blessing wher the lesser is blessed of the greater as Scripture teacheth the Rejoynder hath brought but two examples to infringe the generalitie of it Act. 13.2 Lev. 1.4 and in both of these it houldeth For they that layd hands on Paul and Silas did it not onely in the name of the wholle societie which in suche cases hath some dispensative superioritie over particular members but allso by Commission from God which gave them in thâ—t buisinesse superioritie And he that brought a beast to be sacrifized Lev. 1. had certainly power over it If the Rejoynder could have shewed us where and when a servant imposed his hand upon his Maisters head or a sonne upon his fathers that had been to the purpose Wee on the contrary say with Tostatus on Gen. 47. that the putting under of the hand was never used but by an inferior to his superior 4. Yet the Rej. hath more to say namely that the signe of a servants dutie to which hee is bound by oath is a mysticall signe of some spirituall dutie because all the law is spirituall and obedience to maisters for conscience sake is a service of God Whereto I answere that I never heard the Hang-mans office which is servile called a spirituall dutie no though he bee bound to it by oath 2. The oath maketh the thing sworne to no more spirituall then a carnall obligation unto it which may concurre with the obligation of an oath maketh it carnall 3. The Law is all spirituall in the manner but yet all the workes required by it are not spirituall nor so esteemed The Apostle 1. Cor. 6. distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things pertaining to this life from spirituall things All Divines usually distinguish the common morall duties practised by light of nature from such as are spirituall 4. Obedience to maisters for conscience sake is a service or obedience to God as it commeth from conscience toward God but every signe of subjection is not a signe of it as it commeth from conscience toward God 5. In the last place the Replier supposing all true that hitherto the Def. and Rej. have striven for yet denieth that any thing could bee concluded from thence for our Convocation-power in appointing such Ceremonies because such Prophets as Abraham might doe more then our Convocation The Rej. heere would have us shew that this was done by Propheticall inspiration and because this is not done he calleth this answere a boulting hole fit for a distressed and wilfull disputer whose cause cannot bee defended and yet his stomach will not yeild But if he had well considered that it belongeth not properly to the answere but to the Opponent to produce reasons and how vnreasonable it is for to require a reason proving a thing to be done of him that iudgeth it false and onely for disputation sake granteth his adversarie to suppose and take it as true hee would never have abused so many words by misplacing of them All these things considered I doubt not as the Replier said but Abrahams servant if he were heere present and need required would sweare that his example maketh nothing for our Ceremonies SECT 10. Concerning Suarez the Iesuite his stating of the Controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists 1. IN this section an obiection of ours is brought in without ranke or file in the midle of Examples forgotten as the Rej. saith in the proper place But nothing of moment is answered thereto either by the Def. or Rej. which is not sufficiently cleared in the first part of this Writing Chapter the sixt except the state which Suarez maketh of the question betwixt us and Papists This therefore as being very observable remaineth heere to be declared 2. The place quoted is in 3. tom 3. Disp. 15. Sect. 2. The words as the Replier hath them are these The first errour is that onely those signes which are written ought to be retained and vsed in the Church The second that no outward worship of God is lawfull but onely that which is appointed by God The third that the Church hath not power of commanding and ordeyning those things he meaneth mysticall Ceremonies which are necessary for convenient celebration of the Sacraments Of which three poynts there is none wherein Suarez and the Def. doe not jumpe To this the Rej. first answereth that Suarez doeth not propounded these three points as three errours of the Protestants because hee mentioneth not Protestants but Heretickes which reason is not worth the answering because hee mentioneth Heretickes of this time which phraze is oftner in the Iesuites writings understood of Protestants then of any other as all know that have looked vpon them By the â—ame reason one may argue that he understood no speciall Sect or persons bâ—cause hee mentioneth not any by name But it shall appeare that his meaning could be of no other then Protestants 3. He addeth in the second place the wordes going before those quoted he spake of Suenkfâ—lâ—ians And this is true but nothing to the purpose For hee leaving them as desperate phantasticks passeth on to others that is Protestants as by and by shall appeare 4. In the next place saith the Rej. Suarez speaketh of such as allow some externall worship of God but refuse all Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies in his worship as the inventions of men and hold nothing to be lawfull in Gods service but what is commanded in holy Scriptures which is the ground of those three errours mentioned by the Replier This may be called trueth but it is not all the trueth which belongeth to our present purpose For Suarez his words are these Others reproove Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies as humane inventions without authority or precept in Scripture Alij Ecclesiasticas Ceremomonias reprehendunt eo quod sint humana inventa absque Divino praecepto vel authoritate in Scriptures contenta Putant enim ifri non licere Deum colere alio cultu nisi illo qui in Scripturis nobis praeceptus est In quo fundamento tres isti errores continentur c. Putant isti non licere Deum colere alto cultu nisi illo qui in Scripturis nobis praeceptus est For they thinke it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture enjoyned In which ground three â—rrours are conteined Here may a great difference be observed betwixt the Rej. his translation and Suarez his wordes especially in that for those words Thâ—y think it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture prescribed the Rej. giveth these they hold nothing to be lawfull in Gods service but what is commanded in Scripture For many things are lawfull in Gods service which are not worship as civill circumstances c. 5. After those three errours the Rej. abserveth Suarez to speake of some that dissalow not Ceremonies in generall but impugne the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome as vaine and superstitious These no doubt addeth the Rej are the Protestants to whom he imputeth there
