Apostle did practise some legall Ceremon◠though in his owne purpose not as a legall Ceremony or in obedience to the Law ceremonial or as a yoke and burden but in other materiall respects in sometime and on some person after that it appeared to him and was euident that the same Ceremony among other persons and at other times was a yoke and a burden And is it not strange that my Brethren should not see this but impute it to me as a strange thing But they enioyned none such Ceremonies as were yokes and burdens admit of that the question is of practise of Ceremonies to auoide depriuation not of inioyning Next they affirme that they could not bee called ordinances of the world commandements or doctrines of men or voluntary religion neither could they be termed impotent and beggarly rudiments I say againe yes they might be so termed and that lawfully For the holy Ghost in the Apostle doth expresly terme them so in the same words both the obseruation of dayes moneths times and yeres Gal. 4. 9. 10. Holy-daies new Moones Sabboth daies Colos 2. 16. 22. as also abstinence from meates Touch not taste not handle not Col. 2. 10. 21. 22. 23. which was the very thing enioyned by the Apostles Act. 15. 28. If the Holy Ghost called them so we may be bold to terme them such But my Brethren say that they could not be termed such so long and so far forth as the Apostles did vse or inioyne them The which I answere by distinguishing betweene there nature and the vse that the Apostles had of them In their nature they were such as they were called yokes burdens or burdening traditions impotent and beggarly rudiments not onely in respect of the vnbeleeuing or ignorant beleeuing Iewes abuse but vnto the godly and best instructed Christians also for which of them would willingly haue vsed them without occasions of necessity to auoide a further incouenience yea considering them also in themselues for seeing Christ himselfe was come the body of what sound vse or erudition could they be what could they teach but Christ to come which was already come which also was an vntruth or what comfort could they minister to the Gentiles to whom they were inioyned or to Timothy and Paul by whom they were practised but as yokes and burdens only the comfort of their practise was the good purpose which they serued for the winning of the Iewes or retaining of them in the loue of the Gospell as the reasons alleadged by my Brethren out of Acts 21. 20. 24. 1. Cor. 9. 20. doe shew which were the causes of the Apostles vse of them made their practise lawfull But this much is sufficient to prooue the point in question For this sheweth the nature of those ceremonies to agree with the nature of ours As the Iewish ceremonies so likewise ours barely considered in thēselues which the Papists many professed Protestants abuse may be accounted in a sort yokes burdens burdening traditions commandements and doctrines of men voluntary religion impotent and beggerly rudiments c. yet as the Ceremonies practised by the Apostles so also ours by the same analogy in a case of necessity of expediency to redeeme the liberty of the Gospel in the Ministry of many good Teachers they are good and necessary and the commandements of God to practise 2. The second member of this Section affirmeth That it will neuer be prooued by me and if not then nothing is said to the purpose that when and where the Apostles or those Churches vsed them they had beene notoriously knowen to haue beene so abused or to haue wrought such euill effects as I there speake of And my answere is That it is true these ceremonies were not at all abused by any well grounded Christians at any time or place But it is not possible but my Brethren should know that the ceremonies well vsed by the Apostles Churches and other godly persons were knowen by them to haue been grossely abused euen as I alleadged in my first reason by the refractary and weake Christian Iewes euery where euen then when as they practised them like as we know that our Ceremonies haue been and are abused by Papists and weake Brethren notwithstanding which abuse knowledge thereof they persisted to vse them as often as necessity enforced and iust occasiō was offred For Paul knew how the Iewes abused circumcision to establish an opinion of the necessity thereof vnto saluation Act. 15. 1. yet after this knowledge he vsed it Act. 16. 3. and when S. Paul circumcised Timothy for the Iewes sake is it not euident that the Iewes had a false and abusiue opinion and practise of circumcision to preuent whose vniust offence Paul did it notwithstanding which the Apostle practised Circumcision on Timothy Likewise S. Paul his reprouing of Peter for abuse of Iewish ceremonies in causing of Gentiles to conforme vnto them Gal. 2. 11 12 14. whether wee referre the time thereof to Paraeus in Gal. 2. 104. Act. 11. 26. or as Paraeus doth to Act. 15. 30. 35. was before his circumcising of Timothy and his vowing and shauing of himselfe Act. 18. 