belonging to the liuing we come to the Buriall of the Dead wherein wee dislike the Person Manner and Place Touching the first we maruell that you make Buriall a Ministeriall Dutie seeing the Law prohibiteth the Priests to defile themselues by the e Leuit. 21. 1. Dead I. You were lately displeased because we vsed Purification being Iewish And now you would haue vs vse the Iewish manner of Buriall Wee like not this that with the same breath you blow both hot and f Reclusis illud hoc clausis Lahijs cold Againe tell I pray you what meane you by that defiled with the Dead N. It seemeth that g Leuit. 21. 3 4. lamentation is thereby meant I. Where is then your Argument The Priest may not lament for the Dead He may not therefore be present at Burials to comfort them that lament with his deuout exhortations and prayers N. We reade not that the Priests did burie any man and therefore to make this their office is against Scripture I. It is not against but besides Scripture were it as you pretend But the truth is we doe not appoint the Priest to burie that act being in a manner meerely ciuill but only to assist the Funerall for the comfort and instruction of the liuing N. The manner of your Burials doth also displease vs Forasmuch as you vse sundrie Prayers therein which seeme to fauour the Popish Purgatorie I. The Dumbe Shewes of Other Churches though wee condemne not yet wee cannot suppose that they containe so much reuerence and deuotion as our custome doth As for the Purgatorie you mention it is a forgerie of your owne Iealousie considering wee pray for nothing in the behalfe of the Dead saue only that wee seeme to be in good hope of their ioyfull resurrection of which matter wee treated in Baptisme N. Yea but Prayers being rehearsed at the Graue haue some smell of Superstition I. Were you as quicke-sented as the Vultures of Romulus yet could no such sauour bee here felt forasmuch as our Prayers being in the mother tongue are discerned by the meanest auditor to containe nothing but matter of consolation and hope to the liuing N. Funerall Sermons are of the same branne and therefore iustly abrogated in the Reformed Churches N. If those Sermons containe flatterie or errour wee may not defend them But if they be replenished with hopefull and consolatorie doctrines we doubt not to thinke them to bee of that nature of which was the famous lamentation of Dauid made for his King h 2. Sam. 1. 17. and his Friend Or of which were those worthy Orations i The Funerall Orations of Basill and Gregorie Funerall which deserue to bee written in Plates of gold celebrated in all antiquitie And certainly if a Word in Place k Prou. 25 11. and l Prou 15. 23. Time bee so precious If wee bee commanded to preach in m 2. Tim 4. 2. Season Can any Sermon be more seasonable then when God's iudgements concurre with his word when the sense of mortalitie doth kindle deuotion and griefe quickneth Charitie Thinke you that when the men of Iabesh fasted n 1. Sam. 31. 13 seuen dayes at the buriall of Saul and his sonnes and when Mary wept at the Tombe of her o Iohn 11. 31. brother a Sermon would haue beene vnseasonable Suppose you that in all those seuen dayes before mentioned prayers were not mingled with their fasting As for the Reformed Churches wee censure them not neither may they condemne vs Forasmuch as the Strangers amongst vs being men of their owne Countrie and Discipline doe still retaine Funerall Sermons N. Wee are most offended with your Place of Buriall which is the Church or Church-yard wherein you seeme to place great holinesse I. Wee doe in some Cities allow men to be buried in a field set apart for that purpose N. But euen that field is reputed holy ground I. And that most iustly For did not Abraham refuse to be buried among the p Gen. 23. 6. 9. Hittites Did he not there buy a field for buriall wherevpon the Place was called Hebron Did not Iacob desire to be buried with q Gen. 49. 30. Abraham Ruth with r Ruth 1. 17. Naomi The old man with the Å¿ 1. King 13. 31 man of Iuda Did not the Pharises purchase a field for t Math. 27. 7. strangers called Acheldama a field of u Acts 1. 19. Bloud Is it not probable that the brethren of Ioseph desired to bee buried with him in x Acts 7. 