occasion may not be founde in mens nay fathers Ceremonious praesumtions 4. It was finally answered by the Repl. that the allways of these Feasts cannot include the Apostolicall times and for other allways Bellarmine Cont. 1. l. 4. c. 9. hath the same plea and the answer given unto him by our Divines may serve here The Rejoynder here 1. insinuateth that it is very likely these Feasts or some of them were on foot while some Apostles lived because Polycarpe praetended Iohn to have taught Easter On foot indeed was the mysterie of Antichristian corruption in the Apostles times But that which Polycarpe is sayd to have praetended was for the fourteen day of the moneth and is confuted by a contrarie praetense of the latine Churches from Peter and Paul Socrat. l. 5. cap. 22. He 2. addeth under Augustines name that it is insolent madnesse to thinke that not to be well doen which hath been doen by all the Churche though it beganne after the Apostles times Now though I finde no suche saying of Augustines in the epistle quoted for it but to the Contrarie I finde this rule that it is lawful or not lawfull to beleeve or not to beleeve other witnesses or testimonies besides that of the Scriptures so far as you see they beare or do not beare weight to make us give more credit to a thinge Alijs testibut vel testimonijs preterquam Divinarum Scripturarum câ—edere vel non credere liceat quantum ea moments ad faciendam sulem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis Which being granted the fact of the Churche cannot so confirme this or that to be right and well as that it should be madnesse to denie it Yet let it be his saying I answer if this be true then it must needs follow that giving of the Communion and that as is most likely sopped upon opinion of necessitie cannot be denied well and good for that as is well knowen was doen generally in Augustines time and longe before It must follow also that they were speciall insolent mad men that first began to disalow eyther that or any other ancient thinge of generall observatioÌ„ Ecclesia Dei intermultam palâ—am multaque Zizanta constituta multa toleravit which Augustine would never have sayde whoe professed of his time that the Churche of God sett in the heape of chaffe and tares did onely suffer many things onely ep 119. He 3. distinguisheth betwixt Bellarmines and the Defendants alledging of traditions because Bell. spake of doctrines necessarie to salvation Which is not true for Bell. in that chapter maketh no mention of doctrines necessarie to salvation and in the next chapter but one cap. 11. he confesseth that all thinges absolutely necessarie to salvation are written in the Scriptures and which is muche more all thinges that are eyther necessarie or profitable for all men to know SECT 18.19 Concerning Protestants witnessing against the Negative argument from Scripture 1. BEllarmine was brought in by the Def. as an indifferent Adversarie confessinge that Protestants holde the Apostles to have instituted some thinges perteyning to rites and order which are not written Which was also granted unto him as making nothing against us Onely the vanitie of that allegation was in some particulars declared which how they are cleared it being a matter of no moment I referre to the Readers judgement 2. Chemnitius was alledged saying there be some Ecclesiasticall Rites which have neyther command nor testimonie in Scripture which yet are not to be rejected Answer was made that this in a right sense is granted by us The Rejoynder taxeth this as an idle shift because 1 Chemnitius did not intende suche a restrictive sense 2. Circumstances of Order have command and testimonie in Scripture But 1. It is no idle shift so to interpret an allegation objected as that the interpretation cannot be confuted but barely denied 2. As Circumstances of order and decencie have their generall command or testimonie in Scripture so have those Rites which Chemnitius understandeth or else his sentence is without any grounde out of Scripture 3. The same answer is given and no other Rejoynder made about Calvin Danaeus Whitakers and Zanchie saving that of Zanchie it is observed urged by the Rejoynd that he sayth some Ceremonies may help for the furtherance of pietie which have no foundation in the word giving instance of the solemnities of Easter etc. Tract de Sacra Scriptura For whom I answer that his sentence must be understood of no particular foundation or else he should give more then any Papist will require concerning their humane Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies As for his instances in the solemnities of Easter it seemeth he reckoned them amonge Ceremonies of order and decencie because as the Def. and Rej. confesse that is the onely place authorizing humane institutions in Religion If he meant otherwise he did as a man crosse his owne rules as after God willing shall be shewed For the present let that testimonie of Zanchie be well considered which he setteth downe in Col. 2.8 It is certayn that this consequence is very good this or that is not according to Christ therfore it is not to be admitted This ought to be enough to any Christian man It is not according to Christ therfore I admitte it not in the buisinesse of atteyning to salvation Where is to be noted 1. That according to Christ is opposed by the Apostle to according to the traditions of men and therfore is all one with not appointed by Christ. 2 that all Ceremonies instituted to teache the doctrine perteyning to salvation are part of the meanes wherby we are supposed to be helped directed in seeking and atteyning salvation 4. About Iunius ther is more adoe because his wordes are set downe at large on both pars But as for that which the Def. and Rejoynder cite out of him pag. 109. I cannot say much more then hath been answered to the other Divines untill a consequence be framed out of them more effectuall to the purpose then is in that which the Rejoynd onely quaestioneth And doeth the rule 1. Cor. 14. concerne nothing but circumstances of Order Or can our opposites be accorded with this saying For it hath been formerly manifested what that rule doeth require and how it may be accorded with our tenent On the other part this professed sworne sentence of Iunius is alledged If any man eyther by Civill or Ecclesiasticall authoritie will adde thinges not necessarie nor agreeable to Order wee would not pertinaciously contend with him but desire onely that he would seriously consider of three thinges 1. By what authoritie or example he is led to thinke that the holy Churche of God and the simplicitie of the mysteries of Christ whose voyce onely is heard by his sheep must be clad with humane traditions which Christ doeth reject 2. To what ende he judgeth that thes thinges should be added unto those that are divine For if the ende be conformitie