21. Lastly was it not knowen to the Apostles when they obserued the occasion of the Iewish Sabbath to preach vnto them that the Iewes had an opinion of necessity of obseruation of that day as they had Ioh. 9. 16. Luc. 13. 14. Matt. 12. 2. Or could Paul and the Apostles bee ignorant that vowing offring contributing shauing dueties of the ceremoniall Law were abused by the Iewes both before they practised them and where they practised them and euen by occasion of their practise which doeth easily appeare by the violence which the Iewes vsed on a bare suspition that Paul was a professed enemie vnto the Legall rites Act. 21. 21 27 29. As for that which my Brethren alledge concerning Paul who hauing vsed circumcision and other Ceremonies doth after with great bitternesse reprooue and condemne the vse of them Gal. 4. 9 10. and 5. 12. Tit. 1. 14. I will omit that which some ‖ Gual in Gal. 2. Hom. 10 fol. 29. b. Codoman annal s Scriptur Ambros Chrysostomus learned men obserue that the Epistle to the Galat. was written before the Councill of Ierusalem Act. 15. and then those reproofes of his must goe before the circumcising of Timothy and shauing of himselfe Act. 16. 18. because it is controuerted and holden otherwise by †Paraeus prolegom in Ep. ad Rom. fol. 48. 49. Idem pro. em in Epist ad Gal. fol. 22. 23. other godly learned men But to it I say that that reproofe of Paul was not vsed in respect of the time after but in respect of the different case it was a case of confession that is hee was called to confesse a fundamentall truth in Titus case which he was not in the case of Timothy For the false Brethren would haue compelled Titus to haue beene circumcised meaning his conscience as
I will argue the lawfulnesse of the Apostles vsing them an hundred times and in an hundred Churches Againe if Paul did lawfully practise circumcision on Timothy and shauing vowing offering and purifying on himselfe I will conclude that he might as lawfully practise on the like occasions and for the same iust reasons the most part of the Ceremonies of the law ceremoniall if need had beene which amount to a farre greater reckoning then the Ceremonies of our Church make them as many as my brethren may In a word if they were lawfully practised then might the practise thereof be lawfully inioyned vn-the Churches where necessitie enforceth seeing it is the iniunction of a lawfull and needfull thing As for those proofes of mine which my brethren doe sift cleane contrary to my drift or practise there was no neede for themselues so to wrest them and then to lay the wresting of them to my charge as if from them I had concluded quidlibet ex quolibet They were orderly and perspicuously set downe by mee vnder euery head or member in as much as that without wresting and abusing they could not intend more then I did there cleerely proue by thē For though I did vndertake to proue euery head or member of my proposition by the Scripture annexed to them in seuerall yet I did not vndertake to proue euery member or any member by euery Scripture as my brethren would inforce vpon me This dealing of my brethren was not so direct as I could wish And one thing more that whereas I alleadge the Apostles iniunction of abstaining from blood and strangled My Brethren answere that these Ceremonies were not by them inioyned as Ceremonies to the Churches of the Gentiles That also of their obseruation of preaching on the Iewish Sabbath they say it cannot bee called a religious obseruation As if they could produce or conclude out of my wordes any such absurd or vnsound doctrine as my Brethren would seeme to thrust vpon me Or as if it were not sufficient to my purpose that the Apostles inioyned to the Churches of the Gentiles and obserued the time of the Iewish Sabboth matters which were Ceremonies of Moses law and in themselues fruitlesse though not religiously or as Ceremonies of the Lawe as before I noted such an assertion would serue a Papist well who obserueth humane Ceremonies as religious obseruations which our Church disclaimeth and therefore were it needlesse for any man to straine himselfe to such a purpose The second point of mine assumption is touching the nature of the ceremonies where my brethren do respect the second member of my confirmation of the assumption to be this That those Ceremonies which the Apostles and the Churches in their times vsed were euery way as inconuenient and euill as ours are in their iudgement And to make this good my Brethren tel the Reader that I take vpon me to shew 1. That they are as euill in nature as ours are 2. That they had been and were asmuch abused as ours haue been 3. That the vse of them wrought as dangerous effects as the vse of our can doe 4. That whatsoeuer is obiected against our Ceremonies might haue been said against them To which report of theirs I say before I proceede further to answere that seeing trueth needs no falshood or fraud for confirmation for God needes not the helpe of mans lye I doe greatly maruell that my Brethren men of that approued pietie learning and sharpe iudgement should be found failing in their fidelitie as I doe herein challenge them 1. In the vntrue