of Patronage a civill inheritance Whereas the question is not from whence it ariseth but if it appeared in the face of the Primitive Mother-Church This answer is as much as to say our Church hath a speciall wound or sore in her face which the Primitive Church had not and therefore must have a plaister upon it now in those times unknowne that is our face doth not lively represent that face which is the question Beside if the lawing be necessary about the Patrons civill title what hath the Minister to doe with it except ambition or covetousnesse doth cause him to take other mens businesse upon him for his owne advantage Pluralists Non-residents Dumb-Ministers 7. About these the Rejond confesseth that they are the sore of our Church but not allowed or tolerated furâ—her then Mr. Hooker sheweth Now 1. If they be sores being also in the face that is our chiefe eminent Convocation men bearing them in their â—ore-heads surely they must needs dis figure the Primitive face 2. Though I have no more leisure to seeke and confute M r. Hookâ—rs mitigations then the Rejoynd had to allege them yet I dare say if the Stues be tolerated and allowed at Rome thâ—se sores are tolerated and allowed in England they are as well knowne more publikely professed they are practised in the Bishops Palaces and not onely the Court of Faculties but most Bishops doe gaine by them But saith the Rej. If you can tell us the Certaine and safe remedie of this sore I am perswaded the Church will thanke you But I am neither so perswaded of the Convocation-Church not yet that the Rejoynder himselfe is so perswaded Men doe not usually give thankes for that which formerly they did not desire and if this Church had desired a remedie the Convocation-men would long since have begun according to their skill and power with themselves their Chaplaines the Benifices in their gifts c. They would also have hearkened unto Parliament-remedies of wise and carefull Physitians which have been often prescribed prepared tendered almost applied but by the Convocation-men refused and opposed as the world knoweth and the Rej. is not ignorant of it In the clouse of this question the Rej. insinuateth and as halfe ashamed onely insinuateth a secret distinction betwixt carelesse-Non residents and another kinde of them that are carefull the former of which he affirmeth to have beene often condemned though never remooved Of which distinction as being left obscure I cannot speake so much as I muze Onely this Carefull Non-residents seeme to be such as have great care to get some pretense in Court Vniversity or some great mans house for absenting themselves from their charges which God hath laid upon them if they be lawfully called and some care to provide a tolerable Curate for supplying their places Now these the Rej. seemeth to excuse for which they are more beholding to him then the Churches are upon whose spoyles they live and aspiring by them unto higher places And as for the carelesse Non-residents how commeth it to passe that non conformity can as easily be remooved as condemned and such condemned fellons as these be so long reprived after their condemnation Certainely if they were as great enemies to the Bishops kingdome as they are to Christs a quicker dispatch would have beene made of them Simony 8. Of this it was asked if it were so ordinary either in the Primitive Church or almost in the Popish as it is in England Heere the Rejoynd venteth a proverb that almost saveth many a lye adding that the Papists faces are washed with faire water and foule water cast upon us and then telleth of a Canon imposing an oath for prevention of Simony and not onely the guilty man looseth his place but the Patrone his title for that time Now though all this be nothing to the Primitive Churches face yet it is not so to be passed over For to begin with the last 1. The course taken against Simony which he speaketh of is no Canon of the Convocation house but a Parliament-law Canons I hope doe not deprive Patrones of their title which they have by civill inheritance as the Rejoynder told us even now 2. This oath imposed if it bee generally urged doeth make our English Simony worse then that which is found among Papists as adding perjury unto it 3. Because the Rej. will not take the considerate limitation of almost in other sense then as if it were the cover of a lye I am content it be left out and then desire him to proove the assertion a lye If he cannot it had beene sufficient for him who so familiarly accuseth others of scurrility to have denied that which was said putting us to proove it And proove it we can so farre as vices of that nature use to be prooved by the generall voyce even of conformable men Doctor Andrewes long since in a latine Sermon before the Convocation tolde them enough after his playing fashion They give out Non solum nos minoritas vel pecuniâ vel pejori conditione Rectorias nostras paciscimur sed vet Majoritas sic Cathedras vestras vel pacuniarum summis vel Ecclesiarum spolijs foede canponari vulgò dictitant Quo morbo male iamdiu habet andit Ecclesia nostra that not onely we Minorites doe with money or more basely purchase our Parsonages but also you Majorities doe either with great summes of money or with the spoyles of the Churches unworthily hukster your Cathedrall places of which disease our Church hath long beene sick and for which it hath long beene ill spoken of Did his fere or almost all save a ly Ifit did then now it hath not so much to save For many conformable men will almost if I may use that word with good leave sweare that nothing hath hindered them all their dayes from Benefices and kept them in Curateships but onely the generall abuse of Simony Every Page and Lackie at the Court and many Scriviners can tell how much this and that Bishop or Deane gave to such or such a Buckingham and how much the said Bishop received from his under Officers and other by him promoted Neither is all Symony in buying of Benefices and Bishoprickes Selling of Visitations which is an usuall practise of our Prelates and such like trickes are in the same nature in the fourth degree 4. As for washing the Papists faces with faire water the Rejoynder may as well say that hee washed Sodoms face with faire water who said that Israel and Iudah had justified Sodome in her abominations Prophane contemners of Religion members of the Churche 9. The question was if so many such were members of any Primitive Church This the Rejoynder doeth not affirme but denieth any members of our Church to contemne professedly our Religion Which I leave to the judgement of every Reader if he doeth not know some in England who contemne Religion I would to God the Rejoynder were in this point
