And 2. because the way of those times did cause men to suspect that somewhat worse was intended to be brought in by such preparatives especially when the Ministers were cast out § 52. 8. But of all our Ceremonies there is none that I have more suspected to be simply unlawfull then the Cross in Baptism The rest as I have said I should have submitted to rather then hinder the Service or Peace of the Church had I been put to it For living in those daies in a Priviledged place I had my liberty in all save Daies and the Gesture But this I durst never meddle with And yet I know that many think it as reasonable and more venerable then any of the rest Yet dare I not peremptorily say that it is unlawfull nor will I condemn either Antients or Moderns that use it nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it more then my own forbearance will make only my own practice I was forced to suspend and must do if it were again imposed on me till I were better satisfied The Reasons that most move me I shall give you in the end but some of them take at the present § 53. 1. This is not the meer circumstance of a Duty but a substantial humane ordinance of worship nor is it necessary in genere that man ordain any such symbolical Mystical signs for Gods worship And therefore it is a matter totally exempt from humane Power There must be some Time some place some gesture some vesture some utensils c. But you cannot say that There must be some teaching symbols or mystical signs stated by humane institution in Gods worship There is no command to man in Scripture de genere to institute any such thing And therefore in the case of Circumstantials I shall usually of which more anon obey the Magistrate even where he doth mistake because it is his own work though he misdoe it But here his action is like that of a judge in alieno foro in another court where he hath no power and therefore his judgement is null It is not an act of Authority to make and state new mystical signs that are such in their primary use in Gods worship For there is no Power but of God And God hath given no such power They that say he hath let them prove it if they can Natural and Artificial helps we disallow not But Instituted signs that have what they have by Institution and that as a solemn stated ordinance I know not that ever God required or accepted from the invention of man I doubt this will prove a meer usurpation and nullity and worse § 54. 2. Yea I suspect it will prove a humane Sacrament either fully a Sacrament or so neer a kin to Sacraments as that man hath nothing to do to institute it The common prayer saith that a Sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace given to us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof in the Catech. Let us try by this definition whether the Cross in Baptism as used in England be a Sacrament § 55. And 1. I may take it for granted that the want of the Name makes it not to be no Sacrament And 2. whereas in the definition it is said that it is ordained by Christ himself that belongs to a Divine Sacrament only and not to a humane Sacrament devised by usurpers Otherwise you must say that there is no such thing possible as a humane Sacrament imposed by usurpers on the Church what if all the essentials of a Sacrament such as are found in Baptism and the Lords supper be invented by man and forced on the Church is it therefore no Sacrament or only no Divine Sacrament However let us not differ about bare names and words It is the same thing that you call a Sacrament when God is the ordainer and sure it will not prove it lawfull because man is the ordainer that 's it that makes it unlawfull because he wants authority and acts as an usurper The Papists affirm that man hath not power to make new Sacraments no not the Pope himself Let not us go further § 56. And 1. the outward visible sign here is the Cross made in the fore-head 2. The inward and Spiritual grace is a holy Resolution to fight manfully under the banner of Christ and to persevere therein The Cross signifieth the Instrument of the sufferings of Christ aad that we do own this Crucified Saviour and are not ashamed of him and will manfully fight under him So that here is 1. a signification of Grace to be wrought on the Soul and given us by God 2. an engagement to perform the duties of the Covenant our selves On Gods part we are to receive by this sign both Qualitative or actual Grace and Relative Grace 1. The Cross is to teach our understandings and help our memories and quicken up our dull affections by minding us of a Crucified Christ and the benefits of his Cross. § 57. That it is ordained for this use appeareth from the words anon to be recited in the use of it and by those words prefixed before the the Common prayer-book of Ceremonies why some are abolished and some retained where they say that they be not darke and dumb Ceremonies but are so set forth that every man may understand what they do mean and to what use they do serve and that they are such as are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified So that this and such other if there be more such are appointed by their signification to teach the Understanding and stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God Which are good works but to be done only by good means § 58. And that this is a way of working Grace in the same kind as Gods word and Sacraments do is undeniable For the word and Sacraments do work Grace but Morally by propounding the object and so objectively Teaching Remembring and Exciting and thus working on the Understanding Memory and Will and Affections However the spirit may work within its certain that the ordinances work no otherwise And not only Protestants are agreed on this but one would think that the Jesuits and all of their mind should be most of all for it For faculties they that will not confess any Physical determination of the but make all operations both of Word Sacraments and Spirit it self to be but suasory or Moral one would think should hold more tenaciously then others that Sacraments work Grace but Morally And if no Sacraments do more then objectively Teach and excite and the Cross is appointed to do as much in this then there is no difference between them to be found § 59. And then for Relative Grace it is plain that by