reporting of my assertion as is euident by collation of either part 1. They report that I should say that those Ceremonies which the Apostles vsed were euery way as inconuenient and euil as ours and that it may appeare it was no slip nor ouersight they proceed to misinterprete that I should say that they are first as euill in nature as our ceremonies are secondly as much abused thirdly and hauing as dangerous effects in the vse as ours haue 2. Whereas it is true that I say that they were as inconuenient and euil as ours but I say withall in sundry maine respects which is farre from that which my Brethren do report namely euery way as euill 2. The like dealing my Brethren vse in misreporting me touching the fourth member of the things alleadged First I say the same obiections in substance and for the most part which are obiected against our Ceremonies to proue them simply euill might be obiected against the Ceremonies practised by the Apostles But they wil haue me say that whatsoeuer is obiected against our Ceremonies might haue beene said against them But thus an elder Brother might easily put besides his yonger Brother from that benefit of enioying his poore patrimonie The Fathers will saith the elder Brother shall haue his Fathers goods for the most part but the elder Brother saith that his Father gaue him all whatsoeuer what equitie were this let my Brethren iudge Secondly another exception against my Brethrens lacke of fidelitie towards mee is this that they alleadge the heads of probation but they conceale the most part of the proofs of those heads by which they be confirmed And further in taking such things which they thinke they may say most against with greatest probability and leauing much more that strongly maketh against them as by collation the Reader may iudge easily But by this dealing who may not easily confute the cleerest trueth or confirme the strongest error Now to the reply of my Brethren to this second point touching the nature of the Ceremonies which is by them distinguished into three members First they say that no one of those testimonies of Scripture alleadged by me touching the titles giuen to Ceremonies how abused what euill effects they had doth make any whit to my purpose or can with any colour of reason be applied to any Ceremony vsed or inioyned by the Apostles and they bring out three or foure instances to which they speake leauing cleane out and passing by all the other Scriptures cited by mee and annexed to the euill vse and effects of those Ceremonies which are very many which places and proofes doe still remaine in full force and had beene answered as I suppose if there were not that force in them which is vnanswerable Wherefore my Brethren should not haue thus said that no one of the testimonies make any whit to my purpose vnlesse they had answered all for wherefore should they say not one and leaue so many vntouched To answere three and suffer more then thrice three or foure to escape their censure But let vs see the places which they deale withall First they say the Ceremonies vsed or inioyned by the Apostles were no yokes or burdens or burdening traditions This is vntrue For circumcision vrged Act. 15. 1. is called a yoke vers 10. and a burden vers 26. Yet after that Paul circumcised Timothy Act. 16. 3. Whereupon I inferre that the holy
a lesser sinne for to performe a duety that is greater Answere First the doctrine of the proposition remaineth true notwithstanding this obiection For the case is proposed not of a sinne and a duetie but of two dueties being considered a part being both commanded of God and there is no such case wherein a greater duetie is to bee neglected for the performance of a lesser which also is in reason absurd Secondly to the instance of preaching in a naked manner I say that in this case there are two things to bee considered Necessitie and Decency if then he cannot preach naked but with the perill of his life he ought to refuse preaching it being a case of necessity and mercy is better then sacrifice But if his life will consist with his naked preaching hee ought to preach notwithstanding the scandall or indecencie if there bee no other meanes admitted for his preaching 1 Because a mans naked body being considered as it is naked it is the good creature of God and is not indecent to be looked on but to vncleane and vaine mindes it is decent enough to the pure 2 Because the gayning of soules and meanes of mans saluation is a duety of farre greater reason and waight then the auoyding of an inconuenient circumstance of scandall or of seeming indecencie arising only by accident not from the nature of the obiect and the like case is of the practise of our Ceremonies to redeeme the libertie of preaching to the place Rom. 3. 