concurr with papists cerem pressing our Ceremon vpon the same conditions as they in the former considerations the like is true also touching holines Now because some of these things which I have affirmed concerning the doctrine of the Papists about Cerem may seeme strange to those that take the measure of their opinion not from them but from the occasionall and imperfect sayings of their adversary partyes It shall be necessary to heare themselves speake First let us heare Cassander with his allegations who so much consenteth with D. Burges that his Rej. might better have beene called and intituled Cassander Anglicanus then M. Sprints book was save only that there is more passion shewed in it then Cassanders temper and professed moderation could be brought unto Cassand in consult art 7. Illud falsum eâ—le existimo aliquos docuisse externos lilos ritus cerem eâ—le cultus necessarios ad promerendam justificationem coram Deo nec aliud iâ—us nubus 〈◊〉 quam quod coruÌ„ externa observatio de vero interno cultu nos admoneat ad eum manu ducat 〈◊〉 ex vera in Christum fide obedientiae Ecclesiae Christi fiant cui Christus obtempeâ—ari praecepit ead apud Deum laudem habent quam caetera pieratis opera Id autem ingenue omnes confitentur in ijs fiduciam saluvis non esse collocandam Idem pag. 869. Opinionem falsam cultus meriti necessitatis PoÌ„tisicij ipsi quibus illam assignat Mell. non agnoscuÌ„t sed falsâ— sibi attribuâ— dicunt Sic Thomas Bâ—el apud cundem pag 871.872 Idem pa. 875. St. huiusmodi praerepterum positivoruÌ„ explicatione consideretur haud multum â— consilio sous exhortatione differre comperientur c. Si quorundam sentent a rigidior hie videtur nemo câ—edo â—rohibebit mitiorem sentennam sequi quae a Gersone ut a multis optimisque viris Gersonem imitantibus â—xplicatur qui in hujusmodi praeceptorum transgre Tone in sole scandalâ— contemptu peccatum mortale â—â—llâ—câ—nt Idem ibid. Alphonsus Verbesius sic Nostrae traditiones nihil capitalis periculi adferunt transgressoribus nisi adsit animus impius contemnens Perionius ex Sorbonaâ— opinor sua sententia sic 〈◊〉 sunt in ecclesia Ceremoniae quae sub consiltum cadunt quae autem sub praeceptum cadunt ut caâ—â—â—â—â—â—dem violatores omnes nostri peccati reos esse volunt nifi sorte contemnant Cassander in his consult article 7. I conceave that to be false that any of ours should have taught those externall rites and Ceremo to be worships necessary to procure justification before God Neither is any other thing attributed to those rites but that their externall observation may admonish us of the true and internall worship and might by the hand lead us thereunto And if they be done out of true faith in Christ and obedience unto the Church of Christ to which Christ hath commaunded as to be subject they receave that acceptance from God which other works of pyety do But that all ingeniously confesse our hope of happiness is not to be placed in them Againe the same Cassander pag. 869. The false opinion of worship merit necessity the Pontificans themselves upon whom that conceit is faâ—hered do not acknowledge but affirme that it is falsely attributed unto them Of this judgment Thomas Aquinas and Byell are sayd to be by the same Author pag. 870.871 And in p. 875. If the explicatioÌ„ of those positive precepts be considered they will be found not to differr much for an â—dvise or exhortation c. If the sentence of some may apâ—eare more riged I beleeve that no man is forbid to follow â—he more moderate opinion which is explained by Gerson and followed by many worthy men who in the transgression of such kynd of precepts place the mortall synne only in â—candall and contempt The same author in the same places Alphonsus Verbesius thus Our traditions bring no deadly â—anger unto the transgressors therof unlesse the heart be imâ—ious and contemning Perionius out of the sentence of the â—orbone Schoole as I suppose writes thus ther be many Cere â—n the church which fall under the nature of a counsell but â—hose which come under the nature of a praecept the violators â—o not of them all ours would make guilty of synne unlesse peradventure they shall be found contemners This which Cassander sayth is fayre yet to make it more full I will add some other testimonies and those of note Gregor de Valent. Tom. 4 Disp 3. qu. 1. paâ—t 4 Clarum cit â—endacium quod his ritibus tantum tribuanâ—ns quantum ipus Sacramentis item quod eo loco habeatur quasi nequeat sine illis confici veruÌ„ Sacramentum Si aliqui vulgares in ea parte errant sie sentiunt id certe neque ecclesia docer neque Theologi Si caetera scadalum contemptumomittantur res sit exigua vel etiam deâ—t voluntas deliberatio plena peccatum erit tantum veruale Cajetan summ voce praecept Vniversalis est regula quod in ijs quae sunt positivi juris fi absque contemptu refâ—atione 〈◊〉 ex apparente sibi excusatione transgressio fiat ab eo qui animum habet multo pacto conseâ—iâ—â— dâ—â—r contra praeceptum obligans ad mortale non incurritur mortale peccatum quoniam non eâ—t intetio 〈◊〉 jultae matris ecclesiae bonas hujusmodi animas illaqueare tam hostili vinculo Gregorius de Valentia a Iesuite Tom. 4. disput 3. quaestion 1. part 4. It is a notorious lye that we attribute so much to these rites as we do to the Sacraments and that we have them in the same account as though a true Sacrament could not be instituted without them If any of the vulgar sorâ— erre in that behalf and so conceave assuredly neither the church nor divines so teach If they be omitted without scandall and contempt and the matter be small and that a seriouâ— will and full deliberation be wanting it will be only a veniall synne So Cajetan a Cardinall The rule is universall that in those things which stand by a positive law if the transgression be made without contempt and crossing the end of thâ— law from some excuse appearing to the party if it proceeâ— from him who hath a mynd no wayes syding against the commaund which bynds to a mortall synne a mortall synne is noâ— by that breach committed because it is not the intention of thâ— holy and just mother the church to ensnare such good soules with so dangerous a bond Bellarm. de effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 29. Quaedam Cere sunt immediate cultuâ— quaedam disponunt ad eniâ—um quadaÌ„ sunt instrumeta cultus Id. ibid. â—ap 31 Calvinus indiâ—ar crimenesse si per contemptuÌ„ vel crassam negligentiam omittantur Cerem at nihil aliud ecclesia de sum Ceremonijs dâ—cet Idem de Rom. Pontif. lib 4. cap. 18. Catera
