consisteth in application and use is holy by application and yet not by any holinesse that doeth adhere to them or their use Holinesse is an adjunct receyved by the thing that is holie and therfore eyther inhaerent or adhaerent 2. Is this a good reason they are not holy truely as Gods ordinances therfore they are not by men made holy 3. Have any outward ordinances of God inhaerent holinesse in them 4. If God hath no way sanctified our Ceremonies who can make them holy 5. Doe not Ceremonies teaching holinesse sanctifie the actors actions or spectators after the same manner that the teaching word doeth sanctifie them 3. Vpon occasion of the other part in the Def. his distinction that Accidentall worship is any rite which serveth for the more consonant and convenient discharge of essentiall worship the Repl. wheras he might have sayd that this is a mishapen definition of Accidentall worship in generall as it may be divided into true and false good and bad opposeth onely this that no judicious Divine useth to call circumstances of mere order and decencie which notwithstanding serve for the more consonant and convenieÌ„t discharge of essentiall worship that is a Pulpit a Table a faire-Cloath etc. Worship The Rejoynder answereth that in deed the Ceremonies themselvâ—s cannot be called worship without madnesse but onely the use and application of suche circumstances and rites Now 1. marke here how the Rejoynder who defineth a Ceremonie it is an action etc. and laffeth at the Repl. because he sayd some Ceremonies may be put to other good use as if all Surplices were turned into poor-folkes under-garments
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
light of the Gospel or to carry banners crosses to signifie the victorie of Christ thorough his Crosse. Of which sort is all the massing attire Of this ConfessioÌ„ Brentius was the penman and therefore Bellarm. citeth the same as Brentius his sentence about Ceremonies The Rejoynder answereth 1. that Bellarm. sayth onely that Brentius reproveth the hallowing of water oyle c. consecrated to signifie and worke supernaturall effects because the mysteries of faith should not now be shadowed out De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. Whiche to be nothing so the very words of Bellarm. will shew for neyther out of Brentins nor against him doeth Bel. make any mention of consecrating suche thinges to worke but onely to signifie spirituall effects Primo benedicuntur ad significando ispiritâ—â— ales 〈◊〉 ut Nam cinaris aspersio significat poenitâ—â—tiam c. First they are blessed to signifie spirituall operations For the sprinkling of the ashes signifieth poenance c. Nor doeth the reason of Breâ—tius of adumbration hinder Neque obâ—at râ—tio Brentij de adumbratione Nam istae significaâ—iâ—tes on sunt proprie â—dâ—mbrationâ—s sed reprâ—sentationes externae Iâ—rum praesâ—ntâ—um â—nvisibilium spiritu alium vel etiam reâ—um praeteriâ—a um quae utilisitmae sunt â—d affectuÌ„ oncitandum for those significations are not properly adumbratious but outward repraesentations of praesent invisible things and of things spirituall Or els of things past most usefull to stir up the affection Hence it is plaine that Brentius is opposed by Bellarm. for houlding the Proposition of this our third Argument that his reason is ours and that Bellarm. his answer so well as his tenet is that which the Def. and Rejoynd doe maintayne against us 2. A second answer or rather objection is used by the Rej. that Brentius allowed Lutherun Crosses and Images as being a Lutheran Now it is well knowen that Brentius at the first did write as became a grave Divine but after broke out into the Vbiquitary faction siding against those whome he called Zwinglians and Calvinists That which we allege was written in the name of the Churche of Wittenburge so praesented unto the Counsell of Trent out of his and others best judgement If eyther out of securitie or out of faction he did and writte otherwise after it ought not to be put in ballance against this Confession It is no great mervayll if a Lutheran doeth crosse his owne Doctrine even about Ceremonies For in the same kinde they have Luther himself for their example Nemo sayth Calvin 2. Def. de Sacram. â—â—â—rius quam Luâ—herus covectus â—st in illas nugas quoâ— tamâ—n prâ— temporis infirmitate â—â—tinuiâ— Quod tantâ vehementiâ usus est loudabile est quum ita exigeret necessitas Quod non abâ—â—usit 〈◊〉 â— predis ignosetinus No man did more hardly inveigh against those triffles then Luther did and yet reteined them for the times sake That when occasion required he was so vehemente we commend him but that while he contended against them he submitted to the them we pardon in him Something like was the case of Chemnitius whose words the Rejoynder thought good to passe over in silence They are these de ritib. Sacr. ad Can. 13. When Christ himselfe so instituted the Sacraments that he required them to be used with such and such rites Cum ipse filiu Dei Sacramenta ita instituerit ut ea certis institutis ritibus praeceperit administraeri valde ardua est questio an hominibus permissum sit alioâ— praeterca et quidem multâ—s ac varios ritus quocunque confilio supperadderâ— quasi Ceremoniae illae qua in administratione Sacramentorum Divinitus institutae sunt non satis sunt vel idonea vel sufficientes Institutioni Divinae sicut nihil detrahendum ita etiam nihil addendum est Quod vero bratendunt per illos ritus ab hominibus additos multa pié utiliter significari monerâ— doceri ad illud responderi potest figuras propriat esse Veteriâ— Testamenti quae vero in Novo Testamento Christus moâ—eri ac doceri voluit non umbtis sed luce Verbi tradi ac proponi voluit Et de Verbi non antem de figuratum ab hominibus inventarum efficacia habemus prom 〈◊〉 nem quos veâ—â— ritus veâ—bo adhiberi voluit eos ipse instituit etc. it is a very hard question whether it be lawfull for men to add other and that so manyover and above As if what rites Christ himselfe prescribed were either not enough or not fit enough In divine institutions as we must take nothing from so we must adde nothing to them But whereas they say by such rites many things are proffitably signified we answer that belonged to the State of the Old Testament but what Christ in the New Test. would have learned must be taught with the light of the word not by shadowes And we have a promise of the force of the word but not of the efficacie of shadowes devised by men And what rites he would have used by the word those he himselfe appointed etc. Ther was some cause why the Rejoynder did not care to insist on these wordes For Chemnitius maketh it a very hard thing to justifie humane significant Ceremonies in Gods worship The Rejoynder sayth it is as easy as to justifie writing by Characters Chemnitius maketh them additions to Gods Institution Nothing lesse sayth the Rej. no more then a Cabinet wherin a Iewel is kept is an addition to it Chemnitius judged them repugnant to the New Testament The Rej. sayth that there is manifest allowance for them and authoritie left unto men for instituting of them as forsooth in those words of Order Decencie and Aedification 15. The Replier added unto the witnesses aforesayd Iunius Daneus But concerning Daneus we have already considered what the Rej. had to except Iunius onely remayneth whose wordes were quoted out of his animadversions upon Bell. de cultu Sanctorum lib. 3. cap. 7. an 12. Heer the Rej rouseth up himself as if he had gotten a great advantage putting on suche confidence or rather forth suche shews of it as if it had been meer folly in the Repl. to make mention of Iunius His rejoinder therfore is to be considered in all the parts of it 1. First he concludeth that the Repl. is no wise man in not telling them to what objection or assertion Iunius doeth there answer because forsooth the Repl. himself had sayd it was no wisdome for any man to take up an answer made to an objection before he considereth the assertion against which the objection is made As if it were all one to consider the assertion and to tell them what it is Is not this a fine consequence 2. He attributeth unto the Repl. a Sophisticall wit in concealing that the assertion of Bell. by Iunius opposed was that the Churche may of her power consecrate creatures to signifie and worke
convenient we observe it as commanded of God The like cannot be sayd of our Ceremonies except first it be shewed that God hath commanded humane significant Ceremonies in generall and after it be made apparant that our significant Ceremonies are more convenient for us then others 14. The Def. having given a reason why it is safer to invent new Ceremonies then to use those olde ones of the Iewes because they might ingender an opinion of necessitie and so might bringe in all the Leviticall law was answered by the Repl. 1. that though more danger may be in some respect on the one side yet more may be absolutely on the other To this though it be evident the Rej. answereth with a bare deniall 2. The Repl. observed that the inventing of new humane Ceremonies have ingendred an opinion of necessitie in them and have brought in all the Popish law of Rites so that the comparison even in these respects may be quaestioned The Rej. heer first observeth that it was formerly alleged out of Calv. Ep. 259. that the originall of all humane Ceremonies was that men would needes forge new worships of God In whiche wordes he findeth more then any other man can opinion of necessitie and upon that accuseth the Repl. of I know not what varying uncertaintie without any reason at all Afterward he observeth that Iewish Ceremonies have more colour of necessitie because of their first Divine institution Now let that be so yet if preaching or the Churches sentence declared in a Convocation be sufficient to remove from Ceremonies all false opinion as the Def. and Rej. would persuade us that maketh no suche difference but that the comparison may still be quaestioned SECT 7. Concerning Images c. 1. A Third reason brought against significant Ceremonies was that they open a gap to Images c. where the Reader must remember or consider that the meaninge is Images instituted for signification of morall duties may as well be set up in Churches as Crosse and Surplice The Def. his answer was to passe over superfluitie of wordes that Images are not to be accounted Popish or unlawfull but onely in regard of superstitious adoration Wherunto it was replied that then Cassanders Images not for adoration but for information incitement are not Popish whiche the Rej. doeth not onely grante but also proveth it by the consent of Calvin himselfe Instit. lib. 1. capit 11. sect 12. where he sayth that Historical Images or Pictures may have some use in teaching and putting in remembrance Now for this let it be considered that Calvin in that section speaketh onely of ordinarie pictures for teaching and putting in remembrance of that which they repraesent of themselves without any Ecclesiasticall institution as certayne wordes written doe signifie a certayne meaning without any speciall institution Suche it may be would be the picture of Ananias in a white Surplice signifying with other pictures agreable to the storie that Paul esteemed and called him a whited wall Act. 