WaldeÌ„ses who first reformed their churches purged out all their popish leveÌ„ renouÌ„ced all such humaine Cer. or Traditious as unlawfull as manifestly appeareth by all Papists and Protestants that have sett downe their confession practise 4. If Analogically Sacramentall Cere be impious aemulators of Gods holy Sacraments as the Rej. confesseth what can be sayd why humaine significant Cer. analogicall to divine significaÌ„t should not by parity of reason be esteemed impious aemulators of Gods holy signes Is it forbidden to aemulate Gods Sacra only not all his holy ordinances After all these come in morall significaÌ„t Cer. which are only to expresse some benefitt whiâ—h God giveth us or to notify professe or expresse some duty which we owe to him or one to another But I do not see wherein these differ froÌ„ reductive Sacra Cer. except it be in this that it may so fall out that these sometymes are not affixed to SacrameÌ„ts This head therfore seemeth to be added only because D. Morton had used it before and for his sake let us a little further weigh it when therfor the Rej affirmes that morally significant are ordeined to expresse some benefitt on Gods part some duty on ours By some benefitt or duty he must meane any spirituall benefitt or duty besyde the covenant which he professedly mentioneth excepteth How the Rej. divisionâ— interfere and croâ—â—e one the other for if one benefitt may be signifyed why not any one this morally significant are religious or sacred significant in the generall the Species as large as the Genus Hence againe morally significant will be a genus to sacramentall reductively significant for that is but a particular signification of some benefitts duties in the Sacrament which are included under this Generall so one species of the distributioÌ„ shall become a Genus to the opposite member contradistinct species If it be here replyed that reductive significative sacramentall is annexed to the Sacrament I answer that is nothing to the nature of the significancy for take use a crosse out of baptisme in the same manner to the same end as in it it will be the same in the specificall nature of significancy only so much the worse because it is sett cheek by jole with baptisme 2. I aske what he meanes by those words expresse professe is it barely to declare if so then let him show who is his adversary unlesse he will fall out with his shadow for do not all his opposites graunt that signâ— indicantia or showing sygnes are lawfull but not symbolica Lastly when he affirmes that these Cerem morally significant are not to signifye the covenant of grace The crosse sâ—gnifyes the covenant of grace I reply if they may signifye any other spirituall duty or benefitt if they may signifye the severall essentiall duties of the covenant of each syde why may they not signifye the whole covenant 2. If the crosse signifyeth the consecration of the child to God and so entrance into the covenant the relation of a souldier to a Commaunder a servant to a master and so is continuance and faythfull perseverance in that profession to Christ and his respect and regard of us according to those relations then doth it signify the covenant By this which hath beene sayd it appeares that the quaestion is falsely stated for these Ceremo are more then holy by application in his sense formerly opened they are pressed as necessary and are used as analogically sacramentall as well as properly morall â—he state of â—â—e quaestion and in signification do pertake somthing of the proper nature of Sacraments as also in the significative teaching and stirring up the heart when it s sayd they are used in worship they are externall acts of Gods worship falsely appointed by man and serve not for order nor decency nor aedification CHAP. VIII Concerning a nationall Church answ to the 60.61.62 of the Preface OF the faythfull congregations wherein we were borne baptized and nourished up in fayth there is no quaestion made but they are our loving and beloved mothers Yet much quaestion ariseth concerning that which the Rej. teacheth viz. Pag. â—0 6â— That all those churches together have one mother and so we have a grandmother that is the Church of England considered as one church and that by way of representation as the convocation house 2. by way of association and combination into one profession worship and discipline which includeth the orders and officers that is the Hierarchye pertaining therunto but not by any other collective consideration 1. I never read either in Scripture or in any orthodoxe writer of a visible particular Church either grandmother of Christians or mother of other Churches if the Rej. hath he should do well to informe us where we may fynd this doctrine explained 2. I would willingly know whether Christians Christian churches also were not in England before this great grandmother I think the Rej. will not denye it nor yet flye for succour to his phisitians who have found out an herb which is called of them Sonne before the Father Filius antâ— Patrem to justifye his intention of Daughter before the Mother Filia antâ— Matrem He must confesse that this Grand-motheâ— is onely a mother in law The nature of a representative church and that law also to be mans not Gods 3. All the churches of England may as well be considered as one in unity of profession without any new motherhood as all the Latine Scholes of England one in the unity of the same Grammar or all Gallenicall or Platonicall Scholes one in their kynd 4. A Representative mother is the image of a mother and an image with commaunding authority in religion without Gods commaund Quod ecclesia siâ—is repraesentativa libeÌ„ter credâ—mus vera enim non estu Sed â—sten aâ—te qâ—aso â—â—de â—orâ—â—ec nomen Qui hoc nomintâ—◠〈◊〉 Quis â—acundâ— ceâ—spirandi â—obis potestatem dedit Qâ—is coÌ„deâ—di Canones decreta verbo Des disâ—â—â—miâ—iâ— vobiâ—tus fecit Quiâ— ut ista humeâ—is hominum impeâ—eretiu permisâ—t Qâ—is consitentia ut siâ— gravareitâ— vebis persw sit Vt dicâ—â—etis bâ—num malum malum benum quâ—â— iussit 〈…〉 â—â—clesia 〈◊〉 qâ—a nihil 〈◊〉 al et sed picta ceâ—iâ—la â—mnia Scanâ—n estâ— ecclesia riâ—a sâ—â—sa Christo â—râ—ua qua seâ—a veâ—it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉 is an Idoll It was well therfore to this purpose sayd of Zwinglius Explan arti 8. That you be a representative church we willingly beleeve for you are not the true church But show I beseech you whence you had this name who styled you with this title who gave you power of meeting and combyning together who graunted you authority of coyning decrees and Canons differing from the word of God who suffered you to impose these upon men who perswaded you thus to burden Consciences who enjoyned you to call evill good and
and which is his exceeding ill happ though no occasion require it he cannot conceale these crasy and ill joynted expressions we shall therfore againe lay open the whole frame thaâ— the description may be half a confutation Divine worship proper to God pa. 124. sect 5. mark those words proper to God is principa subordinate externall and thaâ— mediate done to man immediatelâ— but in conscieâ—ce to God and 〈◊〉 honour immediate proper improper determiâ—â—â—â— their use end 〈◊〉 mediately upon maâ— Where some things in the generall are very observeable 1. That improper immediate externall worship is divine worship proper to God The Rei hiâ— contradictions this conclusion will appeare to any that will but wisely apply the speciall and generall together according as they be rancked in the foregoing delineation 2. That improper immediate worship is mediate worship for thus I reason That worship which is immediatly done to man but in conscience to God that is mediate worship so the Rej. description teacheth but improper immediate worship is first done to man so the very expresse words of the Rej. declare evidently â—he acts of improper worship determine in their end and use upon men Therfore immediate improper worship is mediate by the D rs dispute If it be here replyed that the actions which make up mediate worship must be actions of the second table not of the first as these be I answer It is the verdit of the word and the common consent of all Divines that all the actions and duties which concerne our brother as the next object and end and so determine upon him are required and regulated by the