them when written and the like after the printing for the collecting the Errata of the Press I find by this hasty review and by some observation of mens readiness to misunderstand me that it is necessary to speak a little more about the following particulars that I may be understood by such as are willing to understand me and the mistakes of others I shall easily bear Sect. 1. Pag. 89. There is somewhat that requireth correction of the pen and somewhat that requireth explication In translating that passage of Ignatius Unus panis qui pro omnibus fractus est must be written next effusus est before unus Calix And for the following objection though it was made by a discreet person yet I know no ground for it unless Is. Vossius his Edition leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I have not now at hand but is likelyest I know not of any Greek copy that leaves it out Indeed Bishop Ushers Latine doth and the Vulgar Latine leaves out the translation of the next words before it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which saith Bishop Usher Ex interpretatione hac excidisse videantur And noting the corruption of the Vulgar Translation in this very place I there premised to my Answer that it might occasion a change in the Text that it hath done so in many places I think is easie to prove but that it hath done so here there is no probability if any Greek Copy be as is objected and the Reasons of my conjecture of the possibility are so little for a probability that as I express them not so I think them not worth the expressing but rather bid you take that as non dictum Though of the general I find Bishop Usher himself saying both of his Latine Version Ex eâ solâ integritati suae restitui posse Ignatium polliceri non ausim and of the first Greek Edition Hanc reliqui sequuti sunt editores non ex Graco aliquo codice alio sed partim ex ingenio partim ex vetere Vulgato Latino Interprete non paucis in locis eandem corrigentes Epist. ad Lect. ante Annot. pag. 26. Dissert Sect. 2. I must intreat the Reader to observe that my drift in this writing is not so much to oppose any form of Government meerly as contrary to the Institution or Apostolical Rule as to plead against that which I take to be destructive to the Ends of Government Not that I desire not a careful adhering to the sacred Rule but 1. Because I suppose that many circumstantials of Discipline undetermined in the Word are feigned by some to be substanstantial necessary things and that many matters are indifferent that some lay the Peace if not the being of the Church upon 2. Because I so far hate contention that if any Government contrary to my Iudgement were set up that did not apparently in the nature of it wrong the Church I would silently live under it in peace and quietness and accordingly would be now loth to enter a quarrel with any Writers that differ from us in tolerable things But if I know that their judgement reduced to practice is like to be the undoing of many souls and to cast Discipline almost wholly out of the Church I think it better to displease them then let them undo the Church without contradiction The best is the serious Christians of this age have experience to help them to understand the case and I suppose my Disputation to be unto them as if I Disputed before a man that is restored from want or banishment or sickness whether he should be reduced to the Condition from which he is restored Sect. 3. Some passages here will occasion the Question as p. 5. Whether and how far Church Government is jure Divino But of this in the main I am agreed with them that I dispute To speak further my own judgement is 1. That the Spirit of God hath established all the Officers and worship-Ordinances of his Church and that no new Church-office or Ordinance of worship as to the substance may be instituted by man 2. But that there are many Circumstantials about the Exercise of those Offices and Ordinances that are not determined particularly by a Law but are left to humane prudence to determine of by the General directions of the Law And so I suppose that Bishops and Presbyters are but one Office of Gods institution but in the exercise of this Office if one for order be made a Moderator or President of the rest or by agreement upon a disparity of parts or interest do unequally divide their work between them in the exercise it is a thing that may be done and is fit where the Edification of the Church requireth it but not a thing that always must be done nor is of it self a Duty but a thing indifferent The following Case therefore I hence resolve Sect. 4. Quest. Whether the Order of subject Presbyters might lawfully be created by Bishops or any humane Power and whether the Order of Bishops might lawfully be created for the avoiding of Schism by the consent of Presbyters or Metropolitans by Bishops Answ. If