23.3 But in the very next section which is the thirteenth Calvin disputing against setting up of any Images in Churches doeth sufficiently declare that he allowed of no Ceremoniall religious use of Images suche as is of our Crosse and Surplice 2. The Replier alleged against this defense of Ceremoniall religiouse use of Images especially in Churches the common consent of our Divines Against this the Rej. first opposeth Luther and the Lutherans and then asketh if they be none of our Divines To whiche I answer that they are in most maine poyntes our Divines but about this buisinesse they are no more our then about Vbiquitie Consubstantiation c. for whiche they disclaime us even the wholle Churche of England as no part of the Catholicke Churche but Sectaries Sacramentarians c. Secondly the historie of Luther about Images is well knowen how in opposition to Carolastadius whoe brake downe Images without his consent he would have them to be tolerated onely for a tyme untill men were more fully instructed But that he allowed them for good Ceremonies of religion that cannot be shewed M r. Foxe in the storie of Luther hath this Luther misliked the rashnesse of Caroâ—astadius in stirring up the people to throw down Images without authoritie and before the people were taught that Images serve to no purpose Not that he would mainteyne Images as he sayd to stand or to be suffered but that this ought to be doen by the Magistrate c. This was Luther enforced unto by the slanderers that accused Protestantes of sedition and tumultes c. This is no argument for the Magistrate to let Images stand whoe may and should remove them and will not The cause why Luther did so stand with the standing of Images was time and not his owne judgement He wished them away Nay as Zuinglius relateth he turned them some with their feet upward and some with their faces toward the wall their backes to the people for to make them not religious but ridiculous Thirdly the Lutherans make this one of their controversies against Calvin Beza c. whether Images may be tollerated in Churches or in religious use Fourthly Polanus whoe was borne amonge the Lutherans in Silesia in Ezech. cap. 11. testifieth that the Lutheran Images are worshipped of most Lutherans c. and therefore are Idoles to be avoyded Lutheranorum Imagines a plerisque Lutheranu coluntur c. sunt igitur Idola fugienda And will the Rej. then defende the Lutheran use of Images 3. In the next place the Rej. asketh in mumminge fashion if Vrsinus Iunius M r. Perkins be not of our Divines or if they doe not acknowlege an historicall use of Images lawfull To whiche I answer that they are in our consenting Divines For Vrsine his wordes are plaine parte 2. pag. 45. they must needs have large consciences Spatiosissimos amplissimos utique illis â—pâ—rtet esse conâ—cientia reâ—essus licentiam patentissimam qui rem pessimi exempli ex Ethnico ritu consuetudine in Ecclesiam maximo cum ejus dedecorâ— damnâ— translatam in adiaphoris numerare non erubescunt who blush not to recken a thing of the worst example and from heathenish rite and custome brought into the Church not without the great disgrace and hurt thereof among indifferent things Where it must be observed that he disputed against Flaccius Illiricus about Images even in the Lutheran use which our Def. and Rej. mainteine Iunius also is ours His words are these adv Bell. de Imagin lib. 2. cap. 12. v. 30. It is Gods cause and ours as is plaine out of the word that neyther his Image nor Christs nor any of the Saincts for a religious end be sett up in any place specialy that is appointed for Gods worship or at any time without his order Verily those Images are to be reckened not onely among things Superfluous Interest Des nostra ut Verbo sacro exponitur ne ipsius
proving this Altar to be appointed unto Gods service because it was a patterne of the Lords Altar as our Crosse is a resemblance of Christs Crosse was 1. reproved by the Replier because the Crosse wheron Christ did suffer was no more holy then Iudas and so not to be compared unto the Lords Altar To this the Rejoynder in many wordes maketh shew of saying something but I leave it to the Reader if he sayth any thinge I for my part can not discerne what it is 5. The Replier also in the second place alleged that every resemblance of a holy thing is not therfor holy because then every Ale-house picture taken from holy thinges mentioned in Scripture should be holy and a modell of the Temple caried by a Tyrian workman into his countrie for newes should have been holy To this the Rejoynder after a few wordes of course answereth that this is to separat the resemblance of a thing from the use of it As if the Def. had not argued simply meerly from the resemblance making as yet no mention of the use If ther be any Sophistrie in this argument as the Rejoynder sayth ther is it is first found in the Defender his uncouth reason 6. The Defender went about to prove first that this Altar did mystically signifie a spirituall dutie in respect of the Gileadites then living viz to teache that the Lord was God To this it was replied that it doeth not appear out of the text that ther was intended any use for the praesent age that then lived nay the contrarie may be gathered out of the 24. and 25. verses We have doen it for fâ—ar of this thing saying In time to come your children might speak unto our children c. So shall your children make our children cease from fearing the Lord. The Rejoynder opposeth that ther is afterward mention made of us and you But that is nothing because it noteth onely that the generations to come may denie us on this side Iordan not to have been joint Tribes with you on the other side of that River Vpon this the Repl. concluded that this Altar was no direct helpe unto devotion To which is rejoyned that it was not a direct that is immediat help unto devotion but immediatly significative collaterally for devotion it was Suche distinctions I never heard nor read Any man may see that a Ceremonie directly and immediatly signifying a spirituall dutie is a direct immediat help to devotion To what other help this help was collaterall I would fain know A further reason of this conclusion was added viz then most of the other Tribes should have had use of it and also reason to have set up Altars of devotion at every three-way-leet as Crosses stand The Rejoynder is 1. that the other Tribes no doubt had use of it as of a witnesse that the Lord is God Now let any man consider whether they which ordinarily resorted to the Tabernacle and Altar of God had need of a humane Altar farre remooved from their sight to put them in minde that the LORD was God And whether the two Tribes and a halfe without the consent or knowledge of the chiefe Priests the chiefe Magistrates the farre greater part of people and power to appoint vnto all Israel a solemne significant Ceremonie for their common use The Rej. addeth in the 2. place that all are not bound to the same helpes to devotion and the other tribes needed no such monument or patterne having the Altar it selfe in possession Where 1. except he holdeth the two Tribes and a halfe bound to set up this Altar hee maketh in that no difference if hee so holdeth then it is no instance of a meere Arbitrarie Ceremonie 2. The two tribes had the Lords Altar in present possession as well as divers of the other so that by this reason they also for the present need no such monument and patterne which is the very point in this place questioned 7. The Replier affirmed that in regard of posterity the immediate ende of this Altar was to testifie that those Tribes beyond Iordan belonged to the same people and so had right to the same worship with those of this side Iordan which is nothing to a Ceremony of state and immediate use in the speciall solemne worship of God The Rejoynder asketh if this were not a holy religious ende I answere It was so holy and religious as every Land-marke of a Parsons Glebe-land or every signe of a Parish-bound is holy and religious but not so as mysticall Ceremonies B. Andrewes against Perone p. 18. giveth some light to this by the ancient use of Lights and incense There were lights saith he there was incense used by the Primitive Church in their service not for any mysticall meaning but as it is thought for this cause that where the Christians in time of persecution had their meetings most commonly in places darke and so needing lights and dampish and so needing good savours they provided lights against one and incense against the other After the Churches retained these things to shew themselues the successours of those ancient Christians c. the After-ages devized meanings and significations of their owne which from the beginning were not so If this be so as it is thought then there may be signes of succession unto religious fore-fathers without any mysticall meaning which is all that by us is pleaded about this Altar of Iordan And for further manifesting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was so in this Altar let it be well considered what Iosephus one of the learnedest and most ancient Iewes now exstant saith Antiq. lib. 5. cap. 4. They placed an Altar on the banke of the river as a memorable signe of the neerenesse and affinity of them that dwelt beyond Iordan viz. with them within Canaan Againe it was not placed for worship but symbolically and as a memorandum of their relation to you 8. The Rejoynder as having sufficiently confuted all other answers bringeth in one made to himselfe in conference though he hath not found it in print as a grand absurdity namely that the Gileadites did ill in erecting this Altar and the rest also in allowing of it Now as for allowance by the High Priest Princes and all the Congregation of Israel which he speaketh of I finde it not evident in the Text. About the other I finde this 1. that D. Fulke no absurd Divine against Sanders of Images pag. 649. writeth thus in print The two Tribes and a half Iosh. 22. made not an Image but an Altar for a memoriall and yet their fact was not commendable though it was in some sort excusable 2. I finde also that Calvin before him upon Iosh. 22. sayth thus Duae tribus â—um dimidia non leviter peccarunt c. The two tribes and a half did very ill Which is the great absurditie that the Rejoynder had heard in conference but not seen in print before now SECT 17.18.19.20.21
