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
â—outh or thrust into he speech by the Rejoyner 2. Poâ—â—nus writt his partitions when he was a young man 〈◊〉 divine but his Syntagme was his last work If â—â—erfore any crossing was found in these two wriâ—â—ngs his Syntagme was to be taken as his more mature â—â—dgment and preferred as his last will and testament 〈◊〉 In this his Syntagme lib. 8. c. 1. he hath not onely 〈◊〉 definition of worship contrary to the Rej. his tenet 〈◊〉 many other Items Pertinet ad boni operis substantia ut opuâ— illud sit a Deo mandatum perinde cultum Dei quicquid ad cultum Dei pertinet mandatum esse oportet Actiones adiaphora non sunt cultuâ— Dei c. It belongs to the substance of a good â—ork that it be commaunded of God and therfore its requiâ—e that the worship of God and every thing appertaining â—â—erunto be commaunded Actions indifferent are not the â—orship of God c. 4. In the place quoted out of his parâ—ons That an ecclesiasticall rite is outward worship he â—oth not crosse himself for what he there meaneth by 〈◊〉 ecclesiasticall rite he sheweth in the specialls which 〈◊〉 after setteth downe as sacrifices c. though he mingeth some humaine feasts with the ordinances of God â—or his method sake never intending to make such ceâ—emon as ours lawfull worship and therfore opposeth â—is ecclesiasticall rites to those duties that are perforâ—ed only by speech as Invocation confession thanksâ—iving 6. Fenner saith the Rej. maketh bowing the knee or â—ead lifting up the hands or eyes to the parts of externall â—orship But what consequence is there from naturall gestures to cerem instituted by man From actions parâ—icularly commended unto us in Gods word as outward worship to such as their patrons can fynd no alâ—owance for but in a remote transceÌ„dent racked Genus Tylenus a man that D r. B. should rather have written against for his errors then alledged against otherâ— for his authority is in the seventh place brought in saying that a vow of a thing not commaunded is worshiâ— only by accident Syntag. par 1. dis 42. th 17. Yet 1. 〈◊〉 doth not say Cultus nisi per accideÌ„s Dei cultus vocari potest Quatenus ad cultura illum â—lique modo refertur ut medium arbitrarium contingeÌ„â— â—diaphorum it is worship but that it cannot be called worshiâ— but by accident 2. He giveth this limitation so farr as 〈◊〉 may some way be referred to worship as an arbitrary contingent indifferent meane Such as in prayer the choosinâ— of the word forgivenesse rather then pardon is in thâ— petition of remission of synnes 3. The worship 〈◊〉 speaketh of is not immediate in his opinion as appeâ—reth disp 40. th 16. as it is in the Rej. his divisions Naâ— Tylenus is so wise as to say that the most proper anâ— immediate acts of religion do not respect God per se 〈◊〉 and of themselves Ibid. th 18. is it any wonder then 〈◊〉 graunteth a worship not in and of it self but by accâ—dent only Bucanus is the eight witnes and yet nothing out of hiâ— is brought but that ecclesiasticall rites are not worship 〈◊〉 themselves and as a work done Did any of us ever affirmeâ— they were such worship May be the Rej. would gatheâ— from thence that ther is a worship which is not of iâ—self and as a work done such which though it cannoâ— be gathered from that phrase with better reason theâ— if from this that fayth doeth not justifye of it self anâ— as a work done he should conclude that some gracâ— ther is which justifyeth of it self and as a work done yet we may well graunt of false worship But see how unhappy the Rej. is in his wrested allegations Bucanâ—◠〈◊〉 the place quoted Loc. 43. q. 20. giveâ—h 1. this caveat 〈◊〉 lawes appointed for order and comlines sake only Ne leget deceris ordims tantum causa latae sint divini cultus partes 2. Ne pro gravi honestâ— utilique ordine inutilla inepta ridicula histrionica instituaÌ„tur qualia sunt quae Pontificij praecipiunt dâ— dierum vestiuÌ„ desâ—rimine Ad soluÌ„ verbum Dei quod ad cultum attinet non ad humanas traditiones attendeÌ„dum Nullam obedientiam deberi ritibus quaruÌ„ alij sunt inepti inanes ludicri alij vel per so vel ob aliud superstitiosi crucis fabricationem aquam lustraleÌ„ consecrationes altariuÌ„ magistrales determinationes Non per se sed lege charitatis Ceremoniae noÌ„ humanae sed filij Dei authoritate institutâ— mandata adhibeantur are 〈◊〉 of divine wâ—rship 2. It should be provided that in 〈◊〉 of a grave seemely and profitable order those things be 〈◊〉 instituted which are unprofitable foolish ridiculous stageâ—y like And of this sort are those which the Papists comâ—â—und concerning the difference of dayes and garments 〈◊〉 the same Bucanus Loc. 33. q. 15. In things appertaiâ—â—â—g to worship we must attend for direction only unto the 〈◊〉 of God and not to humaine traditions No observance 〈◊〉 to rites whereof some are foppish vayne and light 〈◊〉 either in regard of themselves or some other thing suâ—â—â—stitious amongst which he reckoneth the maâ—ing of the 〈◊〉 holy-water the consecration of