you understand by the word Order a distinct Office none may create any of these but God But if by Subject Presbyters be meant only men of the same Office with Bishops that do for the Churches benefit subject themselves to the direction or Presidency of another upon some disparity in their gifts or the like in the exercise of that Office I suppose that this is a thing that by Consent may be lawfully done And so I verily believe that betimes in the Church it was done of which anon So if by Bishops be meant no distinct Office but one of the Presbyters chosen from among the rest to exercise his Ministery in some eminency above the rest by reason of his greater Gifts or for Peace and Order I doubt not but it is a thing that consent may do And accordingly the Canon Law defines a Bishop that he is Unus è Presbyteris c. So if by a Metropolitan be not meant another Office but one in the same Office by reason of the advantage of his Seat chosen to some acts of Order for the common benefit I doubt not but it may be done but every such Indifferent thing is not to be made Necessary statedly and universally to the Church Sect. 5. When I do in these Papers plead that the Order of Subject Presbyters was not instituted in Scripture times and consequently that it is not of Divine Institution I mean as aforesaid that as a distinct Office or Species of Church ministers as to the Power from God it is not of Divine Institution nor a lawful Institution of man but that among men in the same Office some might Prudentially be chosen to an eminency of degree as to the exercise and that according to the difference of their advantages there might be a disparity in the use of their
among them that unchurch our Churches and degrade our Ministers and perswade all people to fly from them as a plague and try their doctrine their spirits their publick worship their private devotion and their whole conversation and when thou hast done come into our Assemblieâ— and spare not if thou be impartial to observe our imperfections judge of our Order and Discipline and Worship together with our Doctrine and our lives and when thou hast done unâ—church us if thou darest and if thou canst We justifie not our selves or our wayes from blemishes but if thou be but heartily a friend to the Bridegroom offer us then if thou darest a bill of divorce or rob him if thou darest of so considerable a portion of his inheritance Surely if thou be his friend thou canst hardly find in thy heart to deliver up so much of his Kingdom to his Enemy and to set the name of the Devil on his doors and say This is the house of Satan and not of Christ. If thou have received but what I have done though alas too little in those Societies and tasted in those Ordinances but that which I have tasted thou wouldst abhor to reproach them and cut them off from the portion of the Lord. Remember it is not Episcopacy nor the old conformity that I am here opposing My judgement of those Causes I have given in the foregoing and following disputation But it is only the New Prelatical Recusants or Separatists that draw their followers from our Churches as no Churches and our Ordinances of Worship as none or worse then none and call them into private houses as the meetest places for their acceptable worship Who would have thought that ever that generation should have come to this that so lately hated the name of separation and called those private meetings Conventicles which were held but in due subordâ—nation to Church meetings and not in opposition to them as theirs are Who would have thought that those that seemed to disown Recusancy and persecuted Separatists should have come to this Yea that those that under Catholick pretences can so far extend their charity to the Papists have yet so little for none of the meanest of their Brethren and for so many Reformed Protestant Churches Yea that they should presume even to censure ut out of the Catholick Church and consequently out of heaven it self I have after here given thee an instance in one Dr. Hide who brandeth the very front of his Book with these Schismatical uncharitable stâ—gmata The sensless Queres of one Dr. Swadling and others run in the same channel or sink If these men be Christians indeed me thinks they should understand that as great that I say not greater blemishes may be found on all the rest of the Churches as those for which the Reformed are by them unchurched and consequently they will deliver up All to Satan and Christ must be deposed And how much doth this come short of Infidelity At least me thinks their hearts should tremble least they hear at last In not loving theâ—e you loved not me in despising and reproaching these you despised and reproached me And yet these men are the greatest pretenders next the Romanists to Catholicisme Vnity and Peace Strange Catholicks that cut off so great and excellent a part of the Catholick Church And a sad kind of Vnity and Peace which all must be banished from that cannot unite in their Prelacy though the Episcopacy which I plead for in the next Disputation they can own The summ of their offer is that if all the Ministers not Ordained by Prelates will confess themselves to be meer Lay-men and no Ministers of Christ and will be Ordained again by them and if the Churches will confess themselves No Churches and receive the essence of Churches from them and the Sacrament and Churh Assemblies to be Null invalid or unlawfull till managed only by Prelatical Ministerâ— then they will have Peace and Communion with us and not till then And indeed must we buy your Communion