any quaestion And this they do by making a maze of Divisions cutt things in so many shreds by multitudes of distinctions that at length they loose their cause the truth them selves also in theissue must of necessity be vvilder the reader unlesse he be of a searching judgement This kynd of distinguishing is like snuffing of the candell too neare putting out the light vvholly vvhyle they intend to make the light burne more cleare so do these men darken the truth professing to discover more of it praegnable examples of this kynd the Rej. hath expressed unto us vvhen to avoyd the dint of the argument concerning significant Cerem vvorship his destinctions are so many intricate that one member destroyes another the true nature of vvorship also as may appeare in the 85. 136. pag of the first part of this Dispute All this I speake not that I vvould fall out vvith any vvho is not of the same opinion vvith my self for I prosesse the contrary in a vvord of truth every man abounds in his ovvne sense Only this seemes somvvhat greiuous I conceave also injurious to the truth that after all hard dealing she cannot gett an indifferent hearing Seing it is the fashion of the vvorld to have mens persons in admiration to gayne some countenance therby to their ovvne courses And therfore to blovv up the fame of mens abilityes as they do bladders to the utmost greatnes they can that the greater vvarrant they may seeme to have to follovv their opinions vvayes And contraryvvise the person must be disparaged vvhen vve vvould have his cause or vvork come into discredit a fashionable but a shame lesse peice of Rhetorick Thus the vvriting of the Repl must be a pamphlet his manner of vvriting â—currilous that vvhen both are thus disfigured by the dirt and soote vvhich the Rej. hath flung upon them it may be conceyved they vvere so misshapen in their first frame vhereas the ansvveare of the Rei must be lifted up proclaymed vvorthy learned judicions vvhich puts me in mynd of Demetrius his out-crye 19. Acts 28. Great is Diana of the Ephesians 19. Acts. 25 the ground vvhereof vvas not so much the love of the Goddesse as the greedy desire of that great profit they reaped therby So here the ansvveare must be learned judicious that men may conforme learnedly and judiciously Not that I envy the Drs. Honor or vvould diminish any thing of his due but I cannot endure davvbing much lesse that the prayse of men should be advanced to the praejudice of the truth Laying aside therfore-all praejudice partiality cast vve the proceedings of the Repl Reioy into the scales of righteous consideration vvhere the blame most appeares let the Reader lay it on let-him beare it to vvhom it is due by desert And in this search let no man think I intend or seek the Rej. his dishonor for my vvitnes is in heaven I doe not nay I dare not doe it I knovv the righteous judge vvould require it but it is for the manifestation of truth and innocency vvhere ever it is to be found That I may doe the Doctor right then I vvill sett dovvne the rules hovv farr the faylings of others may be layd open 2. Hovv farr in vvhat cases some kynd of tartnes sting of indignation may be expressed in pen or speech as allovvable in holy vvritt That vve may lay forth the limits of the farst see hovv farr the compasse of our Christian Commission reacheth in the discovery of others faults How farr law full to lay open synnes vve must vvisely distinguish of Persons Synnes that so vve may not be deceaved Persons then undergoe many conditions relations some are members of the same congregation vvho have covenanted to vvalk in the fellovvship of the fayth of the Gospell Others are subjects of the same commonvvealth only professing the truth Both these agayne are there repenting or pertinacious incorrigible synners Synnes also are of sundry kynds some are private some are publike both these agayne are lesser scandalls or more hainous Capitall Crymes vvhich threaten apparant hazard to the publike good of a state or the prosperous successe of the Gospell Novv out of these distinctions such conclusions may easily be collected vvhich may give ansvver to the first quaestion so far as concernes our purpose these be 3. In private offences the rule of our Saviour takes place Rules of direction how we mai discover the faults of othâ—rs If thy Brother offend tell him his fault betvvixt him thee alone if he heare thee thou hast gayned thy Brother if our admonition attayne the end in removing the evill vve need not then crave further help from any other to redresse it Beside our Brother having regayned his honor by repenting vve should not cast the blott agayne upon him by any fresh report 2. If under private admonition a Brother prove obstinate incorrigible vve may should publish both person fault to the congregation as our Saviour in that case enjoynes it as a duty to be discharged leaves it not to our freedome to omitt for the vvords runn in force forme a commaund tell the Church 3. If the offence be publike either left upon record in vvriting made so notorious to all that vvill attend read it or acted in some sollemne assembly or in open vievv before many vvitnesses laying aside malice envy vvhich may stir us or synfull and sinister ends vvhich may carry us hereunto spoyle this the best service It s very lavvfull nay in case very necessary to speake of such miscariages or