for the holding of our places and when we have done all that depart against our wills with sorrow Non discedit a statione qui cedit invitus See M. Parker p. 1. c. 4. s. 14. But the Defendant undertaketh to prove that the cause of silencing is not in the Bishops that suspend and deprive us but in our selves He is as it seemeth a great adventurer For he commeth forth upon this peece of service with flying colours Know you well what you sâ—y sayth hee when you lay the cause of your silencing upon the Bishops Yes surely very well For a cause is that which bringeth force or vertue to the being of another thing Now the first vertue or rather vice which tendeth to silencing of Ministers in this case is in the Bishops canons they therefore are the first cause The second vertue is in the Bishops and their officers which are executioners of those unconscionable canons they therefore are the secondarie cause Non-conformity hath no vertue in it of it owne nature nor by Gods ordinance to bring forth such an effect as the silencing of Gods Ministers is though it be made an occasion by the perversenesse of our Prelats I know well what I say and will make it good against the Defendants vaine pretences The case standeth thus sayth he Titus it had been more proper to say Diotrephes the Bishop doth deprive Titius a factious and schismaticall minister that he may place Sempronius a peaceable and discreet man in his stead In this proceeding the intendement of Titus is not absolutely to deprive Titius as he is a Minister but as he was factious yet so onely respectively that Titius being deprived he may constitute Sempronius for the charge of a Bishop is not determinate to appoynt precisely this minâ—ster but indefinite to ordaine a minister so that the course of Gods plow is still preserved and continued But as for Titius who will rather be silenced then conforme it is evident that the cause of his silencing being his owne refractarinesse which is onely personall proper to himselfe and yet hath no faculty in himselfe to appoynt or admit of a successor he may be sayd to have properly caused his own suspension and deprivation This case needeth no long demurring on for there is not one sentence in all the length of it which doth not smell without any uncasing 1. are all those factious and schismaticall men that refuse to conforme was Hooper such a kynd of man was Peter Martyr and M. Perkins such when one at Oxford and the other at Cambridge refused to weare the Surplice was M r. Goodman M r. Deering M r. More M r. Rogers and such like heavenly men the lights glory of our churches were all these factious and schismaticall In the presence of God it is well knowne they were not But our Prelats have this prerogative they may dubb whom they please factious and schismaticall after that there is no redemption they must be such be they otherwise never so full of all grace 2. Are all peaceable discreet men which are placed in the deprived ministers stead For the best of them they are still as great eye-sores to our Bishops almost as the other because they reprove a great deale of Episcopall darknesse by their practises For the rest the congregations over whom they are sett cannot finde it the voyce of all the countrey is otherwise for many of them yet according to the Prelats measure who meat as it seemeth the vertues and vices of a minister by certaine ceremonies of their owne imposing it cannot be denied but the most of them are very peaceable and discreet Even so as many of the Bishops themselves were knowne to be afore they were Bishops and shew themselves to be still for Episcopatus plures accepit quam fecit bonos 3. What sence can this have The Bishop depriveth Titius respectively that he may constitute Sempronius Doth he know before-hand whom he shall constitute then there is grosse legerdemaine betwixt him and that Sempronius For with what conscience can one seek and the other assigne the place of him that is in possession This is but some time in those benefices which are fatter and whose patrons are more foolish Ordinarily the vilest minister that is to be found may succeed in the place of him that is deprived for ought the Bishop knoweth or for ought he can doe except he will endure a quare impedit which in case of morall unworthinesse hath scarce beene ever heard of 4. The charge which he sayth our Bishops have of appointing Ministers I wonder from whence they have it or by what conveyance They say that they themselves are the proper pastors of all the parishes in their Diocesse It is well if they have an ubiquitary faculty and will to performe the office of pastors to so great a people but who made them such Christ his Apostles never knew of ordinary pastors having charge of so many Churches But suppose they did by whom doth Christ call one of our Bishops By the Kings congedelier the Chapiters nominall election or by the Archbishops consecration There is none of these that can beare the triall of Scripture nor of the Primitive Churches example 5. Is the Bishops power of appointing a minister no wayes determinate to this or that minister then it seemeth his meere will determineth of the particular person without any just reason For if there be certaine causes or reasons which the Bishop is bound to follow in designing of this or that minister rather then another then is the Bishop determinate The Councell of Nice it selfe determined the authority even of Patriarches in this case viz. that the Elders should first nominate fitt men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secondly that the people should elect or choose out of that number per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thirdly that the Bishop should confirme the elected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. x. p. 177. What exorbitant power is this then which our Bishops doe now-a-dayes chalenge unto themselves All Classicall Divines do consent to that which Iunius setteth downe Conc. 5. l. 2. c. 6. n. 73. that no Bishop can send or appoint a Minister sine certa ac justa ecclesiae postulatione without the certaine fore-choyce of the Church Id enim esset obtrudere non mittere for that were to obtrude him not to send him 6. How is the course of Gods plow preserved when for the most part the succeeding Minister is thrust upon the people against their wills and so pernitious contentions arise of which the Bishop is cause procreant and conservant by depriving the people of their minister and obtruding his owne minister upon them and upholding him in all those courses whereby he grieveth the poore people 7. As the Minister hath no faculty in himselfe to appoint a successor so hath not the Bishop neither of himselfe and by himselfe Thus much for the Defendant his case Whereas he addeth
begun to thinke of this course behold our most illustrious Prince commanded me to doe it which command of his did not onely spurre me on who of mine owne accord was already running but laid a necessity of writing upon me Wherefore this my boldnesse will seeme the lesse strange unto your gracious Majesty seeing my writing proceedeth not so much from mine owne will and counsell of friends as from the commandement of my most Noble Prince who is one of your gracious Majesties speciall friends Now I thought I should doe a matter very worth the paines taking if first I should humbly admonish your most famous Majestie what your dutie is in this cause and secondly if as your humble suppliant I should beseech you for our Lord Iesus Christs sake to performe the same I beseech your gracious Majesty to take this my writing in good part for it proceedeth from a Christian love toward the Church and from an especiall reverend respect that I beare to your most gracious Majesty The Lord knoweth all things Now to the matter in hand Whereas the Apostle writing to Timothie commandeth that prayers be made for Kings and all other that be in authority and saith that the end wherefore they be ordained is that wee may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all that is perfect godlinesse and honestie he teacheth plainly enough what is the dutie of Godly Kings and Princes namely that they take care and bring to passe that first above all things true religion and the true worship of God where it is banished bee restored and being restored bee kept pure all things which smell of impiety being farre removed Secondly that men may live honestly and holily all kinds of uncleannesses beeing abandoned Lastly that publicke peace holy friendship be maintained among the subjects all occasions of contentions being as much as possible may be taken out of the way As the Apostle teacheth manifestly as we have seene so all learned men who bee of sound judgement concerning the Magistrats office doe with one consent affirme that these be the three chiefe parts of the office of the Prince and of every godly Magistrate Which thing being so I see not how your gracious Majestie can with good conscience propound againe the garments in question and other things