second table since therfore these things of comlines and order are of this nature by the Rej. his graunt I do not see how it can be avoyded with any colour of reason but they must be commaunded in the second table and so come under the definition of mediate worship directly contradictory to the Rej. his determination I might also putt the reader in mynd of these twicesod-coleworts that are sett agayne before us viz. this misty distinction of properly reductively which like a vagrant wanders up and downe in every coast and therfore should be whipped home to his owne place For it is propounded applyed upon the like mistake that formerly it was pag. 37. in the division of Cerem And is here as it was there voyd of all art and truth 1. Voyd of Art For what reason or rule doth allow any reasonable disputer to make a distribution and so an opposition of parts that are in consent and agreement one with another such is this here propounded Worship is either proper as Gods ordinances or improper as the adjuncts to these ordinances which appertaine therunto As if a man should say Ther be two kynd of byrds either an eagle or her feathers 2. It s voyd of truth For who ever accounted all the civill circumstances and attendants of decency in the discharge of Gods worship to be worship The band the preacher useth the doublet he weares are decent attendants unto him in preaching praying and it would be exceeding unseemely to see him naked in those parts rudely presenting himself amiddst the congregation in the work of the Lord yet did ever any before D. Burges say that the band and doublet of the minister were improper immediate worship A midst these many mistakes we have a ground of graunt from the Rej. his owne words That kneeling in the act of receaving cannot be improper but proper worship For we kneele not either to man or to the bread but to God directly and it is to lift up his honour immediatly in the use and end of that action and â—herfore it cannot be improper but proper worship Anna her example of serving God with fasting and prayer comes after to be scanned in the next section only before we end lett us consider in a word of that passage which the Rej. hath pag. 126. To the proper circumstantiall or accessory worship the permission of God and a right intention and use sufficeth to legitimate them Ioyne we unto these words the definition of immediate worship under which all these improper circumstantiall worships are ranged viz. Immediate worship is when any act of obedience to the first table is performed to honour God out of which I thus reason Every act of obedience to the first table is not only permitted but required in the first table But the acts of improper immediate worship are acts of obedience to the first table therfore they are not only permitted but required To this place belongs the considering and discussing of the variation of that phrase used in the premonition touching kneeling at the Sacrament cap. 3. p. 3. False worship is sayd to be of the will of man merely True is sayd to be according to the will of God wholly The mistery is that no worship is false which hath any thing in it of the will of God And ther is some worship true and good which is not of the will of God as a cause but only according to it as not hindering or forbidding This is the Papists plea just against our Doctrines for their traditions Gregor de Valent. Tom. 4. Disp. 6. Q. 11. P. 1. Christus non vetat quo minus cultum addamus qui divinae ligi non repugnet sed congruat rationi adecque uoluntati Dei Christ doth not forbidd that we make such addition of worship which doth not repugne to the law but consents to right reason and so to the will of God So Estius in Tit. 1.14 The Scripture so farr as it speaks in the worst sense touching the praecepts and traditions of men Scriptura quoties de mandatu traditionibus hominum loquitur in malam paâ—temea semper intelligit qua sic ab hominibus instituta sunt aut praecepta ut aut omnino nihil ad pietatem conducant aut etiam pietati legi Dei repugnarent Qua ab humanâ— sensu spiritu profecta sunt quatenus selicet homo a scipso movetur non a Deo it alwayes understands such which are so appointâ—d and commaunded by men as that they nothing at all conduct unto piety or plainly oppose both it and the law of God such which proceed from a humaine spirit or appetite to witt so farr as a man is acted of himself and not of God So the Rhemists on Math. 15.9 The contrary assertion is the receaved doctrine of our Divines for and out of the word of God against the Papists and one fundamentall principle of reformation Hec caput est doctrinae inostâ—ae contra electitios cultus papistarum ne quod opus suscipimus in ijs quae pertinent ad cultum de quo non habemus expressum mandatum Dei Neno cultum iactare potest nâ—si verbo quasi pauniculu involutus ac circumclusus sit So Luther Gen. 21. This is one mayne principle of
matter capable of sad dispute It shall be sufficient therfore to note onely the passages which seem to looke towards the question The Rejoynder pag. 179. tould us that the Def. offered to confute out of Vrsine this proposition All human Ceremonies which are imposed and observed as parts of â—ods worship are unlawfull Now first upon this the Repl. brought forth the maine assertion of Vrsin in the place alledged viz. that humane Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies not onely are not the worship of God but also they binde not the conscience To this the Rejoynder answereth that Vrsin in his answer to an objection made against this assertion sayth that suche Ceremonies are not worship in themselves therfore addeth the Rejoynder his meaning is that ther is some true lawfull worship improperly and by acâ—ident Which is as if from these words mans clothes or armour are not a man by themselvs one should conclude that therfore they are affirmed to be a man improperly and by accident Secondly the Repl. noted diverse words of Vrsin sounding wholly to the deniall of the honorable title of good worship unto human institutions Vpon which the Rejoynder complaineth of willfull omitting these words of Vrsin worship properly so called doeth so please God that the contrarie of it would displease him Where sayth the Rejoynder we have an exact description of worship properly so called But he is herin deceyved For if this be an exact description of proper worship then wheÌ„ a child honoreth his father he doeth properly and immediatly honor and worship God because suche an act doeth so please God that the contrarie of it dishonoring of ones father must needs displease him And so in very deed was the meaning of Vrsin to call the morall duties even of the second table worship properly so called Which forme of speaking though it cannot be excused from great improprietie yet maketh it nothing for but rather against the Rej. because Vrsin heerby denieth human Ceremonies so much to participate the nature name of worship as any mean moral dutie of the second tabledoeth no not so much as the hang-mans office in the due execution of it Thirdly the Repl. observed that the Def. concludeth the very same thing out of Vrsin which we mainteyne and he undertooke to confute viz. that divine worship properly so called is that which is ordeyned of God To this the Rej. answereth after an angrie charging the Repl. with a contradctious spiriâ— that this is not alledged because wee denie it or to confute our proposition in the sence of Vrsine but to shew what sence we must holde of it Now did not the Rejoynder himself tell us pag. 1794. that the Def. offered to confute out of Vrsin our proposition