so deer As the Anabaptists do by us in the point of Baptism so do these Recusants in the point of Ordination You must be Baptized saith one party for your Infant Baptism wat none You must be Ordained saith the other sort for your Ordination by Presbyters was none The upshot is We must be all of their Opinions and parties before we can have their Communion or to be reputed by them the Ministers and Churches of Christ. And on such kind of terms as these we may have Vnity with any Sect. If really we be not as hearty friends to Order and Discipline in the Church as they we shall give them leave to take it for our shame and glory in it as their honour But the question is not whether we must have Church-Order but whether it must be theirs and none but theirs Nor whether we must have Discipline but whether it must be only theirs Nay with me I must profess the question is on the other side whether we must needs have a Name and shew of Discipline that 's next to none or else be no Churches or no Ministers of Christ The main reason that turneth my heart against the English Prelacy is because it did destroy Church Discipline and almost destroy the Church for want of it or by the abuse of it and because it is as then exercised inconsistent with true Discipline The question is not whether we must have Bishops and Episcopal Ordination We all yield to that without contradiction But the doubt is about their Species of Episcopacy Whether we must needs have Ordination by a Bishop that is the sole Governour over an hundred or two hundred or very many particular Churches or whether the Bishops of single Churches may not suffice at least as to the Being of our office I plead not my own cause but the Churches For I was ordained long ago by a Bâ—shop of their own with Presbyters But I do not therefore take my self to be disengaged from Christianity or Catholâ—cism and bound to lay by the Love which I owe to all Christs members or to deny the Communion of the Churches which is both my Duty and I am sure an unvaluable Mercy And I must say that I have seen more of the Ancient Discipline exercised of late without a Prelate in some Parish Church in England than ever I saw or heard of exercised by the Bishops in a thousand such Churches all my dayes And it is not Names that are Essential to the Church nor that will satisfie our expectations We are for Bishops in every Church And for Order sake we would have one to be the chief We dislike those that disobey them in lawful things as well as you But let them have a flock that is capable of their personal Government and then we shall be ready to rebuke all those that separate from them when we can say as Cyprian Epist. 69. ad Pupian Omnis Ecclesiae populus
occasioning the disorders of other men It s better that men be disorderly saved then orderly damned and that the Church be dissorderly preserved then orderly destroyed God will not alllow us to suffer every Thief and Murderer to rob or kill our neighbours for fear lest by defending them we occasion men to neglect the Magistrate Nor will he allow us to let men perish in their sickness if we can help them for fear of encouraging the ignorant to turn Physitians 2. There is no part of Gods service that can be used without occasion of sin to the perverse Christ himself is the fall as well as the rising of many and is a stumbling stone and Rock of offence and yet not for that to be denyed There is no just and reasonable cause of mens abuse in the doctrine which I here express 3. True Necessity will excuse and Justifie the unordained before God for exercising their Abilities to his service But pretended counterfeit necessity will not Justifie any And the final judgement is at hand when all things shall be set strait and true Necessity and counterfeit shall be discerned 4. Until that day things will be in some disorder in this world because there is sin the world which is the disorder But our Remedies are these 1. To teach men their duties truly and not to lead them into one evill to prevent another much less to a mischief destructive to mens souls to prevent disorder 2. The Magistrate hath the sword of justice in his hand to restrain false pretenders of Necessity and in order thereto it is he and not the pretender that shall be judge And 3. The Churches have the Power of casting the pretenders if the case deserve it out of their communion and in order thereto it is not he but they that will be Judges And other remedies we have none till the last day Sect. 54. Quest. But what would you have men do that think there is a Necessity of their labours and that they have Ministerial abilities Answ. 1. I would have them lay by pride and selfishness and pass judgement on their own Abilities in Humility and self-denyal If their Corruptions are so strong that they cannot that is they will not do this that 's long of themselves 2. They must not pretend a Necessity where is none 3. They must offer themselves to the Tryal of the Pastors of the Church that best know them 4. If in the judgement of the godly able Pastors that know them they are unfit and there is no need of them they must acquiesce in their judgement For able Godly men are not like to destroy the Church or envy help to the souls of men 5. If they have cause to suspect the Pastors of Corruption and false judgement let them go to the other Pastors that are faithfull 6. If all about us were corrupt and their judgements not to be rested in and the persons are assured of their Ability for the Ministry let them consider the State of the Church where they are And if they are sure