Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship

Chap. 12. Sect. 2.

All examples and authorityes alleged in favor, of the former false distinctions are explicated, and proved nothing at all to favor the Rej.

145.146.

SECT. 2. Concerning the ex • mplyfying of the former distinction of worship by instances, and confirming of it by witnesses in the same treat: Cap. 4.

HAnna served God in fasting and prayer, Luc. 2.3 • Fasting here was worship, saith D ^r . B. in some • sense, or else S. Luke was deceived. Whatsoever becometh of this consequence, the example fitteth not our Ceremo. for though D. B. hath often exhorted his Auditors to worship God in fasting & praying, in the same phrase, yet (I dare say) he never exhorted them, or any ministers to whom he hath preached amongst others, to serve God in Surplice and Prayer in crossing and baptizing, how much soever he favoreth these Ceremonies: The strange bleating such a phrase carrieth with it, would have amazed his people, and affrighted the ministers, and discredited his ministry: by this alone it appeareth, that the example of fasting is abused, when it is paraleled, with cross and surplice: 2. The consequence is all too peremptorily followed, or else S ^t . Luke was deceived: I should rather think, that D.B. may be deceived in his interpretation of S ^t , Luke: The phrase which S ^t . Luke useth, doeth no more urge us, to make fasting worship in any sense, then S ^t . Paul his phrase Eph 6. Watching unto all supplication with perseverance, doth constreyne us to make perseverance, or watching a worship, distinct from supplication: Or then, the same Paul's phrase Acts 20.19. serving the Lord with many tears and temptations, do make temptations a special kind of worship. 3. Fasting may be called worship by a trope, as being a special adjunct of some extraordinary worship, and yet not be a special kind of immediate reductive worship, or any other kind. 4. The truth is that fasting, is such a help to extraordinary humiliation, as moderate fasting, is to extraordinary thanksgiving, and therefore is no more worship, then Christian fasting: And to this purpose do our divines answer, concerning this place, which is ordinarily objected by every Papist, as here by the Rej. See Chemnitz upon these words: See Polanus, Syntag. lib. 9. cap. 8. Fasting is a help to prayer, a sign of humility and repentance, but is not a worship of God. 5. Fasting such as Annas was, is not a human institution, as our ceremonies are, but partly natural, when the whole man is taken up with greater, and more instant employment, exclusive of all ordinary refreshments: and partly of Divine application, in extraordinary humiliation, so that it hath ground and example both in the O. & N.T. which our Ceremonies are destitute of.

2. M ^r . Cartwright (many degrees and ages distant from S. Luke) is brought in next, acknowledging circumstantial worship, only allowed in the particular, though commanded in his kind in the second command: Now I have at hand, only that edition of Mr. C. his Catechism, which was printed Anno 1611. and therein I find no such thing, upon occasion I will seek for the other edition: In the mean time I find there, that all will worship, how great a show soever it makes, is condemned and images (in special in God's service even as lay-men's books) which the defendant defend, thand the Rej. rejoyneth for. 2. Suppose he grant a circumstantial worship, what is that to worship invented by man: There is no doubt, but some parts of God's worship, by himself instituted are comparatively circumstantial, but what is that to man's invention. 3. There is a mighty distance, betwixt the general of kneeling at prayer, & such like gestures, intended by M ^r . C. (if he name circumstantial worship,) and the general of Cross and Surplice, as there is betwixt the general of this and that father, and the general of all entia and things, that have being: This testimony therefore maketh nothing to the purpose.

The third witness is, Chamyer, Tom. 5. l. 20.4.5 affirming that arbitrary vows are worship of God not per se, of themselves, but by accident, and for some other thing, where to omit the translation of per se, of themselves, which should have been by themselves betwixt which there is a great difference, (as betwixt a body living of the soul, and by itself.) Chamyer in that very place, if his whole sentence be expressed (which neglect, if it had been the Repliers, we should have heard outcries, proclamations and invective accusations enough) I say • his whole sentence is contrary to the Rej.: His words in sum are these: To vow, and to perform are elicited acts of religion, because by themselves and properly they appertain to religion, but the actions that are vowed, are imperated by religion, and belong unto worship, not properly, but by accident, those formally, these materially. He doth not speak of vows, in that part which the Rej. quoteth, but of things vowed, nor doth he acknowledge these worship, otherwise then the matter of an action, is an action: It were not far from his meaning, if one should say, this bakers bread, and that vynters wyne, is a Sacrament materialiter and per accidens. Lastly he doth not speak of any worship elicitus per accidens, such as immediate Ceremonial worship is, but only imperatus ordered and directed, such as service to ones father or friend may be, and is not this then a worshipful testimony for Ceremonies, invented by man and made formal, immediate reductive worship.

Junius in the fourth place is brought in, testifying, that the human feasts of the Nativity, and Easter, are not worship properly, but it may be figuratively: And what is that, I wonder, to immediate reductive worship of human invention: Worship figuratively so called, is any matter, instrument, subject, adjunct, effect or even similitude of worship: Are all such things immediate reductive worship? Just as bread, pottage, wyne, oil, or meat, having touched the skirt of a holy garment are holy, Hag. 2.12. Thus the words and wildernesses where Christians meet, may be called worship figuratively or by a figure, the place being putt for the thing done in the place: thus the ringing of the Bell, before the Sermon, may be called worship figuratively, because it is a sign civil to give notice that such a service will be: And hence it is that Junius doth in the same place affirm, that such observations are only contingent accidents, or adjuncts to worship. The same Junius doth explain his own meaning controv. 5. lib. 2. c. 16. n. 18. warning us to distinguish betwixt actions of worship, and such which are done in order unto worship, adding moreover this: Actions of worship, what ever are not commanded of God are forbidden, for as touching such, nothing can be detracted, added, altered: and in Levite. 9. No right way of disposing God's servants to his worship, can be invented by man, but that, which God himself hath prescribed.

Polanus is next, who (saith the Rej.) in his syntagme defineth true worship of God to be the performance of what he hath commanded in obedience to him, to his honor, yet in his partitions pag. 128. he saith, that an ecclesiastical rite or Ceremony. is outward worship of God, not forgetting or crossing himself, but taking the name of worship in one place properly, and in the other improperly, or reductively. Where it is to be noted, that Polanus saith nothing of improper, reductive worship, but those terms are putt into his • outh, or thrust into he speech by the Rejoyner. 2. Po •• nus writ his partitions, when he was a young man, 〈◊〉 divine, but his Syntagme was his last work: If •• erfore any crossing was found in these two wri •• ngs, his Syntagme was to be taken, as his more mature •• dgment, and preferred as his last will and testament. 〈◊〉 . In this his Syntagme lib. 8. c. 1. he hath not only 〈◊〉 definition of worship, contrary to the Rej. his tenet, 〈◊〉 many other Items: It belongs to the substance of a good • ork, that it be commanded of God, and therefore its requi • e, that the worship of God, and everything appertaining •• erunto be commanded: Actions indifferent, are not the • orship of God &c. 4. In the place quoted out of his par • ons: That an ecclesiastical rite is outward worship, he • oth not cross himself, for what he there meaneth by 〈◊〉 ecclesiastical rite, he showeth in the specialls, which 〈◊〉 after setteth down, as sacrifices &c. though he mingeth some human feasts, with the ordinances of God • or his method sake, never intending to make such ce • emon. as ours lawful worship, and therefore opposeth • is ecclesiastical rites to those duties, that are perfor • ed only by speech: as Invocation, confession, thanks • iving.

6. Fenner (saith the Rej.) maketh bowing the knee or • ead, lifting up the hands, or eyes, to the parts of external • orship: But what consequence is there from natural gestures, to cerem. instituted by man? From actions par • icularly commended unto us in God's word, as outward worship, to such as their patrons can find no all • owance for, but in a remote transcēdent racked Genus?

Tylenus (a man, that D ^r . B. should rather have written against, for his errors, then alleged against other • for his authority) is in the seventh place brought in saying; that a vow of a thing not commanded, is worshi • only by accident, Syntag. par. 1. dis. 42. th. 17. Yet 1. 〈◊〉 doth not say, it is worship, but that it cannot be called worshi • but by accident. 2. He giveth this limitation, so far as 〈◊〉 may, some way be referred to worship, as an arbitrary, contingent, indifferent mean. Such as in prayer the choosin • of the word, forgiveness, rather then pardon, is in th • petition of remission of sins. 3. The worship 〈◊〉 speaketh of, is not immediate in his opinion, as appe • reth disp. 40. th. 16. as it is in the Rej. his divisions: Na • Tylenus is so wise, as to say, that the most proper an • immediate acts of religion, do not respect God per se, 〈◊〉 and of themselves, Ibid. th. 18. is it any wonder then, 〈◊〉 granteth a worship, not in, and of itself, but by acc • dent only.

Bucanus is the eight witness, and yet nothing out of hi • is brought, but that ecclesiastical rites, are not worship 〈◊〉 themselves, and as a work done. Did any of us ever affirm • they were such worship? May be the Rej. would gathe • from thence, that there is a worship, which is not of i • self, and as a work done such, which (though it canno • be gathered from that phrase, with better reason, the • if from this, that faith (doeth not justifye of itself, an • as a work done, he should conclude, that some grac • there is, which justifieth of itself, and as a work done yet we may well grant of false worship: But see how unhappy the Rej. is in his wrested allegations. Bucan •• 〈◊〉 the place quoted Loc. 43. q. 20. give • h 1. this caveat: 〈◊〉 laws appointed for order, and comeliness sake only, are 〈◊〉 of divine w • rship: 2. It should be provided, that in 〈◊〉 of a grave, seemly, and profitable order, those things be 〈◊〉 instituted, which are unprofitable, foolish, ridiculous stage • y like: And of this sort are those, which the Papists come •• und, concerning the difference of days, and garments: 〈◊〉 the same Bucanus Loc. 33. q. 15. In things appertai ••• g to worship, we must attend for direction only unto the 〈◊〉 of God, and not to human traditions: No observance 〈◊〉 to rites, whereof some are foppish, vain, and light, 〈◊〉 either in regard of themselves or some other thing su ••• stitious, amongst which he reckoneth, the ma • ing of the 〈◊〉 , holy-water, the consecration of altars, and magistrall ••• erminations. And that lawful rites of order, are to be •• served, not in regard of themselves, but by the law of cha ••• y: where he plainly showeth, that per se is not always 〈◊〉 to relation ad aliud, as the Rej. understands 〈◊〉 . The same Buc. also, Lo. 47. qu. 65. giveth this rule: 〈◊〉 human ceremonies ought to be used, but those which are ••• ointed, and commanded by the authority of the son of 〈◊〉 .

The last witness is Melanchthon, who faith in one place: 〈◊〉 man may not institute any worship of God, i.e. works •• ich God so alloweth, that he holdeth himself to be honored them of themselves, or whose immediate end is, that God 〈◊〉 be honored by them : As if we did hold the contrary, 〈◊〉 is not this testimony wisely alleged, that all men 〈◊〉 his opposites may grant, and the grant of it, nei •• er hurts them, or helps him: Nay take away that clause, God's allowance and holding himself honored, which no human institution can infer) we say that our Ceremony. are such, for it is as an immediate end, of all mystical teaching rites, to honor God, by them and in them as of the word, so far as it preacheth the same virtues that Ceremon. do teach: And so much is taught by th • Rej. in these very dictates, when he reduceth these reductive ceremonies, under the head of immediate worship, for nothing can be immediate worship, whose immediate end is not, that God may be honored by th • performance of it. The same appeareth out of th •• which the Rej. pag. 313. affirmeth, viz. that the prope • end of preaching is edification of men, if that be joined, which he everywhere teacheth, that the prope • end of significant Ceremony. is edification: Of such Cere • ▪ therefore may well understand. Melanchthon, not only i • this place alleged, but also Tom. 2. p. 142. The wor • understands not, how great a sin it is to forge worship wit • out God's command : And P. 107. Idolatrous worships o • all they, which are appointed without the command of G •• Here is no distinction betwixt worship of itself, or b • itself and by accident reductively &c. The Rej. his test • monies being such as have been declared, there canno • be much force in his examples, if they be agreeable t • his rules, whereof he hath brought such cross witness • The first example is, of free will offerings, when a man 〈◊〉 left at liberty to offer a bullock, a goat, or sheep at his pleasure • where the particular was not commanded, but only allow • though the manner was prescribed: Concerning which answer 1. that there were no oblations left wholly 〈◊〉 the pleasure of men, for though the particulars were not, nor could not be determined by a distinct rule in general, yet they were determined by the circumstances, as our Divines are wont to answer the Papists, about their vows, counsels, superarrogations, Not by a general law, but by concurrence of circumstances. So Deut. 16.10. Moses showeth that the freest offerings were to be according as God had blessed them, from whence it followeth, it had been sin for any Israelite, whom God had plentifully blessed, to offer a pair of pigeons instead of a bullock, or two, upon his own mere pleasure: 2. where that proportion was observed the choice of a goat, before a sheep, or a sheep before a goat, was no formal worship: 3. That it had been unlawful for the Priests out of their pleasure, to institute any such determinate free offering, either ordinarily to be observed, or upon occasion of a man's forwardness to such a duty, i.e. that every free offering should be a goat, or at the least, that a goat should be one part of it, which is the presumption of our Prelates, about the reductive worship of the cross. 4. It was not left to any man's pleasure, for to appoint an offering not appointed of God, in the special or least kind, but only to choose among those, which God had instituted, that which did best agree, with his condition and occasion, as it is also now of psalms, prayers, doctrines, interpretations, exhortations, let every man offer, according as God hath furnished him: But from hence to infer the free choice of offering now to God, a cross, surplice, holy water, images, this is, as if one should then have concluded from that freedom, the free offering of certain butterflyes, or such like pretty, odd, vermyn not prescribed in the law, nor by name forbidden.

The second example is taken from Solomon's worship, at the dedication of the temple, 1. Kings 8.2. 2. Chron. 6. and 7. which he thus conformeth to his notions: The number of Bullocks and Sheep, were worship in respect of the end and allowance only, the Cere. of prayer, kneeling upon a Scaffold, & stretching out of hands, were worship reductive ad modum in genere suo, having respect to the manner in the general kind thereof: The burning of Sacrifices in the floor of the Court, was only lawful before the brazen altar was consecrated, and upon the present necessity: But 1. in the number of Bullocks and Sheep, there was not a different worship, but a different degree of the same worship, as a longer prayer or sermon is not another worship then a shorter, but another degree of extension in the same worship, Surely to pray and praise God twice, thrice or seven times in a day, are no different worships, one frō another, but only more or less exercise of the same worship. 2. Kneeling & stretching out the hands, were not worship in respect to a general manner, but special external worship, as being natural, immediate expressions of the inward: As for the scaffold that Solomon kneeled on, that was no more worship, then the asse was upon which our Savior did ride. Lastly, seeing none of these things carrying the nature of worship, were instituted ordinary observances, neither might the Priests in any convocation, have made such, these examples are nothing like ours in question.

The other examples of Joshua's monitory stone, Ios. 24 26. • sas oath, 2. Chron. 15.14. Nehemiah's subscription, Neh. 9. •• lomons 14. days solemnity, 1. Kings 8. Hezekiah designing 7. days, 2. Chron. 30. Mordicayes Purim, Hest. 9. have little •• meant in them, as the Rej. hath afforded illustration or de •• ration by bare naming of them: It may be sufficient to • ny that which is barely affirmed: yet in few words: •• ese for the most of them were actions managed by • ods Spirit, suggested by secret instinct, extracted by •• traordinary and special occasions: and therefore (as • ^r . Jackson Orig. of unbelief, p. 332. warneth) are then 〈◊〉 lawful in others, when they are begotten by like •• casions, or brought forth by like impulsions. 2. Jonah stone was, as Dr. Jackson Ibid. pag. 329. judgeth, but • olemne attestation, though something extraordinary, •• d indeed was no more worship, then the heavens and ••• rth which Moses & Isaiah did call to witness. 3. Asas ••• th, & Nehemiah's subscription, were no more distinct • orship from the covenant, then the words of a simple •• omise are a distinct promise from the meaning of 〈◊〉 , subscription and swearing of Canonical obe •• ence in England, were never (that I hear of) excep •• d against as Ceremonies of worship, by those which • ondemne them in the substance of them. 4. The •• olonging of worship by Solomon and Hezekiah was •• ch a distinct worship, as Paul's continuing his exercise • f religion to mydnight, Acts 20. Mordecah his Purim • ave their proper place in the dispute: Out of all these • ules, testimonies, examples, nothing followeth in fa • our fof our Ceremon. because no sound rule, just testimony, or allowed example, is brought for any Ceremony▪ of Mystical signification by man instituted, and brough • into the solemn ordinary worship of God, for the 〈◊〉 of teaching: which maketh the Rej. his full perswasio • which he protesteth, suspected, and his triumphing rid • culous to those that well attend to these his grounds.

Yet the Rej. hath a double conclusion looking th • way, 1. That this will show in what sense we may 〈◊〉 our Ceremonies worship, and yet deny them to 〈◊〉 worship, that is in such a non-sense as is usually foun • in contradicting shifts: The 2. to show the difference betwixt us and the Papists, which is here showed very briefly, but hath been handled, and answered at large before, and thither therefore we refer the Reader.

SECT. 2.

M Y purpose is not, to insist upon words, & circumstantial exceptions, as being of little moment, but only to discuss the material points that I meet with, in their order. Yet because the Rej. cometh on in the beginning, with such a heat, if the Repl. had marvelously offended, almost in every word; I will take his first accusations (though not • uche material) into due consideration.

1. The Repl. made only mention of the all-suffi •• encie, or perfect fullness of the Scriptures. Heerat the Rej. • raesently complaineth of abuse, misreporting, and ma •• ng a false show: as if (saith he) we denied the perfect •• lnesse of the Scripture etc. Now 1. the Repl. said no such thing, but the contrary rather, when he observe that the same was granted by the Def. as it was r • quired by those he writ against. 2. If he had said that th • Def. and Rej. also do deny the perfect fullness of Scripture, in regard of Ceremonial worship, he had said • more then truth, for they teache, that some such worship is lawful and good, which is not taught 〈◊〉 Scripture, that many teaching Ceremonies, which Go • never instituted, may by man be instituted and brough • into worship, images themselves not excepted, that additions to God's word (so they be not contrary) m •• and ought to be made.) The sum of their doctrine • in this point, is that which M ^r. Hooker setteth down p. 125. Mucke the Church of God shall always: need, which 〈◊〉 Scrip • ure teacheth not.

Neither doeth it help, which the Rej. addeth, 〈◊〉 Scripture is as perfest in giving general rules, as it should b • in setting down of all particular instances. For 1. this 〈◊〉 not generally true, because general rules make only th • proposition tending to particulars, and the assumption 〈◊〉 left undetermined, they therefore do not so fully an • perfectly infer the particulars, as if they were s •• down.

General rules are given in the New Testament, fo • civil policy or government of Common wealth: ye • no man (I think) will say that civil policy is so full • and perfectly taught in the New Testament as it was 〈◊〉 the old, or as religious worship is now in the new.

The rule for clean beasts (saith the Rej.) that they be suc • as chewe the cudde, and divide the hoof, was as perfect, as 〈◊〉 such beasts had been named. True, but here no de •• rmination of the assumption was necessary, but such the beasts themselves did make to every man that was • ot blind, without any institution of man. It was as • ow it is in bread & wine for the Lord's Supper, which • e appointed in general, without naming of wheat, 〈◊〉 , mislen bread, or French, Spannish, Rhenish, Itali •• , Greek wine: but cross and surplice (I hope) are • ot so in general appointed. The general rules which 〈◊〉 Rej. groundeth our Ceremonies upon, are: let all •• ings be done to edification, with order, and decency. Now these rules are such (saith M ^r. Hooker p. 95.) as stand light of reason, and nature to be observed, though the Scrip •• re had never mentioned them. So that in them there is no •• che perfection of Scripture, for particulars, as if the •• rticulars had been named. 2. betwixt these generals •• d such particulars in question, there must come a • umane institution, such as (to make the example • gree) if it had been prescribed in the old Test. only • ith clean beasts should be used in sacrifice, and left to •• e Priests for to determine, what kind of beasts should 〈◊〉 , or holden to be clean.

2. An untruth is charged upon the Replier, in that 〈◊〉 said, nothing was denied by the Def. in the 2. section.

Now let any man read, over the section, and he shall • inde nothing denied. His answers ar these: we due ac • ept of your distinction; only the second member must be ex • ended to general rules, permissions, commō aequitie, you must • nd unto this distinction; which when you do not, you con • ute yourselves. Is here anything denied. Yea (saith the Rej. the Major is denied: because it is shown that something is warranted which is not prescribed. The major is: Scripture condemneth) that which is done either against, or without warrant of the word of God, especially in matters of God's service. Let any man of common reason and indifferency, judge, whether this be contradicted, by that, something is warranted which is not prescribed.

3. The Replier is taunted with I know not what fault, for saying here, that, distinction to be granted, which after he denieth to be the non-Conformists. As if in dispute, it were not usual for one party to observe what the adversary doeth grant himself, though he himself doeth not own it. The Rej. might have spared all these words of this section, but that he affected to say much upon little or no occasion, that his answer might seem abundantly complete.

SECT. 3.4.5. Concerning the faithfulness of Christ and Moses. Heb. 3.2.

1. The Repl. once for all noteth, that the Def. his distributing of our confirmations, from Scriptures, fathers, and Protestant Divines, as if they were like in the intended confirmations, whereas the later are only used by occasiō of perverse prejudice in our adversaries who require such things, and also in constant styling the fathers testimonies, judgments, and others confessions, the Repl. I say noteth only that this is some wrong, except it be only idle Rhetoric. For this, the Rej. flieth in his face, saying he noteth himself an egregious wrangler, his notes are notorious Cavills, and wrangles, and shows what spirit he is of. I will not say this show • h what spirit D. B. is of: for I doubt not but his spirit is better then here is shown. Yet this showeth what spirit he took upon him with the person of a Rejoiner.

Is it so great a fault to suspect the Def. of some wrong-doing, or of using Rhetoric, without any moment, in variation of phrases? To do some wrong unto an adversary in propounding his allegations after another manner than he meant, is so ordinary, that the suspicion of it, and that with exception, cannot be accounted so heinous a crime as those toothed terms import. Praejudice is as common fault, and all prejudice is some way perverse. The Rej. after p. 461. accuseth all those of averseness, by distraction, stupidity or prejudice, which do not feel that organiall music work much upon their affections (in and to God's worship) though he knoweth as good mē as our adversaries deny it. Yet he would not have us, nor will we, from thence gather, what spirit he is of. Rhetoric is no more an ill word, then Grammar, or Logic. Idle is nothing but without use : and so the Rej. himself confesseth the Def. his variations to be, in making judgments and confessions all one. Neither could he find what to say against the former suspicion, without feigning a new objection, which the Repl. maketh not, of aequalling Divine and human authority. The only fault was, that such things which might be well spoken to another, were spoken to a Bishop.

2. Concerning Heb. 3.2. (to omit altercations about what was said or not said by the Def. and take what the Rej. will have said, or saith himself.)

The Rej. saith that a distinction is made, of Ceremonies whereof some are substantial Divine, and Doctrinalls, and have particular determination in Scripture, some are not substantial, called, Rituals, and mere Ceremony • : the former have particular determination in Scripture, but not the later. Now (to let pass, that this distinction concerneth not • he proposition which formerly was said to be denied because there is no mention in it of any term here distinguished) let any man of reason consider the sense of this distinction: Ceremonies are either substantial, Divine, Doctrinal, that is, such as have particular determination in the word, or else not substantial, that is, such as have no particular determination in the word; the former have particular determination in the word; but the later have not. Which is as much as to say; those Ceremonies which have no particular determination in the word, have no particular determination in the word. This explication cannot be excepted against, except Divine and Doctrinal Ceremonies be not all one, with Ceremonies determined by doctrine Divine, which neither the Defen. or Rejoinder or any considerate man for them, will deny. The Rejoinder himself for instance of substantial, Divine, Doctrinal Ceremony: putteth all those of Moses, law, many of which were no way such, but only in that they were par • icularly appointed of God. And to put the matter out of a • l doubt, the Rejoinder p. 60. telleth us plainly: that the Def. useth, and all of his side do use in this question, the term Doctrinal passively, for a thing taught in the word.

3. For defense yet of this distinction of Ceremonies into dogmatical, and Ritual, or mere Ceremonial (though he confess it is not formal) the Rejoinder nameth all our Divines, but citeth only D.A. as distinguishing betwixt Doctrinal and Ceremonial points of religion. Which, if it be so, what make • h this for distinction of Ceremonìes, into Dogmatical and Ritual, or merely Ceremonial? But let us view the places cited. The first is in Bel. Ener: tom. 1. pag. 66. Where it is said, that for the most part, the fathers by traditions, mean rites and Ceremonies, received without Scripture, concerning which, we dispute not, and they were too l • befall, though when they judge out of Scripture, they plainly condemn unwitten traditions. What is here, that can help, the Rej.

The fathers spake of Ceremonies, which neither Scripture, nor themselves, judging out of Scripture, did allow of: of them the question was not in that place, though in other places it is handled by the same author, in the same book, as De Pontifice, De Sacraementis, De cultu Sanctorum:

Ergo the distinction of Ceremonies into, Dogmatical and Ritual or mere Ceremonial, is allowed.

The second place is in the 71. pag. of the same book: the Apostles elsewhere have written nothing in the dogmatical kind, which Paul had not preached to the Galatians. Where Dogmatical is opposed to Prophetical • praedictions, such as S. John in the Revelation taught, as Bel. there alledgeth. And not to anything, not particularly contained in Scripture, Ergo (saith the Rej.) the distinction of Ceremonies into Dogmatical particularly contained in Scripture, and Ritual, not so contained, is allowed as good. The consequence is a baculo ad angulum.

4. The Repl. said that Ceremonial is sometime opposed to moral, and sometime to Substantial, but not to Doctrinal. Heerupon the Rej. concludeth, that therefore, the distinction of Doctrinal and Ceremonial Ceremonies may be allowed, because (forsooth) as there be some moral Ceremonies, viz. all those which are appointed of God, and some other, so there be some Ceremonial doctrines, or doctrinal Ceremonies, and some other.

Where 1. the consequence is such as the former: Sometime Ceremonial is opposed to moral, and substantial: ergo some Ceremonies are doctrinal, and some only Ceremonial. 2. What a miscarrying is there in that assertion, all Ceremonies appointed of God are moral ? Was there then no difference betwixt the moral and Ceremonial law of God. 3. Ther neither be, nor can be such significant teaching Ceremonies, as ours in q •• estion, and not be Ceremonial teachings, or tea •• ing Ceremonies: which is all one with Ceremonial • o • trines, or doctrinal Ceremonies.

5. The Hierarchy (being questioned to which of these heads it belongeth) is referred by the Rejoinder to both in several respects. So then, the distinction is not real, but rational only, in respects.

I see not why all lawful rites ordained by men, may not as well be referred to both. Neither do I think our Hierarchy would take it well if they should be called Ceremonial Prelates: and Doctrinal for the greatest part they are not found to be actively, nor can so be proved passively, so far, as they differ from those ministers many of whom they will not suffer to be Doctrinal, because they cannot be at their pleasure Ceremonial.

6. Concerning the rest of the third section, all that is rejoined, dependeth only upon the term mereCeremoniall Ceremonies. This term the Replier did not understand (as it seemeth) according to the Authors meaning; neither can the Rejoinder interpret it, but with such sense as was formerly declared. Mere Ceremonies are not only such as the Rejoinder p. 33. called single Ceremonies, for in the same place, he maketh significant rites, having relation to a further worship, such as ours are, double, or triple Ceremonies. So that this mere Ceremony can be nothing else, but a Ceremony which God hath not instituted for his worship: and so the Def. and Rejoinder maintain here only this assertion: those Ceremonies which God hath not instituted, are not instituted by God. Which is so evidently true, that it cannot escape the imputation of idleness, either to dispute for, or against it. Only this I note, that by this distinction, God cannot appoint a mere Ceremony in his worship, though man can: for if God appoint any Ceremony, it is (eo ipso nomine) doctrinal, substantial, moral. No merveyl therefore if God have not appointed mere Ceremonies, seeing he cannot appoint any such, but man only can do that.

7. Concerning Heb. 3.2. it is further answered sect. 4. that the faithfulness of Christ, and Moses was equal, and alike in real faithfulness, because they both did that which was commanded them of God. But howsoever this be true, yet if it were God's revealed will, that more immediate means of worship should be instituted in the Christian Church, then Christ hath instituted, who was ordained to institute the means of worship, and Moses (as is here supposed) instituted all such means of worship in the Old Testament, as God would have instituted, it followeth, that the faithfulness of Christ, was not so extended to all the necessities of the Church, as Moses his faithfulness was.

8. Concerning faithfulness in Ritual ordinances, the Def. mentioned the ordaining of two essential and necessary Sacraments. Which allegation the Replier esteemed nothing to the purpose. Yes verily (saith the Rejoinder) it is something. It is in deed something, but this something is nothing at all pertaining to mere Rituals. For so the Defend. and Rejoinder both confess expressly, that these two Sacraments are not mere Rituals.

9. The Def. addeth, that as Moses appointed Ceremonies, so Christ removed them. Which explication of Scripture being blamed by the Replier, the Rejoinder answereth 1. That it is not an interpretation of the text, but an answer to an objection from the text. And yet the same Rejoinder in his Sum of the Def. his answer that it is a comparison of the fidelity of Christ and Moses. And all the text, and objection, from the text, consisteth in this comparison. 2. It is a proper answer saith the Rejoinder, for if Christ was faithful in removing Ceremonies, before necessary, then be need not praescribe other Ceremonies then simply necessary, and so not all mere Ceremonies. Is not this a proper consequence? there is no connection at all betwixt the first and second part, the appointed Ceremonies are therefore only called simply necessary, because they were appointed by Divine authority: and yet of such it is said, that Christ need not appoint other, whereas in deed he could not appoint other; and that he needed not appoint mere Ceremonies, that is Human, which if he should have done, it had implied a contradiction, mere Ceremonies (in the Def. and Rejoynders opinion being such as are not appointed by authority divine. 3. It is added by the Rejoinder that the fidelity of Christ appe • red in removing those Ceremonies of Moses, and the thing compared is fidelity. Both which are true, but not to the purpose: because the comparison is not in fidelity abstractly considered, but in fidelity about the building and furnishing all the house of God; of which, the abolishing of Mosaical Ceremonies, is no substantial part.

10. About the Repl: his answer to a place cited out of Calvin the Rejoinder observeth much irreligious way wardnesse, with falsehood, and three gross untruths, in one short sentence. Which it pleased him to note also in the Table of his principal or most observable Contents : the Replier found guilty of three gross untruths together. p. 15. This peal of terrible words make such a noise in the readers ears, that he cā scarce hear, what may be spoken for the party accused. But if he will hearken a little, it shall be made plain unto him that hasty passion only (in reasons absence) made all this rattling sound.

The first wayward, false, irreligious, and gross untruth is, that the Def. should have dealt more plainly, if he had cited Bellarmine, and why (trow ye) is it so great a crime, for to say the Def. might have dealt more plainly? because (forsooth) no dealing could be more plain, then to set down the very words of Calvin, with the place, where they are to be found. Now be it so, yet it is not so heinous an offense to say some dealing, might be plainer then that which is most plain, but as the Secretaries and Proctors of our Prelates cour • s do in imitation of Criminall indictments (wherein always stand felonious etc.) aggravate every trifling accusation, and citatiō, especially those which concern a Bishop, as ungodly, irreligious, false etc. so must he that writeth, against anything praejudiciall to Prelates, secundum stylum Curiae, But the truth is that any other man's words set down according to his meaning, is more plain dealing, then to set down Calvin's, beside his intention.

The second way ward, false, irreligious, and gross untrueth is, that the same words, which the Def. citeth out Calvin, are found in Bellarmine, de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. the contrary whereof, the Rejoinder doeth aver upon his credit. Now here is to be marked, that the Repl. spake not of every word the same, nor understood individual sameness, but like only, and so did the Rejoinder understand him, when he saith upon my credit there be no such words anywhere in Bellarmine, of such words is the credit pawned.

This being praemised, let these words of Bellarmine in that very place exstant, be well considered.

For as muchas the law of the OLD TESTAMENT was given to one people and for a certain time only, as till the coming of Christ, that law might Easily determine all things in Special, as in deed it aid, for in special it prescribed all things &c. But the law of the gospel was given to all the world i.e, to the people's of Sundrie nations, and was moreover to endure to the end of the world, and therefore this law of the Gospel could not so easily Determin all things in particular as did the other, that no other laws might be supposed necessary then what are found in the new Test. Nor is it possible for diverse nations to agree together in the same laws and rites, and therefore God judged it far better if he delivered in the Gospel the most general and commune laws, leaving the more special things concerning the Sacraments and articles of faith to be ordered by the Apostles and their Successors according as circumstances of time and place should require.

Let there also a comparison be made betwixt this, and that translation which the Rejoinder maketh of Calvin's words.

Calvin saith, that the Lord hath both faithfully comprised, and perspicuously declared necessaries. Bellarmine saith, that God in the Gospel hath delivered unto us the most common laws, concerning the Sacraments, and Articles of faith. Calvin saith, that Christ would not praescribe singularly and specially concerning external discip • ine, and Ceremonies, for that he foresaw these things to depend on the occasions and opportunities of times, nor did he think one form to accord with all ages. Bellarminus saith, that all special things could not so easily be determined in the Gospel, so as more laws should not be necessary: because there must be diversity of laws and ritualls, according to the diversity of Nations and Peoples, places and times. I doubt not but the Rejoinder upon consideration of this collation, will repent him of pawning his credit for no such words in all Bel. but I esteem D.B. his credit better, then I will hold it from his person, let only his Rejoyning credit be hence esteemed.

The third wayward, false, irreligious, and gross untrueth is, that in that place of Calvin, there is nothing at all, which without gross equivocation, will serve the Def. his purpose. If this were not true, yet I see no wool answerable to so great a cry.

But let us see what the Rejoinder can find in Calvin's words, for the Def. his purpose. First (saith the Rejoinder) Calvin differenceth matters merely ritual, from matters real, as the Def. doeth. Which as the Def. doeth, is not true. For the Def. differenceth Ceremonies into substantial and merely Ritual, p: 7. whereas Calvin doeth not difference Ceremonies, nor maketh any mention of mere Ritualls.

Take away that as the Def. doeth, and then the Repl. doeth so also.

Secondly Calvin (saith the Def.) showeth that Christ hath left mere Rituals at the Churches choice under general rules only. Now hear that equivocation which the • epl. spake of, for by Ceremonies, Calvin understandeth no such thing, as the Def. and Rejoinder doeth by mere Ritualls. The Def. and Rej. (as Bellarmine doeth) comprehend under that name Mystical Ceremonies, which the Rejoinder calleth double or treble Ceremonies: but Calvin meaneth only single matter of order and Decency. For this cause it was, that the Repl. said, the Def. should have dealt more plainly in citing of Bellarmine, then of Calvin.

11. About Calvin's meaning the Rejoinder striveth much, but cannot draw it to his purpose. 1. He granteth, that Calvin meant not to teache, that men may praescribe at their discretion mystical signs in the Church which is all that we desire. 2. His meaning is (saith the Rej) that what Ceremonies the nece • sitie and utility of the Church do require, may be ordained by the Church. This is expounded in Calvin's own words, translated thus by the Rejoinder whatsoever the necessity of the Church shall require for order and decency ; which is the same that the Repl. said. 3. Some toleration of some Ceremonies like unto the Jewish, Calvin is said to give, sect. 14. But that which he speaketh there obscurely, he doeth in this 36, sect interpret plainly:

I witness that I do only approve such Human constitutions which are founded by the authority of God, and taken out of the Scriptures and so altogether divine, let kneeling in Solemn prayer be an Example. 4. Because Calvin was interpreted out of himself, to speak of things necessary in their kind, the Rejoinder opposeth, that abstaining from blood Act. 15. and such like things are not necessary in their kind. I answer yes: because the kind under which they were found, was abstaining from scandal. So Calvin, sect. 22. (which place is alleged also by the Rejoinder for the institution of Ceremonies not necessary in their kind, because it is there taught, that weak brethren first coming from Popery, and not yet seeing their freedom in some in different things, are not rashly to be offended, by public practice of such things) Calvin (I say) answereth in the same place: Who but a calumniator, Can say that, So a new law was made by them, who only as appeareth, went about to praevent scandals, expressly enough forbidden of the Lord? Nor can ought more be said of the Apostles Act. 15. who intended nothing else by taking away matter of offense then to urge the Divine law for avoiding offense. But Calvin saith the Def. epist. 379. teacheth that some scandalous things must be borne with, And what is this to the allowing men to institute Ceremonies unnecessary in their kind, which is the question in hand?

5. The Rejoinder objecteth further, that the particulars, and not generals are appointed as necessary. Which is the very same that the Rep. said, the kind is always necessary and the particular do so vary by circumstances that some time they may be necessary, and so appointed, sometime not necessary, and so not to be appointed. 6. When the Rejoinder perceyved that this testimony of Calvin's maketh nothing for significant Ceremonies, he at last denieth the question here to be of significant Ceremonies, but of Ceremonies. He might as well deny the question to be of sacred Ceremonies, or as he calleth them of double Ceremonies, but only of Ceremonies. And thus is that very ambiguous equivocation wherewith the Def. was charged, by his Rejoinder, confessed. For what is else but to aequivocate, when all men know the question to be of one kind of rites only, to bring an argument which concern rites in deed, but not of that kind?

12. After some pretye phrases of the Repl. his running away, looking back, showing his teeth angerly, the Rejoinder in answer to a sad argument, that Human Ceremonies properly of religious nature use and signification, such as Cross and Surplice, are not necessary in any Church, nor any ways more necessary for England, then for any other nation; or then holy water and such other Ceremonies would, In answer (I say) to all this, the Rejoinder repeateth again his confuse aequivocall term of Ceremony, denying the question to be here of Ceremonies properly religious in their nature, use, and signi • ication. i. e. such as Cross and Sirplice are, as if we, disputed here of an indetermined idaea. And upon this miserable shift, not knowing what to answer unto the demands propounded, (without speaking directly against his conscience and known profession) he telleth the reader (both in text, and table) that the Repl. hath plainly abandoned Heb. 3.2. and so retireth again to his fort, of phrases, of demolishing his Castle, firing his Trenches, running away, & of his chaff and stubble, carried away before the Def. his windy words, After all which, as a good Canoneer, he dischargeth (as he calleth it) one piece of ordinance after his flying enemies, which is this Basilisko: You (run aways) teache some Ceremonies to be unlawful, though not forbidden, because they are not commanded. Ergo. But alas this shot hath no metal of truth or sense in it, and therefore will never hurt us.

Is any man so void of reason, as to teache anything to be unlawful, & yet confess it is no way against law, or forbidden? Those that say, the Ceremonies are unlawful, because they are not commanded, though they be not forbid̄, do evidently mean, that though they be not specially and by name forbidden, yet they are generally forbidden, by that rule which forbiddeth man to add anything in God's worship, unto that which God hath commanded, for such a shot there is no need of ordinance: as good may be made out of any bell that hath a clapper in it.

SECT. 6. & 7. of David's purpose, to build a Temple. 2. Sam. 7.1. Chron. 17.

THis passage will soon be dispached, if the question may be cleared. The purpose of David, was either conditional only, if God should allow and second the business, or else absolute, without such suspending condition, as supposing that God did allow, and would prosperously assist him, for the accomplishment of it. If it was of the former sort, and so far as it was considerable within those limits, there is no quaestiō, but it was godly, and worthy of all honor. But if it was absolute, it cannot be excused from some mixture of praesumtion. For whatsoever a man may absolutely intend to do, that he may do, but for the doing of such a thing, as building of a Temple then unto God, the Rejoinder himself confesseth it to have been unlawful, for David, without further warrant: and so confesseth also, that the absolute intention could not be lawful. Hence are these speeches of the Rej. That which may be lawfully purposed, with submission to God's pleasure, might not be done without his pleasure known, and leave given. We grant, that David could not build the House, nor so much as set out the place for it, without leave and direction from God.

All the question therefore is, whether David had an • bsolute purpose or no? If he had not, we have no ground from this place, agains • absolute instituting of religious Ceremonies by mā. If he • ad such a purpose, then the Rejoinder doeth not gainsay, but our argument is good. Now that David's purpose was absolute, it is more then probable, by that which the Rejoinder confesseth, viz. that Nathan was unadvised in saying to David, •• e do all that is in thine • eart, the Lord is with thee, before he had consulted with the mouth of the Lord, to whom the designation or place, manner, and Man, did belong. Heerin saith the Rejoinder Nathan failed. For 1. Nathan so far as appeareth doth answer only to the question of David, allowing his purpose, if therefore Nathan's allowance was a failing in being too absolute, David's purpose was of like nature. 2. If David's purpose had not been absolute before, yet upon Nathan's counsel, from which no dissent of his is any ways insinuated, it became absolute. 3. If David had dissented from Nathan in that point, he ought to have admonished Nathan of his sailing, and would also no doubt have done so or at the least, it would have bē concluded betwixt them two, that counsel must be sought, and expected of God; but Nathan not being corrected, but rather confirmed by David, as David was by him, they both were (wit • out seeking) better informed by extraordinary revelation. 4. The Def. saith, and the Rejoinder mainteyneth it, that • od did interpret David's affection for a deed. But no imperfect velleities of good, are so interpreted. The will which is accepted for a deed, must be absolute, and hindered only by defect of power. Howsoever, out of the Rejoinder his grantes, we are furnished with this argument:

It was not lawful fo • David to purpose absolutely the building any religious house for God's Ark, without God's special co • mand, or warrant. Therefore it is not lawful for man to institute and build Ceremonies double and tr • b • e religious (as the Rejoinder calleth ours) without God's special command or warrant.

The grant of the Rejoinder is the common sentence of our Divines well expressed, among other, by M ^r. W. Attersol, upon Numb. 3.4. David was deceyved, that he went beyond the Commandment • f G • d. To seek to praevent God was to be reproved. It might have been said to him: who required these things at thy hands?