How can this be excused from contradictions I will not say spirit but dealing to say and unsay the same thing in the breath of one and the same section Fourthly to that which the Def. sayd of Ceremonies in a large sense to be helde worship the Repl. answered that thts should be proved The rejoinder is that the large sense it set downe viz. as circumstances apperteyning to the setting out of divine worship As if we had not required a proofe but onely an explication Yet this explication hath no more truthe in this large sense then if one should say that all circumstances appertayning to the setting out of a man area man But sayth the Rej. Vrsin or at least Pareus sayth that the genus commune nature of these Cerem as well as of civil laws is morall and therfore worship What could he have sayd more to confute both Defendant and Rejoynderâ— they are worship and that onely in their generall nature just as civill things that is not otherwise then all good deeds are worship So forbidding or hindering of false worship which may be doen by Atheists is worship in this uncouth manner of speaking One argument yet is of the Rejoynder his owne invention Suche thinges doen to the honoring of an Idoll were idolatrie as to build a temple to the honoring of an Idoll Therfore the same thinges doen by the rule to the right ende are some way a worship to God Wherin ther are two ambiguous phrases observable 1. suche thinges 2. to the honoring of an idoll If by suche thinges he meaneth suche as crosse and surplice we not onely grant but urge that suche thinges doen to the honoring of an idoll are idolatrie and therfrom conclude that suche thinges doen to the honoring of God are not some way but properly latria or worship of the true God though being destitute of his allowance false or superstitious worship But if he meane suche as circumstances of time and place then he accuseth all Princes that ever granted time and place for idolatrous worship to be Idolaters Let him consider how farre this stretcheth Secondly if by to the honoring of an Idoll he meaneth a devout intention of suche an honor wee grant that the taking up of a straw directly to suche an immediat ende is idolatrie For howsoever suche intention is not necessarie to externall worship yet the praesence of it doeth make that worship which otherwise were none Yet all circumstances of time and place which are occasionally applied to idolatrie are not idolatrie eyther essentiall or accidentall For then the same circumstances should be in diverse Ciâ—ies both Idolatrie and also true worship of the true God as being circumstances of both 3. Concerning Zanchie His name is by mistaking muche abused For howsoever he distinguisheth worship into that which he calleth essentiall and suche thinge as are annexed unto it yet under these annexions he comprizeth suche thinges as God hath commanded all which the Def. and Rej. call essentiall worship His words are these Things annexed to worship are holy ordinances which among the Iewes were very many as their temples Altars persons garments vessels times c. And afterward Ministers Elders Deacons Lords Day c are the holy things of the Christian Church Annexa cultui sunt sâ—cra qua apud Iudaeâ—s permulta erant templa altaria persona vestiâ—â—enta vaesa tempora etc. et postea Miniâ—â—ri Praesbyteri Diaconi Dies Dominicus etc. sunt sacra Ecâ—lesiae Christiana So that Zanchie calleth those annexed which these men call essentiall worship what an unhappie witnesse is he that doeth not agree with them of whom he is produced But to take all that the Rejoynder would have this is the summe If human Ceremonies be some part of externall worship and yet not of that worship which is essentiall as Zanchie sheweth then in a large sense Ceremonies applied to religious actions may be called parts of Gods worship though not essentiall To which I answer that according as Ramus sheweth about distribution sometime adjuncts of a thing may in a large sense be called parts and yet they cannot have the abstractive name of that subject attributed unto them because the adjuncts of a man cannot with any sense be called men
be founde noted on eyther side but onely according to one English Edition which I have not I cannot say muche of them Yet this I may truly say that the Rejoynder is put to hard shift in opposing of the Repliers answer when he distinguisheth betwixt graces and duties actually performed For these two are expressed by the same name of the Apostle Paul 2. Cor. 8.1 I doe you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia etc. But it seemeth that humane mysticall Ceremonies are of like nature unto those olde legall Ceremonies which onely signified what men ought to doe but gave not grace to doe it so that they are to be referred unto the killing letter In searching also for the place in my latine copie of Iuel Sacramenta Domini multitâ—dinâ— quadam supoâ—stitio sarum puerilium Ceremoniarum commacu laruâ—t Pontificij eisque sanctiones ejusmodi addidotâ—â—â— etc. I founde these wordes Act. 1. pag. 23. The Papists have blurred Christ Sacraments with a number of Superstitiouâ— and Childish Ceremonies and have added such like Sanctions to them Now if by the superstitiousnes and childishnesse which is found in the Popish Cere before their multitude and before their sanctions binding consciences to them he did not mean their mysticall signification upon humane institution I would willingly learne of the Rejoynder what his meaning was 13. Beza was by the Def. granted to speak for us But the Rejoynder having now exercised hmself unto confidence in suche elusions will needs have it that Bezas phraze onely not his meaning doeth make for us Let us therfor hear his reasons 1. Beza sayth he condemneth all Symbolicall rites Graevisâ—ime a veterihus toties peccatum esse dico quoties ullas Sacramentales i.e. verum spiritualium significativas Ceremonias in Dei Ecclesiam introduxerunt Ritus omnes symbolycos semol ex Ecclesia Christiana in quam nullo unquam jure inveâ—â— potuerunt profligari opâ—râ—ere nec eti manentibus suam Ecclesia nativaÌ„ pulchritudiné restitui posse existimo which he calleth Sacramentall that is signifying spirituall graces not duties Now Bezas wordes ep 8. are these I affirme that so often as the ancients brought into the Church any Sacramentals i. e. Significative ceremonies of Spirituall things so oft they greivously offended Withall I thinke that all symbolical rites should be once profligited out of the church whereinto by no right they could ever enter nor as long as they remaine can the Church have her native bewty restored Here is no mention at all of graces but only of spirituall thinges and yet the Rejoynder would perswade his reader that he sayth not spirituall duties but graces His glosse is naught Spirituall thinges comprehend so well spirituall duties as graces How this reason will be excused I cannot guesse except perhaps it be answered that humane Ceremonies doe signifie duties as they are carnall and not as they are spirituall It is further to be marked that Beza there speaketh of of suche humane significant Ceremonies as were in common use amonge the ancient Fathers Now the Rejoynder will not say that they had in common use so many humane Sacraments as Beza noteth them to have had significant Ceremonies 2. The second reason by which the Rejoynd would prove that Beza meant not simplie to condemne all significant Ceremonies is because he alloweth some Feast-days confesseth the Surplice and kneeling to be in their nature indifferent and sayth that the Crosse might sometime of olde have had lawfull use For the