Divines Bellarmines confession is alledged who saith That Protestants grant that the Apostles did ordaine certaine Rites and Orders belonging to the Church which are not set down in Scripture cont 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. To vvhich I answer 1 Rites and Orders may be ordained though such ceremonies as ours be unlawfull And Bellarmines meaning could not be of such Rites as our Ceremonies are except he spake against his conscience for he confesseth de cult sanct l. 3 cap. 7 that some of our Divines as Brentius by name condemne such as unlawfull 2 Bellarmine craftily bringeth in this confession of our diviues that he may make them contradict themselues as appeareth in the same place His Confession therefore in this place is not so indifferent as the Def. would haue it 3 our Argument is not from the Scriptures negatiuely against the authority of the Apostles which vvas all one with that of the Scriptures and therefore understood in our Proposition but against the ordinarie authority of the Church Except therfore the Def. can proue either that our ceremonies vvere the rites brought in by the Apostles or that our Convocation house hath the same authority vvhich the Apostles had this confession of Bellarmine is nothing to the purpose SECT XIX HEre the Protestants themselues are brought in confessing as much as Bellarmine said of them But the first witnesse Chemnitius saith nothing but that some Ecclesiasticall rites though they haue no commandement or testimonie in Scripture are not to be rejected vvhich in the sense now often expounded I willingly grant Yet the Def. should not in stead of Testimonie of Scripture haue put warrant of Scripture For testimonie neither in usuall acception nor yet in Chemnitius his own meaning is so large as warrant The place of Calvin hath been answered before Iunius is plainly of the same minde and so to be interpreted so also Zanchius Daneus and Whitaker But because Iunius is stiled here by the Def. vvith his deserved title of Iudicious it will not be amisse to shew his judgement fully about such additions as our ceremonies are To name therefore one place for all at this time because there he speaketh professedly his judgement and bindeth it with a solemn oath for the sincerity and impartialnesse of his conscience in that behalfe The place I meane is in his Ecclestasticus lib. 3 cap. 5. towards the end Where first he distinguisheth betwixt things necessarie and others not necessarie in the administration of the Church and concerning even the latter sort he modestly but throughly sheweth how little libertie is left unto men If any man saith he either by Civill or Ecclesiasticall authority will adde things not necessarie nor agreable to order wee would not pertinaciously contend with him but desire onely that he would seriously consider of three things 1 By what authority or example he is led to thinke that the holy Church of God and the simplicity of the mysteries of Christ whose voyce onely is heard by his sheep according to the commandement of the Father Ioh. 10 27 must be clad with humane traditions which Christ doth reject ◠2 To what end he judgeth that his things should be added unto those that are divine For if the end be conformitie with others it were more equitie that other Churches should conforme to those which come neerest to the word of God as Cyprians counsell is then that these should conforme to the other If the end be comelinesse what is more comely then the simplicity of Christ what is more simple then that comelinesse If there be no other reason beside will then that of Tertullian is to be thought of the will of God is the chiefe necessitie and that the Church of God is not tyed unto mans wills in things divine The 3 thing to be thought on it what event alwaies hath followed upon humane Traditions as daily experience doth shew This vvas the judgement of Iudicious Iunius vvherby it is manifest that he favoured not our ceremonies nor would haue pleaded for them as the Def. under colour of his name Because Zanchius also is brought in with his deserved Title of a profound Divine speaking nothing to the purpose in hand I will set down his judgement concerning this point out of that Epistle to famous Qu. Elizabeth vvhere he treateth expresly of ceremonies and of our ceremonies Est autem Ecclesia sicut in doctrina sic etiam in ceremoniis ad Ecclesiae Apostlicae regulam informanda The Church must be ordered by the rule of the Apostolicall Church as vvell in ceremonies as in doctrine What can be said more contrarie to the Def. his distinction SECT XX. AT length vve are come to Reason But if this reason were sound and certaine I see no cause vvhy it should not haue had the upper hand of humane testimonies 1 The first reason is grounded on the Defendants phantasie meerly For it supposeth that vve hold some points of Religion to be onely besides the Word and no vvay against it vvhich not onely I haue confuted before as a cavill but M. Cartwright long since in his Reply p. 56 the very vvords also of this argument which the Def. here opposeth doe shew that vvee hold such things condemned by the Scriptures and therefore against the generall rule of them though onely beside their particular prescription 2 The second reason concludeth nothing vvhich we will not grant in the sense formerly expressed viz. that by those some ceremonies be meant circumstances of meere order and by man◠invention be understood mans particular determination Otherwise the assumption is palpably false Beside the proposition also is untrue if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing indifferent be taken in such a generall sense as some time it is found used in by Divines Vide Sopingii Apologet. respons ad lib. anonym p. 166. 