Law of the O. Test. prescribing all things to the Iewes p. 13.2 p. His Proof â—or the Churches liberty to institute Ceremonies from Purim and the Feast of Dedicat. p. 246. He saith as much for their as we for our Cer. p. 488. Blumfeild a Persequutor threatned a good man for the Surplice p. 18.1 p. Bernards answer to the Virgin Maries Image bidding him Good morrow p. 364. C. CAsuits admit nothing beside their order p. 65.1 p. Chokim the Hebrew name of Ceremon finely laid open p. 35.1 p. Conformers miserable Apologie p. 13.1 p. Ceremonies their dispute how ancient opposed by Waldenses Martyrs removed in Helveria p. 8.15.1 p. Other things ridiculous yet as tolerable if they had but institution from the Convocation-howse as a May pole i th Church or a straw in a Childs hand at Bapt. p. 17. Ceremonies such as ours why naught p. 18. Ceremonies how defined examined p. 21. Ceremonies laid out in 4. things p. 23. Ceremonies holy p. 129.2 p. and 178.186 Their Worship p. 132.2 p. and 298. Ceremonies must have a rule for number p. 144.2 p. Ceremonies Popish may yet be Iewish p. 218. See also p. 273. Ceremonies by Institution to what Commandement they belong p. 301. Ceremonies condemned for speaking out of place p. 364. Ceremonies Clowts that have layen on the plague foares of Idolatrie p. 367. Ceremonies caÌ„not be deduced from the kinds named by the Rej. p. 482. Ceremonies used by us never objects of Idol answered p. 401. Ceremonies consequently imposed as belonging to giving honour to God yet Superstitious p. 103.1 p. Ceremonies single double trebble p. 91.2 p. Ceremonies the GarmeÌ„ts of Religion whereof the Scots mans jest p. 94. Church repraesentative to the life repraesented p. 88.1 p. Church English and primative compared p. 403. Calvins account of additions p. 121.2 p. 376. What he saith to Cassander and to our Maisters of Cerem p. 122.2 p. His admirable speech to the Lord Protector of England p. 389. His moderation toward Popish Ceremonies what See p. 400. His inference that if the 3. Children in Dan. had followed the Counsell and witt of our times they needed never to have stood out against the Kings Commandement p. 127.2 p. His judgement of Ceremonies cleared p. 240. His opinion missinterpreted by the Rej. answered p. 16.1 p. Chamiers answer to that of no new Cerem brought in these days p. 295. His famous Censure of Ceremonies Analogical and Sacramental as idlely doeing that over againe for which the SacrameÌ„ts were by Christ appointed p. 84. 1. p. Covels Sentence sleighted by the Rejoynd p. 208. Christ the only authentick teacher p. 210.211 Chemnitius his famous testimony about additions p 249. Cajetan a Cardinall of Rome would not be buried i th Church p. 469. Conformity disuaded froÌ„ by one that Conformd himself p. 474. Circumcision Defended to be now lawfull by Def. Rej. p. 274. ConvocatioÌ„ howse not Cleared by all that the Rej. can say p. 113. Found Guilty of much evill of perverting the Articles of religion and sâ—tting theÌ„ out far worse then they were in good K. Edwards time decreeing lesse good then the Councill of Trent p. 115.123 Comlines p. 77. 2. 1. Corinths c. 14. which how interpreted by Fâ—thers and Schoolmen and more honestly then now adayes by Hierar hichs p. 53. 2. p. Contrariety of Decencie and edification displeasing yet Contrariety of rites serving thereunto not so p. 117.2 p. D. Dr. Humphreys letter to the Bishops p. 269. Dr. Davenats doctrine at Cambridg p. 79.1 p. Dr. Morton cals for abolition of Superstition without delay p. 378. Dr. Andrews speech to the Convocation p. 419. 421. Dr. Fulck forsook the College for the Surplice p. 473. Distinctions of popish writers brought together by Riveâ—us p. 299. Distinction into Comaâ—d and allowance Symbolizing with papists p. 142. Distinctions of Against beside p. 28.2 p. Distinction of traditions into Divine and Apostolicall rejected by Iunius p. 335. For denying of which distinction the Repl was charged with unlearnednes yet all the Rej. learning and more put to it cannot make it good p. 336. Dipping 3. times p. 242. E EAsterday solemnized with a pascal lamb by a late great Bp. of England p. 40.2 p. Easter the first apple of strife from the Bp. of Rome p. 85.448 and 440. Evill of our doings â—o be put away finely explained p. 131. F. FAsting in what sense worship p. 145. Freewill offrings no will worship p. 153. Nor do warrant appointing of Cer. p. 152.1 p. and 151.2 Feasts of love their original uncertain p. 334. G. GVnpowder stopt into an image p. 513. H. HOokers strang speech p. 2.2 p Hooper a Bp. refused the Surplice p. 135. What he speaks of Bps. state p. 408. Holy either by infusion or inhaesion the Def. absurd distinction p. 179. Human with Bellarm. and the Rej. in one sense p. 302. Hezekiah whether he leâ—t the images stand set up by Col. p 369. I. INtended observation p. 26.1 p. Infants Communicants p. 37.2 p. Iunius his remarkable speech about additions p. 89. 