8. which sheweth that we may not doe the least euill to compasse the greatest good I say that to the present purpose wee may consider euill two manner of wayes For first euill is either that which is formally simply and in nature euill which no circumstance can amend As to redeeme preaching vpon condition of blaspheming God Inuocating the Deuill committing of idolatry periury idultery teaching of heresie or the like the which kind of euill is intended by the Apostle and may not bee done at any hand for the gayning of the greatest good 2 Againe euill may bee taken for that which is onely circumstantially ceremonially or accidentally euill which kind of euill may in some cases bee practised without sinne namely in case of superior reason at what time it is improperly called euill That this is so appeareth in the Priests who brake the Sabbath in Dauid who did that which was not lawfull for him to doe and yet were blamelesse and innocent Mat. 12. 4 5. 7. Also in the practise of Iewish inconuenient and many wayes euill Ceremonies which practise was so farre from being euill in that case that it was good and necessary Act. 15. 28. 29. touching this obiection see more at the end of the argument Obiect Mordecay refused to bow and performe the gesture of reuerence to Haman yea though hee were commanded by the King Hest 3. 1 2 3. by which refusall of obedience to a ceremoniall hee violated two greater dueties One was the Kings command and the other was the hazard of his life and destruction of the Church of the Iewes and thereby for performance of a lesser duetie hee did violate a greater Answ Either this gesture was Spirituall or Ciuill if the former hee ought to auoide spirituall adoration to a creature an heathen a wicked person an Amalekite and an enemy of the Church which is a sufficient and the true answere and thus doe all interpreters vnderstand this place thus the Hebrew glosse thus the Apocryphall prayer in the additions to Hester Lyra Vataplus Iunius Drusius Merlyne vpon these places If the latter either his action was euill or good if euill in disobeying the Magistrate in a thing indifferent it is impertinently alledged if well the reason is vnknowne and not expressed wee cannot iudge of the qualitie of the dueties compared if he did refuse this reuerence 1 Because hee was of the Amalekites which were especially cast out by God Exod. 11. 14. Deut. 25. 7. Num. 24. 7. 2 Because an open prophane person a malitious and professed aduersary of Gods Church 3 Because himselfe was a better man then Haman being the Queenes Vncle it may bee considerable whether hee did not well euen in this respect to refuse this reuerence Touching the hazard of his life and ruine of the Church it was vnknowne to Mordecai for Haman practised it because he did refuse it Obiect Daniel neglected a greater duety to performe a lesser for hee continued to pray three times a day kneeling vpon his knees his window being open towards Ierusalem notwithstanding that he knew that he should die for doing it so hee preferred the ceremonie and circumstance of prayer which was a smaller duetie before the safety of his life which was a greater Dan. 6. 10. Also the Iewes chose rather to die then to eate Swines flesh 2. Mac. 7. 1. and 6. 8. preferring obseruance of a ceremoniall duetie before their life Answ To these instances I first demaund whether these bee brought therefore to conclude that therefore Ministers should rather die then to vse the Ceremonies prescribed in our Church And let it bee considered seriously by euery person truely fearing God whether they thinke it fit for another or could resolue himselfe to loose this life by being at a stake for none other cause then for refusing the prescribed Ceremonies especially in a true Church of Christ wherein there are otherwise a true confession of faith and sufficient meanes of their saluation If it should fall out that they would not die in such a case I would know further how then they could loose their Ministery for not vsing them seeing it were better for a Minister to loose his life then to loose the comfort of his Ministerie Act. 20. 24. 1. Cor. 9. 15. If they would rather suffer death then vse the Ceremonies let them shew the ground and comfort they should haue before the Lord in this proceeding If they alleadge these instances I wil shew to how small purpose they serue therein therefore I say that their cases doe farre differ from the case in question First they were controuersies depending betweene the heathen and professed enemies of Gods Church and betweene the people of Gods couenant and members of the Church our controuersies are in the Church and betweene professed louers and beleeuers in Christ Secondly they were cases of confession wherein they were called to confesse the trueth and religion of God amongst Gods enemies as also the necessitie of inuocation of Gods name and of obedience to Gods precepts With vs the doctrine of Ceremonies is true and according to Gods word and the parts of our generall confession in the Booke of Articles is agreeable to the word of God Thirdly the dueties were of exceeding great moment for the performance whereof they should haue hazarded and lost many liues Daniel stood in obedience of a maine substantiall duetie not Ceremoniall or circumstantiall of the first commandement namely prayer to God and praysing of his name