16. Shichem Did not the men in the Primitiue Church desire to be buried neere the Martyrs by whose Tombes afterwards in the Halcionian dayes of Peace Oratories and Churches were built for the honour of Martyrdome not for the worship of Martyrs Are not the bodies of Saints departed still members of Christ being vnited to their soules not onely by the relatiue hope of the resurrection but euen by the vnion of Christ's Spirit And by what more liuely signe can we testifie or signifie this our beliefe then by interring them in or neere some Church where they may be reserued better then in the y Where the Kings of Egypt were buried Pyramides of Egypt till the second comming of CHRIST Finis Libri Primi THE SECOND BOOKE Of the New Liturgie CHAP. I. Of the Booke of TOBIT FRom the Old wee passe to your New Liturgie wherein you haue both added the Apocryphall Bookes to the the Canon And haue in sundry sorts depraued the Canonicall Text it selfe I. The Apocryphal The Booke of the Articles of Religion Article 6. Bookes as Hierome saith the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners But yet doth it not apply them to establish any Doctrine N. Against the reading of these Bookes I thus argue Whatsoeuer is read in the Church ought to be Canonicall Scripture But these Bookes are Apocryphall not of the Canon Wee may not therefore be vrged to reade them in the Church I. First your conclusion strayeth from your reason like a bird from her nest It should haue beene thus framed They may not therefore be read in the Church You pretend as if you were vrged and inforced to reade them the â—utâ— is if you did not delight in contention as the Viper that was pleased with the bloud of her owne tongue which shee grated against the file you might easily perceiue that the Booke leaueth it to your discretion whether you will read a Canonicall or an Apocryphall Chapter N. If we may not reade them then much lesse bee vrged to the reading of them So that my Conclusion was a Secondarie or Corollarie naturally following out of the proper conclusion of mine argument I. In the meane time you see that your oft complaints of vrging and hard vsage being both causelesse and respectlesse doe deserue to exasperate the State against you For many things â—o doubt had beene either altered or mitigated had
but withall haue ouerwhelmed it with sundrie errours The first is this You pretend them to bee refused by the Iewes because they were written in a language not vnderstood by them What Did not Hierome out of Chaldie translate Tobit Did not the Iewes in their Dispersion vnderstand the Greeke tongue namely in the Greekish Septuagint Why was the Epistle to the Hebrewes written in Greeke if they were ignorant of the language The like is to be said of the Epistles of Saint Iames and Saint Peter Now tell me Doe not you acknowledge our Apocryphall Bookes to haue beene written in Greeke and yet was not Sirach's Sonne a Iew Did not Philo and Iosephus being Iewes write in Greeke The second is rather a scoffe then an errour Not vnlike that of some men partly Arrians and partly Barrowists which call the Athanasian Creed the Creed of Sathanasius This is like that which is more then yea and nay for it comes of euill Your third errour is that you acknowledge the traditionarie testimonie of the Church for the Bookes of Scripture and yet explode all tradition not only as needlesse but euen as damnable Your fourth errour is that you ascribe more to the Iewish Synagogue then to the Christian Church For you heard before out of Hierome that the Christians receiued these Bookes N. They receiued them but as Apocryphall I. And yet they read them in the Church N. They were men and might erre For wee are assured that these Bookes are not agreeable to the Canon as containing and maintaining manifold errours and therefore may bee the Canon neither of Faith nor of Manners I. Wee denie that you can finde any errour in these Bookes concerning Manners Now touching Faith fundamentall errours wee acknowledge none in them If any pettie fault or slip be found our subscription is safe But now bring forth the errours in their numbers and armies N. The Apocryphall Bookes are either such as are reputed so by the Papists themselues namely the third and fourth of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses besides some other Bookes not expressed in our Common Bibles or such as are so accounted of by the Protestants onely whereof some be not read some be Of the first kinde are certaine portions of Hester also Susanna Bell and the Dragon and the two Bookes of the Maccabees And here I maruell much that the first Booke of Maccabees is not