Reg. cap. 8. thus expressed It was lawfull to doâ— what Solomon did because though it were forbid to offer sacrifice elsewhere then at the Altar of whole burnt-offerings yet now upon necessity it might be when the Altar was not sufficient to hold all Nor did Solomon against the Law because now sacrifices were burnt at the Altar and on the Altar together and so the whole Court of the Priests was in a manner but as one Altar and the intent of the Law was no other then that they should not offer in divers places but heere was but one continued place Licinâ—â— fuit quod 〈◊〉 Solomon quia licet prohibitum asset ofâ—erri sacrificia alibi quam in Altari Holâ—caustorum tamen nunc ex necessitate licuit cum non possint capi sacrificia super Altarâ— Etiam non videbaturagi contra legem quia nunc cremebantur sacrificia apud Altare simul in Altari â—ic videbatur totum Atrium Sacerdoâ—â—m esse tanquam unum Altare Intentio autem Legis erat ut non offerrerentur sacrificia in diversis locis SECT 22. Concerning Synogogues TO this simple instance the Replier answered 1. that Synagogues were no significant Ceremonies 2. That it is most likely they were first founded by those Prophets which brought in Schooles of the Prophets 3. That in them there was of olde no significant humane Ceremonie used To the first is rejoyned that the Synagogues bare some representation of the Sanctuary But I aske How Was this representation in matter or forme or use He seemeth to referre it unto use in resorting to solemne worship Now let any man consider whether every place apppointed for solemne worship be a significant Ceremonie If so then no Anabaptists ever denied significant Ceremonies of mansappointing which yet the Rejoynderaccused them for But this fonde conceyt is sufficiently confuted in the first part of this writing Chap. 4. and 5. Yet suppose the Synagogues had been a repraesentation of the Sanctuarie which was a Ceremonie is every repraesentation of a Ceremonie a new Ceremonie then any man may make more Ceremonies then ther are men in his Parish The second about the founding of Synagogues by Prophets which the Repl. sayd is most likely the Rejoynder maketh a bolde affirmation without proofe But what boldnesse is in conjecturing that to be likely which no man can give any likely reason against The third of no humane significant Ceremonies used in Synagogues is absolutely pronounced false But no reason of this sentence is given out of the Scriptures but onely that they used there reverend gestures as if all reverend gestures were significant Ceremonies of mans invention The rest that he quoteth out of Purchas his Pilgrimage are wandring Pilgrimes without house or home and therfore worthy no other answer but that which our law hath provided for Vagabondes SECT 23.24.25.26 Concerning Love-Feasts 1. THe Instances out of the ould Testament were suche as we have now shewed them to be Out of the new Testament first are brought in the Feasts of love or charitie Now concerning these Feasts no man can certainly informe us whoe did appoint them I mervayl sayth the Apostle according to Erasmus his Paraphrase on 1. Cor. 11. Quis ritus istos iâ— vos invexerit whoe brought-in these Love-Feasts No man can tell us what religious signification was by institution annexed unto them Nay it cannot be shewed where they are spoken of without reproof Yet the Defend and Rejoynd will needs have them significant humane Ceremonies ordeyned and used by the Apostles 2. To this it was 1. answered by M r. Nic. that if they were of Apostolicall then they were of Divine instiâ—ution Then whiche sayth the Defender he could not have uttered a more unlearned position Nay soft it was replied this censure is too too Magisteriall because to say that that which came from the Apostles as Apostles came from the Spirit of God is no unlearned Position O yes answereth the Rejoynder becaus the Apostles ordeyned some thinges not as Apostles not by immediat revelation but by the direction and authoritie of Gods Word In which kinde of rejoyning I see no more learning then needs must 1. The quaestion was of Apostolicall institutions the answer is of that which the Apostles did but not as Apostles that is not properly Apostolicall 2. That which is manifested by the Holy Ghost shining â—n the Word they are the Rejoynder his wordes is deâ—ied to be Divine 3. No example is or can be brought of a new significant Ceremonie instituted by the Apostâ—es without immediat revelation The allegations opâ—osed may fill up paper but not satisfie any reasonable Reader 3. For removing of that Magisteriall censure of the â—reat unlearnednesse of the fore-sayd Position it was noâ—ed that some learned men were authors of it or partaâ—ers in it Iunius is one who Cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. an 6 â—ayth that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostoliâ—all traditions is almost imaginarie and superfluous Wher â—he Rejoynder hath nothing to catch at but onely that â—article almost Take therfore another place of the same â—unius in his Hidelberg Theses de Traditionibus th 24 where without almost he sayth fully thus The distinction of traditions into Divine and Apostolicall is a false distinction because such traditions are of one sort for there be no Apostolicall traditions but such as are delivered from God Falsò divinae traditiones aâ— Apostolicis distinguuntur quae unum reipsa sunt nam Apostolicae nullae sunt nisi a Deo traditâ— 4. It was added also by the Replier that Danaeus upon the same place calleth it a childish distribution True sayth the Rejoynd but he meaneth by Apostolicall thinges determined by the Apostles by their ordinarie facultie as Pastors and yet having the same authoritie with their writings Now let the Reader mark that the Defender his charge of unlearned rudenesse depended on this if Apostolicall traditions may be called Divine as being commanded of God To talke heere of faculty ordinary pastors authority equall to Scripture c. it is nothing else but to bring him unto losse Neither is or can this limitation be justified by any other proofe then the Rej. his owne testimonie 5. When the Repl. spake of more learned men allowing of the foresaid position and rejecting the distinction made betwixt Divine and Apostolicall traditions the Rejoynder stayeth him and confesseth that the distinction is ridiculous in the Papists sense yet saith he in another sense not telling what it may stand And is the great charge of a most unlearned Position come now to this the contrarie words in some sense may stand Be sparing my masters in crying down your poore neighbours for such extreame want of learning when youâ— opposite learning can scarce stand in any sense 6. After these testimonies the Replier inquired into the Logicke of this distinction betweene Divine and Apostolicall traditions But the Rejoynder correcteth his interpretation and saith this distinction is
taken chiefely from the different Authors Christ and the Apostles Be it so yet it were not extreame rudenesse to say that whatsoever the Apostles as the Apostles of Christ appointed that Christ himselfe appointed But saith the Rejoynder some things were appointed by Christ himselfe immediately and others by the Apostles occasionally Which is true yet 1. this overthroweth that which was even now alleaged that this distinction is chiefely taken from different Authors because this is onely a difference of manner as Polanus Syntag. lib. 1. cap. 47. doeth clearely manifest in his large confutation of this selfe same distinction 2. By the same or somewhat like reason a distinction may be made betwixt the word of God and the word of the Prophets 3. It were worth the knowing upon what occasion these Feastes were ordained by the Apostles 7. It is brought in by the Def. as a second answere of M r. Nic. That these Love-feasts were abrogated by the Apostles From which he gathereth that then they were not of divine institution No say we nor yet Apostolicall For it was onely said before that if they were of one they were also of the other but not positively that they were of either So that the Defender forgot when he inferred So this second answer confuteth the first 8. The third answer of the same M r. Nic. was as it is reported that these Love-feasts were not of mysticall signification nor yet meerely Ecclesiasticall And this the Replier undertooke to mainteyne because no signification was added unto their nature by any institution so farre as by any certeine evidence can be declared The Rejoynder opposeth that the appropriating of their naturall signification to the signifying of Christian love might be in that use by Ordination Where First might be is not a proofe and we require in an instance objected for an Argument that it should be prooved fitting Secondly Every Ordination doeth not inferre mysticall signification Iâ— it be ordained as it is that Collection of Almes for the poore bee used in the Church hath it therefore a new mysticall signification put upon it above that which it would have out of the Church 9. Ecclesiasticall the Replier denied these Feasts to have beene or Religious because they were used in the same manner or to the same ende out of the assemblies that is to the reliefe of the poore and maintenance of brotherly love The Rejoynder First opposeth appropriation as if all things used in the Church were appropriated to it So common salutations used at Church should be appropriations He secondly concludeth from thence that by this reason Eating of things offered to Idols in the idols Temple should not be religious But this doeth not agree except the meat used in Love-feasts were first sacrificed to God which yet hath not beene prooved nor then except the eating of things offered to Idols were meerely religious which the Christians of Corinth ep 1. cap. 8. did not thinke nor the Apostle teach Yet might those Eatings have such a relation vnto the Idols as might make them superstitious even without that superstitious opinion which the Defender and Rejo require unto superstition though such a relation unto the true God and his religion doe not make feasâ—s by man invented truely and meerely religiâ—us 10. It was finally replied that the Ordination of these feasts cannot be shewed to have beene Apostolicall and to that puâ—pose P. Martyr was alleged in 1 Cor. 11.22 The Rejoynder opposeth 1. that tâ—e Argumeâ—â— so much the stronger Videmus holoco quam sit periculosuâ—â— Divinis institutis addere Quod factum est à Corinthiis qui sine Verbo Dei convivia haec admiscuerunt c. because then they were meerely of humane institution and yet had Apostolicall approbation Secondly that P. Martyr confesseth the same feasts to be mentioned every where in the fathers as a thing descended to them from the Apostles as their Spring-head To the first I answer Frst that the Def. his Argument which was taken from the ordination of the Apostles cannot possibly be strong at all Hinc videmiuin totum displicuisse Apostolo convivaâ—di morem etiamsi abesseâ— ille superior abusus Vitiosum est convâ—rtere in alienes usus sacrum conventum c. if these Feasts were not of Apostolicall ordination Secondly Apostolicall Approbation of them hath not yet beene prooved As for P. Martyr his testimonie is cleare Wee see heere how dangerous it is to adde to divine institutions which the Corinthians did setting up these feasts without warrant from the word To P. Maâ—tyr adde Calvin upon the same place In Agapis hoc primum reprehendendum fuit quod Christi D. institutum non simpliciteâ— observarunt sed ei aliquid addiderunt Apostolot eoâ— ad primam institutionem revocabat Sed non tanta ejus fuit apud posteros authoritas quo minus ad Corinthiorum exemplum multo quidem zelo pio ac â—ono inconsulto tamen instituerint quae tandem nocentissimas superstitiones pâ—pererunt We may see hence that their manner of feasting wholly â—ispleased the Apostles allbeit the forementioned abuse were away It is not well to turne a holy meeting into strange customes As for the after-continuation of like feasts which the Rejoynder maketh so much of Hospinian Histor. Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 6. answereth fully This was first to be found fault with in their love feasts that they did not in simplicity keepe the institution of Christ but added somewhat thereto The Apostle recalled them to the first institution But it seemes his authority was not such with them that came after but that as the Corinthians had done so also they would appoint many things in great zeale I confesse but very vnadvisedly which also in time brought in most pestilent superstitions SECT 27. Concerning the kisse of Charity 1. THis instance is like the former in that neither the institution nor the mysticall signification of it can bee shewed out of Scripture Our answer also is the same with that before It is a naturall indicant signe of peace and reconciliation used in those parts as imbracing and shaking of hands with vs. For this M r. Nic. is accused as more civill or rather uncivill then spirituall But with whom the civility or uncivility about this matter resteth neither the Def. nor Rej. are fit Iudges It may proove this charge hath as little ground as the other of an extreame unlearned Position 2. The Replier passed over allegations mentioned by the Def. as Oratoriall Phrases but the Rejoynder will have them Explicatorie setteth them downe againe at large I will therfor take the sayd Allegations into a summarie consideration He citeth Iustin Origen Tertullian Cyrill Clemens Al. not noting the places where their wordes are to be found But Baronius had An. 45. out of whome he seemeth to have borrowed these quotations affordeth us some light that way Where this is by the way to be marked that Cardinall Baronius himself