iudged they of the Crosse in Baptisme and of kneeling at Communion the rest which afterward shal be alleadged The reasons prouing this poynt are these Because they are neither expresly Commaunded nor forbidden of God Bucanus vbi superius this rule also of a thing indifferent hath Polanus Syntag. lib. 6. cap. 38. fol. 3036. Paraeus Colleg. 2. cap. 31. sect 15. fol. 274. Illyricus claue Scriptur fol. 22. part 1. Adiap And are distinguished from things simply good which are expressely Commaunded from things simply euill which are expressely forbidden of God being in their nature neither morrally good or euill neither Commanded nor forbidden of God and by accident may bee both good and euill Exerc. part inter Thes fol. 826. Obiection Beza contra Sarauiam cap. 25. fol. 200. saith indifferent things I call which are neither expressely nor secretly Commaunded nor forbidden by the word neither maketh vs the better being vsed nor the worse if wee vse them not But our ceremonies are forbidden in the word in generall and in particular in our vse Ergo. Answere So may be said of the Iewish ceremonies rather then of ours both they and these are in nature indifferent not impious and in the case of depriuation or necessity are not forbidden any way but commaunded rather because wee must vse indifferent things for the furtherance of the Churches edification and not refuse them though they seeme to vs inconuenient to the Churches destruction And as for Beza with all other sound writers that are of other mindes concerning our ceremonies they hold them in their nature indifferent and not forbidden in the word especially in our vse and in the case of simple necessity 2 Because in some cases a man may vse them and not sinne which a thing in nature euil he can neuer vse but he shal incuitably sin of this nature are Idolatry adultery blasphemy periury which sins no circumstance can euer amend Beza cont Saraui cap. 25. fol. 199. Indifferentia sunt quorum vsus modo bonus modo illicitus prout viz bene vel male illis vtitur quae naturam habeant neque ad bonum neque ad malum determinatam 3 Because in some respects and in some vse they may bee good a thing in nature euill can neuer bee put to any profitable vse Peter Martyr saith Adiaphoris bene vel male vti possumus L. Clas 4. cap. 4. fol. 707. 4 Because in some respects and in the same vse they may bee good and necessary as the Iewish rites were in the Apostles practise 5 Because they are of the same nature with the Iewish rites practised by the Apostles Of this opinion is Peter Martyr Loc cum inter Epist fol. 1087. Zanchius in Philip. 1. fol. 45. Polanus in Ezech. 44. fol. 807. which ceremonies by the streame of all sound writers are holden as indifferent in nature in the case wherein they vsed them 6 Because a man vsing them all the dayes of his life as they are prescribed in our Church and that without repentance for such vse of them may still remaine a godly and good man and presupposing him otherwise to walke in holinesse may in that estate bee saued whereas one sinne in nature as to liue in fornication 1. Cor. 6. 9. 10. Being continued in especially if it should bee pleaded for and defended Mat. 5. 9. Cannot stand with his saluation So Bucer script Anglican 1458. Martyr inter Episto fol. 1085. Amico cuidam Aretius sayth that indifferent things are such as are in equall respect to good and to bad Prob. cap. 83. de Adiaph fol. 266. 7 Because if they were in nature euill a godly person could not communicate with a good conscience with our Church which doth prescribe and practise them and remoueth them not being admonished neither in the Ministery or any worship of God Bucer Epist. Io. Alasco Martyr fol 1086. Hoopero 8 Because all such as haue continued in the vse of them and defended the same might be iudged impiouse and wicked such as are the Martyrs and other worthy persons of our Church and other Churches also yea the Apostles and all faithfull teachers and Churches since their time should be condemned yea it might bee taught as a doctrine that such as vse them with continuance or maintaining them could not be saued which I suppose none of the Ministers which are depriued will iustifie Martyr fol. 1086. Hoopero Simply euill may be taken for any thing particularly forbidden of God or the omission of a thing particularly commanded of God sundry things of which kind though in themselues considered are euill may bee done lawfully for a superior good and in that case doe leaue to be simply euill as to doe seuile labour on the Sabbaoth day to eate such bread as God had forbidden to the persons which did eate thereof to come or admit commers in a legall vnsanctified estate to the Sacraments and the like which shall bee after mentioned more fully therefore to this purpose I distinguish of euill as before which may bee two wayes considered either for that which is intrinsically formally and in the nature thereof euill not onely because God hath forbidden it or commaunded the contrary which kinde of euill is immutabiliter malum as murther