of that kinde smelling as yet of Popish superstition and once banished out of the Churches to the consciences of the Bishops * Pauls Bishops hee meaneth or else as I sayd before he is misinformed to be taken on againe and so propound them that you should compell them by your commandement to receive them againe For first this is quite contrary to the first and chiefe part of the Princes office For if the Magistrate ought to have a chiefe care that the worship of God be kept pure and without mixture and if for this cause all things are to be abandoned which may any way either by themselves or by accident defile this worship and therefore all things are to be called backe as much as may be to the rule of God and to the former and Apostolicall and so the more pure and simple forme of religion Finally if as the Apostle commandeth we bee to abstaine not onely from all evill but also from all appearance of evill to what end I beseech you most renowned and most godly Queene should those things be brought againe into the Church of God by the Princes commandement which be contrary to the purity of the Apostolicall worship which smell of Popish superstition which bee neither availeable to the aedification of the godly nor to order nor for ornament except that which is whoorish which lastly can bring no profit but on the contrary many evills to the Church It is out of all doubt that by this law concerning apparrell all godly men will bee offended but the wicked will laugh in their sleeve and hereby be putt in hope to get many moe things as for those of the middle sort that is such as be newly converted and turned from ungodlines to godlines and be not as yet well grounded they will be in great danger and if we speake according to mans judgement they will rather looke back to the old superstition to which by nature wee are inclined then fixe and fasten their eyes upon true religion And therfore this is a decree which will bring no avancement at all to godlines but may much further ungodlinesse For though these garments be not evill and uncleane of and by themselves that is of their owne nature yet because of the former and late abuse they are not altogether free from uncleannesse Certainly it cannot be denied but that they will at the least give occasions of many evills and very grievous superstitions Now the very occasions also of evills are to be shunned To what end then should these be thrust upon the Church from whom no profit can be hoped very much evill may come for this is to tempt God Your famous Majesty may well remember that not without cause it was written Hee that toucheth pitch shall be defiled with it that the Apostle had reason to command that we should purge out the old leaven that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe And that Hosea did not foolishly reprove the Iewes because they translated and brought a yong graffe of superstitions out of Israel into their owne garden that is the true Church We ought most religious Queene to have nothing at all to doe with the Papists in matter of religion save in those things which they have common with the Apostles Why I beseech you were some kings otherwise godly reproved and blamed in the Scriptures that they had not taken away Churches or Temples for divine service in the mountaines which were built by holy Fathers ere the building of the Temple in which the Lord was wont to be worshipped Surely because the Temple being now builded and ordained for divine service God would not have any footsteps of any other chappell at all to be extant Therfore also when once the kingdome of Christ was manifested the Ceremonies and garments of Aaron ought not any more to take place For this cause the Apostles were upon good ground carefull that after Christs ascention they should so be taken away that no relickes of them remained And if they tooke them away holily unholily have the Papists called them back againe Now whether is the better to â—ollow the godly simplicity of the Apostles or the ungodly pompe of the Papists who is ignorant This recalling of such Popish garments your gracious Majesty may beleeve me will be a greater evill then peradventure it may be seene even to very wise men at the first blush For me thinkes I see and heare the Monks crying out with very loud voyces in the Pulpits both confirming their followers in their ungodly religion by the example of your gracious Majesty and also saying What doth not even the Queene of England also a most
to be worshipped in spirit and truth and where he would have few and very simple Ceremonies Also if God established by his Law that a woman may not putt on a mans apparrell nor a man a womans the one beeing so well of it selfe dishonest and contrary to nature as the other Why then should godly Bishops †Still misinformed and the servants of Christ be clothed or rather shamed and deformed with the garments of godlesse Priests and slaves of Antichrist Why should wee not rather as wee be of a divers religion from them so also be discerned from them at least in the performance of such duties as belong unto Gods worship by outward signes such as garments be Verily this was Gods will and he required of his people that it should be discerned from the prophane Gentiles as by other things so also by a divers sort of apparell and so should professe by this publicke signe that it would have nothing to doe with the Gentiles And why should not wee doe the same Are wee not the people of God abides not the equity of the same commandement And if the word honest be derived of honour what honour will it be for the church of Christ to have Bishops attired and disguised with Popish visors in the administration of the Gospell and Sacraments so as they shall rather be derided then be reverenced any whit by the people And what commendation shall it be for your gracious Majesty in true Churches and among true beleevers that you permit such trifles to be called back into your Church Therfore it standeth not with honesty that holy †Still misinformed Bishops be compelled to receive such visors neither is it indeed a matter worthy of honour and praise neither deserveth it the name of vertue For if your Majesty should command that all English men leaving that ancient and very grave and comely attire should weare Turkie coats or a souldiers weed as it is called who would ever approve this decree as honest And it is much lesse praise-worthy if godly Bishops be enjoyned laying aside or at least changing the honest and ancient apparell which the Apostles wore to wit that common and grave habit to put on the ridiculous execrable or accursed garment of godlesse Mass-priests Now concerning the third part of the Princes dutie there is nothing fitter to trouble the publicke peace of the Church then this counsell For every novelty especially in religion either by it selfe if it be evill disturbs and troubles a good peace or if it be good gives occasion of trouble by accident by causing contention betweene evill and good men But as in things which be good of themselves of which nature the reformation of the Churches according to the will of God is we are not to care for the troubling of that ungodly peace thâ—t is of the world for Christ came not by his Gospell to keep such a peace but rather to take it away to send a sword so assuredly by the urging of things indifferent to trouble the peace of Churches and to cause strife betweene good men and bad yea betweene godly men themselves is so wicked that it can by no meanes be defended so that Ireneus had just cause to reprove Victor Bishop of Rome for this cause as hath beene said afore For it must needs be that at such times the Churches be rent in peeces then which thing what is more hurtfull Many exemples in the histories of the Church prove this which I say How many and how great troubles arose in the Primitive Church betweene those who beside the Gospell urged also circumcision and the law