good evill You are therfore an hypocriticall church which hath nothing sound in it and substantiall but all things fayned and paynted But you are not that true church that bride beseeming our Saviour who stayes her self upon the truth alone and the Spirit of God He speaketh these things of thâ—se which under the name of Representative churches imposed their inventions upon true churches without Scripture which is a true representation of our representative convocation 5. The Rej. confesseth that this Hierarchicall convocation is humaine and not divine and he will not denye but Christians and Christian congrâ—gations are Divine Now what a monstrous and preposterous generation then doth he make as it were in a Chymaericall dreame of Divine Children proceeding from humaine mothers and grandmothers Our Saviour was of another mynd when he made these two opposite from earth and from heaven The Rej. hath found out so great consent betweene these two that earth may be the mother and grandmother of heaven Besyde the humaine mother of Divine children is not of their heavenly fathers choise nor by him appointed to beare the person of their true mother But she was first putt into this office by the presumption of men and afterward authorised by the Archmother of Rome continuing her profession by sleight might to represent those from whom she can show no other letters of credence for the power she usurpeth then she maketh her self or hath gotten by stealth from civill power 6. This representative mother is very seldome exstant viz when ther is a Parliament which now we have not had these diverse yeares And when she appeareth she can give no milk to her children further then she hath commission from man None of her children can have accesse unto her only she appointed many yeares since certaine servants of hers with restraint of their fathers allowance to dyet them with drye ceremonies and scourge them with silencing deprivation excommunication if they fynd fault with that provision which is very pap with a hatchet Is not such a mother worthy grand titles and honor 7. The examples of such motherhood which the Rej. fetcheth from the assemblyes of Israell Scotland and our Parliament have no agreement For 1. we read of no assemblyes of Elders by office in Israell from whence all other were excluded stiled either Mothers of Israell or all Israell Neither was there in any such assemblyes this motherly authority exercised of appointing humaine sacred Ceremo unto Israell 2. The assemblyes of Scotland before Perth had no such state as our convocation nor power of commaunding but only advized of and directed those things which God had appointed and the churches were knowen to desire yet might their judgment be well called the judgment of the church of Scotland because they pronounced nothing but that which all the churches of Scotland did publikely professe even in their solemne confession 3. Our Parliament is not stiled the Mother common wealth of England yet in civill affaires more liberty is left for stile and power unto publike assemblies then in religious But if the lower house of Parliament were not more freely chosen and of greater power then the poore lower house of Convocation a quaere might be made whether the state or common wealth of England were there or no. Now for the second way of one church by association and combination of all particular churches into one profession worship and discipline This is good thus farr and the very same with that collective consideration which the Repl. mentioned and the Rej. termed a new mistie inexplicable nothing except combination doth mistyly cover under it the swallowing up of particular congregations by Nationall Provinciall Diocesan churches But â—s for that clause that this must needs include such orders and offices as our Hyerarchye this is either a begging or a stealing of the mayne quaestion For 1. this Hierarchye consisteth of officers and orders by the Rej. owne confession humaine not divine now associaâ—ion of profession worship and discipline may certainly be had by officers and orders divine 2. The reformed churches of France have their association and combinaâ—ion without any Hierarchye 3. The Hierarchye doth not associate churches under it but subdue all to it self so that as the Pope is sometyme esteemed the Church of Rome and sometyme he with his assistants so is our Hierarchye in England Beza de ecclesia notis paulo ante finom Ego Pontifieijs libâ—nter relinquo totum istuÌ„ Episcopatuâ— gradum cuius aperté dicâ— Spiritum Sanctum non suissâ— authorem sed humanam prudentiam cui nisi animadvertimus Deum maledixissâ— corte nihil nâ— nunc quidem videmus viperam insinu fovemus quae tursus matrem neâ—abit Beza in his notes of the church not farr from the end giveth warning of this I most willingly leave the wholl frame of Episcopall authority to the Papists of which I openly professe the Holy Spirit of God was never the author but humaine policy which if we do not observe to be accursed by God we certainly as yet see nothing at all and nourish we do a viper in our bosomes which will kill the mother This prophecy is too true