former of which if the wordes of Beza had been noted more might be sayd In the meane time let this suffize If Beza did allow of some humane Feast-days it may better from this place be gathered that he did not account them significant of spirituall thinges then it can from them be gathered that in this place he did not condemne all suche significants of mans making Neyther doeth he affirme a significant Surplice to be indifferent And as for kneeling that is more excepted against for other causes then for instituted signification But in the last ther is odde dealing For wheras Beza sayth of the Crosse ut olim aliquis fuâ—rit usus ejus etc. which is as muche as to say though this were granted that there was some use of it of olde the Rejoynder makeâ—h him to say that ther was of olde a lawfull use of it It is enough for any man to read over Beza his eyght and twelf Epistle for understanding not onely of his meaning but also of his reasons 14. Because the Def. made Beza a singular man in opposing all humane mysticall Ceremonies the Replier added out of Bellarmines observation de effectu Sacram. l. 2. c. 30. that at least Calvin Barentius and Chemnitius were of the same minde Now concerning Calvin enough hath been sayd before For the other marke what the Rejoynder hath to say The question sayth he in that place of Bellarmine disputed is of Ceremonies meritorious and binding the conscience out of the case of scandall And is this all Surely then the Rejoynder had no reason to object unto the Abrigers and the Replier abusing the Reader For to omitte that which in the first part of our Dispute hath been answered concerning merit binding any one that looketh upon Bellarmine de effect Sacr. l. 2. cap. 30. may see that he divideth the controversie betwixt us and the Papists into sixe heads the fourth is about binding the conscience and the fift about merit but the third is whether the Churche may appoint new Ceremonies The Afirmative of this question Bellarmine proveth from the Feast instituted by Mordechay and that of Dedication Nostra propositic solum assarit contra Haeriticos â—icere Ecclesiae â—nsâ—ituerâ— novas Ceremonias non ad justâ—ficandum a pecâ—at is mortalibus sed ad alios fines cap. 31. instituted in the Machabees time etc. which are the Def. and Rejoyners cheif arguments for significant Ceremonies And professeth plainely as our men doe Our Proposition is no more but this against heretiques that the church may appoint new Ceremonies not indeed to justifie us from mortal sins but to other ends On the Negative part Bellarmine nameth Calvin Brentius and Chemnitius Now the Rejoynder to darken all confoundeth the third fift question into one hoche-poche Who then doeth abuse the Reader Of Calvin enough hath been sayd before as also of Brentius under the title of Witenberge Confession Chemnitius onely being altogether passed over by the Rejoinder though he was not onely propounded by the Replier out of Bellarmine but also in the Abridgement pag. 32 is here to be represented in his owne wordes Yet concerning BreÌ„tius first a few wordes may be needfull The words of Wittenburge Confession before cited are plaine It is not lawfull to devize new Ceremonies to shadow forth the trueth already layd open and brought to light by the Gospel as in the day light to set up Candles to signifie the
supernaturall effects c. But from hence nothing can be gathered for the advantage of the Def. and Rej. except it appear that Iunius did onely speake of the working and not distinctly of the signifiyng which Bell. would have given unto those Ceremonies whiche how false it is shall praesently appear 3. He noteth a shamefull falsification of Iunius his wordes in the translation of them Iunius his wordes are Homo non potest creaturas ad significationem adhibere The Translation is Humane Ceremonies cannot be lawfully used for signification Where is that great falsification which drew from the Rej. Are you not ashamed or can you not blush The Rej. his owne translation of the same wordes is No man-can lawfully applie thinges to signification He must discover the mysticall difference betwixt using for signification applying to signification before he can cast suche shame upon the Repl. none upon the Rej. 4. To shew Iunius in his owne posture and the mis-reporting Repl. in his owne colours The Rejoynder translateth that wholle passages of Iunius and noteth upon it first that Iunius speaketh of consecrating ceremonies To which I answer that in the wordes as they are by the Rej. translated he expresly condemneth all applijnge to signification And if consecration were included therein I hope the Rej. will not disavow consecrating of Churches Churche-yardes Altars c. SecoÌ„dly he observeth that Iunius doeth professedly sever the poynt of signification from that of efficacie As if the Repl. had confounded them and not rather distinctly insisted upon â—ignification onely which Iunius doeth as distinctly and professedly condemne as efficacÃe Nay it is the Rej. his common fault that where the Papists speake of efficacie and signification and our Divines distinctly answer of both he will have no answâ—r no not those of Calvin Brentius Chemnitius Daneus nor this of Iunius to belonge unto signification distinctly and by it self In the third place he telleth us that Iunius in the two next annotations doeth allow voluntarie significant Ceremonies Let it therfore be considered that Iunius in the thirteenth annotation insinuateth at the least his doubt whether any voluntarie significations can proceed from good a bono si forte 2. He sayth they proceeded from simplicitie and turned to superstition Which phrases of his he so interpreteth other where that it may easily appear he did not allow that which here he calleth simplicitie For cap. 5. annot 15. he calleth it vanitie in opposition to the simpâ—icitie of Christ. And in the second booke de reliquijs imaginibus cap. 27. annot 29. he calleth it plainely simple superstition In the fourteenth annotation he mainteyneth this assertion In rebus divinis sacris ad Ecclesiam pertinentibus mul te adumbrationes in Ecclesia recte adhibentur nisi quas instituit Deus In divine things no shadowes are rightly used in the Church but what God hath instituted But sayth the Rej. he doeth by name allow standing in prayer on the Lordes dayes as a significant Ceremonie as also holybread annot 10. Wheras Iunius testifieth plainly in the 9. note immediatly before how he did onely excuse as comparatively tolerable suche ancient Ceremonies of the Fathers Primum suit tolerabile Patrum simplicitatem piam excusamus So that Iunius being seen in his owne posture and the reporters in their colours let the Reader judge where is the cause of shame and blushing SECT 5. Concerning the wronge that is doen to Gods Sacraments by humane sigmificant Ceremonies 1. THe Argument dependeth on this that humane Ceremonies appropriated to Gods woâ—ship if they be ordeyned to teache any spirituall dutie by their mysticall signification usurpe a cheif part of the nature of Sacraments This was in the Abr. backed with many testimonies which the Rej. having before eluded so well as he could here contenteth himself to say they are counterfeit forced or forged stuffe The contrarie wherof hath been declared Now for the naked Arg. he affirmeth it to have no sienws which must be tried by the answers defence of them The Def. first answereth by a distinction betwixt the signification of grace conferred and the signification of mans dutie the former wherof he maketh Sacramentall but not the later To the which was replied that Sacr. also doe signifie