on Consultation with the wisest men that there is a Necessity and their endeavours in the Ministry are like to prevent any notable hurt without a greater hurt let them use them without Ordination if they cannot have it But if they find that the Churches are so competently supplied without them that there is no Necessity or none which they can supply without doing more hurt by offence and disorder then good by their labours let them forbear at home and go into some other Countries where there is greater need if they are fit there for the work if not let them sit still Sect. 55. Argument 4. If unordained men may Baptize in case of Necessity then may they do other Ministerial works in case of Necessity But the Antecedent is the opinion of those that we now dispute against And the Consequence is grounded on a Parity of Reason No man can shew more for appropriating the Eucharist then Baptisme to the Minister CHAP. IV. An uninterrupted Succession of Regular Ordination is not Necessary Sect. 1. HAving proved the Non-necessity of Ordination it self to the Being of the Ministry and Validity of their administrations I may be the shorter in most of the rest because they are sufficiently proved in this If Ordination it self be not of the Necessity which the adversaries do assert then the Regularity of Ordination cannot be of more Necessity then Ordination itself Much less an uninterrupted Succession of such Regular Ordination Yet this also is asserted by most that we have now to do with Sect. 2. By Regular Ordination I mean in the sence of the adversaries themselves such as the Canons of the Church pronounce not Null and such as by the Canons was done by such as had Authority to do it in special by true Bishops even in their own sence Sect. 3. And if the uninâ—errupted succession be not Necessary then neither is such Ordination at this present Necessary to the being of the Ministry For if any of our predecessors might be Ministers without it others in the like case may be so too For we live under the same Law and the Office is the same thing now as it was then Sect. 4. Argument 1. If uninterrupted Regular Ordination of all our Predecessors be Necessary to the Being of the Ministry then no man can know that he is truly a Minister of Christ. But the Consequent is false and intolerable therefore so is the Antecedent Sect. 5. The truth of the Minor is apparent thus 1. If we could not be sure that we are true Ministers then no man could with comfort seek the Minstry nor enter into upon it For who can have encouragement to enter a calling when he knows not whether indeed he enter upon it or not and whether he engage not himself in a course of sin and be not guilty as Vzza of medling with the Ark unlawfully especially in so great and tender a case where God is so exceeding jealous Sect. 6. And 2. who can go on in the Calling of the Ministry and comfortably do the work and bear the burden that cannot know through all his life or in any administration whether he be a Minister or a Usurper What a damp must it cast upon our spirits in Prayer Praise administration of the Eucharist and all publick worship which should be performed with the greatest alacrity and delight when we remember that we are uncertain whether God have sent us or whether we are usurpers that must one day hear Who sent you Whence had you your Power and who required this at your hands Sect. 7. And the Consequence of the Major that we are all uncertain of our Call and office both Papists and Protestants is most clear in case of the Necessity of such successive Ordination For 1. No man ever did to this day demomstrate such a succession for the Proof of his Ministry Nor can all our importunity
of his Government and Justice And the laying the hand upon the Book or Kissing it is but a Professing sign of my own Intentions such as my words themselves are and therefore is left to humane choice and a lawfull thing And I have met but with very few among all our Ceremonies that questioned this § 45. 5. And for Organs or other instruments of Musick in Gods worship they being a Help partly natural and partly artificial to the exhilarating of the spirits for the praise of God I know no argument to prove 〈◊〉 simply unlawfull but what would prove a cup of wine unlawful or the tune and meeter and melodie of singing unlawful But yet if any would abuse it by turning Gods worship into carnal Pomp and levity especially by such non-intelligible singing or bleating as some of our Choristers used the Common people would have very great reason to be weary of it aâ— accidentally evil § 46. 6. And as for Holy daies there is great difference between them Those are lyable to most question that are obtruded on the Church with the greatest confidence As for such daies as are appointed upon some emergent occasions that arose since Scripture was indited and are not common to all times and places of the Church there is no more question whether the Magistrate may command them or the Pastors agree upon them then whether a Lecture-day or fast-day or thansgiving-day may be commanded or agreed on some time for Gods worship besides the Lords Day must be appointed And God having not told us which the Magistrate may on fit occasions And this is no derogation from the sufficiency of Scripture For the occasion of the day was not exâ—stent when the Scripture was written such occasions are various according to the various state of the Church in several ages and Countries And therefore to keep an Anniversary day of Thanksgiving such as we keep on the fifth of November for our deliverance