vvrite of them as occasion may require that vvith out all breach of love vvhether vve looke at others vvho are but standers by That they may not be scandalized infected or plucked avvay by the error of men Or if vve looke at the offenders them selves by vvay of Caution vvholsome prevention vve stopp the poyson of their practise that so they do no more harme to others nor bring any more guilt upon their ovvne soules then vvhich vvhat greater love and mercy can be shovvne to our fellovv Brethren And out of this ground and after this manner it is that vve shall bring some of the Doctors miscariages to consideration and present them to the vievv of the Reader but such only vvhich he himself hath made open and notorious either by vvriting or practise and that for this end alone that the false colours vvhich he hath putt upon his course and proceedings may not prejudice the truth in in the hearts or judgements of the ignorant and unvvary Readers or any that are vvilling to declyne vvho vvould very fayne have the Doctors vvords vvithout controule that so they might follovv him vvithout feare and this may suffice for ansvver to the first quaestion the vvarrant for our vvay to vvalk in The second admitts satisfaction
significant Cerem is aedification Of such Cereâ— therfore may well understand Melanchton not only iâ— this place alledged Mundus non intelligit quantum sit peccatum singere cultus fine mandato Dei Cultus idolatricisunt omnes qutcunque sine mandato Dei instituti sunt but also Tom. 2. p. 142. The worâ— understands not how great a synne it is to forge worship witâ— out Gods commaund And P. 107. Idolatrous worships oâ— all they which are appointed without the commaund of Gâ—â— Here is no distinction betwixt worship of it self or bâ— it self and by accident reductively c. The Rej. his testâ—monies being such as have beene declared there cannoâ— be much force in his examples if they be agreeable tâ— his rules wherof he hath brought such crosse witnessâ— The first example is of free will offerings Free will offerings are no allowance of our ceremonies when a man 〈◊〉 left at liberty to offer a bullock a goat or sheepe at his pleasurâ— where the particular was not commaunded but only alloweâ— though the manner was prescribed Concerning which answer 1. that there were no oblations left wholly 〈◊〉 the pleasure of men for though the particulars were not nor could not be determined by a distinct rule in generall yet they were determined by the circumstances as our Divines are wont to answer the Papists about their vowes counsells superarrogations Non lego generali sed ratione circumstantiâ—um c. Not by a generall law but by concurrence of circumstances So Deut. 16.10 Moses sheweth that the freest offerings were to be according as God had blessed them from whence it followeth it had beene synne for any Israelite whom God had plentifully blessed to offer a payre of pigeons in stead of a bullock or two upon his owne meere pleasure 2. where that proportion was observed the choice of a goat before a sheep or a sheepe before a goat was no formall worship 3. That it had beene unlawfull for the Preists out of their pleasure to institute any such determinate free offering either ordinarily to be observed or upon occasion of a mans forwardnesse to such a duety i.e. that every free offering should be a goat or at the least that a goat should be one part of it which is the presumption of our Prelats about the reductive worship of the crosse 4. It was not left to any mans pleasure for to appoint an offering not appointed of God in the speciall or least kynd but onely to choose among those which God had instituted that which did best agree with his condition and occasion as it is also now of psalmes prayers doctrines interpretations exhortations let every man offer according as God hath furnished him But from hence to inferr the free choise of offering now to God a crosse surplice holy water images this is as if one should then have concluded from that freedome the free offering of certaine butterflyes or such like pretty odd vermyn not prescribed in the law nor by name forbidden The second example is taken from Salomons worship at the dedication of the temple 1. Kings 8.2 2. Chron. 6. and 7. which he thus conformeth to his notions The number of Bullocks and Sheepe were worship in respect of the end and allowance only the Cere of prayer kneeling upon a Scaffold stretching out of hands were worship reductive ad modum in genere suo having respect to the manner in the generall kynd thereof The burning of Sacrifices in the floore of the Court was only lawfull before the brasen altar was consecrated and upon the present necessity But 1. in the number of Bullocks and Sheepe ther was not a different worship but a different degree of the same worship as a longer prayer or sermon is not another worship then a shorter but another degree of extension in the same worship Surely to pray and prayse God twice thrice or seven tymes in a day are no different worships one froÌ„ another but onely more or lesse exercise of the same worship 2. Kneeling stretching out the hands were not worship in respect to a generall manner but speciall externall worship as being naturall immediate expressions of the inward As for the scaffold that Salomon kneeled on that was no more worship then the asse was upon which our Saviour did ride Lastly seing none of these things carying the nature of worship were instituted ordinary observances neither might the Preists in any convocation have made such these examples are nothing like ours in quaestion The other examples of Ioshuas monitory stone Ios. 24 26. â—sas oath 2. Chron. 