periury adultery c. Being against the immutabilitie of Gods nature no circumstance can make them good though by circumstances they may bee lessened or made greater of this nature our Ceremonies are not neither can they bee euills of this kinde or else euill is taken for that which being indifferent in nature yet by accident is euill namely in vse when offence will be taken thereat by diuers persons in diuers respects or rather inconueniences will arise which were euill therefore to vse if it lay in mans power to refuse them Againe for that which being particularly forbidden of God in his Word is therefore vnlawfull to doe The euill of both which latter kinde may by circumstances bee amended and the practise thereof may leaue to be a sinne namely in a case of superiour reason when a dutie of greater band doth tie the conscience which that it may be the better manifested we may obserue two points First the degrees Secondly the subordination of duties commanded in the Law of God Consider first that there are degrees of duties of both Tables of the Law which appeareth in reason for there are duties substantiall and duties circumstantiall Substantiall duties are both internall of the first Table as loue knowledge feare and confidence in God of the second Table as loue reuerence patience kindnesse compassion iustice c. Substantiall externall also of the first Table standeth in the maine worships of inuocation preaching and hearing of the Word receiuing of the Scraments lawfull swearing c. Of the second Table as outward reuerence obedience helpe and tribute to superiours kindnesse and thankfulnesse shewed to equalls almes reward correction and instruction to inferiours The circumstantiall duties of either Table are
so farre foorth onely as they agree and consent 4 They alleadge the vngrounded opinions of some priuate fathers we their trueth so farreforth as they agree to Gods word and examples of the Prophets of Christ and his Apostles 5 They insist vpon Fathers further from the Apostles from Apostolicall and Primitiue purity wee most of all insist on those who were most neere to the Apostles as being most pure and free from Antichristian contagion 6 They are only for the former Fathers we bring the consent of all our later worthy Fathers and teachers of the most reformed and purest Churches of the world Obiect This were to giue and to ascribe as much to man as to God to make them the grounds and iudges of our faith or practise yea it is so farre from being a sinne to sway from all iudgements that it is a sinne to iudge that all iudgements should bee the rule of our consciences Answ This obiection is both vnfit and vntrue It is vnfit because the argument concludeth not that they are or that we should make them the grounds and iudges of our faith and practise But that it is an errour and a sinne to condemne the whole Church of Christ for teaching errour and for practising and maintaining sinne Next it is an vntruth to call the whole company of Saints and spirituall persons Man opposed vnto God Which appeareth further by considering the aequiuocation of the word Man For man is taken either for meere man i a carnall man or to the poynt a company of carnall men prophane ignorant and erronious which cannot know nor perceiue the things of God because they are spiritually discerned 1. Cor. 2 14. and so it is true if the case were thus that wee should put the iudgement of this thing to a company of carnall persons for in this case it is sayde that all men are lyers Rom. 3. 4. But there is also the spirituall man which hath vnderstanding to iudge what other men do say 1. Cor. 10. 15. and discerneth all things euen the deepe things of God Psal 25. 14. 9. 1. Cor. 2. 15. 10. 12. Dan. 12. 10. Iohn 7. 17. 1. Iohn 2. 27. The consent in iudgement of which company is not to be termed a company of men opposed against God But such as being built one the foundation of the Prophets Apostles and Christ the corner stone Eph. 2. 20. are also called by holy the Ghost in this respect the pillar and ground of trueth 1. Tim. 3. 15. Obiect A priuate man may see a truth which a great many Godly men may not discerne Answ Though a priuate man may see more into some trueth and explicate or confirme it better than many other yet it were absurd to say that one man might see more then all the faithfull all godly learned Teachers all true Churches that euer were in the world for the rule is good which Lyrinensis giueth Nouè non noua The Papists take the Church for onely persons in office as Pope Cardinall Bishops and Abbots and other Doctors gathered in a Councill and it was well maintained by Gerson that a priuate man by the light of Gods word may see more then they all And the reeson is plaine First because those persons haue many wayes prooued themselues to be carnall and prophane and not able to discerne the things of God which are spiritually to be discerned And againe because they iudge not as it was inioined to the Priest in the law Secundum legem Deut. 17. 11. and so there can be no light in them Esa 8. 