Howsoever his purpose (or simple affection) m • y be comm • nded, yet the fact (that is the absolute purpose resolving upon the fact) is reproved, He ought not the have enterprized that, which was not commanded either to any other, or to himself. He did not obey God, but fol • ow his own mind and device. He did run too fast, travayling (as it were) without his guide, and sailing without his compass.

These things being considered, it were but vain labor to prosecute the Rejoinder in particular litigations about this matter, which would be little else then repetition of the same things. I will only therefore consider of the Def. his retorsion, and the Rejoinder his shot out of this place: which also should have passed, but for the boasting wherewith they are (with provocation) advanced above their measure.

The Def. his retortion is thus. This Act of David's without special warrant were commended by God. Ergo, all institutions of Ceremonies by man, belonging to God's service, are not therefore to be condemned, because they want express warrant. This Act. (saith the Def. that is (saith the Rejoinder) this conditional affection not lawful to be brought into act. From such a conditional affection, he argueth, to absolute and actual institutions, by what rule of consequence I know not. The Rejoinder teacheth us the clean contrary argument, as before was declared.

The Rejoinder his shot is thus in short: David (as M ^r. Cartwritconfesseth) had general warrant from the word of God, for building the Temple, and had no word to forbid him to do it (til that by Nathan) therefore for David to purpose to build (til that forbidding by Nathan, was lawful. I answer 1. the conclusion (being understood of a conditional purpose (as the Rejoinder expounded it) we willingly grant, as neither making, nor ever having made any question about it. 2. David had no general warrant, for his building of the temple, neither doeth M ^r. Cartwrite say any such thing, but only that it was revealed there should be such a Temple. Which was no more warrant for David to purpose the building of it, then other Prophecies were warrant for some (upon supposition) to purpose the destroying of it. 3. Though there was no word of God which particularly or absolutely forbid David to build the Temple, yet there was word enough in g • nerall forbidding him to attempt any such thing, until he should receive further Commission. So the Rejoinder before confessed: the designation of place, manner, man, and time, did belong to God : and was therefore forbidden to David, and so the building forbidden, until that designation should come from God.

Now add unto this shot of the Rejoinder thus repelled but a little altering the charge and turning the pieces mouths. viz. That our questioned Ceremonies have not so much general warrant, as that it is anywhere in Scripture revealed, there should be a Cross, and Sirplice, and that the places of Scripture which seem to forbid them, could never yet be otherwise cleared; and then see how it maketh for the Rejoinder his cause.

SECT. 12. Concerning that phrase, Ier. 7.31. etc. You do that which I commanded not.

THat which the Rejoinder (out of his abundant leisure) would needs enlarge most vainly about sect. 8.9.10. & 11. I pass over with silence: because the Repl: refused to maintain that which is there objected, out of unprinted and uncertayn papers.

1. In the twelf section, we are to inquire, whether and how that consequence in God's worship, be good: I have not commanded this: therefore, you may not do it.

The Def. and Rejoinder say it is not good, except by not commanding, be unde • stood, forbidding as Lev. 10.1. Deut. 17.3. Which is thus far true, that except some forbidding be included or (as the Rejoinder speaketh) imported in that not commanding, not commanding c • nnot m • ke a thing unlawful. But that is the very question whether in things proper to religion, not commanding, doeth not include some kind of forbid • ing.

2. The place mentioned by the Rejoinder: out of Lev. 10.1. doeth most strongly make against him. For the sons of Aaron are there condemned, for bringing strange, or ordinary fire to God's worship, as doing that which God had not commanded, and yet had not otherwise forbidden, then by providing fire proper to his worship, and not apponting any other to be used in the tabernacle, and this is the very plea which we make against Ceremonies of human institution, in God's worsh • p. The scope of that text we are taught, by an English Bishop, Babington, in his notes upon that place: We may hence learn and settle in our hearts, with what severi • ie the Lord challengeth and defendeth his authority, in laying down the way and manner of his worship, not le • ving it to any creature, to meddle with, but according to praescription and appo • n • meant from him. Content he is, that men shall make laws for human matters etc, But for his Divine worship, he one • y will praes • ribe it himself, and what h • e appointed, that must be done, and that only, or else Nad • b and Abibu their punishment expected, that is, God's w • ath expected, in such manner as he shall please.

He was taught this by Calvin, who upon the place saith God forbad other fire etc. to be used that he might exclude all adventious rites, and teach that he detested whatsoever was come from elsewhere. Let us therefore learn so to attend to the Commandment of God, that we desile not his worship, with any far fetched devises.

M ^r. Attersoll also in his learned and grave Commentary upon Numb. 3.4. doeth largely declare out of this example, how God disliketh, and disclaimeth men's devises in his service, as trash, trumpery, and mere dotage : instancing (among other devises) in Ceremonies added unto Baptism.

3. Our reason was propounded in the words of Calvin upon Ier. 7.31. Seeing God under this title only condemneth that which the Jews did, because he had not commanded it them, therefore no other reason need to be sought for the confutation of superstitions, then that they are not by commandment from God. To which the Rejoinder answereth, that M ^r. Calvin's conceit holdeth true in proper points of religious worship, which are all prescribed of God himself, but not in matter of rites, not prescribed of God. Now if this be not a miserable conceit, that God's not commanding doeth forbid that which he hath prescribed or commanded, but not that which he hath not prescribed, or commanded, let any man of sense judge.

Other meaning I cannot gather either out of these words, or out of the Rejoinder his doctrine of worship, which was before distinctly weighed, in the head of Worship. M ^r. Cartwrites conjecture (as the Rejoinder calleth it) is the very same with that which he calleth Calvin's conceit. The Rejoinder his answer also is the same for substance, that it is true in matter • particularly determined by God, but not in matters of order and ceremony, of which God hath not determined particularly. The sense of which is, that we must depend upon God, so far as he hath determined particularly, but in other things, we must depend upon men, and in England, upon the Convocation house. But to depend upon God, and his mouth, being to follow only his determination and what sense then is this, you shall only follow God's determination, in those things which he hath particularly determined, but if you please to do anything in his woe • ship, which he hath not determined particularly, you may therein depend upon whom you plea • e? For matter of Ceremony, enough hath bē spokē before: and of order, we shall after dispute.

4. The rest of this 12. section is spent about the Def, his wonderful wondering, at our symbolizing with Bellarmine and other Papists, because that as they distinguish sins into mortal and venial, so we (saith he) make a distinction of against, and beside the word. About which, the Rejoinder granteth that Chrysostom did well use this distinction, in matters of doctrine, yet he saith it is not to be extended unto matters of Ceremony. But (the question being only about the distinction) it is in the Def. and Rejoinder their opinion far more appliable to ceremonies, then to doctrines: because they hold many Ceremonies lawful beside the word, which are not against it, though they hold no such difference of doctrines. Now this distinction was used by us, according to their conceit, more then our own. The like is acknowledged of Junius, that he distinguisheth well betwixt beside and against the Word, in the question of traditions devised for divine worship, 1. e. essential worship, particularly determined by God. Which is not so, for in that place, Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an 10. Junius hath no question either about essentials, or worship, or traditions, but only about Ecclesiastical laws, binding the conscience. And if he had, yet that clause particularly determined by God, would spoil all: because in such things there can be nothing either against, or beside the Word. But if it were true, what is the difference, betwixt Junius and us? The Rejoinder saith that we confound rites with worship, and yet confess rites not to be particularly described as the other. Which is neither so, nor so, except he mean those rites, which he calleth double or treble ceremonies : and therein we have Junius so for us, that not only in other places, but also in the words next going before this in question, he saith generally, in divine things to coin new laws is nothing but to decline. Yet the Rej. will have it, that Junius in that place cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10. do • h refute this distinction, as used by Bell. Mark therefore what are Bell. words, which Junius confuteth) viz. Only a prohibition of addition contrary laws is understood.

Which are the words also of our Defender and Rejoinder. cap. 2. sect. 3.4.5. So that by this interpretation, the distinction is theris, and Junius confuteth them all, so well as Bellarmine.

The persuaders to Subscription, are also confessed to use the same distinction, but in another meaning. Let the distinction therefore pass (for shame) and dispute of the meaning. But the meaning expressed by the Rejoinder is the very same with ours, save that they differ in the conclusions deducted from it. The altercation therefore which the Rejoinder addeth about some speeches of M ^r. Cartwrite, is not worth the answering.

The plain truth is, that this distinction is ordinarily used by our Divines, against the Papists, even in case of Ceremonies. D. Fulke against the Rhemists, on Mat: 15.9. Of Popish traditions, some be repugnant to t • e laws of God, and some are beside them, as idle and unprofitable Cer • monies. It was therefore but an affected quarrel, which the Def. picked, and the Rejoinder maintaineth, about these terms, as if they had any reflection upon the Popish difference, betwixt mortal and venial sins. Nay in this fashion, the Def. and Rejoinder may accuse our blessed martyrs of symbolizing with the Papists that were the murderers of them. For they were wont to use this distinction in the same manner that we do. So heavenly • radford, in his epistle to the University of Cambridge: these which a little after he applieth to Romish rags, and in his epistle to Walden (extendeth them by name to Ceremonies) opinions are not only besides God's word, but even directly against it. It is therefore more then time for the Def. and Rejoinder to pull in the horns of this dodmons accusation, and confess that they were unseasonablie and rashly put forth upon inconsiderate fantasy, easily uttered, but hardly excused.

SECT. 13.14. Concerning the ancient fathers arguing negatively from Scripture.

1. TO diverse sentences of ancient Writers, about this matter alleged, the general answer is givē. 1. that they speak of things contrary to Scripture: which when the Repl. granteth, complaining of the Def. his willful mistaking, or mis-interpreting our meaning, the Rejoinder lest he should seem less willful, repeateth the same imputation, which yet he acknowledgeth to be contrary to the Repliers own confession.

What should a man say to such Rejoyners, that know full well our meaning, and yet will never leave threaping another meaning upon us.

We never said, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decency, are punctually determined in the Scripture. We never dreamed that all such rites being beside the particular determination of the Scripture, are against it, we speak of double or treble rites as the Rejoinder styleth them, which no mere order and decency doeth necessarily require, but only the mere will of man injoine.

All this the Rejoinder knoweth: and yet he ceaseth not to beat the air, with endelesse repetitions of this imputation, guilded over with some variety of tanting phrases, that it may be the easlier, swallowed by his unwary reader. 2. It is secondly answered by the Def. that the ancient writers speak of doctrines, not of ceremonies. Wherunto the Repl. granting that to be true for the most part yet answereth, that the truth of their sayings may be taken so generally, as to include all re • igious Ceremonies. Here the Rejoinder objecteth that limitation (for the most part) is only to abuse the simple, and that the ambiguous term of religious Ceremony, is a bush to hide I know not what in.

Now for the former charge Compare here the Abridgement and Def. The later accusation of hiding-bush, etc. cannot otherwise be avoided (as it seemeth) except to avoid the same, we would upō every occasion, when we are to speak of the questioned kind of ceremonies, repeat the Rejoinder his beadroul of terms: double or treble significant, sacred by application, mutable, ambalatorie, arbitrary, reductively sacramental, moral Ceremonies, immediate worship, in respect of means by virtue of something else, in respect of the manner, and reductively, in respect of the utmost ende Divine worship.

Whersoever we observe not these terms partly of his own forging, since the Reply was written he may as well spy a bush over our head, as in this place. It is thirdly answered, that a general proposition may well be extended beyond one special conclusion to which it is upon occasion applied. To this (after that out of splen (as I take it) he styleth it the man's stomach ) the Rejoinder answereth that it may only be applied to other of the like kind. This therefore is only the difference, whether those Ceremonies which bear all those titles even now rehearsed, be not of the like kind, or have not one common nature, with some of those things which the Rejoinder calleth substantial, and doctrinal, points: of which we have disputed before, andshall after, by God's grace.

2. To Tertullian's words: Prohibetur quod non ultro est permissum: that is prohibited, which is not permitted, the first answer made by the Def. was, that our Ceremonies are permitted. Heerunto it was replied, that Tertullian's meaning must needs be of other permission then the Def. can challenge to our Ceremonies, otherwise there should be no sense in his words. The reason is, because the Def. doeth not say that our Ceremony. are otherwise permitted, then that they are not forbidden. Which kind of permission if Tertullian understood, then his saying is: that is prohibited, whi • h is not unprohibited.

The Rejoinder here for resolution of this difficulty saith, that Tertullian's meaning was to account that not to be permitted by the word, against which any reasons out of the word may be given, though there be no particular word against it.

Now if he had attended unto the question, considering that it was only what Tertullian in this place meant by this phrase not permitted, and that his meaning for the word must be the same, with that immediately before opposed: Quod non prohibetur ultro permissum est, he would not have given that gloss, for then the meaning of this sentence must be: that which hath no particular word against it, can have no reasons out of the word made against it. Suche • ustian is that clause of the Rejoinder, our meaning and hìs, are alike, and we hold our Ceremon • es to be so perm • tted, and therefore not prohibited. So permitted is, by his interpretation, not to be prohibited by consequence, prohibited must needs be ey • her the same, or else p • ohibited by particular word: if the former, then he saith thus: our Ceremonies are not p • ohibited by consequence: therefore they are not prohibited by consequence, if the later, then this is his saying: our Ceremonies are not forbidden by consequence only, therefore they are not by particular word forbidden. The former is no reason; the later neither is consequence, nor toucheth any question.

The Def. his second answer was, that we may blush, to speak of Tertullian, because he professeth traditions in the same book. It was answered, that then all may blush, which allege the Fathers for that which they in other places gainsay. The Rejoinder granting, that those need not blush, because the Fathers sometime are deaf and hear not themselves speak, and in some particulars left their sound general principles, yet will needs have us blush (if it be not unpossible, as his Rejoyning charity suspecteth it is) because they never held that which we allege them for. But how doeth this appear, because they allowed of sundry Ceremonies not prescribed in the word. Now except he could prove, they were not as deaf on this the ceremonial ear, or side, as they were on the other, or that they did not leave their sound generals, in the particulars of Ceremonies, as well or ill as in other.

this occasion, especially with his affected exaggerations if it be not impossible.

And that the Rejoinder cannot prove this, D. Morton showeth in his appeal. pag. 324. They that erred in points of doctrine, could not be altogether free from some sprinklings and spots of Ceremonial corruptions.

Moreover, how the best of those ancient writers allowed of sundry human Ceremonies, then in use, Augustine show • h, epist. 119. Many such things I dare not so freely gainsay to avo • de the offense partly of some holy minds and partly of some turbulent Spirits.

Which is the very case of the best English Divines that do so sparingly speak against our Ceremonies, and yet sufficiently insinuate, that they would speak more, if they durst for the times. How also our Divines do not blush to allege their testimonies against human Ceremon. though they know that in other places they speak for them this may be seen in D. Whitaker. tom. 1. pag. 116. Augustine will have us be content with those very few Ceremonies which are contained in the Canonical Scriptures. If elsewhere he have written ought that may less agree with this sentence▪ for my pa • t I will not much tro • ble myself to reconcile all his speeches. D. Fulke, Rejoinder to Martial, ar 1. saith plainly: The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did assault the Church. The fathers (in them) declined from the simplicity of the Gospel, and art. 3. Every idle Ceremony that praevayled, had the Prelates of the Church, either for authors or for approvers, But Christ committed his Church to them, to be fed with his word, and not with dumb signs, and dead images, which things he hath forbidden.

SECT. 15. Concerning Protestants arguing negatively from Scripture.

1. THe first quotation by the Def. chosen to answer, is out of D. Mortons Apology: of which it is said by the Replier, that the Def. his answer is, he meant not matters mearly Ceremonial, but doctrinal, and so he affirmeth the meaning of our argument to be, if by mere Ceremonies, he mean mere order and decency, as he interpreteth himself in the ende of this section, Heerupon the Rejoinder asketh, if we call this a Reply ? I answer yea: because it showeth, all that is opposed, though it be granted as true, nothing at all to cross or contradict our argument, in the right meaning of it. Now mark what he hath to say, why it should not be called a Reply. 1. The Def. telleth not only what he meant, but where his meaning doeth appear, and the Reply showeth not that he hath not meant as he said. As if either the place where a thing is spoken, did add any weight unto the speech! or all, that mean as they say, do speak to the purpose. 2. It is partiality to take up the word mere in this place, and not sect. 3. But this doeth rather show, that though the Replier took no knowledge of this me • e shift, when he first met with it, yet afterward, seeing it often repeated, marked some emphasis to be placed in it, and so did not spare it before, upon partiality to one section more then another, which seemeth a strange conceit.

Howsoever this doeth neither prove the reply none, nor yet non-sufficient. 3. He pronounceth it untrue, that the question here is not of mere Ceremonies and rites: which charge he groundeth upon the word specially in the service of God. But that word doeth show the specialitie of our question to be about the matters of God's service, or worship, such as significant Ceremonies are, and mere order is not. 4. He is styled a deceyved man, that thinketh signification put upon a Ceremony, doeth necessarily make it more then a mere Ceremony.

To which I answer, that if he that thinketh so, is a deceyved man, then the Rejoinder doeth deceyve, when in his Manuduction, pag. 33. and 39. he teacheth that special instituted signification, doeth make a Ceremony double or treble more then mere single rites of order.

2. The second quotation is out of D. Mortons Appeal, l. 2. c. 4. sect. 4. where is confessed, he speaketh of Ceremonies, but of Doctrinal only, such as sopping in of bread into the cup, etc.

Wherupon question was made, why this Ceremony should be accounted more doctrinal, or more unlawful, then the Cross in Baptism.

To the former part of this quaere, the Rejoinder answereth that the Def. he himself & all such, in this question mean by Doctrinal, a thing taught in the word and that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taught in the word. As if it had been asked, why the Sacrament is more doctrinal then the Cross? and not if Sopping be so? But here it is diligently to be observed, how we are deluded in this whole argument, and other also, with the shadow of a worldly distinction, betwixt Doctrinal, and Ritual Ceremonies. We say, God hath appointed all Ceremonies properly religious, which are to be used. They answer, that this is true of all doctrinal Ceremonies, but not of ritual : that is to say, as here we are taught, God hath appointed all Ceremonies that he hath appointed, but not all that he hath not appointed. We say, it is not lawful for man to add unto God's institutions, in religious worship. They answer, this is true of Doctrinal, but not of Ritual additions: that is, by this interpretation, Man may not add unto God's institutions, any of God's institutions, but man's only. Let this be borne in mind for all answers that hange on the hinges of this distinction.

To the other part of the question, the Rejoinder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Cross. 1. because the cross maketh no alteration, of what Christ did ordain saying do this. 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptism, as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper. 3. it is not esteemed an instrumental sign of any grace given by the use of it, as they took their sops to be. 4. their sopping destroyed the very Sacrament. And for these differences, the Repl. is bidden to hang down his head, for asking such a question. But 1. Addition is as evil as alteration. For when Christ said, do this, he meant as well, do this only, as do this all. Fac hoc totum: fac hoc tantum : as Zanchi expoundeth it. Addition also is some alteration, if not of the things instituted, yet of the institution, as making it insufficient, or incomplete, by itself alone.

2. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine, but were bread and wine. Neither were they first or only, or (for anything appeareth) at all▪ used by Heretics, as the Rejoinder for his advantage, without ground, avoucheth, but by ancient Churches, at least in some cases: as is manifest out of Prosper, de Promissionibus, Dimidium temporis, cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit, etc. Sopping was so far from being a matter of Haeresie, that as it seemeth, it was received among the Fathers, so longe as infants communicating in the Lord's Supper, which was, as D. Morton confesseth, Appeale, lib. 2. cap. 13. sect. 3. for six hundred years.

3. Sopping of bread in wine, considered abstractly from bread and wine, was no sign instituted as an instrument of grace.

For so saith Cassander pag. 1027. out of Ivo: this custom of Sopping prevailed only through fear of shedding and not by direct authority. 4. It is too severe a sentence, against those ancient Christians, in Prospers time and (which is more) as Cassander and Hospinian judge, in Ciprians, that they destroyed the very substance of Sacrament. The setting forth of Christ's death was not excluded, though some part of the blood was representatively joined unto the body. A man is dead, that lieth in his blood, though some of it soak again into his body. The Fathers, six hundred years together, did not destroy the substance of the Sacrament. Hitherto therefore appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang down his head. Let us see if more cause be in the comparisons he maketh betwixt sopping▪ and crossing.

The first was, the bread and wine (the only things used in sopping) were ordained by Christ: so is not the Cross. The Rejoinder answereth here nothing to the purpose, save only, that they were ordained to be used apart. From whence it followeth only that it is unlawful to use them not apart. And so it followeth, that Baptism must as well be used apart, orseparated from the Cross: because it was ordained so to be used, and the Cross was not ordained for any religious use, either apart, or with other things.

The second is, that sopping hath some agreement with reasō, Crossing hath none. The Rejoinder hence maketh two consequences: 1. Ergo Christ in ordaining the Sacrament otherwise, hath done something not agreeable to reason, 2. Ergo the Church in Crossing hath been void of all reason, fifteē hundred year. And upon these grounds, he crieth out of madness. But so madness may be found in any assertion, if it be first put out of the right wits or sense, as this is. For the meaning was not, that Sopping is agreeable to right reason in the Sacrament, but in civil use, where the aerial Cross hath none. Yet▪ it may be added, if it were lawful for men to add to God's ordinances in the Sacraments, then there would be found more probability of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread & wine as a manner of food, thē a mystical aerial cross into the use of water which is no manner of washing. As for the Church, it hath not universally used the cross so longe, except the Waldenses, and others like unto them, were none of the Church.

The same Church, that used crossing, used also for divers hundreds of years, to give the Sacrament of of the Supper unto infants, without reason, and the continuation of the Cross more hundreds of years, addeth no reason unto it, except reason in such things doeth increase with their age. Many things have been used in the Church without reason: or else there is reason we should still use all that have been used, caeteris paribus. If there be any good reason in the cross, let that be tried by reason, and not by slippery conjectures taken from the persons using it.

The third comparison was, that Sopping was used by Christ, at the very table of the Supper, but Crossing was never so much honored by him or his Apostles, as to use it at any time. The Rejoinder answereth, that this argument would prove as well, that the eating of a Paschal lamb before the Sacrament, to be better then Sprinkling of water on the fo • ehead of the Baptized. Because CHRIST did that, and not this. But this is not so well. For that 1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremony distinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used. 2. It is very probable that the Apostles going into the colder part of the world, did use sprinkling.

3. Concerning a Paschal lamb, used before the Sacrament, as a Ceremony morally significant and reductively Sacramental, I see not why it should not be praeferred before the Cross or any such invention, even because Christ did use it, if that Circumcision be now a lawful Christian Ceremony, as the Def. and Rejoinder profess and maintain, pag. 285. It is also crediblie reported a great Bishop, not long since living, that every Easter day, he used to have a whole lamb, praepared after the Paschal manner, brought to his table. D. B. knoweth well who it was, and of whom he hath heard it.

The fourth comparison was, that sopping was no new sign, but Crossing is. The Rejoinder opposeth that it had been an abomination to eat the Paschal lamb sodden, but the addition of sitting or leaning on couches (though a new sign added by them selves) was lawful etc. Of which speech, the first part is granted, viz. a sodden lamb had been an abomination: neither isa sopping communion excused. In the second, there is observable partiallitie, in that he calleth setting an addition to the Passover, and yet in the same answer, with the same breath, denieth the cross to be any addition unto Baptism. The ground of all is rotten, viz. that sitting was a religious significant Ceremony instituted by men.

These things considered, let any man judge what cause the Rejoinder had to talk in this place, of the Repl: his room-conscience, contentious spirit, smitten with giddinisse, forsaken of wisdom ?

In that which followeth about sopping, there is no new matter to fasten any dispute on, proper to this place, but only why some ceremonial sopping may not be used, as near to the Communion, as the Cross unto Baptism? The Rejoinder answereth. 1. because it is not so safe, to use visible elementarie signs in holy actions, as a transient Character. 2. Because such sopping were worse then the use of any other bodily element, as coming so near to the very institution. Where 1. it is to be marked, that a religious Ceremony, of soppes and wine, immediately before or after the Communion, is not found unlawful, but only not so safe as the Cross. By the same proportion, Ceremonious eating of flesh, and fish, in the solemnity of the Communion, is only not so safe, not unlawful. Hath not the Cross brought us to a fair market? 2. If the Cross be not a visible elementary sign, what kind of sign is it? Character noteth a most proper sign: aerial is elementarie : crossing is either visible, or else it is no sensible sign: because it cannot be heard, felt, tasted, or smelled.

If he meaneth a permanent substance, beside that he crosseth his own definition of a Ceremony, an action &c. in other places he defendeth images, in this very section, he leaned even now, upon couches, as upon safe Ceremonies among the Jews.

3. The outward nearness or likeness of a human Ceremony, to a Divine Sacrament, is allowed on elsewhere by the Def. and Rejoinder both: as when cap. 3. sect 7▪ they maintain as Christian, a Ceremonial sprinkling of men with holy water, wherein, both water and sprinkling, have as great an outward nearness unto the outward elements of Baptism, as anything cā have.

If the outward material show of nearness unto a Divine Sacrament, doeth make a Ceremony unallowable, then much more, such a formal significant nearness, as is betwixt Baptism, signifying our putting on of Christ crucified, and the Cross signifying our putting on of courage to fight under, and for Christ crucified.

See here what further is to be said of Jewel, and Whitaker's, after the Def. and they are conferred.

3. The Replier, affecting brevity, and finding no new matter of dispute about the allegations out of B. Jewel, and D. Whitaker, passeth them over, with this reason: in excusing of them, nothing is said by the Def. which hath not formerly been confuted.

Now the Rejoinder doeth not go about to show that any new thing is brought forth by the Def. about thē, which had bē to the purpose, but only catcheth up that word excusing, and repeating the accusation, of impertinent alleging them for the negative argument from Scriptures, in case of Ceremonies, which they do except, he taketh upon him to discover an undoubted close meaning of the word excuse : and thereupon accuseth not only the Repl. but I know not how many ( they, them ) of being scornful out of pride of spririt. Who would have thought that one word (used according to the ordinary courteous fashion of those which instead of plain denying, use the phrase, ( excuse me) could have stirred up such a passion, or occasioned such an injurious surmise? But to excuse this, which I hope we may do without any offense, I will yield so much unto his importunity and challenge, as briefly to show, that neythe B. Jewel, nor D. Whit. did except such Ceremonies as ours, when they speak of the Scriptures fullness. Jewel in the first article sect. 29. alledgeth for the negative argument, Origen, concluding that in the Lord's supper the bread is to be eaten, and not reserved unto the morrow, because that Christ did not command that reservation to the morrow. Now that this reservation is a ceremony, and a lawful one also in D. Morton his judgment, appeareth plainly ou • of his Appeal, where (lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 1.) he saith plainly, that we may grant a longer time of reservation then two or three days, with a reference unto the intent of participating of it by eating.

D. Morton therefore cannot be defended in saying that Jewel excepted ceremonies.

For D. Whitaker his not excepting of significant Ceremonies from the Negative argument, may appear partly by his negative silence, and partly by his express assertion, de Sacramentis, pag. 203. for unto Bellarmine his assertion, that the Church may institute new Ceremonies, for ornament, and for signification, he granteth that of ornament ▪ as he doeth after of order, but no such consent is given of signification, but rather the contrary: Rudes non sunt Ceremonijs erudiendi: dedit Deas, Scripturas, vt ex ijs rudes institutionem necess • riam haurirent. So in Oper: tom. 1. pag. 116. Augustinus nos illis paucissimis Ceremonijs contentos esse vult, quae in Canonicis Scri • turis cont • nentur.

The truth is, that our Divines do ordinarily reject the Popish Ceremonies, upon this ground, So Gallasius in Exod. 22.7.

(* Nihil tale a Christo aut factum, aut institutum. Ergo ne sapientiores nos ipso & Apostolis fore arbitremur. )

* There is no such thing by Christ, either done or instituted, therefore let us not deem ourselves wiser then he or his Apostles.

4. Another omission, whereof the Repl is accused, for which he is called a gentle man, is, that the Def. in the ende of this Argumēt, recalleth the state of the question, distinguishing betwixt mere Ceremonies, & mixed, by mere meaning altogether indifferent, and by mixed, some way forbidden, All which (saith the Rejoinder) the gentle Replier passeth by. Now sure he might also himself have passed this by, with more credit of the Def.

For what sense is in such a stated question: whether the Scripture doeth condemn such Ceremonies, as it leaveth indiff • rent, or only those which it some way forbiddeth ? All that pass by, may see, that this was not worth the taking up.

Yet concerning the mixture of ceremonies with opinion of holiness, justice, merit, efficacy, or real necessity, which here the Rejoinder maketh the only grounds of forbidding, he is now, in such gentle manner as is requisite, answered, in the head of Difference betwixt popish Ceremonies and ours.

5. After this, the Repl. is charged with quarrelling, only because he saith the Def. answered nothing to a main point, upon which this first argument, in the Abridgement, doeth depend, namely the rules of Ceremonies, that they should be needful, and profitable, for edification, the more comely and orderly performance of God's instituted service, which being wanting in our Ceremonies they cannot be innocent, though all were granted which the Def. mainteyneth. And why is this a quarrel ?

The Repl. (as it seemeth) can neither by speaking, nor holding his peace, gain so much favor with the Rejoinder as that in either he may pass without some shrewd censorious note. If he hold his peace, he is a gentle man, if he speak, he is a quarreller. But what are the reasons of blame in this place?

1. The Defender (forsooth) was not tied to the Abridgents order 2. It were idle to speak of directive rules, if all human Ceremonies be unlawful. 3. If God hath left rules for direction of his Church in rites and orders Ecclesiastical, then he hath not determined of them in his word. 4. The Defender hath maintained, that our Ceremonies are agreeable to the rules of God's word: so as no Friar dare deny it, nor the Replier professing his name. In all which there is nothing of any moment. For 1. though it were granted, that the Def. was not tied to the Abridg, order, yet he may be tied to their matter, if he meant to give them a full answer. 2. Though it be needless to speak of directive rules in unlawful Ceremonies as they are simply unlawful, yet seeing rites of order and decency, which are confessed lawful, are by the Def. and others confounded with Ceremony. by others esteemed unlawful, it is very necessary, that at least the conditions of lawful Ceremonies should be Demonstrated to agree unto such Ceremonies as are defended to be lawful. 3. Though God hath left rules for rites of order and decency, yet he hath determined of all Ceremonies significant by institution. 4. If the Def. had maintained our Ceremonies to be agreeable unto these rules of God's word, it had been the most compendidious way for the Rejoinder to have shown, where, and how?

For that of the Friar, I easily believe it. For not one friar of a thousend dare say that any allegation for Popish Ceremonies, though it be out of a lead̄ legend, is not as plain a demonstration as any is in all Mathematickes. As for the Repliers concealing his name, that is a poor imputation, For I dare undertake, that the Rejoinder may have names enough for that which is said, and upon second thoughts, he may profess his own name among them, except he can show, where and how the Def. hath indevored to prove our Ceremonies agreeable to those rules about which this question is moved. If the Def. had performed this before, what need the Rejoinder to have made here a solemn digression, touching the rules for Ceremonies. Which digression of his, shall now have a hearing.

SECT. 16. Concerning Order, and Decency,

THe Defender beginning to confronte and confute our tenent, neither bringeth, nor can bring any Scripture, for the authority of Churches to ordain Ceremonies, but only this one, 1. Cor. 14. He saith, in deed, that he nameth only this place, not to trouble us with any other at this present. But the Rejoinder more ingenuously confesseth, that this is the only place in the New Testament, by which all Divine • do conclude, that a power is given to the Church, to constitute Rites &c.

This place is all the answer they give, or can give, to those that are wont to trouble them with a quo warranto.

If this place then faileth them, or serveth not their turn, are not our Ceremonies confessed to be appointed without any warrant of the word, at least in the New Testament?

1. Now that it doeth not make to the purpose, it was first shown, from this, that the Defend. himself concludeth no more from thence, then that the Church may by virtue of this permission, ordain any Ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God. Which maketh nothing to the purpose, except first it be proved that God is better served with our Ceremonies, then without them. The Rejoinder here 1. denieth this to be his Conclusion, and yet they are his own words, & no other conclusion is mentioned by him, as appeareth in the Rejoinder itself, pag. 74. But by this (saith the Rejoinder) he undertakes to prove another thing. Let it be so, yet he must first prove this, which he immediately draweth out of the text, which he doeth not.

Neither doeth he so much as name that other thing which he undertaketh to prove, much less perform his undertaking. This was therefore no fit place for him to vente his phrase, of shooting beside the Butt. 2. He accuseth the Repl. of insult • ng, because he denied the Consequence, and gave a reason of it: and yet referreth the answer of that reason, to a fitter place I know not where. Only he repeateth the often exploded evasion, that the question is whether all lawful things be particularly, or expressly commanded in the word, which none of us ever writ, said, or thought. Yet we must be troubled with this groundless, useless repetition, over and over again.

2. The only back of the Consequence made out of this place, is that all Fathers, and all Divines, (the Rej. addeth, of whatsoever Religion not excepting Socinians, nor yet Anabaptists, whom he useth to acknowledge adversaries to his Conclusion) do use this place for one and the same conclusion.

Now this is easier to say, then to demonstrate, I do not find this place much used to any such purpose by the Fathers. Chrysostom expoundeth it of moral virtuous carriage, opposite unto such perverse walking as if a man go upon his hands, with his feet upward. Ambrose extendeth it no further then to things mentioned, in that Chapter: secundum ordinem suppra dictum Oecumenius also maketh it a recapitulation of things formerly mentioned, of speaking by course, and women's being covered etc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He Summarily gathers together all that went before. Basil expoundeth it of time and place, ed. gr pag. 530. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and of proportion to be observed betwixt divers members. pag. 459. These are some Fathers▪ and (as I amperswaded) more then either Def. or Rejoinder can bring, so to argue from this place, as he doeth▪ Amonge the ancient Schoolmen, it is hard to find, where any one of them doeth conclude Ceremonies proper to religion, out of this place. Thomas in his Comm. upon it, doeth so interpret it, that he leaveth no ground for any such conclusion: Honestly] 1. e. while one Speakes that other be silent, and that women speak not in Church. in order] 1. e. that first one and then another speak. etc.

Erasmus consenteth: Decently and in order that no uns • emelines or tumult arise.

Amonge later writers, these words are often applied to rites, but in a diverse manner. The Papists, and some other do prove from hence, their double treble, analogic • ll Sacramentalls, as the Rejoinder calleth them. See Hosius his Conf. de ritib. Bap. c. 37. Bell. de effect Sacram. l 2 cap. 31. Balthasar Chavassius. l. 1. cap. 21. and l. 2. cap. 7. where from hence they dispute against Calvin by name. • ccius (saith Musculus upon this place) In his Commune places, in the title of human traditions citeth these words of the Apostle let all things be done &c. To justify the traditions of the Bishop • as authentic & su • h as ought to be kept with a C • nsciencie of obedience, but this praescript of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopal traditions, but the Apostles own, to wit such as he had delivered to the Churches.

Our Divines (f • w of note excepted) do only from hence conclude rites of mere order and decency. And some of the graver, Papists, to this day can find no more in it as Esius in his Comm. upon the place: It belongs to decency that women speak not in the Church, to order, that many speak not at once. What is now become of All Fathers, All Divines, for one and the same conclusion ? M ^r. Hooker, pag. 95. doeth directly oppose the Def. his conclusion, contending that the Rules set down in this place, are the Rules of natural reason, and not of the Apostle, or properly of the Scripture, For if this be true, then that is false which the Def. so confidently averreth, that the Apostle doeth here grant a general license and authority to all Churches, to ordain Ceremonies : except the Apostle did give Churches license, and authority, to do that, which by the law of nature, they might do, and by the light of nature, know they might.

3. The Def. was requested to show, by what Logic he formeth his consequence from order, decency, and edification, unto such Ceremonies as ours?

The Rej. hath no other Logic to show for it then this: Sundrie Divines do manifest the Consequence, because the same particular circumstances, woe • ld not be comely and to edification in all places and times, the Church must have power to institute and alter them. But 1. this is not the consequence, meant by the Repl. expressed by the Def. The Apostle saith. let all things be done orderly, decently, and to edification. Ergo, he granteth a general license and authority to all Churches, to ordain any Ceremonies, that may be fit for the better s • rving of God. 1. e. such as ours are.

Neither yet is the Consequence, which the Rej. would have implied by the Def. upon supposition of the former: The Apostle hath granted a general license, and authority, to all Churches, to ordain Ceremonies, that may be fit for the better serving of God. Ergo, all Rites and Ceremonies, which are beside the prescription of the word (such as ours are) are not unlawful. It is in deed, the very same sentence, which the Rejoinder did so spurn from him, pag. 72. when it appeared under the name of M ^r. Jacob: in the distinction, betwixt mere Circumstances, Civil, or Occasionall, and Ceremonies merely Ecclesiastical. What a miserable cause is this that our Opposites defend, which deeply concerneth the Consciences of all that urge our Ceremonies, or allow of their urging, and yet cannot be fathered, but on one only place of Scripture, and that with an invisible and inexplicable consequence?

SECT. 17. Concerning the ancient Fathers allowing of Human Ceremonies.

1. OF these, the Repl. answered, it cannot be proved, nor is probable, that from the first beginning of the Primitive Church they brought in any new inventions. Upon this, the Rej. accusing not him alone, but others also, that they can believe no truth cross to their opinion, because they seek honor one of another, & praesume of their new traditions, as if the spirit of truth had come only to them, or from thē alone, answereth that it is a matter of fact, proved by Records of Churches, against which nothing can be said. But if he could keep-in his passion, so longe, as to hear this only word, that there are no sufficient Records of any such thing, exstant from the beginning, then he might see that sufficient answer is given, unto the name of all Fathers, always.

Yet I will add one conjecture, to show, that those observations which seem to have been universal, in the Primitive Church, were not so in deed, without exception. Praying toward the East, hath as ancient testimony, as any other human Rite. Tertullian Apol. cap. 16. witnesseth, that that was one cause why the Christians were esteemed to worship the Sun. And yet Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 22. doeth witness, that at Antioch which was the first Church of Christians by name, they used not to place their Mysteries which directed their posture of prayer, toward the East, but rather toward the West. And why may we not conceyve the like of Easter, as well as of this East observation?

2. It was secondly answered, that those, Feasts, which the Primitive Church is said to have observed, were not by Canonical imposition, but voluntary accommodation to the infirmity of some, as appeareth by the variety of their observation, and Socrates his testimony. Mark now, what a Rejoinder is given? 1. He telleth us of a strange conjecture of his, even from this answer▪ viz. that the Churches held, it not only lawful, but also convenient, to impose upon themselves such Feasts. As if occasional accommodation, were all one with imposition, or voluntary joining in action for the good that is in it, were always a certain argument of holding that opinion which others do affix unto it. But if they had thought them so cōveniēt, yet that Arg. would be of little force. For many Ceremonies were thought then convenient, which longe since are universally thought otherwise of, & therefore left off, though no reason of inconvenience can be shown, which did not agree to those times as well as to succeeding times, except further abuse: which cannot be denied of our Ceremonies in question, as religious use of milk, honey, & abstaining from washing ones hands for certain days after Baptism etc. 2. That which was mentioned of infirmity occasioning this accommodation, the Rej. (after his manner) crieth down as a fiction, boldly delivered, without proof, or color, merely for opposition sake : Whereas notwithstanding it is so clear, that the infirmity of men newly converted from Judaism, and Gentilism, did bring into Christian Churches customs like unto those in use among Jews and Gentiles, that Cardinal Baronius, from that ground mainteyneth many Ceremonies. What wonder if the grown customs among the Gentiles (and we may add the Jews also) were such as from which, though they were converted to Christianism, they were yet so hardly taken, that it might seem impossible to putt them quite off, what wonder I say then if the most holy Bishops have granted them place in the worship of God?

Doctor Jackson, in his Original of Idolatry sect. 4. chap. 23. showeth the first occasion of Superstition in Christians, to have been the infirmities, whereby it came to pass, that heathenish (and Jewish) Rites, whereto men had been longe accustomed, could not easily be extirpated. Where also about such accommodations, he hath this remarkable observation. To outstrip our adversaries in their own policies, or to use means abused by others to a better ende, is a resolution so plausible to worldly wisdom that even Christians have mightily overreached and entangled themselves, by too much seeking to circumvent or go beyond others.

About the Varietie which was of old in the observation of these feasts, the Rejoinder answereth, that it notwithstanding, the agreement for the things themselves was universal. Which if he would take with a grain of salt, viz. that after some space of time, it was (for ought we know) universal, but not upon any Ecclesiastical imposition, nor upon any known grounds out of God's word, it is the same that the Repl. affirmeth, and Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. laboreth to confirm.

3. Mention was further made of the mischief that came in by those human observations. To which the Rejoinder answereth, that the Anniversarie solemnities have not obscured, but praeserved that simplicity of the Gospel. And if they had so done, by accident Satan's malice, and man's frailty, that is nothing but what may be affirmed of Divine ordinances, But 1. the Def. his position was in general of universal Ceremonies by human institution, and not Feasts alone? Now those first Ceremonial observations are guilty of opening that gate, for all the human praesumtions to enter into God's house, which pressed in after them: which gate could never be shut from that day to this. 2. Those very Feasts made a composition or mixture of human institutions with divine, and therefore did not praeserve simplicity. They also were from their first rise not only aequalled unto, but also extolled above the Lord's day. Easter brought in a superstitions Lent to attend upon it, made Baptism wait for her Moon: and conformed our Lord's Supper unto the Jewish Passover in unleavened bread, etc. It was the first apple of contention among Christians, the first weapon, wherw •• h the Bishop of Rome played his prises against other Churches, & after slew so many Bri • tons with, by Austin the monk. Holy-days in honor of Christ invited unto them Saints holy Days etc. 4. It is praesumtion, to make men's inventions as guiltless of evil consequences, as God's holy ordinances. They are active efficacious occasions given of evil: these are only passive occasions taken.

Neither is there any corruption of God's ordinances, whose original occasion may not be found in men's (nay fathers) Ceremonious praesumtions.

4. It was finally answered by the Repl. that the always of these Feasts, cannot include the Apostolical times, and for other always, Bellarmine Cont. 1. l. 4. c. 9. hath the same plea, and the answer given unto him by our Divines, may serve here. The Rejoinder here 1. insinuateth that it is very likely, these Feasts, or some of them, were on foot while some Apostles lived: because Polycarp pretended John to have taught Easter.