15.14 Nehemiahs subscription Neh. 9. â—â—lomons 14. dayes solemnity 1. Kings 8. Ezekias designing 7. dayes 2. Cron. 30. Mordicayes Purim Hest. 9. have little â—â—ment in them as the Rej. hath afforded illustration or deâ—â—ration by bare naming of them It may be sufficient to â—ny that which is barely affirmed yet in few words â—â—ese for the most of them were actions managed by â—ods Spirit suggested by secret instinct extracted by â—â—traordinary and speciall occasions and therfore as â— r. Iackson Orig. of unbeleef p. 332. warneth are then 〈◊〉 lawfull in others when they are begotten by like â—â—casions or brought forth by like impulsions 2. Ionas stone was as Dr. Iackson Ibid. pag. 329. judgeth but â—olemne attestation though somthing extraordinary â—â—d indeed was no more worship then the heavens and â—â—â—rth which Moses Isayah did call to witnesse 3. Asas â—â—â—th Nehemiahs subscription were no more distinct â—orship from the covenant then the words of a simple â—â—omise are a distinct promise from the meaning of 〈◊〉 subscription and swearing of Canonicall obeâ—â—ence in England were never that I heare of excepâ—â—d against as Ceremonies of worship by those which â—ondemne them in the substance of them 4. The â—â—olonging of worship by Salomon and Ezekias was â—â—ch a distinct worship as Pauls continuing his exercise â—f religion to mydnight Acts 20. Mordecah his Purim â—ave their proper place in the dispute Out of all these â—ules testimonies examples nothing followeth in faâ—our fof our Ceremon because no sound rule just testimony or allowed example is brought for any Cerem of Mysticall signification by man instituted and broughâ— into the solemne ordinary worship of God for the 〈◊〉 of teaching which maketh the Rej. his full perswasioâ— which he protesteth suspected and his triumphing ridâ—culous to those that well attend to these his grounds Yet the Rej. hath a double conclusion looking thâ— way 1. That this will shew in what sense we may 〈◊〉 our Ceremonies worship and yet denye them to 〈◊〉 worship that is in such a non-sense as is usually founâ— in contradicting shifts The 2. to show the difference betwixt us and the Papists which is here showed very breifly but hath beene handled and answered at large before and thither therefore we referr the Reader FINIS A TABLE OF THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE NEGATIVE ARGVment from Scripture Section 1. and
est quam declinare Yet the Rej. will have it that Iunius in that place cont 3. l. 4. c. 17. sect 10. doeâ—h refute this distinction as used by Bell. Marke therfor what are Bell. words which Iunius confuteth viz. Onely a prohibition of addition contrarie lawes is understood Deut 4 1â— Intelligitur prohibitio solum de additionâ— legum contrariarum Which are the words also of our Defender and Rejoynder cap. 2. sect 3.4.5 So that by this interpretation the distinction is theris and Iunius confuteth them all so well as Bellarmine The persuaders to Subscription are also confessed to use the same distinction but in another meaning Let the distinction therfore passe for shame and dispute of the meaning But the meaning expressed by the Rejoynder is the very same with ours save that they differ in the conclusions deducted from it The altercation therfore which the Rejoynder addeth about some speaches of M r. Cartwrite is not worth the answering The plaine trueth is that this distinction is ordinarily used by our Divines against the Papists even in case of Ceremonies D. Fulke against the Rhemists on Mat 15.9 Of Popish traditions some be repugnant to tâ—e lawes of God and some are beside them as idle and unprofitable Cerâ—monies It was therfor but an affected quarrel which the Def. picked and the Rejoynder mainteineth about these termes as if they had any reflection upon the Popish difference betwixt mortall and veniall sins Nay in this fashion the Def. and Rejoynder may accuse our blessed martyrs of symbolizing with the Papists that were the murtherers of them For they were wonte to use this distinction in the same manner that we doe So heavenly â—radford in his epistle to the Vniversitie of Cambridge these which a little after he applieth to Romish ragges and in his epistle to Walden extendeth them by name to Ceremonies opinioÌ„s are not onely besides Gods word but even directly against it It is therfor more then time for the Def. and Rejoynder to pull in the hornes of this dodmons accusation and confesse that they were unseasonablie and rashly put forth upon inconsiderate phantasie easily uttered but hardly excused SECT 13.14 Concerning the ancient fathers arguing negatively from Scripture 1. TO diverse sentences of ancient Writers about this matter alledged the generall answer is giveÌ„ 1. that they speak of thinges contrarie to Scripture which when the Repl. granteth complaining of the Def. his wilfull mistaking or mis-interpreting our meaning the Rejoynder lest he should seem lesse wilfull repeateth the same imputation which yet he acknowledgeth to be contrarie to the Repliers owne confession What should a man say to suche Rejoyners that know full well our meaning and yet will never leave threaping another meaning upon us Wee never sayd or thought that all particular rites pertaining to order and decencie are punctually determined in the Scripture Wee never dreamed that all suche rites being beside the particular determination of the Scripture are against it wee speak of double or treble rites as the Rejoynder stileth them which no mere order and decencie doeth necessarily require but onely the mere will of man injoine All this the Rejoynder knoweth and yet he ceasseth not to beat the ayre with endelesse repetitions of this imputation guilded over with some varietie of tanting phrases that it may be the easlier swallowed by his unwary reader 2. It is secondly answered by the Def. that the ancient writers speak of doctrines not of ceremonies Wherunto the Repl. granting that to be true for the most part yet answereth that the trueth of their sayings may be taken so generally as to include all reâ—igious Ceremonies Here the Rejoynder objecteth that limitation for the most part is onely to abuse the simple and that the ambiguous terme of religious