vvhich yet is most ordinary and most impure he saith for schisme that those vvhich vvill not conforme unto our ceremonies doe teach the principles of Separation To vvhich I answer 1 That there vvas never yet any Prelate that confuted the opinion of Separatists any otherwise then by ralling vvords vvhereas on the side diverse most averse from conformity haue foundly confuted them 2 Our principles doe no more tend to Separation then Saint Iohns rule doth vvho vvhen Diotrephes played the Dioecesan in the Church did vvrite unto the faithfull people that they should not follow the evill vvhich vvas among them but the good 3 loh. 11. Thirdly he talketh of diverse distractions in the Church while some vvill heare onely a conformable Minister and some onely an unconformable But what is this to the purpose For by this reason Conformers may as well be accused of schisme as Notconformers Againe if all did conforme there would be still the like distractions for some would onely heare preaching Ministers and some would never bee present but at reading Some vvould onely heare godly Preachers and some vvould onely tast Lettice fit for their lippes Who should then be the authours of schisme Fourthly he telleth us that all Churches challenge a subscription to their orders But 1 all Churches cannot possibly doe this lawfully because some Churches doe directly contradict other in their decrees 2 Few Churches require such a forme of Subscription as ours is though they haue not the tenth part of doubts and difficulties in their formes which we haue in ours 3 I aske again that vvhich M Parker hath asked vvithout an answer that a Minister of the Gospell should be deprived for disusing Popish ceremonies vvhen vvas it ever the judgement of any man vvhich vvas of note for learning unlesse he vvere interessed in the quarrell Calvin Bucer Bâ—za Martyr Zanchie and many other haue given their judgement concerning those controversies but shew either any of them or among Iewel Fulke Râ—ynold Whitakers Perkins or any such that ever allowed of such tyrannie If there vvere any one among them of that opinion vve should haue heard of him For our Defendant dares bring in the name heere of Bâ—za himselfe as making for him Notwithstanding Bâ—za doth not onely condemne our Ceremonies in plaine termes Epist 8 but also in this very place vvhich is quoted out of Ep. 24 doth cashier our ceremonies in the first vvords quoted by the Defendant himselfe Constitutions being thuâ— made c. What understandeth the Defendant by thus or haâ— ratione Surely those conditions going before which doe as absolutely condemne our ceremonies as any argument in all the Abridgement SECT XV. AFter full satisfaction given to our Arguments about the point of the worship as the Def. vvould haue the Reader beleeue he commeth to confute our Assumption viz. the ceremonies are not esteemed imposed and observed as parts of Gods worship But first I would know of him vvhy he that talketh so much every where of their own Witnesses their own Witnesses doth here first of all giue no answer to our Witnesses as hath been formerly shewed and then passeth by that vvhich is alledged in the Abridg. p. 40 out of his own Witnesses D. Covel and D. Walkes If they be not his Witnesses they are at least the ceremonies Witnesses he should therefore haue given some respect But we shall haue another Champion come after this Def. as it is likely vvho vvill as little regard him For justum est quod Spartae prodest all is good that makes for the times Secondly whereas he hath nothing to bring for confutation of our argâ—ment but onely the judgement of the greater part of the imposers I say this is no vvay sufficient For the question here is not onely of imposing but also of esteeming and observing Thirdly I answer to the places alledged that it cannot be Logically concluded either from any one or from all of them that they are not imposed as parts of Gods vvorship We doe not attribute any holinesse or speciall worthiness saith the canon unto the garments No more say I is any speciall holinesse or worthinesse to be attributed unto water yet in baptisme it hath a holy relation to holinesse The crosse is not of the substance of the Sacrament What then it may notwithstanding be vvorship except the Def. will acknowledge no vvorship but in the Sacrament These ceremonies may be altered and changed by vvhom By those that appointed them Shew me any Papist that dares affirme that the Church of Rome hath not authority to alter change the ceremonies which her selfe hath appointed But the opposites doe acknowledge this Abridg. p. 53. 55. just as much as this Def. doth in this place acknowledge the same of the Church of Rome vvhen he saith in this very page that Bellarmine with some other Papists seeme to disclaime the necessity of ceremonies and the placing of holinesse in them So that in all this Section there is nothing to be found but vaine conceited confidence CHAP. III. SECT I. II. THE third Argument is because all humane ceremonies appropriated to God service if they be ordained to teach any spirituall duty by their mysticall signification are unlawfull Concerning this vve haue in the first Section a flourish of words In the second Section some thing is said of Math. 7 8 10 11. But â— vvhat vvas the reason that this Confuter of the Abridgement should passe by or put off the first and second reason or confirmation there alledged and snatch at