3 The third and last reason is taken from the difference of ceremonies vvhich may and must be in the Churches of Christ. The answer is that this difference ought to bee onely in determination of particular circumstances of order for time place c. SECT XXI THis sect is of al other most ridiculous For first it supposeth every circūstance to be of the like nature with the ceremonies in controversie Secondly it supposeth all circumstances to be of institution Thirdly it supposeth contrary circumstances ceremoniously to be practised by the same men as of institution for otherwise the cavillation hath no shew Now all these are conceited dreames But vvhat if vve should argue thus You say these ceremonies are divine and yet dare not deny but the rejecting of them in other Churches is divine You retaine these ceremonies as divine and yet haue rejected other ceremonies of like nature as divine as these What divinitie is in such courses SECT XXII AFter al this adoe about the proposition of the first argument now vve are told of an assumption out of the Abridgment and M. Hy. viz. that these Ceremonies haue no
A REPLY TO D R. MORTONS GENERALL DEFENCE OF THREE NOCENT CEREMONIES viz. The Surplice Crosse in Baptisme and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramentall elements of Bread and Wine Printed in yeare 1622. THE PREFACE SIR HOwsoever ther be many vnknown motiues which lead men in these dayes unto conformitie yet those which are openly professed may be referred either vnto M. Sprints way who confesseth the ceremonies to be imposed contrary unto the rules of Gods word and yet contendeth that they are to be used in case of deprivation Or else to D. Mortons way who avoucheth the sayd cerâ—monies to be agreeable unto the rules of Gods word and therfore sâ—ch as ought to be observed simply Now he that considereth wel of the maâ—ter shall find that there is no ground for the conscience to rest on in either of these wayes As for M. Sprint to speak nothing of his mis-alledging very many authors he hath but three main arguments and to all three he hath given sufficient answer himselfe His first argument is taken from the doctrine and practise of the Apostles about the Iewish ceremonies Now all the force of this reason doth depend upon that paritie or equalitie which is supposed to be betwixt our ceremonies and the Iewish our ministers warrant and the Apostles so that if this paritie faileth the whole argument falleth Yet M. Sprint himselfe confesseth pag. 250. 256. that those Iewish ceremonies were not every way so evill as ours are neither doth or dare he say that ministers now haue such particular warrant for conformitie as the Apostles had for applying themselves a little while unto some of the Iewish ceremonies His second reason is that a lesser dutie must yeeld unto a greater Now this case by his own coÌ„fession p. 30. doth not hold so as that a man should doe a thing formally simply and in nature evill for any good Now he knoweth as appeareth p. 45. that the ceremonies in controversie are esteemed such by most of these that now oppose them So that this reason can be of no force with them His third reason is because refusall of conformitie in case of deprivation tendeth to condemne in a manner all true Churches which haue taught and practised otherwise Hee meaneth by condemning accusing of error Now M. Sprint himselfe doth thus condemne all or the most of the Churches which he alledgeth to haue practised such ceremonies For in confessing our ceremonies to be inconvenient scandalous evill such as the urging of them cannot be justified and yet affirming that almost all Churches haue appointed and used such even out of the case of deprivation or such like necessitie doth he not plainly accuse all those Churches of error These things considered I thought is needless to spend much time in examining M. Sprints booke any further But according to your desire I will shew you mine opinion in briefe concerning the chiefe passages which are in Thomas Chesters or as he was wont to be called Doctor Mortons Defence of three ceremonies commonly used in our Churches which I doe the more willingly vndertake because divers things are therin handled of singular vse in divinitie whereof I profess my selfe a Student though in the ministerie I cannot find a setled station But before I come to the Defence it selfe first I would faine vnderstand the reason why three Ceremonies are onely defended seeing there be many threes of those things which stay many godly men from subscription and conformitie as is to be seen even in that abridgement which this Defender doth chiefly oppose Is it because our best Prelats haue onely a care to perswade if it may be those that are in the ministery to that conformity which is most of all noted not regarding in the meane time what becommeth of so many godly learned yong men who not onely for these but for divers other corruptions also are forced to turne away from the ministerie whereunto their education gifts and hearts did carry them while many lewd fellowes the chiefe spots and blots of our congregations doe possess their places I would know also what the reason should be that the innocencie onely of these ceremonies is defended Is this all that is required in ceremonies forcibly obtruded upon ministers and people even to the silencing excommunicating and uttter undoing of many hundreds Is this all I say that is required that such ceremonies be in some sence innocent or not hurtfull surely not scripture onely and sound reason but common sense will looke for some good necessarie use in such ceremonies and not innocencie alone And then what is the sence trow you in which these ceremonies may be called Innocent when Calvin whom the Defender calleth an honorable witnes would devise a charitable title for them he stiles them tolerabiles incptiae viz. tolerable fooleries or fopperies Epist. 200. 