Ceremonie is a bush to hide I know not what in Now for the former charge Compare here the Abrigment and Def. The later accusation of hiding-bush etc. cannot otherwise be avoyded as it seemeth except to avoyd the same we would upoÌ„ every occasion when we are to speak of the questioned kinde of ceremonies repeat the Rejoynder his beadroul of termes double or treble significant sacred by application mutable ambalatorie arbitrarie reductively sacramentall morall Ceremonies immediate worship in respect of meanes by vertue of some thing else in respect of the manner and reductively in respect of the utmost ende Divine worship Whersoever we observe not these termes partly of his owne forging since the Replie was written he may as well spie a bush over our head as in this place It is thirdly answered that a generall proposition may well be extended beyond one speciall conclusion to which it is upon occasion applied To this after that out of splen as I take it he styleth it the mans stomacke the Rejoynder answereth that it may onely be applyed to other of the like kinde This therfor is onely the difference whether those Ceremonies which bear all those titles even now rehearsed bee not of the like kinde or have not one common nature with some of those thinges which the Rejoynder calleth substantiall and doctrinall poynts of which we have disputed before andshall after by Gods grace 2. To Tertullians wordes Prohibetur quod non ultro est permissum that is prohibited which is not permitted the first answer made by the Def. was that our Ceremonies are permitted Heerunto it was replied that Tertullians meaning must needs be of other permission then the Def. can challenge to our Ceremonies otherwise ther should be no sense in his wordes The reason is because the Def. doeth not say that our Cerem are otherwise permitted then that they are not forbidden Whiche kinde of permission if Tertullian understood then his saying is that is prohibited whiâ—h is not unprohibited The Rejoynder here for resolution of this difficultie sayth that Tertullians meaning was to account that not to be permitted by the word against which any reasons out of the word may be given though ther be no particular word against it Now if he had attended unto the question considering that it was onely what Tertullian in this place meant by this phrase not permitted and that his meaning for the word must be the same with that immediately before opposed Quod non prohibetur ultro permissum est he would not have given that glosse for then the meaning of this sentence must be that which hath no particular word against it can have no reasons out of the word made against it Suche â—ustian is that clause of the Rejoynder our meaning and hìs are alike and wee hold our Ceremonâ—es to be so permâ—tted and therfor not prohibited So permitted is by his interpretation not to be prohibited by consequence prohibited must needs be eyâ—her the same or else pâ—ohibited by particular word if the former then he sayth thus our Ceremonies are not pâ—ohibited by consequence therfor they are not prohibited by consequence if the later then this is
was added by the Repl. the opinion even of a few may make some action unlawfull which the opinion of many other cannot make lawfull 1. Cot. 10.28 To avoyd this the Rejoynder had nothing materiall to say before he had changed unlawfull into simplie unlawfull The just number of those that are so minded cannot be proved or disproved without numbering and examining all the people It was not therfore any meaning of those that gave the rule to reckon by the poul as the Def. and Rejoynder would have us Neyther is this observation brought in to prove imposing and observing conjunctly as they would bear the reader in haÌ„d but only for the observing other proofes being added for the imposing Yet it was observed by the Repl. that while actions of this kinde are superstitiously observed they that still impose them in those places where they are so observed may truely be interpreted so to impose them To which the Rejoynder giveth no other proper answer but onely leaving out the pith of that assertion may be truly so interpreted substituteth another of a purposed ende and then misinterpreteth actions of this kinde as if they were meant of the speciall kinde of thinges and not of unnecessarie actions known to be superstitiously abused It was also noted as ridiculous in the Def. that those people which thinke that Sacraments are not rightly administred or receyved without the Ceremonies are brought into that conceyt by our condemning of the sayd Ceremonies The Rejoynder answereth that this condemning of them must needs make some thinke that they are imposed as parts of religion and so occasion the simple to think that we esteem them so In which answer beside that I know not who are meant by we and that an occasion of the second or third hand is made a cause ther is no mention made of right or unright Sacraments For lessening of the number of those which so esteeme of our Ceremonies the Papists are first removed as having no great conceyt of them Which I leave to experience Onely because the Rejoynder requireth testimonie I can informe him that Gretser Apol. pro Greg. 7. p 8. hath these words A Lutheran preaching in â—erteine garments like the Ape of the preists Pradicans Lutheranus ut Sacerdotum simius vestibus certit indutur Missam Germa nicam celebrat celebrates a German Masse And the Rejoynder himself confesseth in the next wordes they have a better conceyt of them then of the contrarie and that suche as hath been held likely to araw them to our service and that they have a great disaffection to those that will not tollerat the resemblance of their religious Ceremonies Adde further that after B. Babington and B. Andreos D. Morton himâ—elf in the last words of his Protestants Appeal hath confirmed the rumor that Pope Paulus quaertus did offer to confirme our wholle Service and