of women is no Ceremonie much lesse religious and mysticall significant by institution humane 7. The Def. his third demand was whether these Ceremonies of covering and uncovering were not instituted to bee observed in Gods publike worship Answer was given by the Repl. that this indeed was required in every grave meeting of men and women but not primarily and principally instituted for Gods worship Paul surely did not institute them for new Ceremonies but onely urged the Corinthians not to neglect them as being naturall The Rej. opposeth 1. that requiring is an institution As if the Kings requiring his subjects to observe Christs institutions did therefore institute the Sacraments c. 2. His second answer is that application by injunction was as it were an institution So that by and as it were the Lords Sacraments have beene so often instituted as they have beene applied and injoyned that is an hundred thousand times and more But if any man will needs use the terme institution in such a sense that is nothing to our question which is of Ceremonies whose first author and appointer in speciall was man Otherwise all Divine Ceremonies will proove humane institutions and so the Rej. hath disputed all this while about nothing The rest of the Rej. his wordes in this Section are either meere repetitions of confuted fictions or such as need no confutation I may well againe repeat as justified the Repl. conclusion Seeing the Def. could finde but three examples of humane Ceremonies in all the new Testament and none of those there can be shewed to be of mysticall signification or appropriated onely to Gods worship or of humane institution the Prelates may be ashamed in such domineering fashion to urge humane Ceremonies vpon the consciences of Ministers and People of the new Testament SECT 29. Concerning the Ancient Custome of Significant Ceremonies among Christians 1. AS the Def. was passing over from Scriptures to humane writings and customes he was told by the Replier that heere hee may finde more fish for his net in the troubled waters of mans infirmitie then were to bee looked for in the Scripture fountaines This the Rej. thought not worthy of any answer Let the Reader yet take knowledge that we esteeme not any thing like of a thousand objections fetched from testimonie subject to errour as we would have done of one plaine testimonie Divine if it could have beene produced 2. The oldest Records we have saith the Rej. doe mention humane misticall Ceremonies in Gods worship as Apostolicall traditions Which 1. is not true because those which call them Apostolicall use not to call or esteeme them humane 2 The Records of the first age which we have are so imperfect and uncertaine that God in so disposing of them by his Providence doeth in a manner warne us not to depend on them but onely on his written Word 3. The great varietie that was found in the first ages about the observation of Lent and Easter doeth manifestly proove they were not Apostolicall as Chamier sheweth De jejunio cap. 7. Not out of any certaine law but out of private devotions and consequently Superstition Nâ—t ex ulâ—a lege ceâ—ta sed en privatâ—s religionibus atgue adeo superstitionibus In the next place for a maine ground of this assertion that the universall Church observing humane Rites tooke them to have beene of Apostolicall allowance the Rej. bringeth in the common text of Papists out of Augustine ep 118. Such universall observations not being written in Scripture must be understood to be commanded by generall Councels or from the Apostles Where 1. he faulteth twice in the translation in turning dantur intelligi into must be understood when D. Morton himselfe Pr. Ap. lib. 2. cap. 28. â— 3. maketh a strong probabilitie onely and in turning commendata by into commanded 2. This being but a probable rule and And Augustines conjecture of that probability being also but probable it may faile with all that is built vpon it 3. Chamier in the place fore-mentioned answereth Bellarmine about it that it must either include the Apostles time whose history is in Scripture and so the humane Ceremonies come not within the compasse of it or else it may bee denied as false 4. If this rule bee good then Apostolicall Ceremonies cannot be knowne from other but onely by those who know certainely what is and hath beene allwayes observed in all Churches which will fall hard upon most Christians 5. Augustine in the same place complaineth of mens presumptions and burdensome Ceremonies contrary to Christ his mercifull institution requiring the easinesse and lightnesse of that yoke or burden which Christ hath imposed in his Sacraments to be still preserved in the Church Now those Ceremoniall observations which are said to have beene universall in the Primitive Church did not agree to this rule For they had then in common use beside other solemnities fiftie Holy-dayes betwixt Easter and Pentecost Ambrose in Luc. 17. of which Tertullian boasteth lib. de Idololatria cap. 13. that they were more then the Heathen used Excerpe singulas Solemnitates Nationum in ordinem â—exe Pentecosten explorâ— nâ—n possunt Reckon all the observations of the Heathen in order and they will never fill up Pentecost They had also with Lent and all more then fiftie fasting-dayes Adde unto these the Ceremonies the which Tertullian reckoneth up de Corona cap. 3. and then I aske if any man can upon consideration beleeve that all these were either Apostolicall or so accounted by Augustine Certainely to exced or equall the Heathen in humane observations was not agreeable to the Apostles rules nor the Fathers 6. It is a received rule that the writings of the Apostles are the onely certayne rule of true Apostolicall traditions D. Fulke Rej. ag Brist cap. 7. But this rule as it is understood by our Rej. maketh those writings not the onely certaine rule 4. The Fathers practise sayth the Rej. interpreted their rules touching the perfection of Scripture and purity of Gods worship to be vnderstood of necessary doctrine and proper worship The contrary whereof appeareth partly by the fore-mentioned place of Augustine where hee complaineth of the Ceremonies which he practised as disagreeing from the Doctrine of the Gospell which he taught Beside because proper worship hath beene discussed in its proper place it would be inquired what the Rej. meaneth by necessary doctrine If he meaneth onely that doctrine which is absolutely necessary to salvation it is a poore commendation of Scripture-perfection because that is found in every good Catechisme and Bellarmine himselfe doth not denie that perfection to Scripture I cannot gesse at his thoughts by his words because to my remembrance this distinction betwixt necessary and unnecessary doctrine is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place onely let fall But for the interpretation of doctrine by practise if the Rejoynder will have this hold in the ancient times what reason can he give that it should not
context as we require See Ierom Arias Montanus Oecolampadius Calvin Zanchie Tremelius Iunius Sir W. Raughly himself in the fore-noted place observeth the summe Although the name of Baal be justly to be used toward God yet in respect that the same was given to Idols God both hated it and forbad it And it is not credible that so many and such Divines should make a collection which hath no foundation in their intrepretation of the text SECT 4. Concerning the aequitie of the Commandements formerly mentioned c. 1. THe third proof sayth the Replier in the Abrigement standeth thus The aequitie of these Commandemens is thus set downe in Scriptures 1. The detestation which our jealous God bearreth unto all instruments and tokens of Idolatrie Exod. 20.5.6 Deut. 7. 25.26 2. That we cannot be sayd sincerly to have repented of Idolatrie c. except we be ashamed of and cast away the instruments and monuments of it 1. Chron. 33.15 Is. 1.29 and 2.20 and 3â— 22.2 Cor. 7.11 See Calvin in Deut. serm 52. Eph. 86. 3. that we shall be in danger to be corrupted Ex. 34 1â— 15. Deut. 7. 25.26 Iudg. 2.13 Gal. 2.5.4 We shall harden Idolaters Ezech. 16.54 1. Cor. 6.10 5. Ther is more danger in Popish Ceremonies because the Pope is Antichrist and we converse more with Papists then with other Idolaters Now of all these reasons and allegaâ—ions the Def. answereth directly to nothing but onely to those wordes See Calvin The Rej. doeth not denie but the proofe was suche as hath been sayd neyther could he say that the Def. had answered to any thing but See Calvin Yet 1. he goeth about by many words to perswade â—he Reader that heer was no fault To this end he speaketh of a Marke shâ—tâ—â—t and hit by the Def. of the Def. his professed method to professe a full answer unto all obâ—ected and answer what he pleased to object to himselfe of perverse and injurious dealing that he should be told of this trueth of welts guards and gallant shewes and garnish onely in so many reasons and Scriptures What aile you saith he What meane you To all this I answer nothing 2. He himselfe undertaketh to answer all To this thereâ—ore I will attend according to the skill I have 2. His generall answer is that these five reasons of equity doe not prove that we are bound unto all and the very same wayes of repressing Idolatrie c. which the Iewes were bound to This we confesse as the Rej. testifieth neither could they upon that supposition be called five reasons of equity onely but of rigor And what a kinde of answering is this to say reasons doe not proove that which they were not brought to proove The question is whether they do not proove that it is contrary to Gods Word to use much more to command the use of such Ceremoâ—ies in the worship of God as man hath devized if they be notoriously knowne to have beene of olde and still to be abused unto Idolatry by the Papists especially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church This was the opppsition for proofe whereof these five reasons of equity were brought And for this we have all our Divines that confound Popish Images out of the selfe-same places of Scripture as Vrsine on the second Commandement Polanus Syntag. lib. 9. cap. 26. and whom not His answer in particular is first to Exod. 20.5.6 Deut. 7.25.36 Isai. 1.29 and 30.32 that these places speake oâ— Idols themselves or their garnish not of indifferent Ceremonies But 1. these places were not alleged against indifferent Ceremonies but against Ceremonious instrumenâ—â— and tokens of Idolatry not necessary unto true worship 2. If they make against the use or urging of those thingâ— which are either Idols or Idols garnish as is confessed it is sufficient For the Crosse is an Idol and both Crosse and Surplice are the Garnish of Idols 4. Some of these places sayth the Rejoynder aâ—â— grossely mistaken misalleged and abused as Isai. 1.29 anâ— 2.20 where confusion and not Godly shame for sinne is spokeâ— of Ezech. 