On foot indeed was the mystery of Antichristian corruption in the Apostles times. But that which Polycarp is said to have pretended, was for the fourteen day of the month, and is confuted by a contrary praetense of the latin Churches, from Peter and Paul. Socrat. l. 5. cap. 22. He 2. addeth, under Augustine's name that it is insolent madness, to think that not to be well done, which hath been done by all the Church, though it began after the Apostles times. Now though I find no such saying of Augustine's, in the epistle quoted for it, but to the Contrarie, I find this rule, that it is lawful or not lawful to believe or not to believe other witnesses or testimonies besides that of the Scriptures) so far as you see they bear or do not bear weight to make us give more credit to a thing. Which being granted, the fact of the Church cannot so confirm, this or that to be right and well, as that it should be madness to deny it. Yet let it be his saying, I answer, if this be true then it must needs follow, that giving of the Communion (and that as is most likely sopped) upon opinion of necessity, cannot be denied well and good, for that (as is well known) was done generally in Augustine's time, and longe before. It must follow also, that they were special insolent mad men, that first began to disallow either that, or any other ancient thing of general observatiō: which Augustine would never have said, who professed of his time, that the Church of God set in the heap of chaff and tares, did only suffer many things, only ep. 119.

He 3. distinguisheth betwixt Bellarmine's, and the Defendants alleging of traditions, because Bell. spake of doctrines necessary to salvation. Which is not true for Bell. in that chapter maketh no mention of doctrines necessary to salvation: and in the next chapter but one cap. 11. he confesseth, that all things absolutely necessary to salvation, are written in the Scriptures, and (which is much more) all things that are either necessary, or profitable for all men to know.

SECT. 18.19. Concerning Protestants witnessing against the Negative argument from Scripture.

1. BEllarmine was brought in by the Def. as an indifferent Adversarie, confessinge that Protestants hold the Apostles to have instituted some things, pertaining to rites and order, which are not written. Which was also granted unto him, as making nothing against us. Only the vanity of that allegation was in some particulars declared, which how they are cleared (it being a matter of no moment) I refer to the Readers judgment.

2. Chemnitz was alleged, saying, there be some Ecclesiastical Rites, which have neither command, nor testimony, in Scripture, which yet are not to be rejected. Answer was made, that this in a right sense is granted by us. The Rejoinder taxeth this as an idle shift : because 1 Chemnitz did not intend such a restrictive sense. 2. Circumstances of Order have command and testimony in Scripture. But 1. It is no idle shift so to interpret an allegation objected, as that the interpretation cannot be confuted, but barely denied. 2. As Circumstances of order and decency have their general command or testimony in Scripture, so have those Rites which Chemnitz understandeth, or else his sentence is without any ground out of Scripture.

3. The same answer is given, and no other Rejoinder made, about Calvin, Danaus, Whitaker's and Zanchi, saving that of Zanchi, it is observed & urged by the Rejoined. that he saith some Ceremonies may help for the furtherance of piety which have no foundation in the word: giving instance of the solemnities of Easter, etc. Tract. de Sacra. Scriptura. For whom I answer, that his sentence must be understood of no particular foundation, or else he should give more then any Papist will require, concerning their human Ecclesiastical Ceremonies. As for his instances in the solemnities of Easter, it seemeth he reckoned them among Ceremonies of order and decency, because as the Def. and Rej. confess, that is the only place authorizing human institutions in Religion. If he meant otherwise, he did as a man, cross his own rules, as after (God willing) shall be shown.

For the present, let that testimony of Zanchi be well considered, which he setteth down in Col. 2.8. It is certain, that this consequence is very good: this or that is not according to Christ: therefore it is not to be admitted. This ought to be enough to any Christian man: It is not according to Christ: therefore I admit it not, in the buisinesse of attaining to salvation. Where is to be noted, 1. That according to Christ, is opposed (by the Apostle) to according to the traditions of men, and therefore is all one, with not appointed by Christ. 2, that all Ceremonies instituted to teache the doctrine pertaining to salvation, are part of the means whereby we are supposed to be helped & directed, in seeking and attaining salvation.

4. About Junius, there is more ado, because his words are set down at large on both pars. But as for that which the Def. and Rejoinder cite out of him, pag. 109. I cannot say much more then hath been answered to the other Divines, until a consequence be framed out of them, more effectual to the purpose, then is in that which the Rejoined. only quaestioneth. And doeth the rule 1. Cor. 14. concern nothing but circumstances of Order? Or can our opposites be accorded with this saying? For it hath been formerly manifested what that rule doeth require, and how it may be accorded with our tenent.

On the other part, this professed, sworn sentence of Junius is alleged: If any man, either by Civil, or Ecclesiastical authority, will add things not necessary, nor agreeable to Order, we would not pertinaciously contend with him, but desire only that he would seriously consider of three things. 1. By what authority, or example, he is led to think, that the holy Church of God, and the simplicity of the mysteries of Christ (whose voice only is heard by his sheep) must be clad with human traditions, which Christ doeth reject? 2. To what ende he judgeth, that thes things should be added unto those that are divine? For if the ende be conformity with others, it were more aequitie, that other Churches should conform to those, which come nearest to the Word of God (as Ciprians counsel is) then that these should conform to the other. If the ende be comeliness, what is more comely then the simplicity of Christ? What is more simple then that comeliness.

If there be no other reason beside will, then that of Tertullian is to be thought of: The will of God, is the chief necessity, and that the Church of God is not tied unto man's wisdom in things Divine. The third thing to be thought on is, what event always hath followed upon human traditions, as longe experience doeth show? Ecclesiastíci, lib. 3. Cap. 5. This testimony is so full, and clear, that it needeth no candle of Commentary, or Consequence, to be set by it. What can the Rejoinder answer?

1. His first is, that Junius doeth not here condemn our Ceremonies even because they are not commanded in the Word. But he might have remembered out of sect. 2. that the argument is of warrant and direction from the word, not of direct and special commanding. Now Junius plainly denieth authority or example of the word, or any thing but man's will, to be the ground of such Ceremonies, and for that cause would have them avoided.

2. His second is, that Junius wrote not this of such Ceremonies as ours: because he speaketh of those that are neither necessary, nor according to order, rejected by Christ, added to Divine things, which must needs import necessity and worship a • fixed unto them. But had it not been better counsel, for the Rejoinder to have held his peace, then to let every man see what miserable shifts he is driven to? 1. Junius having made this conclusion: that Magistrates may not constitute, and change persons, things, Ceremonies at their pleasure, and that those which teli them they may (as our Def. and Rejoinder do in part) are therein no well willers to the Church, propoundeth this question: if it be not in the Magistrates power, to appointe, or abrogate such things? to which he answereth negatively : because all necessaries, and essentials are appointed by Christ, and as for other not necessary things, above the sphere of order, he gives those reasons, which are in the words, largely cited. Now 1. what a wreched evasion is this, that he spake not of our Ceremonies ?

He spake of all not necessary not appointed by Christ: but yet he spake not of ours.

This is as some should deny that rule which some logicians call de omni & de nullo, to hold in Ceremonies: or affirm that to be false of English Ceremonies, which is true of all Ceremonies. 2. When our Divines speak against Popish Ceremonies, the Rejoinder his ordinary answer is, that they speak of Ceremonies held necessary, and therefore not of such as ours. Now when Junius expressly speaketh of Ceremonies not necessary, the Rejoinder concludeth, that he could not mean ours or such like. How should any man speak, to put such a Rejoinder from having something to speak? 3. Junius said, that those Ceremonies are unlawfully appointed, which are not convenient to, or required by Order: Ergo (saith the Rejoinder.) he could not speak of such as ours are. And yet the same Rejoinder manud. pag. 33. confesseth our Ceremonies to be double or treble Ceremonies and those of order, to be only single. Neither could he ever yet find any fit place, to show our Ceremonies agreeable to order.

Nay when the Repl. by this argument, out of 1. Cor. 14.40. proved these Ceremonies unlawful, the Rej. fled from Order, to Decency, and Edification.

And yet here in this place, being beaten out of those coverts by judicious Junius, he betaketh himself again to that halfmoon of order, which before he had quitted. 4. Junius saith, such Ceremonies are rejected by Christ : Therefore (saith the Rejoinder:) he cannot mean such as ours. As if he should say, those that affirm our Ceremonies are rejected by Christ, cannot mean our Ceremonies. 5. Junius speaketh of Ceremonies added to divine things : and so (by the Rejoinder his collection, not of such as ours, because that must needs import necessity, and worship affixed to them. And yet both Def. and Rej. cap. 2. sect. 3. can find out many additions to Divine things, which are intended only for praeservation of them, and the • fore (by their own judgment) must not needs import necessity, and worship. Suche turning, winding, and running against walls, you shall seldom see an ingenuous man use in a good cause.

5. Two things yet the Rejoinder noteth in the by : 1. Junius would not resist such things pertinaciously, as the Repl. doeth 2. Junius speaking against cladding God's ordinances with the garments of human Ceremonies, had another meaning, then the Def. p. 3. Rejoinder pag. 5. where he calleth such Ceremonies as ours, the garment of Religion : because by clothing Junius meant adorning and hiding of nakedness, but the Def. opposed garments to members of the body : and therefore the Repl. need not by his marginal note have applied Junius his clothing to the Def. his garment. Now for the first of these, there is difference betwixt pervicatious contending, without reason and measure, which Junius modesly putteth from him, and that constant restistance which he himself teacheth here in this place, where he affirmeth that Christ's sheep (even in such Ceremonial matter) will not nor ought to hear any voice but Christ's. For this, he foreseeing that it would be accounted pervicacie, disclaimeth that, and yet doeth thoroughlie resist. So would the Rep. if he may have leave: If not, I see not why he may not do the same thing, though he be censured for it, as Junius feared he should be.

And this I may truly say, I have heard the Repl. more then once profess, that whē, in studying of Divinity, he was something perplexed about Ceremonies and such like human institutions, by reason of some ambiguous, and ill consenting passages of some others, this one place of Junius (so solemnly confirmed with the oath of such a man, for his sincerity and unpartiallnesse in the buisinesse, and alleging such grave reasons for his judgment therein) did very much affect him, and first settle his mind for such matter. So that if he be deceyved, Junius hath deceyved him. But he hath now more cause then before, to esteem much of this place because, the utmost that the Rejoinder could say to it, is as good as just nothing.

As for the difference which the Rejoinder would find, betwixt that clothing of Religion, which Junius taxeth, and the garment of Religion, which the Defend mainteyneth, I cannot discern it.

For 1. If Junius meant adorning, as the Rejoinder saith he did, that is one office of a garment, and such a one as the Rejoinder ascribeth to Ceremonies in respect of Religion, pag. 95. where is said that they are comely formalities, suitable to the dignity and variety of divine actions. 2. If Junius meant hiding of nakedness of Religion, he meant it only in the esteem of those which impose such Ceremonies. And so all they that add their Ceremonies to Religion, as useful garments, do seem to account it (in comparison) naked without them. 3. If the Def. meant to show, that our Ceremonies are not essential limbs of the body of Religion, so did Junius mean to show, that those which add their Ceremonies to God's ordinances, do pretend, they add only clothing, not members, to the body of Religion. Neither is this snaching at words, as the Rejoinder termeth it. For it is, and hath been an ordinary commondation of Ceremonies, that they are as a garment to Religion. Whence it was that a Scottishman (as I remember) at the first coming of King James into England, hearing them maintained under that name, answered that he wondered then how Religion did live, and thrive, in the cold country of Scotland; without such linsiewoolsy garments?

6. Unto this full testimony of Junius, the Repl. added the words of Zanchi, ano • her witness of the Defend. His words in his epistle to Q. Elizabeth, are these: the Church must be ordered by the rule of the Apostolcall Church, as well in Ceremonies, as in doctrine. The Rejoinder answereth 1. that this is no more contrary to the Def. then to Zanchi himself, acknowleging (elsewhere) some Ceremonies lawful, which have neither command nor testimony of Scripture, which he would never say of doctrinals. Now 1. If it be also against Zanchi himself, yet it disableth his testimony, for the Def. 2. This which is alleged out of him, for Ceremonies without testimony or foundation in Scripture, hath been answered before, that it must needs be understood of particular foundation. And so he might well say the same of doctrinalls. For in this there is no difference betwixt Ceremonies, and many other things, which are not Ceremonies, and yet appertain to Conscience. As the Apostle said: let all things be done comely and in order, so said he also: whatsoever things are venerable, or honest, just, of good report, and praise, let them be done.

All the particulars of these latter, are not Ceremonial: and yet many hundreds of such things have no more command, or testimony in Scripture, then the particulars of order and Decency: Neither have the generals of order and Decency, less command and testimony in Scripture then the general of these.

His 2. answer that Zanchius comparison is to be understood of similitude, not of aequalitie, is in the former words answered.

For no disparity can be shown, betwixt many particulars of Doctrinal pointes, in their cases of practice, considered with all circumstances, and the particulars of Decency and Order: much less betwixt their generals. As for example it is as difficult for D. B. to fetch from any doctrine in Scripture, this particular: It is venerable, just, and of good report, for him to write su • he a Rejoinder as he hath done, as this particular: the Cross in Baptism is orderly, decent, and to edification. I take both to be impossible. But suppose both to be probable, the former (being no Ceremony) is no more determined in Scripture, then the later.

There hath been a fashiō taken up of speaking otherwise, but no reason can be rendered of it. Let any man show the reason, and I will yield.

The epistle out of which this quotation is, was written in deed against our Ceremonies, yet the Repl. leaving to a fitter place, noted only for the present purpose, that it was written of them. But the Rejoined. being great with an observation or two, addeth about that: Moreover Zanchi when he wrote to Q Eliz. to persuade her not to urge the Ceremonies so severly, did write at the same time to B. Jewel, that Ministers should rather yield to them, then leave their places: because they are not simply unlawful.

To which I answer 1. Zanchi writ to Q. Eliz not only that the Ceremonies should not be so severe • y urged, but also that they ought not to be urged, imposed, or allowed of at all, but abolished. And of this his judgment, he gave such effectual reasons, as can never be answered. Amonge other, one is proper unto this place, and fit here to be remembered, because it overthroweth all that warrant which the Def. and Rejoinder have hitherto, or can hereafter plead for them, out of 1. Cor. 14. Order, Decency, Edification. These Ceremonies saith he make not for edification, but for public dissention, private perturbation of conscience, with scandal of good and bad. They make not for order, but disorder, and confusion of good Ministers with evil or Popish, who ought even in garments to differ. They make not for decency of Christ's Spouse: because they are a strange ridiculous, idolatrous attire of this Romish whore.

2. Zanchi when he writ unto B. Jewel, gave no reason of this counsel for yielding, but left them to be invented by B. Jewel. Now because those reasons of yielding were never yet made known, whereby the former reasons directed by Zanchi against urging can possibly be overborne, I cannot otherwise think, but this later counsel was more out of charity guided by human erring prudence, then out of judgment grounded on Scripture. Howsoever our question is, not only of yielding in case of extreme necessity, but also of appointing and urging men to that extreme necessity.

3. Zanchi doeth not persuade to allow of these Ceremonies by subscription, or silence, but only in extreme necessity, to yield unto them, and that with Protestation. Now this was according to a kind of charitable Pollicie, which Luther is author of about all Popish Ceremonies: de Libertate Christiana, in these words: Although we must manfully resist those Masters of traditions, and the laws of the Popes wherewith they overrun the people of God are tartly to be dispraised, yet the timorous multitude (whom those wicked Tyrants lead captive with the same laws) must stoop till they be pl • inely laid open. You may inveigh against the laws and law makers, but withal you may observe them with the weak, until both they do know the Tyranny and come to understand their liberty.

But 1. what warrant have we for such a course but of God's word? 2. M ^r. Hooker, pag. 247. derideth this course, as a Theorie neither allowable, nor any way practicable in England.

3. Our opposites, that defend, and commend the Ceremonies, as orderly decent things, tending to Edification, cannot without contradiction assent unto this counsel. D. B. in deed did formerly begin after some manner, to put some piece of this course in practice. But the ill success that he found in it, hath since made him, & others, keep far from that part of it, which concerns Protestation, and instead thereof, to turn them unto Commendation. Did ever any that writ for our Ceremonies, write such an Epistle as Zanchius, unto Queen, or Kinge? Can they say so much, and do as they do? Nay is there any Bishop, that dare license Zanchi his Epistles, to Queen Eliz and B. Jewel, both together, for to be printed in English?

These things being so, I leave it unto consideration, unto whom the Rejoinder his affected censure belongeth: Now well-sare a good stomach: He cannot resist, but he will not yield.

SECT. 20.21. Concerning Reasons against the Negative Argument from Scripture.

1. THe Def. his first reason is: Whatsoever is unlawful is a transgression of some law revealed in the word. Ergo against it. Ergo not only beside it. The Repl. granteth all: and showeth, that it is a mere fantasie, before confuted, as a cavil, in the Reply, and longe since, by M ^r. Cartwrights, 2. Rep. p. 56. not agreeable to the very words of the Argument, to which it is opposed. Upon this the Rejoined. poureth out words He turneth head: O strange! a Babe owned from the birth, suckled by many Scriptures, an ill favored faced brat, absurd, contradictory, when he is taken in a snare, he sa • th he is mistaken. And what reason hath he to back or bear out all these words with? If the Scriptures (saith he) condemn whatsoever is done not only against, but beside t • e direction thereof, then doeth it condemn something as unlawful for being only beside it, and not any way against it. To which I answer, that it doeth not follow: because a thing may be only beside the word some way, and yet some way against it. Only beside the particular praescript of it, and yet against the general command of it.

If a Father charge his son, or a Master his servant, first that for a certain time, he do nothing beside that which he shall bid him: and then command him for that time, to read in a certain book, if that son, or servant, shall beside reading paint antick f • ces in his book, he shall do only beside the particular command, and yet against the general charge, & both ways censurable. Let the Rejoinder therefore spare his words, and see better to his Argument, or rather eat both, that others be not troubled with them.

2. The second reason, brought by the Def. was: Nothing that is indifferent, can be pronounced simply unlawful. But some Ceremonies of man's invention are indifferent. Ergo, not to be pronounced simply unlawful. All which is granted of circumstances of Order, if by invention, be meant determination; otherwise, the Assumption is denied. Though it was added also ( exsuperabundante) that things indifferent are sometime taken so generally, that in that sense, the proposition may be denied. Against this, I cannot discern what material thing is Rejoyned. He saith, that it is easy to say the Assumption is false, and not to show wherein. But I have hitherto thought that it is sufficient for answer to any Argument, to deny the Assumption, until it be proved: and that the falsity of any sentence, doeth consist in this, that it pronounceth otherwise then the thing is, and therefore in saying an assumption is false, it is not needful, to show wherein.

He saith also that the largest sense of things indifferent, doeth make no variation of things indifferent. But the Author, and place, was named to him: Sopingius in his Apology ad lib. Anonym. pag. 166. Where the case is very pertinent. For Doctor Sibrandus was challenged by a Remonstrant, who entitled his book, Bona fides Sitrandi, that as in an Epistle Dedicatorie to the Arche-Bishop of Canterbury, he had, to win his favor the more against Vorstius, and his, declared his judgment of the Hierarchy (and Ceremonies) of England, to be things indifferent, so he spake of the Magistrates power, under the same term unfitly, Sopingius, a godly learned man, who had bē a Scholar under Sibrandus, and so desired to help him out of this brier, had no other way to do it, but by saying that all those things are sometime called indifferent, which are not necessary to salvation, or without which a man may be saved.

Now in this sense, the Repl. said, the proposition might be denied: viz. that nothing indifferent 1. e. not necessary to salvation, is unlawful. The Rejoinder • it seemeth) had not the book, and so ventured to contradict he knew not what.

3. The third argument was: There must needs always be variety of Ceremonies in several Churches. Ergo all are not prescribed.

The Repl. answereth, that there neither need, nor ought to be any variety, but only in particular circumstances of order, for time and place etc. Here the Rej. (complaing of Coleworts, and of not caring to say any thing, so it be in opposition ) bringeth in to the contrary some examples of civil decency, variable according to times and places. But all such things the Repl. contained in his etc. He addeth also variety of solemn feasts But before those can have place here, it must be proved, that such feasts must needs be. But (saith he) never any Divine so spake before M ^r. Jacob. And hath he soon forgotten, what was even now recited by himself out of Junius ? Suche kind of Rejoynders will never be wanting.

4. The Def. his fourth reason was, that the Nonconformists like well, that every Minister in his Parish, should determine of Rites and Orders: whence would follow variety. Ergo they hold some rites of human invention and ordination, lawful.

To this the Rejoinder addeth, as an explication in text, and table, that Non-Conformists set up Parish-omnipotence without referen • e to Bishops, as some teache, or to Synods, as other. Whereby a Minister, and some of his Parishioners, may ordain some Rites and Ceremonies for their use, and the King, and Church under his authority may not. Now before we come to the Repl. his answers unto the Def. his reason, let us consider a little the Rejoinder his addition. 1. The malignant imputation of Parish omnipotency, ill beseemeth our Opposites, except that they can show, more power to be given by us unto Ministers and Elders, in their several Congregations, then by them is given to Bishops, For until they can show this (which they are as able to do, as to call effectually that which is not, as if it were) in accusing us, of setting up Parish omnipotency, they confess themselves, to set up Diocesan omnipotency, Convocation-omnipotency, etc.

2. It worse beseemeth D. B. then most other, except he will confess, that he, when he was Minister at the Hagh, in Holland, and with the consent of his people, ordered things in that Congregation (as to receive the Communion sitting at the table, to leave out the Cross in Baptism, and Surplice in all Divine service) did then and there set up Parish-omnipotency. 3. It is an injury, more then ordinary, to make us (any way) extol the authori • ie of a Minister, above the authority of the Kinge, in any matter of appointing and ordaining. For though a Minister may do something in his administration, which no other man can lawfully do, yet none of us ever thought, that he may appoint and ordain anything to be done, with coactive authority, which the King may do, in all things lawful, and convenient; even in Church affairs. So that our tenent is, that the Minister, and his people, may use no Ceremony, nor exercise any public act of worship, which the King may not appoint, command, and compel them to. For in holding that no such thing is to be done, beside that which Christ hath appointed, and that the Kinge may, and ought to see that all Christ's institutions be observed, we must needs be confessed to hold that assertion, which is the conclusion of these two. 4. The fallacious ground of this accusation is, that the Minister with his people, may occasionally order some things, which no man absent can, not for want of authority, but for want of presence to observe the occasion: as what time the Church meeting shall begin, upon that day, that the Communion is to be administered, together with Baptism, and other buisines, more then ordinary. 5. That which he intermixeth, of reference to Bishops, bringeth all the Churches of France, Netherlands, etc. under his Censoriall note, of Parish-omnipotency.

Thus much for the Rejoinder apart. Now to the Def. 1. His Argument is rejected, as supposing, all Circumstances to be of like nature with these in controversy. No (saith the Rejoinder) but only that one would like one thing, and one another. But I say yes, or else he cannot argue from one to the other. For what consequence is in this: Men may determine of simple circumstances for order and decency: Ergo they may ordain double, treble, sacred, significant Ceremonies proper to Religion? beside he nameth in his supposition Festival days.

2. The second fault, found in the Def. his argument was, it supposeth all circumstances to be of institution. No, saith the Rejoinder again. Let him therefore put ordaining out of the Sum which he hath made of the Def. his reason, and confess also, that this reason maketh nothing for men's instituting of Ceremonies.

3. The third was, it supposeth contrary circumstanc • s, ceremoniously to be practiced, by the same men as of institution. Not so (saith the Rejoinder:) but only cantrarie fashions practiced by several men, out of their election. Yet it seemeth to be for the most part so: because the question is of Ceremonies, and Ceremonious practicing, not of incidentall fashions. Of institution, which the Def. calleth ordaining, not of voluntary occasional election. If by variety of observing Festival days, and not observing them, was by the Def. understood of several men, then in that part he was misunderstood by the Repl. Now upon these premisses, the Rejoinder concludeth all the Repl. his answer to be nothing but bogling and scurrility. What would he have said, if one had accused him of setting up Diocesan, and Convocation omnipotency.

It seemeth that (though he aboundeth in that faculty) he would have wanted reproachefull words, to express his indignation of such an imputation.

5. In opposition to this misshapen Argument of the Def. taken from Non-conformists confession, the Rep. propounded one, from the Conformists confession: You say these Ceremonies are Divine, and yet dare not deny, but the rejecting of them in other Churches, is Divine.

You retain these Ceremonies as Divine, and yet reject other Ceremonies, of like nature, as divine as these. What divinity (or agreement) is in such courses? To this, the Rejoinder answereth, that this argueth an ill conscience: because the Def. doeth not say that these our Ceremonies are Divine, but that in respect of permis • ive appointment, and in these, they are divine, in particul • r, and hypothesi, human. And this may be said of the different Ceremonies of several Churches. For ill Conscience, I will not be so liberal in charging the Rejoinder as he is prodigal of it toward the Repl. But ill science I can easily prove. For 1. He denieth the Def. to call our Ceremonies Divine: because (forsooth) he calleth them so in the general, and not in their special : for so the Def. doeth interpret his own terms.

Which is as much as to say, he that doeth not call them every way Divine, doeth not call them Divine. 2. He passeth by the main terms of our Argument Divine rejecting of the same Ceremonies in other Churches, Rejecting of other Ceremomonies, as Divine as these in our Church ; and for these he putteth only, different divine Ceremon. in several Churches. This sure is no scientificall kind of answer. 3. No Divinity will suffer anything to be called Divine, but that which (all circumstances considered) may at least necessarily be concluded out of the Divine law. Otherwise all good human laws may be called Divine laws. Now we have hitherto expected in vain, when our Ceremonies may be so concluded.

It is altogether impossible, that the institution, and Rejection, of Cross, and Surplice, in divers places, should be both Divine, or that the urging of these, and abolishing of Images, should be Divine, in the same place, and time. This part therefore of the Argument, the Rejoinder thought good, to answer with silence.

SECT. 22. Concerning the Assumption, of the main Argument, handled in this Chapter.

1. THe Repl. set down the Def. his plea, with a general answer thus: After all this ado about the Proposition of the first Argument, Now we are told of an Assumtiō, out of the Abridgement, and Mr. Hy: viz: that Ceremonies have no warrant out of the word of God being human inventions, For Mr. Hy: I cannot say much (because his reasons are not in printe) but for • he Authors of the Abridgement, they have great wrong done them. Whosoever will turn to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abridgement, shall see, that the words which our Def. hath turned into a Proposition, are there but part of an illustration, belonging to this proposition: All Ceremonies that swerve from the Rules given in the Word, for the Churches direction, in matters of Ceremonies, are unlawful. The Assumption of which is: But the Ceremonies in question, do swerve from those Rules. Now all this chief 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 fathered upon the Abridgement. What hath the Rejoinder to say against all this? 1. This demurrer should have come in at the first. But first, or last, if it be true which here said, the Def. cannot be defended.

2. The Repl. granted the whole Argument, sect. 2. In saying (forsooth) that he took for granted, whatsoever was there said for the all-sufficiency of Scripture.

3. This of itself, is an Argument against our Ceremonies. What then? the Authors of the Abridgement, may yet have wrong, if it be made theirs, against their will. 4 It is fit to be the first Argument, because if this be granted, all other rules are vain. The question is nothere of fitness for place, but of fitting it to the Abridgement. Yet this whole Argument being granted (according to our meaning) of those that the Rejoinder calleth double triple Ceremonies, the Rules have use about single ones. 5. The Proposition is taken out of the Abridgement, pag. 44. and the Assumption is fitted to it, Let it be so, yet if that be made a proposition of theirs, which only was an illustration, or confirmation of their proposition, and (a new assumption fitted unto it according to an adversaries pleasure) the whole argument fathered upon them, as a first and chief one, this surely cannot be excused from wrong doing.

2. To the Def. his answer unto the Assumption, viz. that in general and permissive appointment, our Ceremonies are (not human but) Divine, the Repl. said that he understood not a permissive apointment, to be other then an appointment without appointment: because to permit, is neither to command or appointe, nor forbid.

Here the Rejoinder among many shrewed words, hath this reason that the same things are commanded, in general, but in particular are only permitted, And for ignorance of this, he twi • teth the Repl. with want of logic. But I cannot yet see, out of any logic how a general can be commanded, generally, and any true special or particular of it be only permitted. He that commandeth all order and comeliness, commandeth also every special of it. Every general command, applied unto his true special subject, maketh that specially commanded.

It is commanded in general that every husband should love his wife, not in special, that Aquila should love Priscilla: yet suppose Priscilla to be Aquila his wife, she may challenge conjugal love, all so well as if hername had been in that Command in special. Else we may as well say, that superstition, will-worship, or at least disorder, to which order is opposed, is forbidden in general, but some specialls of them or it, are only permitted. The truth is, Cross and Surplice, cannot with any show of reason, or common sense, be said to be commanded in general, anymore then in special, no nor yet permitted, either in special or in general. The Rejoinder hath yet found no fit place, to prove the command though it mainly concerneth his cause, and of itself alone might satisfy any man's conscience, if it could be proved, and the permission is the main question of this whole Dispute.

SECT. 1. Concerning worship, distinguished into proper, or essential, and unproper, or accidental.

1. THe Def. saith, that by proper and essential worship, he understood Ceremonies so necessarily required to God's service, as that the contrary thereof must needs displease him.

Hereupon the Repl. inferred, that all Ceremonies, which serve for decency, and edification, must needs be proper and essential worship: because the contrary of decency and edification must needs displease God, in his worship.

Mark now the Rejoinder his answer: The contrary of decency and edification displeaseth God. But the contrariety of particular Rites, serving to decency and edification, do not displease him: because they fall into one and the same general kind, without contrariety thereto, or therein. As fire & water are not contrary to an element, nor black and white, to color, nor reasonable, and unreasonable, to a creature: so contrary orders, contrary formalities of decency, and contrary means of edification, are not contrary to order, decency and edification. All this answer dependeth upon a distinction betwixt general, and special.

Now 1. This is a certain, infallible rule: what essence soever is found in any general, that must needs be in every special, contained under it. Ther is no essence in an element generally taken, which is not both in the fire, and water, none in color so taken, but is both in black and white, none in the notion of a creature, which is not in man and beast. From hence therefore it necessarily followeth, that if Order and decency in general, be essential worship, every true special of them must needs be so.

2. It is not of, or for nothing, that the Rejoinder doeth so waver in his speech: contrary Ceremonies serving to comeliness, and edification, contrariety of orders, contrariety of formalities of comelínesse, and means of edification. For this means, all his answer is at least put out of comely order serving to edification. For that which serveth to comeliness, and order, all formalities of them, and all means are not specialls, under the genus or general of decency, order, edification, but under the general of means, formalities, etc. So that the whole distinction is confounded, by this wordy explication of it. 3. Contrarietie of orders he confesseth, and yet denieth them to be contrary to Order: As if order contrary to order, were not contrary to order! He will say no, not to order in general. But then that order in special, must have some specifical difference, not contained in the general of order, making the contrariety: which should (if it could) have been declared. By the same proportion, also as he acknowledgeth contrary orders, he must also acknowledge contrary decencies, and edifications : and this hath need of declaraiion, because it is a new inventiō▪ not to be trusted, before it be tried. 4. By order, in this place, must needs be meant good order, otherwise, it were as well order, to set the carte before the horse, as the horse before the carte. Now in good order, the things ordered may be someway contrary, as black and white horse set before the carte, and yet the order one and the same: and so in decency. Edification is only an ende. But good order, and decency of the same things, in their particular or inviduall use, can be no more contrary to any good order, & decency of the same things in the same use, thē blackto black & white to white. 5. The plain truth is, that order and Decency (as they pertain to our question) do arise out of the outward disposition and temper of things, as health doeth out of the inward disposition and temper of the body, and therefore doeth admit no more contrariety, then good health doeth.

2. Because the Def. in his distinction, placed Edification only on the part of Accidental worship, that was noted as a flaw. To which the Rejoinder answereth, that essential parts of worship serve also to edification, and worship of themselves. But 1. this can be no more gathered out of the Def. his words, then that all essential worship serveth for decency : for he placeth these two together, as ends of accidental parts of worship, that they serve for decorum, and edification. 2. This is but to help a broken leg, with a broken crutche. For essētiall worship tending to worship of itself, is as broken a phrase, as the former was a distinction.

3. It was noted also, that the Def. confounded appurtenances, and parts of worship. The Rejoinder answereth, that those things which are appurtenances only in proper, simple, and strict sense, are partes of worship improperly, and in a sort. So in deed at the University, among Sophisters improprie, lax, modo quodam, quodammodo, are wont to help at a dead lift. But that which is only an appurtenance of worship, is no more worship, then a Bishops Rochet, is a Bishop.

4. About the same distinction, a question was made how any worship can be not essential, that is, not having the essence of worship in it. The Rejoinder answereth, that these appurtenances have in them the essence of accidental worship, but not the essence of substantial. So then, they are essential accidental worship: and why not as well substantial a • cidentall ? A Rochet hath no more in it the essence, then the substance, of an accidental Bishop.

5. The Repl. his last, was, that those which the Def. calleth accidental parts of worship, have not (by his own express confession, in this sect.) so much communion with the essential, as the hair of the body (which is but an excrement) hath with the body, and therefore cannot be accounted a part of worship. The Rej. here. 1. answereth, that they are in deed no part of essential worship, but of the complement of worship, as garments are of men's external honor. So that now we are come to have that expressed, which before was implied, the Ceremonies may be called worship, as a Bishops Rochet, or other Bishoply garment may be called a Bishop. Though it might be also further inquired, if Ceremonies be parts of the complement, what the other parts of that complement may be? Certes he that divided worship into essential and accidental parts, did not mean worship, and the complements of worship, much less, parts of essential worship, and parts of complement. If he did, his speech, and meaning, do not well agree together. 2. He taketh great exception against the term of excrement, as not well appliable to the hair of ones beard, savouring of a spirit full of rancor, to be judged of God as a reproach, tending to breed scorn and abhorring of these Ceremonies, in the minds of ignorant mē. At all which a mā might have laughed, if God's name had bē spared, in so frivolous a matter. All Philosophers, that ever I I heard, or read, heathen, and Christian, call and define the hair of men's bodies, an excrement. All Divines, when they speak of hypocrites in the Church, compare thē to the hair of a man's body, under the term of excrement. I therefore would not be loath to hear one call the hair of my beard, an excrement. Neither can I smell any savor of a rancourous spirit, or any reproach, in that phrase. As for breeding of scorn in the minds of ignorant men, one would think, it should not be objected by him, that a little before spake of Parish-omnipotency, and stuffeth his book with such terms, as I am loath (for his sake) to repeat, but that they cannot be more gently refuted, then by bare repeting, after the occasion of them is discussed.

SECT. 2. Concerning adding to God's worship.

IN the second section, the Rejoinder hath nothing materially, to be newly, or now first confuted, save only that about adding to God's word, and worship: which only therefore, needeth here to be discussed.

1. God's laws of Praemunire, against all human presumtions, in his Worship, are famously known. Deut. 4. and 12. Thou shalt not add anything thereto. No man ever writ one sheet of paper against Popish Ceremonies, which did not confute them by these places. The Papists have marked this: Haeretiti accusantes Ceremonias a Deo non institutas, superstitionis, & idolatriae, fundantur praecipue in Deut. 12. Swarez de Relig. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap : 1. The Def. and the Rejoinder their answer, is the same, that most Papists use: In these places, where addition is forbidden, is meant only addition of corruption, not any addition of preservation and additions made divine, not human. Now 1. for the first part of the first distinction, God forbiddeth only an addition of corruption, It is worth the considering, which learned Chamier answereth, The bringing in of a Contrarie precept is neither used for, nor can be called Addition, for in Addition both remain, but contraries destroy each other. He that setteth a house on fire, or poisoneth a man, or corrupteth anything, is not usuallly said to add unto them. 2. By the second distinction, no addition unto God's will and testament, is more forbidden, then unto man's. As it were a sin to add anything unto God's Testament as divine, so also were it to add anything unto man's testament, or testimony, and make it his, when it is not his. None may add anything to D. M. his Defense, or D. B. his Rejoinder, and make it theirs, when it is not theirs. Suche additions, are usually called lies, sufficiently forbidden by the ninth Commandemenr: so that no indifferent man will think, that nothing more is contained in these prohibitions, so often and earnestly urged, in strict reference unto the holy ordinances, and worship of God, which by this interpretation, can challenge no privilege from them.

2. For the second part of these distinctions: human additions of praeservation, the Repl. observed, that addition was, in the text, expressly forbidden, as a means of keeping or praeserving God's word, and worship: Deut. 4.2. To which it seemeth a contradiction, that addition may be for Keeping, or praeserving. To which the Rejoinder answereth nothing else, but that, therefore addition hindering is forbidden, but not addition keeping. That is, he denieth the conclusion, but answereth not to the proof. But he addeth an example: He that leaves a jewel to be safely kept, doeth not forbid the provision of a Cabinet, with lock, and key, to keep it in. True: Neither doeth any man dream, but the Kings authority, and Churches care, may, and ought to be as a Cabinet with lock, and key, to praeserve God's ordinances and worship. But what is this to additions? and to such additions, as our Ceremonies in question? The Lord's ordinance is, that the Sacrament of Circumcision should cease. For the preservation of this ordinance, the Def. and Rejoinder pag. 285. provide a lawful Cabinet, under lock and key, that Circumcision as it is used in some places, may be lawfully appointed, and commanded. The Lord's ordinance is, that Baptism should be administered according to the primitive institution, without such sacrilegious crossings, as are in use among Papists. They have provided a Cabinet, under lock and key, for this, that all which are baptized, shall be crossed. The Lord's will is, that his holy supper should be received, and used as a supper, notadored.

They have provided, that all men shall kneel in the receyving of it, for a Cabinet, like to the former.

3. Cardinal Cajetans interpretation, was (by the Repl.) alleged addition is forbidden even with the pr • etext of keeping the commandments of God, as more judicious, and religious. The Rej. answereth, that Cajetan doeth allow the distinction, of additions, into corruptive, and praeservative, in Thom. p. 3. q. 6. a 8. and that in the alleged words, meaneth additions corrupting, though pretended for keeping. Now this is as true an interpretation of Cajetans meaning, and ours also, as can be invented: only that is wanting, whichCajetan (with us) intended, that all additions for preservation, are but pretenses. But as for Cajetan his allowing this questioned distinction in 3. q. 60. (for 6. was an error) whosoever will look upon the places, shall find, that neither in Thomas, not in Cajetan, is any mention of addition preserving, which here is the only question. They speak in deed of adding words, to the form used in Baptism, and note, some words do corrupt the sense, and some do not: but not a word of adding Ceremonies preservative. The wordy additions, which they speak of, are as Thomas hath it, I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, (and the Virgin Marie: ) or as Cajetan hath it: I baptize thee ( Sexton what is a clock) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If these be additions of preservation let any Christian, that regardeth Baptism, judge.

4. It was wished, that the Def. had set down some examples, of preservative additions. The Rejoinder undertaking it for him, nameth for the Text diverse readings, marginal notes, etc. and for the sense, interlineary glosses, notes, marginal references, and commentaries, and then, readings by sections, building and ordering of Synagogues, and a thousand such. And in deed he might as well name diverse thousands, as these. But 1. if so many thousand Ceremonies may be added lawfully to God's law, what meant Augustine, and all our Divines, out of him, to complain of such an intolerable burden of Ceremonies, in regard of their number? 2. Diverse readings, are no more additions, then Coningstable and Constable, are to the Statute of Constables. Marginall notes, no more, then an exposition is to the text, which kind of addition, the Papists do wickedly allege for their doctrinal traditions. Interlinearie glosses, notes marginal references Commentaries of the same nature. Reading by sections, building, and ordering, are evidently things of mere order, of which, if any man shall say they are additions, then if he be a poor man, he may make great addition to the little money he hath, by dividing it into sections, placing it fitly, and disposing of it orderly a hundred ways, to the increase (as it were) of a hundred fold: which would be a welcome doctrine (if it were true) to many a poor man, and even to those which are impoverished by the Bishops silencings, deprivations, and excommunications, for not allowing of additions to God's worship.

5. It was also justly questioned, if there were not a deminution, or taking from, for preservation, as well as an addition of that kind: because in the Text they are joined together, as drawing in one yoke? The Rejoinder answereth no. And denieth the consequence, by example of hardening, and showing mercy, joined together, without the same mertiorious cause. But 1. the example doeth not agree: because the question was not of a meritorious cause, but of a final. And in the chief or last ende, hardening, & showing mercy do agree. 2. I can easily, find out a detraction, as of good praeservation, as the addition of a Cabinet with lock and key.

For from a sword, or any other iron weapon, a man may well detract rust, for the preservation of it, From an aguish man, blood may be detracted, for the preservation of his life, nay sometime a leg, or an arm, may be cut off, for praeservation of the body. So that, all things considered, the Rejoinder will upon second thoughts, either cashier in God's worship, his addition of preservation, or else add unto it, a detraction or deminution of preservation. Calvin in his nineteenth sermon upon Deutrinomie, hath this remarkable sentence.

Let us assure ourselves, we shall ever be unruly and wild-headed, until our Lord hath tamed us, by long handling, and made us stick to this ground, that it is no more lawful for us, in any wise, to add any thing to his law, then it is lawful for us, to take any thing from it.

6. It was likewise observed, that this praetence hath been always the shoeing-horn, to draw on superstition with. For (as Calvin noteth on Matt. 15 ) Legislatoris ipsi non jactabant, se novum quicquam tradere, sed tantum add • re cavendi formulas, quae media ossent adminicula, ad servandam Dei legem. The old Masters of Ceremonies pretended always, that they meant only to bring-in additions of preservation. Like enough (saith the Rejoinder:) But this very inlet of superstitious things, under the praetence of bringing in only preservative means, doeth witness that such additions as are preservative, were always allowed by God's people, as confirmation of error by Scripture, doeth show the dignity of holy Scripture. This is in deed as fair a praetence, for an inlet of superstition, as can be made. But withal it is manifest from thence, that is is no sufficient, but a very suspicious answer, for Ceremonies, accused of superstition, to say, and not to prove, that they are preservations. Yet these Ceremony-mongers had all their pretense properly from means of preservation, which are and were always allowed by God, and his people, not from additions.