206. When he speaketh more out of iudgement hee not onely calleth them frivoulous and unprofitable but saith plainlie that their proper name is hurtfull noxious or nocent cleane contrarie to this Defendants language Surely one of these writers not differing onely but flatly opposing and contradicting the other must needs be farre wide Innocent indeed these ceremonies may be called in regard of their materials and the fashions also which they haue in their naturall being for the cloth of a Surpless and the fashion of it is innocent and so are all the idols of Papists and Heathens verie innocent so that this is no praise But if we look at the use whereunto they haue been applyed and wherein they haue beene a long time employed I may truely say by the devill not onely among the Papists but even in our Churches to the breeding of dissention and distraction among brethron to quenching of many and many a burning shining light to the grieving and unsetling of so many good soules and to the advancing of the Kingdome of darkeness If these things I say be considered then it is more then manifest that this licking them over with a fair word will make them no more innocent indeed then Pilats hands were when they were washed The fashion of a Surplice naturall or artificiall in another use as if a Porter or Baker weare such a garment is indifferent If it shall be said that notwithstanding these accidentall abuses yet the ceremonies are innocent in their own nature and use I answer first they having no necessary use otherwaies and these being the ordinary effects which haue followed on them there is no rule of Logick much less of zeale that will allow the Defendant simply to call them innocent 2 It is a shame for our Prelates to talk of the ceremonies innocencie when they cannot defend their own innocencie in obtruding and urging of them They are wont to say the practise and manner of urging we will not defend but the lawfulness or innocencie of the things themselues Indeed for a private man to stand upon such termes is tolerable but for the Prelates whose
my people is as much as my servant But the very word Servant also is twice thus used in one verse Isa. 42. 19. much lesse when the affection is good in the generall and blemished onely by some circumstance For then why may not a good title bee given as an allowance of that vvhich is good and yet the evill be at the same time reproved so many learned divines doe interpret that of the Midwiues Exod. 1. 19. 20. 21. Moses was reproved and brought to his graue for a sinne and yet when his death is recorded it is sayd that Moses the servant of the Lord died Deut. vlt. The Churches are sharply reproved Rev. 2. 3. and yet are stiled by the name of Churches and golden Candlestickes and their ministers who are chiefly reproved are called Starres 3. there is another reason rendred by Salomon of this restraint 1. Reg. 5. 3. 4. But the Defendant should mark that one reason doth not exclude another In this place of Samuel two reasons are rendred as Tremelius and Iunius note the second of which is taken as he saith from the example of Davids auncestors vvho never vndertook any such thing because they knew the calling of God vvas to be exspected 4. God himselfe commended this purpose of David 1. King 8. 17. As if the same affection may not in divers respects be both commended and condemned But this evasion of Mr. Hy. 1 passe over sayth the Defender as childish and absurd And why so I pray 1. Because God himselfe did interpret this affection for a deed 2. Hee did note this deed as speciall saying in both respects thou didst well that it was in thy heart In which words if there be any consequence or good sence then not onely Mr. Hy. his evasion but logick it selfe is childish and absurd SECT VIII IX X. XI IN these passages two places of Scripture are obiected vnder the name of Mr. Hy but I verily thinke Mr. Hy hath some vvrong done him in the matter Howsoever I will not undertake to maintaine that these places are fitly alledged and urged though by proportion the force of the argument used in those places who required these things at your hands is strong against our ceremonies We will not imitate D. Cary now Bishop of Exeter that proved the Surplice by the armour of light Rom. 13. 12. nor them that prove kneeling at the communion and at the word Iesus out of the bowing of the knee of all creatures Phil. 2. 10. nor those that fetch the crosse out of the letter Tau Eze. 9. 4. Neither need the Defender please himselfe in this that by some places of Scripture the ceremonies are not condemned it is enough if they were condemned but by one onely testimony of Scripture or by one sound argument drawne out of Scripture though no more could be brought But what kind of dealing is this for him that professeth a confutation principally of the Lincolne shire Ministers to passe by divers texts of Scripture alledged by them and to bring forth other of an vncertaine author never publickly propounded in any of our writings SECT XII THe last place of Scripture handled in this Argument is Yer 7. 31. the force of which as it pertaineth to the purpose in hand is in the last vvords which I commanded them not neither came it into my heart The reason lieth thus to take honorable Calvins interpretation upon the place seing God under this title onely condemneth that which the Iewes did because hee had not commanded it them therefore no other reason need be sought for the confutation of superstition then that they are not by commandement from God Now the Defendant answereth that this was a thing forbidden and in that sence was sayd not to be commanded What is this to the purpose therein lieth the strength of our argument that not to command in things that pertaine to worship is all one with forbidding But you collect sayth he that this was not against but onely besides the word It is not our collection but his owne vaine conceit Our argument is drawne from the forme of speech here used See Mr. Cartwright in his Reply p. 48. fully clearing this poynt When I read this objection first sayth he I wondred that in distingâ—ishing besides the word and against it you simbolized so well with Bellâ—rmine in his distinction of mortall and veniall sinne He was as it seemeth in a wondring humour But 1. why doth he not wonder not onely at our late Divines but at Chrysostome also as symbolizing with Bellarmine vvhen he in Gal. 1. 