16.54 not speaking of hardening others 1. Cor. 8.10 speaking of a thing in it selfe evill Exod. 34.12 anâ— Deut. 7.4 speaking of marriage and league with Heathenâ— and Gal. 2.5 not respecting Ceremonies abused To the first I answer 1. that the shame and confusion judiciall which is brought upon Idolaters is because they are not ashâ—med unto repentance 2. All those of whom the Prophet speaketh were not judicially confounded but penitentially ashamed Ier. 31.19 Ezech. 16.54 should have beene joyned to the former allegations as speaking of mens shame in themselves not of hardening others 1. Cor. 8 10. condemneth embolding others to sin by eating things offered to Idols though it were otherwise â—awfull as appeareth 1. Cor. 10.29 And a question may â—e made whether it had beene more unlawfull to eat â—uch things in the Idols Temple then to take from â—hence things notoriously knowne to be such and eat â—hem in Christian Congregations at Love-feasts Exo. â—4 12 Deut. 7.4 speake not onely of a civill but also of â— religious league such as should hinder them from breaâ—ing downe their Altars Images Groaues c. as Iuniâ—s in his Anal. noteth and the words immediatly folâ—owing shew Gal. 2.5 placing danger in conformity to â—ewish Ceremonies doeth insinuate as much at the â—east in conformity to Idolaters 5. The Rejoynder addeth that Isai. 1.29 and Iude 23. â—â—nfute our Assertion because men may pray in Gardens and 〈◊〉 garment spotted with the flesh being washed might be used â—nd such confutations the Rejoynder aboundeth with â—ut wee can distinguish betwixt Gods good necessary â—reatures and mans inventions of Idolatrous abuse and â—nnecessary use Yet Gardens might not be used by the Iewes for their â—eremoniall solemne worship Neither is every washing 〈◊〉 polluted garment sufficient to make it fitting for an â—onest man that hath other clothes to put on The waâ—â—ing of a Crosse is like the washing of a piece of clay or â—f a Leopards spots 6. Now Sir sayth the Rejoynd You have your will â—he third proofe is examined and found to be light facing â—o bee repented of as having abused men Bate an acequoth â—oulton The whole proofe is not examined Nothing is said to the substance of the reasons but only to the testimonies which yet are not found to be leight facing abusive c. And nothing at all is said to the fifth reason Seeing the Pope is revealed to be that great Antichrist 2. Thes. 2. Apoc. 17. and his Idolatrie troubleth the Church at this day more then any other and our people converse more with Papists then with any other Idolater there is more danger in retaining the Ceremonies and reliques of Popery then of any other Idolatry whatsoever Lev. 18.3 See Calvin 7. Calvin was alledged in his 52. Sermon on Deut. speaking thus If we have any drop of good zeale in us it must needs vexe and grieve us
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
Churches which were infected with many errors and declining in many things to superstition then in Hezekias Church most purely at that time reformed Surely the Rej. in a great part of his glosse forgot his text otherwise he would never have in this manner confuted it Cathedrall musick with Organs 2. THe first question was If the Primitive Church had such chaunting Idol-service as is in out Cathedrall Churches The Rejoynder after some words spent about singing about which he bringeth not the least resemblance of that in question untill the fourth age after Christ excepteth first that Organall musicke was gods ordinance in the old Testament and that not significant or typicall and therefore is sinfully callâ—d Idol-service 2. That all men whose hearts are not averse by distraction stupidity or prejudice feele such musicke to worke much upon their affections To this I say 1. that his denying of Organall musicke to have beene significant or typicall is without reason and against the current of our Divines taken as it may seeme out of Bellarmine de missa lib. 2. cap. 15. who useth this evasion against those words of P. Martyr Musicall organs perteyne to the Iewish Ceremonie and agree no more to us then Circumcision So that we may neglect it and take him as saying that nothing which was ordained in the old Testament no not sacrificing of beasts is now an Idol-service 2. For that and the other both together it is fit the Rejoynder should be put in minde how many and what kinde of men he accuseth of distraction stupidity or prejudice 1. Thomas Aquinas in whose time this faction was not in generall request Instrumenta musica non assumit Ecclesia in divinas laudes ne videatur Iudaizare Musica instrumenta magis animum movent ad delectationem quam ut per ea forractur bona dypositio In et Test. usus erat taiium instrumentorum tum-tum quia aliquid figurabant Operosam quandam theatricam musiâ—am in sacâ—as aâ—es induximus tumultuosum diversarum vocum garritum qualem non opinor in Graecorum out Rom morum theatris unquam auditumsuisse In hunc usum magnu salaâ—ijs aluntur puororum greges quorum omnis aet as in perdiscendus hujusmodi garnitibus consumitur tantus sumptibus oneratur Ecclesia ob rem pestiseram c. much lesse in the Primitive in 22. q. 91. a. 2.4 opposeth thus The Church useth no musick for divine praises lest it should seeme to Indaize and answereth thus Musicall instruments doe more stirre up the minde to delight then frame it to a right disposition In the old Testament there was some need of them both c. and also because they did figure out something Erasmus in 1. Cor. 14. sayth thus We have brought a tedious and player-like musicke into the Church a tumultuous noyse of many voyces such as I thinke was not heard among the Theaters of Grecians or Romans For which purpose whole flockes of boyes are maintained at great charges whose age also is all spent in learning such gibble gabble At such cost is the Church â—or a pestiferous thing c. It is evident that that some Ecclâ—siasticall chanting and roarings in our Temples scarse also understood of the Priests themselves is a most foolish and vaine abuse Zuinglius Act. Disp. 2. pag. 100. Ecclesiasticum ittum cantum templorum boatus ab ipsis quoque sacerdotibus non intellectos abusum stultum inanem â—â—â—pietatis verae temoram pernitiosissimam esse constat Calvin in Psalm 23 Mihi dâ—bium non est quin totum illud musicae genus pars fuerÃt legalis padagogia In solemni Dei cultu nihilo 〈◊〉 ad canendas Deì laudâ—s congruere arbitror musica instrumenta quam si quis suffitus lucernas similes legis 〈◊〉 bras in usum revocet Vltra progredi quam docemur 1. Cor. 14. impiam pervicaciam esse dico and a most pernicious let to piety I make no question but all that kinde of musicke was a part of the legall pedagogie In the solemne worship of God I doe not judge it more sutable then if we should recall the incense tapers and other shadowes of the Law into use I say againe to goe beyond what we are taught is most wicked pervicacy It would be too tedious if I should reckon up all that have assented to these I will adde onely the two and thirty grave learned men which were chosen in King Edwards dayes to reforme Ecclesiasticall lawes and observances they judged this law fitting De divinis officijs cap. 5. Vibratam illam operosam musicam qua figurata dicitur aufetri placâ—t It likes us well to have this tedious kinde of musicke taken away Certainely these were neither distracted nor stupid men whence their prejudice came let the Rejoynder himselfe judge Chancelours Commissaries and Officials 3. The second question was about these children of the earth dealing with the keyes of Christs Heavenly Kingdome whether they can bee founde in the face or body of the Primitive Church The Rej. 1. answereth plainely and roundly No. Yet these human creatures are those that keep most mis-rule among poore Christan men and Ministers also in Ecclesiasticall censures of suspension and excommunication with intolerable exactions That assertion therefore of the Defend that the Church of England doth most lively expresse the face and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church is in one great part of it dashed by the Rejoynder his No. 2. The Rejoynd addeth nor did any Presbyters execute any Church censures without leave or consent of their Bishops or unpreaâ—hing Elders at all execute any censures of the Church Now 〈◊〉 this is nothing to the purpose but a meere diversion â—hat something might seeme to be said beside No. 2. For â—he first I answer with Iunius in Bel. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. â—4 an 27. Censures are in common to be acted by the Presbytery so that as the other Presbiters did not act them without the consent of the chiefe Presbyter or Bishop â—o neither could any Bishop do it without them of and â—y himselfe That Bishops afterward dared so to doe it was tyrannidis indignae meere tyranny 3. For the confuâ—ation of the second I propound a remarkable place in â—rigen against Celsus lib. 3. extant also in his Philocalia â—ollected by Gregorie Naz. and Basil set forth in greeke â—nd latine by Tarinus were cap. 18. Vnto Celsus obâ—ecting that Christian teachers sought for simple foolish â—uditors Origen answereth that Christian teachers did â—irst discerne and try their auditors and of the approoâ—ed they had two orders Nonnulli praepositi sunt que in vitam mores â—orum qui admittuntur exquiranâ—s ut qui turpia committunt ijâ— communi coetu interdicant quâ— verâ—ab istis abhorrent ex animo complexi meliores quotidie reddaâ—â— one of beginners that were â—atechised and another of those which had made furâ—her progresse And among these latter distinct from â—eachers