and betweene those who upon good ground rejected them And how great evills would this dissention have brought to the Church of Christ had not the Apostles betime withstood them by that councell gathered together at Ierusalem by a lawfull examination and discussing of the cause by manifest testimonies of the Scriptures and by sound reasons If your gracious Majesty as you ought desire both to be and to seeme Apostolicke then imitate the Apostles in this matter Neither lay and impose this yoke upon the neckes of Christs Disciples your selfe nor suffer it to be imposed by others But if you see that the Bishops disagree about this matter among themselves assemble a Synod and cause this controversie to be examined by the Scriptures And then looke what shall be proved by plaine testimonies and strong reasons propound that to be observed by all and command by your decree that that be observed and so take disagreement out of the Church For your gracious Majesty ought to be very carefull that there be no innovation in religion but according to the word of God By this means shall a true peace concord unity of the Churches be preserved But if the proceeding be otherwise what other thing will it be then to take away unity and to trouble the Christian peace And this I may not passe over with silence that by this novelty of the busines not onely the publick peace shall be troubled in that kingdome but also many else-where out of that kingdome will have occasion given them to raise new contentions in Churches and that to the great hinderance of godlines and the more slow proceeding of the Gospell For all men know that the most part of all the Churches who have fallen from the Bishop of Rome for the Gospels sake doe not only want but also abhorre those garmeÌ„ts and that there be some Churches though few in comparison of the former which doe as yet retaine those garments invented in Poperie as they very stifly retaine some other things also because the reformers of those Churches otherwise worthy men and very faithfull servants of Christ durst not at the first neither judged they it expedient utterly abolish all Popish things But as the common manner is every man likes his owne best Now I call those things a mans owne not so much which every man hath invâ—nted as those beside which every man chooseth to himselfe receiveth retaineth and pursueth though they be invented to his hand by others But if there be also annexed the examples of other men they be more and more hardened in them and are not onely hardened but also doe their uttermost endeavour by word and writing to draw all the rest to be of their minde Therfore wee easily see what the issue will be if your gracious Majesty admit of that counsell which some doe give you to take on apparell and other more Popish things besides For some men who be not well occupied being stirred up by the example of your Majesty will write bookes and disperse them throughout all Germany of these things which they call indifferent to witt that it is lawfull to admit of them nay that they be altogether to be retained that Papists may be the lesse estranged and alienated from us and so we may come the neerer to concord and agreement
numbring of his flock to see them brought to one head what should he say but bemoane himselfe with Alas and wee l a day 2. The second answer is that Convocations doe good sometimes in confirming what was decreed before Which is sometime true viz. If the things decreed before were of themselves good and had need of the Convocations confirmation But sometime such confirmations are onely for fashion-sake As when the Councell of Trent confirmed the Holy Scripture the Apostolicall Creed c. and then there is very little or no good done more than was formerly done to their hands Any other confirmation of good I doe not know our Convocations to be guilty of nor can I understand when whence and how the Convocation had Commission to confirme any thing without making of new Canons A Law of Confirmation is necessary to Canons but Canons of confirmation are not necessary to Lawes established Neither can it be shewed that so much hath beene given or committed to the Convocation Nor if it were could that be done without Canons in some respect new And so much it seemeth D r. B. knew from whence it is that he addeth Or if they have done nothing â—ecause they have had no commission to which they are limited â—y Act of Parliament where lyeth the blame If they have â—one nothing What a miserable supposition is this To â—oe nothing in so long a time is to be no Synode no Mother-Church nor good Milk-nurse but a dead Carâ—asse bearing an empty name of both If they had no â—ommission to doe good they had no commission to be â— Mother-Church If the Parliament hath limited them â—o a commission it was because they durst not trust â—hem without Yet the blame of not doing good cannot â—ye upon the Parliament because they never sought to â—t or by it for a commission of doing any good Nor yet of the Kings Majesty where the Rej. seemeth to leave â—t except they have declared what necessity there was â—hey should doe some good and to that intent made petition for a commission Let it lye therefore upon the convocation it selfe which repraesenteth as an Image or maketh shew of some good but doth none at all 3. The third answer is That in the booke of Canons were many good provisions for more plentifull preaching and â—edressing the abuses of Ecclesiasticall Courts which would have done much good if they had beene as carefully executed as they were made But 1. so there was also in the Councell of Trent many Canons of Reformation at most of their sessions nay such as without any straining goe farre beyond those that are found in our Canons As for example in the fift Session under Paulus 3. it was decreed that expounding of the Scripture should be diligently observed in all Cathedrall Churches and also in other places where any stipend was or may be had and that Praebends for that cause absent from their Chapiter should enjoy their dividents as if they were present And that all Parish Priests should be compelled to teach their people at the least on the Lords day and in solemne feasts In the sixt session the Auntient Canons are revived which were made against Bishops that buisy themselves in Princes Courts or other where with secular affaires and so are either non residents or non-praedicants In the seventh it is ordered that all collations of benefices be upon able men and such as will be resident upon the same under great penalties Pluralities also are abolished or made nullities In the fift session under Pius 4. all taking of money for Orders for letters testimoniall for seales by Bishops is condemned as simony Nay the Notaries or Secretaries are forbidden to take any thing except they have no wages then also not above the tenth part of one Crowne under great penalties It is also under like penalties decreed that none be ordeined except upon necessity and then with patrimony or pension sufficient to live on which have not an Ecclesiasticall Benefice or specialâ— charge Moreover it is decreed that honest unlearned Parish-Priests should have learned Coadjutors adjoyned to them upon their charges and that scandalous Priestâ— should be either reformed or removed In the seventh Session non-residency both of Bishops and Curates is againe condemned as a mortall sinne And which D. Bancroft would have called English Scotizing or Scottish Genevating if it had beene but mentioned in his Convocation it was appointed that the names of those which â—esired to be ordeined should be the moneth before â—ubliquely proclaimed in the Church and diligent inâ—uisition made concerning their life and manners It â—â—so confirmed that none should be ordeined that is â—ot designed to a certaine place of ministery In the â—ight Session it is injoyned to Bishops as their principall â—ffice to preach diligently in their