one place of Scripture vvhiâ—â— his but a parcell of those confirmations vvherewith the second reason is backed The first confirmation in the Abridgement is that the second commandement forbids us to make to our selues the likenesse of any thing whatsoever for religious use as it is understood by Bucer Virel Fulk Andrewes and others The second confirmation is that Christ is the onely Teacher of his Church and appointer of all meanes whereby we should be taught and admonished of any tholy duties For illustration of this second reason among twenty other allegations something is brought out of Math. 7. Now the Def. passeth by the maine reasons and all other allegations that belongeth to them and maketh a stand at this place of Mat. 7 vvhich yet for substance hath once been handled before in the former Chapter Is not this proper confuting Secondly in this very text he toucheth not that wherein onely the Abridgment groundeth their reason For in the Abridgement p. 32. there is nothing cited out of Mark. 7 but the 4 and 7 verses he answereth to the 8 10 and 11 verse What should a man say to such dealing Thirdly they say that our Saviour by this Argument among others condemnes the Iewish purifyings and â—ustifieth himselfe and his disciples in refusing that ceremonie because being the precept of men it was taught and used as a doctrine by way of signification to teach what inward purity should be in them and
the Iewes was done publickely and generally and in the bowels of the same Church but the Papists is not so To which I answer 1 these circumstances are not rendred as reasons of the abolishing in the text but invented by the Def. 2 private particular idolatry is to be removed as well as publick and generall 3 all these circumstances did more then agree to our ceremonies in the beginning of our reformation And sure they are not grown better since by any good that they haue done The second difference vvhich the Def. imagineth is that there was no other meanes to cure the idolatry of those times but now there is I answ 1 this is the very question whether there be any other sufficient meanes to cure the disease of humane ceremonies idolatrously abused beside abolishing 2 It is a vaine imagination vvhereby this difference is confirmed and no reason at all In the Dominions of our Ezekias saith the Def. this disease would be found curable without any such extremity But the experience of 50 or 60 yeares shew that hitherto it is not cured neither in Ireland nor Wales to say nothing of England Surely our Prelates are miserable Phisitions that in a disease so easie to be cured suffer the patients to languish under their hands unto death Especially saith he in this our most truely reformed Church which doth most liuely expresse the face and full body of her primitiue mother Church This he hath now 3 or 4 times repeated as if he did desire to make a question of it and here propounds it vvith a doubt if you will allow It is not sit heere to make a long digression about this matter In short therefore thus vve allow with all thankefulnes that our Church is to be called a reformed Church in regard of the main points of faith which are purely and freely taught among us vvith publick approbation and also in regard that the grossest superstitions are by publick authority cast out of our Assembles But if our Ecclesiasticall government be considered and some ceremonious superstions wee deny utterly that vve haue such a reformation therin as may represent the face of the primitiue Church Let the Defendant tell us if ever the primitiue Church had such chanting idol service as is every day to be seen in our Cathedrall Churches If there were in the primitiue Church Chancellors Commissaries Officials under the Bishops which executed the censures of that Church If he can shew any primitiue pompous Bishops that had sole authoritie of ordination excommunication If any Minister was called in the primitiue Ch. without expresse consent of the congreg over which he vvas set if Ministers vvere then vvont to goe to law for their places if the Primitiue Church ever heard of Pluralists Non-residents or dumb ministers If either in primitue or else in Popish Church almost simony was ever so ordinary as it is with us If ever so many prophane men openly known to be contemners of Religion vvere members of any primitiue Church as are of ours If ever he read of such carnall proceedings about Ecclesiasticall affaires in primitiue times as are every day practised in our spirituall-courts who tooke money for ordination citation absolution or change of pennance I will not insist on these things because they are beside our present question but onely desire the Def. to behold this face which I haue described in a right glasse and see if it be the face of the pure primitiue Church SECT 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. THE testimonies of Councels and Fathers alledged in the Abridgement about this point are largely ranked by the Def. into 14 Sections as if the maine burden of this Controversie did lye upon their authority vvheras in the Abridgement they are briefly mentioned as illustrations I vvill therefore according to the intent of those vvhich alledged them consider all together 7. In the fift Councell of Carhage it is true that he saith those Altars vvere onely expresly appointed to be abolished vvhich were set up vvithout reliques of Martyrs But let the Def. shew any