nullo modo tolerenous plurimas necessarias causes habâ—mus nay to such as they at Geneva found to be clean contrarie As for us we have many necessarie reasons why wee doe no way tolerat that signe their causes alleged in the 8. Epistle were not peculiar to any time or place but perteyne as well to England as to Geneva So that this was but to stop a Papists mouth with using of gentle words and suppositions concerning our unwarrantable course Of the surplice he speaketh sometime more indifferently but in the same places he will have it not subscribed to not defended or rejoyned for but by all meanes hastened out of the Church as a ridiculous stage-play garment or a Fooles-coat 8. Many other Divines were named as Zanchius Pezelius Mollerus Zegedinus Daneus Machabeus Zepperus Wigandus and Sadeel but their words not cited except onely Sadeels for avoyding of unnecessarie tediousnesse they all speaking to the same purpose with the former The Rejoynder hath one general answer for diverse of these that they allowed some human Feasts which have been abused to Superstition Now though this be no direct answer and the Authors may in part forget their owne general rule in some particular yet this may be further sayd that they accounted not these Feast-days such kinde of Ceremonies as we speak of This appeareth in Zepper whoe put them under the head of Order cap. 13. wheras he handleth the Crosse under the head of Sacramental Ceremonies cap. 10. In particular 1. Daneus and Zegedinus sayth the Rejoynder speak not to our purpose Daneus I have not at hand but Zegedine in his tables of Baptisme calleth them Popish additions by which Baptisme is prophaned 2. Zanchies judgement hath been shewed Namely that it was contrarie to all such Ceremonies And this doeth abundantly appear out of his Epist. to Q. Elizabeth printed before in English 3. Zepper alloweth the ancient use of the Surplice If he did therin he should not have crossed his rule given cap. 10. reg 4. out of the Scriptures at least in his opinion except he judged the Surplice before that ancient use to have been notoriously abused unto Idolatrie But the trueth is Zepper doeth but comparatively excuse a supposed ancient use of that garment which in ancient times was not knowen but as a civil habit usual in hote countries 4. Wigandus sayth the Rejoynder was Illyricus his associat in the furious opposition of the Surplice Wheras the trueth is Illyricus himself did not furiously oppose but use the Surplice as Calvin testifieth Epist. 117. 5. Sadeels words are We reject whatsoever remayneth in the Church of Rome which came eyther from Iews or Pagans The Rejoynder answereth that Sadeel sheweth what Ceremonies the Refor Churches of France did reject but not what were necessarily to be rejected of all Churches He useth also the limitation of Iewish and Paganish Ceremonies But he clean mistaketh Sadeels meaning Iewish and Paganish are no wordes of limitation but of explication by way of reason Our use of his testimonie is 1. thus Whatsoever Ceremonies they of France have rejected are in Sadeels judgement Iewish or Heathenish which can have no lawful use in Gods worship But the Churches of France have rejected our Ceremonies in controversie Ergo. 2. Thus If Iewish and Heathenish Ceremonies are to be rejected then Popish also they being in their nature or kinde Iewish and having evermore been notoriously abused unto Popish Idolatrie 9. M. Rogers Martyr in King Edwards days would not consent to conformitie in Cap and Tippet unlesse the Papists might be constreyned to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice and Hoast True answereth the Rejoynder 1. but other good Martyrs did Therfor say I not they but M. Rogers was alleged Yet beside zealous Hooper with whome after Ridly and others agreed Heavenly M. Bradford might have been added whoe in his letters to Erkinald Rawlins calleth forked caps and tippers Antichristian pelse and baggage He 2. answereth that the quaestion was for inconveniencie not unlawfulnesse But he knoweth well that M. Hooper and so in all likelyhood M. Rogers stood upon such inconveniencie as in their learning was unlawfulnesse His 3. and 4. answer is of different intentions in the same materials But this was in King Edwards days by all professed and yet M. Rogers and such could not see it sufficient 5. M. Rogers would sayth the Rejoynder allow the same thinges with some marke of difference Not allow but tolerate not upon every marke of difference but such as he knew would never be consented unto that is not at all 10. Publick injunctions were wonte to forbid all Monuments of Superstition and the Canons 1571. did forbid the gray Amice and all other garments defiled with like superstition Therfor sayth the Rejoynder 1. â—hey did not take our Ceremonies for suche Monuments But that is nothing to the Proposition Neyther yet maketh it much to the Assumption of this Argument what these or those did then take our Ceremonies to be What they are in deed we shall see in the Assumption He 2. allegeth that the Suâ—plice was none of the Missal garments as the Amice But first Bellarmine whome the Rejoynder made of late the Canon of Missal garments maketh no more mention of the Amice then of the Surplice Durandus or G. Minatensis Rational lib. 3. cap. 1. sayth In some things about the Altar they must use the Surplice Superpelliceo in quibuslibet servitius Altaris uti debent Steven Mephem cap Linteam No clarck may be suffred about the Service of the Altar unlesse he have the Surplice on at Masse Nullus Clericus permistatur in of ficio Altaris nisi indutus superpellecio tempore quo Missarum solemnia peraguntur 3. The Rejoynder addeth that it is a strong imagination to thinke that the very Injunctions and Canons of this Church could prove her to judge her owne impositions unlawful Which if he meant of formal particular judgement it is his owne weak imagination if of general and virtual judging ther is neyther strongnesse nor strangenesse in it because this Church hath no privilege that way above other Churches of which none were ever found nor can be imposing any thing unlawful which did not professe that trueth whoâ—e contents did prove that unlawful imposition to be unlawful D. Morton hath plentifully shewed so much of the Popish Church as the Rejoynder will not denie 11. B. Iewell was cited as approving Tertullians judgement concerning the unlawfulnesse of Garlands though not evill of themselves because they had appearance of evill Well sayth the Rejoynder then they were not evill in themselves by abuse That is abuse did not make them evill before they were abused which is true But â—f B. Iewel allowed Tertullians judgement as the Rej. granteth by the abuse they became evill and unlawfull Appearance of that which is evill in it selfe is evill in it selfe but the abuse was evill in it selfe and the after use was an
be Where it is something that he confesseth their bread not to be like the Papists neyther in extensive quantitie nor yet in Forme and Figure But yet I am perswaded he wrongeth that Church in making their Cakes as thin as the Papists Host. For the Papists Host is a starchie or scummie crust distinct from cibarius panis bread fitting for food by our Divines censure of it And it is not credible that the Church of Geneva should reteyne such a grosse corruption But sayth the Rejoynder you allow their Ceremonie of Wafer-bread Nothing lesse We never read nor heard from them that they made any Wafer fashion a Religious significant Ceremonie This Wafer was first baked in England And if they did they are olde enough let them answer for themselves But addeth he even unleavened bread hath been abused Neyther allow we of any Ceremonious leaving out of leaven nor can it be proved of the Geneva Church As for that which was added by the Replier of custome heerin praevayling against Farells Calvins and Virets advise it is confessed by the Rejoynder that these Divines had brought-in a custome of using common bread but after some knaves working upon the reliques of the former custome brought in unleavened bread which is enough for to confirme that which the Replier spake as the Rejoynder sayth at random To the second part of the quaestion whether it be nor a wide leape to bring in the Practise of Geneva for an Instance of the Non-Conformists practise in England The Rejoynder answereth that it is an abuse unruly lightnesse eagernesse after squibs and scornes which wrought the Replier out of his geares All this it pleaseth him to lay upon this one phrase a wide leape a litle after he had commended Hellebore unto M. Parker with many such Drugges unto others And what is the cause Forsooth because this Geneva Wafer-cake was given as an instance of our Confessions and not of our Practise But this is as wide as if it had been confessed to belonge to our Practise For no such Confession of ours can be shewed It had been fitting to object nothing unto us as Confessed but that which we have eyther in practise or in writing allowed Neyther in deed was it the Defender his meaning to make all the rest of his instances our Practises and this onely our Confession but he stumbled upon this in the ende as a thing that must have some place among his objections because it had been objected by others and the Rejoynder having begunne his booke with the accusation of Scurrilitie finding him to be taken had no other way but with this shew of a distinction to vente some salt phrases like unto that Vt ultima primis consentirent 1. e. That both endes might agree A POSTSCRIPT SOme Reader may inquire whence came this new writing about Ceremonies And he may please to be informed that after the Abrigement was printed a great silence followed in England about these matters as if enough had been sayd on both sides until D. Morton then B. of Chester not thinking it honest to silence Ministers for Ceremonies before some answer was given unto their reasons they stood upon undertooke with great confidence to give a full Answer to all which was objected This answer being printed was divers years neglected as conteyning litle or nothing that had not formerly been confuted But afterward when silence was interpreted in such sence as if it had been a yeelding consâ—nt it was by some thought fitting that a breif Replie should be opposed This the Bishop thought not worthy of his owne Rejoynder but was contented to put it off unto D. Burges as a friend to him ingaged in the cause and wanting neyther will nor witte nor wordes nor credit And he went about it with all his might But finding more rubbes in the way then he had thought of after he had spent about nine years in Rejoyning to that which was written in some fowre weâ—kes by Special Command procured he knoweth by whome was compelled to thrust forth his imperfect woâ—ke full of such passionate stuffe as it may be upon more deliberation he himself would have recalled Vpon these out-cries it was necessarie to speakagaine for a good cause lest diffamation should praevayl against it But what good will some say can be exspected from this writing when the cause appeareth dâ—speratâ—â— Surely litle or none for the publick Because in our Bishops courses Will and Power have jusâ—led out Reason But yet Gods word is not bound And if we must needes be oppressed by them is it not worth a litle inke and paper to demonstrate that it is in a good cause By this meanes our consciences are justified our afflictions made more tolerable our oppressours though more angered yet must of necessitie be lesse insulting and our names shall suffer lesse though our bodies and outward estate endure more and