read in your Church considering you say it is a key to the Mysteries of Daniel I. Euen for the same cause that wee reade not other Bookes of the Chronicles and Other Volumes of holy Scripture N. This cause shall hereafter be tried Now the Bookes that you read are Historicall or Dogmaticall The Historicall be either whole Bookes or a fragment Of the first sort are Tobit and Iudith The Booke of Tobit containeth errours of things to be beleeued or to be done The first sort concerneth either Angels or the Meanes of our preseruation Angels bee good or euill In the good we may consider the name and nature concerning the first The Booke setteth downe the name of an Angell calling him Å¿ Tobit 3. 17. Raphael whereas Angels names ought not to be enquired t Gen. 32 29. after as being u Iudg. 3. 18. secret I. The Bookes of x Dan. 19 21. â—0 21. Daniel of y Luke 1. 19. Luke of z Iud. 9. Iude and of Saint a Apoc. 12. 7. Iohn doe set downe the names of Angels after which we should not enquire because they be secret are they therefore Apocryphall N. These names are not secret to God's Spirit which hath reuealed them to vs in these Bookes I. And why may not God's Spirit reueale the name of Raphael in this Booke N. This name Raphael is not extant in any other Booke of Scripture and therefore it seemes to be a tearme Apocryphall I. If a Iew should thus reason I finde the names Gabriel and Michael specified no where but in Daniel it seemes therefore the Booke should be Apocryphall what answere would you returue if you were a Iew and beleeued neither S. Luke S. Iude nor Saint Iohn N. I would answer It is sufficient that these names are recorded in one Booke of Scripture I. So it is sufficient though Raphael bee named no where but in Tobit vnlesse you beg the question Besides the names of Angels are of two sorts Some expressing their nature some their office Of this latter kinde is the name of b Isa 6. 2. Seraphim which signifies burning because one of them touched the Prophets lips with a burning coale To this head wee may referre Raphael which signifieth one that healeth from God because he healed Sara and Tobit Lastly the place in Iudges by you alleadged is impertinent The Angell which appeared might bee Christ who said his name was Secret or Wonderfull The like Isaiah saith of c Isa 9. 6. Christ hee shall call his name the Wonderfull and so forth So that the Angell may seeme rather to haue reuealed his name to Manoah then to haue d God shewed the burning of Sodom to Abraham and yet not to Lot The time of death to Ezekiah not to vs. concealed it from him N. From the name of Angels we come to their nature wherein wee will trie their number and their office Touching the first this Booke determineth that their are seauen e Tobit 12. 15. Angels c. which is partly Magicall partly Popish For first the Magitians especially the Iewes numbred seuen Angels according to the seuen dayes of the weeke For Sunday Raphael then Gabriel Sammael Michael Izidkiel Hanael f See Iunius vpon this place Rephariel I. The Booke of Tobit doth not designe these Angels by dayes much lesse reckoneth their names though two of them namely Gabriel and Michael are found elsewhere in Scripture By what tradition the Iewes vnderstood the rest we know not But first we are sure the Angell tels Daniel that hee was one of the chiefe g Dan 10. 13. Angels Secondly this number of seuen may probably be thus collected The seuen eyes in h Zach. 3. 9. Zacharie are by Saint Iohn expounded to bee the seuen spirits which are sent into all the i Apoc. 5 6. world And what should be meant by these Spirits but Angels Againe Saint Iohn twice mentioneth seuen k Apoc. 8. 6. 16. 1. Angels it is not sufficient for you to exclaime that this is Magicall Wee rather credit the Scriptures affirming then your negatiue supposals N. The seuen spirits are expounded the Holy Ghost I. The exposition is but your owne N. What Doe you suppose that Iohn prayes for grace and peace from Angels I. Not as from causes but as from instruments Againe though they be interpreted of the Holy Ghost in the first Chapter yet in the Vision of the fift Chapter that exposition will be violent For there it is said that the Lambe had seuen hornes and seuen eyes which