Churches and that â—n all Parishes at least thrice a weeke there should be preaâ—hing And that one man should have but one Benefice â—equiring residence c. With what syncerity theis and â—uch Canons of Reformation were propounded is to â—e seene in the History of that Councell But in verball provisions it is evident that that Conventicle was not behinde our Convocation but rather ledde her the way taught her how to dissemble as if shee had set downe among other Canons Who knowes not how to feigne Qui nosciâ— simulare noscit regnare he knowes not how to reigne Secondly That provision which is here added if those Canons had beene carefully executed is as bald as any of the Canons For 1. the quaestion being of doing good we are tolde they proceeded so farre that they had done some good if they had come to execution that is to doing of good and not pretending it onely 2. To whom did it belong to see good Canons executed but to Archbishops Bishops Deanes Arch-deacons which were the makers of them Had they commission both to make badde Canons and execute them but to make onely good and so leave them without execution 3. This whole Plea is as if for the cursed figtree which brought forth no fruite one should have alleadged that it brought forth leaves and so made good provision for fruite if fruite had followed answerable to the leaves 4. What provision was made for preaching if it were fully â—xecuâ—ed D. B. in his Apology in the 67. page of D. Covel sheweth thus By the Canons no piece of the service must give way to a Sermon or any other respect which computed with the accessory occasions of Christenings Burialls Mariages and Communions which fall out all at some times some at all times in many Congregations doeth necessarily pretend if not a purpose yet a consequence of devouring of preaching and so not widowes houses but Gods house under pretense of long prayers while neither the time nor the ministers strength nor peoples patience can beare that taske of reading and preacâ—ing too Of which intention if we be affraid who can marvell that either shall
then Grammar or Logick Idle is nothing but without use and so the Rej. himself confesseth the Def. his variations to be in making judgements and confessions all one Neyther could he finde what to say against the former suspicion without fayning a new objection which the Repl. maketh not of aequalling Divine and humane authoritie The onely fault was that such things which might be well spoken to another were spoken to a Bishop 2. Concerning Heb. 3.2 to omitte altercations about what was sayd or not sayd by the Def. and take what the Rej. will have sayd or sayth himself The Rej. sayth that a distinction is made of Ceremonies whereof some are substantiall Divine and Doctrinalls and have particular determination in Scripture some are not substantiall called Rituals and mere Ceremonieâ— the former have particular determination in Scripture but not the later Now to let passe that this distinction concerneth not â—he proposition which formerly was sayd to be denied because there is no mention in it of any terme here distinguished let any man of reason consider the sense of this distinction Ceremonies are eyther substantiall Divine Doctrinall that is suche as have particular determination in the worde or else not substantiall that is suche as have no particular determination in the word the former have particular determination in the word but the later have not Which is as muche as to say those Ceremonies which have no particular determination in the worde have no particular determination in the word This explication cannot be excepted against except Divine and Doctrinall Ceremonies be not all one with Ceremonies determined by doctrine Divine which neyther the Defen or Rejoynder or any considerate man for them will denie The Rejoynder himself for instance of substantiall Divine Doctrinall Cerem putteth al those of Moses lawe many of which were no way suche but onely in that they were parâ—icularly appointed of God And to put the matter out of aâ—l doubt the Rejoynder p. 60. telleth us plainly that the Def. useth and all of his side doe use in this quaestion the terme Doctrinall passively for a thinge taught in the word 3. For defence yet of this distinction of Ceremonies into dogmaticall and Rituall or meer Ceremoniall though he confesse it is not formall the Rejoynder nameth all our Divines but citeth onely D.A. as distinguishing betwixt Doctrinall and Ceremoniall points of religion Whiche if it be so what makeâ—h this for distinction of Ceremonìes into Dogmaticall and Rituall or meerly Ceremoniall But let us view the places cited The first is in Bel. Ener tom 1. pag. 66. Where it is sayd that for the most part the fathers by traditions meane rites and Ceremonies receyved without Scripture concerning which wee dispute not and they were too lâ—berall though when they judge out of Scripture they plainly condemne unwitten traditions What is here that can help the Rej. The fathers spake of Ceremonies which neyther Scripture nor themselves judging out of Scripture did allow of of them the quaestion was not in that place though in other places it is handled by the same author in the same book as De Pontifice De Sacraementis De cultu Sanctorum Ergo the distinction of Ceremonies into Dogmaticall and Ritual or mere Ceremoniall is allowed The second place is in the 71. pag. of the same booke the Apostles elsewhere have written nothing in the dogmatical kinde which Paul had not preached to the Galatians Where Dogmaticall is opposed to Propheticalâ— praedictions suche as S. Ihon in the Revelation taught as Bel. there alledgeth And not to any thing not particularly conteyned in Scripture Ergo sayth the Rej. the distinction of Ceremonies into Dogmaticall particularly contayned in Scripture and Rituall not so conteyned is allowed as good The consequence is a baculo ad angulum 4. The Repl. sayd that Ceremoniall is sometime opposed to morall and sometime to Substantiall but not to Doctrinall Heerupon the Rej. concludeth that therfore the distinction of Doctrinall and Ceremoniall Ceremonies may be allowed because forsooth as there be some morall Ceremonies viz. all those which are appointed of God and some other so there bee some Ceremoniall doctrines or doctrinall Ceremonies and some other Where 1. the consequence is suche as the former Sometime Ceremoniall is opposed to morall and substantiall ergo some Ceremonies are doctrinall and some onely Ceremoniall 2. What a miscarying is ther in that assertion all Ceremonies appointed of God are morall Was there then no difference betwixt the morall and Ceremoniall law of God 3. Ther neyther bee nor can be suche significant teaching Ceremonies as ours in qâ—â—estion and not be Ceremoniall teachings or teaâ—â—ing Ceremonies which is all one with Ceremoniall â—oâ—trines or doctrinall Ceremonies 5. The Hierarchie being quaestioned to whiche of these heads it belongeth is referred by the Rejoynder to both in severall respects So then the distinction is not reall but rationall onely in respects I see not why all lawfull rites ordeyned by men may not as well be referred to both Neyther doe I thinke our Hierarchie would take it well if they should be called Ceremoniall Prelates and Doctrinall for the greatest part they are not found to be actively nor can so be proved passively so farr as they differ from those ministers many of whom they will not suffer to be Doctrinall because they cannot be at their pleasure Ceremoniall 6. Concerning the rest of the third section all that is rejoyned dependeth onely upon the terme mereCeremoniall Ceremonies This terme the Replier did not understand as it seemeth according to the Authors meaning neyther can the Rejoynder interpret it but with suche sense as was formerly declared Mere Ceremonies are not onely suche as the Rejoynder p. 33. called single Ceremonies for in the same place he maketh significant rites having relation to a further worship suche as ours are double or triple Ceremonies So that this mere Ceremonie can be nothing else but a Ceremonie which God hath not instituted for his worship and so the Def. and Rejoynder mainteyne here onely this assertion those Ceremonies which God hath not instituted are not instituted by God Whiche is so evidently true that it cannot escape the imputation of idlenesse eyther to dispute for or against it Onely this I note that by this distinction God cannot appoint a mere Ceremonie in his worship though man can for if God appoint any Ceremonie it is eo ipso nomine doctrinall substantiall morall No merveyl therfor if God have not appointed mere Ceremonies seing he cannot appoynt any suche but man onely can doe that 7. Concerning Heb. 3.2 it is further answered sect 4. that the faithfulnesse of Christ and Moses was aequall and alike in reall faithfulnesse because they both did that which was commanded them of God But howsoever this be true yet if it were Gods revealed will that more immediate meanes of worship should be instituted in the Christian Churche then Christ hath instituted who was ordeyned to institute the