Our Parliament statutes made for establishing of true religion, are a means of praeserving it in England: but I think that Hon. Assemblie would take it ill, if the Rej. should publish to the world, that their Laws are additions to the word, and worship of God.

The Rejoinder addeth, that Calvin in the place alleged, doeth account these praetented additions to have been corruptions, from the first. Now (though this is not here, but in another place, after to be handled) let the Reader guess of Calvin's account, by these his words: Afterward there came teachers who did not think themselves should be esteemed acute enough unless they did patch something of their own to the word of God. Yet no addition to that word is tolerable. Those secondary laws are devised of curious men, as if the single and simple command of God were not enough. To invent new washinges was an idle vanity. Had they rested in the law of God their mod • sty wou • d have ben more pleasing to him, then their Scrupulous anxiety in doing otherwise.

If this be not enough, to show Calvin's judgment, of Ceremonious additions, let that be added, which he saith to Cassander, and therefore to the Def. and Rejoinder teaching the very same doctrine of Ceremonies, that Cassander did. Opusc. pag. 355. He taught that the Ceremonies ordained by Christ are to be kept entirely, and incorruptly: and nothin • must be added to their institution as if they were lame or imperfect, which indeed is some • what, but it is not all, because by an indirect shift he would lett into the church all other rites. But this half truth is overturned, when he believes a right given to the Apos • les and their Successors, to institute such ceremonies in the administration of the Sacraments which may be for ornament. Therefore he which confessed before nothing should be added, doeth now not only admit such by-Ceremonies, but also commands them. Yet will he help himself with a subtle shift, viz. additions are to be endured, if the Sacraments be not held lame or imperfect, therefore with what mixtures you will, the Sacraments may be wholly changed, and yet all be well, so be you charge not Christ to his teeth, that any of his institutions go lame, and halting etc.

7, It was lastly added, that this answer of the Def. was Bellarmine's answer to Calvin, about this very point and place: de effect Sacr. lib, 2. Cap. 32. Prohibit Dominus additionem corrumpentem, as the Def. translateth it, an addition of corruption is forbidden. Which was the rather added, because the Def. had so vainly objected unto the authors of the Abridgement, symbolizing with Bell •• mine. It might otherwise have been added, th • t it is not only Bellamines answer, but also Gregory's de Valentia, tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 11. p. 1. et tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 2. p. 7. Swarezes, de Relig. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap. 1. Baroninses; ad an 53. pag. 459. and that it is the common answer of Papists, in defense of their Ceremonies against this place, urged upon them by our Divines. Yet some few spying the vanity of this answer, as being ashamed of it, have found out another, of like stamp: For Cornelius a Lapide, in his Commentary on Deut. 12.32. so expoundeth the words of this prohibition: In rebus & Ceremonijs Dei, fac tantum illud, quod Deus, vel per se, vel per Vicarios suos, puta sacerdotes praeceperit. Which agreeth well with that of the Def. and Rejoinder. Use • hose Ceremonies only, which God, either by himself, or by the Convocation house doeth command. And some more ancient, and therefore less praejudiced Papists, confess, this law did forbid all human Ceremonies to the Jews. So Tostatus, Defensorij par. 2. cap. 8. as also in Deut. 12. q. 12. that consequencie is found among the Hebrews about the observation of Ceremonials. Something is not found written in the law, therefore the Jews are not bound to keep that. Yea which is more, it was not lawful for the Jews to observe any Ceremony about the service of God, unless that were written in the law as appears Deut 12.

The Rejoinder hath many words, wherewith he raiseth up a great dust, to darken the cause with all. But no man can discern any direct answer of his to the allegation, save only his confession, that the Def. his answer, was Bellarmine's answer to Calvin, about th • s very place. All that he addeth to that confession, hath been before confuted. It shall be sufficient in this place, to set down Calvin's resolute conclusion, out of Sermon 85. in Deut. It is devilish blasphemy, to say, that God hath not taught men all that it behooveth them to do. The common by word here hath place: thou art the Devils servant: for thou hast done more then was commanded thee. Here is no limitation, of new worships properly so called, which is the Rejoynders shift, but all that it behooveth us to do, is limited to God's command.

In the fourth section, about Isa. 29. Mat. 15. Col. 2.27 hath nothing material in it, beside those distinctions of worship, which before in the Manduction, section 5.6. and 7. are distinctly examined, and discussed. To those places therefore I refer the Reader, for satisfaction, if there be any needful.

SECT. 6. Concerning our Divines judgment about Ceremonious worship invented by man.

THough those three staple sections of the manuduction. 5.6.7. may be sufficient also for clearing of all the materials here exstant, yet referring the Reader thither for the main, I must add something, about diverse particulars.

1. The Replier said▪ that Worship doeth not vary according to mē opinions, but consisteth in the nature of the action itself. This is (saith the Rej.) to speak monsters. If he had said, things to him unknowen, it had been enough. For all that he hath not known, are not monsters. But what is his reason of this so deep a censure? because (forsooth) opinion, by error of opinion, doeth make that to be essentially false worship, which without such opinion, were no such worship. Of which I may as well say, that this opinion, by error of opinion, doeth make the reason essentially false. For 1. the question was not here of essential false worship, but of essential, and accidental worship, whether op • nion did make the difference? which the Def. affirmeth, the Repl. denieth, and the Rejoined. declineth. 2. The Rejoinder hath not yet (that I know of) nor can (as I think) define unto us, what is essential false worsh • p, according to his rules.

3. Every error of opinion doeth not make essential false worship: he should therefore have told us, what error he meant. The Def. nameth opinion of justice, sanctity, efficacy, or divine necessity : and the Rejoinder mentioneth often such and such opinion, held of the Papists, concerning all their Ceremonies. Of this enough is said, Manud. sect. 7. For the present, I deny, that such an erroneous opinion, by itself, and of itself, doeth not make essential false worship. Opinion is but an adjuvant efficient cause of that affective act, wherein the essence of internal worship consisteth: and the external acts of worship, though efficiently differenced by opinion, or faith, are essentially distinguished by their form, and ende. A man may have an opinion, that is just, holy, efficacious, and necessary, to perform diverse works of the second Table, nay upon some occasions, to tell a lie, even against the second Table. Yet none speaking properly, will call, that essential false worship, which is a sin directly against the first Table. Hitherto therefore, I see no monster of the Repl. his making. And if we consider his reason well, which the Rejoinder made to it, the mishaping of things will be found on the other side. If (saith the Repl.) worship did vary occording unto men's oppinions, then a man may go to Mass, conceyving another private opinion to himself, then Mas-mongers use to have: and our Convocation may appoint us the grossest of all Popish Ceremonies, if they set another opinion upon it. The Rejoinder his answers are diverse, and some of them strange ones. 1. His first is, that going to mass may be a sin of scandal and presumption, though a man go not thitherto worship. By going to Mass (according to the use of our speech) is meant, doing all those external actions, which Mas-mongers use to perform. Now the question is, whether he that performeth all those external actions (intending only to save his life thereby, as having no opinion of any other good in so doing) doeth only sin of scandal, and praesumtion, or else over and beside this, is guilty of external false worship? the Rejoinder seemeth to say, no, he is not guilty of false worship. But when the Christians of the Primitive Church, did with such an opinion, lay but a little incense upon the Heathens Altars, they were by all Orthodox censured for Idolatry. The story of Origen is well known, how he delivered Palme, to those that offered it to the image of Serapis, with this expression of his intention: come, and receive the bows, not of the image, but of Christ. Yet was he therefore censured as a worshipper of that Idol. Calvin writing of purpose concerning this very case, of going to Mass with such an opinion, accuseth them that do so, of externally professed idolatry : and therein was justified by Melanchthon, Bucer, Martyr, Opus. de vitandis superstitionibus. And if this be not right, then all external acts, and real professions, whether symbolizing with Papists, or with Turks, or Heathens, may be in themselves, (set scandal and danger aside) easily excused. So Calvin argueth, in the forenamed treatise and in a Homilie, Opusc, pag. 532. he showeth, that those wise men which think otherwise, would have derided the simplicity of Sidrac. Misach, and Abednego, if they had then lived, in such a fashion: Miserable men, yow may do that external act which is required of you: it is no worship, so long as you have no faith, trust, or devotion to that idol. 2. His second answer is that those which are present at false worship, by violence, are not false worshipers, and upon this he triumpheth, with fie man, fie. I may better say, alas alas, that good D. B. (I speak as I think) should be driven to such extremities, in defense of those Ceremonies, which he never loved, nor doeth at this day. For going to Mass, or doing all those external acts, which Masmongers use to perform, implieth more then violent carrying thither, and deteyning there. 3. His third is, that nothing but opinion doeth make human inventions essential worship of God. Which is an essential denying of the conclusion. 4. For that which was inferred of the Convocation house, he saith first, it is a flinge. Let it be so, yet it may hit that Ceremonious Goliath, as it is such, in the fore head. He addeth, that the grossest rites of Popery cannot pos • iblie be washed from their opinion. Which is not for a Rite, being an external thing or act, any Rite may be separated from any internal opinion. The last is, that some other Popish rites might be lawful, if they could be cleansed, though we need them not. As if the grossest might not be lawful, if they could be cleansed, or the Rejoinder had shown that we more need the Cross, then those other.

2. Because the Def. placed so much in opinion of sanctity, the Repl. in the second place, opposed, that Sanctitie cannot be separated from such Ceremonies, as are proper unto Religion, only used in the solemn worship of God: because they are neither civil, nor profane, and therefore holy. Heer the Rejoined • r being put to his shifts, as before, answereth that they are in deed holy by applicatiō, but not with inherent, or adhaerent holiness in them, or their use as those which God hath sanctified, nor so as they sanctify the actors, and actions, which is proper to God's ordinances. Now how many strange things are here? 1. That Ceremony, whose essence consisteth in application and use, is holy by application▪ and yet not by any holiness that doeth adhere to them, or their use. Holiness is an adjunct received by the thing that is holy, and therefore either inherent, or adhaerent. 2. Is this a good reason: they are not holy truly, as God's ordinances, therefore they are not by men made holy? 3. Have any outward ordinances of God inherent holiness in them? 4. If God hath no way sanctified our Ceremonies, who can make them holy? 5. Do not Ceremonies teaching holiness, sanctify the actors, actions or spectators, after the same manner, that the teaching word doeth sanctify them?

3. Upon occasion of the other part, in the Def. his distinction, (that Accidental worship is any rite, which serveth for the more consonant, and convenient discharge of essential worship,) the Repl. whereas he might have said, that this is a misshapen definition of Accidental worship in general, as it may be divided into true and false, good, and bad, opposeth only this: that no judicious Divine useth to call circumstances of mere order and decency, (which notwithstanding serve for the more consonant and conveniēt discharge of essential worship) that is a Pulpit, a Table, a fair-Cloath, etc. Worship.

The Rejoinder answereth, that in deed, the Ceremonies themselv • s cannot be called worship without madness, but only the use and application of such circumstances, and rites. Now 1. mark here, how the Rejoinder who defineth a Ceremony, it is an action etc. and laffeth at the Repl. (because he said, some Ceremonies may be put to other good use, as if all Surplices were turned into poor-folks under-garments) as if the good wife of Bilson had burnt a Ceremony, whē she burnt a Surplice in her oven, mark (I say) that this same Rejoinder doeth distinguish Ceremonies from their use and application. 2. Who ever was so mad (because it pleaseth him to use this term) as to say, that standing in a Pulpit, the better to be heard (which is all the use of it) is to be called worship? 3. Crossing with such expression of the signification thereof, as is used in Baptism, can neither be distinguished from the use of a Cross, nor aequalled to the use of a pulpit, not yet lawfully styled true worship, without a spice of one disease or other.

4. The first witness brought in for us, is Calvin, inst. l. 4. cap. 10. sect. 8. All those constitutions are wicked, in the observation whereof we place any worship to God. The Def. answereth, he meant not by worship, circumstances of order. Which the Repl. readily granted: because it were non sense, to say, all observations in which circumstances of order are placed, be wicked. To this the Rejoinder saith first, it is a babie. 2. he saith, that Calvin meant not to comdemne all constitutions of order: which is as true a babie as the former. 3. Calvin (saith he) defineth what Constitutions are contrary to the word of God, namely such as are ordained and imposed as necessary for consciencie, etc. But Calvin doeth only show that such are of the forbidden kind : and every notifying of a special, is not a definition of the general kind. 4. He addeth, that Calvin doeth allow of some significant Ceremonies sect. 14. Of signification, we are to consider in the next chapter. In the mean time this: Calvin generally speaketh against all worship invented of men, without any distinction. One ambiguous phrase of Ceremonies in general, without any example, save only Divine, in which he instanceth immediately after the words cited, doeth not make a contradiction to the former sentence. All the rest of the Rejoinder his allegations out of Calvin, about this answer have their answer, in the staple sect. of the Manuduction. 5.6.7.

The Def. having thus told us, what Calvin did not mean, addeth that Calvin meant by woe • ship, the inward virtue of worship, which consisteth (saith he) in an opinion of holiness and justice. The Repl here justly noted the ill sound of those words: the inward virtue of worship consisteth in an opinion, to which the Rejoinder saith just nothing. And yet in all this chapter mainteyneth all that doctrine of opinionated worship, which the Def. let fall. But a man would think, that upon this occasion, he should have declared, how, and how far worship doeth constift in opinion? As for inward virtues and vices consisting in opinion, it is as great a paradox, and greater also, then that of the Stoics, who made all other differences of men's estate, beside virtue and vice, to consist in opinion.

In the second place, it was asked by the Repl. how an inward virtue, can be planted in an outward Ceremony ? the Rejoinder by error of opinion. But it is more then error, nay more then ordinary madness, for any man to think, his inside, is in his outside, his heart is in the feather that he weareth on his hat.

Th • Repl. added in the third place, that the proper nature of worship, doeth not consist in holiness, and justice, but in the honoring of God: so that all external Ceremonies, whose proper use, is the honoring of God, are external worship. This was directed against those words of the Def. the inward virtue of worship (placed in outward Ceremonies) consisteth in an opinion of holiness, and justice. Now what saith the Rejoinder? 1. No man can in any action aim at God's honor, without opinion of justice and holiness in that action. Which may be granted, if justice (in this form of speech, whereby our Divines use to condemn many Popish Ceremonies) did not signify justification as it doeth. But yet it doeth not follow from thence, that every opinion of holiness, and justice, doeth make worship, much less inward worship, and least of all, the inward virtue of worship.

2. Then (saith he) all external Ceremonies must needs be worship. And this is that which we avouche, of all Ceremonies, whose proper use is the honoring of God. 3. It is not (as he addeth) the immediate and peculiar use of our Ceremonies, to honor God, but to a aedifie man unto the honoring of God.

No more (may I say) is it any otherwise the immediate ende of preaching the word, to honor God, but only by aedifiying of men, to the honoring of God: and yet preaching of the word is essential worship. 4. Pulpits. Fonts, Tables, Table-cloths, and Cups, are as much appropriated unto religious uses, as our Ceremonies in question. But this is confuted in the staple section of the Manuduct. 3. and 4. And the difference is acknowledged by the Rejoinder, in that, he maketh Pulpits etc. to be only simple Ceremonies, and ours in question, double and trible. For by that it followeth, that our questioned Cerenies are twice, or thrice more appropriated to worship, then Pulpits.

5. Calvin (saith the Rejoinder) doeth mark out false worship by a false opinion of worship and necessity : He doeth so in deed: but never meant to make it a convertible, or reciprocal mark, much less that wherein the essence of all false worship consisteth, as hath been cleared. Paul Phil. 3. marketh out Dogs, by urging of Circumcision : but he never meant, that there were no other Dogs but such. Calvin also many times marketh out false worship by an opinion of merit : yet surely a man may use false worship, without such an opinion.

In opposition to these allegations out of Calvin, the Repl. nameth one place, epist. 259. where he saith, according to the Rejoinder his own translation: If it be well and thoroughly looked unto, what it is, that doeth so much provoke man, to the making of Ceremonies, we shall find, that they all flowed from this spring-head, because every man made bold • o fancy some new worship of God: whereas God not only refuseth all forged worships, but utrerly abhorreth them. This (saith the Repl.) is a direct confutation of the Def. (and I add, of the Rejoinder.

For if all human Ceremonies flowed from affectation of will-worship, then a Pulpit, and such like matters of order, and decency, are no Ceremonies. If all the worship which is placed in human Ceremonies, be unlawful, then no such Ceremonies are lawful, what opinion soever there be of their necessity, etc. If this be so (answereth the Rejoinder) then Calvin hath confuted his more public writings, in a private epistle.

Which is nothing so, but only it followeth, (as the Repl. said) that he hath confuted the collection which the Def. made from a shred or two of his more public writings. He hath expressed so much in public writings as he doeth in that private epistle. As to add one place of note, opusc. pag. 356. disputing against Cassander, who maintained human Ceremonies, upon the very same grounds, terms, and condition, that the Def. and Rejoinder do, he saith of them: Seeing God will be worshipped by the rule of his law, and therefore detests all feigned services, it is undoubtedly contrary to faith that anything be added to his precepts by the judgment of man.

But that answer being only for a flourish, the Rejonder his second is, that Calvin spake of mystical Ceremonies excescively multiplied. As if both these could not stand together, for to speak against any sin excessively multipied, and yet withal against sin. The Prophets often speak of multiplying idols altars, fornications, according to the number of cities, or towns, on every • igh hill, under every green tree. Do they not withal speak simply against all idolatry? But Calvin (as the Rejoinder addeth) alloweth in some case, the mixture of a like water with wine, in the Lord's Supper. What? for a religions Ceremony? show the place, and after that, see how it can be justified, against those accusations, which the Rejoinder layeth upon Sopping the bread in wine, pag. 61.62.63. Calvin (as he lastly addeth) epist. 120. could have wished, that Hooper had not so much struggled against the Cap, and Rochet, or Surplice. But beside that Calvin did not, nor we neither esteem a Cap, or a Rochet either (a Surplice is added by the Rejoinder) so evil as the Cross in Baptism, Calvin could not say so much, without a shrewed item ( ut illa etiam non probem, though I do not allow of such things. ) Which manyfestly declare that his wish was not grounded on such an opinion, as the Def. and Rejoinder maintain. It might also be added, that Calvin in the same place accused them, of wicked perfidiousness, who though they seemed to favor the Gospel, yet made a party against Hooper, about that trashe, unto the hindering of his Ministry: which is the case of all our depr • ving and silencing Prelates.

5. The second witness, produced by the Def. for to be answered, is Chemnitz. To whose condemning of all worship instituded without the word, the Def. answered by his wedge, saying, that he meant only that which is made essential worship, not accidental. Concerning this distinction, enough hath been said in the 5. and 6. staple sect. of the manudiction, let this only be remembered, that it is all one, as if he should divide worship, into worsh • p, and no worship: for both Def. and Rejoinder often say accidental worship is no worship. They add some time, for explication, that it is no essential worship : but so they may say e • sentiall worship is no worship, and then add that they mean no accidental worship. The Repl. therefore justly required, that should be shown, if Chemnitz distinguish will-worship, as he doeth, into lawful and unlawful.

Upon this occasion the Rejoinder 1. criethout of a falsehood shameful, and to be blushed at, for saying that the Def. distinguisheth will-worship into lawful, and unlawful. But let any man judge where is the falsehood, shame, and cause of blushing. The question is of worship invented by man, which Chemnitz (with other Divines) call will-worship, whether it be lawful or no? the Def. answereth by a distinction, that some is unlawful, as essential, and some lawful, as accidental. What can be more plain? But (saith the Rejoinder) Accidental worship, be denieth to be properly worsh • p, and therefore denieth it to be will worship, unless it be imagined essential. What a consequence is this, to bear up so weighty an accusation? It is not properly worship, and therefore it is not will-worship. He may as well say: it is not properly worship, and therefore it is not lawful worship. May it not be improper will-worship, though it be not properly worship? Or no improper worship come merely from the will of man? It is rather a property of Ceremonies, to depend merely on the will of the institutor. So Tostatus in Exod. tom. 1.148. et in Levite. pag. 585. A Ceremony is a certain observation, or a special mauner of worshipping God determined out of the sole Commandment of of the lawgiver.

His second exception is frivolous. His third is this: Chemnitz hath this distinction in substance, though not in terms. For he saith, that right inward worship being supposed, right external expressions will follow of their own accord, and they are external worship, though not acceptable in themselves. Where 1. Mark the partiality of the Rejoinder.

In the former answer, he requireth the Repl. to show the distinction which he attributeth to the Def. in his words, or terms, otherwise he may blush for shame. Now, when he is urged to show his distinction out of Chemnitz, he forsaketh words, or terms, and flieth to substance, without once thinking of shame and blush • ng. 2. This substance is a mere shadow. For first, Chemnitz acknowledgeth no outward expressions to be right worship, but only those, that flow of their own accord, without any institutiō, from inward worship. And who will say, that the Def. and Rejoinder their accidental worship, of Cross and Surplice, do so flow from internal. Secondly, those external expressions, are as essential to external worship, as profession of faith is to a visible Church. Nay there is no external worship, beside the expressions, and setting forth of the internal. Thirdly, Though those expressions, be not acceptable of, or in themselves, being separated from the internal, yet it doeth not follow from thence, that they are in their nature accidental worship, and no ways substantial. For the Rejoinder confesseth, that all God's ordinances are substantial worship: and yet he will not say that God's outward ordinances are acceptable unto him, when they are separated from internal worship.

Upon supposition (which now appeareth true) that the Def. could not show his distinction out of Chemnitz, he was desired, at the least, to show, that there is some worship, which is not necessary: because otherwise he must needs sink under Chēnitius his charge To this the Rejonder answereth, 1. that Chemnitz understandeth by will worship, whatsoever of man's device, is imagined necessary. 2. that there is some external worship, which is not in the particularities of it necessary. For the first of which, enough is said, in the 7. s. of the manud. Yet here I may add, that it is so far from truth, (no will-worship can be without imagination of necessity) that on the contrary, whosoever doeth take upon him, for his will sake professedly to apoynt any worship, cannot possibly imagine it absolutely necessary, but acknowleging there hath been worship, without his addition, he professeth to add something, not simply necessary to the being, but only to the better being of it. As for the second, In God's own ordinances, which were substantial, and essential, by the Rejoinder his confession, the particularites were not always absolutely necessary Levite. 5. a lamb, or two turtle doves, or two young pigeons. And this answer may serve for all that is further rejoined about Chemnitz. For it beareth wholly upon perpetual necessity of the same particularities. The expressions which he instanceth in, are natural gestures, such as kneeling, lifting up of eyes, or hands to heaven etc. which have as manifest impressions in them, of God's will, without man's institution, as the offering of doves or pigeons ever had, and in their particularities upon occasion carry as much necessity with them. What is this to such unnecessary worship, as Cross and Surplice?

6. About Peter Martyr his testimony, beside the repetition of that thread bare distinction of worship, into essential and accidental, he looseth also a knot by it. Peter Martyr saith, it is lawful for men, to appoint circumstances of ord • r, but unlawful to appoint any worship. The Def. contradicteth him thus: if it be lawful to appoint circumstances of order, then it is lawful to appoint some worship. The Rejoinder excepteth here 1. that the Repl. calleth that some worship ambiguously, which the Def. called accessory, and accidental worship. The accidental worship belike may be called worship, but not some worship, without ambiguity. 2. He answereth, that P.M. condemneth only the framings of essential worship. But first P.M. his words are, lest anything should seem to make for worship the Apostle absolutely damns all will worship.

Secondly he discerneth all worship f • om order and decency, Thirdly he opposeth order, to significant Ceremonies, of man's institution, admitting the one and rejecting the other. Others argue thus: the people is unlearned and rude, therefore to be held in with Ceremonies. Put this difference is between us and them of old, they had many Ceremonies, and we exceeding few, but some there must be for order and decency.

To the instance of bowing the knee, called by P.M. external worship, answer was given a little before. It is no voluntary invention, or institution of men.

7. In the next place, D. Morton set down himself, as last at this table: which was excepted against by the Repl. because divers others were invited to this meeting. Heerupon, the Rejoinder after a few words of form, not all sound (as that he would have him that set himself down last, not to be too hasty, though he shut the door for hast against others that were invited) taketh occasion to say something, o • Melanchthon, Bullinger, Bucanus, Polanus, Cartwright, Fenner, Tilenus, Chamier, and Perkins.

But he bringeth no answer of moment, but that wether-beaten distinction of essential and accidental worship, which is examined, Manud. sect. 5.6.7. Where also is handled of Tilemus, Polanus, Bucanus, Cartw. and Fenner, by name. It is not therefore needful to add much in this place: yet something in brief, of the rest.

8. Melanchthon (saith the Rejoinder) reckones it an error, in constitution of things indifferent, to account them worship: but he meaneth, with opinion of rightousenesse, and necessity, worship of themselves, whose immediate ende is God's honor, not vestments, Feasts, and fasts, etc. Now concerning all these exceptions, enough hath been spoken, Manud. sect. 5.6.7. Yet concerning Melanchthon, he meaneth by righteousness, justification, by neces • itie, that which is necessary to justification, by of themselves, considered apart from God's ordinances, by immediate ende, that which belongeth to the first table.

Now 1. the Rejoinder will not say that any human worship, is lawful, beside that which is held absolutely necessary for justification, for then it may be lawful, though it be every way aequalled to many of God's ordinances. 2. The sign of the Cross, to signify our courage, and constancy in Christ's service, were worship, though it be considered, or were used alone by it self. 3. Our Ceremonies belong to the first table, so far as they belong to any part of his law. 4. Vestments, fasts, and feasts also, are accounted by Melancthon, matters of mere order. For so Tom. 1.297. and 305. he compareth them to order of lectures in schools, and to the order of reading and praying, in families, morning and evening. And so far, we also allow of them. Yet one thing is worth the noting, that whereas imposers of Ceremonies do much ground themselves upon the Apostles example, Acts. 15. and are therein allowed by the Rejoinder pag. 45.46. of his manuducction, Melanchthon doeth so disallow of this collection, that therein he condemneth all imposition of such Ceremonies as ours. For Vol. 3. pag. 91. he saith thus.

It followeth not: the Apostles retained the rite of blood and things strangled, therefore we may set up new things as matters of worship, t • is Consequence is false, because the Apostles did not Establish this rite, but only take it up for a while. 2. Though they had instituted some new thing here follows nothing for innovation. This imitation hath ever been hurtful to the Church. The Bishop is the hearer, and takes the word and rites from the Apostles with a certain charge, that he delivereth them over to the Church unchanged.

9. Bullinger (saith the Rejoinder) undoubtedly condemneth all worship of God, which is merely of man's tradition: but not Ecclesiastical laws, nor worship agreeable to God's word, as public meetings for worship, set times, places, manner of administration, holy days, and fast days.

Now in all this we fully agree with Bullinger, understanding only by holy-days fit times of preaching and praying and by days of fasting, occasional times of extraordinary humiliation.

10. Chamier (saith the Rejoinder) To. 3. l. 20. c. 5. four times, useth this distinction, of worship proper and accidental. But Chamier only calleth those special material acts, which are conjoined with formal acts of worship, accidental parts of worship: as if a man vowed to drink no wine for a certain time, his abstaining from wine pertaineth to worship, only by accident. So if in solemn prayer for a Prince, his titles, and style be rehearsed, or any special terms of honor, this pertaineth to prayer, by accident. What is this to such instituted worship, as the Cross?

11. Mr. Perkins (saith the Rejoinder) condemneth that worsh • p instituted by men, which is so simple, and in itself. For he granteth a bodily worship necessary (as kneeling, lifting up of hands, and eyes etc.) terming it less principal worship. As if this were not the very same thing that we profess. But if any man see Mr. Perk. on the second Comandement, in his gold chain, in his explication of the Decaloge, and in his treatise of idolatry, he shall find this constantly taught by him, as a positive doctrine, that all worship, all things obtruded under the name of worship (without any exception) if they be not by God commanded, are unlawful, superstitious worship.

12. Now last of all (in due place) the Rejoinder answereth for D.M. that he in that place, Apol. par. 1. c. 89. condemneth Romish Ceremonies, because they were so many and burthensome. Now except he meaneth, that these were the only causes, it is no answer, and (though I have not his Apology now at hand) I dare venture something on it, that other reasons are there alleged. This I am sure of, that in his Defēce, cap. 6. sect. 6. he condemneth them not only for their number, but also for their nature. And it is as manifest, as anything can be, that a number of them have no other nature then ours have. Beside one or two human Ceremonies may be burthensome.

If Circumcision were imposed in England, a the Cross is, upon which condition, the Def. and Rejoinder allow of it, pag. 285. I think these allowers of it would account it a burden. And howsoever the light aerial Cross is not so burthensome to the body, as that, yet to the Conscience of many thousands, it is altogether as importable a burden.

13. Upon occasion of that reason which the Def. rendered for condemning of popish Ceremonies, the Repl. addeth: because he had heard men often speak in this manner, of the fault that is in multitude, he would willingly know, what certain limits, and bounds are set, by God's law, for the number of human Ceremonies, such as ours? If there may be three, why not four, five, six, and so forth, as many as shall please the Convocation? Surely (saith he) if once we depart from God's institution, there will be no place to rest our foot on, but we must ever follow wind and tide, which in religion is baseness itself. The motion is reasonable, even according to received grounds: because we must have a rule for number, if some number doeth make Ceremonies to be justly condemned: and if that number doeth make them condemned by the word, we must also have that rule out of God's Word. Now see what fluttering and flying answers are given, by the Rejoinder. His 1. is that all our D • vines do censure Popish Ceremonies for their number. So did all or most of the Prophets censure not only the Idols of Israel, but even their high places, for their number. His 2. is, that just so many Ceremonies must be allowed, as shall not clog an overcharge the Churches, in the judgment of those, to whose discretion it belongs, to judge thereof : Where he meaneth the Convocation house, for England. Now to pass by here, that which formerly hath been noted, (how corrupt this posi • ion is, to appropriate the j • dgement of discretion ; even in Ceremonies, unto Prae • ats) if this be all the rule, then Augustine was too rash, in his time, to judge the number of Ceremonies used then to be a burden more then Jewish. For it did no more belong to him, for to discern of Ceremonies used especially out of his Diocese, then it doeth belong to every Minister in England, to discern what Ceremonies he and his people may use. Nay then all our Divines do wrongfully charge the Popish Cer • monies, for their number: because in the judgment of those among them, to whose discretion it belongs to judge of such things, as well as to our Convocation, they are not thought to clog and overcharge the Churches. Thence also it would follow, that no Prelates could offend, in instituting of Ceremonies, without sinning directly against their Consciences: whereas we are more charitablie persuaded of many, evenCōvocatiō mē. His 3 is, from a comparisō, of Kings laying up of treasure, & multiplying of horses, Deut. 17. as likewise of eating more or less.

But 1. if there be no more certain rule of institu • ing of mystical Ceremonies, then for these things, th • n wiser men then any in our Convocation, may abuse the people with them. For so Solomon wi • hout question did, both in horses, & treasure. 1. King. 10. And so what assurance have our Consciences, from their judgments of discerning? Kings multiplying of treasure, and horses, concerneth (in conscience of acting) only themselves, and their officers. but the Ceremonies (in acting) concern all the Churches. In that there is not only a disparity, and dissimilitude, but such a one, as requireth the rule to be more accurate in one, then in the other. 3. Within a latitude, it were easy to determine, how much treasure, and how many horses, ordinaily are lawful to be multiplied, by this or that Kings, as also how much is lawful, for an ordinary man to eat at one meal. But if the number of Ceremonies do depend wholly on the Prelates discretion, there can be no other rule given of them, then: so many as the Convocation house think good to injoine. His 4. (as I take it) is, that on the margent, from another comparison, one or two cruches may help a weak man in his going, whereas 6. or 7. would hinder him. Which is very true. But if it should be appointed to all men in England, to go upō three Cruches, though they do not see, nor any could show them, that they had any need of them, only upon this ground that the Parliament judged, they had need first of cruches, and then of just three cruches, were not this (think you) a wise statute and to be observed as a law? His 5. and last is, that peril of leaving God's institution, there may be some, in matters of faith, and necessary duties to salvation: but in other matters, to speak of peril, is ridiculous. But some in matters of faith, and principal obedience? none to be feared but ridiculously, in point of Rites? It is strange that ever any man of D.B. his knowledge, and profession, should let fall such a sentence.

He himself will recall it, when he hath considered how deadly a thing it is to depart from God's institution in fundamental pointes, and also, how great mischief hath arisen, by leaving God's institution even in Rites. It is well known that Ceremonies and rites, opened the door and paved the way for invocation of Saints in heaven, and evocation of men out of Hell, for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Idol of the Altar, and such like pretty stuff to enter into the Church. And they were Ceremonies which came in with the wind and tide of custom, to which wind and tide if we yield ourselves again, God knoweth, what will become of us.

But this especially is in the conclusion, to be marked: the Def. and Rejoinder have hitherto said much upon the general rules for Ceremonies, Order, Decency, Edification, as if they did try the taste of every occurrent Ceremony, as perfectly, as if everyone had been named : they are the Rejoinder his words, pag. 89.

Now when we are come to the issue, they are found to be nothing, but only wind and tide of custom. As if wind and tide did try the taste, or discern distinct • y of every ship, or boat, that is carried by them. What meant they to trouble us about certain rules, if every wind and tide be enough? If the practice of this be not baseness, in any kind of worsh • p, essential, or accidental, then it is not base, for a Christian man's consci • nce, in some worship, to be led through hedge, or diche, only because some went before, or to crouche upon every Maisterly man's word, or nodde, which certainly is against the dignity both of Conscience, and also of Worship : because neither of them are subject to any mere pleasure or custom of men. Mr. Latimer Serm. 3. before King. Pd. seemeth to respect Ceremonies, when he said, that the Lutherans, in Germany, made a mingle-mangle hotchepotche of Popery with true religion, as in his country, they call their hogs to the swine-trough: Come to thy mingle-mangle, come pyr, come pyr. If this be not base, to be thus called to mingle-mangles, let any man judge, that is not wont to be fed with husks.

Beside, one question yet remaineth▪ when winds, and tides, fall cross, as often they do, the winds of authority driving one way, and the tide of good Christians bent, the clean contrary, what is here to be followed? If we may make conjecture of D. B. his judgment, in such a case, by his practice, it will be very uncertayn.

SECT. 2. Concerning Vrsines and Zanchius judgment, about w • ll-worship.

1. HEere (for brevity sake) the question was repeated, in these words: whether all will-worship, wh • tsoever, is to be condemned, or no. The Rejoinder upon this, first accuseth the Repl. of falsifying and changing the proposition. Now he cannot mean this of words: because the verity and falsity of a proposition, doeth not consist in words. And the sense he cannot deny to be falsified. For human Ceremonies, imposed and observed as parts of God's worship, must needs be worship proceeding from man's will, or will-worship. This therefore is but a blushing at the name of that which without blushing is defended. 2. The Rejoinder himself doeth, in the very next words, confess so much, when he professeth, that some will-worship is not condemned.

But I wonder from what good Divine he ever learned this assertion? The Papists are ordinarily charged by us for teaching, and practicing of will-worship: yet diverse of them are ashamed to profess the defense of such a monster, in plain terms. ESTIVS upon the Epist. to the Col. Cap. 3. ult. disputing against someone or two Jesuits, that had been forced to let fall such a speech, saith of them, as we say of the Rejoinder, Docere non poterunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usquam accipi in bono. They can never show, that will-worship is taken in good sense, 〈◊〉 wed of and not condemned. All our Divines might here be opposed to these two Doctors opinions. But it shall suffice, to allege only two for the contrary, and they are Ursinus, and Zanchi, whose authority are so much urged by the Def. and Rejoined. in this section, Ursinus in the place quoted by the Def. upon the 2. Commandment saith thus: All feigned worship is forbidden: all worship which is not of God, but set up by men, when worship or honor is feigned to be done to the true God, in some work which he hath not enjoined. Zanchi also upon the same Com. q. 4. thus: We may not worship God with any other worship (though it be in the kind of ex • ernall and Ceremony • nia • l worship) then with that which he hath required in the holy Scriptures to be worshiped of us by. 3. Concerning the examples, which are here brought forth of warrantable will-worship, free-will offerings, vows, and kneeling in public prayer, enough hath been answered before. Yet briefly again free-will offerings were only to be made of such things as were manifestly known to be prescribed by God's revealed will: and so not the offering, but undertaking of it, at such a time, or in such a measure, was left unto the free choice of men, according to occasion.

It is no will-worship, to pray thrice or seven times in a day, or to preach thrice in one Lord's-day upon special occasion. Some vows are no more worship, for the matter of them (and that only is left unto choice, no • the manner) then fighting in a lawful war, upon the bond of an oath, is religious worship. Kneeling in prayer is expressly allowed by God's revealed will: and the determination of it to this or that time, is to be ruled by occasion. 4. As for that conclusion which the Rejoinder draweth from the former grounds, viz. that order comeliness and edification. 1. Cor. 14. give power to men, for to appoint accessory parts of ext • rnall worship, first, it hath no connection with them, as hath been shown in part, and may further be observed by this, that the inference is, from free-will-offerings, vows, and Kneeling, that therefore the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. doeth give Churches power to appoint such formalities as our Cross, and Syrplice: which is to tie harp and harrow together with a rope of sand. Secondly, suppose it had, then it is not fully and resolutely expressed: because from will-worship of free will-offerings may as well be concluded essential, as accessory will-worship to be in the Churches power for to appoint it: because they were as essential offerings, as other sacrifices, which were by name commanded. If by accessory worship, he meaneth that which is appointed by man, in opposition to essential, as appointed by God (which his manuductive interpretation beareth) then instead of a conclusion, we have a mere confusion: the Church may appoint that will-worship which God hath not appointed, but man doeth. Thirdly, the appointing of this or that, doeth not follow upon the practice of free-will-offerings, and vows, except it be understood, that the Church might have appointed men, what, and how many free-will offerings they should offer, which were to turn free worship into forced.

2. About Vrsines testimony, we have such turnings, and windings of words obtruded upon us, as aff • rde no matter capable of sad dispute. It shall be sufficient therefore to note only the passages, which seem to look towards the question. The Rejoinder pag. 179. told us, that the Def. offered to confute, out of Vrsine, this proposition: All human Ceremonies which are imposed, and observed, as parts of • ods worship, are unlawful. Now first upon this, the Repl. brought forth the main assertion of Ursinus, in the place alleged, viz. that human Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, not only are not the worship of God, but also they bind not the conscience. To this the Rejoinder answereth, that Ursinus in his answer to an objection made against this assertion, saith, that such Ceremonies are not worship in themselves, therefore (addeth the Rejoinder) his meaning is, that there is some true lawful worship, improperly, and by ac • ident.

Which is as if from these words: man's clothes, or armor, are not a man by themselves, one should conclude, that therefore they are affirmed to be a man improperly, and by accident.

Secondly, the Repl. noted diverse words of Ursinus, sounding wholly to the denial of the honorable title of good worship unto human institutions. Upon which the Rejoinder complaineth, of willful omitting these words of Ursinus: worship properly so called doeth so please God, that the contrary of it would displease him. Where (saith the Rejoinder) we have an exact description of worship properly so called. But he is herein deceyved. For if this be an exact description of proper worship, then whē a child honoreth his father, he doeth properly and immediately honor and worship God: because such an act doeth so please God, that the contrary of it (dishonoring of ones father) must needs displease him.

And so, in very deed, was the meaning of Ursinus, to call the moral duties even of the second table, worship properly so called. Which form of speaking, though it cannot be excused from great improprietie, yet maketh it nothing for, but rather against the Rej. because Ursinus hereby denieth human Ceremonies so much to participate the nature & name of worship, as any mean moral duty of the second tabledoeth, no not so much as the hang-man's office, in the due execution of it.

Thirdly the Repl. observed, that the Def. concludeth the very same thing out of Ursinus, which we maintain, and he undertook to confute, viz. that divine worship properly so called, is that which is ordained of God.

To this the Rej. answereth (after an angry charging the Repl. with a contradctious spiri • , that this is not alleged, because we deny it, or to confute our proposition, in the sense of Vrsine, but to show what sense we must hold of it.

Now did not the Rejoinder himself tell us pag. 1794. that the Def. offered to confute out of Ursinus, 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. said, of Ceremonies, in a large sense, to be held worship, the Repl. answered, that thts should be proved. The rejoinder is, that the large sense it set down, viz. as circumstances appertaining to the setting out of divine worship.

As if we had not required a proof, but only an explication. Yet this explication hath no more truth in this large sense, then if one should say, that all circumstances appertaining to the setting out of a man area man.

But (saith the Rej.) Ursinus, or at least Pareus saith, that the genus commune nature of these Ceremony. as well as of civil laws is moral, and therefore worship. What could he have said more to confute both Defendant, and Rejoinder • they are worship, (and that only in their general nature) just as civil things: that is not otherwise then all good deeds are worship. So forbidding, or hindering of false worship (which may be done by Atheists) is worship, in this uncouth manner of speaking.

One argument yet is of the Rejoinder his own invention: Suche things done to the honoring of an Idol were idolatry, as to build a temple, to the honoring of an Idol. Therefore the same things done by the rule, to the right ende, are some way a worship to God. Wherein there are two ambiguous phrases observable: 1. such things. 2. to the honoring of an idol.

If by such things, he meaneth such as cross and surplice, we not only grant, but urge, that such things done to the honoring of an idol, are idolatry, and therfrom conclude, that such things done 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 mean such 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 far this stretcheth.

Secondly, if by to the honoring of an Idol, he meaneth a devout intention of such an honor, we grant, that the taking up of a straw directly to such an immediate ende, is idolatry. For howsoever such intention is not necessary to external 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 idolatry, are not idolatry, either essential, or accidental. For then the same circumstances, should be (in diverse Ci • ies) both Idolatry, and also true worship of the true God, as being circumstances of both.