Posteritie shall not say that for our owne ease we betrayed the cause by leaving it more praejudiced to them then we receyved it from our Fore-fathers FINIS AN ADDITION Of the two last reasons of the former reply unto whiâ—h no answer hath as yet beene rejoyned THE REPLYER Being not onely willing but desirous for the manifestation of the truth that the Reioyner should try his strength to the utmost CHAP. V. Sect. I. ad X. THe Authours of the Abridgment framed a strong Argument against our Ceremonies from the rules of Ceremonies prescribed in the Word P. 43. c. with this Argument when the Defendant was not able to grappell as it stood in the parts combined he thought good to sever some parcels of it and try what he could say to them apart Thus out of this one Argument he hath taken that which he calleth our first and out of the same he hath made up this fift and yet hee hath quite leâ—t out a great part of the sinewes wherewith that one reason is knit together in the Abridgement The argument is taken from the scandall or offence which the imposing and using of these ceremonies do bring unto divers sorts of men The Defendant here maketh great flourishing in nine whole Sections defining deviding and subdividing a scandall as if he would make all cleare before him but at the end of all this preparation he maketh no application of these Rules unto the matter in hand at all but onely telleth his Reader Pag. 154. That these divisions and subdivisions will expedite all difficulties so that out of them he may collect the true and false sense of Scriptures alledged It were sufficient therefore either to deny this power to be in his divisions or else to sett downe as many other subdivisions of scandall which were easie to doe and then tell him that these will expedite the controversie and that from them hee may collect the errours of his answer But I will notwithstanding briefly shew my opinion concerning some of these dâ—ctates The definition which he onely alloweth of as
upon contribution if they had such accommodative consciences as this Def. surmiseth of them Some of them with serving the time and the addition of Simony might come to be Bishops and the rest might be preferred by their meanes to some certaine incomings CHAP. VI. Sect. III. NOw we are come to the sixt and last generall Argument viz. that the imposition of these ceremonies is opposite unto Christian liberty Here the Def. observeth first that the state of this quaestion is about liberty from the necessary observation of such things as are in their owne nature indifferent This saith he the Objector implyeth But I answer the Objector doth not imply it he speaketh of ceremonies lawfully appointed by man that these are to be used as things indifferent Neither if one private Obj. had granted it ought it therefore to be sett downe as the received state of the quaestion seeing the Abridgment which in the defence is chiefly opposed doth every where deny the cerem to be in their owne nature indifferent But let that passe and examine his resolution There be two kinds of necessities incident unto humaine precepts and ordinances in the case of indifferencie one is necessity of obedience to the commandement which cannot properly prejudice Christian liberty the other is doctrinall necessity when any of those properties which are essentiall unto divine ordinances are attributed unto a humaine constitution as 1. immediateâ—y to binde the conscience 2. to be a necessary meanes to salvation 3. to hold it altogether unalterable by the authority of man this is a presumption and prevarication not onely against Chrisâ—ian liberty but also against the soveraigntie of God himselfe But 1. what meaneth this new distinction betwixt necessity doctrinall and obedientiall doctâ—inall before pag. 3. was opposed unto ceremoniall now unto obedientiall both without logick or sound reason 2. He should have told us what kynd of necessitie obedientiall he meaneth for Bellar. de pont rom l. 4. c. 17. useth the same pretence of obedience and alledgeth the same places of Scripture for it and yet is confuted by Iunius Whitakers and our Divines 3. If there be doctrinall necessity in all those humaine constitutions which have properties attributed unto them essentiall unto divine ordinances then our ceremonies in controversie not onely have such a mysticall signification attributed unto them as is proper unto Divine Ordinances but also that they are imposed as parts of Gods worship 4. For the three properties which the Def. mentioneth they are such as Papists in imposing of their ceremonies which yet by the judgement of all our Divines deprive men of Christian liberty doe disclaime As for immediate binding of mens consciences no learned Papist useth such a phrase Azorius a Iesuit instit mor. parte 1. lib. 5. cap. 6. sayth expresly that humaine lawes doe not bind directe proxime perse directly immediately of themselves Bellarmine also de Rom. pont l. 4. cap. 20. ad arg 9. sayth as much Leges humanae non obligant sub poena mortis nisi quatenus violatione legis humanae offenditur Deus i. e. they doe not immediately binde mens consciences For necessity to salvation the same Bellarmine de verb. non script c. 11. sayth plainly That those things which are simply necessary unto salvation are sett downe in Scripture and that the rest are not simply necessary And it is plaine enough that they doe not hold them altogether unalterable by that authority which brought them in for beside that no reasonable man can deny so manifest a truth they have altered many ancient Rites as all the learned know So that the Defendant his distinction is proved nothing else but a confusion common to him with the Papists to our ceremonies and theirs SECT IV. V. IN the 4. Section the Def. objecteth to himselfe under the name of the Abridgement the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 7.35 This I speake to your profite not that I might cast a snare upon you shewing that the imposition of necessity upon things indifferent is a very snare of mens consciences Now though these words are not in the Abridgement yet because as D. Whitakers sayth de pont cap. 4. qu. 7. aureus hic locus est nostrae libertatis vindex This is a golden charter of liberty therefore it is worthy of due consideration The summe of the Def. his answer is that to impose a neceessity where God hath left a liberty is indeed a snare but this necessâ—ty is not taughâ— in our Church I answer it is taught in our church now a dayes that ecclesiastical canons do binde mens coÌ„sciences It is taught in our church that maÌ„s will is a sufficieÌ„t reason for these Canons about Cer. It is taught in our church that Sacraments may not be administred or God publickly served without these cerem that Ministers called and allowed of God for these ceremonies must be silenced that they are to be excommunicated ipso facto and accursed which oppose themselves unto them It is taught also that though a man doubteth in his conscience of the lawfulnesse of them though evident scandall will follow upon the using of them yet they may not be omitted If this be not necessity enough to insnare a mans conscience I know not what then is In the fift Section two places are objected out of the Abridgement viz. Gal. 5.1 Col. 2.20 and one of them after a fashion answered The first answere is that the Apostle there speaketh onely of Iewish rites which is Bellarmines answer just de eff sacr c. 32. loquitur Paulus de servitute Iudaica qua servierant illi sub antiqua lege The second answer is that the Apostles meaning was of such an observation of these ceremonies as had an opinion of necessity overthrowing the new Testament and establishing the old So Bellarmin ibid. Illi cum circumcidi vellent excidebant à gratia Christi simul obligabant fe ad omnem legem servandam quod prorsus erat redire ad statum veteris testamâ—nti We on the other side with Danaeus against thaâ— place of Bell. say generale est Pauli dictum praeceptum the words are generall belonging to all parts of ChristiaÌ„ liberty though principally ther applyed to one Now the servitude from which Christ hath made us free is not onely in those things which the Def. speaketh of but also as Iun. cont 3. l. 4. c. 17. n. 19 21. sheweth in subjection of our consciences unto elements of mans appointing Gal 4.10 and unto the will of men 1. Cor. 7.23 which place Beza well noteth is to be understood of superstitions which some doe foolishly call indifferent things It is not onely therfore a freedome from Iewish Ceremonies but also and even therfore as D. Whitakers gathereth from all humaine ceremonies that binde or presse our consciences Whit. de rom pont q. 7. c. 3. ad 5. But it is in vaine for me to alledge our Divines in this quaestion the Abridgement alledgeth diverse
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
collection To which I oppose those words of the Def. If you take it in the generalitie then cannot you justifie any one of your Ceremonies belonging to Order and Decencie For they have been some way abused Was it not his meaning to say that as other Ceremonies of Order so these in quaestion if they be onely generally the same with those that have been abused may be justified that is lawfully used Let the Defender hold his owne coate then he cannot so easily escape without being discerned as the Rejoynder by changing would have him Certainly the Replier did not the evishly take his coat from him nor had he any cause to wish eyther it to himself or his to the Defender for any advantage that he might get by that change 3. Against the foresayd answer it was opposed that by this meanes any kinde of Popish Iewish or Heathenish Ceremonie may come in so ther be new particulars and a new intention used To which it is rejoyned that though they be not excluded upon that sole poynt of having been abused yet they may upon other just exceptions be shut out But the Rejoynder should have shewed those just exceptions which remaine after the particular matter and the evill intention be removed For according to the Defender and Rejoynder their groundes I cannot guesse what they should be The Rejoynder mentioneth dumbe darke numerous burthensome incorrigible foolish ridiculous Ceremonies But all these exceptions have been discussed before where we have shewed that all these vertues are founde in our Ceremonies as well as in Popish beside numerousnesse which in this place cannot be applied to the purpose because the inference was of any kinde not of any number Dumbnesse in deed is denied to be in â—ignificant Ceremonies but what is ther amonge the Popish Ceremonies which is not made by Durand of Mystical signification It is not darke what men say our Crosse doeth signifie but how â—t can lawfully signifie any such thinge is very darke c. 4. While the Replier was goeing on in confutation of the Defender his answer namely that in Ceremonies â—bused to Idolatrie those are not forbidden which are geneâ—ally the same but onely the same individuals the Rejoynd â—inding that undefensible out of curtesie as he sayth setâ—eth up another answer which he calleth a Faire Marke â—amely that sometime when the particulars or individuals â—hich have been prostituted to Idolatrie may not lawfully be â—sed yet others of the like kinde may be lawfully used with â—awful intentions But this is litle curtesie or faire dealâ—ng when the Repliers arrow was shotte and stucke in â—he Defender his White cliving the very Peg of it to set â—p another Marke and then accuse the shooter that his â—rrow doeth not sticke in this Marke set up after the â—hotte was made Beside this concerneth not our Asâ—umption which should be the Rejoynder his Marke beâ—ause there is nothing in it of human Ceremonies not neâ—essarie 5. It was replied also that by the Defender his rule by paritie of reason it might be gathered that of Ceâ—emonies instituted by Christ those onely are commanded which he did sanctifie in particular No sayth â—he Rejoynder because in institution of the Sacraments â—her was ordeyned a continuance in the like kinde Doe this And was ther not also in the prohibition of Ceremonies human Idolatrously abused ordeyned a continuance in the like kinde in those wordes Deut. 12. thou â—halt not doe so to the Lord thy God 6. From the same rule the Replier sayd it may be concluded that no Popish Ceremonies are Iewish or Heathenish because they are not the same individually or in particular Not so neither sayth the Rejoynder because they use Iewish Typicals and others as still in force by the Iewes lawes and Pagan Rites with the like intention But 1. The Papists doe not use Iewish Typicals as types of Christ yet to come and therefore according to the Def. and Rej. their sentence must be excused because they holde Circumcision it selfe lawfull to Christians pag. 285. 