8. doth so distinguish betwixt teaching contrary to the Gospell and beside the Gospell Why doth he not wondringly also accuse Iunius for symbolizing with Bellarmine while he refuteth Bellarmine by this distinction contr 3. l. 4. c. 17. an 10 it were easie if needfull to produce other honorable partners in this fault but we need no other then perswaders to subscription vvho haue drawne divers into this net by telling them that though the things they stand upon be beside the word yet they are not contrary thereunto and that onely is affirmed by subscribers 2. Wee are not the authors of this distinction but they which thereby excuse humane inventions in Gods worship Wee are constrained to follow and ferret them in their own holes See Mr Cartwr Repl. p 36. 3 yet if need vvere there might be shewed though not a reall yet a rationall distinction betwixt these two 4. The Defendants answer doth expresly herein symbolize with Bellarnine de Pout l 4. c. 19. For the other allegations of Scripture quoted in the Abridgement for confirmation of the same truth vvith the former the Defendant referreth us to Chap. 2. Sect. 2. 3. 4. 5. vvhere onely one of them is touched SECT XIII TO many testimonies alledged out of the Fathers answer is given 1. That they speake not of things onely beside the Scripture but of things contrary which answer is againe repeated under the forme of a distinction betwixt Scriptura negans and negata 2. They speak not of ceremonies but of doctrines To vvhich the reply is easie 1. our meaning is mistaken I feare wilfully when wee are made authours of an opposite distinction betwixt beside and against in this case It sufficeth vs that beside in poynts of religion bee all one with against 2 Though those generall sayings be applyed to doctrines in most of the places alledged yet that hindereth not but the truth of them may be taken so generally as to include also religious ceremonies A particular or proper conclusion may be drawne from a generall proposition and yet the proposition remaine generall still in the largest extent that it is capable of SECT XIIII TO the testimonie of Tertullian de Cor. c. 2. That is prohibited which is not permitted two things are likewise answered 1. that it maketh not against our ceremonies for they are permitted vvhich is nothing else but a meere shift For Tertullians meaning
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
warrant from the word of God For M. Hy. I cannot say much But I am sure the Authors of the Abridgement haue great vvrong done them Whosoever vvill turne to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abridgement shall presently see that the words vvhich our Def. hath turned into a Proposition are there but part of an illustration belonging to this Proposition All ceremonies that swerue from the rules given in the word for the Churches direction in matters of ceremonie are unlawfull The assumption of vvhich is but the ceremonies in question swerue from those Rules Now all the chiefe pith both of proposition and assumption is by the Def. omitted a by thing is put in place of the proposition a new assumption is formed and yet all fatherd upon the Abridgment But to passe by that the assumption here set down is defensable enough He telleth us that in generall and in permissiue appointment these ceremonies are from God and divine A permissive appointment I never heard of before nor can understand how it vvill be excused from an implicit contradiction But for the explaining of himselfe he bringeth Calvin affirming that some constitutions of the Church founded in Scripture may be called divine because they are parts of that decencie vvhich God hath commanded All which being granted and the like saying of Vrsin maketh nothing at all for such ceremoniess as ours are except the Def. can proue that they are constitutions of meer order and decencie agreeable also to the other rules prescribed the contrary whereof hath been formerly declared One rule of direction vvhich he calleth equity is heere onely touched and commeth after to be handled to vvhich place I reserue it Thus much for the maintenance of that Argument which the Def. maketh the first CHAP. II. SECT I. THIS second Argument is taken from the kind unto vvhich such ceremonies as ours are doe in their nature belong viz. that they are parts of divine worship and therefore being mans inventions unlawfull Heere the Def. comes out with a wedge as he calleth it distinguishing betwixt proper or essentiall parts of Gods worship and improper or accidentall But first he should haue done vvell to haue considered the nature and measure of the thing which he vvould cleaue by the light of a definition For otherwise he may spend his wedge his beetle and all his labour in vaine And so indeed he hath as may appeare by his explication of this distinction By proper and essentiall parts saith he we understand such ceremonies which are so necessarily required to Gods service as that the contrarie thereof must needs displease him By accidentall parts or appurtenances such as serue onely as accessorie complements ordained for the more convenient discharge of the necessarie worship of God i. e. for decorum and edification For 1 if all those ceremonies be essentiall parts of Gods worship vvhich are such as the contrarity of them must needs displease God then certainely all ceremonies vvhich serue for decorum and edification must needs be essentiall parts of Gods worship because the contrarie of decorum and edification must needs displease God in his worship 2 What kind of wedging is this so to distinguish the parts of Gods worship as that the accidentall onely and not the essentiall shall serue for edification 3 What