Liturgie The Papists therfore have no cause whie they should not have a good conceyt of our Ceremonies which of all the Service come neerest to and make most for them As for the rest that so conceyt of the Ceremonies which are not of your disciplining sayth the Rejoynder and yet are conformable they are not many As if those of our disciplinating were so conceyted or those of Wales Non-residents and dumb-residents forlorne charges who are not disciplined by us were eyther few or of reformed judgement Surely D.B. is not like himself when he upon ingagement defendeth that which cannot be defended 7. The second thing brought out of the abridgement is about the punishment inflicted for omission of our Ceremonies greater then for breaking of Gods law in perjurie and adulterie Now this hath formerly been handled In this place therfore it shall suffize to set a few notes upon the Rej. his answers 1. He distinguisheth betwixt punishing and punishing as a sinne As if punishment in the internall nature of it were not of sinne 2. He distinguisheth betwixt internall peace of the Churche consisting more in observance of Gods commandements and the peace of her externall pollicie impeached by the neglect of her constitutions Wheras he should have made the distinction betwixt one consisting another or betwixt one impeaching another And yet both the consisting and impeaching of the Churches peace doeth principally depend on the keeping of Gods commandements which is all the Repl. affirmed 3. He distinguisheth betwixt an offence every way lesse and in it owne nature lesse whenas the question is not whether the neglect of our Ceremonies be not onely in it owne nature a lesse offence but also in all the circumstances of it The Def. and Rejoynder themselves confesse that this neglect in the nature of it is no offence at all 4. Because suche answers were termed Sophisticall evasions the Rejoynder twice crieth out of rayling forgetting without doubt how often he had abused the same terme against the Repl. and that in the next former section he had mainteyned the Def. his accusing a plain popular argument not onely of Sophistrie but even of dull Sophistrie For the Rejoynder certainly will not confesse himself a rayler The rest is not worth repeating that paper should be twice blotted with it Against the Def. his distinction betwixt omission and contempt the Replie was 1. that mere omission hath been punished with suspension Of which the Rejoynder requireth a continued instance To which I answer that one instance may be given in Ispswiche where D. B. was Preacher For most of the Ministers were suspended upon the complaint of one Web who professed that he would not put on the Surplice except others did D. B. may inquire easily if it was not so As for continuance it maketh not to the purpose except all malefactors be not onely put in prison but also continued in the same above the Iudges pleasure The Repl. for affirming that punishments for mere omission are provided for by Canon is accused by the Rejoynder of an untrueth in print Yet the Rejoynder cannot be ignorant beside other examples that every man not kneeling is to be denied the Sacrament and that the Minister administring to suche is by the Canon to be suspended So that this was trueth in print ever since the Canons were in print except suspension from the Sacrament from the Ministerie be in his account no punishment 8. The last thing noted out of the Abridgement is that non-CoÌ„formitants are accounted Scismatikes Puritanes and excommunicates ipso facto without appeal which is without example The Rejoynder here 1. denieth that flatly without more words which is plainly cited out of the 6. Canon let the Canon therfore be looked upon and that is enough 2. He sayth that the ould anathema sit was as muche as to excommunicate ipso facto And yet King Iames himself in his answer to Perone doeth shew that the olde anathema sit was onely a declaring who ought to be excommunicated and not an excommunication de facto 3. He sayth for Appeal that none is
in confessing that his Prelates even those whose admirable wisdome he extolleth though they have power enough doe not provide the cheif helpes of edification for their Churches aequall to those that are founde in poore Congregations which receyve not their Ceremoniall helpes and yet will not suffer those poore Congregations to enjoy their helpes For doe they not by this place a high poynt of devotion in their Ceremoniall helpes 2. How can this stand with reason where other helpes are aequall ther is no difference Certainly if our Ceremonies be helpes to Edification as the Def. and Rejoynder mainteine then where other helpes are aequall the Cathedrall Churches have a great advantage in helpes above other that want those Ceremonies Nay one Cathedrall Churche exceedeth another in this kinde as Durrham for Ceremonies doeth Chester and Lichefeild 12. Because the Def. to make way for an injurious accusation changed the phraze used in the Abrigemēt a cheif part of the Sacraments nature into another more obnoxious unto exception the cheif part the Repl. justly noted this as no plaine dealing The Rejoinjoynder being loath to leave any of the Def. his words un-mainteyned answereth that the Sacraments have but two parts signification and obsignation and therfore if signification be a principall part it is also the principall part so that the Defend sayth he dealt heerin fairely and pressed us with suche wordes as our Argument requires But 1. whoe authorized the Defend to change the termes of our Argument and then presse us with his changelinges Let him reserve suche faire dealing for other occasions when it may passe with lesse notice taken of it 2. What doeth the Rejoynder mean to imitate the Defend in attributing unto us that we make mere signification without any qualification or limitation eyther the or a cheif part of the Sacrament The Abrigement sayth onely that suche signification