2. They doe not hold any Ceremoniall Iewish lawes to binde Christians See Bellarmine de justificatione lib. 4. cap. 6. It is neither good nor safe to accuse any beyond their deserts 3. Likenesse of intention betwixt Pagans and Papists is such as admitteth much dislikenesse And such likenesse there is betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish 7. It was inquired whether the Scripture forbidding conformity with Heathen Idolaters in shaving of heads and cutting of beards did meane the same heads and beards onely No answereth the Rejoynder because the like in kinde was forbidden And this is that which the Replier sought For then by proportionable equity Ceremonies like in kinde to Idolaters are forbidden to Christians at this day and not the same particulars onely 8. Because the Defendant objected that all circumstances of Order and Decency have beene abused to Idolatry the Rejoynder noted that this is one advantage he maketh of leaving out of our Assumption those limitations Ceremonies devised by man of no necessary use because Circumstances of Order and Decency are necessarie in their kinde and not meere devises of men Bellarmine himselfe being Iudge de effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 29. Vpon this the Rejoynder having little reason to oppose thereto after some repetition of confuted shifts commeth on with a current of words like a flood from the hils after a great raine which carrieth much mud with it For after some rouling of Circumstances in their particulars with adding of divers neither meere circumstances nor allowed by us as he supposeth which make nothing to the purpose this muddy stuffe is found in the valley The matter comes to this issue you aâ—e the godly men other reformed Churches are the Churches of Christ All other men are Carnall Time-servers Formalists that have no conscience no syncerity no godly wisedome no zeale you are the onely men I cannot devise what occasion he had of this extraordinary passion but that he was angry to see he could not confront reason with reason In his could blood I dare say he will recall these words of distemper which cannot be fastened upon us and therefore rebound upon him from whose violence they proceeded With more shew of reason he addeth that for necessity in the kinde a Surplice in the kinde of a garment the Crosse in the kinde of admonition to professe the faith and kneeling in the kinde of a reverent gesture are as necessary as any circumstance of Order and Decency But this comparison hath beene largely confuted in the first part of this Writing in the heade of Ceremonies c. Heere it shall suffice to note that time place and such like circumstances are so manifestly necessary in their kinde that the particulars may be deduced from them by particular considerations without any institution but no man can deduce our Ceremonies from those kindes named Mans will is the onely reason of them as Gods will is the onely reason of Ceremonies truely
divine by institution No man can conclude thus we must every where have some garment and therefore in England a Surplice We must alwayes in Baptisme have some admonition to professe the faith and therefore in England a Crosse. We must use reverent gestures in receiving the holy Communion and therefore in England we must kneel in the act of receiving But we may conclude thus We must have a fit place to meete in and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation therefore we must have this We must have a convenient time to meete in and this houre is generally most convenient for our Congregation therefore this The Monkes may as well conclude We must have some garments therefore we must in one order have blacke in another white in a third blacke over white or white over blacke in a fourth gray a fifth party coloured in some all wollen in some all linnen c. ad infinitum as well I say every whit as the Rejoynder can conclude from a garment to a Surplice from admonition to the signe of a Crosse or from reverence in a table-gesture to kneeling To Bellarmine the Rejoynder answereth that he speaketh of naturall Ceremonies Which is true but are not these conteined under the generality of the Defendâ—nt his words there is no gesture or circumstance of worship which hath not beene abused And as for other circumstances which are called civill many of them admit onely of such variety as nature doth lead unto by occasion of this or that determination common to religion with other affaires 9. That our Ceremonies are not individually or singularly the same which Papists have solemnely abused the Replier said it is no marvell because it is impossible to carry the same particular signe of the Crosse from the Fonte to the Church doore or to keep it being so long as it is in making That is therefore no great mystery The Rejoynder answereth nothing to this save onely that he descanteth upon the terme mystery 10. It was added as an overplus not for necessity of the Argument that as it seemeth Papists doe give divine honour unto the signe of the Crosse as it is usâ—d among us because they ascribe divine operation unâ—o it as it was used by Iewes Heathens and Iulian the Apostata Bell de effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 31. and they doe not account us worse then them The Rejoynder opposeth 1. That the Papists honour not the Lords Supper in our hands The difference is that unto that Sacrament they require a right-ordained Priest but not so to the Crosse. 2. He answereth that they ascribe this divine operation unto it onely when there is an intention of such an operation in him that maketh the Crosse. Be it so the Patrones of our crossing defend that use which the Crosse had among the Fathers who allowed that intention as Bellarmine in the place now cited sheweth And how shall the inward intention of them be discerned This at the least seemeth to follow that as for uncertainty of the Priests intention divers Papists worship the Hoaste onely upon condition if it be changed into the body by the Priests intention so they must ascribe divine honour unto our Crosses upon the like condition of such an intention as was in the Fathers 11. About materiall formall samenesse the Replier refused to dispute that was sayth the Rejoynder because if he had he must either have opposed all learning and common sense or else have yeelded to the Dâ—fendant that change of essentiall forme maketh the same materiall to become another thing as in the changing of water into wine But 1. with consent of all common sense we may say that our Crosse differeth not so from the Popish Crosse as the wine did from water Ioh. 2. 2. It were no opposition to all learning whatsoever Aristole teacheth if one should say that not the forme onely but also the matter was in a great part changed when water was turned into wine 3. Opinion and intention is not the essentiall forme of a ceremoniall Crosse. For one and the same ceremoniall Crosse is used by Papists to divers intentions as to represent a Mystery to cure diseases to drive away divels c. Bellarmine in the fore-cited place And opinion belongeth to the efficient or making cause not to the forme 4. The very making of a Crosse in such a manner or with such circumstances as put upon it a relation to religion maketh both matter and forme of that Ceremony and so after idolatrously abused carrieth with it at least a shew of an Idolatrous Ceremony But this shew the Rej. referreth unto the fifth chapter and heere opposeth onely that likenesse and samenesse are not one Which is true of individuall or singular samenesse not otherwise for those things are like which have one and the same qualitie But he himselfe will not say that onely the same individuall or particular Ceremonies which Idolaters abuse are forbidden to us He hath hitherto in all this section declined the defence of that absurdity This quidity therefore is not to the purpose 12. It was added by the Replier that we have no intention or opinion in the use of the Crosse but the Papists have the same though they have others more and therefore there is some formall samenesse in their Crosse and ours To this the Rejoynd in many words answereth nothing but that this replie stifles it selfe because if we have not all the same opinions which they have then they have not the same with us But it doeth not follow of positive opinions concerning the Crosse it selfe For we may want some of their opinions and yet they have all that we have the same Doeth not he that knoweth most of this or that know the same thing with him that knoweth little though he knoweth more 13. Another odde reason was framed by the Repl. thus If this doeth make a Ceremony not the same that men have not altogether the same opinion of it then among the Papists there are as many kinde of Ceremonies Crosses Surplices as there are diversities of opinions about their nature and use which no man will say Yes sayth the the Rejoynder I will say it of Ceremonies and he that shall denie this must lay aside both learning and conscience not knowing what to say But he is too too confident upon the ground which he is driven to by force of a contrary winde For without laying aside of learning and conscience we may thus argue If this be so then all human Ceremonies used among the Papists and brought in as hitherto all have used to speake by Popes are not Popish For they may be this or that Hedge-Priests Ceremonies who hath added his opinion and institution unto them 2. The Pope by the same reason cannot know when his Ceremonies arâ— observed or omitted because he cannot know all opinions and intentions of men And the like reason holding with us our Church must inquire into the opinions and intentions