reason why those also were not to haue the same measure vvhich had reliques of martyrs in them Surely the Councell seemeth to aime at a perfect reformation but stayed at this because of the superstition vvhich then prevailed among the peoples as they shew in that parenthesis si fieri potest if it may be and in the next Canon 8 In the next canon saith the Def. they would onely haue immediate instruments of Idolatry then brought into publicke use abolished But how doth he gather this glosse out of the Text Or wherein doth this glosse excuse our ceremonies especially as they were in the beginning of our reformation and since they haue mended as soure Alâ— doth in summer 9 To the decree of the Councell of Bracara forbidding men to decke their houses c. in such manner and at such time as idolaters did the Def. answereth nothing that hath any shew of reason in it For our ceremonies differ nothing from the Papists in place persons time but onely in some opinion Now the Councell there doth not forbid the opinion but the ceremony even to them vvhich were of a better opinion 10 The Councell of Affrick doth giue a reason why they condemned certaine feasts because they were drawn from the errours of the Gentiles Heerein I am sure it maketh against our ceremonies 11 To Tertullian de Coron the Def. saith lesse then nothing For he doth not speake of the same individuall habite which was used to idolatry as the Def. vainely pretendeth nor of that kind which was onely used in idolatrous worship For in the same book c. 13 he saith this habit of a garland vvas used in most base places as playes stewes jakes c. 12 The like answer is given unto Tertullian de Orat. 1 in generall it is said that Tertullian doth not condemne these ceremonies meerly for resemblance with idolaters but for opinion of efficacie and necessity wheras the contrary is plaine in Tertullian for he saith expresly Propterea in nobis reprehendi meretur quod apud idola celebratur Therefore it is to be blamed in us because it is used before Idols And B. Iewel Def. Apol. vvith many other of our best Writers against the Papists doe urge these testimonies of Tertullian meerely in regard of resemblance 2 In washing saith the Def. some did then hold an opinion of efficacie and necessitie If they did that is nothing to the purpose for they might be condemned in that behalfe and yet meerely also for resemblance vvith idolaters But no such thing appeareth in Tertullian he telleth us plainely that the vvashing before prayer vvas a significant sign in remembrance of Christs delivering unto the Iewes by Pilate when he had washed Cum scrupulose percontarer rationem requirerem compeâ—i commemorationem esse in domini deditionem c. 11 so that I doe not see but that this vvashing vvas
must needs bee of other permission then the Defendant can chalenge to our ceremonies though he begg the question otherwise there should be no sence in his words 2. he sayth Wee may blush to speak of Tertullian in this case because hee professeth traditions in the same booke To which I answer that then all our writers may blush vvho alledge many things out of the fathers which they in other places gainesay 2. Wee blush not to make vse of truth where we finde it though error follow it at the heeles rather let our Idolizers of the Fathers blush vvhen they see their shame Yet of this answer wee shall haue occasion to make use hereafter SECT XV. IN this Section answer is made to some allegations brought out of Protestant Writers not unto all vvhich the Abridgement citeth for the perfection of the Scriptures where 1. the Defendant answereth for himselfe that his meaning was not of matters meerly ceremoniall And so say I the meaning of our argument vvas not of such meere ceremonies as the Defendant here describeth in the end of this Section if he meane by meere ceremonies mere order and decencie but our ceremonies are of another nature because they haue doctrine or teaching in them and therefore are doctrinall as he pleaseth to speak or mixt 2. confessing that in one place he speaketh of ceremonies he limiteth his speech to such ceremonies as are made essentiall parts of a sacrament as Milke in stead of Wine sopping in of bread into the cup and wringing in of the grape these ceremonies hee accounteth doctrinall But here I vvould faine heare a good reason vvhy sopping of the bread into the cup is more doctrinall or more against the vvord then the crosse in baptisme Bread and Wine were ordained by Christ to a holy use in the Church so is not the crosse sopping hath some agreement vvith reason crossing hath none sopping was vsed by Christ himselfe the same night and at the same table vvhere the sacrament was appointed crossing vvas never used by Christ or his Apostles In sopping there is no new materiall signe appointed but a new fashion onely of vsing the old in crossing a new signe is obtruded So that sopping seemeth to bee better then crossing If opinion of necessary use doth put a difference our men can easily conclude in the Convocation house that it is not the opinion of the Church of England and then all will be well If sopping seeme to bee a part of the sacrament crossing when it is done in the very act of sprinkling as many times it is maketh as much shew of bearing a part in baptisme But what if out of the Lords Supper a little before or a little after vvhile the prayers are making vvhich belong to the Supper there should be