from the Papists powder plot is no more questionable then to keep a â—ecture Nor for my part do I make any scruple to Keep a Day in Remembrance of any eminent servant of Christ or Martyr to praise God for their doctrine or example and honour their Memorial But the hardest part of the Question is whether it be lawfull to keep daies as holy in celebrating the memorial of Christs Nativity Circumcision Fasting Transfiguration Ascention and such like And the great reasons of the doubt are 1. Because the occasions of these holy daies was existent in the Apostles daies and therefore if God would have had such daies observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other the like thingâ— 2. And this is a business that if it were Necessary would be Equally necâ—ssary to all Ages and Parts of the Catholick Church And therefore it cannot be necessary but it must be the Matter of an universal Law And God hath made no such Law in Scripture And â—o Scripture sufficiency as the Catholick Rule of faith and universal Divine obediâ—nce is utterly overthrown which if we grant and turn Papists to day we shall have as strong temptations to make us turn Infidels to morrow so poor is their evidence for the supplemental Traditional Law of God 3. And God himself hath already appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for For the Lords Day is to commemorate the Resurrection as the great Triumphant act of the Redeemer implying all the rest of his works so that though it be principally for the Resurrectiâ—n above any single work of Christ yet also for all the work of Redemption And the whole is on that day to be commemoraâ—ed with holy Joy and Praise Now when God himself hath set apart one day in every week to commemorate the whole work of Redemption it seems an accusing of his Institutions of insufficiency to come after him to mend them and say we must have an anniversary day for this or that part of the work 4. The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man is not to presume to make the like Else why may we not turn the ten commandments into twenty or a hundred But it seems a doing the same or of like nature to what God hath done in the fourth commandment if any will make a necessary staâ—ed holy day to the universal Church 5. And it seems also that these Holy daies excepting Easter and Whitsontide and other Lords daies are but of later iâ—troduction Many passages of Antiquity seem to intimate that Christmas Day it self was not of many hundred years after Christ. I remember not any before Gregory Nâ—zianzene that seem to speak of it The allegations out of spurious authors and that of later date such as the counterfeit Clement Dionysius Cyprian c. are brought to deceive and not to convince 6. Yea more the time was a matter of controversie among the Churches of the East and West for many â—undred years after Christ Epiphanius and the Churches of Iudaea and all those Eastern parts took the sixth of Ianuary to be the day see Casaubones Exercitat on this and Cloppenburgius more fully in Thâ—s Chrysostome saith it was but ten years before he wrote that Homilie that the Church at Constantinople was perswaded by them at Rome to change their account of the day And is it possible that when for about four hundred years or more the Churches were utterly disagreed of the day that it was then Commonly kept as an Holy day The keeping oâ— it would sure have kepâ— a common knowledge of the day Or at least the difference of observation would have raised conâ—ention as the difference about Easter did can any believe that the famous Council of Nice and the vigilant Emperour that were so exceeding impatient of a diversity of observations of Easter would have let a diverse observation of Christmas alone without once thinking or speaking of it when they were gathered about the like work if the Church had commonly observed it then as a Holy day Or was the Church of Iudaea where Christ arose in any likelyhood to have lost the true account of the day if it had been observed by Apostolical Tradition from the beginning 7. And it seems that God did purposely deny us the observation of this Day in that he hath certainly kept the time unknown to the world The confidence of some bewrayes but their ignorance Chronologers are never like to be agreed of the year much less of the moneth or day some think we are four years too late some two years c. Many think that Christ was born about October as Scaliger Broughton Beroaldus c. and many still hold to the old Eastern opinion for the Epiphany being the Nativity on Ian. 6. and others are for other times but none are certain of the time 8. Sure we are where there is no Law there is
9. As for them that cry out of Confusion and Sacriledge and irreligiousness and I know not what if Ceremonies be not constantly used and all forced to them but be used with an indifferency the distempers of their own souls contracted by such Customs is a sufficient argument to move a sober considerate man to desire that the Church may be delivered from such endangering customs They do but tell us that custom hath made cerâ—monies become their very Religion And what a kind of Religion is that CHAP. XIV Reasons against the Imposing of our late Controverted Mysticall Ceremonies as Crossing Surplice c. § 1. HOW far Ceremonies are lawfull or unlawfull to the users I have shewed sufficiently already and therefore may omit the fourteenth Proposition as discussed before But so eager are the minds of men to be exalting themselves over the whole world and puting yoaks on their Brethrens necks