N. That part of the Minor is to bee applyed to Orders and Matrimony I. Belike then you affirmed that ioyntly of all the Sacraments which should haue beene deuided among them N. We most insist vpon the last clause Namely that they haue no visible signe I. Neither is that built vpon a Rocke For haue not Confirmation and Orders the visible signe of imposition of hands Can you conceiue of Matrimonie without hand-fasting Or of Extreame Vnction without Visible Infusion of oyles Nay if Sensible bee Visible and Audible be Sensible Is not Confession in Penance directly Audible so Visible by your owne interpretation N. What then Doe you reuiue the Seauen Popish Sacraments I. Nothing lesse But onely I manifest vnto you with what leaden weapons you impugne the iron enemie namely the Papist Against whom while you deferre to fight our Church becomes like the Oake cleft with wedges made out of her owne bodie N. If this Argument be weake you condemne the Booke of Articles which propoundeth the Art 25. same reason I. You mistake the meaning of the Booke yea and the words also The words are thus Being such as are growne partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles Partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures but yet haue not like nature of Sacraments with Baptisme and the Lord's Supper for that they haue not any visible Signe or Ceremonie ordained of God Here first you perceiue that the word Partly was twice left out of your argument wherevpon came your fallacie of Compounding and Diuiding And so it may bee the hauing of a visible signe taking Visible in his proper sence doth exclude Penance They being onely a state allowed in Scripture doth shut out Matrimony as the corrupt imitation of the Apostles doth Anoyling Some such like thing may bee thought of Confirmation and Orders But it is vncertaine N. Yea but they all fiue are denied to haue a visible signe I. Some coniecture that by Visible is meant that which is perceiued by many senses and this kind of Signe may bee proper to Baptisme and the Lords Supper But the plaine answere is That no Sacraments excepting those two haue a visible signe generally necessarie to saluation N. Without Orders there can be no Ministery without the Ministery no Visible Church without which there can bee no ordinary salution I. Orders are mediately necessarie for all but immediately for Ministers alone N. From the number of the Sacraments I come to their end Namely their necessity against which I thus argue Those things without which saluation may be obtained are not necessary to saluation But such are the Sacraments Ergo. I. I thus encounter your Maior Those things without which saluation may bee obtained are not necessary to saluation But without Miracles Saluation may be had And therefore Micracles euen those of Christ shall bee needlesse to saluation N. Miracles are no ordinary meanes to saluation but extraordinary I. So Sacraments are not extraordinary Which heresie denieth all outward Sacraments but direct and ordinary meanes for vnlesse you be a Swingfeldian you must acknowledge that neglect or contempt of Sacraments is a Barto life eternall And so both the doubtfulnesse of your Maior and falshood of your Minor doe at once appeace in their colours N. My second reason is this Things necessary to saluation doe conferre grace But Sacraments do not and so are not necessary I. Your Maior is not well poised For is therefore the Sabbath needlesse to saluation because it doth not conferre grace Againe your Minor wants the bridle of bondage and limiting distinction For though Sacraments doe not actiuely Physically and by infusion conferre grace yet none but publique enemies to all Sacraments will denie that they bring grace passiuely and by the assistance of the concurrent Spirit of God Euen as the Circles of Magicians and Spels of Witches are said to bee operatiue not of themselues being meere quantities but by the concurrent assistance of Satan with whom the bloudie couenant is stricken Now that Sacraments are necessary to Saluation it appeares by three things First because they are Gods Ordinances and so most needfull Secondly because they are markes of the Church visible out of whose bosome there is no ordinary saluation Thirdly because faith is begun in Baptisme and strengthned in the Lords Supper The necessitie whereof is greater then of water and fire nay then of friendship N. This shall bee tried in the particular Sacrament to which wee now descend It seemeth then that you make fiue Sacraments Baptisme Confirmation The Lords Supper Penance and Orders which last because it is not expressed in the Liturgie we