appointed such a sopping to bee used of all that communicate for mysticall signification I vvould know of the Defendant whether this were allowable or no by his doctrinall distinction If not vvhy should he shew more favour to the crosse In excusing of B. Iewel and D. Whitakers nothing is sayd by the Defendant which hath not formerly been confuted Now it might bee here expected that the Defendant should haue sayd something concerning those generall rules which God hath set downe in his vvord for the direction of the Church in rites and orders Ecclesiasticall mentioned by the Lincolne-shire Ministers in this argument p. 44. But neither here nor in any other place of this booke doth the Defendant so much as indevour to shew that our ceremonies are needfull and profitable for the edification of the people by the more comely and orderly performance of that service which hee hath expresly prescribed in his word This is a main matter vrged in the Abridgement vvithout which the ceremonies cannot be innocent in their vse and all that the Defendant hath hitherto endevoured to answer is in the Abridgement brought in to other end then to proue that no ceremonies are to be brought into the Church vvithout those conditions and yet for all this our ceremonies in this chiefe poynt are left destitute of all defence If therefore all were granted which the Defendants argumonts or answers in this booke maintaine yet the ceremonies wil be found nocent and to be rejected if it be but for their unprofitablenesse according to that of Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SECT XVI THE Defendant here undertaketh to proue that God in the scriptures hath granted a generall licence or authoritie to all Churches to ordaine any ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God But what if this were granted what is it to the purpose what maketh it for our ceremonies in controversie except he can shew that they are fit for the better serving of God Now this he no where undertaketh to prove nor dare I thinke professe so much in writing without many vnwarrantable limitations The onely scripture he bringeth is 1. Cor. 14. 26. 40. concerning order and decencie a place much profaned by the patrons of our ceremonies as shall be shewed This place is vsed sayth he by Fathers and all Divines for one and the same conclusion It is much used I grant and as much abused But 1. it is not used by all Divines to proue the institution of such ceremonies as ours lawfull For they are much mistaken vvhich think our ceremonies to be mere matters of order and as for decencie they haue been often proved to be farre from it which of it selfe to every indifferent eye is more then apparant 2. it is not used to this purpose by any that haue authoritie sufficient to perswade us that it will beare such a conclusion except they will shew us by what Logick they form their consequence which the Defendant is not able to doe for them 3. This scripture being rightly understood doth not onely not justifie such ceremonies as ours but plainly condemneth them For the manifesting of which assertion because it may seem strange to those eares that are accustomed to other sounds I will here distinctly set down an argument drawn out of these words against such ceremonies as ours are All that is left vnto the Churches liberty in things pertaining unto Gods worship is to order them in comely maner This is manifestly collected out of the place in question so the Defendant seemeth to grant so P. Martyr vnderstandeth it as is to be seen in his commentarie upon 1 Sam. 14. which judgement of his is cited and approved by D. Whitaker de Pont p. 841. 844. confirmed also by Iunius against Bell. cont 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86. 87. c. 17. n. 9. 10. 12. 13. where he sheweth that Christ is the onely law-giver that appointeth things in his Church and that he hath appointed all that are requisite and that the Church maketh no lawes properly so called to appoint any new things to be used but onely canons orders directions ordering in seemly maner those things which Christ hath
appointed and that if she addeth any thing of her own she doth decline The reason is because unto her is commited no authoritie of appointing new things but a ministerie to observe and doe such things which Christ hath appointed vide etiam Iun. de transl imper l. 1. c. 2. n. 26. 27. 31. This is also confirmed by sound reason both in respect of the wisdome required in all law-makers perfectly found in Christ and also in regard of the nature of such institutions For the former reason teacheth as Aristotle sheweth Rhet. 1. 