2. p. and 252. His sentence of images p. 286. and 290. Images for use religious mainteyned and condemned by the Rej. p. 237 283. Images in Churches not indifferent by the Homilies against Idol p. 289. Iuels prophesie about the crosse p. 290 K. KNeeling c. proper worship by the Rej. grant p. 138 L LVthers advise about yeilding p. 97.2 p. How he placed the Images to make them ridiculous p. 285. Latimers speech to the convocation for which he was committed to the tower p. 123.1 p His comparison of Cer. and in a Sermon before K. Edw. p. 148.2 p. M MElancht free speech against mans inventions p. 152.1 p His meaning opened p 141.2 p He disalloweth the CollectioÌ„ of some from Act 15 Ibid. Mat. 15. and Marc 7 of pharisies washing p. 186 c. and zz1 Ministers how they enter upon their Parishes in Engl p. 412 N. NOnresidents a carefull sort of them p 417 Negative argument usual with the best writers p 43.2 p. O. OPinioÌ„ wheter it were worship p. 125.2 p. Organs dâ—sliked by Schoolmen p. 40â— Not used i th Popes chappell p 430 â—fficials coÌ„manding style when they enjoyne excom p. 410 P. â—Ope Paul 4. offred to confirm our Serâ—ice book witnessed by Dr Morton p. 203 â—ope received the Host â—itting p. 429 â—apists opinion of their Cer. in regard of worship â—nd necessitie to salvatioÌ„ â—nd the holines they put â—n them together with â—heir operation and effiâ—acy no more then is â—â—ofessed of ours See p. â— 70 and 73.75.1 p. and â—03 315 â—â—pists give liberty to the â—ulgar man to judg of â—â—e Churches precepts â— 79.1 p. â—heir judgement of idle â—er p. 74.2 p. â—hey our meÌ„ agree in their answers to the place alleged against adding to Gods worship p. 115 They deny operative virtue to holy water p. 294 Popish idolatrie compared with Heathenish p. 518 Policie of old Bps. to win the
title Their observation must ever be free in respect of thâ— judgment to be had of them but the practise only is required For if all judgment to be had of them be free then tiâ— free to account them unlawfull hurtfull or unprofitaâ—le 2. Ought the practise to be required either against â—he judgment or without it How fat the judgment and practise are fixed together A bruit practise is not reâ—uired neither is there properly any good practise but willing out of judgment Those therfore that so require â—nd fix our practise must needs as much as in them lyes â—equire and fixe our judgment in some manner But in â—ery deed no man or convocation of men either de juâ—e or de facto can fixe anothers judgment concerning â—awfull or unlawfull They may arrogate so much to â—hemselves commaund men to captivate their wills â—nto them by their wills so far as they can their judgments yet the judgment they cannot fixe but only the outward practise Neither is it any thing to me what auâ—hority others do arrogate to themselves concerning my practise but what they require me to practise I should acâ—ount him as good a master or Lord that should say do this upon judgment that thou shouldest do it because I commaund it as him that sayth thou shalt do this judge what thou wilt judge The Rej. it may be will say that he meaneth a freedome of judgment in not accounting of them necessary to salvation But no learned Papist â—houlds their Ceremonias minores necessary to salvation if he speake of necessity of synning upon omission without scandall or contempt that hath beene handled before Zanchius in his Ep. to Q. Elizabeth dealeth plainly patt to the point in hand If these Cer. be propouÌ„ded to Christians they must be propouÌ„ded either as indifferent or necessary If this we do impiously to make those things necessary which God hath left indifferent If that they are then to be left free unto the church but by coÌ„maunding coÌ„straining we make theÌ„ necessary So Calvin de vera Ecclesiae refoâ—matione Opus pag. 337. Theâ— will except Excipient res essemedias quarum indifferens sit usus Christianis cur ergo quicquaÌ„ omitti verant that they bâ— things of a middle natuâ—e the use whereof is indifferent to Christians why therfore do they forbidd any thing to be omitted A sixt partition is of simple and double Cerem double are described to be such as besyde their use for order and decency serve also to aedification by some profitable signification which either of themselves they have some aptnesse unto or receave by appointment as it were by common agreement Where 1. the Rej. seemeth to double with us when he maketh simple Ceremon to serve only for order and decency without signification when as before and after he telleth us that no Cere may be dumbe but all must have their signification 2. Order and decency seeme to be seperated from aedification in some sacred Ceremon which he knew not of that willed all things to be done unto aedification 3. All significant Cerem are supposed first to be in order and decency and yet after so long a tyme we are to learne what use our crosse hath for order more then a circle would have 4. By the distinction or distribution here made aptnesse of things for signification either is in them of themselves or not yet in the fourth partition our necessary rule was that the things be not unapt unto their ends 5. A strange power is here given unto the convocation to make things apt for signification and aedification by their appointment which before were not apt to any such thing This was wont to be the peculiar of God to call things that are not as if they were and so make them this or that 7. In the next place we are tould of significant Cer. improâ—erly sacrameÌ„tall those are so called either reductively such 〈◊〉 are affixed to the use of the SacrameÌ„t whether they beare no â—ignificatioÌ„ or beare some significancy either of their virtues â—r of our duties unto which we are obliged by the SacrameÌ„t Or â—â—se they be analogically so called if they be instituted to work â—â—pernaturall effects the former are lawfull but not the latter The delineation of these confused distinctions is this Significative Ceremonies are Sacramentall Properly Improperly reductive which are not significative or significative analogicall Morall To all which members I could have seriously wished the Rej. would