of the Hierarchye as in other respects so in this that it seemeth to devoure our mother churches title liberty right and power and in a great part hath prevailed 9. It was added by the Replyer that the Hyerarchye is a creature of mans making and may more lawfully be removed when it pleaseth man then ever she was by him erected To this the Rej. answereth confessing that sundry offices and orders in our church are humaine and not divine adding that accidentall formes of discipline are not determined in the word of God but left in the churches liberty to devise as all but Anabaptists and such as edge too neare upon them consent Which words are worthy of a note or two For he 1. acknowledgeth our Hierarchye of Archbishops Bâ— Deanes Archdeacons c. to be creatures of mans making not divine Now of these principally consist our convocated mother church as it s well knowen a few ministers being added to her for fashion sake so that this church is a church of man not of God by his owne confession and this church is sayd to be devised by the church now it soundeth strangly A church of the churches devising Nor know I well what the devising church of England can be The Rej. telleth us that there be but two wayes of considering the Church of England as one either in the convocation house or in that combination which must needs sayth he include the orders and officers pertaining therunto Now in both of these wayes Hierarchicall orders and officers are supposed and included so that the Church of England neither of these wayes could possibly devise these orders and officers 3. The distinction used betwixt the essentialls of discipline and the accidentall formes thereof is oâ—scure And if these termes may be
which the times favour and therfore strive to make somthing of that which maketh nothing for them In the former section when Order Decencie and Edification should have been handled as Rules according to the title of the digression the Rejoynder soddainly breaketh off referring them to a fitter place Now here in this place he was constreined to touche upon them but so softly and sparinglie that it appeareth he founde this no fitter place then the former for those reserved considerations When shall we come to the fitter place SECT 17. Concerning the ancient Fathers allowing of Humane Ceremonies 1. OF these the Repl. answered it cannot be proved nor is probable that from the first beginning of the Primitive Churche they brought in any new inventions Vpon this the Rej. accusing not him alone but others also that they can beleive no trueth crosse to their opinion because they seeke honour one of another praesume of their new traditions as if the spirit of trueth had come onely to them or from theÌ„ alone answereth that it is a matter of fact proved by Records of Churches against which nothing can be sayd But if he could keep-in his passion so longe as to hear this onely word that there are no sufficient Records of any suche thing exstant from the beginninge then he might see that sufficient answer is given unto the name of all Fathers allways Yet I will adde one conjecture to shew that those observations which seem to have been universall in the Primitive Churche were not so in deed without exception Praying toward the East hath as ancient testimonie as any other humane Rite Tertullian Apol. cap. 16. witnesseth that that was one cause why the Christians were esteemed to worship the Sunne And yet Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. doeth witnesse that at Antioche which was the first Churche of Christians by name they used not to place their Mysteries which directed their posture of prayer toward the East but rather toward the West And why may we not conceyve the like of Easter as well as of this East observation 2. It was secondly answered that those Feasts which the Primitive Churche is sayd to have observed were not by Canonicall imposition but voluntarie accommodation to the infirmitie of some as appeareth by the varietie of their observation and Socrates his testimonie Marke now what a Rejoynder is given 1. Hee telleth us of a strange conjecture of his even from this answer viz. that the Churches held it not onely lawfull but also convenient to impose upon themselves suche Feasts As if occasionall accommodation were all one with imposition or voluntarie joining in action for the good that is in it were always a certaine argument of holding that opinion which others doe affixe unto it But if they had thought them so coÌ„venieÌ„t yet that Arg. would be of litle force For many Ceremonies were thought then convenient which longe since are universally thought otherwise of therfor left off though no reason of inconvenience can be shewed which did not agree to those times as well as to succeeding times except further abuse which cannot be denied of our Ceremonies in question as religious use of milke hony absteyning from washing ones hands for certayn days after Baptisme etc. 2. That which was mentioned of infirmitie occasioning this accommodation the Rej. after his manner crieth downe as a fiction boldly delivered without proof or colour meerly for opposition