effect Sacram. l 2 cap. 31. Balthasar Chavassius l. 1. cap. 21. and l. 2. cap. 7. where from hence they dispute against Calvin by name â—ccius sayth Musculus upon this place In his Commune places in the title of humane traditions citeth these words of the Apostle let all things be done c. To justifie the traditioÌ„s of the Bishopâ— as authentick suâ—h as ought to be kept with a Câ—nsciencie of obedience but this praescript of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopall traditions but the Apostles owne to wit such as he had delivered to the Churches Our Divines fâ—w of note excepted doe onely from hence conclude rites of mere order and decencie And some of the graver Papists Ad decentiam pertinet no mulieres in Ecclesia loquantur ad ordinem ne plure simul loquantur to this day can finde no more in it as Esius in his Comm. upon the place It belongs to decencie that women speak not in the Church to order that many speak not at once What is now become of All Fathers All Divines for one and the same conclusion M r. Hooker pag. 95. doeth directly oppose the Def. his conclusion contending that the Rules set downe in this place are the Rules of naturall reason and not of the Apostle or properlie of the Scripture For if this be true then that is false which the Def. so confidently averreth that the Apostle doeth here grant a generall license and authoritie to all Churches to ordeyne Ceremonies except the Apostle did give Churches licence and authoritie to doe that which by the law of nature they might doe and by the light of nature know they might 3. The Def. was requested to shew by what Logick he formeth his consequence from order decencie and aedification unto suche Ceremonies as ours The Rej. hath no other Logick to shew for it then this Sundrie Divines doe manifest the Consequence because the same particular circumstances woâ—ld not be comely and to aedification in all places and times the Churche must have power to institute and alter them But 1. this is not the consequence meant by the Repl. expressed by the Def. The Apostle sayth let all thinges be doen orderly decently and to aedification Ergo he granteth a generall licence and authoritie to all Churches to ordeyne any Ceremonies that may be fitte for the better sâ—rving of God 1. e. suche as ours are Neyther yet is the Consequence which the Rej. would have implied by the Def. upon supposition of the former The Apostle hath granted a generall licence and authoritie to all Churches to ordayne Ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God Ergo all Rites and Ceremonies which are beside the prescription of the word suche as ours are are not unlawfull It is in deed the very same sentence which the Rejoynder did so spurne from him pag. 72. when it appeared under the name of M r. Iacob in the distinction betwixt mere Circumstances Civill or Occasionall and Ceremonies meerly Ecclesiasticall What a miserable cause is this that our Opposites defende which deeply concerneth the Consciences of all that urge our Ceremonies or allow of their urging and yet cannot be fathered but on one onely place of Scripture and that with an invisible and inexplicable consequence Concerning an Argument against our Ceremonies out of 1. Corin. 14. Which is acknowledged to be the onely place in all the New Testament that can be alledged for their imposing 1. THe Replier seeing that all the cause on the imposers part dependeth on this place of Scripture finding nothing by any Logick could be drawne from it for our Ceremonies thought good to trie if there may not from the same place be formed a better argument against them This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare and loosing the way as if all the Def. his Retortions and all the Rejoynder his paper shot which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him ro flie or runne away were new Hares and exorbitations I know not else what privilege he hath to use a weight and a weight one for the Defend with him self and another for the Replier 2. The Argument is thus put together by the Rej. pag. 77. All that is left unto the Churches libertie in things pertayning to Gods worship is to order them in comely manner But to appointe and use the Ceremonies as wee doe is not to order in comely manner any thinge perteyning to Gods worship Therfore to appointe and use the Ceremonies as we doe is not left to the libertie of the Churche I. e. it is unlawfull The Rejoynder answereth first to the proposition and then to the assumption but so as he mingleth both together in many words Yet I will follow his order 3. First of all he denieth the proposition to be found in the Repl. his meaning But I can see no reason of this deniall 1. Hee sayth that Order and Ordering is taken sometime largely for all discipline or policie sometime strictly for rancking of persons and actions handsomely one before and another after and so is opposed onely to confusion as in this place 1. Cor. 14.40 Now this is farâ— from overthrowing the proposition in the Repl. his meaning For the Repl. meant order in the strict sense which maketh also for his purpose and this the Rej. granteth to be the meaning of the Apostle in this place 1 Cor. 14.40 Which place the same Rej. pag 75. confesseth to be the onely place in the N. Test. by which power is given to the Churche to constitute Cerem FroÌ„ both which layd together it necessarily followeth that all which is left unto the Churches power under the title of order is ordeyning in the strict sense 1. e. rancking of persons and actions handsomely as the Rejoynder expoundeth it Yet immediatly after he accuseth the Repl. for saying order to be the right placing and disposing of thinges instituted for time place etc. not shewing why this disliketh him or wherin differeth from his owne explication Onely he sayth that etc. often by the Repl. put to time and place is a blind Whiche is not so for by etc. is meant all circumstances of like nature with time and place as number measure vicissitude etc. How many Psalmes shall be sunge or chapter read what and how muche Scripture shall be at this or that assemblie expounded how one part of worship shall succeed another etc. without a blinde 4. In the next place the Rejoynder findeth a wrong meaning in the Repl. his use of the phraze in comely manner because afterward in the ende of the Assumtion he sayth that comelinesse is nothing but the seemelinesse of order For sayth the Rej. beside that comelinesse of order ther is other comelinesse Now this the Repl. professeth immediatly after the words quoted other where comelinesse may conteyne all naturall and civil handsomenesse etc. Neyther will I contend about this but it implieth so muche in this
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.