have added acurate definitioÌ„s or descriptions and then he would either have beene hyndered from the confused setting of them downe or else he would have discovered his infinite mistaking and manifested to the world how he had bewildered himself whyle he mudds the water and so would mislead the simple But we will follow his foorstepps only let us observe some conclusions out of the frame in generall First is this Rej. contradiction in a grosse manner That some non significative Cerem are significative or which is all one significative Ceremo are either non significative or significative Sacramentall This desperate absurdity lyes open to the eye of any that have their eyes annointed with the eye salve of Logick and judicious discourse for let but a fresh man runn up the speciall to his highest and he shall perceave some noÌ„ significative to be the speciall to the Genus of a significative cere 2. Cer. reductively sacrameÌ„â—all not significative do properly appertaine to sacred Cer. reductively by right so called have beene haÌ„dled before are here wholly heterogeneal 3. It s well to be noted that humaine Cer. affixed to the Sacram. bearing significancy of the Sacram. vertue obligations are such as the Rej. fighteth for But these are analogically sacrameÌ„tall Ceâ—emonies sacreâ—ly hym ficant are â—nalogâ—call for analogie similitude or proportion cannot be denyed to be betwixt two signes which signifye the same virtues the same duties the same obligatioÌ„ to these dutyes And though the Rej. say againe againe they were never held unlawfull Yeâ— learned Chamier in the name of our Divines reformed churches hath these words We observe comeâ—y circuÌ„stances in the celebration of the SacrameÌ„t Honestas celebratiâ—ns circumstantias obseâ—vamus sed incetio dâ—mnamus qui ea addidâ—ruâ— quâ—bus mâ—steria affâ—xerâ—nt proprâ—aâ—que siâ—nâ—fâ—cationâ—s quid â—â—coâ—uÌ„ effeâ—câ—â—â—um qui 〈…〉 Quasi â—is â—erve tundem reâ— agi oportuerit out 〈…〉 non satis aâ—â—um esset instituto dâ—vâ—no nisi â—umâ—â—a timetita 〈◊〉 De 〈◊〉 lâ—b â— cap. 6. â— 27 but we justly coÌ„demne those who have added such things unto which they have phansyed mysteries proper significations that of those effects which appertaine unto the water of baptisme As though the work should be twice or thrice doâ—e and that either nothing or that was not sufficient which was done by divine appointment unlesse humaine rashnes should have added supply And the
the Rejoynder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Crosse. 1. because the crosse maketh no alteration of what Christ did ordayne saying doe this 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptisme as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper 3. it is not esteemed an instrumentall signe of any grace given by the use of it as they took their sops to be 4. their sopping destroied the very Sacrament And for these differences the Repl. is bidden to hang downe his head for asking suche a quaestion But 1. Addition is as evill as alteration For when Christ sayd doe this he meant as well doe this onely as doe this all Fac hoc totum fac hoc tantum as Zanchie expoundeth it Addition also is some alteration if not of the things instituted yet of the institution as making it unsufficient or incomplete by it self alone 2. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine but were bread and wine Neyther were they first or onely or for any thing appeareth at all used by Haereticks as the Rejoinder for his advantage without ground avoucheth but by ancient Churches at least in some cases as is manifest out of Prosper de Promissionibus Dimidium temporis cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit etc. Sopping was so farre from being a matter of Haeresie that as it seemeth it was receyved among the Fathers so longe as infants communicating in the Lords Supper which was as D. Morton confesseth Appeale lib. 2. cap. 13. sect 3. for sixe hundred yeers 3. Sopping of bread in wine considered abstractly from bread and wine was no signe instituted as an instrument of grace For so sayth Cassander pag. 1027. out of Ivo this custome of Sopping prevailed onely through feare of shedding and not by direct authority 4. It is too severe a sentence Invaluit hac intingendi consuâ—tudo non autâ—ritate sid timore effusionis against those ancient Christians in Prospers time and which is more as Cassander and Hospinian judge in Ciprians that they destroyed the very substance of Sacrament The setting forth of Christs death was not excluded though some part of the bloud was representatively joined unto the body A man is dead that lieth in his bloud though some of it soak againe into his body The Fathers sixe hundred yeers together did not destroy the substance of the Sacrament Hitherto therfor appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang downe his head Let us see if more cause be in the comparisons he maketh betwixt sopping and crossing The first was the bread and wine the onely things used in sopping were ordeyned by Christ so is not the Crosse. The Rejoynder answereth here nothing to the purpose save onely that they were ordeyned to be used apart From whence it followeth onely that it is unlawfull to use them not apart And so it followeth that Baptisme must as well be used apart orseparated from the Crosse because it was ordeyned so to be used and the Crosse was not ordeyned for any religious use eyther apart or with other thinges The second is that sopping hath some agreement with reasoÌ„ Crossing hath none The Rejoynder hence maketh two consequences 1. Ergo Christ in ordeyning the Sacrament otherwise hath doen some thing not agreable to reason 2. Ergo the Churche in Crossing hath been void of all reason fifteeÌ„ hundred yeare And upon these groundes he crieth out of madnesse But so madnesse may be found in any assertion if it be first put out of the right wittes or sense as this is For the meaning