the dutie of man towards God This sayth the Rej. is not true bec Sacr. doe onely implie that dutie But I would knowe of him 1. how the Sacr. as signes doe implie that which they doe not signifie all so well as our signe of a crosse doeth signifie any dutie The aerall crosse doeth though very untowardly represeÌ„t the wooddeÌ„ crosse wheron our Saviour was crucified so by a trope Christ crucified then implieth our dutie to Christ. And doe not Sacraments signifie Christ our dutie toward him so well as this 2. I aske If Baptisme doe not signifie our wholle mortification vivification and putting on of Christ 3. If the Sacraments doe onely by themselves implie these duties yet that implication being explicated in their administration what use is ther of putting that explicated dutie under a bushel or bed of mans making 2. The Rejoynder not trusting to that deniall sayth further that if the Sacraments did signifie mans dutie yet that is not a cheif part of their nature To which I may replie that if it were not a cheif part of their nature but a part onely yet it is presumption for men to take any part of the Sacraments and set it upon other thinges at their owne pleasure But seing by the nature of the Sacraments is meant their office and use and ther be many offices and uses of them some of which come not so neer their cheifest office as this signification doeth it may with good reason be termed a cheif part Calvin Consens de re Sacram. sayth thus Sacraments are notes and badges of our Christian profession and incitements to thankfulnes Exercises of pietie bonds under our hands to tye us to Gods service but their cheife end is to signifie and â—igure the grace of God to us Sacramenta noâ—ae sunt ae â—essara professionâ—s Christianae five societatis item ad gratiatum actionum incitam enta pietatis denique exercitia syngrapha ad ' Dei cultum nos obligantes finis tamèn praecipuus est â—ratiam Domiâ—â—â— testari repraesentare atque obsignare Now though this last be the cheif office yet amonge the former one is more cheif then another and which of them more cheif then this of signifying spirituall duties with obligation to the performance of them 3. To prove that the Sacraments signifie morall duties which first the Def. and in defence of him the Rejoynder denieth it was alleged by the Repl. that the wholle Covenant is in them signed and sealed betwixt God and man in which CovenaÌ„t mans dutie thorough grace is there professed and represented Wherupon the Rejoynder 1. concludeth that suche signes as doe neyther signe nor seall the covenant
of grace cannot partake the office or speciall nature of Sacraments Wherby he gaineth nothing but his owne ideal shadow 2. He gathereth that unlesse signifying without sealing be a more principall part of the nature of Sacraments then sealing suche signes as communicat with them onely in signifying doe not participat any cheif part of their nature Which is as mere non sense as if one should say that unlesse teaching without sealing be a more principall part of Sacraments theÌ„ sealing then the preaching of the doctrine which in Sacraments is signified and sealed doeth not participat any cheif part of their nature 3. He answereth that the Sacraments doe confirme our obligation unto sanctimonie in generall but not signifie any morall dutie in particular Here then is the mysterie the Sacraments to confiâ—me by signification all our duties but not this or that dutie If our Convocation had been of the Counsel when Sacraments were appointed they would as it seemeth have made them more perfect But this is certain our Saviour meant to put a difference betwixt the olde A. B. C. and the new maner of tâ—aching fitting for riper yeares and therfore did not sâ—oâ—ll out every letter concerning our dutie in signes as of oulde but give us the summe in a few signes Whosoever therfore goeth about to multiplie significant signes crosseth thâ— very intention which was respected in the institution of two Sacraments onely Beside the Crosse it self doeth not signifie our dutie of constant fighting under Christ in paâ—ticular against this or that temptatioÌ„ of sinne the world or the Devill but onely in generall so that by this reason we should or may have as many significant Ceremonies as there be particular temptations to be resisted Whither shall we come at length by walking in this Ceremoniall way 4. The second Argument to the same purpose by the Repl. alleged was that the name Sacrament as it signifieth an oath or obligation doeth import that the Sacraments signifie our dutie to God To this the Rejoynder answereth that the Sacraments doe in deed implie but not represent any morall dutie Now let any reasonable man judge whether dipping under the water and rising up againe or taking of food for strength and growth doeth not more represent spirituall duties then making a Crosse with ones finger in the ayer 5. The third reason mentioned was taken from the name Eucharist notifiing thankfulnesse and the taking of the same in remembrance of Christ. The Rejoynder his answer is that the word Eucharist is no Sacrament but a terme brought in by men to put them in minde of their dutie in receyving it But that word doeth notifie the nature of the Sacrament at least in the judgemeÌ„t of al Divines â—hat have in this meaning used the terme though it be not a Sacrament And they are more then that the Rej. his judgement can counter-ballance Yet if significant Ceremonies be like unto wordes and characters as the Rejoynder formerly maintayned that very word must needes be a Sacrament or a significant signe of a Sacrament because it was brought in to put men in minde of their dutie in receyving as the Rej. speaketh He addeth 2. that ther is no element nor action of that Sacrament so particularly repraesenting thankfulnesse as kneeling doth reverence or humilitie Where first he maketh kneeling a significant Ceremonie whiche hitherto he hath seemed to denie 2. I answer that the very action of receyving so great a gift in a cheerfull humble manner doeth repraesent both thankfulnesse and humilitie so far as Christ would have it repraesented by signes The very celebration of a great benefit receyved is a signe of thankfulnesse Otherwise let the Rejoynder tell us what repraesentation of thankfulnesse was in the Passover for that benefit of passing over the Israelites houses when the first-borne of the Aegyptians were slaine 6. Instance was given by the Replier that both sanctitie and constancie which are the thinges â—ignified by Surplice and Crosse are signified in Baptisme The Rej. his answer is that they are not barely or onely signified in Baptisme as duties nor by any distinct signe repraesented As if this were the question and not this if Sacraments doe signifie morall duties Certainly if Sacraments doe signifie these vertues as graces and duties as is proved and also confessed no Christian need desire to have them â—ignified over againe barely and onely as duties no more then after an instrument made betwixt the Lord of Manner and his Tenent conteyning the conditions of both partes the tenent should seek for a new instrumeÌ„t signifijng his conditions a part and not onely so but after that his conditions had been expressed generally that he should keep all the land in good culture according as he found it he should seek for one instrument about the woodes another for the â—arable land another for the medowes another for the pastures and another for the broome feilds or for every aker one that not from the Lord of the manner but from some Iustice of peace or high Constable of the Hundred Neyther