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
it a false pretence in the rest If all had done so yet this was no act of their Ministerie nor known it may be to their people and therfore the crossing of it did not so directly tend to the discrediting of their Ministery as the crossing of their publick doctrine Lastly that which is done before a man be setled in the Ministery at one time without any great deliberation is not of such note as that which a man hath long professed and perswaded by reasons taken from the word of God By all this it appeareth that this first accusation of Ialshood was rather an adventure as the Def. himselfe calleth it then a grounded assertion He did but adventure neither to call the same plea prâ—sumptuous For he can finde no other reason to beare up this charge withall then that they seeme to arrogate to themselves a preâ—ogative proper to the Apostles How can this be I wonder seeing they follow herein the direction of the Apostle himselfe Tit. 2.15 Let no man despise thee What this prerogative is he doth not plainly tell us but compriseth it in two places of Scripture 1. Cor. 15. Gal. 2.18 the first whereof is nothing at all to the purpose For the Apostle doth not say as the Def. maketh him If we be found false witnesses then is your faith in vaine but if Christ be not risen then are we false witnesses and your faiâ—h is vaine Which also any preacher of the Gospell may say without falshood or presumption to his people The second place If I buiâ—d againe that which I have destroyed I make my selfe a prevaricator is applyable to any Minister that hath taught the truth against Popish superstition This very doctrine M. Perkins gathereth out of the words Proculcavimus supâ—rstitionem Papisticam c. I hope the Def. doth not thinke he may build up any superstition and not be accounted therefore a prevaricator if he doe or though he doe not let him consider where the presumption lyeth But why irreligious because it is persisting in an errour for the preservation of their owne credit But 1. who taught the Def. to make that which is in quaestion the ground of an accusation in dispute First let him prove that it is an errour before he take it so for granted that upon that ground he will challenge mens reasons as irreligious 2. It is not their credit but the credit of their Ministery which they speake of 3. Is it such an irreligious thing to desire that certaine ceremonies may not bee imposed upon them lest their Ministery be by that meanes prejudiced Why partiall because men should rather yeeld to confoâ—mitie for the credit of the Church i. e. for the credit of the Convocation house Alas the credit which a great part of that generation doth seeke for is that they may rejoyce in our flesh But suppose they meant sincerely would the Def have men discredit and prejudice their Ministery to bring some credit unto other mens decrees Or doth the forbearing of some ceremonies bring such discredit to the Authorizers of them surely then they are more for the honour of mortall men then for the honour of God For Gods honour and worship is no wayes prejudâ—ced by their absence The last charge is pernitious And here many words are used to give countenance unto that one The maine ground is Woe to me if I preach not the Gospell and Simon lovest thou mee then feed my sheep Whereupon he gathereth that it is a pernicious thing for a Minister to putt himselfe unto silence But 1. what is this to the quaestion of diâ—crediting ones Ministry 2. Although we were most worthy to have these remembrances out of Scripture rubbed upon us yet the Prelates are altogether unworthy and unfitt to doe it Let any man conceive with himselfe B. Bancroft or any other in the end of the Convocation after all the Canons were concluded comming forth as Prolocutor and speaking thus to the Ministers assembled together before him Men and bretheren the reverend fathers of this Convocation as thâ—y alwayes meditate on the law of God and every part of it both day and night so especially doe they lay to heart those passages of holy Writ which properly concerne their office as woe unto me if I preach not the Gospell and Simon lovest thou mee feed my sheep Out of thâ—se considerations being carryed with a fervent zeale both of preaching themselves in their severall places also of procuring more faithfull Preachers more fruitfull preaching throughout the land they have â—ver and above the institutions of Christ appointed certaine ceremonies strictly to be observed of every Minister so that whosoever shall hereafter upon any pretense refuse to observe the same they shall be esteemed factious scâ—ismaticall disorderly exoâ—bitant men and for that cause by their orâ—inary suspended and deprived Now for the preventâ—ng of such a mischiefâ— your tender mother would have you to understand by my mouth that if any man bee thrust out of the Ministery for not yeeldâ—ng to these câ—nstitutions howsoevâ—r they may seeme unâ—o him such as the Church cannot lawfully appoâ—nt nor hee observe yet is he author of his owne silencing and therefore you must all be exhorted to consider wâ—ll of those parcels of Scripture which have so much prevailed with your carefull mother Woe is me if I preach not the Gospell Simon lovest thou mee feed my sheepe Would not he that heard such a speech as this from a Prelate be forced to call for a bason and after he had recovered himselfe he might well give answer in these words I heare the word of a deceitfull tongue Behold thou art called a Bishop and glâ—riest in that title thou perswadest tâ—y selfe thou art a chiefe guide and father of the Church thou therefore that teachest another teachest thou not thy selfe Thou that sayest it is a woefull thing not to preach the Gospell doest thou neither preach Christ faithfully nor suffer those that would Darest thou by thine owne authoriâ—y and for tâ—ine owne pleasure hinder so many able men from preaching thou that professest the flocke must bee fed doest thou thrust oâ—t feeders and keep in starvers Therefore thou art inexcusable O Prelat whosoever thou art that condemnest another for that whereof thou art both beginning and ending Thirdly the Apostles woe 1. Cor. 9. belongeth to negligent slothfull and carelesse ministers properly such as our Prelats know where to find enough who yâ—t neither feele nor feare that woe from the Bishops which mâ—ny faithfull preachers are wrapped-in from time to time Fourthly the Apostle doth not pronounce any woe for not preaching where imprisonment doâ—h hinder Now hee whose conscience is against the ceremonies or doubteth of them is spiritually imprisoned so that he cannot by using of them make his way to the pulpit Fiftly it is a meere jest though a bitter one to say that we leave our ministeries when we doe all that our consciences will suffer us to doe