3. that all which possibly may should be appointed in the law by the giuer of it and nothing left unto the ministerial iudges but that which must needs be left as matters of fact c. Now in the worship of God all but particular circumstances of order may easily bee appointed as in very deed they were by our law-giver Christ. As for the nature of such institutions that doth also require so much for whatsoever is aboue civilitie therein if it bee not a circumstance of order it is worship and therfore invented by man unlawfull will-worship For vvhatsoever is used or acted by him that worshippeth God in that act it must needs be either grounded on civill humane considerations and therefore civilitie or an act and means of worship and therfore worship or the ordering and manner of disposing those acts meanes and therefore lawfull if lawfully and fitly applyed or else at the least idle and vaine and therefore to be avoided according to that of Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A fift cannot be given By all this it may appeare that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what she will no not of things in their own nature indifferent and say they be in order or for order but onely to order those things vvhich God hath appointed Thus farre the proposition or first part of my syllogisme the assumption followeth But to appoint use the ceremonies as we doe is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to Gods worship The reason is because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing but onely the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted This appeareth 1. by the notation which is given of the word it selfe which both in greek latine is taken from the ranking of soldiers in certain bounds limits of time place Dicebāt enim militibus tribuni hactenus tibi licet hic consistes eô progrediere huc revertere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inde ordo Scalig. and 2 by the definitions which are given therof by Philosophers and Divines Tull. off lib. 1 eadem vis videtur ordinis collocationis Ordinem definiunt compositionem rerum aptis accommodatis locis Locum autem actionis opportunitatem dicunt esse temporis Aug. de civit lib. 15 cap. 13 order is the disposition which fit places to things equall and unequall id est when things are handsomely ranked some to goe before and some to follow as P. Martyr expoundeth it loc com cl 4 c. 5. 3 The same also is confirmed by our Divines vvho usually giving instances of order doe infist in time place and such like circumstances making a difference betwixt mysticall ceremonies and order many times condemning the one and allowing the other as the divines of France and the low Countries in their observations on the Harmonie of Confessions Sect. 17 Beza Ep. 8. Iun. in Bell. append tract de cultu imaginum c. 7 n. 12 13 14. 4 By the context of the Chapter viz. 1 Cor. 14. it plainly appeareth that order is opposed to that confusion spoken of v. 33 and therfore importeth nothing but that peaceable proceeding vvhereby they that should speak speak one by one and the rest attend c. v. 30 31. So Basil expoundeth it shewing order to consist in sorting of persons some to this and some to that according to their office and in determining of time and place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 459. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and p. 530. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly neither Luk. 1 8 neither in any place of Scripture doth the word order import any more then hath been said As for comelinesse that is nothing but the seemlinesse of order For as P. Martyr saith in 1 Cor. 11 it is such a tempering of actions as vvherby they may more fitly atteine their end Otherwhere it may conteine that natural or civill handsomenesse which is spoken of ch 11 13 as it doth ch 12 23 and so includeth all that which is grounded on civility as a faire cloth and cup for the communion a faire and firme vessell for baptisme but not the appointing of new mysticall ceremonies for then such ceremonies were here commanded to all Churches vvhich the Def. I think vvill not say and then the Apostolick Assemblies should haue worshipped God uncomelily Thus we haue both proposition and assumption of our Argument against the ceremonies confirmed out of this place which the Defendant choose as the onely place that could be brought for them Now I hope vve may adde the Conclusion Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we doe is not left to the liberty of the Church i. e. it is unlawfull SECT XVII COncerning the Fathers vve are told out of Zanchius that they had alwaies some universall ceremonies as certaine feast daies not appointed by God To this vve answer 1 If this alwaies bee taken in the largest extent to signifie from the beginning wee cannot beleeue the truth of this Assertion neither can the Defend proue it Who can think that presently upon the Apostles departure their disciples should presume to be vviser then their Masters 2 the first beginning of these feasts vvas not by canonicall imposition to binde men unto new ceremonies but a voluntarie accommodation in respect of the infirmity of some in the Church or comming towards it This appeareth by the variety vvhich was betwixt one Church and another in observing of them and by the testimonie of Socrates alledged and allowed by this Defend himselfe Apol. p. 2 lib. 2 c. 9. 3 The mischiefe that came in by these observations in that they so soone overshadowed obscured and justled out of dores the simplicitie of the Gospell and many ordinances of Christ do sufficiently shew that the fathers in these things had neither direction nor blessing from God But that which the ancient Churches of Christ did alwaies maintaine may not be deemed to derogate from the authority of holy Writ If alwayes include the Apostolicall times I grant If otherwise then let the Def. take to himselfe that vvhich he unreasonably cast upon us before of symbolizing with Bellarmine con l 4. c. 9. The same answer which our Divines giue there will serue here Wherunto may be added that vvhich M. Parker hath in his book of the Crosse p. 2 ch 9 s. 6 and de Polit. Eccles. l. 2. SECT XVIII FOr Protestant