cleaving or dissolving is this of the parts of worship where the accidentall parts are rather said to bee appurtenances then parts and yet granted to be parts 4 What worship of God is there that is not essentiall If it hath no essence of vvorship in it surely it is no vvorship 5 The accidentall parts of worship haue not so much communion vvith the essentiall as the haire of the bodie vvhich is but an excrement hath vvith the bodie this the Def. expresly granteth in this Sect. and shall that which is not so much as an excrement unto the chiefe vvorship be accounted or called a part of worship SECT III. FOr the proofe of this that no humane inventions are lawfull parts of Gods worship the Abridgement alledgeth Exod. 20 4. Deut. 12 32 Es. 1 12 Mat. 15 9 Col. 2 23 three of which are onely mentioned by the Def. and two of the three onely answered or rather put of with miserable shifts By the precepts of men Es. 29 9 are signified saith he such humane ordinances as were expresly contrary to the commandements of God But 1 if here he taketh the word expresly as opposite unto pregnant consequence as he doth p. 2 then I hope he will grant that there is the same reason of those humane inventions which are not expresly contrary If he taketh it largely as conteining such consequence then he saith nothing to the purpose because in that sense all Religious vvorship invented by man is expresly contrary to the commandements of God 2 Christ himselfe Mat. 15 9 doth interprete this very place of vvil-worship in generall where for brevity sake I refer the Def. unto M. Calvin whom he calleth an honourable Witnesse in this controversie He after long discourse concludeth thus fixum ergo illud maneat fictitios omnes cultus coram deo vanos esse imo teste propheta maledictos detestabiles i. e. This must be held for certaine that all vvorships invented by man are before God vaine accursed and detestable By adding and diminishing Deut. 12 32 is not meant saith the Def. addition of preservation but addition of corruption Where 1 the phrase is strange by adding and diminishing is meant addition 2 This glosse is cleane contrarie to the text for the Lord chargeth that we doe not adde to the word that so we may keep or preserue it Deu. 4 2 even as we keep or preserue carefully that which is committed to our trust 1 Tim. 6 20 now the Def. relleth us that some addition is the meanes of keeping or preservation Card. Cajetan himselfe interpreteth the place far more judiciously and religiously inhibetur additio etiam pretextu custodiendi mandata Dei even of additions that are pretended for preservation of Gods law com in Deu. 10. 3 He should haue done well to haue manifested unto us the addition of preservation by some example for that which he talketh of the coyner pertaineth onely to corruption of vvhich no man doubteth 4 I would know if there be not also a diminution of preservation as well as an addition in the text they are joyned together 5 This pretence vvas the old shoeing-horne to draw on superstition into the Church as Calvin noteth on Mat. 15 2 Legislatores ipsi non jactaâ—ant se novum quicquaÌ„ tradere sed tantum addere cavendi formulas quae media essent adminicula ad servandam Dei legem i. e. the old Masters of ceremonies pretended that they meant only to bring in additions of preservation 6 This is Bell. answer to Calvin concerning this very point and place de effect sacr l. 2 c. 32 prohibet dominus additionem corrumpentem i. e. as the
Def. translateth an addition of corruption is forbidden This I hope is another manner of symbolizing with Bellar. then that vvhich the Def. formerly objected to Non-conformists SECT IIII. HEre are two testimonies brought to confute the Non-conf his interpretation of Scripture wherby he would infer that all kinde of will-worship is unlawfull For that is here the question and nothing else The first Witnesse is Danaeus where the consequence lyeth thus if Danaeus in one place doth apply these Scriptures to grosser will-worship then our is then he doth not allow that they condemne all kind of wil-worship but the first is true ergo is not this a faire kinde of reasoning just as the Papist Gregorius de Valentia reasoneth abominable idolatry is condemned 1 Pet. 4. 3 therfore not all idolatry The other Witnesse is Zanchius in Col. 2 23 where beside that the like consequence is made as before I would desire any indifferent man to consider these vvords of Zanchie found in that verie place One kind of wil-worship is if any new worship wherby God is worshipped be invented and brought into the Church For God will onely be worshipped and onely with that worship which he himselfe hath appointed Deut. 6 Mat. 15 also those in 1 Thes. 1 9. By an idol in generall is meant whatsoever in Religion is brought in without the word of God He that looketh upon these words of Zanchie will scarce tell what to think of this Def his audacious alledging of this Author and the vaine triuÌ„ph which he groundeth upon him He thought it seemeth that few or none would ever take the paines to examine what he said In the fift Section there is nothing on either side but a dumb shew It shall passe for me therfore in silence SECT VI. HEere come the judgment of Protestants to be examined concerning this question Whether all parts of Divine worship invented by man be not to be condemned Where first the Defendant bringeth forth his wedge again distinguishing betwixt essentiall and accidentall worship as before but in other phrases for now he telleth us that essentiall worship is that wherein iâ— placed 〈◊〉 opinion of Justice sanctitie efficacie or divine necessitie and accidentall is any riâ—e which serveth for the more consonant and convenient discharge of that essentiall worship But these are but words For 1. worship doth not varie according to mens opinion but consisteth in the nature of the action it selfe Otherwise a man may goe to Masse conceiving a privat opinion to himselfe that