sake Wheras notwithstanding it is so clear that the infirmitie of men newly converted from Iudaisme and Gentilisme did bringe into Christian Churches customes like unto those in use amonge Iews and Gentils that Cardinall Baronius from that ground mainteyneth many Ceremonies Quid mirum si imolitat apud Gentiles adde etiam Iudaeos consuetudines a quibus eos quamvis Christiani effecti essent penipus posse divelli impossibile videretur easdem in Dei cultum transferri sanctissimi Episcopi cineessetunt ad an 58. p. 606. What wonder if the growen customes among the Gentiles and we may add the Iewes also were such as from which tho they were converted to Christianisme they were yet so hardly taken that it might seeme impossible to putt them quite off what wonder I say then if the most holy Bishops have graunted them place in the worship of God Doctor Iackson in his Originall of Idolatrie sect 4. chap. 23. sheweth the first occasion of Superstition in Christians to have been the infirmities wherby it came to passe that heathenish and Iewish Rites wherto men had been longe accustomed could not easily be extirpated Where also about suche accommodations he hath this remarkable observation To outstrip our adversaries in their owne policies or to use meanes abused by others to a better ende is a resolution so plausible to wordly wisedome that even Christians have mightilie overreached and intangled themselves by too muche seeking to circumvent or goe beyond others About the Varietie which was of olde in the observation of these feasts the Rejoynder answereth that it notwithstanding the agreement for the thinges themselves was universall Which if he would take with a graine of salt viz. that after some space of time it was for ought we know universall but not upon any Ecclesiasticall imposition nor upon any knowne groundes out of Gods word it is the same that the Repl. affirmeth and Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. laboreth to confirme 3. Mention was further made of the mischeife that came in by those humane observations To which the Rejoynder answereth that the Anniversarie solemnities have not obscured but praeserved that simplicitie of the Gospel And if they had so doen by accident Satans malice and mans frailtie that is nothing but what may be affirmed of Divine ordinances But 1. the Def. his position was in generall of universall Ceremonies by humane institution and not Feasts alone Now those first Ceremoniall observations are guiltie of opening that gate for all the humane praesumtions to enter into Gods house which pressed in after them which gate could never be shutte from that day to this 2. Those very Feasts made a composition or mixture of humane institutions with divine and therfore did not praeserve simplicitie They also were from their first rise not onely aequalled unto but also extolled above the Lords day Easter brought in a superstitions Lent to attend upon it made Baptisme wayt for her Moon and conformed our Lords Supper unto the Iewish Passeover in unleavened bread etc. It was the first apple of contention amonge Christians the first weapon wherwâ—â—h the Bishop of Rome played his prises against other Churches after slew so many Briâ—tons with by Austin the monke Holie-days in honor of Christ invited unto them Saints holy Days etc. 4. It is praesumtion to make mens inventions as guiltlesse of evill consequences as Gods holy ordinances They are active efficacious occasions given of evill these are onely passive occasions taken Neyther is ther any corruption of Gods ordinances whose originall
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
non-residents Pluralists c. Neither is this denied by the Rej. so manifeâ—â— is the truth of it Onely that he may not be altogetheâ— silent he alledgeth that this being true yet the Def. his speech standeth unshaken viz. Theis Ceremonies are established by Canons But I thinke if the Convocations be such as have beene shewed the credit and authority both of them and their Canons is so shaken that they can affoard little establishment to the Ceremonies iâ— any free judgment CHAP. XI Sect. 2. Concerning the good and evill which our Convocations have done AMong the Objections mentioned against our Convocations one appendix was that in memory of man they never concluded any thing for the comâ—on good of the Church more than by others was better done 〈◊〉 their hands but much evill hath come from them and more â—ould if their commission had served thereto Now because â—his is a weighty charge and enough to sleight all their â—uthority if it be true t is worthy to be severally and diâ—igently considered what their Advocate can alledge to the contrary If in this point he be brought to a nihil diâ—it then let him for ever holde his peace about such Convocations 1. The first answer is that the accusation is not true unâ—esse the Agreement of the Articles of Faith and Religion were not good But 1. this being graunted to be good yet the accusation may be true because this Act of An. 1571. can hardly be sayd to have beene concluded within the memory of man 2. It may well be quaestioned whether in this our