will now omit I. You confest before that wee made only two Sacraments generally necessary why doe you then place Confirmation betweene Baptisme and the Lords Supper And where doe you finde our Sacrament of Penance N. The reason of these things shall afterwards be z In Confirmations and the Visitation of the sicke declared Now I come to Baptisme In the dignitie you giue to Baptisme we note two errours First you corruptly cite the words of Christ to Nicodemus Vnlesse a man be borne of water and of the Holy Ghost For by water you vnderstand the Baptisme of the Floud as you terme it Whereas indeed by water you should conceiue nothing but the purging efficacie of the holy Spirit I. Wee embrace the literall sense why doe you flie to a figure without important necessitie N. Yea necessitie doth vrge vs so to doe For else we should grant the necessitie of externall Baptisme to saluation I. You heard before that Sacraments were thus necessarie Why doe you now rowle the same stone N. Proue in particular now Baptisme to bee necessary to saluation I. First Circumcision was thus necessary For the soule vncircumcised was to be a Gen 17. 14. cut off from the people of God Yea God would haue slaine Moses because hee neglected the Circumcision of his b Exod. 4. 24. Sonne Nay the necke of the Asse-coult not c Exod. 13. 13. redeemed was to bee broken which redemption was proportionable to Circumcision as appeares by the d Exod. 22. 30. time thereof But Baptisme is answerable to e 1. Pet. 3. 21. Circumcision therefore equally necessarie Secondly Baptisme is tearmed the lauer f Titus 3. 5. of regeneration whereby the Church is g Ephes 5. 26. sanctified It is also called the Baptisme of repentance vnto remission h Marke 1. 4. Acts 19 4. of sinnes Yea Peter and Paul being demanded what men should doe to be saued The one in direct words both in practise did vrge i Acts 2. 37 38. 16. 30 33 34 Baptisme aswell as beliefe Yea Christ himselfe saith Hee that beleeueth and is baptized shall bee k Marke 16. 16. saued And Peter peremptorily auerreth that Baptisme l 1. Pet. 3. 21. doth saue N. First it seemes by these places That saluation is not ascribed to Baptisme
noble then the heart N. In a man it speaketh also and so is more noble I. But what say you to the tongue of a beast N. It is not more noble then the heart by it selfe but as it is a part of the head I. Will you conclude then that tassing is better then touching N. Nothing lesse For touching is the roote and first borne of sense yet touching with tasting is more excellent then simple touching I. In like manner though Baptisme be most necessarie because Children baptized haue all things necessary to Saluation yet Baptisme ioyned with Confirmation is more excellent then simple Baptisme No maruell then though it be assigned to a more excellent degree that is the Episcopall Especially seeing that Philip Acts 8. 16. though hee preached and baptized yet might not confirme this being reserued for the Apostles And now tell me where is our Contradiction N. You contradict your selues both in regard of your Doctrine and Practice For the first you teach that Children baptized haue all things necessary for saluation which if it bee true then what need of Confirmation I. Had the Israelites in the Wildernesse all things needfull to Saluation N. They had else their sinne should not want excuse I. They had only the the fiue Bookes of Moses were these sufficient to saluation N. They were for that time I. What then Were Iosua and the other Bookes needlesse N. They were also needfull in their season I. In like manner Baptisme of Infants is sufficient to them for eternall life if they die incontinently after Baptisme Neuerthelesse if they come to yeares both Confirmation and the Lords Supper may bee necessarie euen as repentance and the hearing of Sermons may not by you bee affirmed to bee needlesse to the purchase of heauen N. Againe you contradict your selues in practice For which of your Prelates doth vrge or vse Confirmation I. To reason from Practice to Lawes doth argue but a distempered mind Now the reason why the Fathers of our Church doe not so often Confirme Children is partly drawne from the shortnesse of time wherein they hold their Seates partly from the infinite molestations with which they are infested but principally from the obstinacie of the People who disdaine these things And no maruell considering your Frogges are permitted to croake