he doth it not for justice sanctity efficacie or divine necessity but for some other cause Or at the least a convocation house may appoint us the grossest of all the ceremonies in Poperie and set another opinion upon it 2. Sanctitie cannot be separated vvholly from such ceremonies vvhich are proper unto religion i. appropriated unto religious persons actions and purposes onely in the solemne vvorship of God For they must either be holy or civill or prophane But civill they are not for then the bare omission of them vvould argue rudenesse and incivilitie nor prophane I hope in the Def. opinion therefore they must needs be holy 3. There is no judicious Divine that useth to call circumstances of meere order and decencie worship Where did the Def. ever read that a pulpit or a table or a faire cloath c. was pronounced or stiled vvorship Come vve therefore to the examination of witnesses in particular Calvins words are Instit. l. c. 10. sect 8. all humane constitutions in which the worship of God is placed are ungodly The Def. sayth that 1. Calvin meaneth not by worship circumstances of order Which is most true neither was any reader so sottish as ever tooke that to be his meaning For vvhat sence could there be in these words all humane constitutions in which the circumstances of order are placed 2. He telleth us that he meaneth the inward vertue of worship which consisteth in an opinion of holinesse and justice Where first I will not urge or grate upon the ill sound which these words have the inward vertue of worship consisteth in an opinion 2. How can an inward vertue be placed in an outward ceremonie 3. The proper nature of worship is not in holinesse and justice but in the honouring of God and all externall ceremonies vvhose proper use is the honouring of God are externall vvorship as all diuinitie sheweth This is therefore but an idle unlearned evasion to talk of holinesse and justice in opinion vvhen the question is of vvorship Calvin never thought of such toyes He amplifieth indeed his accusation against the Papists by such circumstances as those are according as the Def. sheweth but what Logick can thence conclude that nothing else is conteined in the generall rule Calvin himselfe professeth the contrary as directly as if he had undertaken to confute this defender of ceremonies For these are his words Epist. 259. Si probe penitus inspicitur quid homines tantopere solicitet ad fabricandas ceremonias reperiemus ex hoc fonte omnes fluxisse quia quisque novum Dei cultum fingere ausus fueritâ— atqui fictitios omnes cultus non modo repudiat Deus sed etiam severe abominatur i. The originall of all ceremonies was that men would needs forge new worships of God whereas God doth not onely refuse such worships but also abhorreth them For Chemnitius the Defendant telleth us that hee condemneth onely a ceremony which is among the Papists made necessarie But he should shew two things if hee would answer soundly 1 that Chemnitius doth distinguish as he doth of will worship as some were lawfull and some onely unlawfull 2. hee should shew us at the least that there is some vvorship which is not necessarie for otherwise Câ—emnitius in condemning will-worship that is imposed as necessarie doth condemne all wil-worship Now we in our simple divinitie for so it will be accounted conceiue thus All worship of God is that honour dutie and reverence vvhich the reasonable creature doth owe to the creator and therfore cannot understand how such aâ—dutie is not necessary to be performed or how there can be a vvorship which being part of this tribute may rest in mans choyce vvhether it shall be paid or no. Perhaps this necessitie pertaineth onely to the vvorship commanded by God but in that vvhich man diviseth of himselfe there is more libertie there being no reason that voluntary service should be constreined If this be the cause then the vvorship appointed by man is no part of his love towards God nor any testification of it For if it vvere surely it should be necessarie seeing it is necessary to loue God vvith all our hearts vvith all our soules and vvith all our strength The third vvitnesse is P. Martyr loc com 770. vvhere he sayth concerning things in their own nature indifferent that speciall care must be had lest any such thing be thought to make towards the worship of God because divine
of God If Images then by the Def. own former grant mysticall ceremonies of mans invention and so mysticall Churches too SECT XXXIIII IN this last section some reason is promised for a finall confutation of the Non-conformists in this poynt but I for my part can see none Nothing sayth he is properly called a ceremony if it be altogether destitute of signification Then say I away and out of the Church with all ceremonies properly so called of mans invention But vvhy hath hee gone about to deceiue us so often before by confounding circumstances of order and decencie with other ceremonies now in the winding up of all confesseth that they cannot be properly called ceremonies surely there is no reason in this kind of dealing but onely that which they call Sophistry Calvin sayth the Def. and some other doe accuse the Popish ceremonies because they are dumbe I answer they accuse them also for speaking as the scripture doth condemne Images both for being dumb and also for teaching lies So that lay all together which those Divines say and you shall find that in their judgement humane ceremonies in Gods worship are like a foole in a place of honour vvho vvhether hee speaketh or holdeth his peace still sheweth himselfe unworthy of that place CHAP. IIII. SECT I. THis argument in the Abridgement p. 17. standeth thus It is contrary to Gods word to use much more to command the use of such ceremonies in the worship of God as man hath devised if they be notoriously knowen to have been of old and still to be abused unto idolatry or superstition by the Papists specially if the same be now of no necessarie