is it a thinge profitable for Christians to remember their dutie without remembrance of Gods grace therto apperteyning 7. Against mysticall-morall Ceremonies of humane institution the Repl. brought this Arg. in Mr. Baines his wordes To be a teacher of my understandâ—â—g and an exciter of my devotion are suche effects as require vertue inhaerent or assistant to those thinges which should be causes of them But no signe of mans divizing hath any suche vertue in it or with it For then it must come eyther from the word of creation or from Gods after institution But from neyther of these have the signes of mans divizing any suche vertue Therfore no signe of mans divizing can be a teacher of mine understanding or an exciter of my devotion This the Rejoynder confuteth first with skornefull wordes as a sickly childish and long some objection After he answereth that our monitorie Ceremonies are onely externall occasions and objects wherby the minde of man worketh upon it self not causes working by some vertue in them Where 1. observe how he mangleth and marreth the Argument that he may maister it the wordes are that suche effects require vertue inhaerent or assistant he interpreteth them onely of vertue in them i. e. inhaerent leaving out assistant and yet dareth affirme that upon this fiction of vertue in them which is his owne fiction the wholle objection is builded 2. He maketh our Ceremonies to be onely occasionall objects and no causes wheras every instituted signe is a meanes and so a cause of that effect for which it is appointed as Logick teacheth And if they were mere occasions of conceyving that which they signifie then a white Surplice would not prove half so significant a Ceremonie of Ministers sanctitie as a white Cocke especially when it croweth nor an aeriall Crosse so significant as a Gallowes Beside if our Ceremonies be occasionall objects onely then no man is tied to
that the Vaile was neither Apostolicall nor meerely of humane institution nor of instituted signification nor yet appropriated unto Gods worship but a civill order of decencie used as well out of Gods worship as in it And the Rejoynder granteth that it was a civill custome but addeth that it is as absurd from thence to conclude that it was in religious worship civill and not religious as to affirme this of blowing of Trumpets in the new Moones c. Where first hee should have remembred that we are heere in answering not in prooving and concluding which is the Def. his part Secondly The Replier said it was a civill order of decencie expressing the immediate end which it had as well in as out of worship which will well beare this concluâ—ion that it was no more religious then Womens proper apparell long garments c. to which Chrisostome upon 1. Cor. 11. compareth the Vaile as one part to another or their shooes or slippers are 3. Concerning Trumpets in some use of them wee have their instituted signification expresly set downe in the Word Nunb 10. shew the like for going to Church in shooes or Vailes and then we will confesse a paritie of reason 2. The Def. proceeding by interrogatories maketh this the first whether the Vaile was not significant of some good thing To which the Repl. answered yes it did declare or argue a good thing as indeed all civill apparrell of modest fashion doeth For this hee is checked and bidden to stand by with his answer while his elders speake As if we were now in the High-Commission and hee as Commissioner might prescribe us when and how much we may speake for our selves though much without ground be spoken against us and interrogatories propounded to the prejudice of our cause 3. He asked secondly what it did signifie Answer was made that it signified subjection to superior power Then a morall dutie was professed by it sayth the Rej. just so as modesty and shamefastnesse gravity and care of not offending are professed by all apparell of modest honest fashion And yet I never heard all modest apparell called a mysticall religious Ceremonie Theophilact in Cor. 11. maketh a mans beard like and equall unto his uncovering in signification And will the Def. and Rej. say that Beards are religious mysticall Ceremonies 4. The Def. added that it had some relation unto God To which it was answered that so there is in an upper Seat of an Heathen Magistrate sitting in judgement which yet is no mysticall Ceremonie of religion The Rej. altering first the case into a throne set up to that end to represent the Soveraignty of God for religious cognizance and document affirmeth the Seat of a Heathen Iudge to be a mysticall Ceremonie of Religion Now set aside his changing of the question and take him as answering that everry Seat of judgement among all Heathen is such a Ceremonie and then let any man consider if hee hath not brought his pigges to a faire market Seats of Iustice are religious Ceremonies even among those that know not what religion meaneth what is become of intended immediate though improper worship which he is wont to require as necessarie unto a religious Ceremonie of mysticall signification Hee may as well say that such vailes as Tamars was wherewith she deceived Iuda even unto incest was religious Ceremonies among the Heathen because a Vaile in the nature of it declareth a morall duty For many of those Seates in their nature tending to justice are but vailes of injustice as Tamars was of uncleannesse If those High-seates bee religious Ceremonies then the bowing of inferiours unto them kissing of their feet or foot-stooles must be such also Why then did the Def. seeke as with a candle and lant-horne in every darke corner for instances or examples of religious significant Ceremonies of mans appointing every civill meeting every Company of Soldiers every Schoole of Children can afford examples enough and more then enough 5. It was added by the Repl. that the Def. allegeth nothing out of Divines which may not as well bee applied to the Iudges Bench as to the Vaile of Women Yes this sayth the Rej. that the one used in civill actions is religious in use onely not in state the other used in religious actions is religious both in state and use which is saith he M r. Parkers distinction Now 1. there was no such distinction as this alleged by the Def. out of our Divines so that this contradicteth not that which the Repl. affirmed 2. This distinction as it is heere explained was never used by M r Parker or as I thinke by any reasonable man before now A circumstance used in civill actions is religious in use the like used in religious actions is religious in use and state Is the Criers O wize Religious in use because or as it is used in civill actions And is the Paraters citation religious in state because or as it was used in Spirituall Courts 3. What if â—udges have a peculiar Seat in the Church as in divers places they have Is that Seat therefore religious in state as an Altar a Crosse the Chaire of Peter c. 6. The Repl. also observed that the Vaile was of the same nature with long haire such as becommeth women and therefore no religious mysticall Ceremonie No saith the Rej. because long haire is of nature and the Vaile of institution which to a Ceremonie is essentiall To which I oppose 1. the true observation of P. Martyr the Def. his chiefe witnesse about this instance A woman ought seeing her haire is given her of God to follow this his institution and to imitate her Maker and cover her head which if she will not doe as much as is in her she throwes off the naturall vaile Debet mulier cum dat asit ipsi coma à Deo hoc illius institutum sequi imitari factorem suum ut caput conteâ—at quod si sacere nolit quantum in ipsae est naturale tâ—gmen exâ—usit c. where he sheweth that it is so naturall that it cannot be imitated without some violation of nature by any woman though no new institution impose it upon her 2. Chrisostome upon the same place hath this That is from nature it selfe Illud à natura institutum est quod scilicet velaremus caput mulieres non velaremus viri Natura ut mulier regeretur voluit ut inde docta regeretur that we women should cover our heads and we men should uncover our heads Nature would that women should bee covered she is taught to be covered even from thence 3. Paul himselfe saith not only that nature it selfe hath taught women to use a vaile but also that the disguising of it is all one with shaving so that long haire and a vaile according to the Apostle is all one for the ground of it If therefore speciall institution above nature be essentiall to a Ceremonie then certainely vailing