in each Chamber CHAP. XV. Of the Lords Supper N. YOu may mis-tearme vs at your pleasure Neuerthelesse I proceed from the Sacraments appertaining to Children Namely Baptisme and Confirmation to those which belong to men of yeares Namely the Communion and Penance whereof the former belongs to men in health and the latter to sicke men onely I. Doe not wee also minister the Communion to the Sicke N. So you doe indeed as also you make it an appendix to Matrimony But of these wee shall intreate in their due places Now wee returne to your Publique Communion wherein three things wee dislike whereof two come before the third is in the act of receiuing Of those that come before this is the former Least after the taking of that holy Sacrament the Deuill enter as he entred into Iudas by which wordes you intimate that Iudas receiued the Lords Supper which is vntrue I. What then did he receiue N. He was only partaker of the Passeouer I. Be it so as you affirme yet is our argument most firme For if Satan entred into Iudas because hee did vnworthily receiue the Passeouer which was immediately to be abrogated what punishment shall abide vs if wee doe not duly partake of that Sacrament which shall not be altered till the Second Comming of Christ But now let vs heare how you proue that Iudas did not receiue the Lords Supper N. The Sop was before the Communion as being a part of the Passeouer For Luke saith the Communion was celebrated after the Supper meaning the a Luke 22. 20. Passeouer But immediately after the receiuing of the Sop b John 13. 30. Iudas departed and therefore could not bee made partaker of the Communion I. How doth it appeare that the Sop was a part of the Passeouer N. The Iewish Rabbins declare that a Cake was broken at the beginning of the Passeouer into two pieces whereof the one was eaten before the other after the Paschall Lambe both dipped in sawce of c Exod. 12. 8. sower hearbs I. Of the hearbs I reade in Scripture but neither of the sawce nor of the cake N. It seemes that Christ receiued it from some Tradition of the Elders who by their discretion did apportionate this Cake and Sawce to the Hearbs mentioned in the Law I. Could the Elders in the Synagogue appoint externall Ceremonies in God's seruice besides the letter of the Law And will you make Our Church like the seruile wife of a Russian not attempting to order the most indifferent things without expresse warrant from her husband And now to returne to Iudas How will you satisfie this argument After Supper was the d Luke 22. 20. Communion celebrated after which yet followed the words of Christ The hand of him that e Luke 22 21. and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26. 26. is to be translated not comedentibus but cum comedissent being the second Aorist betrayeth me is with me at the table It seemeth then that Iudas was present at the Communion N. There is an Hysterosis in the Story of Luke For Matthew recording the same words doth repeat them before the administring of the Communion The like Preposteration is seene in the temptations of Christ. I. It would trouble you to tell which temptation was the second which the third and whither the Hysterosis were in Matthew or in Luke The like may be said of this Story Thus you perceiue for ought that you haue alleaged your opinion is but probable in this matter and yet as I before declared our Liturgie doth not contradict you N. The second thing that we dislike is that you allow the Confession before the Communion to bee vttered by any one of the Communicants in the name of the rest whereby a priuate man or woman is made the mouth of the Congregation N. The meaning of the Rubricke is this That one at the least necessarily shall ioyne with the Priest If all doe it voluntarily they See more Chapter 5. shall not bee prohibited as appeares by our Daily Practice N. In your receiuing of the Communion wee disallow your Idolatrous kneeling I. When we pray kneeling is a gesture most conuenient But in the receiuing wee doe pray by the commandement of the Church For both the Minister prayeth and wee also are commanded to receiue it with thankesgiuing which is a kind of Prayer and therefore kneeling cannot be denied to be expedient N. Your Maior is not firme For I suppose that few are accustomed to kneele when they giue thankes at meate I. You reason from a short Prayer to one of a more determinate nature From a Prayer in priuate businesse to one that