was not that Sopping is agreable to right reason in the Sacrament but in civill use where the aeriall Crosse hath none Yet it may be added if it were lawfull for men to adde to Gods ordinances in the Sacraments then ther would be founde more probabilitie of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread wine as a manner of food theÌ„ a mysticall aereall crosse into the use of water which is no manner of washing As for the Churche it hath not universally used the crosse so longe except the Waldenses and others like unto them were none of the Churche The same Churche that used crossing used also for divers hundreds of years to give the Sacrament of of the Supper unto infants without reason and the continuation of the Crosse more hundreds of years addeth no reason unto it except reason in suche things doeth increase with their age Many thinges have been used in the Churche without reason or else ther is reason wee should still use all that have been used caeteris paribus If ther be any good reason in the crosse let that be tried by reason and not by slipperie conjectures taken from the persons using it The third comparison was that Sopping was used by Christ at the very table of the Supper but Crossing was never so muche honored by him or his Apostles as to use it at any time The Rejoynder answereth that this argument would prove as well that the eating of a Paschall lambe before the Sacrament to be better then Sprinkling of water on the foâ—ehead of the Baptized Because CHRIST did that and not this But this is not so well For that 1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremonie distinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used 2. It is very probable that the Apostles goeing into the colder part of the world did use sprinkling 3. Concerning a Paschall lambe used before the Sacrament as a Ceremonie morally significant and reductively Sacramentall I see not why it should not be praeferred before the Crosse or any suche invention even because Christ did use it if that Circumcision be now a lawfull Christian Ceremonie as the Def. and Rejoynder professe and mainteyne pag. 285. It is also crediblie reported a great Bishop not long since living that every Easter day he used to have a wholle lambe praepared after the Pascall manner brought to his table D. B. knoweth well who it was and of whom he hath heard it The fourth comparison was that sopping was no new signe but Crossing is The Rejoynder opposeth that it had been an abomination to eat the Pascall lambe sodden but the addition of sitting or leaning on couches though a new signe added by them selves was lawfull etc. Of which speache the first part is granted viz. a sodden lambe had been an abomination neyther isa sopping communion excused In the second ther is observable partiallitie in that he calleth setting an addition to the Passeover and yet in the same answer with the same breath denieth the crosse to be any addition unto Baptisme The ground of all is rotten viz. that sitting was a religious significant Ceremonie instituted by men These thinges considered let any man judge what cause the Rejoynder had to talke in this place of the Repl his roome-conscience contentious spirit smitten with giddinisse forsaken of wisdome In that
which followeth about sopping ther is no new matter to fasten any dispute on proper to this place but only why some ceremoniall sopping may not be used as neare to the Communion as the Crosse unto Baptisme The Rejoynder answereth 1. because it is not so safe to use visible elementarie signes in holy actions as a transient Character 2. Because suche sopping were worse then the use of any other bodily element as comming so neer to the very institution Where 1. it is to be marked that a religious Ceremonie of soppes and wine immediatly before or after the Communion is not found unlawfull but onely not so safe as the Crosse. By the same proportion Ceremonious eating of flesh and fish in the solemnitie of the Communion is onely not so safe not unlawfull Hath not the Crosse brought us to a faire market 2. If the Crosse be not a visible elementary signe what kinde of signe is it Character noteth a most proper signe aereall is elementarie crossing is eyther visible or else it is no sensible signe because it cannot be heard felt tasted or smelled If he meaneth a permanent substance beside that he crosseth his owne definition of a Ceremonie an action c. in other places he defendeth images in this very section he leaned even now upon couches as upon safe Ceremonies amonge the Iews 3. The outward neernesse or likenesse of a humane Ceremonie to a Divine Sacrament is allowed on elsewhere by the Def. and Rejoynder both as when cap. 3. sect 7 they mainteyne as Christian a Ceremoniall sprinkling of men with holy water wherin both water and sprinkling have as great an outward neernesse unto the outward elemeÌ„ts of Baptisme as any thing caÌ„ have If the outward materiall shew of neernesse unto a Divine Sacrament doeth make a Ceremonie unallowable then muche more suche a formall significant neernesse as is betwixt Baptisme signifying our putting on of Christ crucified and the Crosse signifying our putting on of courage to fight under and for Christ crucified See heer what further is to be sayd of Iuel and Whitakers after the Def. and they are conferred 3. The Replier affecting brevitie and finding no new matter of dispute about the allegations out of B. Iewel and D. Whitaker passeth them over with this reason in excusing of them nothing is sayd by the Def. which hath not formerly been confuted Now the Rejoynder doeth not goe about to shew that any new thing is brought forth by the Def. about theÌ„ which had beeÌ„ to the purpose but onely catcheth up that word excusing and repeating the accusation of impertinent alledging them for the negative argument from Scriptures in case of Ceremonies which they doe except hee taketh upon him to discover