3. Concerning Zanchi. His name is by mistaking, much abused. For howsoever he distinguisheth worship into that which he calleth essential, and such thing as are annexed unto it, yet under these annexions, he compriseth such things as God hath commanded, all which the Def. and Rej. call essential worship. His words are these: Things annexed to worship are holy ordinances which among the Jews were very many, as their temples, Altars, persons, garments, vessels, times &c. And afterward Ministers, Elders, Deacons, Lord's Day &c are the holy things of the Christian Church. So that Zanchi calleth those annexed, which these men call essential worship: what an unhappy witness is he, that doeth not agree with them of whom he is produced: But to take all that the Rejoinder would have, this is the sum: If human Ceremonies be some part of external worship, and yet not of that worship which is essential, as Zanchi showeth, then (in a large sense) Ceremonies applied to religious actions, may be called parts of God's worship, though not essential.

To which I answer, that according as Ramus showeth, 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. The consequence • herfore of this argument is rotten at the root.

But such a reason, as that from the adjuncts of a man, to a man, was thus propounded by the Repl. the cross is annexed to a Sacrament. To this the Rejoinder answereth, that the Cross is not annexed to the Sacrament, but only to the solemnity of the Sacrament, and so it is not a part of the Sacrament, but of solemnity.

Now here let any man of reason judge, 1. If the Cross in Baptism, be not so much as a circumstance a Ceremony, or Rite (which all Papists, Lutherans, and our Conformists ordinarily, acknowledge) annexed unto Baptism? Common use of speech calls that annexed, which is joined unto another thing, as an adjunct. Now who can doubt, but the Cross is so joined to Baptism?

2. If the Cross be not an essential part, or member of the solemnity, and therefore not an annexed adjunct of it, no more then a man's hand is to be esteemed a thing annexed unto him, or his body?

3. If this being granted, that the solemnity of Baptism is annexed to Baptism, it doeth not follow, that the Cross, a main part of that solemnity, be not also annexed to the same Sacrament? Such figleaves, so ill-favoredly sowed together, cannot cover the nakedness of will-worship.

SECT. 8. & 9. Concerning Mr. BRADSHAW his argument, whereby he proveth our Ceremonies to be esteemed, imposed, and observed, as parts of God's worship, viz. because they want nothing to true, or right worship of God, but only a right efficient cause, or author.

1. THe 8. section was neglected by the Repl. as containing nothing but affirmation on one side, and negation on the other. This omission (saith the Rejoinder) was for advantage, because (forsooth) here the Def. his assertion was clearly set down, namely, that our Ceremonies are not imposed, or observed, as proper, essential and necessary parts of God's worship.

But 1, If this had been a clear explication, yet seeing we meet with it, and handle it in a hundred several places, before, and after, little reason had the Rejoinder to suspect advantageous craft, in passing by the same terms in this one place. 2. Ther is no clearness at all in heaping up terms, without any explication of them. 3. When these terms, proper, essential, necessary worship are now expounded, by the Rejoinder to mean nothing else but worship specially commanded of God, the sense is so absurd, that it was for his advantage, if they were omitted. For what answer is this: men appointing Ceremonies of their own making, do not say that they are specially app • inted of God?

2. The argument was thus formed by the Repl. Those Ceremonies, which have the kind, nature, and definition of worship belonging to them, so that they want nothing but a right author, to make them true worship, those are in their imposition and use, worship, and for want • f a right author, false worship. But our Ceremonies are • uche. Ergo. Here the Rejoinder first complaineth again, that the term Real. is left out of the assumption, into which it was put by the Def. But 1. who gave license to the Def. for to put new terms into our arguments? It is not true, that he put any such term into the assumption, but only mentioned in the title of this section. 3. Except such a ridiculos sense be put upon this term Real, as was even now observed, of prop • r essential, ne • essarie, it may be understood both in the proposition, and in the the assumption also. For if the kind, nature, and d • finition of worship do agree to our Ceremonies then they are not only verbal worship, in some fashion of speech (as the Rejoinder distinguisheth, but real worship.

3. Upon occasion of that scorn which was cast on the authors of this argument, viz. that this learning never saw print before, as the Def. thinketh, Mr. Bradshaw was named, as a man not to be slighted for his learning, who had longe since put in print, without receyving any printed answer, unto it, or the book wherein it was contained. To this diverse things are rejoined, not worthy any answer, but that they tend to the disgrace of a godly learned man, whose memory is worthy of all honor. 1. Mr. Bradshaw is ranked among discontented persons. Which imputation if it be understood of distentment for want of preferment, or great living, could hardly have lighted upon any man in England, whose course and conversation would more beat it off then Mr. Bradshaws did, in the consciences of all indifferent men that knew him.

2. His tracts of indifferency, and worship are styled little Pamphlets, such as do creep in the dark, and are hard to be seen of men that walked by day light. This is (up and down) the language of great prelates, when Goliath-like, they confute their adversaries with scorning of their little stature, and ignoble state. But the Def. or Rejoinder might have put that little pamphlet into the belly of a whale, by setting it forth with a large confutation, in folio, and so also have helped it from creeping, to some kind of riding on horseback.

Neither is it harder for day-light men, to see such treatises, though thrust by their command into dark corners, then it is to open their mouths for to ask after them, and then their eyes to look on them. Howsoever, if this be a sufficient answer, then what shall become of many little books for instruction, and help, dispersed by good men among the Papists, where public authority doeth make thē to keep thē selves in a little cōpass, & to creep in the dark, for fear of being apprehended by the inquisitours day-light walkers? Mr. Bradshaw was made for accurate, short, & mere logical fashion of writing. So much appeareth out of other treatises of his: as that of Justification. For to have drawn forth him unto large wordy discourses, it had been as hard, as to confine wordy men, unto the accurateness of mere logical dealing.

3. Because the learning of this argument was derided by a Bishop, the Repl. doubted not to equal Mr. Bradshow, for his skill in framing of an argument, unto any of the Bishops. To which the Rej. answereth, that this is no more praise to him, thē it is for a Carpenters boy, to drive a pin as well as his Master. Which might be admitted for true, if there be any Bishop, that may in this kind of learning be Magister ejus. Howsoever, it is not to the purpose, except the Master carpenter, may deride his boy for driving a pin, which is as well driven as he himself can drive any.

4. The Rejoined. raiseth up a report, without showing from whom he received it, that Mr. Bradshaw reversed his own opinion of things indifferent. Which until it be some other way confirmed, then by an adversaries bare telling, and that in a humor of disgracing his person, it must be accounted a mere tale. But he had good reason to reverse his opinion (saith the Rejoinder) because against all reason and sense, he resolved that there is nothing indifferent.

If this were so as it is related, reason would persuade to some recantation. But it is only the Rejoinder his telling again, without any show of proof.

I, for my part, can find no such words in Mr. Bradshawe his treatise, neither anything from whence such a raw sentence may be reasonably collected. He concludeth in deed cap. 3. that there is no absolute indifferent thing. 1. e. evereway, as well in order of nature, as of morallitie. He affirmed also cap. 7. there is nothing actua • lie indifferent, which is not potentially good or evil, and cap. 8. there is no action of man's will so indifferent, but the doing thereof, by some circumstances, may be evil. Ther is no action that a man can do, by the power of his will, that is merely and absolutely indifferent. These passages come the nearest to that which is here fathered upon the treatise: in all which this crudity appeareth not: there is nothing indifferent. Nay the harshest of these assertions, may be found not only in little Pamphlets made by Carpenters boys, against learning and sense, but in great volumes, written by those that go for very learned, and sensible in such matters as this is. Thomas Aquinas, in the great book, called his Sum, prima secundae, q. 18. ar. 9. hath this conclusion: It must needs be that every individual act of man (proceeding from deliberate reason) is either good or bad. And all (or almost all) those which have written upon that place, do confirm, and defend the same, who yet were men, that in questions of such a nature, did not usually write against all learning and sense.

4. At length, we have leave given, to examine the Argument itself: but with this remembrance, that is not like to be very sound, which all this while came into no man's head, ti • l Mr. Bradshaw rise up. But who told the Rejoinder that it never came into any man's head before? though if that were true, the soundness may be likely enough.

Many reasons have been in other men's heads, which never came to the knowledge of our Def. and Rejoinder. And he is immediately told, that it is for substance in everyone of our Divines, which hath written of worship: because they all, teaching that the common nature of worship required no more, then that it hath the honoring of God for the direct ende of it, they add, that if this be according to God's commandment, it is true worship, if not, false. And the Def. was urged to show one instance to the contrary. The Rejoinder is made, 1. by repeating over the empty terms, of in itself proper, essential, real, necessary, etc. Which have been so often discovered to be nothing but terms, that it were an idle tedious buisinesse, for to insist upon them again. Yet some few things may be observed, as proper to this place.

First we are told here, that it is essential to proper essential worship, be it true or false, that it tend of itself, and immediately, to the honor of God. So then we have the common nature of proper worship, as it is common to true and false worship. Now add unto this that which is added, pag. 125.126. that this worship, if it be required of God, is true, if not, false. Now this being granted, our whole Argument is granted, so far as it concerneth proper worship. For by this confession of the Rejoinder it is plain, that the institution of God doeth not make a thing proper worship, but only true proper worship, and the want of it doeth make proper worship false.

And this is all that we intend in this Argument, for which also we are twitted with new learning by the Def. pag. 185. where also he affirmeth that God's institution doeth distinguish essential worship from accidental, and therein he is maintained by the Rejoinder as by and by we shall see.

But how can these things stand together God's institution is first the specifical difference, whereby essential worship is distinguished from accidental, and yet the specifical difference also whereby true essential worship is distinguished from false? Can any one thing be a specifical form of diverse effects, or difference of diverse subordinate things, such as essential, and true essential worship are? Can there be ore and the same difference, betwixt a living and a lifeless creature, and also betwixt a reasonable and unreasonable living creature.

It is in the second place observable, how the Rejoinder seeketh to convey, or (to speak plainly) steal away from us, that which he had given. Divines (saith he) do distinguish proper worsh • p, from that which is after a sort so called, by immediate ende, and per se.

Be it so: this doeth not contradict any thing here in question: and it hath been expounded before, in the head of worship. The Divines of Saxony, and Wit • enberge, Ursinus also, and Zanchi are alleged for the same purpose, 1. e. nothing to the purpose, Of Ursinus and Zanchi, enough hath been spoken in the former section. As for the other, see how they agree.

It was required, that one of our Divines should be named, who handling the common place of worship, doeth not distinguish true worship from false, by this, that one is appointed of God, and the other not.

He bringeth in some Lutherans not fully consenting with our Divines, neither treating on any common place of worship, but only writing a brief confession, teaching a difference betwixt lawful rites of order, and proper worship, which we never doubted of. He taketh hold of those terms immediately, & of itself, by which (saith he) these divines distinguish proper worship from that which is after a sort so called.

But it is more probable of the places cited, that they rather distingu • sh worship (by those terms) from mere rites of order and decency, which they do never call worship, after a sort. Beside, of our Ceremonies, it hath been shown, that their immediate end, is to honor God: in which respect also, the Rej. himself ranketh them under the head of immediate worship.

As for per se, or of it self, it may mean also as much as ex opere operato, the mere work wrought. In which sense some Divines pronounce generally of all external worship, that of it self, and in it own nature, it doth not please God. Perkinse, in his Cases, lib. 2. cap. 6. Howsoever, to show how the authors of these confessions did not esteem significant Ceremonies Cross, Surplice etc. to be matters of lawful order, those words of the Wittenburg Confession do sufficiently declare. It is not lawful for Bishops, to thrust upon the Church, the Ceremonies of the old law, etc, where come in the words quoted by the Rejoinder and immediately after, these: Neither is it lawful, either to restore the old Ceremonies of the law, or to devize new, to shadow forth the truth already laid open, and brought to light, by the Gospel: as in the day light, to set up candles, to signify the light of the Gospel, or to carry banners and Crosses, to signify the victoríe of Christ thorough the Cross. Of which sort is all the furniture of Massing attire.

Upon such grounds as these, the Rejoinder concludeth thus: Therefore the institution of God alone is that which maketh the same things to be worship truly, and really, which without such institution, were no such real worship, though done to the same ende, and in the same manner. But I know not how the term truly, and then again such worship came into the question. We stand upon this, that God's institution of worship, doeth make true worship, and deny only that it maketh that worship, which otherwise, or without such institution, were no worship at all. How can then the Rejoinder be excused in confounding true worship, with real worship in this conclusion? Now take away this intruded truly, and then let any man tell me, how this conclusion can be reconciled with those his principles of concerning worship, pag. 125? Any action done to the honoring of God immediately, and in that act itself, is proper immediate, external worship of God. If God requires it not, then that worship is false. And even now: such an act is proper worship of God, be it true or false. Proper and Real to him are all one: and yet granting some proper worship to be false (for lack of God's institution) he denieth it to be real worship, if it want God's institution: as if God's institution did make that real proper worship, which for want of that institution is false worship.

This wild conclusion is further confirmed by a reason out of Tilenus, which is answered before, in the head of Worship, and by one example out of Fenner, whom the Rejoinder is pleased to call our own Master. Where, I will not say, what kind of men may (by like reason) beproclaimed his own Masters, but only desire him to consider, what reason he had, to avouche, that to hold the Ceremonies unlawful, is a new tenet lately broached, contrary to that which was held in Queen Elizabeth's days, whenas he accounteh Mr. Fenner our Master in this doctrine, who had to do in the first infamous silencing of Ministers for Ceremonies, in the beginning of D. Whitgifts Dominatinon? But what is that which is brought forth out of our own Master ? Nothing but this: that after public worship, the people are to use a reverent gesture, as bowing down the head before the Minister. Wherupon the Rejoinder demandeth, whether this adoration be essential, necessary worship or no? and in what sense this respect of the Minister be by him called worship of • od ? To which I answer 1. that I do not find it by him called worship of God at all 2. that it were a great absurdity for him to call a respect of man, worship of God, as the Rejoinder doeth. 3. that the adoration spoken of Neh. 8.7. from whence he took that observation, was proper essential external worship. In this therefore nothing is found to purpose.

One observation is added further by the the Rejoinder, namely, that diverse of our Divines do make this part of the defini • ion of proper worship, that it be according to the commandment of God. To which I answer, that such difinitions are to be understood of true and lawful worship, even as those definitions of an oath, which require the true God to be sworn by, are to be taken of right and lawful oaths only, because swearing by false God's, is swearing, as all worshipping, of false God's, is worship, though both unlawful.

In the next place, answer is tendered to this reason of Mr. Br. The bare ratifying of the present use of anything, cannot make it true and lawful worship, if it had not be • ore some nature of worship in the use of it. The force lieth in this, that bare ratifying or authorizing of anything to have that use which it had before without such authority, doeth not change the physical entity, essence, or use of it, but only the authority, or legalitie of it. The instances brought by the Rejoinder to the contrary, may have some show, but have no force to that purpose. 1. The sole stamp of the King, makes that current money, which was not money at all before, but only used by way of bartery. In which comparison, he utterly mistaketh and varieth the quality wherein it consisteth. For on the one side, it standeth thus: If God should command and us to use our Ceremonies, after the same manner that we have used them, without his command, they should be parts of God's proper outward worship. On the other side it standeth thus: if the Kinge command that piece of metal to be used for current money, which before was not used so, but only for bartery, it should be current money. Here is no similitude, because no proportion of quality.

2. As the sole word of God, made living creatures of those that were not living, before, so saith the Rejoinder the sole institution of God, makes that action to be true worship, which was before no real worship at all, though used to the same ende, and in the same manner. But 1. the creating word of that which was not before in being, differs so much from that ratifying word which presupposeth the being of the thing ratified, that here is not so much as a show of proportion. 2. This is a direct contradiction to that which the Rejoinder teacheth, pag. 125. If any thing be done to the honoring of God immediately and of itself, which God requires not so to be done, it is proper immediate external false worship. For hence it immediately followeth, that nothing can be done, to the same ende with true proper worship, but it must be proper worship, either true, if it be required of God, or false, if not so required. 3. The place of Sacrifice, before God had determined the particular place, though used to the same ende, and in the same manner, was not in itself any part of real worship to God: and yet after God's determination, it was. I answer. There was a great difference in the manner, wherein the place determined (so as it was) ought to be used. For there was special mysteriall signification to be observed in the one, which was not in the other.

Otherwise, I see not what more real worship there was in Jacob's place of sacrifizing at Bethel, upon God's special determination, Gen. 35. then in Abraham's sacrifizing at Hebron, without any such special determination of God, Gen. 13.

When all other Essays fail, the Repl. himself is brought in as guilty of contradiction, because he affirmeth these two things: the institution of God doeth distinguish true woe • ship from false: and yet it doeth not alter the common nature of worship. For (saith the Rejoinder) it is as if one should say: the reasonable soul doeth distinguish man from creatures that have not understanding: and yet it doeth not alter the common nature of the creature. But the Repl. had answered this before, if the Rejoinder would have attended unto his words, as they are by himself set down, pag. 189. alter the common nature of worship, that is, make that worship, which otherwise, being used to the same ende, and in the same manner, without God's institution, were no worship at all. In which words he plainly expressed, that by altering the common nature of worship, he meant nothing less, thē making true worship of false, but only creating or making the common essential nature of worship. And certain it is, that the reasonable soul (as it is reasonable) doeth not make the common essential nature of a living creature, for then there could be no living creature, without a reasonable soul as the Rejoinder affirmeth, there can be no proper worship, without God's appointment.

5. Against the Def. his invention of indifferent worship, it was excepted (to pass by repetitions) that no Scripture, Divines, or good reason doeth acknowledge any such worship. The ground is, because in Scripture, all worship is either approved as good, or condemned as evil : all Divines do distribute worship into true or false : and they have reason so to do. To this the Rejoinder opposeth nothing but the contrary assertion, grounded upon examples. 1. So far (saith he) as we may call the particularities of external disposition, in the m • nner of worship, respectively t • their ende, worship, so far may we call them indifferent worship: as kneeling, standing, bowing, or prostration, the place, and hour of worshiping, singing of this or that Psalm.

I will not here write over again, that which hath been declared about these things in the head of Worship. But in brief thus: 1. The question is not, what this or that may be called, by a Rhetorical trope, but what it is in the nature of it. 2. Respect to the utmost remote ende, doeth no more make matters of order, time, and place, worship, thē it maketh worship of eating, & drinking, and whatsoever we do to the honor of God, 1. Cor. 10.31.3. In place, and hour, or in the election of one Psalm, before another, there can no worship be placed, except we will make one worship to be worshipped by another, when it is timed, placed, and chosen. 4. Ther is no special worship in one of the gestures named that is not in the other. Neither is any of these gestures so indifferent, as that it may be lawful, to forbid, or refuse any of them, generally, and for all occasions, nor yet so, as that by circumstances (without any law or canon) they may become necessary. These examples therefore serve not the turn they were brought for.

2. Ther is also (addeth the Rejoinder) an arbitrary choice of essential Divine worship, as when we will pray or read, etc. where in respect of this liberty of choice, the kind of worship is indifferent in some respect. Of which assertion I know not what to say: Necessarie worship is in some respect indifferent. Certainly that respect must make a worship, distinct from that necessary worship whereof it is a respect: or else, as (by the Rejoinder his doctrine) all things in respect of their relation, are Ceremonies, and in respect of their utmost ende, worship, so all things, or at least all human actions, are also in some respect arbitrary and indifferent. Ther is no ende, or bottom in such reasons. The truth is, that this when which is here spoken of, is one and the same thing with hour which was mentioned in the former instance, and therefore needeth no new answer.

6. The Def. for proving of his assertion (that God's institution doeth difference necessary and essential worship, from indifferent and accidental) did bring in the instance of lambes for color unspotted, which was necessary and essential (as he affirmed) after the law, though before indifferent and accidental.

To this it was first answered, that this law of offering lambes for color unspotted, is nowhere exstant, and therefore that this instance was alleged either out of ignorance, or for want of due consideration. The Rejoinder being constrained to grant this exception to be just, turneth himself to those last words, either ignorance, or want of due consideration : and for them accuseth the Repl. of flying in the Def. his face, without Christian moderation. But if it be so great a crime, to impute either some ignorance or some inconsiderateness (such as no man alive is wholly free from) unto the Def. and if this be unchristian flying in his face, I am sure the Rejoinder hath gone beyoynd the face and stabbed deeper into our Vitals, in many passages of his Rejoinder.

As succedaneall instances to the former, which was found failling, the Rejoinder bringeth in diverse, out of the Levitical, or Ceremonial law, which were arbitrary before the law, and necessarily essential after. To all which, the second answer to the failing instance, giveth direct satisfaction. As for those Rites, which are further alleged, out of the Legende of fabulous Rabbin's, by Mr. Ainsworth, and ratified by the Rejoinder we regard them no more, then the Popish leaden Legendes. Only the marginal conclusion out of these Instances is observable: The Repl. fallaciously supposeth, that all worship is only true, or false, not observing a subdivision of true worship, into substantial, and circumstantial.

For 1. what reason can he render, of that which he layeth upon the Repl. as if he had supposed all worship to be only true or false.

The Repl. never denied, but all worship is also good, or evil, internal, or external, natural, or instituted, etc.

2. The reason which he bringeth, is only from the subdivision of true worship. But that doeth not hinder a superdivision, or aequidivision, into common, and special, Ecclesiastical, and domestical, as Mr. Perkinse divideth in the place before cited. 3. That division into substantial, and accidental, cannot possibly (with any reason) be more applied unto true then false worship, except the Rejoinder will say, that no false worship is either substantial, or accidental.

The seconde answer to the former instance (belonging to all those by the Rejoinder adjoined) is, that i • before the law, the same worship had been performed, with the same mind, that is, in the same manner, and to the same ende, it had been as essential worship, as after, though not so true, and lawful.

The Rejoinder here first, observeth a contradiction to that which was formerly said sect. 6. worship doeth not vary, according to men's opinion. But if he understand the matter well, he shall find both sayings well to agree. For though the want of some opinion doeth not vary the nature of worship, so as that the absence of this or that opinion, doeth make any external worship, not essential: and yet it doeth so vary the nature of worship, as that the presence of some opinion, doeth (as an efficient, not as a formal cause) make some external act essential worship. The Rejoinder his second observation is, that our Ceremonies are hereby discharged from will worship, and superstition, except it can be proved, the imposers, or users of them, do hold, that God is better pleased with them, then without them, in themselves, or that they are as pleasing to him, as if he had commanded them.

The consequence of which hereby conclusion, no logician in the world can make good. Yet (taking out in themselves, as an intrusion) all the consequent part may be maintained. For if there be anymore good h • lde in the imposing and observing of them, then in the omitting of them, then God is better pleased with them, then without them. And that which is lawfully and justly commanded by men authorized thereto, is as pleasing to God as if he had commanded it. Nay • t must be received, as commanded of God himself.

7. It was also by the Repl. brought into the Def. his remembrance, that matter, and form do usually make up the essence of things, and that to instituted means, a proper ende is also required, but a right efficient cause not so. About this, the Rejoinder showeth himself perplexed. For 1. he answereth, that this notwithstanding, actions have as it were matter, form and essence of accidental, though not of essential worship.

Where he manifestly separateth the essence of worship, from essential worship, as if the essence of a man could exist without an essential man, 2. He gathereth from that which was said of respect to the ende, in institutions, that thereby their assertiō, is cleared: viz. that Cer. respecting the honor of God mediately, are not properly parts of Divine worship. As if here had been any mention or questiō, of mediately, or immediately, proper, or improper, and not only of essential. But for so much as the Rejoinder would needs here cite D. Abbot, for his term immediately, I would desire him to consider of the whole sentence in that place pronounced by him, viz. Def. of Mr. Perk. pag. 844. Order and comliness (saith the popish Bishop) is some part of God's worship. But (saith D. Abbot.) Who taught him this deep point of Philosophy, that an accident is a part of the subject, that the beauty, or comeliness of the body is a part of the body? Order and comeliness properly and immediately respect men, and therefore can be no parts of the woship of God. If this be not a plain refuting of the Def. and the Rejoinder their assertion, then none is attempted in all the Reply.

3. He in like manner concludeth, that every respect of the honor of God, doeth not make a thing to be properly religious worship. As if the Repl. had ever spoken, or dreamt of such a fantasy, except it were in the Rejoinder his name! His words are: beside the respect of the ende, is also required institution of means to an ende. What Paracelsian can draw so wild an assertion, from such a ground as this?

8. It was (in the last place) demanded, whether, if the Temple of Jerusalem had been built, with institution of all the appurtenances, sacrifices, and observances, there used, without any Commandment of God, according as they were by his appointment, whether (saith the Repl.) they had not been essential false worship, erected to God? The Rejoinder answereth: Yes no doubt, if we may call (as the manner is) essential disworship, essential false worship: either in respect of the things themselves, or in the opinion conceyved in their use. Now mark (all readers that have sense) how this Rejoinder (here in the conclusion of all) is constrained to confess, that to be true, which he hath hitherto striven against as false. 1. The Repl. his assertion was, that God's institution doeth make that worship, which being used in the same manner and to the same ende, were otherwise no worship, or (as it pleaseth the Def. and Rejoinder to speak) no essential worship? The Rejoyn-hitherto hath contended against this, as against a great error.

Now in the winding up of the whole Argument, he confesseth, that some essential worship may be, without any institution of God. Certaynly, if this be so, then the institution of God, is not required to essential worship, neither is it of the essence of essential worship, that it be instituted of God. 2. He affirmed before, pag, 125. that proper immediate, (or essential) worship are only such things as God hath to that ende ordained Yet here he confesseth, that essential worship may be without any command of God. 3. The Rejoinder before, made essential and accidental worship to be a subdivision of true worship. Now he confesseth, that there is an essential worship under the head of false worship. 4. He acknowledgeth, that in all the former senseless assertions, he did not speak, as the manner of speech is.

That was therefore against the manner of speech, which the Def. & he used before. 5. He granteth some worship to be essential, in respect of the things themselves, separated from men's opinion. Yet hitherto, he would have made us believe, that opinion did vary the nature of worship, as sect. 6. If this be not a plain yielding, and granting of the whole Argument, there can be none, save only in plain terms, to say, I yield.

SECT. 10.11.12.13.14.

THe former argument being (though demonstrative) yet to the Def. his apprehension new, was derided as new learning : these following are excused from that censure, as being more popular, and seeming more fadomable. Of which it is to be observed, that moste of them are fetched out of incertaine papiers, under the name of Mr. Hy. and others, upon the Def. his credit: wherein, what equal dealing hath been used, it is very suspicious to any judicious reader, and some of those others, (for Mr. Hy. is past writing to) being asked, have testified, that in diverse passages they are much abused. Yet even these relics of Arguments are defensible.

1. The first is: because they are imposed to breed an opinion of holiness, by Mr. Hookers doctrine and therefore, as parts of God's worship. To which the Def. answereth, that it is no meant of operative holiness, either by infusion, or inhaesion, but only significative. Whence he concludeth, a perverse purpose of calumniation: and the Rejoinder (adding another distinction, betwixt holiness in them, and in the users of them) maketh mention also of dotage. But 1. the Def. his distinction is vain: because even significative holiness is also a part of God's worship. Otherwise some holiness must be feigned, which having no other immediate ende but that which directly and immediately tend to the honoring of God, is no part of his honor. The Rejoinder also is vain in limiting the matter to holiness in them.

For those things which are instituted to that immediate ende only, that they may breed an opinion of holiness, and so holiness, in others, do (in all reason) deserve the opinion of holiness some way causal, or operative in themselves: because all breeding is causing, or working, 1. e. operative.

It was also observed by the Repl. (only in a parenthesis, by the way) that holiness either by infusion or inhaesion, were unreasonablie by the Defend. disjoined.

This the Rejoinder excepteth against, and saith, in those terms there is no more disjunction, then in these love or charity, Magistrates, or Governors.

But he forgotte the proper English note of disjunction, either, or.

Where did he ever read such a phrase: either love, or charity, either Magistrates, or Governors?

It was also replied, that Mr. Hooker attributed operative holiness to the Cross, in allowing all that the Fathers ascribed to it. The Rejoinder his only material exception is, that the instance was here not of the Cross, but of the Surplice. Yet the question is of our Ceremonies, which is as well concluded from one, as another, and the Rejoinder himself, even now, spoke of holiness in them, as of many, not in it, as of one Ceremony only.

Neither is there anymore holiness in one, then in the other, if both be only significative.

The Repl. further affirmed, that Mr. Hooker spoke of reverence to be signified towards the Ceremonies. To which is rejoined I know not what. But let Mr. Hookers words, going before those nakedly cited by the Def. and Rejoinder, be considered. The wise man could not mention so much as the garments of Holiness, but with singul • r reverence, and it will be evident, whereto he required reverence.

In the last place, Mr. Hookers opinion is slighted, as private. Whereas all know, that he is in our Ceremonial controversies, of as public note, and approbation, as Bellamine in any Popish.

2. The second reason being slēderly propounded by the Def. out of Mr. Hy. his mangled manuscript, was thus by the Repl. distinctly explained: A holy assembly of Spiritual Lord's, and their Assistants, if they be truly holy, and spiritual in their authority, and in the exercise of it, will appoint no Ceremony but holy: and by the observance of the said Ceremonies, have some spiritual honor redounding unto themselves: because the virtue which is found in any effect, doeth redounde always to the praise of the cause. Of this argument, the Rejoinder pronounceth, that it is a pouring out of sal • scurrility, to the very lees, a scornful jest, ascoffing, a spiteful jest, a vagrant thing, the very noting whereof is answer enough. Now how should a man deal with such disputers?

The Def. brought this Argument out of unknowen papers, into a public book, and answered it with sharp words. The Repl. only shown the force of it: and for that, he is set upon a fresh with new words, like swords and daggars. Could they neither suffer this reason to sleep in the dark, nor endure any light of explanation should be set by it?

And what fault can be found with the repeating of those titles, which the Prelates in Convocation take to themselves, or in drawing a conclusion from them?

In the second place, our Rejoinder undertaketh to give a real answer to this reason. To which purpose, 1. he denieth that our Ceremonies are of the institution of the Convocation-house. And yet the same Rejoinder in answer to the Repl. his preface. pag. 61. complaineth of us, for infringing the liberty of the Church in her Convocation, touching the appointment of external Rites, or Ceremon. And pag. 71. as in diverse other places, he telleth us that the Convocation house maketh and establisheth Canons upon & with the Kings Commission, and allowance.

They are the words also of the Parliament, set down pag. 70. that the Clergy of England made the Canons. Neither can any man doubt of this, that have but looked on the book of Canons. The ratification of such things by Civil authority, doeth no more take the institution of them from the Clergy, then the like ratification of any point in true worship, doeth take the institution of it from God and Christ. 2. He denieth the consequence: because a holy assembly may ordain them, and yet not make them holy.

But it is manifest, that a holy assembly, as it is such, gathered together in the holy name of Christ, as their efficient, and final cause, cannot but put a holy form upon their ordinances. Qualis causa, tale effectum.

3. His third answer is that these Ceremonies may be called holy, because, they are used in holy actions. Which is just so, as a pesse, hassok, or cushin may be called holy, because it is used to kneel upon, in the holy act of prayer. But instituted significant Ceremonies are evidently of another holiness, to all that do not of purpose shut their eyes.

4. The Repl. (after the Def.) goeth about to prove that the Convocation may be called a sacred Synod, and holy in regard of their function. Which is so far from being denied by us (upon the supposition of the lawfulness of such a function, as they take upon them) that it is the ground of our reason, to prove their ordinances holy. So that the Rejoinder might (in this place) have spared those sweet words of his: stomach, without wit, or learning: these men say (in effect) to all other men, stand back, I am holier then thou, they are censorious, and uncharitable. Yet the Repl. could not consent, that our Convocations should be so accounted holy as Churches instituted of Christ, and gathered for true holy worship: because neither of these do agree to our Convocation. Heerupon the Rejoinder (having nothing to say that was pertinent) speaketh something of right Ecclesiastical Synods, accuseth the Separatists with Mr. Jacob, and lastly affirmeth our Convocations to be gathered for a special duty of God's service, though he will not tell us, what it is, and confesseth, that little good is sometimes (he might have said at any time) done at their meetings. Which kind of answering I leave to the judgment of any reader.

3. A third reason, feched out of M. Hy. his papers, is, that Cross and Surplice are set apart from civil uses, and appropriated unto the acts of religion in God's service. To which the Def. answered, by equal comparison of Pulpit-cloth, Communion cup, and place of meeting in like manner appropriated. Wherupon the Repl. was, in general, that the Def. did well understand what was meant by appropriation. This put the Rejoinder into a passion, expressed by many words: a pretty sleight, for that which cannot be defended, by those which are pusled and toiled, a f • im 〈◊〉 , lent by Mr. Jacob, a mere shift, proceeding out of an haughty desire of defending that which hath been once spoken. And this is all that I find rejoined to that passage. To which I say nothing.

A reason was rendered of the former assertion: because a Pulpit-cloth Communion-cup, and Meeting-place are only civil, being taken from the ordinary civil customs of men. To which the Rejoinder opposeth, that no civil man will say, that they are only civil in their application: Which is very true. Nor will any Grammarian say, that good Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, are only gramaticall in their application, because they are applied to the expressing of all kind of truths and falsehoods: and yet they are only gramaticall etimologie and syntaxe. No Naturalist will say, that the earth and air are only natural in application, and yet they are only natural beinges.

It was further added, that clothes, cups, meeting places etc. are of the same use out of God's service, that they are in it.

This is occasion of admiration, and exclamation to the Rejoinder. But he might have considered, that the immediate ende of a clothe, is to cover; of a cup, to drink out; of meeting places, to meet in: and then where is the strangeness of this assertion? Is there not the same immediate use of a man's eyes, in reading one book, as another, of a man's ears, in hearing one voice, and another, how soever the subject seen, or heard, may differ in nature or kind.

A distinction was likewise used, betwixt appropriation of this or that individual, and of the kind. To this it is rejoined, 1. that the individuals are nevertheless appropriated. Which is not so: because appropriation of the kind and individual both, is more then of the individual alone. Individuals may be extrinsicallie, & accidētally appropriated, the kind remaining intrinsically common, & indifferent. 2. That some individuals (without all their kind) have been appropriated to holy uses. Of which no man doubteth: because one individual may be so used, without other. But is there therefore no difference, betwixt extrinsical, accidental appropriation of one Levite to the Ministry, and the whole tribe? 3. Not all kind of linen garments, or crosses are appropriated to religious uses.. As if the question were of linen garments simply, though they were used without any such institution as a Surplice hath, only for the natural conveniency of it, or of crossing the fingers, upon occasion, to drive away flies, that come cross upon a man's face. Ther was (in the last place) mention made of the significancie of our Ceremonies, which maketh them in their intrinsical nature (as such) without any further expectation of occasional application, to be proper to religion. But of this our Rej. would not hear, in this place. Let it therefore pass to the next chapter.

4. A fourth confirmation wholly dependeth on Matth. 15. Where the Def. would have it, that our Savior condemneth not the act of washing (that is saith the Rej.) the monitorie significant sign of washing, used by the Pharisees, but their intention, & opinion, in attributing legal and operative sanctity, to that their own invention. Now concerning monitorie significancie, enough hath been spoken, in the head of Ceremonies, and it remaineth to be discussed in the following chapter.

For the present, it was first noted by the Repl. that some intention and opinion of holiness cleaveth to our Ceremonies. This is denied by the Rej. and yet in his whole dispute, he maketh them worship, though accidental, arbitrary, and improper. Neither can any man impose a double or treble religious Ceremony without intention and opinion of some holiness belonging to it, more then to that which is not so religious.

It was in the second place observed, that more holiness was attributed to those washings, then is by many among us to the cross, cannot be proved out of the text, there being no one circumstance in it, which may not fitly be applied to our Ceremonies. To which the Rej. saith 1. that those are blind & superstitious persons, which attribute such things to the Cross, not the Church imposing. Just as Bellarmine, in the place by and by to be cited, answereth Calv. about the same matter: If there be anymore rude among hir Catholics, we hold them worthy to be corrected. But are not our blind Protestants, and those rude Papists, hardened in their superstition, by the imposing & urging of those things which they superstitiously dote on?

The Pharisees (addeth the Rej.) were so strongly conceyted of this washing, that they thought, without it, the very creatures of God should defile them. But that of the very creatures defiling, is not in the text: It is but probablie collected out of our Savior's following discourse, that they estemeed some defiling to follow upō the eating of the creature, not as it was a creature, but as it was so used against the tradition of their Elders. And are are there not many to be found in England, that their very Baptism is deficient, insufficient, and so defiled: if it want the Cross?

For further answer, it was alleged by the Repl. that not only Calvin in Mat. 15. but also Bellarmine himself (de eff. Sacr. l. 2. cap. 32.) saith, that the Pharisees washing was condemned as vain, and unprofitable, setting aside, intention, and opinion of legal, operative holiness. The Rejoinder answering first for Bellarmine, saith he is abused: because (forsooth) he speaks that falsely, to defend the Popish Ceremonies. As if it were not the common notion of all Christians, that vain and unprofitable Ceremonies are to be condemned, or as if Bellarmine alone said this! or as if this could defend the Popish Ceremonies, which are more easily defended from any other charge, then they can be from this, that they are vain and unprofitable.

Who would have thought, that D.B. would defend vain and unprofitable Ceremonies, in God's solemn worship? But Chemnitz (saith he) observe • s, that Christ condemned not these washings simply as profane fopperies, nor as simply unlawful, but in respect of religion placed in them. Not simply profane fopperies, that is, void of all show from Scripture, or reason, nor simply unlawful, if the acts in themselves be considered or abstracted from all relations by institution added unto them: but in respect of religion placed in them, 1. e. superstition adjoined unto them. Now there is superstitio not only pernicious, but also vain, and superfluous. Filucius, tract. 24. cap. 2. And chemnitius, in the same place affirmeth, the Pharisees washinges to have been condemned, for that (notwithstanding their vanity; and want of Divine institution) they were made some part of God's worship.

As for Calvin, the Rej. doeth not deny, but that passage alleged is found in the place, the inventing of Ceremonies was an idle vanity, before the high opinion of Religion was added unto it. Yet (saith he) 1. he cleareth our Ceremonies, which was cast upon the Jewish superstitious washings. From some of that blame, (it may be granted) but not from all. For then those words (which the Rejoinder confesseth him to set down) should have bē a contradiction to the other. 2. This shread (added he) is falsely alleged as touching the intention. And why so I pray?

Because (forsooth) Calvin's meaning was, that to devize new washing, to the like ende, and with the like opinion of them, as of those which God had set, wa of idle vanity.

But if this were his meaning, how can that meaning agree with the meaning of these words: It was of idle vanity before the high opinion of Religion was added unto it?

Was there any higher opinion of Religion added unto those washinges, thē to the washinges which God had set? Extremitie drives men to hard shifts.

For the fuller clearing of this reason, that idle and vain or superfluous worship is condemned by Christ, Mat. 15. let these testimonies, and reasons be well considered.

The Priests had brought in many Novelties, though Moses with great terror had threatened them not to ad anything, of which number of additions were those things of washing. There was a double fault for the innovation it self was not a slight metter and then this, that they stood more upon those observations of their own then they did on the Commandments of God. 1. That first offense Christ doeth not presently reprove them for saying it was a frivolous and superfluous, thing, lest they should have been inflamed.

Another cause for which he despised these washings was their superstition. The Pharisees had put in the said washings, not for any natural and civil decentie or cleanelinesse, but as pertaining to religion, who so did contemn thē were judged to offend against God's worship, and who so did observe them seemed chiefly to regard, God's worship in them. But this was in no wise lawful for them to do who were so straitly charged of God, Deut. 4. that they should add nothing. For this Christ rejected these washings as superstitious, which reason Mat. 15. ch. intimates when he saith : Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted out. And Marc. ch. 7. In vain do they worship me teaching the Doctrines, and praeceps of men, &c. Such things as men set up of themselves against any Commandment of God.

In Mat. 15. Marc. 7. the Commandments of men do mean such Commandments which conduce nothing at all to piety, as those Superfluous washings.

5. In the fifth place, another reason (or charge) was brought out of Mr. Hy. his papers, that the Ceremonies imposed, are (for their use and practice) preferred before principal parts of God's worship: because this is the Pralats Canons: wear a Surplice, or preach not: Cross, or baptize not. This the Def. accused of dull Sophistry : because by this means, only an orderly discreet preacher is preferred before one that is factious and exorbitant. Of this base Bonnerly speech, the Repl. shown his just detestation. For which he is censured by the Rejoinder of casting it out of the mouth of his stomach, of malice, intemperat railings, and a furious spirit. All which I leave to the readers judgment. Only this I observe, that he would excuse all or most of the Prelates, from willing silencing any able and godly ministers for omission of our Cerremonies, and doeth absolutely deny, that the Def. ever silenced any Minister (willingly or unwillingly (for only omission of Ceremonies. Concerning which terms ( willingly, and only omission ) some light of explication were needful. For only omission of Cross, or Surplice, by oversight, or other accident, the Pope himself will not silence a Priest, as all Popish Divines tell us, in affirming that to be no mortal sin. And how those which make Canons for silencing upon purposed continued omission, and execute the same partly by themselves, and partly by their instruments, can be said to do it unwillingly, this requireth interpretation, which will certainly be found tardy. For clearing of this charge, from the imputation of dull Sophistry, the Repl. first propounded it in this manner: an able godly Minister without the use of these Ceremonies, is not suffered in the Ministry, whereas an unable & ungodly one, with the use of them, is suffered: therefore they are praeferred before main things: Upon this, the Rejoinder 1. observeth, that from hence doeth not follow that conclusion: therefore our Ceremonies are made parts of God's worship. As if this conclusion were once named by Mr. Hy. or by the Def. in this charge.

If he will make it supposed, he must show us Mr. Hy. his concealed papers for the proof of that supposition. He addeth 2. that all Prelates are to be charged with this practice: and that they have no such power for depriving of bad, as they have for depriving of good Ministers. To which I answer, the question is not here of all, but of that which standeth by our Canons, and Canonical practice. Yet neither any authors, nor any defenders of the Canons, can be excused from partaking in this practice, no not the Rejoinder himself. And as for those Prelates, which have great power to do evil, and little, or none, to do good (or which is all one, power effectually to hinder good, and not evil) they have a very dangerous standing, dangerous (I say) as well for others, as for their own selves. Yet, when our Prelates procured that authority of doing evil, they might as easily, and more lawfully have procured the other, of doing good: not to say, that none of them do so much for reforming or removing of bad Ministers, as is in their power to do, either by themselves, or by other means. Nay is it not known, how such kind of catle are not only borne with, but borne up by the Prelates in bad causes?