altars and magistrall â—â—â—erminations And that lawfull rites of order are to be â—â—served not in regard of themselves but by the law of chaâ—â—â—y where he plainly sheweth that per se is not alwayes 〈◊〉 to relation ad aliud as the Rej. understands 〈◊〉 The same Buc. also Lo. 47. qu. 65. giveth this rule 〈◊〉 humaine ceremonies ought to be used but those which are â—â—â—ointed and commaunded by the authority of the sonne of 〈◊〉 The last witnesse is Melanchton who fayth in one place 〈◊〉 man may not institute any worship of God i.e. works â—â—ich God so alloweth that he holdeth himself to be honored them of themselves or whose immediate end is that God 〈◊〉 be honored by them As if we did hold the contrary 〈◊〉 is not this testimony wisely alledged that all men 〈◊〉 his opposites may graunt and the graunt of it neiâ—â—er hurts them or helps him Nay take away that clause Gods allowance and holding himself honored which no humaine institution can inferr we say that our Cerem are such for it is as an immediate end of all misticall teaching rites to honor God by them and in them as of the word so farr as it preacheth the same vertues that Ceremon do teach And so much is taught by thâ— Rej. in these very dictats when he reduceth these reductive ceremonies under the head of immediate worship for nothing can be immediate worship whose immediate end is not that God may be honored by thâ— performance of it The same appeareth out of thâ—â— which the Rej. pag. 313. affirmeth viz. that the propeâ— end of preaching is aedification of men if that be joyned which he every where teacheth that the propeâ— end of
concurr with papists cerem pressing our Ceremon vpon the same conditions as they in the former considerations the like is true also touching holines Now because some of these things which I have affirmed concerning the doctrine of the Papists about Cerem may seeme strange to those that take the measure of their opinion not from them but from the occasionall and imperfect sayings of their adversary partyes It shall be necessary to heare themselves speake First let us heare Cassander with his allegations who so much consenteth with D. Burges that his Rej. might better have beene called and intituled Cassander Anglicanus then M. Sprints book was save only that there is more passion shewed in it then Cassanders temper and professed moderation could be brought unto Cassand in consult art 7. Illud falsum eâ—le existimo aliquos docuisse externos lilos ritus cerem eâ—le cultus necessarios ad promerendam justificationem coram Deo nec aliud iâ—us nubus 〈◊〉 quam quod coruÌ„ externa observatio de vero interno cultu nos admoneat ad eum manu ducat 〈◊〉 ex vera in Christum fide obedientiae Ecclesiae Christi fiant cui Christus obtempeâ—ari praecepit ead apud Deum laudem habent quam caetera pieratis opera Id autem ingenue omnes confitentur in ijs fiduciam saluvis non esse collocandam Idem pag. 869. Opinionem falsam cultus meriti necessitatis PoÌ„tisicij ipsi quibus illam assignat Mell. non agnoscuÌ„t sed falsâ— sibi attribuâ— dicunt Sic Thomas Bâ—el apud cundem pag 871.872 Idem pa. 875. St. huiusmodi praerepterum positivoruÌ„ explicatione consideretur haud multum â— consilio sous exhortatione differre comperientur c. Si quorundam sentent a rigidior hie videtur nemo câ—edo â—rohibebit mitiorem sentennam sequi quae a Gersone ut a multis optimisque viris Gersonem imitantibus â—xplicatur qui in hujusmodi praeceptorum transgre Tone in sole scandalâ— contemptu peccatum mortale â—â—llâ—câ—nt Idem ibid. Alphonsus Verbesius sic Nostrae traditiones nihil capitalis periculi adferunt transgressoribus nisi adsit animus impius contemnens Perionius ex Sorbonaâ— opinor sua sententia sic 〈◊〉 sunt in ecclesia Ceremoniae quae sub consiltum cadunt quae autem sub praeceptum cadunt ut caâ—â—â—â—â—â—dem violatores omnes nostri peccati reos esse volunt nifi sorte contemnant Cassander in his consult article 7. I conceave that to be false that any of ours should have taught those externall rites and Ceremo to be worships necessary to procure justification before God Neither is any other thing attributed to those rites but that their externall observation may admonish us of the true and internall worship and might by the hand lead us thereunto And if they be done out of true faith in Christ and obedience unto the Church of Christ to which Christ hath commaunded as to be subject they receave that acceptance from God which other works of pyety do But that all ingeniously confesse our hope of happiness is not to be placed in them Againe the same Cassander pag. 869. The false opinion of worship merit necessity the Pontificans themselves upon whom that conceit is faâ—hered do not acknowledge but affirme that it is falsely attributed unto them Of this judgment Thomas Aquinas and Byell are sayd to be by the same Author pag. 870.871 And in p. 875. If the explicatioÌ„ of those positive precepts be considered they will be found not to differr much for an â—dvise or exhortation c. If the sentence of