Convocation hath done that which was not better done to their hands To which purpose it shall not be extravagant nor unprofitable to compare a little the Articles as they were set forth in King Edwards dayes Anno 1552. with the edition which the Convocation of Anno 1571. hath left us In the former we find this Article De Gratia Gratia Christi seu Spiritus Sanctus qui per eundem datur cor lapideum ausert dat cor carneum ex nolentibus qua recta sunt volentes facit ex volentibus prava nolentes reddit The Grace of Christ or the Holy Spirit which is given by him takes away the heart of stone and gives an heart of flesh such as were unwilling to things lawfull he makes willing and such as willed things unlawfull he makes unwilling Which Article is I know not wherefore left out in the later edition This I am sure of that if the sayd Article had beene renued in the same manner as it was first set downe it had beene one barre more than now is found against those among us which follow Arminius and his Remonstrants one warrant for publique preaching against them Secondly in the Arâ—iâ—le of Iustification it was before sayd that the doctrine by sole faith in that sense in which it is explained in the Homily of Iustifâ—cation Eâ— sensu quo in Homilia de Iustifâ—catione explicatur is most certaine Now in the later edition this most certaine is left out and for co sensu is putt in an ambiguous terme ut Whatsoever was the occasion or meaning of this change the former words were more full against those that broach new doctrines about Iustification such as D r. Iackson doeth in his booke of Iustifying Faith Thirdly in the Article oâ— Sacraments the former editioÌ„ had that the efficacy of theÌ„ is not from the worke done Ex opere operato quâ— vox ut perâ—â—ira est 〈◊〉 lite is 〈…〉 minime â—â—um 〈◊〉 adnâ—dâ—m superstitusum which expression in their Latine as it is strange and not knowne in holy writt so it carrieth wâ—th it a sense savouring little of piety but much of superstition Which words if they had beene still retained as they are not some superstitious conceites about the SacrameÌ„â—s might by them have beene suppressed Fourthly In the Article De Coena Domini the olde edition had theis words Seing it is required to the true being of humaine nature Qâ—â—m naturae huâ—anae veriâ—as requirat ut umus etusdem aâ— homiâ—is corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit sed in uno aliquo definitâ— loco esse operteat ideirco Christi corpus in multis diversis locis eodem tempore praesens esse non potest Et quontam ut tradunt sacrae literae Christus in coelum fuit sublatus ibi usque ad finem seculi est permansurus non debet quisguam fidelium carnis eius sanguinis realem corporalem ut lâ—quuÌ„tur praesentiam in Eucharistiâ vel credere vel profiteri that the body of one and the same man cannot be in many places at â—â—ce but must be in some one definite place therefore the body 〈◊〉 Christ cannot be present in many and diverse places at the â—â—me time And because as holy Scriptures deliver to us â—hrist was taken up into heaven and is there to remaine unto â—he end of the world none of the faithfull ought to believe or â—rofesse any reall and as they speake corporall presence of his â—â—esh and bloud in the Sacrament In the new edition all â—his is blotted out which yet had good use against the â—utheran errour of ConsubstantiatioÌ„ Fiftly In the Arâ—â—cle of Traditions theis words not found in the former â—dition are conveyed into the later Every particular or â—ational church hath authority of instituting chaÌ„ging or abroâ—ating Cere or Ecclesiasticall rites instituted onely by humaine â—uthority so that all be done to aedification This addition â—emeth to be added for the better advauncing of huâ—aine Ceremonies Sixtly The Article about the books â—f forme is very much transformed to the wronging of â—ubscribers Quaelibet Ecclesia particularis sive nationalis authoritatem habet instituendi mutandi aut abrogandi Ceremonias aut â—itus Ecclesiasticos humanâ taÌ„tùm authoritate institutes modo omnia ad aedificationem fiant For formerly it affirmed onely that the â—ooke of service and that of Ordination of Ministers 〈◊〉 farr as câ—ncerned trueth of dâ—ctrine are good c. but â—â—ow in the later this limitation quoad doctrinae veritaâ—â—m is left out and in stead thereof is added Quoad doctrina veritatem that the â—ooke of Consecration and Orâ—ination containeth â—â—l things necessary thereunto and that it hath noâ—hing in it of it selfe either superstitious or impious and â—hat all that be consecrated and ordained according â—o it are orderly and lawfully consecrated and orâ—eined Theis changes well considered I thinke D. B. himselfe will confesse that there was no great good done in the second edition of the Articles concerning Faith and Religion Yet be it so that this was a good worke of our Convocation what a poore commendation is one good worke of a Mother-Church in a whole generation or age of her children Pauperis est tumerare peous T is for the poore to tell their store But for a shepheard in
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