20. But the case in question is quite opposite to this in either part and therefore this obiection toucheth not the point Obiect The whole Church of God may erre in some circumstantiall matters All visible Churches may erre in matters not fundamentall The consent of Churches and of the faithfull teachers according to Gods word a rule of fundamental truths that is of al such truths as may quiet a mans conscience it is not so in matters of circumstance Answ 1 Wee hold rightly against the Papists that all particular Churches may erre whereupon wee assume and inferre But the Roman Church is a particular Church Therefore it may erre But that the Catholique Church taken in the sence that our part doe explicate it i for the company of the faithfull in all ages it was neuer holden by any sound diuine But the cleane contrary 2 Though the iudgement of all true Churches in matters fundamentall be infallible because without fundamentalls they could not be Churches and againe albeit all particular Churches may erre in matters circumstantiall and ceremoniall yet it is an hard speach to say that the generall or Catholique Churches or company of the faithfull in all ages haue generally consented in an error neither can there possibly on instance be shewed of such a point no not of a circumstantiall point 3 The depriued Ministers hold it a sinne in nature to practise the ceremonies prescribed in our Church or the like but sinne in nature is a thing substantiall in the practise whereof a mans conscience cannot bee quieted and therefore if the iudgements of all Churches bee brought against them either they must confesse their doctrine in this point to be an error or else that the whole general Church since Christ haue erred fundamentally which is not farre from haeresy and blasphemy and I earnestly do pray them to consider of this poynt Obiect Churches and fathers haue exceedingly differed among themselues in all times heere should wee make their iudgement and consent to bee a rule of our doctrine and practise Answ This is soone answered because I speake not of their differences or of the things wherein they are deuided but only of such things wherein they all consent and agree as namely they all agree that the Christian Sabbath must bee sanctified and that from the ground and in memoriall of Christ his resurrection for they agree that al the bookes of Scripture are the word of God and in the point in question they agree that Churches may vary in their ceremonies and discipline and yet retaine their peace one with another And that ceremonies as inconuenient as our ceremonies are supposed to be in some respect fit to be abolished yet may they be retained and ought to be practised to preuent the diuision of brethren disquiet of the Church hinderance of the Gospel and there are few points wherein they agree more constantly then in this Obiect We are commanded to call no man our teacher vpon earth because one is our Doctor and teacher euen Christ Mat. 23. 8. 10. there is one law giuer Iam. 4. 12. Answ This obiection is much vrged by Brownists as some of the others are But what will they conclude from hence surely if any such thing it must be this Therefore we may not make the iudgement of the Fathers or whatsoeuer men in earth a rule of our conscience And indeed I say
sence And if there had beene that difficulty in that sentence which they pretend yet Grammer might haue put them in minde that sentences of doubtful interpretation should be construed by that which immediatly goeth before or followeth after especially if it cohaere therewith Now the rules or reasons spoken of in that very place immediatly before as also immediatly after this sentence are expresly specified to be rules and reasons of perpetuall and common equity which they could not be ignorant of and therefore the instance of Abraham vrged this second time commeth in heere as vnseasonably as it did before that is as much to say as to no purpose at all 3. Lastly to the instance which I gaue out of 1. Cor. 14. 27 30 31 34 35 40. It is answered by my Brethren that I affirme that which seemeth to haue no colour of good reason in it namely because of the different natures of the Iewish ceremonies and of these prescribed by S. Paul in the forenamed place Howbeit I say againe although there be disagreement in respect of dissimilitude of Ceremonies the one sort of them decent of themselues and by the light of nature the other sort namely for a Christian to practise Iewish Ceremonies vnseemely the one sort fitted to all times the other only practised in certain cases and in some Churches yet there is agreement betweene them in those things for which they are alleadged For 1. both sorts are matters ceremoniall and circumstantiall not substantiall or fundamentall Ceremonia may bee genus to them both 2. Both sorts were prescribed and practised by the holy Apostles 3. Both sorts had the same rules grounds or ends of practise namely Necessity expediency profit and edification of the Church Now touching our Ceremonies albeit they be not of that nature