some may apâ—eare more riged I beleeve that no man is forbid to follow â—he more moderate opinion which is explained by Gerson and followed by many worthy men who in the transgression of such kynd of precepts place the mortall synne only in â—candall and contempt The same author in the same places Alphonsus Verbesius thus Our traditions bring no deadly â—anger unto the transgressors therof unlesse the heart be imâ—ious and contemning Perionius out of the sentence of the â—orbone Schoole as I suppose writes thus ther be many Cere â—n the church which fall under the nature of a counsell but â—hose which come under the nature of a praecept the violators â—o not of them all ours would make guilty of synne unlesse peradventure they shall be found contemners This which Cassander sayth is fayre yet to make it more full I will add some other testimonies and those of note Gregor de Valent. Tom. 4 Disp 3. qu. 1. paâ—t 4 Clarum cit â—endacium quod his ritibus tantum tribuanâ—ns quantum ipus Sacramentis item quod eo loco habeatur quasi nequeat sine illis confici veruÌ„ Sacramentum Si aliqui vulgares in ea parte errant sie sentiunt id certe neque ecclesia docer neque Theologi Si caetera scadalum contemptumomittantur res sit exigua vel etiam deâ—t voluntas deliberatio plena peccatum erit tantum veruale Cajetan summ voce praecept Vniversalis est regula quod in ijs quae sunt positivi juris fi absque contemptu refâ—atione 〈◊〉 ex apparente sibi excusatione transgressio fiat ab eo qui animum habet multo pacto conseâ—iâ—â— dâ—â—r contra praeceptum obligans ad mortale non incurritur mortale peccatum quoniam non eâ—t intetio 〈◊〉 jultae matris ecclesiae bonas hujusmodi animas illaqueare tam hostili vinculo Gregorius de Valentia a Iesuite Tom. 4. disput 3. quaestion 1. part 4. It is a notorious lye that we attribute so much to these rites as we do to the Sacraments and that we have them in the same account as though a true Sacrament could not be instituted without them If any of the vulgar sorâ— erre in that behalf and so conceave assuredly neither the church nor divines so teach If they be omitted without scandall and contempt and the matter be small and that a seriouâ— will and full deliberation be wanting it will be only a veniall synne So Cajetan a Cardinall The rule is universall that in those things which stand by a positive law if the transgression be made without contempt and crossing the end of thâ— law from some excuse appearing to the party if it proceeâ— from him who hath a mynd no wayes syding against the commaund which bynds to a mortall synne a mortall synne is noâ— by that breach committed because it is not the intention of thâ— holy and just mother the church to ensnare such good soules with so dangerous a bond Bellarm. de effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 29. Quaedam Cere sunt immediate cultuâ— quaedam disponunt ad eniâ—um quadaÌ„ sunt instrumeta cultus Id. ibid. â—ap 31 Calvinus indiâ—ar crimenesse si per contemptuÌ„ vel crassam negligentiam omittantur Cerem at nihil aliud ecclesia de sum Ceremonijs dâ—cet Idem de Rom. Pontif. lib 4. cap. 18. Catera
essentiall false worship he should therfore have tolde us what error he meant The Def. nameth opinion of justice sanctitie efficacie or divine necessitie and the Rejoynder mentioneth often suche and such opinion held of the Papists concerning all their Ceremonies Of this enough is sayd Manud sect 7. For the present I denie that suche an erronious opinion by it self and of it self doeth not make essentiall false worship Opinion is but an adjuvant efficient cause of that affective act wherin the essence of internall worship consisteth and the externall acts of worship though efficiently differenced by opinion or faith are essentially distinguished by their forme and ende A man may have an opinion that is just holy efficacious and necessarie to performe diverse workes of the second Table nay upon some occasions to tell a lie even against the second Table Yet none speaking properly will call that essentiall false worship which is a sinne directly against the first Table Hitherto therfore I see no monster of the Repl. his making And if we consider his reason well which the Rejoynder made to it the mishaping of thinges will be found on the other side If sayth the Repl. worship did varie occording unto mens oppinions then a man may goe to Masse conceyving another privat opinion to himself then Mas-mongers use to have and our Convocation may appoint us the grossest of all Popish Ceremonies if they set another opinion upon it The Rejoynder his answers are diverse and some of them strange ones 1. His first is that goeing to masse may be a sinne of scandall and presumtion though a man goe not thitherto worship By goeing to Masse acording to the use of our speache is meant doeing all those externall actions which Mas-mongers use to performe Now the question is whether he that performeth all those externall actioÌ„s intending onely to save his life therby as having no opinion of any