The third Rej. is of a calumniation, because some inconformable Ministers are suffered, and some unable, and ungodly deprived. But 1. this calumniation concerning some inconformable suffered for a time, extraordinalie, besides, nay against Canonical order. 2. He can scarce name one, that he hath known deprived for that he was unable. 3. The Turks and Infidels would cashier their Priests for some ungodliness. What a poor rejoinder is this?

A fourth consideration is, that a far less offense defended, is more punishable then a greater confessed, and that certain evils, in themselves lesser, may do more hurt, then others in themselves greater. Which consideratiō, if it be applied to the purpose, will appear in the proper colors: If a Minister confess himself unable and ungodly, he is not so punnishable, as he that defendeth the Ceremonies are not to be used. The refusing of our controverted Ceremonies, may do more hurt, then an unable and ungodly generation of Ministers conforming. In that which is further added, under the title of lastly I find nothing but words & assertions, without backing reasons. Valeant igitur, quantum valere possunt.

The same charge was (in the second place) thus framed, by the Repl. Though there cannot be found able and discreet conformable Ministers, enough to supply all the Parishes of England, yet many of godly men are shut out of the Ministry for unconformitie. Therefore Conformitie is praeferred before the main duties of God's worship. Heer the Rej. having little to say, setteth notwithstanding two colors on the matter. 1. That the consequence is not simply true, but only that they conceive the non-conformity may, by consequence, be a greater hurt, then an able and godly Ministry, in such places, as want it, would recompense. As if this crying sin were only their conceit, not their practice, or that their conceits could make this sin no sin! or that the salvation of many thousands of souls, could not recompense the hurt that would come upon the refusing of human Ceremonies? What is this other then daubing rotten walls with untempered mortar.

His second color is, that non-conformitans are no less blameable, who had rather have no worship, then conformity. Which is as much as if he should say, that whosoever will not sin for God's glory, doeth as much offend, as he that will not suffer God to be glorified by those which will not to that ende be content to sin against his conscience.

Because this reason was accused of dullenesse, it was noted (by the way) that every Plowman, being a good Christian, did usually make it in this blunt manner, against the Prelates proceedings, and that the Repl. (being, as it seemeth first brought up among such plain people) had from his childhood took it to be unanswerable. Heerupon, the Rej. 1. answereth the blunt argument, with this sharpness: It is like as if one should say, that God, admitting no man to the Priesthood with bodily blemish, did therefore praeferre bodily perfection before spiritual. Wherein, he deceyveth him • elf, & others much, whether he respecteth the first explication of this reason, or the second. For according to the first, it must be affirmed, that God would suffer men blemished in their bodies, to be priests, though they had no spiritual fitness for that office. And according to the second, he should have said, that God having otherwise to furnish the Priesthood, according to a superior law, which he might not of his will dispence with, did notwithstanding exclude some of those which that law did allow. But both these assertious are too absurd for the Rejoinder to own.

His second note is of Plowmen, and Children, that they are not the best Logicians. Which though it be true, yet is nothing to the purpose: because many Plowmen have good natural logic, to reason withal. Otherwise they did very inconsiderately, who vented so good reasons under the title of the prayer, and complaint of the Ploughman, as in M ^r . Fox is to be seen, Edw. 3. among which reasons (a remarkable thing) this very slighted argument is one. For so are the words: O Lord, for breaking of thy law, the Prelates will set men penance, or pardon them, and maintain them, as oft as they trepasse. But Lord, if a man once break their laws, or speak against them he may do penance but once, and after be burnt.

The sum of which, M ^r . Fox, in the margent, thus gathereth: The breaking of the Popes law is more punished, then the breaking of God's law. And as for children, I am persuaded, that D.B. himself, had some truths so evident unto him, that by no contrary show of logic they could ever be wrunge out of him. Sure I am that Timothy, knowing the Scriptures from a child, had many such.

Neither was there mention made either of plowmen or children, But only to show the evidence of this truth, not the logical Demonstration of it.

That which was added, by way of limitation, to the name of a plowman, namely, that it was understood of such a plowman, as is also a good Christian, is very bitterly, and yet as very unreasonablie carped at by the Rejoinder as savouring strongly of that spirit of Separation, which hath been hunted after in the ch • se of inconformitie. For (saith the Rejoinder if any will believe all his conceytes) this shows, that with these men the adversaries of Ceremonies and Bishops are the only good Christians.

Which is a strange strain, to come from D. B. who both hath been an unconformist, and since he hath changed that title, cannot but know, that sundry unconformists have carried themselves towards himself, in all respects, as toward a good Christian. And what strong savor is in this: every plowman that is a good Christian doeth unsua • lie make this Argument. Doeth he imagine, that only those plowmen, that are professed adversaries to Ceremonies and Bishops, do • make it? Nay he knoweth, that many, and many of those that could otherwise well digest both, yet do apprehend this course of Bishops silencing Ministers for such Ceremonies is ungodly, and Antichristian. If he did not know so much, yet he cannot be ignorant, that the word here interposed by the Repl. for limitation, usually, doeth except some more ignorant, or less attentive good Christians. And I doubt not, but the Rejoinder will affirm, that every good conforming Minister in England, doth usually account them for scismatickes that condemn the Ceremonies: yet I would not thence conclude, that with him, those of that judgment are the only good Ministers. For there is as much sin against charity, in rash accusing others of uncharitableness, as there is in being uncharitable: of which fault, the Rejoinder can never clear this affected passage, which he in opposition let fall from him.

For overthrow of the former reason, an instance was brought in by the Def. taken from a Chancelor, who may (saith he) put out of Commission him that refused to sit in the place appointed, without praeferring that place to the Kings service. To this the Repl. 1. answered, that no wise Chancellor, would, for his own pleasure, or for the circumstance of a place easily change, or put out of Commissiō a grave wise mā, whē another like unto him cannot be found. These last words another like unto him cannot be found, are cached up by the Rejoinder and under the show or sound of them, the Inconformists are by him tossed (as it were) in a blancket, as being of a high strain, beyond all other men, in their own persuasion etc. But he might have considered (if sinister affection had not hidden it from him) that the case immediately going before this answer, was of shutting out able godly Ministers for inconformitie, when there cannot be found able and fit conformable Ministers enough. Wherupon is inferred, that the comparison of the L. Chancellor will not help the Def. in this case.

Now what kind of strain is this then in the Rejoinder to conceal the case, and stretch the words as it were with his teeth, unto such a strange odious meaning of so witless a brag. Yet if there had been no such dependence of these words upon that case, they might be well defended, as understood of an absolute comparison (either for ability, or piety) but in relation to this or that people; from whom such Mininisters are sometime plucked away by violence, whose like, in regard of that people (which have been much edified by them, and more inwardly known, and also (upon good ground) affected unto them, then they can suddenly unto any other) cannot be found.

Otherwise, D. Burgess, in his Apology (towards the conclusion) would not have alleged against the silencing of himself, and others like him, that those (at the least) should succeed thē, which were not so well acquainted with the condition of their sheep. It might be also added, that though another like might be found, yet it is not in the power of that L. Chancellor, or the Bishop to find, bring, & place him in the same Commission, because (for the succession) he must depend upon the Patrons pleasure, not limited to another like the predecessor.

But that this wresting of the Replier his words, was affected (in some sort against conscience) it may appear by this, that no man will surmise, the Repl. to think, that to no unconformable Minister a Peer may be found: because it is to be supposed (at the least) that another unconformable one may not only be equal, but also superior unto him in all absolute perfection.

It was also observed, for answer to this instance of a L. Chancellor, that about the circumstance of place, for Commissioners to meet in, there can be no Conscience pretended, whereas in our Ceremonies, solemn oaths are offered, that nothing but conscience doeth keep us from them. The Rejoinder 1. opposeth, that this unlikeness maketh, nothing to the question. And yet it showeth, that a Chancellor may in civil matters, where no conscience can be pretended, take more upon him without preferring, or comparing the matters, then a Bishop can, where Consciēce evidently withstandeth: because Cōsciëce is not to be vexed, except the matter be so great, that (in respect of God's glory) it cannot be neglected. He 2. opposeth, that many more of the Conformitans, are ready to take it s • upon their oath, that nothing but conscience makes them conform. To which I say 1. that he who was immediately before, so curious in holding to the question, should not presently have digressed from it: as the Rejoinder here doeth, in turning the comparison, which was made betwixt a L. Chancellor and a Bishop, in respect of a conceyted Commissioner, and a conscionable Minister about preferring one thing before another, into a new comparison, betwixt the consciences of Conformitants, & of those which refuse to conform. 2. Of that so, if the same meaning be kept on both sides, I much doubt.

For our Conscience is, that in no place, nor uponany man's command, we may conform: and theirs is, that upon great urgent extremities, they may some time, and in some place conform. I am persuaded, that if it had been free in England to use these Ceremonies, or not to use them. D. B. himself hath no conscience, that would ever have made him conform.

After this, the Repl. added something, about the Def. his Pontifical terms, factious and exorbitant men. opposed to orderly and discreet Preachers. As 1. that the Def. himself in his conscience will not say, that Mr. Midsley of Ratsdale, and others like him, were factious and exorbitant men. 2. That this is the language of that evil servant, who beat his fellow-servants, better then himself: Mat. 24.49.3. That all those who are placed in the room of silenced Ministers, are not orderly and discreet Preachers. 4. That faction and exorbitancie may better be charged upon the Prelates, for breaking many substantial, ancient, wholesome Canons, then upon us, for breaking a Ceremonious Canon. Now (setting aside the Rejoinder his wandering words, with the honey and gall of them) see what he bringeth to the purpose. 1. The first he granteth to be true. But denieth that the Def. meant so generally. And yet the Def. his words are: who seeth not, that to deprive men of their Ministry for not using of the Ceremonies (for that was objected ) is to prefer an orderly and discreet Preacher, before one that is factious and exorbitant. If this be not generally spoken, let any reasonable ear discern.

2. The second he doeth not absolutely gain-say but casteth the like, or rather a far greater fault in our faces: that we (forsooth) do condemn to the p • t of darkness. Bishops, Conformitants, and in a manner all that are not of our party. Which is so manifest a slander, that the evil servant spoken of Matth. 24.49. could hardly vent one more shameless.

3. The third he confesseth: But would make it impertinent though it clean overthroweth the Def. his general assertion, before expressed. He addeth also certain frothy words, containing little else, beside manifest slanders, which if he were put to such an oath, as they call juramentum calumniae, he would not own.

4. The Prelates willful, and continual breaking of many, substantial, & wholesome Canons, is not denied by the Rej. but yet to save their credit, he addeth, that all such Canons do not bind every particular Church, but her own. In which words there is neither rime, nor reason. The Canons objected, may be seen in Master Parker, part. 2. c. 9. sect. 4. to be Canons of our own Church. What then hath the Rejoinder said to the purpose? His other stuff hath been sundry times examined, and found nothing worth.

5. All these considered, it will appear, that the Rej. had more will, then power, to maintain, that the silencing of Preachers for our Ceremonies, is the praeferring of orderly discreet Preachers, before those that are factious and exorbitant.

6. After all this, out of Mr. Hy. his papiers, it pleased the Def. to bring in some pieces out of the Abridgement: which for substance are such as diverse times have been handled before: and therefore need not much labor in this place.

The first is, that many people in our land, are known to hold the Sacraments not rightly and sufficiently administered or received without them. For the force of such an opinion in the muliitude, many testimonies are alleged in the Abridgement, and applied unto this assertion, not in deed to prove the same simply, but to show what is the consequence of it. All these the Def. left out, and the Rej. had no mind to take them in, but chose rather to rest in this: they are no proofs of the assumption. It was added by the Repl. the opinion even of a few, may make some action unlawful, which the opinion of many other cannot make lawful. 1. Cot. 10.28. To avoid this, the Rejoinder had nothing material to say, before he had changed unlawful into simply unlawful.

The just number of those that are so minded, cannot be proved, or disproved, without numbering and examining all the people. It was not therefore any meaning of those that gave the rule to reckon by the poul▪ as the Def. and Rejoinder would have us.

Neither is this observation brought in to prove imposing and observing, conjunctly, as they would bear the reader in hand, but only for the observing, other proofs being added for the imposing. Yet it was observed by the Repl. that while actions of this kind are superstitiously observed, they that still impose them in those places where they are so observed, may truly be interpreted so to impose them. To which the Rejoinder giveth no other proper answer, but only leaving out the pith of that assertion, may be truly so interpreted, substituteth another; of a purposed ende : and then misinterpreteth actions of this kind, as if they were meant of the special kind of things, and not of unnecessary actions known to be superstitiously abused.

It was also noted as ridiculous in the Def. that those people which think that Sacraments are not rightly administered, or received without the Ceremonies, are brought into that conceit by our condemning of the said Ceremonies. The Rejoinder answereth, that this condemning of them, must needs make some think that they are imposed as parts of religion, and so occasion the simple to think that we esteem them so.

In which answer, beside that I know not who are meant by we, and that an occasion of the second or third hand, is made a cause, there is no mention made of right or unright Sacraments.

For lessening of the number of those which so esteem of our Ceremonies, the Papists are first removed, as having no great conceit of them. Which I leave to experience. Only because the Rejoinder requireth testimony, I can inform him, that Gretser, Apol. pro Greg. 7. p, 8. hath these words: A Lutheran, preaching in • erteine garments like the Ape of the priests, celebrates a German Mass. And the Rejoinder himself confesseth in the next words, they have a better conceit of them, then of the contrary, and that such as hath been held likely to araw them to our service, and that they have a great disaffection to those that will not tollerat the resemblance of their religious Ceremonies. Add further, that after B. Babington, and B. Andreos, D. Morton him • elf, in the last words of his Protestants Appeal, hath confirmed the rumor, that Pope Paulus quaertus, did offer to confirm our whole Service and Liturgy. The Papists therefore have no cause why they should not have a good conceit of our Ceremonies, which of all the Service come nearest to, and make most for them.

As for the rest, that so conceit of the Ceremonies, which are not of your disciplining, saith the Rejoinder) and yet are conformable they are not many. As if those of our disciplinating, were so conceyted, or those of Wales, Non-residents, and dumb-residents forlorn charges, who are not disciplined by us, were either few or of reformed judgment. Surely D.B. is not like himself, when he upon engagement defendeth that which cannot be defended.

7. The second thing brought out of the abridgement, is about the punishment inflicted for omission of our Ceremonies, greater then for breaking of God's law, in perjury and adultery. Now this hath formerly been handled. In this place therefore, it shall suffice, to set a few notes, upon the Rej. his answers. 1. He distinguisheth betwixt punishing, and punishing as a sin. As if punishment in the internal nature of it, were not of sin ! 2. He distinguisheth betwixt internal peace of the Church, consisting more in observance of God's commandments, and the peace of her external policy, impeached by the neglect of her constitutions. Whereas he should have made the distinction betwixt one consisting, & another, or betwixt one impeaching, & another.

And yet both the consisting and impeaching of the Churches peace, doeth principally depend on the keeping of God's commandments: which is all the Repl. affirmed. 3. He distinguisheth betwixt an offense every way less, and in it own nature less, whenas the question is not, whether the neglect of our Ceremonies, be not only in it own nature a less offense, but also in all the circumstances of it. The Def. and Rejoinder themselves confess, that this neglect, in the nature of it, is no offense at all. 4. Because such answers were termed Sophisticall evasions, the Rejoinder twice crieth out of railing : forgetting (without doubt) how often he had abused the same term against the Repl. and that in the next former section, he had maintained the Def. his accusing a plain popular argument, not only of Sophistry, but even of dull Sophistry. For the Rejoinder certainly will not confess himself a railer. The rest is not worth repeating, that paper should be twice blotted with it.

Against the Def. his distinction, betwixt omission, and contempt, the Reply was 1. that mere omission hath been punished with suspension. Of which the Rejoinder requireth a continued instance. To which I answer, that one instance may be given in Ispswiche, where D. B. was Preacher. For most of the Ministers were suspended upon the complaint of one Web, who professed, that he would not put on the Surplice except others did. D. B. may inquire easily if it was not so. As for continuance, it maketh not to the purpose, except all malefactors be not only put in prison, but also continued in the same, above the Judges pleasure.

The Repl. for affirming, that punishments for mere omission, are provided for by Canon, is accused by the Rejoinder of an untrueth in print.

Yet the Rejoinder cannot be ignorant (beside other examples) that every man not kneeling, is to be denied the Sacrament, and that the Minister administering to such, is by the Canon, to be suspended.

So that this was truth in print, ever since the Canons were in print: except suspension from the Sacrament, & from the Ministry be in his account no punishment.

8. The last thing noted out of the Abridgement is, that non-Cōformitants are accounted Scismatikes, Puritans, and excommunicates, ipso facto, without appeal: which is without example. The Rejoinder here 1. denieth that flatly, without more words, which is plainly cited out of the 6. Canon, let the Canon therefore be looked upon, and that is enough. 2. He saith that the old anathema sit was as much as to excommunicate ipso facto.

And yet King James himself, in his answer to Perone, doeth show, that the old anathema sit, was only a declaring who ought to be excommunicated, and not an excommunication de facto. 3. He saith for Appeal, that none is admitted, from the highest Court, such as the Convocation is. As if either the Convocation were the highest court, or any court at all, for ought that I ever heard of the Court of Convocation, as I have of a Court of Parliament, or as if so much liberty were left unto a poor Minister, now standing at the Bishops bar, as to appeal to the next Convocation. The Rejoinder surely did not well consider what he spake.

4. Whereas the Def. granted, that we have reason perhaps to wish, that some poenalties were released, the Rejoinder interpreteth this reason to be such as all men that feel the smart of punishment (for whatsoever offense) may have. Which is nothing else, but to look on, with laughter, at all the grievous things which any Ministers have suffered, for this cause. And yet every foot the Rejoinder putteth on another person, and (as I am persuaded) hath another heart.

After this, the Rejoinder cometh to the slanders of Puritamisme, and Schism. And as for Puritanism, he saith the Def. slided by it, as a term not imposed upon us by him. As if we may not complain of, or infer a consequence, from any term, except it be imposed upon us by D. Morton, or D. Burgess or at the least, they were not bound to answer for any terms, except such as they themselves have imposed!

For Schism, and Separation, after some sparkeling words of rash-blasphemous, and fiery Sirs, he telleth us 1. (1. that nothing may be established in the Church, which God hath not commanded in his w • rd, 2. that all forms of worhip and all m • re Ecclesiastical rites, not prescribed, are will-worship. 3. That the calling of our Bishops, and consequently of our Ministers, is Antichristian. 4. That our Ceremonies are idolatrous, ) are the first principles of Separation. Now if it would please the Rejoinder either to declare what is Separation, or what is a principle, this question would be easily decided. In the mean time, I answer. 1. the first principle is from Moses, if it be understood, as we mean it: thou shalt not add anything thereto. 2. The second confounding mere rites, with forms of worship, is not ours, but only by the Rej. his fiction. 3. The third supposeth, that which we utterly deny, that the calling of our Ministers doeth essentially depend upon the Bishops calling. 4. The fourth is made scismaticall, by a scismaticall conceit of the Rej. namely, that every Church is to be utterly condemned▪ and so separated from, that hath any thing in it, by participation idolatrous. His ever being of this opinion, may be answered in that fashion which he answereth the like phrase withal, pag. 216. He hath not ever been the best Logician. His profession, of separating (this day, ere he sleep ) if he did believe these principles, is nothing else but a rhethoricall flourish, which he would twice recall, before he would separate from those that bow to Altars, or even those which worship an ubiquitarie body, in the Lord's supper, though these are more palpablie idolatrous (in his conscience) then the Ceremonies questioned are in ours.

As for the addition, with a yea, that Mr. Bradshaws very arguments are pretended for Separtion so as they cannot be denied with any forehead, etc. It is not worth a refutation: because Mr. Bradshaw himself in a book entitled, the unreasonableness of the Separation) hath sufficiently shown how unreasonably they are pretended, and abused. If the Rejoinder hath anything to rejoigne thereto, I would willingly see with what fore-head he can do it.

The other talk of this section, as also the recounting of a confutation in the 15. section, I leave to be counted as it deserveth, by him that will compare what hath been said, with the wordy rejoinder to it, so vainly opposed, and so often repeated.

Only (in few words) let it be noted 1. how in the 15. section, he slighteth the sentence of D. Covell as not worth any answer) who confuted his Apology, and in that writing (at the least) was a kind of public wrighter, having had as much approbation, as this Rejoinder hath for his rejoinder as appeareth out of the Rejoinder his Praeface pag. 18. namely of the then L.A. D. Bancroft, etc. 2. How he maketh the imposers sentence, to be an adequate rule of observance, de facto. 3. How he denieth some divine worship only to be unholy in the kind : as if some singular true divine worship may be unholy. 4. What a wild consequence he buildeth upon: if the cross be no part of the Sacrament, then it is no part of worship: because it may not (in the Repl. his opinion) be a part. 5. How unreasonablie he defendeth this consequence: our Ceremonies are changeable, and therefore not essential worship ; when yet he confesseth the Popish Ceremonies to be changeable, and yet essential worship. 6. What science there is, for a Rejoinder upon such grounds to charge the Repl. for violating his conscience?

SECT. 1. and 2. Concerning certain miscelaneall notions and testimonies against human relegious significant Ceremonies.

1. THis Argument pleadeth, that no human Ceremonies, appropriated to God's service, ordained, or instituted, to teache any spiritual duty, by mystical signification, are lawful. About this the Rejoinder threateneth blows. But we have had now such experience of his forcelesse endeavors in other Arguments, that the fear of his blows is past.

2. The first proof of our proposition was taken from the second Commandment: which the Def. omitted in this place, and the Rejoinder will not have any man to take exception against the said, omission: but with what reason, let his reader judge.

3. A second proof was, that Christ is the only teacher of his Church, and appointer of all means whereby we should be taught and admonished of any holy duty, and all Christ's doctrine, with the means thereof, is perfectly contained in the holy Scripture. Here (saith the Rejoinder) the Def. forgot to tell, how absurd this collection is, Christ is the only authentic teacher of his Church etc. therefore they may be no means of teaching or admonishing unto duties, but such as be ordained as necessary. As if it were sufficient for the Def. or Rejoinder to tell us anything as they please, how little ever it be to the purpose.

He maketh show of a distinction, betwixt an authentic teacher, and another, what do you call him? to which we cannot say much until he remember to tell us the name, style, and office of that other by-teacher?

Only this, by the way, I would learn: how we can acknowledge and receive any means of religious teaching with faith, except it appear to be appointed by an authentic teacher and lawgiver? And how our Prelates in oppointing means of spiritual teaching which Christ appointed not, can be accounted (therein) Ministerial teachers under him as their and our only authentic teacher? As also, if Christ be our Authentic Teacher in all good that we learn about religion, who taught our Prelates such good manners, as to put fescues, of their own making, into his hand, and so appoint him after what manner, and by what means he shall teache us? P. Mart. (in Reg. 8. thus disputeth. For as much as God is most wise he needs not our devise for instruments to stir up faith in us which also no tradesman in his kind would endure, but would choose to himself at his own pl • assure what he should think most fit. Nay I would be resolved of this doubt: whether this be not a doctrine religious in England: The sign of the cross doeth signify unto us that we should not be ashamed of Christ crucified etc. If it be (as no Conformist can deny) then I would know: whether and where Christ, our only Authentic teacher, doeth teache this doctrine? or if our Prelates may bring in a new doctrine into the Church, and cause Ministers to preach it? He leaveth out of our proof, that Christ is the only appointer of means, as also that those means are limited to admonition of a holy duty : and instead of our conclusion, he bringeth in another, of ordaining as necessary.

The support also of our collection he omitteth: to acknowledge any other means of teaching and admonishing us of our duty, then such as Christ hath appointed, is to receive another teacher into the Church, beside him, and to confess some imperfection in the means by him ordained. Yet in the midst of this shufling, and cutting, he telleth us, that our collection is absurd. His reason is not by manifesting the fault of our consequence, but only by objecting some instances, and those also nothing to purpose. Then (saith he) it should not be lawful to use any help of Art Memorative, nor to set up a gybbett, or a traitors head on a pole, to give men warning against murder, or treason. Had he so soon forgotten, that the question is of Ceremonies, appropriated to God's service, teaching by ordination, or ínstitution ? If he had not, what did he mean, to instance in things that were never called Ceremonies (before this Rejoinder made all things in the world, in some respect, Ceremonies, by his wild definition of a Ceremony,) things that have no use in God's service, much less appropriated thereto, things not teaching by virtue of any ordination, or institution, but only by their natural relation, nay things not teaching at all any spiritual duty directly, and immediately? Characters and such like helps of memory, do no otherwise teache trueh, then error, and heresies no more spiritual duties, then carnal lusts, as experice doeth teache. One of the ancientes, and learnedest Schoolmē of our Country (Alex. Alēsis, p. 4. q. 1. m. 1. ) teacheth us, that Letters that signify sacred sentences do not signify them as they are sacred, but as they are things. And if it be lawful to institute significant Ceremonies, for all things, that we may note in characters, for memory sake thē certainly our Convocation may instituteCeremonies properly Sacramental, even such as do signify and seal the Covenant of grace. For there is no doubt, but that we may note in characters or writing all that belong to that Covenant. Gibbets, & traitors heads (besides the former exception out of Alex. Hales) are remembrances of death inflicted upon such malefactors: but neither to be appointed by any, without that authority, by which death is inflicted, nor in their use imposed upon any, nor determined by institution, to the teaching of anything, which they would not otherwise teache, not yet such remembrances as may be brought into God's worship. Nay, from them some good Divines do reason against images in Churches, and such like significant Ceremonies. D. Fulke against Sanders of images, hath these words: Images (saith Sanders are profitable: because they bring us in remembrance of good things. I deny this argument: because nothing is profitable in religion, but that wh • ch is instituted by God. For otherwise we might bring the gallows into the Church, which bringeth us in remembrance of God's justice.

4. To pass by those exceptions of the Repl. against the Def. which the Rej. calleth wranglinges (though they be defensible enough) The first proof of our proposition is taken from Mar. 7. and Matth. 15. where (as we allege) our Savior by this argument (among others) condemneth the Jewish purifijnges, and justifieth himself, and his Disciples, in refusing that Ceremony: because (being the precept of men) it was taught, and used, as a doctrine, by way of significatiō to teache what inward purity should be in them, and how they ought to be cleansed from heathen pollutions. To this the Rej. (supplying again that which the Def. had forgotten) answereth, that this reason (among others) of signification, is our fiction. Now (though these places of Scripture have formerly been handled, in the second chapiter) let any man considerthis observation: we find in our Savior's answer, three reasons of reprehending the Pharisees: 1. That their washing was praeferred before the Commandments of God. 2. That it was hypocritical. 3. That it was a vain worship, & therefore sin. If any say, it was not vain, as significant, we reply, it could be no outward worship, but as religiously significant. For washing, without signification had been mere civil. And Marc. 7.4. The Pharisees are reproved, for mere undertaking to observe washinges, no mention being made of any other reason, but only that observance, which must needs be understood of all observance, which was not civil, but (by institution & intention) religious.

5. For this interpretation, and collation, many good Divines were cited as fathering the same. They are all abused, saith the Rej. Now of Chrysostom, enough hath been said, in the former chapter. D. Whitaker's his approbation of the same sentence is shifted of, with binding of conscience, and holiness placed in them. But these shifts are sufficiently discussed in the former part of this book. To the Confession of Witenberge it is answered. 1 That it doeth not so much as give any glance at Marc. 7. Which how true it is, may appear by these their words: Nor is it lawful to restore either the old rites of the law, or to devise new in their place to signify the truth of the gospel now come to light, as for example, to use banners and Crosses to sign Christ's victory on the Cross: of which kind of i • lie devised repraesentions, is the whole furniture of Mass accontrements, which they say doeth set forth the whole passion of Christ, and many such like things. Of which sacred ceremonies Christ preacheth out of Isajah ; In vain they worship me teaching for doctrines the preceps of men.

Which last words are (in every syllable of them) found Marc. 7.7. Is not this so much as a glance at Marc. 7? Suerly here the Rej. had more affection to his cause, then attentation to the place in question,

6. Of Calvin, see the former chapiter. Yet here also let these words of his be remembered: In these words it is evident, that all will worships are condemned. Christ pronounceth them erroneous, which for Doctrine obtrude men's p • aeceps. Let this stand firm, all devised worships are most vain before God. Under which censure and sentence, that he includeth such significant Ceremonies as ours are, it appeareth, as out of his condemning them in the Lutherans, against Westphalus, so out of his own practice in Geneva and France, where all such are abolished: for he professeth ( de necess. ref. Eccl.) We have touched nothing no not with the least finger to remove it except that which Christ accounts nothing, seeing he pronounceth God is vainly worshipped by human traditions.

7. Virel (in Catechism. in praecep. 2.) extendeth the second Commandment, unto the forbidding of every human religious likeness. The Rej. also confesseth, that the same Virel, there condemneth all superstition : to which he if he had added his definition of superstition, viz: that it is a worshiping of God by rites and Ceremonies devised of man, all would have been plain. Neither is it material, that Virel pointeth not to Marc. 7. (as the Rej, noteth) seeing he groundeth his doctrine upon Matth. 15.9. where the same words are found, which in Marc. 7.7. are repeated. The Rej. therefore had no show of reason to say, that Virel was abused, in that he was cited as interpreting Mark, because (by his own confession) he doeth interpret the same words which are found in Mark.

8. Zepperus his testimony (which was not his alone, but the common sentence of diverse Protestant Synods, as appeareth out of his preface) is so full, that the Rejoinder in him forbare his common accusation, that he was abused. His words are these, de Pol. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 10. reg. 3. Since God is worshipped in vain by human traditious Mat. 15.9. Nor will be of an efficacy by such things in the hearts of men, and being mere will-worships, Carrying but an opinion of wisdom through which God will never stir up devotion, prayer, faith, and repentanc • in us &c. And again. The ceremonies Cobled or botcht by men to the administration of the Sacraments are so many seminaries and nurseries of error, idolatry and superstition such ceremonies are to be abolished Mat. 15. Marc. 7. Whence it is manifest that about Baptism oil, salt, holy water, tapers, the sign of the cross &c. are to be abrogated.

If these words be not to the purpose, in the Rejoinder his own conscience, then I despair of satisfying him about any testimony that maketh against that tenet which he is resolved to maintain (as they say) by hook or crook.

9. D. Fulke (saith the Rejoinder did not think human Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant, when no religion, or service of God is placed in them. Which is as much as if he had said: D. F. did not think human Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant, when they are not significant: For (as hath been shown in the former part, all religious Ceremonies instituted, by their signification to raise up the heart unto the honoring of God, have some religion and service of God placed in them. And that D. Fulke did mean by placing of religion, or God's service in them, the using of them unto religious use, it appeareth by a like place in Act. 17. sect. 5. Though it be not simply unlawful, to express in painting the visible shapes shown in Visions to the Prophets, yet to make those shapes for any use of religion, is abominable idolatry.

10. For D. Reynolds, the Rejoinder answereth 1. that he giveth no hint touching the interpretation of this place. 2. that he only inveigheth against the multitude and burden of Symbolical rites, showing their use in Popery to be Jewish. 3. that D.R. judged our • ignificant Ceremonies lawful to be used in case of silencing and deprivation. Now for the first, I answer, that as there are hints of interpretation for many places of the old Testament, in the new, which yet are not cited there, so may it be that D. R. gave a hint, without quoting. About the third point, I 1. observe, that by the Rejoinder his own relation, D. Rain, was not of his and D. Mortons judgemen. For he judged our Ceremonies only tolerable in case of extremity: but they allow the very institution of them, as good and profitable for order, decency, and edification. 2. D.R. never manifested to the world in public any reasons for that judgment, but rather for the contrary, as by and by we shall hear. 3. Ther is a kind of suspensive judgment (such as Cyril, Peter Lombard, as Estius in 2. d. 21. alledgeth and interpreteth them, say Eve had, about the Serpents speaking) to which the iniquity of times do draw many godly and learned men, not only about Ceremonies violently urged by & with grievous poenalties, but also about greater matters, as experience in all ages hath shown. But that is nothing to others as being destitute or forsaken of certain grounds or supportes.

Concerning the second and main point, the best way is, to set down D.R. his own words, which are these: Were it so, that the Popish Unction had another, either work, or meaning, with the Papists, then with the Jew, as after a sort, it hath, yet might the Ceremony be Jewish notwithstanding, as sacrifizing of a lamb, to signify Christ already come. At the least S. Peter did constrayne the Gentiles to Judaize (Gal. 2.12.) though he, and those Gentiles had another meaning, then that wherein that choice of meats was prescribed to the Jews. Adv. Hart. chap. 8. sect. 4.

Thus far I had in my notes, out of the English editiō but there is this more in the book, as I now find in the latin copy, not having the English at hand: your rites in the very kind are Jewish or as the Jewish were. Now out of these last words I argue thus: 1. If all umbraticall rites be Judaical, and therefore unlawful, then all religious significant Ceremonies are Jewish and unlawful.

But D. R. saith the first: therefore he teacheth also the later. 2. Out of the former I conclude thus: if a Jewish rite may be without a Jewish opinion, then our Ceremonies may be Jewish, or Popish, without a Jewish, or Popish opinion, or doctrine.

But the first is affirmed by D. R. therefore the later also. Which if it be true, then both the Defend. and Rejoinder have taken a false ground of their Ceremonial doctrine, in affirming so confidently upon all occasions, that it is the opinion and docdrine only which maketh a Ceremony Jewish, Popish, or any way unlawful.

All this notwithstanding, the Rejoinder could not forbear, to accuse the Authors of the Abridgement, his old reverend friends, of sh • mefull abusing the world, with false allegations of these Divines, nor to triumph in his discovering of this shame.

But I could wish, from my heart, that he, and his best friends living, had no more cause to be ashamed of his Rejoinder, then they had of these allegations, which none of the Authors, if they were on earth alive would disavow.

11. In the last place, upon occasion of our disliking all the significant Ceremonies, brought in by the Pharisees, it pleased the Def. to tax us for being too like the Sadducees, in refusing such Ceremonies. Now of this accusation the Replier only desired the Def. to consider, if it did not touche our blessed Savior himself, who by his example, and doctrine opposed the same Ceremonies? Heerupon the Rejoinder answereth, that our Savior walked a middle path, betwixt the excess of the Pharisees, and the praecisenes of the Sadducees, in Ceremonies, observing many human significant Ceremonies in religion, as the Feast of Dedication, embaulming at burials, sitting at burials, sitting at the Passover, and the Synagogues, with their formalities. In which answer, the Rejoinder hath shown, that upon occasion, he dare go as far, and say as much for human Ceremonies, as any that went before him, if not more, and that with such confidence as is not abated with reverence of our Savior himself, whom this passage doeth concern. But beside this audaciousness, I find no truth in these words, For. 1. That which he saith of the Sadducees praecisenesse in flying all human Ceremonies, is not true. The Sadducees (saith Epiphanius lib 1. c. 14.) omnia aequabiliter cum Samaritis observant. i. e. they observe all that the Samaritans observe: and who can doubt but the observations and Ceremonies proper to the Samaritans, were all inventions of men, with the Devils help. The Sadducees also were sometime high Preistes at Jerusalem, as for example, Annas is noted by Josephus (l. 20. c. 15.) and by like historians, to have been a Saducen. Now it is not credible, that any high Priest in those times, did abstain from all human Ceremonies, used commonly by all the Jews Mar. 7. 3. At the least the high Priest did observe the feast of Dedication, sitting at the Passover, and such like (in the Rejoinder his account) human Ceremonies. 2. The Sadducees were profane beasts, not hoping for Heaven, nor fearing Hell, and so were always ready to observe any Ceremonies that made for their temporal advantage, of what kind soever they were. 3. It appeareth out of the premisses▪ that our blessed Savior (in favor of our paltrie base Ceremonies) is wronged in his holy name, as if he had been more observant of human mystical constitutions in religion, then many of the worst Jews, whom yet he reproved for following traditions of men. 4. Because the Rejoinder speaketh of a middle path, betwixt the excess of the Pharisees, and preciseness of the Sadducees, observed by our Savior, it would be known, whether that middle were medium participationis, or medium abnegationis? i. e. Whether it was only a third way partaking of neither extreme? or had in it part of the Pharisees excess, and part of the Sadducees preciseness? The former sense we may (upon the Rejoinder his supposition acknowledge: and that maketh nothing to the purpose.

If the later meaning be the Rejoynders, then he must show us, how far our Savior did agree in practice with the Pharisees? And to clear that, he must prove that the Pharisees had lawful authoritte, for appointing or instituting mystical Ceremonies, and which of them were allowed by our Savior? 5. The examples here given, pertain nothing to the question. The feast of Dedication cometh after to be handled. Embalming at burials, was no significant religious Ceremony, but a civil rite common to the Israelites with the Egyptians, and other Heathens. If it were, yet being from the time of the Patriarchs, how will the Rejoinder prove that it was instituted without Divine direction? Sitting at the Passover can neither be proved to be mystical, nor yet instituted by man. Synagoges were no more significant Ceremonies, then was the school of Tyrannus, Act. 19.9. The opening, closing, and delivering of the Book, Luc. 14.17.20. was no more mystical a Ceremony, then the opening of a man's mouth, when he speaketh, and the shutting of it again, when he hath no more to say. Are not these worthy grounds, for to conclude upon, that our Savior was an observer of human religious mystical Ceremonies?

SECT. 3. Concerning S. Augustine.

1. AVgustine, in the Abridgement, was among other Divines cited, as allowing of one proof belonging to this Argument, taken from significancie. This the Def. catched hold of before the time or place of it, as matter of a section by itself, distinct from the testimonies of other Divines. Which dealing we must not speak of: because the Rejoinder saith, it was orderly done. But if their Printer-hath failed in right noting the numbers, he will needs have that a very slipery trick. If also the Def. brought in this testimony out of place, that was (in the Rejoinder his language) because he would not teather us up too straight. All this we may let pass, as formality of words, suitable to his Ceremonies, which he seeketh to maintain.

2. But (saith the Rejoinder) if instead of lib. 3. c. 35. be put in lib. 2. cap. 1. as the Repl. would have it, yet nothing is found to the purpose. Now (though it skilleth not much: because this place was but conjecturally pointed at, instead of another miscited yet) in that place, this is to be found, so much to the purpose, that I know not how the Rej. will avoid the weight of it: that S. Aug. distinguishing betwixt natural, and instituted signs, saith presently after, that there is no use or cause of instituted signs, nisi ad expromendum, & trajiciendum in alierius animum, id quod in animo gerit is qui dat, i.e. but to declore and make intelligible, what the institutor meaneth. From whence, we gather, that our Prelates instituting significant Ceremonies, can signify no more then what they would have, and not what God would have.

3. Another place of Augustine was alleged. out of Ep. 5. Signs when they belong to divine things are called Sacraments. Of these words. the Rej. (differing from the Def. saith) that his meaning was to show, that the name of Sacraments belong properly to divine things, and not to all signs of holy things.

But it is plain, that his meaning was, to show, that all things instituted imbuendo virtutibus animo, i. e. to stir up the mind to virtue, as he speaketh immediately before, are Sacraments. In defense of the Def. he answereth, with the Def. that in Augustine's language, all signs of holy things, are familiarly called Sacraments, and that we bewray small acquaintance with Augustine's language.

Where (because both the Defend. and Rej. would seem so familiarly acquainted with Augustine's language) I would desire only, that they would interpret unto us (strangers from it) the meaning of these words of his, Epist. 119. Dies natalis Domini, non in Sacramento celebratur, sed tantum in memoriam revocatur, quod gestum est. Pascha sic agimus, ut Sacramenti significationem non omittamus. Sacramentum est in celebratione quum rei gestae ita commemoratio fit ut aliquid etiam significari intelligatur quod sancte accipiendum est. i. e.

The celebration of Christ's nativity is no Sacrament: but the celebration of Easter is a Sacrament. Here we must have a new distinction, never head of since Augustine's time, or else it cannot stand (which yet they, who will seem so versed in Augustine's phrase, will needs dictate unto us) that all signs of holy things, are, Augustine's phrase, Sacraments: except perhaps (against their often professed tenet) they will say, that holy-days no not that which is appointed for memory of Christ's own nativity, is a sign of a holy thing. Neither can it be (according to Augustine's phrase) but all such significant Ceremonies as Easter was, must have more then the mere name of Sacraments.

4. And this was that, for which Augustine's testimony was only brough in for, viz: to show that religious significant Ceremonies participate part of the Sacraments nature. To this (after some words of course) it is rejoined, that the name Sacrament improperly given to other things, doeth not prove them to participate the property and nature of Sacraments, no more then the Swan in Houlborne, or the Idols of the Gentiles, do participate the nature of a Swan, and God: such denominations not being real, and proper, but logical, or relative. And if it were so, then the taking away of that name from our Ceremonies, doeth discharge them from partaking the nature of Sacraments. To which I have this to say 1. that our Argument is not taken from the mere name: for we know that some names are common to things quite differing in nature, so falling (as they say) by chance, But this community of the name Sacrament, was not so: it was communicated to Mystical Ceremonies upō certain counsel and reason. And that reason was not mere similitude outward, such as is betwixt the picture of a Swan and a living Swan: Because there is no such outward likeness betwixt the Cross, and any proper Sacrament: but frō some proportion of inward nature, either in men's esteem, as an Idols was called God, or in deed wholly so far as man's institution can effect, as • he Popish five Sacraments are so called, or else in part, as this kind of significant Ceremonies, which are in question. Now that this last was the reason, Augustine himself teacheth in the for-alleged sentence, concerning Easter: and Chemnitz, out of him, doeth largely declare, in the beginning of his 2. tome, de Sacramentorum numero. Bellarmine also (de effect. Sacrament. l. 2. T. 24.) giveth the same rule, and reason: All are called Sacraments which have a mystical sense, and are types or figures of other things. 2. From the former answer, the Rej. his Hoste in Holborne can gather, that not the picture of a Swan, but a living Goose, hath that proportion to a living Swan, which is betwixt other mystical Ceremonies, and proper Sacraments. 3. It is but a picture of a reason, which the Rejoinder maketh, from giving of the name Sacrament, to the taking of it away. For no man will say, that a name taken from the nature of a thing doeth argue more the nature of it, then the taking away the name alone, doeth argue the taking away of the nature. The ancient naming of such Images as the Papists are, did argue them to have an idolatrous nature: but the removing of that name from them, by the Papists, doeth not argue they are now of idolatrous nature.