use in the Church But our ceremonies are such Ergo. The Defendants answer is very briefe he dares not absolutely deny either part of the argument Hee could not finde a fit distinction whereupon to ground a conditionall deniall with reason he contents himselfe therefore to make a shew of distinguishing after an unreasonable manner For he doth not distinguish of any one tearme found in the argument nor maketh the parts of his supposed distinction such as will beare any Logicall sence If sayth hee you require such ceremonies to bee abolished then wee deny your Major but if you understand indifferent things or meane an absolute not a convenient necessitie wee deny your Assumption If this and but if that this forme of speech as indeed every distinction implieth some dissention and segregation in the parts distinguished But here is no shew of any such thing betwixt abolishing and indifferencie or absolute necssitie I know not what to make of such a confused distinction It is as if one should say If you require an establishing of the ceremonies I deny one thing but if you vnderstand convevient ceremonies I deny another thing Such kind of speaking is nothing else but non sence or as some use to call it a very bull Let this generall answer therefore passe though he sayth that in it we may see our marks and take our aime SECT II. THE Abridgement beginneth the proofe of the proposition thus This may appeare 1 by the second Com vvhich forbids all provocation unto spiritual fornication as the seventh doth unto that which is carnall 2 By â—â—e commandement and direction God hath given as in his vvord 3 By the equity and reason of these commandements Now the Def. though he professeth a full answer to all that is objected yet he silently passeth over the first proofe out of the second Command vvholly and in the 2 and 3 proofe vvhere about forty places of Scripture are cited for confirmation of them he doth not attempt to answer aboue 8 or 9. But let us examine his answer to these Lev. 18 c. three kinde of things are forbidden 1 incest 2 rounding their heads and cutting their flesh for the dead 3 sowing with diverse seeds and letting diverse beasts to ingender together The first was a sin against nature the second was a wicked custome of infidelity the third did signifie adulterie in all which our ceremonies are innocent He answereth heere onely unto the places taken out of the 18 and 19 of Lev. concerning vvhich I reply 1 that in the first place the vvords are generall v. 3 4 howsoever therefore in the following verses they be applyed unto foule sinnes yet seeing in other places of Scripture the like application is made unto ceremonies they vvere therfore mentioned as the generall ground comprehending both kindes in it and joyned unto other places condemning conformity vvith idolaters even in matters of ceremonie 2 The second and third vvere no more vvicked nor yet so much in any respect among the Heathen as our ceremonies haue been among the Papists And therefore in these M. Calvins collection in Lev. 19 27 is sound God would haue his people to know that they could not haue his favour except they would in all points be unlike to such and goe as farre as they could from their fashions and examples especially in those rites wherein there was any shew of Religion 3 I vvould demand whether if the high Preist vvith the vvhole Synedrion of the Iewes lawfully assembled had vvith one consent decreed that vvheras the Lord enjoyneth Lev. 19 Yee shall not sow with diverse seeds nor cut round your heads nor marre the tusts of your beards this vvas onely in regard of infidelity and in respect of an evill signification but seeing the things are in their nature indifferent and that it might be convenient for them to use them they vvould therefore all from thenceforth use the same provided that none should use them upon infidelity as the heathen did not make any evill interpretation of them I vvould demand I say whether such a decree should ever haue been lawfully made or vvarrantably obeyed I thinke the Def. vvill say no. But why Perhaps because of the expresse commandement to the contrary but doth not this commandement then respect some other reason beside those vvhich by this decree should be now taken away and may we not collect a further matter from them SECT III. BEcause one usuall evasion much esteemed by the patrones of our ceremonies is that they had a good beginning therfore the Authors of the Abridgement to stop that muse adde that even such things are to be cast away which had a good originall and use if they be not still necessarie and commanded of God when once they are knowne to haue been defiled by idolatry or abused unto it For proofe vvherof they alledge Lev. 26 1 and other places more But the Def. heere singleth out this one and denyeth that the titulary pillars of the heathen which vvere set up at limits of their grounds had a good beginning Suppose that this be true and that the Authors of the Abridgment were mistaken in this place is not the same thing sufficiently proved our of 2 King 18 4 Dan. 1 8 Hos. 2 16 17. But yet it is more then probable