other good in so doeing doeth onely sinne of scandall and praesumtion or else over and beside this is guiltie of externall false worship the Rejoynder seemeth to say no he is not guiltie of false worship But when the Christians of the Primitive Churche did with suche an opinion lay but a litle incense upon the Heathens Altars they were by all Orthodoxe censured for Idolatrie The storie of Origen is well knowen how he delivered Palme to those that offered it to the image of Serapis with this expression of his intention come and receyve the bows not of the image but of Christ. Yet was he therfore censured as a worshipper of that Idol Calvin writing of purpose concerning this very case of goeing to Masse with suche an opinion accuseth them that doe so of externally professed idolatrie and therin was justified by Melanchton Bucer Martyr Opus de vitandis superstitionibus And if this be not right then all externall acts and reall professions whether symbolizing with Papists or with Turkes or Heathens may be in themselves set scandall and danger aside easily excused So Calvin argueth in the forenamed treatise and in a Homilie Opusc pag. 532. he sheweth that those wise men which thinke otherwise would have derided the simplicitie of Sidrac Misach and Abednego if they had then lived in suche a fashion Miserable men yow may doe that externall act which is required of you it is no worship so long as you have no faith trust or devotion to that idol 2. His second answer is that those which are present at false worship by violence are not false worshipers and upon this he triumpheth with fie man fie I may better say alas alas that good D. B. I speak as I thinke should be driven to suche extremities in defense of those Ceremonies which he never loved nor doeth at this day For goeing to Masse or doeing all those externall acts which Masmongers use to performe implieth more then violent carying thither and deteyning there 3. His third is that nothing but opinion doeth make humane inventions essentiall worship of God Which is an essentiall denying of the conclusion 4. For that which was inferred of the Convocation house he sayth first it is a flinge Let it be so yet it may hit that Ceremonious Goliah as it is suche in the fore head He addeth that the grossest rites of Poperie cannot posâ—iblie be washed from their opinion Which is not for a Rite being an externall thing or act any Rite may be separated from any internall opinion The last is that some other Popish rites might be lawfull if they could be clensed though we need them not As if the grossest might not be lawfull if they could be clensed or the Rejoynder had shewed that we more need the Crosse then those other 2. Because the Def. placed so muche in opinion of sanctitie the Repl. in the second place opposed that Sanctitie cannot be separated from suche Ceremonies as are proper unto Religion onely used in the solemne worship of God because they are neyther civill nor prophane and therfore holy Heer the Rejoyndâ—r being put to his shifts as before answereth that they are in deed holy by applicatioÌ„ but not with inhaerent or adhaerent holinesse in them or their use as those which God hath sanctified nor so as they sanctifie the actors and actions which is proper to Gods ordinances Now how many strange thinges are here 1. That Ceremonie whose essence consisteth in application and use is holy by application and yet not by any holinesse that doeth adhere to them or their use Holinesse is an adjunct receyved by the thing that is holie and therfore eyther inhaerent or adhaerent 2. Is this a good reason they are not holy truely as Gods ordinances therfore they are not by men made holy 3. Have any outward ordinances of God inhaerent holinesse in them 4. If God hath no way sanctified our Ceremonies who can make them holy 5. Doe not Ceremonies teaching holinesse sanctifie the actors actions or spectators after the same manner that the teaching word doeth sanctifie them 3. Vpon occasion of the other part in the Def. his distinction that Accidentall worship is any rite which serveth for the more consonant and convenient discharge of essentiall worship the Repl. wheras he might have sayd that this is a mishapen definition of Accidentall worship in generall as it may be divided into true and false good and bad opposeth onely this that no judicious Divine useth to call circumstances of mere order and decencie which notwithstanding serve for the more consonant and convenieÌ„t discharge of essentiall worship that is a Pulpit a Table a faire-Cloath etc. Worship The Rejoynder answereth that in deed the Ceremonies themselvâ—s cannot be called worship without madnesse but onely the use and application of suche circumstances and rites Now 1. marke here how the Rejoynder who defineth a Ceremonie it is an action etc. and laffeth at the Repl. because he sayd some Ceremonies may be put to other good use as if all Surplices were turned into poor-folkes under-garments
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