Were it so that the Popish Vnction had another eyther worke or meaning with the Papists then with the Iew as after a sort it hath yet might the Ceremonie be Iewish notwithstanding as sacrifizing of a lambe to signifie Christ already come At the least S. Peter did constrayne the Gentiles to Iudaize Gal. 2.12 though he and those Gentiles had another meaning then that wherin that choise of meates was praescribed to the Iews Adv. Hart. chap. 8. sect 4. Thus farr I had in my notes out of the English editioÌ„ but ther is this more in the booke as I now finde in the latine copie not having the English at hand your rites in the very kind are Iewish or as the Iewish were Now out of these last words I argue thus Vestri ritus ipso genere Iudaici sunt quales Iudaici exstiterunt 1. If all umbraticall rites be Iudaicall and therfore unlawfull then all religious significant Ceremonies are Iewish and unlawfull But D. R. sayth the first therfore he teacheth also the later 2. Out of the former I conclude thus if a Iewish rite may be without a Iewish opinion then our Ceremonies may be Iewish or Popish without a Iewish or Popish opinion or doctrine But the first is affirmed by D. R. therfore the later also Which if it be true then both the Defend and Rejoynder have taken a false grounde of their Ceremoniall doctrine in affirming so confidently upon all occasions that it is the opinion and docdrine onely which maketh a Ceremonie Iewish Popish or any way unlawfull All this notwithstanding the Rejoynder could not forbeare to accuse the Authors of the Abridgement his olde reverend friends of shâ—mefull abusing the world with false allegations of these Divines nor to triumphe in his discovering of this shame But I could wish from my heart that he and his best friends living had no more cause to be ashamed of his Rejoinder then they had of these allegations which none of the Authors if they were on earth alive would disavow 11. In the last place upon occasion of our disliking all the significant Ceremonies brought in by the Pharisies it pleased the Def. to taxe us for being too like the Saduces in refusing suche Ceremonies Now of this accusation the Replier onely desired the Def. to consider if it did not touche our blessed Saviour himself who by his example and doctrine opposed the same Ceremonies Heerupon the Rejoynder answereth that our Saviour walked a midle path betwixt the excesse of the Pharisies and the praecisenes of the Saduces in Ceremonies observing many humane significant Ceremonies in religion as the Feast of Dedication embaulming at burialls sitting at burialls sitting at the Passover and the Synagogues with their formalities In which answer the Rejoynder hath shewed that upon occasion he dare goe as farr and say as muche for humane Ceremonies as any that went before him if not more and that with suche confidence as is not abated with reverence of our Saviour himself whome this passage doeth concerne But beside this audaciousnesse I finde no trueth in these words For. 1. That which he sayth of the Saduces praecisenesse in flying all human Ceremonies is not true The Saduces sayth Epiphanius lib 1. c. 14. omnia aequabiliter cum Samaritis observant i. e. they observe all that the Samaritans observe and who can doubt but the observations and Ceremonies proper to the Samaritans were all inventions of men with the Divels helpe The Saduces also were sometime high Preistes at Ierusalem as for example Annas is noted by Iosephus l. 20. c. 15. and by like historians to have been a Saducen Now it is not credible that any high Preist in those times did absteyne from all humane Ceremonies used commonly by all the Iews Mar. 7. 3. At the least the high Preist did observe the feast of Dedication sitting at the Passover and suche like in the Rejoynder his account humane Ceremonies 2. The Saduces were prophane beastes not hoping for Heaven nor fearing Hell and so were allways ready to observe any Ceremonies that made for their temporall advantage of what kinde soever they were 3. It appeareth out of the premisses that our blessed Saviour in favour of our paltrie base Ceremonies is wronged in his holy name as if he had been more observant of humane misticall constitutions in religion then many of the worst Iews whome yet he reproved for following traditions of men 4. Because the Rejoynder speaketh of a midle path betwixt the excesse of the Pharisies and precisenesse of the Saduces observed by our Saviour it would be knowen whether that midle were medium participationis or medium abnegationis i. e. Whether it was only a third way partaking of neyther extreme or had in it part of the Pharisies excesse and part of the Saduces precisenesse The former sense we may upon the Rejoynder his supposition acknowlege and that maketh nothing to the purpose If the later meaning be the Rejoynders then he must shew us how farr our Saviour did agree in practise with the Pharisies And to clear that he must prove that the Pharisies had lawfull authoritte for appointing or instituting mysticall Ceremonies and whiche of them were allowed by our Saviour 5. The examples here given pertaine nothing to the question The feaste of