an undoubted close meaning of the word excuse and therupon accuseth not onely the Repl. but I know not how many they them of being scornfull out of pride of spririt Who would have thought that one word used according to the ordinary courteous fashion of those which in stead of plaine denying use the phrase excuse me could have stirred up suche a passion or occasioned suche an injurious surmize But to excuse this which I hope we may doe without any offense I will yeeld so muche unto his importunitie and challenge as breifly to shew that neythe B. Iuell nor D. Whit. did excepte suche Ceremonies as ours when they speak of the Scriptures fullnesse Iuel in the first article sect 29. alledgeth for the negative argument Origen concluding that in the Lords supper the bread is to be eaten and not reserved unto the morrow because that Christ did not commande that reservation to the morrow Now that this reservation is a ceremonie and a lawfull one also in D. Morton his judgement appeareth plainely ouâ— of his Appeal where lib. 2. cap. 5. sect 1. he sayth plainely that we may grant a longer time of reservation then two or three days with a reference unto the intent of participating of it by eating D. Morton therfor cannot be defended in saying that Iuel excepted ceremonies For D. Whitaker his not excepting of significant Ceremonies from the Negative argument may appear partly by his negative silence and partly by his expresse assertion de Sacramentis pag. 203. for unto Bellarmine his assertion that the Churche may institute new Ceremonies for ornament and for signification he granteth that of ornament as he doeth after of order but no suche consent is given of signification but rather the contrarie Rudes non sunt Ceremonijs erudiendi dedit Deas Scripturas vt ex ijs rudes institutionem necessâ—riam haurirent So in Oper tom 1. pag. 116. Augustinus nos illis paucissimis Ceremonijs contentos esse vult quae in Canonicis Scriâ—turis contâ—nentur The trueth is that our Divines doe ordinarily reject the Popish Ceremonies upon this ground So Gallasius in Exod. 22.7 * Nihil tale a Christo aut factum aut institutum Ergo ne sapientiores nos ipso Apostolis fore arbitremur * There is no suche thing by Christ either done or instituted therefore let us not deeme our selves wiser then he or his Apostles 4. Another omission wherof the Repl is accused for which he is called a gentle man is that the Def. in the ende of this ArgumeÌ„t recalleth the state of the question distinguishing betwixt mere Ceremonies mixt by mere meaning altogether indifferent and by mixt some way forbidden All which sayth the Rejoynder the gentle Replier passeth by Now sure he might also him self have passed this by with more credit of the Def. For what sense is in suche a stated question whether the Scripture doeth condemne suche Ceremonies as it leaveth indiffâ—rent or onely those which it some way forbiddeth All that passe by may see that this was not worth the taking up Yet concerning the mixture of ceremonies with opinion of holinesse justice merit efficacie or reall necessitie which here the Rejoynder maketh the onely grounds of forbidding he is now in suche gentle manner as is requisite answered in the head of Difference betwixt popish Ceremonies and ours 5. After this the Repl. is charged with quarrelling onely because he sayth the Def. answered nothing to a maine poynt upon which this first argument in the Abrigement doeth depende namely the rules of Ceremonies that they should be needfull and profitable for aedification the more comely and orderly performance of Gods instituted service which being wanting in our Ceremonies they cannot be innocent though all were granted which the Def. mainteyneth And why is this a quarell The Repl. as it seemeth can neyther by speaking nor houlding his peace gaine so muche favour with the Rejoynder as that in eyther he may passe without some shrewd censorious note If he holde his peace he is a gentle man if he speak he is a quarreller But what are the reasons of blame in this place 1. The Defender forsooth was not tied to the Abridgents order 2. It were idle to speak of directive rules if
same groundes termes and condition that the Def. and Rejoynder doe Cum velit Deuâ— ex praescripto legis sua coliâ—â—â— proinde fictitios â—ultus detâ—stetur fideâ— certereâ— ugnat quicquam oâ—us mandatis addi hominum arbitriâ— he sayth of them Seing God will be worshipped by the rule of his law and therefore detests all feined services it is undoubtedly contrarie to faith that any thing be added to his precepts by the judgment of man But that answer being onely for a florish the Rejonder his second is that Calvin spake of mysticall Ceremonies excescively multiplied As if both these could not staÌ„d together for to speak against any sinne excessively multipied and yet withall against sinne The Prophets often speak of multiplying idols altars fornications according to the number of cities or townes on every â—igh hill under every green tree Doe they not withall speak simplie against all idolatrie But Calvin as the Rejoynder addeth alloweth in some case the mixture of a like water with wine in the Lords Supper What for a religions Ceremonie shew the place and after that see how it can be justified against those accusations which the Rejoynder layeth upon Sopping the bread in wine pag. 61.62.63 Calvin as he lastly addeth epist. 