As if forsooth the Papists though we for peace sake admitted of all those things would ever amend their Doctrine and banish out of their churches or at any hand lay down their false and godlesse decrees manifest and abhominable superstitions and idolatries and there will be some who will answer such bookes once dispersed So of this English fire there will rise a a new burning flame in Germanie and France on which hot coles the Papists as so many Smiths a forging will sprinkle cold water to make the flame the more vehement And is not this a goodly benefite Who therefore doth not see that this counsell tends to the troubling of all Churches To conclude that golden saying of a certaine learned man is very true and certaine and approved by long experience that indifferent things that is the question about indifferent things is that golden apple of contention So much shall suffice to have spokeÌ„ of the troubling of publick peace what should I say of the consciences of private beleevers It is manifest that they are greatly troubled with this commandement to put on these linnen garments For they doe so greatly complain that their lamenting voyces and grones doe reach unto and are heard in Germany Now how grievous and distastfull an offence it is to trouble the consciences of the godly the holy Scripture sheweth partly when it commandeth that we make not the holy Spirit sad neither offend the weak ones partly when it threatneth griveous punishments against those who feare not to do these things partly also when it propoundeth the examples of the Saints and specially of Paul who speakes thus If meat offend my brother I le eat no flesh while the world standeth that I may not offend my brother For in those words he giveth a generall rule by his example taken out of the doctrine of Christ to wit that no indifferent thing is to be admitted and yeelded unto much lesse to be urged upon others and least of all to be commended by decree if in the admitting urging and commanding of it the minds of good men and consciences of the faithfull be offended for a tender conscience which feareth God is a thing most pretious and acceptable to God How therefore can that counsell be approved which would have a law established and proclaimed by the Princes command for the use of garments to be used by Ministers in the ministery For to speak many things in few words if such garments be to be propounded to the faithfull they are to be propounded either as indifferent or as necessary if the later wee doe ungodlily because we make those things necessary which Christ would have to be free If the former then are they to be left free to the Churches But by commanding and compelling we make things that be free and indifferent to be necessary and so fall into the same trespasse Moreover either they be ordained of God by Moses or they be delivered by Christ God manifested in the flesh or they be ordained by the holy Ghost working and speaking in the Apostles or they are of men either godly or wicked Those Ceremonies Leviticall garments which were ordained of God by Moses ought all of them to have an end after the death of Christ as the Scriptures shew plainly especially the Epistles of Paul to the Coloss. and Hebr. therfore they cannot be revoked and called back without the transgression of Gods will It cannot be sayd that Christ taught them because there is no word extant to that end but rather he taught plainly oftentimes that all Moses his Ceremonies were ended And the same I affirme concerning the Apostles It remaines therefore that they be sayd to be of men If they be from godly men then were they ordained of them either to edification or for order and comelines But they availe not to edification that is to further comelines but rather tend to the overthrow of it as we saw before neither for any good order but rather they tend to disorder for there is a confusion of godly wicked Bishops wheras it is meet and equall that one of them be discerned from another even by their garments also Neither doe they make Christs spouse comely as we shewed a little before Therfore we ought not to yeeld unto them And such things as have beene invented by men voyd of Gods Spirit doe nothing appertaine to us Lastly the Apostles used not these garments For we have no authenticke testimony Now the church is to be fashioned after the rule of that Apostolicall Church in Ceremonies and garments as well as in Doctrine What doe wee then with these garments in the Church By whose authority can they be approved What profit or wholsome use can the Christian people have by them But on the contrary we have shewed that godlinesse is weakened by them the pure worship of God is violated Popish superstiâ—ion is by little and little called back the godly be offended the wicked be confirmed and hardened in their ungodlinesses the weak in faith are brought into hazard of their salvation there are occasions of many evills given Monkes and other Popish preachers are hereby helped to confirme their followers in their superstition the wrath of God is provoked against us those things which God would have to be destroyed are hereby builded againe by us the whole face of the Church is defiled and disgraced there is a foule sinne committed against honest and good lawes forbidding the putting on of strange outlandish garments and so the whole Church is dishonoured Besides the publicke peace of the Church yea of many churches is troubled one Bishop is set against another the consciences of the godly are troubled and the minds of good men are offended Gods spirit is made sad in them and this apple of contention is cast as it were upon the table of the Gods Now seeing the matter stands thus most gracious Queene not onely I but all my fellow-ministers and all the godly prostrate before you intreat your Majesty and for Iesus Christs sake whom we are perswaded you love from your heart we humbly beseech your Majesty not to embrace that counsell aforesayd neither to give eare to such counsellors For these counsells most godly Queene are not for the good of that your church and kingdome nor for the honor of your Majesty seing they neither serve to the increase of godlinesse nor to the retaining of the honesty of the Church neither to the preservation of publick peace but rather very greatly weaken all these good things In making 3 sorts oâ— officers afterwards Bishops Seniors or Elders and Deacons hee mâ—st take the word Biâ—hop in the scriâ—tuâ—◠〈◊〉 as 〈…〉 which your Princely Majesty ought chiefly to stand for Let your Majesty rather bend all your thoughts authority and power hereunto that first and above all you may have Bishops who be truly godly and well exercised in the holy Scriptures as by the blessing of God