Dedication commeth after to be handled Embalming at burials was no significant religious Ceremonie but a civill rite common to the Israelites with the Egyptians and other Heathens If it were yet being from the time of the Patriarches how will the Rejoynder prove that it was instituted without Divine direction Sitting at the Passover can neyther be proved to be mysticall nor yet instituted by man Synagoges were no more significant Ceremonies then was the schoole of Tyrannus Act. 19.9 The opening closing and delivering of the Booke Luc. 14.17.20 was no more mysticall a Ceremonie then the opening of a mans mouth when he speaketh and the shutting of it againe when he hath no more to say Are not these worthy groundes for to conclude upon that our Saviour was an observer of humane religious mysticall Ceremonies SECT 3. Concerning S. Augustine 1. AVgustine in the Abridgement was amonge other Divines cited as allowing of one proof belonging to this Argument taken from significancie This the Def. catched holde of before the time or place of it as matter of a section by it self distinct from the testimonies of other Divines Which dealing we must not speak of because the Rejoynder sayth it was orderly doen. But if their Printer-hath failed in right noting the numbers he will needs have that a very slipery tricke If also the Def. brought in this testimonie out of place that was in the Rejoynder his language because he would not teather us up too straight All this we may let passe as formalitie of wordes sutable to his Ceremonies which he seeketh to mainteyne 2. But sayth the Rejoynder if in stead of lib. 3. c. 35. be put in lib. 2. cap. 1. as
nullo modo tolerenous plurimas necessarias causes habâ—mus nay to such as they at Geneva found to be clean contrarie As for us we have many necessarie reasons why wee doe no way tolerat that signe their causes alleged in the 8. Epistle were not peculiar to any time or place but perteyne as well to England as to Geneva So that this was but to stop a Papists mouth with using of gentle words and suppositions concerning our unwarrantable course Of the surplice he speaketh sometime more indifferently but in the same places he will have it not subscribed to not defended or rejoyned for but by all meanes hastened out of the Church as a ridiculous stage-play garment or a Fooles-coat 8. Many other Divines were named as Zanchius Pezelius Mollerus Zegedinus Daneus Machabeus Zepperus Wigandus and Sadeel but their words not cited except onely Sadeels for avoyding of unnecessarie tediousnesse they all speaking to the same purpose with the former The Rejoynder hath one general answer for diverse of these that they allowed some human Feasts which have been abused to Superstition Now though this be no direct answer and the Authors may in part forget their owne general rule in some particular yet this may be further sayd that they accounted not these Feast-days such kinde of Ceremonies as we speak of This appeareth in Zepper whoe put them under the head of Order cap. 13. wheras he handleth the Crosse under the head of Sacramental Ceremonies cap. 10. In particular 1. Daneus and Zegedinus sayth the Rejoynder speak not to our purpose Daneus I have not at hand but Zegedine in his tables of Baptisme calleth them Popish additions by which Baptisme is prophaned 2. Zanchies judgement hath been shewed Namely that it was contrarie to all such Ceremonies And this doeth abundantly appear out of his Epist. to Q. Elizabeth printed before in English 3. Zepper alloweth the ancient use of the Surplice If he did therin he should not have crossed his rule given cap. 10. reg 4. out of the Scriptures at least in his opinion except he judged the Surplice before that ancient use to have been notoriously abused unto Idolatrie But the trueth is Zepper doeth but comparatively excuse a supposed ancient use of that garment which in ancient times was not knowen but as a civil habit usual in hote countries 4. Wigandus sayth the Rejoynder was Illyricus his associat in the furious opposition of the Surplice Wheras the trueth is Illyricus himself did not furiously oppose but use the Surplice as Calvin testifieth Epist. 117. 5. Sadeels words are We reject whatsoever remayneth in the Church of Rome which came eyther from Iews or Pagans The Rejoynder answereth that Sadeel sheweth what Ceremonies the Refor Churches of France did reject but not what were necessarily to be rejected of all Churches He useth also the limitation of Iewish and Paganish Ceremonies But he clean mistaketh Sadeels meaning Iewish and Paganish are no wordes of limitation but of explication by way of reason Our use of his testimonie is 1. thus Whatsoever Ceremonies they of France have rejected are in Sadeels judgement Iewish or Heathenish which can have no lawful use in Gods worship But the Churches of France have rejected our Ceremonies in controversie Ergo. 2. Thus If Iewish and Heathenish Ceremonies are to be rejected then Popish also they being in their nature or kinde Iewish and having evermore been notoriously abused unto Popish Idolatrie 9. M. Rogers Martyr in King Edwards days would not consent to conformitie in