a certaine time when it may be unwitting to the commander little children were playing in the way vvould any mans conscience serue him to doe it Avoyding of scandall is a maine duty of charity May Superiours at their pleasure appoint how farre I shall shew my charity towards my brothers soule Then surely an inferiour earthly court may crosse the determinations of the high Court of heaven The superiours haue no power given them for destruction but onely for edification If therefore they command scandalls they goe beyond their commission neither are we tyed therein to doe as they bid but as they should bid If determination by superiours vvere sufficient to take away the sin of a scandall Then they doe very ill that they doe not so farre as is possible determine all things indifferent that so no danger may be left in giving of offence by the use of them Then the Church of Rome is to be praysed in that she hath determined of so many indifferents then Paul with the other Apostles might haue spared a great deale of labour in admonishing the Churches how they should avoyd offences about some indifferent things A farre shorter way had bene either to determine the matter finally or else to haue given order that the Churches should among themselues determine it at home But say that the Archbishop of Corinth for now I suppose such a one had called his Convocation and vvith consent of his Clergie had determined that men might and for testifying of liberty should at a certaine time eat of such and such meats which men formerly doubted of would not yet the Apostle haue given the same direction he did would not good Christians still haue had care of their brothers consciences Can the determination of a superiour be a sufficient plea at the barre of Gods judgement seat for a man that by vertue or force thereof alone hath done any action that his conscience telleth him will scandalize his brother Lastly I vvould faine know whether those superiours doe not giue a great scandall vvhich take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites vvhich they know many good men will be scandalized by The second notorious flaw vvhich I finde in the Defendant his subdivisions is sect 9 where he granteth that much indulgence indeed is to be used in things indifferent towards weake persons whose infirmity proceedeth onely from simple ignorance but that onely till such time as the doctrine concerning such things haue been sufficiently declared because a scandall doth alwaies presuppose a meer weakenesse for want of due meanes of knowledge For 1 Paul had sufficiently declared that it vvas lawfull for him to take wages yet he would not 1 Cor. 9 he had given sufficient reasons for the lawfulnesse of eating all kind of meats yet he abstayned and so counselled others for feare of scandall Rom. 14 1 Cor 9. 2 There can be no certaine set time for all sorts of men vvhen they are sufficiently taught 3 Who is this Def. that he dare judge so many of his fellow servants that in such indifferencies as our ceremonies are held to be they take offence not upon weakenesse but upon presumption 4 What authority haue our Prelats to obtrude unnecessary ceremonies upon the Church vvhich must be declared before they can be used Is it fit that the people should be troubled with the declararion of mens inventions vvhen they are hardly brought to heare willingly the maine things of the Gospell 5 Is it not more agreeable to the wisedome of God Ex. 21. 33 to fill up the pit then to set one by for to warne the passengers they fall not into it 6 There vvas never yet sufficient declaration of this doctrine of ceremonies throughout England In many places there is no preaching at all Many preach so that they declare nothing almost to the people but their own folly Many are ashamed or at least unwilling to declare unto the people mens devices Many declare them so corruptly that the scandall thereby is not removed but increased And among those that goe about vvith some good mind to declare this kind of doctrine there is almost as great variety of declarations as there is of declarers while some will haue them significant some not some say they are good and profitable to edification and others condemning them as altogether unfit declare them to be tollerable for avoiding of a greater mischiefe Some will haue them onely civill and others Ecclesiasticall some excuse all but the crosse and some extoll the crosse aboue all Are not such declarations thinke you likely to informe well the consciences of poore men who doubt more whom they should take for a good Declarer then they did at the first of the things themselues SECT X. AMong the instances of scandall arising from the ceremonies that vvhich in the Abridgement hath the third place is set first by the Def. viz that the superstitions Papist will be hardened in the liking of his abominable Religion from which he seeth wee borrow our ceremonies and increase in his hope of the full restoring of it againe To this the Def. answereth that our rites are not the ceremonies of Papists because they are purged from superstition But 1 that they are not purged from all superstition hath sufficiently been declared before 2 This plea of transubstantiating of ceremonies by the breath of our Convocation is a meere shift contrary not onely to the language of all our Divines and to that vvhich every mans senses doe tell him but also to the publicke profession of the Church of England in the preface to our service-book as it is cited by him p. 127. For there we are told 1 that an abatement is made of the excesse of Popish ceremonies All therefore are not abolished but some remaine And vvhich be they if these in question be not 2 That some of the old ceremonies doe remaine What sense can be given of these words if our ceremonies be not the same with those vvhich were of old among the Papists if it were meant of old ceremonies not used among the Papists then they doe not remaine nor are retained but restored 3 That none are devised anew therefore they must needs be taken from the Papists or from the Fathers but of the Fathers surplice or kneeling at the communion no instance can be given and as for the crosse the Def. himselfe will not defend I thinke all that use vvhich the Fathers put it to 3. The Papists own words doe sufficiently manifest how they are hardened by the imposition and use of our ceremonies For as it is shewed in the Abridgement p. 25 they seek to justifie their superstition by this that we haue borrowed our ceremonies from them And some of them thence conclude as there is shewed that our Governours like vvell of their superstition Beside Gretser a principall Iesuit saith that in these ceremonies our Ministers are as Apes of Popish Priests Apol. prâ— Gregor 7 pag. 8 and in