altogether with those prescribed of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. yet I suppose them to be of the nature of the Iewish Ceremonies practised by the Apostles and therefore doe conclude with all godly learned teachers that euer vttered their iudgements herein that for necessity expediency profit and edification of the Church as for the liberty of the Gospel and preuenting the depriuation of faithfull Teachers they may lawfully and must necessarily be practised no lesse then the Iewish practised or the Christian Ceremonies prescribed by the Apostles 1. Cor. 14. As for the question concerning impious and Idolatrous orders such as a man ought rather to die then yeeld vnto their practise I maruell my Brethren would not consider that if they speake of other Ceremonies then ours they are besides our question and touch not the point in hand If of ours yet that they doe still petere principium vnlesse they plainely prooue our Ceremonies as they are vsed in our Church to bee such indeede And thus much also shall suffice for the defence of the proposition of my Argument Now to the answere of the Assumption The answere which my Brethren make they haue reduced to 4. heads replying to 4. parts of mine Assumption Touching 1. the number 2. the nature 3. the warrant or ground 4. the reasons of practise of the Iewish ceremonies and ours In the first part of mine Assumption whereas I affirmed that the ceremonies which the Apostles practised and prescribed were in number equall to our ceremonies The answere of my Brethren hath three members The first member saith That sundry of the things I alleadge can with no good reason be called Ceremonies because they would enforce my words against their will to say that I defined a ceremony to be that which is vsed onely in Gods worship But sundry of the things alleadged were not such and therefore by mine owne account they were not Ceremonies But my Brethren should know that howsoeuer I say that there bee Ceremonies in Gods worships yet that letteth not but that there may be ceremonies out of Gâ—ds worship and so that collection of theirs is marred But if for once I shall let it stand and bee as they would haue it what could they get by it As though euery ceremony of the ceremoniall Law whereof wee spake were not a worship of God because whatsoeuer God commandeth is a worship to performe Therefore these things were both worships and Ceremonies in Gods worships sometimes which if my Brethren had remembred they would haue blotted out this for a cypher yea by this reason abstaining from blood and strangled must needes bee Ceremonies though they would not haue it so Which might further appeare because it is one distinction of the Ceremonies of Moses law that they were either of action as circumcision or of abstinence as abstaining from swines flesh blood and strangled Because they had signification and were shadowes of good things to come and therefore Ceremonies Lastly because ceremoniall duties and therefore Ceremonies seeing they were included vnder and commanded by the ceremoniall law of God and so receiuing denomination from that law Which last reason my brethren themselues doe giue hereof therefore by their confession they are Ceremonies But they adde that I shall neuer be able to proue that the Apostles or Churches did vse them as Ceremonies or as in obedience to that law And I say againe suppose I neuer goe about to proue it what needeth me to doe it What if I grant as I doe freely that it is true and euident and that it can by no meanes bee proued nay that the contrary is manifest It suffiseth me that they inoyned these things that were some times duties though not as they were duties of the law meerely ceremoniall and now after Christ his death when as the holy Apostles practised them were fruitlesse dead vnprofitable in themselues yea which might did proue hurtfull vnto some which held them still as worships Col. 2. 23. and meanes of iustification Gal. 5. 2. 4. and euen necessary to saluation Act. 15. 1. 5. Wherefore the instances of abstaining from flesh or from mariage for the wining of a Papist and of Pauls departing from his right are of no valew To the second and third members concerning the number and often vse of the Ceremonies alleadged I answere that albeit they grant but sixe of the Iewish Ceremonies and alleadge nine and fortie Ceremonies of our Church yet the Ceremonies which are questioned by the depriued Ministers at this time such so many I meane as come vnder the compasse of their practise or of this our question that is so many the practise whereof would keepe a man from depriuation are not sixe as Crosse in Baptisme Surplesse Ring in Mariage obseruation of Holy-dayes if there be one or two more let it be so It is a matter needles to contend about the number and about the often vse and iniunction of them For if I proue but one Iewish Ceremonie at one onely time vsed lawfully by the Apostles yet as euill in the most maine and materiall respects as ours are and that by reasons of common and perpetuall equitie thence