Cap and Tippet unlesse the Papists might be constreyned to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice and Hoast True answereth the Rejoynder 1. but other good Martyrs did Therfor say I not they but M. Rogers was alleged Yet beside zealous Hooper with whome after Ridly and others agreed Heavenly M. Bradford might have been added whoe in his letters to Erkinald Rawlins calleth forked caps and tippers Antichristian pelse and baggage He 2. answereth that the quaestion was for inconveniencie not unlawfulnesse But he knoweth well that M. Hooper and so in all likelyhood M. Rogers stood upon such inconveniencie as in their learning was unlawfulnesse His 3. and 4. answer is of different intentions in the same materials But this was in King Edwards days by all professed and yet M. Rogers and such could not see it sufficient 5. M. Rogers would sayth the Rejoynder allow the same thinges with some marke of difference Not allow but tolerate not upon every marke of difference but such as he knew would never be consented unto that is not at all 10. Publick injunctions were wonte to forbid all Monuments of Superstition and the Canons 1571. did forbid the gray Amice and all other garments defiled with like superstition Therfor sayth the Rejoynder 1. â—hey did not take our Ceremonies for suche Monuments But that is nothing to the Proposition Neyther yet maketh it much to the Assumption of this Argument what these or those did then take our Ceremonies to be What they are in deed we shall see in the Assumption He 2. allegeth that the Suâ—plice was none of the Missal garments as the Amice But first Bellarmine whome the Rejoynder made of late the Canon of Missal garments maketh no more mention of the Amice then of the Surplice Durandus or G. Minatensis Rational lib. 3. cap. 1. sayth In some things about the Altar they must use the Surplice Superpelliceo in quibuslibet servitius Altaris uti debent Steven Mephem cap Linteam No clarck may be suffred about the Service of the Altar unlesse he have the Surplice on at Masse Nullus Clericus permistatur in of ficio Altaris nisi indutus superpellecio tempore quo Missarum solemnia peraguntur 3. The Rejoynder addeth that it is a strong imagination to thinke that the very Injunctions and Canons of this Church could prove her to judge her owne impositions unlawful Which if he meant of formal particular judgement it is his owne weak imagination if of general and virtual judging ther is neyther strongnesse nor strangenesse in it because this Church hath no privilege that way above other Churches of which none were ever found nor can be imposing any thing unlawful which did not professe that trueth whoâ—e contents did prove that unlawful imposition to be unlawful D. Morton hath plentifully shewed so much of the Popish Church as the Rejoynder will not denie 11. B. Iewell was cited as approving Tertullians judgement concerning the unlawfulnesse of Garlands though not evill of themselves because they had appearance of evill Well sayth the Rejoynder then they were not evill in themselves by abuse That is abuse did not make them evill before they were abused which is true But â—f B. Iewel allowed Tertullians judgement as the Rej. granteth by the abuse they became evill and unlawfull Appearance of that which is evill in it selfe is evill in it selfe but the abuse was evill in it selfe and the after use was an
God give it may be to repeÌ„tance not to be repended of but yet this not so as the wel-affected of whom the Parliament speaketh are grieved by other mens vnconscionable dealing They are commaunded foâ—sooth But who procured that commaund who should procure the ceasing of that same And is it sufficieÌ„t for Fathers in God to say they are coÌ„maunded by man to vndoe the ministers and vex the people of God Bishop Grindal was coÌ„maunded to suppresse the exerrise which was called Prophecying yet he constantly refused to execute such a commaund Tempora mutantur nos mutamur in illis But the Prelates sayth the Rej proceedâ—d not against them because they were painfull and fruitfull ministers As if the ParliameÌ„t were to be so interpreted or rather derided or any but the Devill of Hell would professe such a cause of such proceeding Wherefore then Least their errour should be still suffered and the ministry of others contemned It seemeth then that in the Rej his opinion the Parliament in condemning theis proceedings went about to mainteine dangerous errour and to bring conforming Ministers into contempt But not to speake of his taking the question for graunted viz which the Ministers held a dangerous errour the Parliamentary way of making voyd the Canons might have freed the praetended errour from all danger and left no ministers in contemptible conformity vnlesse some would contemne Christian liberty as having by custome their eares nayâ—ed to the doore of servitude 7 Concerning the Praemunire answer is given that â—f the Prelates be subiect vnto it that is more than the Rej â—noweth that they might incurre that perill vpon ignorance and that by Statute Law the Ceremonies are â—stablished with â—he penalty of refusing them as all men know and