5. From the name Sacrament, which first was given to this kind of Ceremonies, it came that afterward they were called Sacramentalls. For so saith Swarez de Relig. Vol. 1. tract. 3. lib. 4. cap. 14. ) They use to be styled Sacramentalls, or more generally allCeremonies & holy blessings done in the Church. To this observation of the Replier, the Rejoinder answereth, that the name Sacramental, taken properly, is given out of relation to Sacraments, not out of participation or resemblance of their nature. And that analogically such Ceremonies as are consecrated to s • gnifie and work supernatural effects are called Sacramenta • is. The first of which interpretations we do not deny: saving only, we see not why the Rejoinder should say in that sense only that name istaken properly.

In the second, he confesseth as much as we desire: saving that he shufleth in two terms unfitting: consecrated to work. For many Mystical Ceremonies were not consecrated at all among the Papists (as the aerial sign of the Cross etc.) and some were consecrated in Augustine's time, (the practice whereof is here defended by the Rejoinder) nor can be condemned by those that consecrate Churches, Church-yarders, Altars etc.

And as for working, if it be understood of moral working by admonition▪ then it cannot be denied unto mystical signs by institution admonitorie. Howsoever a principal Jesuit may profess as much at Rome, of Popish Ceremonies, as the Rejoinder doeth here of ours. So Vasquez (in 3. Disp. 128. cap. 5. ar. 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial Sins nor are instituted to that end, but to stir up the mind to detest them.

6. It was in the conclusion of this passage, granted by the Repl. that neither Augustine, nor other fathers, did constantly in doctrine, and practice reject human mystical Ceremonies. Wherupon the Rejoinder inferreth, that Augustine therefore is wronged, and we are mere Navalists. But here he forgot, that all our Divines, and also our English Articles of confession with our Apology, do reject divers things (as prayer to, & for the dead, men's falling from grace etc.) which those Fathers did not constantly in doctrine and practice, reject, and yet are neither to be esteemed mere Novalists, not yet accused of wronging those Fathers, when they cite some testimonies out of their writings, against those errors. Concerning Ceremonies, it is the commune sentence of our Divines, which Beza expresseth (ad Bald winum) It is not to be doubted but that most of your ancient Bishops were somewhat too busy in devising rites etc. but unhappy was the Counsel.

7. To make an ende of this one testimony, which it pleased the Defend. to take into so large consideration, for advantage. Augustine Epist 119. ad Ian. is cited by all, as condemning the multitude of human Ceremonies which were then crept into the Church and worship of God: and therein (without all doubt) he said that out, which many other godly men did inwardly conceyve: yet neither he, nor they, did constantly reject that multitude, nor he declare his mind, but when he was urged by Ianuarius. The stream of the times, bearing toward Popery, made him (with others despairing of reformation) yield too much unto such abuses. Yet in that famous place (Epist. 119.) not only the number, but even the nature of such Ceremonies is condemned. 1. For the manifesting whereof, I note these passages: 1. He noteth these Ceremonies, that they were instituted, ut quasi observatio Sacramenti sint. i. e. so that they partaked the nature of Sacrament. For as quasi contractus, and quasi peculium castrense, do in the Civil law note participation of the nature of such things to which they are quasi ; so doeth, quasi Sacramentum. 2. He professeth, that by reason of times, he durst not speak against such Ceremonies so freely as his judgment did lead him: liberius improbare non andeo. 3. He calleth them servilia onera, and humanas presumptiones: servile burdens, and human praesumtiones. 4. He accounteth the Church, in regard of them, to be troubled with much chaff, & tares: inter multam paleam, multaque zizania constitutam. 5. He saith, that such Ceremonies, though they were tolerated, yet they were not to be allowed of, but upon the first opportunity to be cashiered resecanda, yea though it were not discerned, how they made against faith or good manners.

Let any man now judge, if Augustine did in this his clear sentence about Ceremonies, agree with our Def. and Rejoyner.

SECT. 4. The judgment of Protestant Divines concerning significant Ceremonies.

1. THe Rejoinder was not so large in the former section, about one Divine, but he is as brief, in this, about many. For first in general, he would persuade us with words, that the Def. in answering four testimonies, had answered all, in one word: that no Protestant Divine (except Beza) hath spoken absol • tely against signs symbolical and merely significant ▪

Which kind of rejoynding, had had some sense, if mere denying of a conclusion, were a sufficient answer to an argument drawn from diverse testimonies alleged for the proof of it. But yet not trusting to this kind of answering, he adventureth, to clear the particular allegations: which was more then the Def. would undert • ke. One would have expected, that here he should have answered, that which is so pertinēt to the purpose, found in the Abridgement, pag. 32. because he put it of before (pag. 247.) with a tale of boy, and promised after to show, that it is nothing to the purpose. The allegation is this: To them that say Images may stand in Churches, as helps to stir up devotion, and to put men in remembrance of good things (with whom the Def. and Rejoinder consent) it is answered (by P. Martyr, Gwalter, Lavater, Vrsine, Polanus, and others) that the Lord himself hath appointed means enough to do that; and that no means may be used to that ende, but such as he hath ordained. This certain was to the Rejoinder as it were a noli me tangere: that no means must be used to stir up devotion, and to put men in remembrance of good things, but only those which God hath ordained. He was therefore contented to pass it over without meddling with it. And he that with • is answers to the other allegations, may think that the be • ter way for him, had been, to deal in like manner with all. This will appear in the examining of them, one by one.

2. In the first place, therefore, we expect his answer to that which is found in the Harmonie of Protestant Confessions, generally approved, by Reformed Churches. About which he is very brief, as his cause required. The Divines of Witenburge (saith he) and those of France, and the Lowe Contries: viz. that they speak only of those significant Ceremonies, which serve to shadow out the Mysteries of the Gospel, or to supply the office of true Sacraments. Now (for the present) we will not stand much upon those phrases, shadows of the Mysteri • s of the Gospel, supplying of the true Sacraments office. It shall be sufficient, to reci • e the words which he hath so easily and often answered. The Wittenburge Confession (sect. 17.) saith thus: It is not l • wfull, either to restore the old Ceremonies of the law, or devise new, to shadow forth the truth already laid open, and brought to light, by the Gospel: as in • he daylight to set up c • ndels, to signify the light of the Gospel▪ or to carry banners and crosses, to signify the victory of Christ, through his Cross. Of which sort, is all that Massing attire, which (they say) doeth shadow out the whole passion of Christ, and many other things of that kind etc. The other words are these: No Mysticull rites (that is, which carry some mystery, or signification, in them) though not otherwise impious (as namely such as should be partes of God's doctrine, or kinds of Sacraments) but only such laws as pertain to order and decency are lawful. Let any man that undetstandeth English, and reason, judge, if these words ought, or can be interpreted, only of (I know not what) mysteries of the Gospel, or Ceremonies supplying the office of true Sacraments, further then our Argument doeth import. If not, then the Rejoinder granting the premisses, denieth the conclusion as he did before.

The Confession condemneth banners by name and Crosses, signifying the victory of Christ through his Cross : Our men defend the sign of the Cross, signifying that Christians shall not be ashamed, to fight manfully against Satan under Christ's Banner. The Divines of France and the Lowe Contries, (with the Confession) reject all Ceremonies, that carry some mystery or signification in them: Our question is, whether human Ceremonies of mystical signification, be lawful? If these testimonies be not plain enough, I know not what is plain.

3. Peter Martyr (on 1. King. 8) is the next witness of whom the Rejoinder saith, that he speaketh of Exorcisme, oil, spittle, and exsufflation, to all which the Papists ascribe operation, and to that ende do consecrate some of them, by prayer. Beside (saith he) Martyr did approve these our Ceremonies as lawful, and bowing of the knee at the name of Jesus: so that he wondereth Martyr should be alleged in this cause. Now therefore let us hear P. Martyr himself speak: The most wise God needeth none of our help to devise means to excite faith, nor would the meanest Mechanie endure to &c. See before, how bold then are these men who will praescribe to God wherewithal to help forward our salvation.

They multiply signs which they will leave to be sacred as oil, spittle, exsufflations etc. & that one Sacrament of Bapt. is much degenerate. Nor are they to be heard when to abuse the simple they use to distinguish between Sacrament and Sacramentals mere Sophistry. As for operation, we have often shown, that many Papists ascribe no more of that, nor no other wise, to many of their Ceremonies, then the Def. and Rejoinder do allow of in ours. Consecration by prayer, may as well be used about a Surplis, as about a Churcheyard. It is plain by the words, that P. M. doeth condemn all means instituted by man, for the stirring up of our faith : which are in the Def. and Rejoinder his language, mystical moral ceremonies, serving for edification : saying that no Carpente • , or Mason would be so dealt with in his occupation, as the institutors of such mystical Ceremonies do deal with God. He accounteth human sacred signs in Religion, to be human Sacraments: and will not admit of such distinctions, as the Rejoinder hath multiplied: Sacred properly, and reductively, rightly, or abusively sacred, simple or double sacred. Sacramental, or moral, reductive, or analogical Sacramentalls, etc.

Yet we deny not, but the same P.M. being sometime perplexed in the case of England, did suffer his affection to carry him so far, that he seemeth to make some of our Ceremonies, in some case, tolerable. But then any man may perceyve wavering in his words: as when (in his epist. to Hooper) he requireth five conditions in such Ceremonies, 1. that the Church hath liberty to ordain them : 2. that the worship of God be not placed in them: 3. That they be few: 4. Not burdensome. 5. Not a hindrance to better things.

The two first of which conditions are the very question: viz: whether the Church hath any such liberty, and whether all such Ceremonies be not part of worship: and for the two last, experience teacheth, how burdensome our Ceremonies have been, and are still, to many good men's consciences, and how much good hath been hindered, by the urging, and practicing of them.

4. Sadeel is put of, with the like shift, of consecration, necescitie, efficacy Sacramental. Now these terms have been sufficiently unmasked before, in the first part. Let Sadeel here only be heard, and he will tell his own meaning. The exorcism holy water, taper, salt spittle, white garment, the little bells, &c. what good do they do in Baptism? Do they indeed being added to Baptism ad at all to its ornament? but what are these devisers of such things wiser then Christ Jesus who instituted Bapt. with such simplicity and purity as knowing better then all men besides what ornaments suite best with his own ordinances? what arroganice is this to ad thus to Christ's institutiō? Gal. 3. the unction added to Bapt. we allow no more thē that of Confirmation. Bec. it belongs to God only to appoint Sacraments The old pastors of the Christiā church did more then was mete accomodate themselves to Jews and Gentiles whence many cere: cr • pt into the Church but Experience shows God blessed not such Counsel. In these words 1. all human addition to God's institutions are absolutely condemned. 2. Those that undertake to add such Ceremony. are censured of intolerable arrogancy, as presuming to be wiser then Christ. 3. Lights, and white garments, are by name condemned, which only offend, in their mystical signification upon man's will. 4. Chrism or oil in Baptism is esteemed a Sacrament, though the Papists deny it conferreth grace, as the Sacraments. 5. The first bringers in of Ceremonies (only significant) into the Church, are taxed for departing from the simplicity of God's word, as therein finding rather the curse, then the blessing of God upon their presumptions.

5. Daneus is the next (who maketh it blasphemy, to think, and teache, that any outward things (of human institution) may be made a sign, in the Church, of spiritual things) the first answer is, that this was spoken in opposition to Bellarmine's consecrating of creatures to signify, and work supernatural effects. Which is very true: but this must be added: that in this sentence, he toucheth only the signification, not the operation of those Cere. as any that readeth his words, may observe. The second answer is that Daneus (elsewhere) alloweth some significant Cere. But the Rej. should have done well, to name the place or places, which he meant by elsewhere. For we cannot by conjecture find it.

This I am sure of, that it is not Isagoge, p. 3. l. 3. c. 11. where he saith, that the teaching under the law was 〈◊〉 signs, & earthly figures, as a Schoolmaister speaketh to young children: but under the Gospel, open, and man • fest, as one dealeth with grown men. They then that thrust in significant Ceremonies, what do they but confound the most wise dispensation of God, and make a mingle-mangle of those things, which he hath separated asunder?

6. Polanus (misprinted, or uncertainly printed in the Abridgement) is said to allow some significant Ceremonies, as feasts, Fasts, Gestures : and his definition of Superstition, is thought to make only against Ceremonies Sacramental, not Morally significant. The only way therefore is, to set down his words, out of which his judgment about this pointe may appear of superstition, he saith thus (Syntag. l. 9. c. 3.) Superstition stands in choosing worship to God, or exceeds measure therein. True religion worships the true God in a manner prescribed by the word: false, (that is to say Superstition) worships God otherwise then he wills or enjoins. In another place whatsoever perteines to God's worship must by him be required. Again it is a foolish ill zeal of the popish clergy to use such playerake apparel in Divine service and by apparel to be distinguished from laicks, that difference and variety was in the Old Testament typical, but the substance being come, what mean they to require types anymore?

7. The next witness is Mr. Perkinse, on Gal. 3. but (by variety of editions) uncertain what verse of the Chapter was designed.

The Rejoinder therefore guesseth, that the words upon v. 2. or rather 1. were intended, where Mr. P. condemneth the setting up of Images, to be lay-men's books. To which he answereth. 1. That he also doeth blame the same. 2. that Mr. P. in some persons and places, preferreth dipping, before sprinkling, in Baptism. Now for the first of these, if the Rejoinder when he writ these words condemn (with Mr. P.) such images or pictures as are lay-men's books, it is wonder, he forgot, or changed this judgment, before he came to the seventh section of this very Chapter, where he doeth defend them. And this is plain, that if images be to be condemned, as they are lay men's books, or teachers, then all human signs, ordained to be lay-men's teachers, in religion, are also to be eondemned with them.

The second is an affected flim-flam. For dipping (upon just occasion) rather then sprinkeling, is no more a human Ceremony • , in Baptism, then drinking a convenient draft of wine rather then slight tasting is an human significant institution.

But yet (howsoever the Rejoinder upon conscience of the consanguinity, betwixt Images, and significant Ceremonies did suppose this first verse of the Chapter to be meant by the Authors of the Abr.) I think rather that they intended the four and twenty verse, where M.P. doeth distinguish betwixt Ceremonies significant, and those of Order, and saith that the former sort were alsolutely abolished, but the other only in respect of their special determination.

8. Master Merbur • e was cited (out of a Manuscript, (as it seemeth) as giving the same judgment of significant Ceremonies. But in his later time, he crossed not so much others, as himself in blotting out this sentence I leave therefore his name under that blot, and other like, wherewith he soiled himself in his later times.

9. D. Witgift him self, is brought in (by Abr.) dissliking any praescript apparel, should be used in God's service, for significat • on. Def. pag, 291. To this the Rejoinder answereth 1. that in the same place. P. Martyr is alleged, as approving white apparel, for Ministers (who are compared to Angels) to use in signification of their office, because Angel app • ared in white: which should have put him (at the least) out of our Bill. But it followeth not, that therefore all testimonies of Martyrs, must be put out of our Bill, because he varieth from them, in this. In the other places, he speaketh from good grounds of Divinity: but this reason of his, hath no more force in it, then if from the picture and apparation of Angels, it should be gathered, that no Minister should wear a black night-cap, a black tippet, or a black hood, which our Canons do command: or that every Minister should have six wings fastened to his body, with certain, vizard faces, like unto the faces of Lions, Eagles, and open, because Angels have so appeared, Isa. 6. Ezech. 1.

It is answered 2. that we should believe the said D. Whitgift in this, that our Surplices are not appointed for any moral signification. But we cannot believe, whatsoever one Prelat saith of our Ceremonies, (for to avoid the dint of Argument, though it be against the common profession of our Church, in the very Service-book,) is presently to be believed.

The 3, answer is, that D. Whitgift did use, defend, and urge, significant Ceremonies, which is true, with shame and all: but many a man, upon the rack of an Argument is brought to confess that, which other while he is wont to deny. Finally this consequence is denied: D. W. did not approve of the Surplice for signification: ergo of no significant Ceremony : the reason of which consequence is given in the Abridgement (p. 35.) because no good reason can be given, why the Church may not injoine a prescript apparel for signification, as well as any other Ceremony.

Thus the Rejoinder hath tried what he could say to those testimonies, which the Def. had omitted, in this place: and doeth so please himself therein, that he beginneth a plaudite to himself, saying that he hath openly whipped the Repliers friends : he meaneth the Authors of the Abr. who were wont to be his reverend friends also. But this whipping of his, is just as if a man should whip thorns, and pricks, with his bare hands, getting more gashes thereby, then he dealeth or giveth blows. It is not safe so much as to handle sharp edges much less to whip them, with naked fingers.

10. Now we must hear, how the Rejoinder doeth say for the defense of those answers which the Def. gave to four • Divines, chosen out by himself to answer, of whom, Calvin is the first. Of whom it is said, that he condemneth only such Ceremonies, as are subs • ituted to the very office of Sacraments. Where if he meaneth part of the office of Sacraments, he and we consent about Calvin but if he mean the whole complete office of Sacram. then he wrongeth Calvin. For upon Lev. 4. 21. his meaning cannot be, that all the old Ceremonies of the Jews, had such a complete Sacramental office, as Circumcision, and the Passover had. Upon Isa. 20.2. speaking of Isays going barefoot for a sign of future captivity (which was not the full office of a Sacrament) he saith: If Isaie had done this of himself he might well have been laughed at. Those rites are of no worth which have not God for their author, which we are carefully to note, against the papists who obtrude upō us empty ceremonies for true Sacraments. This rule is for them: if they come from God we are to embrace them, if not, to scorn them, nay they cannot be received without dishonor to God, when therein mortal men take upon them the authority of God. And upon Mat. 21.25. he hath this doctrine: no sacred sign ought to be admitted among the godly, unless it be shewwen to be of God, nor is it in men's choice to mint anything. But the Rejoinder affirmeth, that Calvin doeth expressly allow Symbolical signs, as excercises, and incitements of piety. The Place he meaneth is Inst. lib. 4. c. 10. sect. 14. where there is no express allowance at all, of mere human Symbolical signs, but only of some Ceremonies, to help the ruder sort of people in their unskillfulnesse. Now this kind of Ceremonies Calvin himself in the 28.29. sect. of the same chapter, doeth manifestly declare, to be matters of mere and necessary decency. The end of decency is, that (while such things are used which purchase respect to holy things we be stirred up to piety. That is a Decoium which so makes for the reverence of holy things that is that it be a fit exercise of Godlines. This being considered, and withal, that the Rejoinder in his great Charter, (cap. 1. 〈◊〉 16.) dureth not build his mystical Ceremonies upon that decency, which Paul doeth appointe, and Calvin only admitteth, it is plain, that Calvin's exercises and incitementes of piette, are not his more human 〈…〉 Ceremonies.

11. The second witness, whom it pleased the Def. to take notice of, is Zepperus, or rather, sundry Protestant Synods, by Zepperus divulged, as he showeth in his preface. Now his words are set down before in the 1. and 2. • ection of this chapter: so that here we are only to consider what the Rejoinder hath to say against, or upon them. And first he flesh to his old muse of Ceremonies efficient of grace, in Popery. But this muse-hole hath been formerly stopped. And if it were open in other assaults, yet Zepper hath sufficiently provided for it here. For beside that he directed his censure of Ceremony. (in a great part) against the Lutherans, who deny all efficacy that the Rejoinder denieth, he saith plainly that by these human mystical Ceremonies, God will nor sti •• up devotion, faith, and repentance, in the heart of Christians not at blank cross to our Def. and Rejoinder his tenet. For the relieving of that weak shift, the Rejoinder (in the second place) affirmeth, that Zepper (cap. 16.) doeth allow of dipping, and thrice dipping, in Baptism, as an human Ceremony stated in God's worship to signify the Trinity, and our Lord's resurrection on the third day. Now in the 16. chapter, there is no one word of these matters (which kind of misciting or misprinting the Rejoinder useth to make a great matter of in others) but in the 12. chapter, I find such a fond allegory of thrice-dipping merely related out of Augustine, but no allowance of the same. Nay, if the matter be well considered, I think the Rejoinder himself will scarce allow of it. For 1. there can be no better reason given for placing of a mystery in thrice dipping for Baptism, then in dividing of the bread to be received in the Supper, into three partes, as the Papists do for a mystery, among other of their massing toys. 2. This thrice-dipping for mystery, is so mingled with the true Mystery of Baptism, that (to all appearance) it is made a part of that Holy Sacrament 3. For man to institute an outward representation (as an Image) of the Holy Trinity, is a very great praesumption, against the second Commandment. Christ himself never appointed any such mystical real sign neither can that incomprehensible mystery be fitly represented by any such triplicitie as is of man's making. 4. To invocate the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost over the baptized, and then by thrice redipping, or sprinkling, upon man's pleasure, to signify they are three Persons, is as if one should light a candle, for the manifesting of something, and then put a bushel over it, for signifying of the same thing. 5. How can the same three at one and the same time, signify three Persons, & three days? Can men give manifold disparate senses to one and the same Ceremonies, as literal, allegorical, tropologicall, and anagogicall? 5. Why may not as well three Crosses be made upon the Baptized; for the same mysteries? 6. It could not be of any moment, for those ancient Bishops, sometime to dip thrice, for signifying of the Trinity, and some time once, for signifying of the Unity. Seeing Trinity and Unity are not to be separated in the solemn signification of them, and Heretics are not confuted with human signs.

12. Jewel is the next in order. But for so much as neither his words are quoted, nor the place where they may be found noted, (on either side) but only according to one English Edition, which I have not, I cannot say much of them: Yet this I may truly say, that the Rejoinder 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 do you to wit of the grace of God, bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia etc. But it seemeth that human mystical Ceremonies are of like nature unto those old legal Ceremonies, which only signified what men ought to do, but gave not grace to do it: so that they are to be referred unto the killing letter.

In searching also for the place, in my latin copy of Jewel, I found these words Act. 1. pag. 23. The Papists have blurred Christ Sacraments with a number of Superstitiou • and Childish Ceremonies, and have added such like Sanctions to them. Now if by the superstitiousnes, and childishness, which is found in the Popish Cere. before their multitude, and before their sanctions binding consciences to them, he did not mean their mystical signification, upon human institution, I would willingly learn of the Rejoinder what his meaning was?

13. Beza was by the Def. granted to speak for us. But the Rejoinder (having now exercised hmself unto confidence in such elusions) will needs have it, that Beza's phrase only, not his meaning doeth make for us. Let us therefore hear his reasons. 1. Beza (saith he) condemneth all Symbolical rites, which he calleth Sacramental, that is signifying spiritual graces, not duties. Now Beza's words (ep. 8.) are these: I affirm that so often as the ancients brought into the Church any Sacramentals i. e. Significative ceremonies of Spiritual things so oft they grievously offended. Withall I think 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 remain can the Church have her native beauty restored. Here is no mention at all of graces, but only of spiritual things: and yet the Rejoinder would persuade his reader, that he saith not spiritual duties, but graces. His gloss is naught. Spiritual things comprehend so well spiritual duties, as graces. How this reason will be excused, I cannot guess: except perhaps it be answered, that human Ceremonies do signify duties as they are carnal, and not as they are spiritual. It is further to be marked, that Beza there speaketh of of such human significant Ceremonies, as were in common use among the ancient Fathers. Now the Rejoinder will not say that they had in common use, so many human Sacraments, as Beza noteth them to have had significant Ceremonies. 2. The second reason, by which the Rejoined. would prove that Beza meant not simply to condemn all significant Ceremonies, is, because he alloweth some Feast-days, confesseth the Surplice and kneeling to be in their nature indifferent, and saith that the Cross might sometime of old have had lawful use. For the former of which, if the words of Beza, had been noted, more might be said. In the mean time, let this suffice: If Beza did allow of some human Feast-days, it may better from this place be gathered, that he did not account them significant of spiritual things, then it can from them be gathered, that in this place he did not condemn all such significants of man's making. Neither doeth he affirm 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, there is odd dealing. For whereas Beza saith of the Cross, ut olim aliquis fu • rit usus ejus etc. which is as much as to say though this were granted, that there was some use of it of old, the Rejoinder make • h him to say that there was of old a lawful use of it.

It is enough for any man, to read over Beza his eyght and twelf Epistle, for understanding not only of his meaning, but also of his reasons.

14. Because the Def. made Beza a singular man, in opposing all human mystical Ceremonies, the Replier added out of Bellarmine's observation (de effectu Sacram. l. 2. c. 30.) that at least Calvin, Barentius, and Chemnitz were of the same mind. Now concerning Calvin, enough hath been said before. For the other, mark what the Rejoinder hath to say.

The question (saith he) in that place of Bellarmine disputed, is of Ceremonies meritorious, and binding the conscience, out of the case of scandal. And is this all? Surely then the Rejoinder had no reason to object unto the Abrigers, and the Replier, abusing the Reader. For (to omit 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 controversy betwixt us and the Papists, into six heads, the fourth is about binding the conscience, and the fifth about merit, but the third is whether the Church may appoint new Ceremonies ? The Afirmative of this question Bellarmine proveth, from the Feast instituted by Mordechay, and that of Dedication, instituted in the Maccabees time, etc. which are the Def. and Rejoyners chief arguments for significant Ceremonies. And professeth plainly (as our men do) Our Proposition is no more but this against heretics, that the church may appoint new Ceremonies not indeed to justify us from mortal sins but to other ends. On the Negative part, Bellarmine nameth Calvin, Brenz, and Chemnitz. Now the Rejoinder to darken all, confoundeth the third, & fifth question into one hoche-poche. Who then doeth abuse the Reader? Of Calvin, enough hath been said before as also of Brenz, under the title of Witenberge Confession, Chemnitz only (being altogether passed over by the Rejoinder though he was not only propounded by the Replier, out of Bellarmine but also in the Abridgement, pag. 32,) is here to be represented, in his own words. Yet concerning Brētius first, a few words may be needful. The words of Wittenburge Confession (before cited) are plain. It is not lawful, to devize new Ceremonies, to shadow forth the truth already laid open, and brought to light by the Gospel: as in the day light to set up Candles, to signify the light of the Gospel, or to carry banners & crosses, to signify the victory of Christ, thorough his Cross. Of which sort is all the massing attire. Of this Confessiō Brenz was the penman: and therefore Bellarm. citeth the same as Brenz his sentence about Ceremonies. The Rejoinder answereth 1. that Bellarm. saith only that Brenz reproveth the hallowing of water, oil. &c. consecrated to signify and work supernatural effects: because the mysteries of faith should not now be shadowed out. De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. Which to be nothing so, the very words of Bellarm. will show. for neither out of Brentins, nor against him, doeth Bel. make any mention of consecrating such things to work, but only to signify spiritual effects. First they are blessed to signify spiritual operations. For the sprinkling of the ashes signifieth poenance, &c. Nor doeth the reason of Bre • tius of adumbration hinder, for those significations are not properly adumbratious, but outward repraesentations of present invisible things, and of things spiritual. Or else of things past, most useful to stir up the affection. Hence it is plain, that Brenz is opposed by Bellarm. for holding the Proposition of this our third. Argument, that his reason is ours: and that Bellarm. his answer, so well as his tenet, is that which the Def. and Rejoined. do maintain against us. 2. A second answer, or rather objection, is used by the Rej. that Brenz allowed Lutherun Crosses, and Images, as being a Lutheran. Now it is well known, that Brenz at the first did write as became a grave Divine: but after broke out into the Vbiquitary faction, siding against those whom he called Zwinglians and Calvinists. That which we allege, was written in the name of the Church of Wittenburge, & so praesented unto the Counsel of Trent, out of his and others best judgment. If either out of security, or out of faction, he did, and writ otherwise, after, it ought not to be put in balance against this Confession. It is no great mervayll, if a Lutheran doeth cross his own Doctrine, even about Ceremonies.

For in the same kind they have Luther himself for their example: No man did more hardly inveigh against those triffles then Luther did, and yet retained them for the times sake. That when occasion required he was so vehemente we commend him, but that while he contended against them, he submitted to the them, we pardon in him.

Something like was the case of Chemnitz, whose words the Rejoinder thought good to pass over in silence. They are these (de ritib. Sacr. ad Can. 13.) When Christ himself so instituted the Sacraments that he required them to be used with such and such rites, it is a very hard question whether it be lawful for men to add other and that so manyover and above. As if what rites Christ himself prescribed were either not enough, or not fit enough. In divine institutions as we must take nothing from, so we must add nothing to them. But whereas they say by such rites many things are proffitably signified, we answer that belonged to the State of the Old Testament, but what Christ in the New Test. would have learned, must be taught with the light of the word, not by shadows. And we have a promise of the force of the word; but not of the efficacy of shadows devised by men. And what rites he would have used by the word, those he himself appointed, etc.

Ther was some cause, why the Rejoinder did not care to insist on these words. For Chemnitz maketh it a very hard thing to justify human significant Ceremonies in God's worship. The Rejoinder saith, it is as easy as to justify writing by Characters. Chemnitz maketh them additions to God's Institution. Nothing less (saith the Rej.) no more then a Cabinet, wherein a Jewel is kept, is an addition to it. Chemnitz judged them repugnant to the New Testament. The Rej. saith, that there is manifest allowance for them, and authority left unto men for instituting of them: (as forsooth) in those words of Order, Decency, and Aedification.

15. The Replier added unto the witnesses aforesaid, Junius & Daneus. But concerning Daneus, we have already considered what the Rej. had to except. Junius only remaineth: whose words were quoted out of his animadversions upon Bell. de cultu Sanctorum, lib. 3. cap. 7. an. 12. Heer the Rej, rouseth up himself, as if he had gotten a great advantage, putting on such confidence, or rather forth such shows of it, as if it had been mere folly in the Repl. to make mention of Junius. His rejoinder therefore is to be considered in all the parts of it. 1. First, he concludeth that the Repl. is no wise man, in not telling them, to what objection, or assertion Junius doeth there answer: because (forsooth) the Repl. himself had said, it was no wisdom for any man, to take up an answer made to an objection, before he considereth the assertion against which the objection is made. As if it were all one to consider the assertion, and to tell them what it is. Is not this a fine consequence? 2. He attributeth unto the Repl. a Sophisticall wit, in concealing, that the assertion of Bell. by Junius opposed, was, that the Church may of her power, consecrate creatures, to signify, and work supernatural effects, &c. But from hence nothing can be gathered, for the advantage of the Def. and Rej. except it appear, that Junius did only speak of the working, and not distinctly of the signifying, which Bell. would have given unto those Ceremonies: which how false it is, shall presently appear. 3. He noteth a shameful falsification of Junius his words, in the translation of them. Junius his words are: Homo non potest creaturas ad significationem adhibere. The Translation is: Human 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 own translation of the same words, is: No man-can lawfully apply things to signification. He must discover the mystical difference betwixt using for signification, & applying to signification, before he can cast such shame upon the Repl. & none upon the Rej. 4. To show Junius in his own posture, and the mis-reporting Repl. in his own colors. The Rejoinder translateth that whole passages of Junius, and noteth upon it, first, that Junius speaketh of consecrating ceremonies. To which I answer, that in the words, as they are by the Rej. translated, he expressly condemneth all applijnge to signification. And if consecration were included therein, I hope the Rej. will not disavow consecrating of Churches, Church-yardes, Altars, &c. Secondly, he observeth, that Junius doeth professedly sever the point of signification, from that of efficacy. As if the Repl. had confounded them, and not rather distinctly insisted upon • ignification only which Junius doeth as distinctly and professedly condemn, as efficacíe, Nay it is the Rej. his common fault, that where the Papists speak of efficacy and signification, and our Divines distinctly answer of both, he will have no answ • r, no not those of Calvin, Brenz, Chemnitz, Daneus, nor this of Junius, to belong unto signification distinctly, and by itself. In the third place, he telleth us, that Junius in the two next annotations, doeth allow voluntary significant Ceremonies. Let it therefore be considered, that Junius in the thirteenth annotation, insinuateth at the least his doubt, whether any voluntary significations can proceed from good: a bono, si forte. 2. He saith they proceeded from simplicity, 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 simplicity. For cap. 5. annot. 15. he calleth it vanity, in opposition to the simp • icitie of Christ. And in the second book, de reliquijs & imaginibus, cap. 27. annot. 29. he calleth it plainly simple superstition. In the fourteenth annotation, he mainteyneth this assertion: In divine things no shadows are rightly used in the Church but what God hath instituted. But (saith the Rej.) he doeth by name allow standing in prayer, on the Lord's days, as a significant Ceremony, as also holybread: annot. 10. Whereas Junius testifieth plainly, in the 9. note, immediately before, how he did only excuse, as comparatively tolerable, such ancient Ceremonies of the Fathers. Primum suit tolerabile: Patrum simplicitatem piam excusamus. So that Junius being seen in his own posture, and the reporters in their colors, let the Reader judge, where is the cause of shame and blushing?

SECT. 5. Concerning the wrong, that is done to God's Sacraments, by human sigmificant Ceremonies.

1. THe Argument dependeth on this: that human Ceremonies appropriated to God's woe • ship, if they be ordained to teache any spiritual duty, by their mystical signification, usurp a chief 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 stuff : The contrary whereof hath been declared. Now for the naked Arg. he affirmeth it to have no sienws which must be tried by the answers, & defense of them.

The Def. first answereth, by a distinction, betwixt the signification of grace conferred, and the signification of man's duty, the former whereof he maketh Sacramental, but not the later. To the which was replied, that Sacr. also do signify the duty of man towards God. This (saith the Rej.) is not true : bec. Sacr. do only imply that duty. But I would know of him, 1. how the Sacr. as signs, do imply that which they do not signify, all so well as our sign of a cross doeth signify any duty? The aerall cross doeth (though very untowardly) represēt the wooddē cross, whereon our Savior was crucified, & so by a trope, Christ crucified: & then implieth our duty to Christ. And do not Sacraments signify Christ, & our duty toward him so well as this? 2. I ask,

If Baptism do not signify our whole mortification, vivification, and putting on of Christ? 3. If the Sacraments do only by themselves, imply these duties, yet that implication being explicated in their administration, what use is there of putting that explicated duty under a bushel, or bed of man's making?

2. The Rejoinder not trusting to that denial, saith further, that if the Sacraments did signify man's duty, yet that is not a chief part of their nature. To which I may reply, that if it were not a chief part of their nature, but a part only, yet it is presumption for men to take any part of the Sacraments, and set it upon other things, at their own pleasure. But seeing by the nature of the Sacraments, is meant their office, and use, and there be many offices and uses of them, some of which come not so near their chiefest office as this signification doeth, it may with good reason be termed a chief part. Calvin (Consens. de re Sacram.) saith thus: Sacraments are notes and badges of our Christian profession and incitements to thankfulness, Exercises of piety, & bonds under our hands to tie us to God's service, but their chief end is to signify and • igure the grace of God to us.

Now though this last be the chief office, yet among the former one is more chief then another, and which of them more chief, then this of signifying spiritual duties with obligation to the performance of them?

3. To prove that the Sacraments signify moral duties (which first the Def. and in defense of him, the Rejoinder denieth) it was alleged, by the Repl. that the whole Covenant is in them signed and sealed, betwixt God and man in which Covenāt man's duty, thorough grace is there professed, and represented. Wherupon the Rejoinder 1. concludeth, that such signs as do neither sign nor seall the covenant of grace, cannot partake the office, or special nature of Sacraments. Whereby he gaineth nothing but his own ideal shadow. 2. He gathereth, that unless signifying, without sealing, be a more principal part of the nature of Sacraments, then sealing, such signs as communicate with them only in signifying, do not participat any chief part of their nature. Which is as mere non sense, as if one should say, that unless teaching, without sealing be a more principal part of Sacraments, thē sealing, then the preaching of the doctrine which in Sacraments is signified and sealed, doeth not participat any chief part of their nature. 3. He answereth, that the Sacraments do confirm our obligation unto sanctimony, in general, but not signify any moral duty in particular. Here then is the mystery: the Sacraments to confi • me (by signification) all our duties, but not this, or that duty.

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 Savior meant to put a difference, betwixt the old A. B. C. and the new manner of t • aching fitting for riper years: and therefore did not s • o • ll out every letter concerning our duty, in signs, as of old, but give us the sum in a few signs. Whosoever therefore goeth about to multiply significant signs, crosseth th • very intention which was respected, in the institution of two Sacraments only. Beside, the Cross itself, doeth not signify our duty of constant fighting under Christ, in pa • ticular, against this or that temptatiō of sin, the world, or the Devil, but only in general, 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 Ceremonial 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 signify our duty to God. To this the Rejoinder answereth, that the Sacraments do in deed imply, but not represent any moral duty. Now let any reasonable man judge, whether dipping under the water, and rising up again, or taking of food for strength, and growth, doeth not more represent spiritual duties, then making a Cross with ones finger, in the air?

5. The third reason mentioned, was taken from the name Eucharist, notifiing thankfulness, and the taking of the same, in remembrance of Christ. The Rejoinder his answer is, that the word Eucharist is no Sacrament, but a term brought in by men to put them in mind of their duty in receyving it. But that word doeth notify the nature of the Sacrament, at least in the judgment of all Divines, • hat have in this meaning used the term, though it be not a Sacrament. And they are more then that the Rej. his judgment can counter-balance. Yet if significant Ceremonies be like unto words and characters, as the Rejoinder formerly maintained, that very word must needs be a Sacrament, or a significant sign of a Sacrament: because it was brought in to put men in mind of their duty in receyving, as the Rej. speaketh. He addeth 2. that there is no element, nor action of that Sacrament, so particularly repraesenting thankfulness, as kneeling doth reverence, or humility, Where first, he maketh kneeling a significant Ceremony, which hitherto he hath seemed to deny. 2. I answer, that the very action of receyving so great a gift, in a cheerful humble manner, doeth repraesent both thankfulness, and humility, so far as Christ would have it repraesented by signs. The very celebration of a great benefit received, is a sign of thankfulness. Otherwise, let the Rejoinder tell us, what repraesentation of thankfulness was in the Passover, for that benefit of passing over the Israelites houses, when the first-borne of the Egyptians were slain?

6. Instance was given (by the Replier) that both sanctity, and constancy, which are the things • ignified by Surplice, and Cross, are signified in Baptism. The Rej. his answer is, that they are not barely or only signified in Baptism, as duties, nor by any distinct sign repraesented. As if this were the question, and not this: if Sacraments do signify moral duties! Certainly, if Sacraments do signify these virtues as graces and duties (as is proved, and also confessed) no Christian need desire to have them • ignified over again barely and only as duties, no more then after an instrument made betwixt the Lord of Manner, and his Tenent, containing the conditions of both partes, the tenent should seek for a new instrument, signifijng his conditions a part: and not only 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 woods, another for the • arable land, another for the meadows, another for the pastures, and another for the broom fields, or for every aker one, & that not from the Lord of the manner, but from some Justice of peace, or high Constable of the Hundred. Neither is it a thing profitable, for Christians to remember their duty, without remembrance of God's grace thereto appertaining.

7. Against mystical-moral Ceremonies, of human institution, the Repl. brought this Arg. in Mr. Baines his words: To be a teacher of my understand •• g, and an exciter of my devotion, are such effects, as require virtue, inherent, or assistant, to those things which should be causes of them. But no sign of man's divizing, hath any such virtue, in it, or with it. For then it must come either from the word of creation, or from God's after institution.

But from neither of these, have the signs of man's divizing any such virtue. Therefore no sign, of man's divizing, can be a teacher of mine understanding, or an exciter of my devotion.

This the Rejoinder confuteth first, with skornefull words, as a sickly childish, and long some objection. After, he answereth, that our monitorie Ceremonies, are only external occasions, and objects, whereby the mind of man worketh upon itself, not causes working by some virtue in them.

Where 1. observe, how he mangleth and marreth the Argument, that he may master it: the words are, that such effects require virtue inherent, or assistant : he interpreteth them only of virtue in them, i. e. inherent, leaving out assistant : and yet dareth affirm, that upon this fiction of virtue in them (which is his own fiction) the whole objection is built. 2. He maketh our Ceremonies to be only occasional objects, and no causes : whereas every instituted sign is a means, and so a cause of that effect for which it is appointed, as Logic teacheth. And if they were mere occasions of conceyving that which they signify, then a white Surplice would not prove half so significant a Ceremony of Ministers sanctity, as a white Cock, especially when it croweth, nor an aerial Cross, so significant, as a Gallows. Beside, if our Ceremonies be occasional objects only, then no man is tied to regard the whiteness of his Ministers Surplice, thereby to think of his sanctity, anymore then he is bound to regard the fowlnesse and soil of it, when for a longe time, it is unwashed, and he also useth it instead of a handkerchif, about his nose, thereby to think of the imperfection, spots, and blots, which are found in Ministers disposition, and conversation. Concerning, Letters, Characters, and Giblets, mentioned here again by the Rejoinder, answer was made before, in the first section of this Chapter.

8. To like purpose, the Repl. used this reason: If human inventions be such moral admonishers, in spiritual duties, then our consciences are bound to subject themselves to their admonitions, and so to those mortal men, who made them admonishers. The Rejoinder his answer is like his former: human significant Ceremonies have no virtue of teaching the understanding, or exciting the devotions of mē: but only external objects tending by their signification to those uses, to the use of which, the consciences of men are not bound simply but only collaterally, and for another thing. In which answer, 1. there is a strange mystery confessed: that human Ceremonies are appointed to do that, which they have neither antecedently, nor consequently, any virtue to do. 2. External objects are made opposite unto admonishers with virtue to admonish : as if no external objects (as Baptism administered to a child, before mine eyes) had any virtue of admonishing 3. As strange a distinction is made betwixt simply, and collaterally, and betwixt simply, and for another thing: which are such sustian stuff, that there is no fear, they should satisfy any but such as take terms without reason • or right reason.