120. could have wished that Hooper had not so muche strugled against the Cap and Rochet or Surplice But beside that Calvin did not nor we neyther esteem a Cap or a Rochet eyther a Surplice is added by the Rejoynder so evill as the Crosse in Baptisme Calvin could not say so muche without a shrewed item ut illa etiam non probem though I doe not allow of suche thinges Which manyfestly declare that his wishe was not grounded on suche an opinion as the Def. and Rejoynder mainteyne It might also be added that Calvin in the same place accused them of wicked perfidiousnesse who though they seemed to favour the Gospel yet made a partie against Hooper about that trashe unto the hindering of his Ministerie which is the case of al our deprâ—ving and silencing Prelates 5. The second witnesse produced by the Def. for to be answered is Chemnitius To whose condemning of all worship instituded without the word the Def. answered by his wedge saying that he meant onely that which is made essential worship not accidentall Concerning this distinction enough hath been sayd in the 5. and 6. staple sect of the manudiction let this onely be remembred that it is all one as if he should divide worship into worshâ—p and no worship for both Def. and Rejoynder often say accidentall worship is no worship They adde some time for explication that it is no essentiall worship but so they may say eâ—sentiall worship is no worship and then adde that they mean no accidentall worship The Repl. therfor justly required that should be showen if Chemnitius distinguish will-worship as he doeth into lawfull and unlawfull Vpon this occasion the Rejoynder 1. criethout of a falshood shamefull and to be blushed at for saying that the Def. distinguisheth will-worship into lawfull and unlawfull But let any man judge where is the falshood shame and cause of blushing The question is of worship invented by man which Chemnitius with other Divines call will-worship whether it be lawfull or no the Def. answereth by a distinction that some is unlawfull as essentiall and some lawfull as accidentall What can be more plaine But sayth the Rejoynder Accidentall worship be denieth to be properly worshâ—p and therfore denieth it to be will worship unlesse it be imagined essentiall What a consequence is this to bear up so weightie an accusation It is not properly worship and therfore it is not will-worship He may as well say it is not properly worship and therfore it is not lawfull worship May it not be improper will-worship though it be not properly worship Or no improper worship come meerly from the will of man It is rather a propertie of Ceremonies to depend meerly on the will of the institutor So Tostatus in Exod. tom 1.148 et in Levit. pag. 585. A Ceremonie is a certain observation or a speciall mauner of worshipping God determined out of the sole Commandment of of the lawgiver Ceremonia est observatio quaedam vel modus specialis colendi Deum determinatus ex solo mandato legislatoris His second exception is frivolous His third is this Chemnitius hath this distinction in substance though not in termes For he sayth that right inward worship being supposed right externall expressions will follow of their owne accorde and they are externall worship though not acceptable in themselves Where 1. Mark the partialitie of the Rejoynder In the former answer he requireth the Repl. to shew the distinction which he attributeth to the Def. in his words or termes otherwise he may blush for shame Now when he is urged to shew his distinction out of Chemnitius he forsaketh words or termes and flieth to substance without once thinking of shame and blushâ—ng 2. This substance is a meer shadow For first Chemnitius acknowlegeth no outward expressions to be right worship but onely those that flow of their owne accorde without any institutioÌ„ from inward worship And who will say that the Def. and Rejoynder their accidentall worship of Crosse and Surplice doe so flow from internall Secondly those externall expressions are as essentiall to externall worship as profession of faith is to a visible Churche Nay ther is no externall worship beside the expressions and setting forth of the internall Thirdly Though those expressions be not acceptable of or in themselves being separated from the internall yet it doeth not follow from thence that they are in their nature accidentall worship and no ways substantial For the Rejoynder confesseth that all Gods ordinances are substantiall worship and yet he will not say that Gods outward ordinances are acceptable unto him when they are separated from internall worship Vpon supposition which now appeareth true that the Def. could not shew his distinction out of Chemnitius he was desired at the least to shew that ther is some worship which is not necessarie because otherwise he must needs sincke under CheÌ„nitius his charge To this the Rejonder answereth 1. that Chemnitius understandeth by will worship whatsoever of mans device is imagined necessarie 2. that ther is some externall worship which is not in the particularities of it necessarie For the first of which enough is sayd in the 7. s. of the manud Yet here I may adde that it is so farre from trueth no will-worship can be without imagination of necessitie that on the contrarie whosoever doeth take upon him for his will sake professedly to apoynt any worship cannot possiblie imagine it absolutely necessarie but acknowleging ther hath been worship without his addition he professeth to adde something not simplie necessarie to the being but onely to the better being of it As for the second In Gods own ordinances which were substantiall and essentiall by the Rejoynder his confession