as is ordeyned mystically to teache and admonish us of spirituall duties is a cheif part of the Sacrament 3. Mr. Hooker lib. 5. pag. 3.10 sayth that ther are great store of properties belonging to the Sacraments as that they are boundes of our obedience obligations to mutuall charitie provokation to godlinesse preservations from sinne memorialls of great benefites markes of distinction from strangers etc. How then can the Rejoynder so resolutely determine of two onely offices which belonge to them 4. If all essentiall parts of the Sacrament may be reduced to these two yet the lesser of these may be called a principall part without any prejudice to the other in respect of those mē which make accidentall circumstātiall improper parts of Gods worship and so of his Sacraments as the Def. and Rejoynder upon every occasion doe shift off Arguments with those termes The rest of this section beside wordes of no weight conteyneth nothing which hath not been in the former passages sufficiently cleared SECT 6. Concerning Iewish Ceremonies 1. IN the Abrigement after the former reason now mainteyned this was brought in that In the time of the Lawe when God saw it good to teache his Churche by significant Ceremonies none might be brought into or receyved in the worship of God but suche onely as the Lord himself did institute Ergo. And after that this It is muche lesse lawfull for man to bringe significant Ceremonies into Gods worship now then it was under the Law For God hath abrogated his owne not onely suche as prefigured Christ but suche also as served by their signification to teache morall duties so as now without great sinne none of them can be continued in the Churche no not for signification Vpon which last grounde they inferre thus If those Ceremonies which God himself ordeyned to teache his Churche by their signification may not now be used much lesse may those which man hath devized Now the wisdome of the Def. was to passe over the former groundes and onely to insist upon this last inference derived from them But let us see what he and the Rejoynder have to say of that 2. About this inference many testimonies of great Divines were alleged in the Abrigement all which the Def. passeth by as not worthy answer for whiche he was challenged by the Replier The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is wranglinge spoken not out of conscience but out of a spirit of contradiction etc. To which I answer nothing But that which the Def. neglected the Rejoynder taketh to supplie least we should bragge as it pleaseth him to phrasifie See therfore how he dischargeth that which he undertaketh 1. The Nicen counsel sayth he is twice falsified first that it is supposed to condemne significant Ceremonies by man devized upon this reason that God had abolished his owne and secondly that the Councel is affirmed to condemne suche Ceremonies at all It seemeth the Rejoynder hath more skill about this cause in multiplying falsities then in dividing of them from trueths For the Nicen Councell was brought in as speaking for one proposition and the Rejoynder maketh two false assertions of that one simple axiome Beside the words of that Councel or Constantine speaking for it are in the Abrigement onely brought in as testifying this that the olde Ceremonies of the law being abrogated by God cannot without sinne be now continued in the Churche for signification In stead of this the Rejoynder faineth two other propositions and then fayth that they are two falsifications which if they be let him who is the coiner of them see how he can excuse them The wordes of Constantine are It seemed unworthy to celebrate the Passover with imitation of the Iewish custome Let no suche thinge be commune to Christians with the Iewes We have receyved another way from our Saviour a more lawfull and convenient of our holy Religion This is pat to the purpose for which it was alleged 2. The testimonie of all the rest sayth the Rej. are perverted 3. Sundrie of the witnesses are knowen to have allowed our and all some significant Ceremonies It is a shame therfore for men gloring of synceritie in refusing the Ceremonies thus to leave all synceritie in alleging of Authors In which never any protestant writers abused the world so muche as the Abrigement and this cavilling Repl. Now 1. for the perverting of all testimonies it is affirmed onely but not proved Onely some generall suppositions are brought in to support the accusation all which have formerly been confuted 2. Among those which he sayth were knowen to allow of our Ceremonies he nameth D. Humphry of whome Cambden in his historie of Q. Elizabeth observeth that he though very learned and worthy never was raised to Ecclesiasticall preferments because he allowed not our Ceremonies etc. Harding also objecteth him by name with Mr. Samson as one that had rather loose all then use our Ceremonies and Iuel Apol. c. 5. div 1. doeth not denie but defend it besides how well he allowed of our Ceremonies let all men judge by a certeine letter of his heere printed written to the