9. Another reason of the Repliers, was, that every teaching sign, of public use in the Church, ought often to be interpreted, in preaching, and also defended if they be called in question, in the same preachings, which kind of preaching, upon Cross and Surplice, were very absurd, especially in those Parishes, that scarce have Quarter-Sermons. The Rejoinder answereth 1. that the Cross having interpretation with it, need not be interpreted: and that the Surplice signifieth, he doeth not well know what, but such a thing as may be soon taught. Now that which he saith of Cross, he may as well say of the Sacraments, that because in their administration, they have the interpretation going along with them, therefore no Minister need much preach of them. But indeed, there is special need, that the very interpretation which goeth alonge with the use of the Cross, should be well interpreted: because few or none, either of the people, or of the Crossers themselves do understand, how it hath that signification which the Convocation hath laid upon it, anymore, then any other toy, which may easily be devised by the same Convocation: as if they should put a straw into the childes hand, instead of a spear, to signify, that he should manfully fight, against all enemies of Christianity. And of the Surplices signification, seeing the Rejoinder himself is not yet certainly informed, what it is, there must needs be great use of much preaching about it, first to declare certainly (if it may be found) what it signifieth, secondly to show the ground of that signification, or authority from whence it cometh, lawful, and thirdly to urge it upon the consciences of those that are to make use of that signification. His second answer is a bundle of phrases: and so let it pass. Only let it be noted. 1. that he calleth it fury, to charge our Ceremonies of superstition and yet in sobriety, maintained before, that those which count them unlawful, are superstitious brethren. 2. that he determineth absolutely, upon his refuted grounds, that we have stopped our own mouths, from preaching the Gospel, by calumniations. Whereas all England knoweth, that those which never preached, or writ against the Ceremonies, have their mouths stopped by his Prelates, though they only profess, they cannot use them, by reason of scandal, of which number, Doctor Burgess himself hath been one. 3. He would persuade the world, that some of us place all religion in opposing Ceremonies by speaking and writing : which is greater calumny, then any he charged us with, or then he can prove of any one. 4. He affirmeth us to be of all men he ever knew, the most impatient of opposition, and so most partial, and Pharisaically proud as if his Prelates were very patient toward those that oppose their Ceremonies, no way so partial, nor drew any thing from the Pharisees, or as if himself in this Rejoinder, had not shown more of these virtues, then any other. 5. He showeth where the store lieth: in rooting of them out of the hearts of their people, by clamours, and calumnies. We cannot then defend our practice, but with clamours and calumnies, nor answer for our hearts, without rooting them out of people's hearts.

10. For the further manifestinge of the useless signification of our significant Ceremonies, the Repl. appealed to the consciences of the best conforminge Christiansin England, whether ever they found themselves truly stirred up to holiness, by the Surplice, or to constancy in faith, by the Cross? The Rejoinder answereth, that no man is stirred up by them, as by causes, but only as by the sight of the creatures, or other memorials: of which use if men deprive themselves, it is their prejudice or negligence. Now of causes there was no mention in the quaere. And the question being made of the best conforming Christians (among whom the Rejoinder himself is one) prejudice, and negligencie of some, make up no answer. The truth is, that he himself could not say, out of his conscience, that ever he felt such motions within him, by occasion of a Surplice, or Cross, and therefore baulked the question. Yet this is here to be observed: that by the Rejoinder his confession, our sacred Ceremonies are no more admonishers unto spiritual duties, then any creature of God, i. e. then any butterfly is. And are not then our Ceremonies very sacred, or religious. Or is our representative Churches institution, of anymore force, or worth, then any childes, that catcheth butter-flies?

11. It was added also which by experience, it is found) that in someone Congregation, where these Ceremonies have not been used, more holiness, and constancy of faith hath appeared, then in many Cathedral Churches, where they were never omitted. The Rejoinder his answer is, that where other helps stand equal, there is no difference, save only in a Pharisticall opinion of those, who count their very opposition of Ceremonies an high point of devotion, and stiffness therein, constancy in the faith.

Behold the man, that even now complained of clamours, and calumnies. The reasonable part of this answer is, that in Cathedral Churches, other helps (as diligent preaching, catechizing, admonishing, directing in Christian duties) are not equal or answerable to that which is found in divers Congregations where the Ceremonies have not been used: otherwise there were no difference. Now herein, 1. he confuteth himself, in confessing that his Prelates, even those whose admirable wisdom he extolleth, though they have power enough, do not provide the chief helps of edification, for their Churches, equal to those that are found in poor Congregations, which receive not their Ceremonial helps, and yet will not suffer those poor Congregations to enjoy their helps. For do they not by this, place a high point of devotion in their Ceremonial helps? 2. How can this stand with reason: where other helps are equal, there is no difference? Certainly, if our Ceremonies be helps to Edification (as the Def. and Rejoinder maintain) then where other helps are equal, the Cathedral Churches have a great advantage in helps, above other, that want those Ceremonies. Nay one Cathedral Church exceedeth another in this kind: as Durrham, for Ceremonies, doeth Chester, and Lichefeild.

12. Because the Def. (to make way for an injurious accusation) changed the phrase used in the Abrigemēt, a chief part of the Sacraments nature, into another more obnoxious unto exception, the chief part, the Repl. justly noted this, as no plain dealing. The Rejoinjoynder (being loath to leave any of the Def. his words un-maintained) answereth, that the Sacraments have but two parts, signification, and obsignation: and therefore if signification be a principal part, it is also the principal part : so that the Defend (saith he) dealt herein fairly, and pressed us with such words as our Argument requires.

But 1. who authorized the Defend. to change the terms of our Argument, and then press us with his changelinges? Let him reserve such fair dealing for other occasions, when it may pass with less notice taken of it. 2. What doeth the Rejoinder mean, to imitate the Defend. in attributing unto us, that we make mere signification, without any qualification or limitation, either the or a chief part of the Sacrament? The Abridgement saith only, that such signification as is ordained mystically to teache and admonish us of spiritual duties, is a chief part of the Sacrament. 3. Mr. Hooker, (lib. 5. pag. 3.10.) saith that there are great store of properties belonging to the Sacraments▪ as that they are bounds of our obedience, obligations to mutual charity, provokation to godliness, preservations from sin, memorials of great benefits, marks of distinction from strangers etc. How then can the Rejoinder so resolutely determine of two only offices, which belong to them? 4. If all essential parts of the Sacrament may be reduced to these two, yet the lesser of these may be called a principal part, without any prejudice to the other, in respect of those mē, which make accidental, circumstātiall, & improper parts of God's worship, and so of his Sacraments, as the Def. and Rejoinder upon every occasion do shift off Arguments with those terms. The rest of this section (beside words of no weight) containeth nothing which hath not been in the former passages, sufficiently cleared.

SECT. 6. Concerning Jewish Ceremonies.

1. IN the Abridgement, after the former reason, now maintained, this was brought in: that In the time of the Law (when God saw it good to teache his Church by significant Ceremonies) none might be brought into, or received in the worship of God, but such only as the Lord himself did institute. Ergo. And after that, this: It is much less lawful, for man to bring significant Ceremonies into God's worship now, then it was under the Law. For God hath abrogated his own (not only such as prefigured Christ, but such also, as served by their signification, to teache moral duties) so as now (without great sin) none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for signification. Upon which last ground, they infer thus: If those Ceremonies which God himself ordained to teache his Church by their signification, may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devised.

Now the wisdom of the Def. was, to pass over the former grounds, and only to insist upon this last inference derived from them. But let us see what he, and the Rejoinder have to say of that.

2. About this inference, many testimonies of great Divines, were alleged in the Abridgement: all which the Def. passeth by, as not worthy answer: for which, he was challenged by the Replier. The Rejoinder answereth 1. that this is wranglinge, spoken not out of conscience, but out of a spirit of contradiction, etc. To which I answer nothing. But that which the Def. neglected, the Rejoinder taketh to supply, least we should brag, as it pleaseth him to phrasifie. See therefore how he dischargeth that which he undertaketh. 1. The Nicene counsel (saith he) is twice falsified: first; that it is supposed to condemn significant Ceremonies, by man devised, upon this reason, that God had abolished his own, and secondly, that the Council is affirmed to condemn such Ceremonies at all.

It seemeth the Rejoinder hath more skill (about this cause) in multiplying falsities, then in dividing of them from truths. For the Nicene Council was brought in as speaking for one proposition: and the Rejoinder maketh two false assertions of that one simple axiom. Beside the words of that Council, or Constantine, speaking for it, are (in the Abridgement) only brought in as testifying this▪ that the old Ceremonies of the law, being abrogated by God, cannot (without sin) be now continued in the Church for signification. Instead of this, the Rejoinder feigneth two other propositions, and then faith, that they are two falsifications: which if they be, let him (who is the coiner of them) see how he can excuse them. The words of Constantine are: It seemed unworthy to celebrate the Passover with imitation of the Jewish custom. Let no (such) thing be commune to Christians, with the Jews. We have received another way from our Savior, a more lawful and convenient of our holy Religion. This is pat to the purpose, for which it was alleged.

2. The testimony of all the rest (saith the Rej.) are perverted. 3. Sundrie of the witnesses are known to have allowed our, and all, some significant Ceremonies. It is a shame therefore for men gloring of sincerity, in refusing the Ceremonies, thus to leave all sincerity, in alleging of Authors. In which never any protestant writers abused the world so much, as the Abridgement, and this cavilling Repl. Now 1. for the perverting of all testimonies, it is affirmed only, but not proved. Only some general suppositions are brought in, to support the accusation, all which have formerly been confuted. 2. Among those which he saith were known to allow of our Ceremonies, he nameth D. Humphry, of whom Cambden in his history of Q. Elizabeth, observeth, that he (though very learned and worthy) never was raised to Ecclesiastical preferments, because he allowed not our Ceremonies etc. Harding also objecteth him by name, with Mr. Samson, as one that had rather loose all, then use our Ceremonies, and Jewel (Apol. c. 5. div. 1.) doeth not deny, but defend it: besides how well he allowed of our Ceremonies, let all men judge by a certain letter of his here printed, written to the Bishops, the Copy bearing this inscription.

By this we may judge of some others, whom he only nameth.

3. That all allowed some • ignificant Ceremonies, is manyfestly proved false, in the former allegations. 4. We glory no more of sincerity, in refusing the Ceremonies, then the Rejoinder doeth in using of them. 5. It is no abusing of the world, to allege general sentences of men condemning that which they seem to allow in their practice. If it were, I can name one protestant writer, who hath more abused the world, in this kind, then any, or all of us: and that is no other, then our Def. D. Morton. For he hath written many books of good use, against the Papists, the chief grace whereof is, that (having a good Librarie, and using it with deligence, and discretion) he hath alleged many thousands of their own testimonies, for the disproving of those errors and superstitions, which the same Authors, in other places, or at least in their practice, do apparently either allow, or admit of. This is the wordy answer which the Rejoinder giveth unto the testimonies alleged in the Abr. (pag. 33.34.) for to praevent our bragging : now let us try if the Argument naked of testimonies, will not stand.

3. The Argument is this: If those Ceremonies which God himself ordained, to teache his Church, by their signification, may not be used, much less may those which man hath devised, The Def. his first answer is, that the use of some Jewish rite, without any Jewish opinion, as Circumcision, and Easter. In which answer nothing is found, that toucheth any term of the Argument. Yet upon the occasion of it, the Def. was asked how a Jewish Rite, can be used, without some part of a Jewish opinion?

The Rejoined. answereth, materially, but not formally, and in use, But he should have remembered that the Argument is of significant rites using, and the Def. his answer is of Jewish significant rites using : so that in his grant, there must needs be granted some formal use for signification. Beside, in all using of human mystical rites, upon due consideration, there is some part of a Jewish opinion. I prove it thus: All they that consideratly use carnal, beggarly rudiments, in God's service, have this opinion, that such rites as the Jewish (set praefiguration aside which no Christian ever admitted) are good in the Christian Church. But all that so use human mystical rites, use carnal, beggarly rudiments, in God's service. Ergo. The assumption I prove thus: All that use mystical rites, whereto there is no Spirit annexed by God, as unto the Evangelical institutions of the New Testament, use carnal beggarly rudiments, in God's service. But they which use human mystical rites, use mystical rites, whereto there is no Spirit annexed by God. Ergo. The Proposition cannot be denied, until a better definition of such rites be given: nor the assumption, except an Evangelical promise can be shown of Spiritual blessing upon the use of human mystical rites.

SECT. 7. Concerning Images, &c.

1. A Third reason brought against significant Ceremonies, was, that they open a gap to Images, &c. where the Reader must remember, or consider, that the meaning is: Images instituted for signification of moral duties, may as well be set up in Churches, as Cross and Surplice. The Def. his answer was (to pass over superfluity of words) that Images are not to be accounted Popish, or unlawful, but only in regard of superstitious adoration. Wherunto it was replied, that then Cassanders Images ( not for adoration, but for information & incitement) are not Popish: which the Rej. doeth not only grant, but also proveth it, by the consent of Calvin himself, Instit. lib. 1. capit. 11. sect. 12. where he saith, that Historical Images, or Pictures, may have some use, in teaching, and putting, in remembrance.

Now for this, let it be considered, that Calvin in that section, speaketh only of ordinary pictures, for teaching and putting in remembrance of that which they repraesent of themselves, without any Ecclesiastical institution, as certain words written do signify a certain meaning, without any special institution. Suche (it may be) would be the picture of Ananias in a white Surplice, signifying with other pictures agreeable to the story, that Paul esteemed and called him a whited wall, Act. 23.3. But in the very next section, which is the thirteenth, Calvin, disputing against setting up of any Images in Churches, doeth sufficiently declare, that he allowed of no Ceremonial religious use of Images, such as is of our Cross, and Surplice.

2. The Replier alleged against this defense of Ceremonial religious use of Images, especially in Churches, the common consent of our Divines. Against this, the Rej. first opposeth Luther and the Lutherans: and then asketh if they be none of our Divines? To which I answer, that they are in most main points our Divines: but about this buisinesse they are no more our, then about Vbiquitie, Consubstantiation, &c. for which they disclaim us, even the whole Church of England, as no part of the Catholic Church, but Sectaries, Sacramentarians, &c. Secondly, the history of Luther about Images is well known: how in opposition to Carolastadius, who brake down Images without his consent, he would have them to be tolerated, only for a time, until men were more fully instructed. But that he allowed them for good Ceremonies of religion, that cannot be shown. M ^r . Fox, in the story of Luther, hath this: Luther misliked the rashness of Caro • astadius, in stirring up the people, to throw down Images, without authority, and before the people were taught, that Images serve to no purpose. Not that he would maintain Images (as he said) to stand, or to be suffered: but that this ought to be done by the Magistrate &c. This was Luther enforced unto, by the slanderers, that accused Protestants of sedition and tumults, &c. This is no argument, for the Magistrate to let Images stand; who may and should remove them, and will not. The cause why Luther did so stand with the standing of Images, was time, and not his own judgment. He wished them away. Nay (as Zwingli relateth) he turned them, some with their feet upward, and some with their faces toward the wall, & their backs to the people, for to make them not religious, but ridiculous. Thirdly, the Lutherans make this one of their controversies, against Calvin, Beza, &c. whether Images may be tolerated in Churches, or in religious use. Fourthly, Polanus (who was borne among the Lutherans in Silesia) in Ezech. cap. 11. testifieth, that the Lutheran Images, are worshipped of most Lutherans, &c. and therefore are Idols to be avoided. And will the Rej. then defend the Lutheran use of Images?

3. In the next place, the Rej. asketh, in mumminge fashion, if Ursinus, Junius, & M ^r . Perkins be not of our Divines? or if they do not acknowledge an historical use of Images lawful? To which I answer, that they are in our consenting Divines.

For Vrsine, his words are plain (parte 2. pag. 45. they must needs have large consciences, who blush not to reckon a thing of the worst example, and from heathenish rite, and custom brought into the Church, not without the great disgrace and hurt thereof, among indifferent things. Where it must be observed, that he disputed against Flaccius Illiricus, about Images, even in the Lutheran use, which our Def. and Rej. maintain. Junius also is ours. His words are these (adv. Bell. de Imagin. lib. 2. cap. 12. v. 30. It is God's cause and ours (as is plain out of the word, that neither his Image nor Christ's, nor any of the Saints for a religious end, be set up in any place (specially that is appointed for God's worship) or at any time without his order. Verily those Images are to be reckoned not only among things Superfluous, but Scathie and Forbidden things. M ^r . Perkins (being in every man's hands) may be easily consulted with, upon the second Commandment, and in his treatise of Idolatry.

4. Beza, with his fellow Ministers of Geneva, are next brought in, who allowed many pictures, to be set forth in the French Bible. Beza his judgment (even of Lutheran Images) is plain in his answer to Westphalus, a Lutheran, capit. 36. The placing of Images in Churches we think a 1000. times flatly forbidden by the word of God. Whosoever would see Beza's resolute judgment, about the Lutheran use of Images, which the Def. approveth of, let him look upon his Antithesis ad th • s. 4. Witenbergentium, in Colloquio Mompelgardensi: & ad Colloquium Mompelgardense, parte 2. And he shall find enough to satisfy him, not only about Beza's judgment, but (if he be a good Protestant) concerning the cause, or question it self. For no answer of moment could ever be brought forth, by any either rigid, or gentle Lutheran, from that time, unto this day.

As for those pictures in the French Bible, they are not significant Ceremonies of religious use by special institution; but such signs as Characters or letters, concerning which, answer is given, in the first section of this Chapter, out of Alexander Hales: They signify holy things not as they are holy, but as they are things.

The Rej. therefore fore-seeing what would be answered, goeth about to praevent it, by saying, that the Def. condemneth all religious use of Images, properly so called, 1. e. whose determination must be to Godward, as Polanus in 2. Praecep. expresseth the meaning. Which expression I cannot find in Polanus, but this to our purpose: Images are not to be allowed in Churches for laymens books.

Neither can the Def. or Rej. deny all religious use of Images, properly so called; except they deny significant Images, appointed for commonefaction and institution of men in religious duties, to be a religious use. Which if they could have done, they needed not have admitted Images into the same rank with their income significant Cerimonies, accidental parts of religious worship. By this also is answered that which he addeth of simple historical use of Images, as separated from all religious use.

5. Of having Images for religious use, the negative is defended by Calvin, and the affirmative by Bellarmine, de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 9. in which question, it was observed by the Replier, that the Def. taketh Bell. his part.

The Rejoinder here first maketh a kind of doubt, whether Calvin did not therein contradict himself! But not trusting to that, he addeth, that the question was, whether Images may be well (recte) placed in Churches? because things lawful in them selves, are not lawful in all times & places to be used. Now the mere looking upon that Chapter of Bell. will presently manifest, that Calvin, calling Images in Temples, Idolatrous signs set up wherewith the Churches are defiled, never meant so to minse the matter, as to make them lawful, but not expedient. And in deed, if Images may be used for commonefaction, and institution, as Ecclesiastical significant Ceremonies, there can be no reason given, why they should be shut out of the Church, where Ecclesiastical significant Ceremonies have their chiefest use.

This is certain, that the Def. expressly denieth the bringing in of Images into Churches, for some such uses as Bellarmine speaketh of, cap. 10. For instruction, and erudition, for stirring up unto ímitation, and for praeserving of the memory of Christ, and Saints, he denieth (I say) this to be any part of Popis • use or abuse about Images, when he saith, that Only in regard of superstitious adoration, the use of Images is to be called Popish.

6. It was added by the Repl. that the Def. his assertion is directly against the Homilie against the peril of Idolatry, unto which we are bound to subscribe. If this be true (saith the Rejoinder) the Bishop deserveth to be suspended: the Replier, if it be untrue. Now I do not desire that he alone, (separated from the rest either partaker of the same or guilty of equal faults,) should be supended: but I dare adventure my suspension, against his, that neither he nor the Rej. can clear his assertion, from direct contradiction unto that Homilie. I will take no other words for proof of that which the Repl. saith, then that found in a book written against M ^r . Richard Montague, about the like sentence, called A dangerous Plot, &c. pag. 94. and 95. where these words are quoted out of that Homilie: The words Idol and Image, be words of divers tongues, and soundes: yet used in the Scripture indifferently, for one thing always. To bring Images into the Churches, is a foul abuse, and great enormity. They be forbidden, and unlawful. They are not things indifferent, nor tolerable. If the Def. will say, that his assertion is not contrary to these words, then I am contented, that his suspension should be deferred longer then M ^r . Montague's promotion was, after he had written this, and such like scandalous doctrines, tending directly to the overthrow of our religion. And this reason may be alleged for him: that M ^r . Montague in some points went so far beyond D. Morton, that he reckoneth him among the Puritan Bishops.

7. The Repl. noted also, that the Def. his assertion confirmeth Bellarmine's foul words, who saith, that the Apology of the Church of England lieth, in affirminge the Council of Franckford to have decreed the abolishing of Images: de Council. lib. 2. cap. 8. because the only answer is that which Junius (in his notes upon that chapter) giveth: He that forbiddeth Images to be worshiped, doeth forbid having of Images worshipable, especially in Churches: which answer this Def. doeth flatly deny. The Rej. answereth, that the meaning of B. Jewel, in that place of the Apology, was, not that the Council did simply take away Images, but contrary to the Council of Nice, which required the adoration of them. But 1. If these words do not show Jewel's meaning, yet certainly they declare Junius his mind and judgment, plainly. How then dare the Rej. avouche Junius to have allowed Images worshipable? 2. Jewel his words are: Charles the Great had a Council at Franckford, contrary to the 2. Nicene Council, concerning the taking away of Images : where the taking away is not limited by contrariety to the Nicene Council, but manifestly explaineth the sentence wherein that contrariety did mainly consist. 3. Learned Jewel knew, how to write plainly, so that his words and meaning may be understood. Now what his judgment was of Images for religious use, (adoration set a part) appeareth evidently, as in his 14. Article, so especially in that notable and Prophetical sentence of his, concerning the Image of the Cross of Christ, as it was in some place or places of England: Si illa mala Crux stat, nos cadimus. If that evil Cross stand▪ we (or our religion) must fall.

This is related by D. Humphrie, in the history of B. Jewel's life and death, a little before the ende. And in very deed, except those which write against the Papists, do refute all Images instituted for religious signification, they do not make any difference betwixt us, and a great part of Popish Doctors. For (as Bilson, against the Jesuits Apology, pag. 572. well observeth) this is the doubt, betwixt us and the Papists, whether we should not content ourselves, with such means as God hath devised for us, and commended unto us, thereby daily to renew the memory of our Redemption; or else invent others of our own heads ? Nay if we admit of significant Images, as religious Ceremonies, I would fain know how we in England can condemn, those that wor • hip before them, or them commemoratively, or recordatively, as Petrus de Crabrera (in 3. q. 25. a 3. disp. 2. n. 35.) speaketh, and Vasquez defendeth to be the common tenet of the Romish Doctors. For that is nothing else, but at the beholding of a Crucifix, or such like Image, and calling to mind Christ, and our duty to him, upon the same to worship him which (upon the supposition of their religious signification lawful) can hardly be condemned by those which hold kneeling at the Communion good.

SECT. 7. Concerning the Oath-gesture of Abraham's Servant.

1. IN this section, the Def. beginneth a confutation of the fore-proved Proposition: All human Ceremonies, being appropriated to God's service, if they be ordained to teache any spiritual duty, by their mystical signification, are unlawful. His Scripture confutation (for want of rule or precept) is only by Examples.

Now to omit words of no weight, his first example is Abraham's directing his servant, to put his hand under his thigh, when he did swear. Gen. 24.2. Against this, the Replier first excepted, that in probability, Abraham was not the appointer of this Ceremony. The Rej. answereth, that this is not material to the point, what man appointed it, so that it was not of Divine appointment. So that their first proof of Ceremony appointed by man, is from an example appointed they know not by whom: only begging of us to grant, that it was not appointed by God, which they ought to have proved. Yet the Replier for citing Calvin and Junius, as leaving it most probable, that is, was an ancient custom before Abraham (which any man looking upon their interpretations, may see to be true) is called by the Rej. a false man in all his allegations. But let that go.

2. Because the Def. for magnifying of this example, said, that there is not a more Divine service of God, then the taking of an oath; the Replier denied this: affirming the proper, and principal ende of swearing is (not to worship God, but) to confirm a truth. To this the Rejoinder answereth 1. that so the proper ende of Preaching, Sacraments, Petitioning, is edification of men, confirmation of faith, and obtaining of mercies. Where if he had repeated the Repliers other term, proper and principal ende, his exception had been at an ende: because the principal ende of these means, is to honor God. Beside those very ends which he mentioneth, edification, confirmation of faith, and obtaining of mercy, are illfavoredly distinguished from God's worship, as no more appertaining to it, then the fidelity which a Vassall, or Copi-houlder, doeth by oath confirm ordinarily unto his Lord. The Rejoinder his second answer is, the Replier before placed worship in the nature of the action it self▪ and yet now placeth it in the ende of the action. As if the nature of an action, may not be gathered from the proper or natural ende of it! Nay the Replier before declared, that the ende of an instituted means, is part of the nature thereof, and hath a place in the definition of it.

D. Jackson (in his Original of unbelief, pag. 327. and 328.) by the difference given of the Replier, doeth well answer the Popish Proctors for Images, who allege as like, the Ceremony used in an oath: Particular oaths, given only for satisfaction of men, are not such proper acts of God's service, as supplications, thanksgivings, and solemn vows are. The honor of God would be no whit l • sse, if the use or necessity of oaths among men, were n •• e. In supplications, and thanksgivings, it is far otherwise, the more often & solemnly we praise God, or pray unto him, the more we honor him; because these are direct and immediate • acts of his service, &c.

3. Because the Def. proved nothing to the purpose, about this Gesture, he was required to prove it significative of some spiritual duty: For it was in probability only a common sign of subjection, as well out of an oath, as in it, without any respect unto Christ. The Rejoinder instead of a proof, saith, that some Ancient and Later Writers do so conceit. And if the Def. and he also do conceit it so, we do not strive with them, about that: but men's conceits are no great proofs. He addeth 2. that if it were a sign of subjection yet might it be significant of a spiritual duty. But may be, and might be, is no proof.

He subjoigneth 3. that it was a common sign used in solemnity of that kind, as well out of an oath, as in it; this (saith he) is barely and boldly affirmed, & implieth a contradiction, as importing other solemnities with • ut an oath, of the same kind with thi • , wherein was an oath. Now for bareness, or boldness, of a probable conjecture, by way of answer, it should not be objected by him that bringeth mere conceits and might bees, for proving Arguments. And as for contradiction, if he had repeated the word subjection, then he might have discerned signs of that kind, as well without, as with an oath. By the noting of this also he may see how the Replier herein agreed with Calvin. For no Gesture of subjection to a superior man, is wont to be proper unto subjection signified in time of swearing.

Neither is the Repliers observation (that as imposition of hands, in those parts, did always signify some superiority: so this underposi • ion of hands was, by proportion, fit to signify inferiority, or subjection) this I say was not a mere fiction, as the Rejoinder would have it. For, beside that the meaning was, of the usual imposing of hands in blessing, where the lesser is blessed of the greater, as Scripture teacheth: the Rejoinder hath brought but two examples, to infringe the generality of it Act. 13.2. Lev. 1.4. and in both of these it holdeth. For they that laid hands on Paul and Silas, did it not only in the name of the whole society, which in such cases hath some dispensative superiority over particular members; but also by Commission from God, which gave them in th • t buisinesse superiority. And he that brought a beast to be sacrifized, Lev. 1. had certainly power over it. If the Rejoinder could have shown us, where, and when, a servant imposed his hand upon his Masters head, or a son upon his fathers, that had been to the purpose. We 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 sign of a servants duty to which he is bound by oath, is a mystical sign of some spiritual duty: because all the law is spiritual; and obedience to masters, for conscience sake, is a service of God. Whereto I answer, that I never heard the Hang-man's office, which is servile, called a spiritual duty; no though he be bound to it by oath. 2. The oath maketh the thing sworn to, no more spiritual, then a carnal obligation unto it (which may concur with the obligation of an oath) maketh it carnal. 3. The Law is all spiritual, in the manner; but yet all the works required by it are not spiritual, nor so esteemed. The Apostle (1. Cor. 6.) distinguisheth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 things pertaining to this life, from spiritual things. All Divines usually distinguish the common moral duties practiced by light of nature, from such as are spiritual. 4. Obedience to masters for conscience sake, is a service, or obedience to God, as it cometh from conscience toward God: but every sign of subjection, is not a sign of it as it cometh 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 anything could be concluded from thence, for our Convocation-power in appointing such Ceremonies: because such Prophets as Abraham might do more then our Convocation.

The Rej. here, would have us show that this was done by Prophetical inspiration : and because this is not done, he calleth this answer a boulting hole, fit for a distressed and willful disputer, whose cause cannot be defended and yet his stomach will not yield. But if he had well considered, that it belongeth not properly to the answer, but to the Opponent, to produce reasons; and how unreasonable it is, for to require a reason proving a thing to be done, of him that judgeth it false, and only for disputation sake granteth his adversary to suppose and take it as true, he would never have abused so many words by misplacing of them. All these things considered, I doubt not (as the Replier said) but Abraham's servant, if he were here present, and need required, would swear, that his example maketh nothing for our Ceremonies.

SECT. 10. Concerning Suarez the Jesuit, his stating of the Controversy, betwixt Protestants, and Papists.

1. IN this section an objection of ours is brought in, without rank or file, in the middle 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 sixth ; except the state which Suarez maketh of the question betwixt us and Papists. This therefore (as being very observable) remaineth here 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 error is, that only those signs which are written, ought to be retained and used in the Church. The second, that no outward worship of God is lawful, but only that which is appointed by God. The third, that the Church hath not power of commanding, and ordaining those things, (he meaneth mystical Ceremonies) which are necessary for convenient celebration of the Sacraments. Of which three points, there is none, wherein Suarez and the Def. do not jump. To this the Rej. first answereth, that Suarez doeth not propounded these three points, as three errors of the Protestants: because he mentioneth not Protestants, but Heretics, which reason is not worth the answering: because he mentioneth Heretics of this time, which phrase is oftener in the Jesuits writings, understood of Protestants, then of any other, as all know that have looked upon them. By the • ame reason, one may argue, that he understood no special Sect, or persons: b • cause he mentioneth not any by name. But it shall appear, that his meaning could be of no other then Protestants.

3. He addeth in the second place the words going before those quoted, he spake of Suenkf • l • ians. And this is true: but nothing to the purpose. For he leaving them as desperate phantasticks, passeth on to others, that is, Protestants, as by and by shall appear.

4. In the next place (saith the Rej.) Suarez speaketh of such as allow some external worship of God, but refuse all Ecclesiastical Ceremonies in his worship, as the inventions of men; and hold nothing to be lawful in God's service, but what is commanded in holy Scriptures; which is the ground of those three errors mentioned by the Replier. This may be called truth: but it is not all the truth, which belongeth to our present purpose. For Suarez his words are these: Others reprove Ecclesiastical Ceremonies as human inventions without authority or precept in Scripture: For they think it unlawful to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture enjoined. In which ground three • rrours are contained. Here may a great difference be observed betwixt the Rej. his translation, and Suarez his words; especially in that for those words: Th • y think it unlawful to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture prescribed, the Rej. giveth these: they hold nothing to be lawful in God's service, but what is commanded in Scripture. For many things are lawful in God's service, which are not worship: as civil circumstances, &c.

5. After those three errors, the Rej. abserveth Suarez to speak of some that dissalow not Ceremonies in general, but impugn the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, as vain and superstitious. These no doubt (addeth the Rej) are the Protestants: to whom he imputeth there no other error, but their opposition against Romish Ceremonies, as vain and superstitious, as the Defender doeth. Concerning this, 1. This therefore was not mentioned by the Replier, because Suarez himself testify • h, that it is concluded in the former: Which error cannot be founded, but upon one of the three above reject • d errors. 2. Suarez also addeth that these men of whom he in these words speaketh, say nothing against all their Ceremonies, but only, that they are used with intention of worship, as pertaining to the virtue of Religion: that they are done by us with intention of worship and as pertaining to the virtue of Religion. This they hold Superstitious▪ For though in the Sacraments we are to observe a measure and due circumstances, yet this they will on • lie have as a certain human polity, not out of intention of worship and religion: for this they say is Superstitious.

Out of these two observations, I make these two conclusions: 1. If this error be necessarily founded on those three mentioned, (as Suarez saith, and showeth) then such Protestants as hold this (among whom the Rejoinder professeth the Defend. and his own name) hold also those. 2. If Protestants hold this tenet, that it is Superstition, for to intend worship in human Ceremonies (as Suarez saith) then our Defender and Rejoinder in this point are by Protestants found guilty of Superstition. For they place special immediate, though improper, accidental, and secondary worship in human Ceremonies; as is to be seen in this Rejoinder pag. 125.127. &c.

Heer they cannot • scape, by alleging (as they use to do) that the Papists place proper essential worship in all their Ceremonies. For Suarez in the same place expoundeth the Popish tenet, concerning worship, just as they do theirs: Sacramental Ceremonies belong to secondary worship: not only because they contain External worship, but also in the very External worship it self, they are as it were accidents of other more noble actions.

6. Hitherto we have had noting directly answered, concerning the three errors, which the Replier said Suar • z imputed to Protestants, about Ceremonies in general. Nor is any other given but this: that Suarez chargeth those errors, not on Protestants, but on Anabaptists: who hold this negative argument: whatsoever is not commanded in the Word, is unlawful. This the Anabaptists, and not the Protestants, hold, fanatically even about rites, and formalities, &c. To which I reply 1. that if Suarez his words be taken as before they were recited, & not as the Rejoinder doeth ill-translate them, then no man is conversant in the Protestant writings, or have read over that which is formerly cited out of them in these three general Arguments, but must needs confess, the very same sense is to be found in most of our principal Divines: and the same words in many: It is not lawful to worship God with other external worship save with that which is in Scripture prescribed us. And human inventions withou • warrant from God in Script. are to be reprehended.

2. If all things be Ceremonies, which are circumstances of order, and decency (as the Defender and Rejoinder do not only affirm, but make their chief Anchor) then (whatsoever Gui de Er • s discourseth of one furious company of them) much injury is done to the Anabaptists, in making them to hold, that all Ceremonies are unlawful, which are not contained in the Word.

For it is well known, that they have certain times, & places of meeting for worship; certain order of preaching & praying; nay in Baptizing of men-grown more formalities then many Protestant Churches; and even Bishops over divers Congregations, for order sake (as they say.) D. B. having lived in Holland, can scarce be ignorant of these things.

3. To put it out of doubt, that Suarez, under the name of Heretics, in this place, meant Protestants, let any man look upon his book de Religion, Volume 1. treatise 3. lib. 2. cap. 1. and there he shall find these words, to the same purpose: The Heretics of these times say every ceremony, and all worship not prescribed of God, or not contained in the Gospel is Superstition, yea and Idolatry. They stand much upon Deut. 12. Now 1. this cannot be understood of the Anabaptists : because they make no such account of Deutronomie, or the old Testament, as that they found any doctrine chiefly on that. 2. Suarez himself, in the same Chapter, showeth plainly that he there meant Protestants. For he sendeth the Reader, for confutation of these Heretics, to Gregorius de Valentia, tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 11. p. 1. where he disputeth against Herbrandus, a Protestant, not an Anabaptist: & to Lessius de just. & jure, l. 2. cap. 43. dub. 4. where he disputeth about this question, against Calvin. And (lest any man should think, he meant one kind of Heretics there, and another in this place questioned, he there referreth his reader, for further satisfaction about that question, unto this very place, in 3. tom. 3. disp. 15. What can be more clear? When as therefore the Rejoinder upon such sandy grounds, concludeth, that we are somewhat encamped in the Trenches of Anabaptists ; because we do not jump with Suarez, in condemning these three Errors; we may better conclude, that he and the Def. by rash undermining of us have, unawares, broken into the works of Papists ; because they do condemn with Suarez, those three Protestant truths. And withal (seeing so great a School-Papist as Suarez, in stating of the controversy, maketh no mention of merit, necessity, efficacy, number, or holiness, either inherent or adhaerent ) it is but an evasion of the Defend. and Rejoinder upon every occasion, to fly unto these, as only differences betwixt us and Papists, about Ceremonies. And so we have more cleared, then that, for which Suarez his testimony was produced by the Replier: namely, that learned Papists have no opinion of all their significant Ceremonies, which the Defender and Rejoinder do not maintain.

SECT. 11. Concerning the Feast of Purim. Ester. 9.

1. THis example was, seven hundred year since, objected by Papists, unto the Waldenses, for human Ceremonies: & since, by all Papists that have written against Protestants about Ceremomonies; as Gregorius de Valentia, Bellarmine, Suarez, in the places before noted. And we need not seek for new answers about it, seeing that which our Divines have answered is sufficient. Our first answer is that of Junius to Bellarmine, de Cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 10. Praeceptum • uit politicum: which words because they were translated, a precept of order, the Rejoined. catcheth occasion to conclude from thence, that order doeth require institution of new things. But therein he misseth, except he can prove some new religious thing instituted, beside a circumstance of time, which the Replier (whom he seeketh to involve in a contradiction) doeth expressly distinguish from things. His answer is, that though this precept were Political, yet by Junius himself, annot. 17. it was also significant. Wherein he mistaketh Junius his meaning, which is expounded annot. 28. It signifieth no days, nor repraesents mysteries, but is a commemoration that day instituted.

2. It was added by the Replier that some of our own writers at home, say that it was appointed for a civil rejoicing day. Heer the Rejoinder (naming M. Jacob for such a writer) accuseth him of making it a Guttide: As if no Civil day of rejoicing could be without Gutting. Yet there be men reverend for learning, and piety, which say some such thing as the Rejoined. detorteth M. Jacob's words to. For Pellicanus upon that place of Ester, saith thus: The Hebrews solaced themselves with feasts. We read of a festival Solemnity instituted, and that for two days, wherein they please themselves with meats and drinks, &c. But the Jews took up that rite voluntarily as being more prone to the Contentments of the belly, then to the Confidence of the Spirit toward God, whereof in those times they seem to have ben little Careful. And for this sentence, it seemeth to make, that the Jews are said to have made such feasts, before and without any public institution: and that nothing is mentioned in the text: Which two observations do not agree to the Feast of Tabernacles, Neh. 8. which the Rejoined. would make like unto this. Add heerunto, that, if Josephus may be credited) the heathen King, Artaxerxes, was the instituter of this Feast, among the Heathen, and, the Jews at Susan following his order, it came to be propagated by Mordecai, and Hester, unto all other Jews. Josephus, lib. 11. cap. 6.

3. Another answer is, (upon supposition of a religious Ceremony instituted by Mordecai) that it was by Divine direction. The Rejoinder to this returneth, 1. that no man ever so defined before. But he might (when he was a Student in Cambrige) have heard D. Whitaker's thus defining. For in his printed Lectures, de Sacramentis, pag. 206. it standeth so: I answer that both Mordecai did this, God inspiring him, and peradventure by order from some Prophet. And however we do not read that either God, or any Prophet did require this, yet for as much as it stāds approved in Scripture there is no doubt but it was done by Divine authority. As for the several Holy-days instituted 2. Chr. 30. cast in here by the way of the Rejoinder as a President for the Feast of Purim; they agree not. For they were not yearly Holy-days; nor Holy-days at all, of institution properly so called: but an occasional continuation of free-will offerings, (which might be offered any day in the yeear, without new Holy-days) for that one time. If it had been by men appointed, that every year, 14. days should be observed for the Passover Feast, it had fitted to the purpose. But that had been no less praesumption, then if they should have decreed, that every year after, the Passover should be celebrated in the second month, as it was then, by occasion.

SECT. 12. Concerning the Feast of Dedication. John. 10.22.23.

1. A Feast of Dedication is brought-in as an instance of a human Ceremony appropriated unto God's service, out of John 10. Now what Feast of Dedication this was, & whether it were merely of human institution; this hath always been, and is still in great question. Nonnius taketh it for that which Solomon appointed: Chrysostom, Theophilact, Euthymius, Cajetan, Calvin, &c. interpret it of that which began in the time of Ezra : Others of that instituted by the Maccabees 1. Mac. 4. This last the Defender took for granted, and thereupon buildeth his Argument: and yet neither the former, nor this can easily be so evidently proved merely human, as it may be made a foundation for human Ceremonies now. Junius de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 5. thus answereth Bellarmine, affirming that God did not appoint this Ceremony: It is false: Solomon, Ezras, the Maccabees, followed the Analogy of that place Ex. 4. Lev. 8. the right of which law if it had not been, yet we must needs say that as Prophets they were led by extraordinary & singular revelation, not to be Exemplarie therein to us.

2. The Replier first observed, that this example is much alleged by Papists, against Protestants for their Ceremonies: and so indeed it hath been always, from the time of Waldenses, as was noted, in the 2. Chapter. of our first part. Bellarmine hath it twice: once, de Rom, Pont. l. 4. c. 17. and again, de Cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. • . To this the Rej. answereth, that this example served 〈◊〉 Bellarmine's turn, for imposition of Ceremonies upon the conscience as of necessity to be observed, as God's laws; but it serveth the Defender his turn: because as Junius saith, Co • r. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 5.) it was not enjoined by way of authority, but taken up by consent. He would make us (as it seemeth) believe, that our Ceremonies are not enjoined by way of authority : and if he can do this, he may also persuade us, that we are for refusing them, excluded, suspended, deprived, excommunicated, fined, & imprisoned, without any way (lawful or unlawful) of authority. Concerning necessity in conscience, see the first part, chap. 6.

Another answer of the Rejoynders is notorious: Bellarmine (saith he) allegeth this feast of Dedication, to prove the Dedication, or Consecration of Churches: which is nothing to our question of significant Rites. Now surely if Dedication and Consecration of Churches be nothing to our question of significant Rites; the Def. and Rej. say nothing to the purpose, when they prove this question of signifying Rites, by the Maccabees Feast of Dedication. And if that Feast of Dedication, doeth not prove human Dedications lawful; much less doeth it prove the lawfulness of other significant Ceremonies, such as ours are.

3. The Defendant for backing of this instance, added, that our Savior seemeth to approve that human Feast, by his presence, John. 10. To which it was replied, that he seemeth only : because we only read, that he walked in Solomon's Perch, at that Feast: which he might do, without observing or approoving of it. This is Junius his answer to Bellarmine, alleging that Christ by his presence honored that Feast: Christ did not properly honor the Feast, but the Congregation of the faithful at the Feast: For Christ took all such occasions then, to wit, before those solemnities were abolished, of sowing the seed of his Gospel: Nor did Christ ought that we read at those times, but preach in the Temple. And sure I am, that neither walking in the Porch, nor declaring that he was that Christ, belonged properly unto the solemnity of that Feast. If he had preached of Dedications and Consecrations, with allowance, that had been something.