divine by institution No man can conclude thus we must every where have some garment and therefore in England a Surplice We must alwayes in Baptisme have some admonition to professe the faith and therefore in England a Crosse. We must use reverent gestures in receiving the holy Communion and therefore in England we must kneel in the act of receiving But we may conclude thus We must have a fit place to meete in and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation therefore we must have this We must have a convenient time to meete in and this houre is generally most convenient for our Congregation therefore this The Monkes may as well conclude We must have some garments therefore we must in one order have blacke in another white in a third blacke over white or white over blacke in a fourth gray a fifth party coloured in some all wollen in some all linnen c. ad infinitum as well I say every whit as the Rejoynder can conclude from a garment to a Surplice from admonition to the signe of a Crosse or from reverence in a table-gesture to kneeling To Bellarmine the Rejoynder answereth that he speaketh of naturall Ceremonies Which is true but are not these conteined under the generality of the Defendâ—nt his words there is no gesture or circumstance of worship which hath not beene abused And as for other circumstances which are called civill many of them admit onely of such variety as nature doth lead unto by occasion of this or that determination common to religion with other affaires 9. That our Ceremonies are not individually or singularly the same which Papists have solemnely abused the Replier said it is no marvell because it is impossible to carry the same particular signe of the Crosse from the Fonte to the Church doore or to keep it being so long as it is in making That is therefore no great mystery The Rejoynder answereth nothing to this save onely that he descanteth upon the terme mystery 10. It was added as an overplus not for necessity of the Argument that as it seemeth Papists doe give divine honour unto the signe of the Crosse as it is usâ—d among us because they ascribe divine operation unâ—o it as it was used by Iewes Heathens and Iulian the Apostata Bell de effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 31. and they doe not account us worse then them The Rejoynder opposeth 1. That the Papists honour not the Lords Supper in our hands The difference is that unto that Sacrament they require a right-ordained Priest but not so to the Crosse. 2. He answereth that they ascribe this divine operation unto it onely when there is an intention of such an operation in him that maketh the Crosse. Be it so the Patrones of our crossing defend that use which the Crosse had among the Fathers who allowed that intention as Bellarmine in the place now cited sheweth And how shall the inward intention of them be discerned This at the least seemeth to follow that as for uncertainty of the Priests intention divers Papists worship the Hoaste onely upon condition if it be changed into the body by the Priests intention so they must ascribe divine honour unto our Crosses upon the like condition of such an intention as was in the Fathers 11. About materiall formall samenesse the Replier refused to dispute that was sayth the Rejoynder because if he had he must either have opposed all learning and common sense or else have yeelded to the Dâ—fendant that change of essentiall forme maketh the same materiall to become another thing as in the changing of water into wine But 1. with consent of all common sense we may say that our Crosse differeth not so from the Popish Crosse as the wine did from water Ioh. 2. 2. It were no opposition to all learning whatsoever Aristole teacheth if one should say that not the forme onely but also the matter was in a great part changed when water was turned into wine 3. Opinion and intention is not the essentiall forme of a ceremoniall Crosse. For one and the same ceremoniall Crosse is used by Papists to divers intentions as to represent a Mystery to cure diseases to drive away divels c. Bellarmine in the fore-cited place And opinion belongeth to the efficient or making cause not to the forme 4. The very making of a Crosse in such a manner or with such circumstances as put upon it a relation to religion maketh both matter and forme of that Ceremony and so after idolatrously abused carrieth with it at least a shew of an Idolatrous Ceremony But this shew the Rej. referreth unto the fifth chapter and heere opposeth onely that likenesse and samenesse are not one Which is true of individuall or singular samenesse not otherwise for those things are like which have one and the same qualitie But he himselfe will not say that onely the same individuall or particular Ceremonies which Idolaters abuse are forbidden to us He hath hitherto in all this section declined the defence of that absurdity This quidity therefore is not to the purpose 12. It was added by the Replier that we have no intention or opinion in the use of the Crosse but the Papists have the same though they have others more and therefore there is some formall samenesse in their Crosse and ours To this the Rejoynd in many words answereth nothing but that this replie stifles it selfe because if we have not all the same opinions which they have then they have not the same with us But it doeth not follow of positive opinions concerning the Crosse it selfe For we may want some of their opinions and yet they have all that we have the same Doeth not he that knoweth most of this or that know the same thing with him that knoweth little though he knoweth more 13. Another odde reason was framed by the Repl. thus If this doeth make a Ceremony not the same that men have not altogether the same opinion of it then among the Papists there are as many kinde of Ceremonies Crosses Surplices as there are diversities of opinions about their nature and use which no man will say Yes sayth the the Rejoynder I will say it of Ceremonies and he that shall denie this must lay aside both learning and conscience not knowing what to say But he is too too confident upon the ground which he is driven to by force of a contrary winde For without laying aside of learning and conscience we may thus argue If this be so then all human Ceremonies used among the Papists and brought in as hitherto all have used to speake by Popes are not Popish For they may be this or that Hedge-Priests Ceremonies who hath added his opinion and institution unto them 2. The Pope by the same reason cannot know when his Ceremonies arâ— observed or omitted because he cannot know all opinions and intentions of men And the like reason holding with us our Church must inquire into the opinions and intentions