even in the matters of God and setting up their own wills to be the Idols and Law-givers to all others that I take it for the principal part of my task to give in my Reasons against this distemper and to try if it be possible to take men off from Imposing or desiring the Imposition of unnecessary things I durst not desire the Imposing of our Mysticall Ceremonies but had rather they were abolished or left indifferent for these followings Reasons § 2. Reas. 1. To impose 〈◊〉 symbolical Rites upon the Church which Christ hath not imposed doth seem to me to be an usurpation of his Soveraign power It belongeth to him to be the Law-giver of his Church No man hath Power to make him a new worship Officers are but to see his Laws executed and to determine only of such circumstances as are needfull for the well executing them To make new Symbols or instituted signs to teach and excite Devotion is to make new humane Ordinances whereas it belongs to us only to use well such as he hath made and to make no Laws but such as are thus needfull for the executing of his Laws But of all this I have more largely spoken already § 3. Reas. 2. The imposing of these Mystical Rites doth seem to accuse Christ of ignorance or negligence in that he hath not himself imposed them when he hath taken upon him that Royall office to which such Legislation doth belong If Christ would have such Rites imposed on the Churches he could better have done it himself then have left it to man For 1. These being not mutable circumstances but the matter of standing Laws are equaâ—ly necessary or unnecessary to this age of the Church as to that in which Christ lived upon earth and to those Countreys in which he conversed as to these If Images Crossing significant garments c. be needfull to be imposed in England why not in Iudaea Galatia Cappadocia 〈◊〉 c. And if they are needfull now why not then No man can give a rational cause of difference as to this necessity If therefore Christ did neither by himself nor by his Apostles who formed the first Churches and delivered us his mind by the Spirit institute and impose these Rites then either the imposing of them is needless and consequently noxious or else you must say that Christ hath omitted a needfull part of his Law and worship which implies that he was either ignorant what to do or careless and neglective of his own affairs which are not to be imagined Moses left nothing out of the Law that he delivered that was to be the standing matter of the Law nor omitted he any thing that God required in the instituting of the Legal worship But Christ was faithfull to him that appointed him as Moses was in all his house Heb. 3.2.3 therefore certainly Christ hath omitted nothing that was to be a standing Gospel Law and Worship nor done his work imperfectly § 4. Reas. 3. And as this Imposition of Mystical Rites doth imply an accusation of Christ so doâ—h it imply an accusation of his Laws and of the holy Scriptures as if they were insufficient For if it belong to Scripture sufficiency to be the full revelation of the will of God concernng Ordinances of worship and duties of universal or stated Necessity then must we not imagine that any such are left out If Scripture be Gods Law it is a perfect law And if it belong to it as a Law to impose one stated Symbol Ordinance or matter of worship then so it doth to impose the rest of the same nature that are fit to be imposed If we will do more of the same that Scripture was given for to do we accuse it while we seem to amend it § 5. Reas. 4. And by this means we shall be brought to a loss for the Rule of our Religion For if once we leave the holy Scriptures we shall not know where to fix If God have not instituted all the Ordinances of Worship such as Sacramental or Mystical Rites c. that are meet to be statedly Imposed on the Churches then we are uncertain who is to be the institutor of them The Pope will claim it and General Councils will claim it and Provincial Councils and particular Bishops will claim it and Princes will claim it and we shall be at a loss for our Religion § 6. Reas. 5. But whoever it be that will be the master of our Religion they will certainly be men and so it will become a humane thing Whereas Divine worship supposeth a Divine institution and it is an act of obedience to God and therefore supposeth a Law of God For without a Divine Law there cannot be obedience to God § 7. Reas. 6. These impositions seem to be plain violations of those prohibitions of God in which we are forbidden to add to his worship or diminish from it As Deut. 12.32 What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Object But we add nothing to the Word of God though we impose such Mystical Rites as he imposeth not Answ. The text doth not say Thou shalt not add to my Command but Thou shalt not add to the thing that I command thee It is the Work Worship or Ordinances that you are forbidden to add to or diminish from and not the Word or Law it self only § 8. Reas. 7. It seemeth to be a very great height of Pride that is manifested in these impositions 1. When men dare think themselves wise enough to amend the work of Christ and his Apostles and wise enough to amend the holy Scriptures is not this exceeding Pride How can man more arrogantly lift up himself then by pretending himself to be wiser then his Maker and Redeemer Is it not bad enough to equalize your selves with him unless you exalt your selves above him If you do not so what mean you by coming after him to correct his Laws or mend his work and make better laws and ordinances for his Church then he