hee himselfe will not affirme in his second thoughts 3. He affirmeth some distinction to be betwixt things originally evill and those that are successively evill which we deny not but only say that distinctioÌ„ doth not make such a difference as that therefore one should be rejected and the other received 4. He denieth the 2. sertion plainely which he might have done with â—ewer words to as good purpose 2. Concerning Lev. 26. it was alleged by the Repâ— that those at lest some of those titular pillars were firsâ— onely set up for civill use To which the Rej. answereth that this was not the first beginning of their religiouâ— use which is nothing to the purpose except no use be good but religious 2. that though many statues which afterward onely for worship were at the first for civill respects and had still a civill use for this antecedent onely is the Repliers yet it doeth not follow they were civill at the first which answer is by it selfe confuted 3. Calvins collection or conjecture was objected that these statues were erected to represent God and this was answered that according to Calvins phrase there is a representation of God in all pictures that corrupt Gods spirituall worship The Rej. opposeth that Calvin on Deut. 12.3 sheweth his meaning to be onely of such representation as was in the golden Calfe and Michas Seraphim not such as Iacob set up for a monument Which may be Calvins Conjecture of that place in Deut. though not of this in Lev. Yet to such a monument as Iacobs was being grossely abused unto Idolatry Hezechias would have showne no more courtesie then he did to the Brazen Serpent So Pelicanus upon the place collecteth We must ceremonize according to Gods Word onely Ceremoniandum est secunduÌ„ Verbum Dei solum as upon Lev. 26.1 Even triumphall statues were forbidden Statuam erigi prohibet etiam triumphalem And Lyra The memory of Idolatry is totally to be wiped out Memoria Idololatriae totaliter delonda 4. The Def. objected Iacobs pillar Gen. 28.18 So â—ayth the Replieâ— he did offer sacrifices in other manner and place then after the Law was lawfull To this the Rejoynder answereth 1. that that which Iacob did was not unlawfull by the morall Law But he is mistaken not disâ—inguishing betwixt the morall Law forbidding religious Ceremenies of meere human appointment and allowing the same derived from Divine inspiration So Tertullian de Idol cap. 5. answereth him that defended Images by the brazen Serpent Idem Deus qui lege â—etuit similitudinem fieri extraordinario praecepto serpentis â—imilitudinem indixit Si eundem Deum observas habes leâ—em ejus Imitare tu Mosem ne facias adversus legem simuâ—achrum aliquid nisi tibi Deus jusserit 1. e. The same God which in his Law forbad images did extraordinarily command the image of a Serpent If thou wilt obey that God thou hast his law Imitate thou Moses not making any image contrarie to the Law except God commande thee So all our Divines in answer of Papists objecting this such like examples for will-worship referre these doeings to Divine revelation or instinct Among these for this cause â— reckon D. Iackson whoe in his Originall pag. 332. giveth us this Catholick remedie and rule seriously to be considered Such actions as have been menaged by Gods Spirit suggested by secret instinct or extracted by extraordinary and speciall occasions are then onely lawfull in others when they are begotten by like occasions or brought forth by like impulsions 5. To Hos. 2.16.17 where the very name of Baal seemeth to be forbidden because it had been given unto Idols the Defend answered sayth the Rej. implicitly i. e. so as I have now answered to all that he hath brought about this fourth Argument But he undertaketh by a litle change of wordes to make that answer satisfactorie For this end he allegeth first that the word Baal in religious use and application was originaly oâ— from the first use of it evill because before Moses was borne the great and common Idoll of the Gentiles was markeâ— out by it as by a proper name But 1. If the civill use of this word was originaly good that is sufficient to our purpose For our Argument speaketh onely generaly oâ— good originals and beginnings 2. If this word Baal did originaly signifie Lord Maister Husband as it is generaly taken then by the Rej. his interpretation it did originaly signifie a religious relation For he holdeth every signe of a servants dutie for conscience sake to be a mysticaâ— signe of a spirituall dutie pag. 314. And is not every signe of a Lords Maisters or Husbands dutie or state for conscience sake of the same nature 3. Ther is some quaestion among the learned whether Baal was derived from King Bel or King Bels name from Baal The most probable opinion is the later as Sir Walter Raughly sheweth lib. 1. c. 10. sect 6. because Bel Beel or Baal was as muche to say as God And Arias Montanus in Hos. 2. sayth it signifieth Numen or the cheif soveraign power whatsoever it be without restraint to this or that Idol Now if this be so what more evill was ther in the first use of the name Baal then of God 6. In the next place the Rej. undertaketh to prove that all religious use of this word Baal in application to God is not forbidden but onely as it might further â—he practise or bear the appearance of grosse Idolatrie In which answer if he doeth not distinguish grosse Idolaâ—rie from slight nor hath any mental reservation about â—ppearance nor yet taketh might further otherwise then â—he wordes sound he sayth nothing but that which we â—ot onely grant but also make our plea. To this end â—e allegeth the use of it in Is. 54.5 Ier. 31.33 Nah. 1.2 â—o which I answer 1. The Lord in this place of Hos. did â—ot speak of every time but of that day 2. He did not â—orbid himself to use this or that terme at his pleasure â—ut men 3. The word Baal Is. 54. Ier. 31. seemeth to be â—sed in an allusion onely reproving and upbraiding the â—dolatrie of the people which had followed Baal as â—â—ewing that what they had sought for in Baal was to â—e found onely in Iehovah Otherwise it may be answeâ—â—d that the word appellative is used without any reâ—â—exion unto the proper And Nah. 1. it is no more giâ—en to Iehovah then the name Idol is given to men wheÌ„â—n worthy teachers are called Idol-shepheards or then â—he name Iehovah is given to dumbe creatures when â—hey are called Iehovah Iireh Gen. 22. Iehovah Nissi Ex. 17. â—ehovah shammah Ezech. 48. 7. He bringeth four interpretations of the place of which the first onely as he sayth may serve our turne â—n any part But the first third and fourth are in diâ—ers Interpreters conjoined And ther is scarce any grave Interpreter which doeth not gather so much from the