whom the Def. would not vouchsafe an answer One thing heere the Def. noteth that in the Abridgment mysticall and carnall are unsoundly confounded But I say this is unsoundly collected for these two are joyned together there onely in respect of Iewish worship and that which imitateâ—h it And therefore it is to no end to instance in the Sacraments instituted by Christ of cleere signification and accompanied with the promise and lively working of the Spirit The same poore instance hath Bellarmine de cult l. 3. c. 7. for significant ceremonies But it savoureth of the flesh sayth the Def. to call our ceremonies carnall Why so I pray the Iewish ceremonies deserved that name you your selfe say even when they were in force and surely ours devised by man abused by idolaters without necessary use destitute of all promise and spirit are farre more worthy to be called carnall then Gods owne Ordinances Those were onely carnall because in comparison they were externall heavie dull things but ours are more heavie and dull and beside they are sinfully carnall as hath beene proved But what souÌ„dnesse doth this savour of that the Def. sayth generally of the Iewish Ceremonies they signifyed first and primarily outward and carnall promises shadowing heavenly things onely under a second veile I will not exagitat this assertion because it is in the by SECT VI. HEre an objection is fained out of the Abridgment pag. 34. I say fained because there is none such found in the place quoted That which is there spoken concerning other Popish ceremonies is a sixt proofe of the second Argument distinct from the fift wherto that of Christian liberty doth belong That also is handled by the Def. c. 3. l. 7. and there maintained against him So that this might well be omitted Yet because there is some force in the consequence let us heare his Defence The objection which he frameth is this If these Ceremonies do not take away our Christian liberty and in snare the consciences of men by their imposition how shall not the Popish Ceremonies be excusable and free from accusation in this behalfe His answer is that Popish Ceremonies doe infringe Christian liberty both in regard of their nature and also in regard of their number And of both these M. Calvin giveth witnesse I answer 1. for the nature it hath beene shewed before that a multitute of Popish Ceremonies have no other nature necessity allowed unto them by the learned Papists then ours have by the Defendant himselfe See for this Bellarmine de effect sacr c. 30. That which M r. Calvin saith of this point is true notwithstanding in regard of the conceit which is commonly among the simple Papists fostered by unlearned Monkes Friers and other Priests for filthy lucre sake 2. The comparisons which M r. Calvin use viz. That it is held among the Papists a greater wickednesse to omitt auricular Confession then to live impiously eat flesh on fasting dayes then to live in fornication to worke on Saints holy dayes then to act mischiefe c. These he gathereth principally froÌ„ that practise of the Papists whereby they punish more severely the breach of their Ceremonies then of Gods Law Now this is not onely practised by our Prelates but also maintained by this Defendant chap. 2. sect 12. with such faire pretence as the Papists may well use for the Defense of their practise 3. As for the multitude of Ceremonies among the Papists that maketh their bondage greater then ours but doth it make ours none at all Besides when a few mysticall humaine Ceremonies are admitted the gate is set open for a multitude even untill the Convocation will say there be too many For Bellarmine himselfe will grant that Ceremonies are not to be multiplyed over much Fatemur Ceremonias non esse nimis multiplicandas de effsacr c. 30. but what is too much that must be left to to the judgement of the Church or Convocation saith he and the Defendant both SECT VII VIII IX X. IN all these Sections the Def. goeth about to teach us the doctrine which concerneth binding of mens consciâ—nces In the first his conclusion is good and sound God therfore and not man doth properly and directly binde the conscience of man It is sufficient therefore to note that it is an improper phrase to say that mens lawes doe binde mens consciences in respect that God commandeth to obey the just lawes of men for so as Gerson observeth the Phisitions praescripts should also binde a â—ick mans conscience in respect of Gods will whereby a sick man is tied to follow the good and wholesome counsell of his Phisition In the 8. Section two of our Divines are brought-in to prove that men are bound in conscience to observe the just lawes of Magistrates which none of us ever doubted of The 9. Section is spent in proving that Ecclesiasticall lawes have as great force in respect of conscience as politicke Which if it bee granted yet nothing can from thence be concluded for the advantage of ceremonies unlawfully imposed But 1. it is diligently to be observed that the Church hath no commission for to make any lawes properly so called as I have formerly shewed in cap. 1. sect 16.2 The common received opinion of all our Divines is contrary to that which the Defendant heere saith as may be seene in Bellarmine de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 15. and Iunius Whitakers with the rest who writing against Bâ—llarmine doe not deny but defend that which he saith Lutherani Calvinistae omnes docent 3. The interrogatories which the Defendant ministreth unto us in this case doth not prove his Assertion For the Church is a Society but not compleat if it be considered as not comprehending Christ the Head and onely Law maker of it Breach of peace is not a sinne against an Ecclesiasticall but a divine law Obedience is to be yeelded unto lawfull Ecclesiasticall Governours when they bring the charge of Christ whose Ministers they are See D r. Whitakers de Pont. Rom. cont 4. q. 7. c. 2. ad 12. The Kings stamp but with an act of Parliament maketh a law in England As for Apostolicall constitution to which our canons are as like as Apples are to Oisters the same answere which Doctor Whithakers cont 4. q. 7. c. 2. ad 5. with other of our Divines giveth to Bellarmine may serve for our Defendant In the 10. Sect. he setteth downe nothing but that which he knoweth we all grant SECT XI AGainst the Accusation of contempt there was as it seemeth alledged by M. Nic. that by the same reason that Non-conformity is contempt bowling disusing of capps such habites prescribed should be contempt Heere the Defendant first bringeth divers interpretation out of the Casualists and then taketh one for granted without rendring of any reason that he may by it excuse bowling and disuse of cappes But what if wee take hold of another interpretation esteeming the obligation by the intent of the Law-makers