some have â—elt at Assises and Westminster Hall But for the first of â—heis shifts D B knowes ful well whatsoever the Rej will know that Prelates cannot take from any English man his freehold with out Parliament Authority and yet be free from the Statute of Praemunire Now that they doe so the Rej himselfe even now confessed Moreover who knoweth not that the Prelates doe keepe their Courâ—s silence deprive c in their owne names which doeth evidently intrench vpon the Praerogative Royal of the Crowne and so fall into the penalty of Praemunire by the Statute of Henr. 8.25 except they can shew some speciall warraÌ„t by Statute for so doing which that they cannot doe is evident because in King Edwards dayes they were enjoined to keepe their Courts in the Kings name and since that time have no speciall warrant by any Statute for any such Courts in one or others name Ignorance is here againe vainely pretended as before was declared Are the Prelates onely ignorant of that which they have so often beene warned and convinced of in many Parliaments Now for the establishing of theis Ceremonies with the penalty of refusing them by Statute the Rej should have done well if he had named that or those Statutes where we may finde this done As for the penalty of deprivation for refusing theis Ceremonies the Rej confessed before that the Parliament Anno 1610. pronounced against it as contrary to Law If the Ceremonies themselves stand established by any Statute it must be that of Eliz 1. But that concerneth the booke of king Edward in which this Rej pag. 54.55 confesseth some vaine Ceremones now removed to have beene praescribed Tolerabiles inaptiae Now either those tollerable fooleries were established by Statute of Eliz 1. or not theis For no difference is found in the Statute If those why doe our Opposites refuse them and yet urge theis vpon that Law which no more established theis than them The trueth is though the booke for substance was in some sort confirmed yet every rubrick and ceremony which was therein coÌ„teined though it was for a time tolerated was not established Why else was subscription by that Statute restreyned only to doctrine of Faith and Sacraments If any therefore have beene deprived either at Assises or other Civill Courts for mere refusall of theis Ceremonies which I much doubt of that without quaestion hath beene by the Praelates procuring not by such evidence of Law as iust Iudges require in such wreghty causes It would also be knowne what kinde of Iudges those were which are sayd to have beene so Ceremonious Sometime it falleth out that a Hales is put out of Comission by a Gardiner and another a friend of Gardiner being put in his place strange sentences follow thereon At the least it behooveth the Rej who alleadgeth and alloweth those Iudges facts to shew vs vpon what grounds they proceeded 8. Against the Convocation-house as reasons for which the authority thereof is little or none in mens â—oÌ„sciences some knowne things were briefly meÌ„tioned â—y the Replier to which how the Rej. answereth it is â—ot unworthy consideration 1. Convocations consist of a â—action No sayth the Rej. but of men which submit â—hemselves to the Lawes of the Land and Constitutions of â—he Church As for the Constitutions of the Church â—hey are the Constitutions of the Convocation so that â—he answer in that part is they submitt themselves to their â—wne constitutions To the Lawes of the Land that they doe not duely submitt themselves it appeareth out of â—hat which the Parliament before alledged sayth diâ—erse painfull and learned Pastors ready to performe the legall subscription have beene deprived for refusing â—aonicall subscription which could not be if Canons were legall and their makers obedient to Law They charge also the bodies lands and goods of subjects further than is lawfull sayth the same Parliament So that it is by this plaine how the Convocations may be sayd to make a faction even against Parliaments Yet if they were obedient to Lawes they may by conspiring for their private ends against the common good be esteemed a Faction as those that bare the greatest sway in the Councell of Trent were and are of indifferent understanding men esteemed So in Queene Maries dayes the persecuting Prelates though they submitted themselves to Law and cried out of others that did not so yet they were a pernitious faction And so it seemeth was the meaning of the Repl. in this charge because he addeth for a reason thereof that they never conclude any thing for the common good of the Church 2. They are servile to those on whom they depend and tyrannicall over the poâ—re thâ—t are subject to them This the Rej. doeth not deny but sayth It may be an errour of their persons not of their Constitutiâ—n But what doeth this helpe us If we must be subject to servile and tyrannicall Canons which come from the errour of their persons their Constitution will no way relieve us Their Constitution is for substance the same now that was in Queene Maries dayes and yet we know what they did and therby may conceive what they may doe againe 3. They are grosse Violators of most antient Canons being