Showing the Necessity of Conformity, Rebuttal 2

Showing the Necessity of Conformity · Rebuttal 2

p. 236¶ A Reply to the Anſwere of my firſt Reaſon for Conformitie in caſe of Depriuation.

LEſt the anſweres of my reaſons ſhould hold me void of charity, which is not ſuſpitious, or to be carried on with euill ſurmiſing: I will omit, that ſending an anſwere to me, which am the ſecond perſon from them, they giuegive anſwere as to a third. Neither will I inſiſt vponupon the Ironies which may ſeeme too palpable, & among godly minds needed not eſpecially in diſquiſition of a truth of ſo great conſequence: OnelyOnly I put my brethren and my ſelfe in minde, for our better proſecuting of this queſtion, that piety is meeke and gentle, equalling her ſelfe to the lower ſort: it ſcorneth not ſuch as are differing from it in iudgement, it is not prouoked to anger, but in euidence and demonſtration of the truth, approueth her ſelfe to eueryevery mans conſcience in the ſight of God.

Now as there is none end of making many bookes, ſo Gods wiſedome ſhould inſtruct vsus, by contention not to leingthen controuerſies, for which cauſe I hauehave purpoſed to be ſhort in reply.

p. 237Touching the Preface or generall anſwere, made before the Anſwere to particulars, it might, as I ſuppoſe hauehave been well ſpared▪ as being to ſmall purpoſe, and quite beſides the point in queſtion: For,

1. The Anſwerers could not be ignorant and my Concluſion, drift in handling, matter, manner, whole courſe of proſecuting in eueryevery Argument, doe plainely ſtretch no farther then to enforce Conformity in caſe of Depriuation. Therfore this caution is but a voluntary and ſtudious wandring from the queſtion; Neither doe theſe arguments labour to make the world beleeue, that all depriued Miniſters hauehave ſinned in ſuffring Depriuation, but ſo many onelyonly as for not conforming, hauehave ſuffred depriuation. Therefore this ſpeech of theirs is either an vntrue ſurmiſe, or a ſcornefull Ironie.

2. Though the Anſwerers ſhould bee ignorant that any Miniſter ſhould ſuffer Depriuation for onelyonly refuſing to conforme; yet all the faithfull Miniſters of theſe our parts doe know the contrary of ſundry: my ſelfe doe know it of my ſelfe, and others. And who can be ignorant, that diuers Miniſters hauehave been depriued only for not conforming, by inditements at Aſſiſe and Seſſions, as well as by the Biſhops, and doe perpetually ſtand liable to that cenſure; and is a cauſe ouer-ruled, as appeareth in the Lo. Cookes reports? Againe, it is well knowen, that for theſe later 5. or 6. yeeres, ſubſcription hath not been vrged to Incumbents or ſetled Miniſters, but meere conformity: And Biſhops hauehave acknowledged▪ being put in minde by men of learning in the Lawes, that they could not vrge Subſcription, either by vertue of the Statute, or the booke of Canons, to ſuch as were already placed and ſetled in their charges. It was therefore vnaduiſedly and vntruely affirmed (to ſay no more) that M. Sprint ſurely beſtowed his time very ill, and ſpent a great deale of labour to no purpoſe at all. And the queſtion is eaſily ſolued, which asketh, Where be thoſe Miniſters to bee found in England that hauehave ſuffred Depriuation for no other p. 238cauſe, but for that they hauehave refuſed to conforme.

But beſides the caution here made, the Brethren my Anſwerers were not ignorant of the principall point, which they ſhould hauehave thought vponupon chiefly, and would hauehave qualified this their cenſure; that for mine owne neceſſary reſolution in a doubt of depriuation, I vndertooke this buſineſſe at firſt; and yet beſides they doe forget, that in my reaſons there are ſpecified other ends and vſe of this my labour, that it ſhould not be ill beſtowed; namely, to mooue all Miniſters who were depriued, euen for Subſcription, as well as for non-conformity, to try whether by offer of conformity they might not returne vntounto their Miniſtry, which would be a cauſe of wonderous benefit and comfort to the Church. Alſo it ſerueth to reſolue and quiet ſuch as are to enter, which being ſcrupulous to conforme, can receiue admittance by none other meanes. And laſtly, it hath vſe for profeſſors of Religion, which without conformity to the ceremonies, (as kneeling at the Communion, or admitting the croſſe) can by no meanes in the moſt places receiue the Sacramēts of Baptiſme, or the Lords Supper: which things hauehave bred no ſmall perplexity of minde, and outward trouble to many godly perſons, who if by this meanes of my labour they might be reſolued (as they may bee, if they will follow the iudgement and practiſe of all true Churches and faithfull teachers ſince Chriſt) would proue labour to great and good purpoſe, and farre from labour very ill beſtowed. Men ſhould beware of bearing falſe witneſſe againſt their neighbour, or his honeſt labours: If therefore the Brethrens anſwere prooue no ſounder in the particular then in the generall, out of all queſtion it is but weake, which now I will further conſider of.

And before I giuegive reply vntounto the particular anſwere, let my Brethren know, that this Argument vrged by me, is no fancy of mine owne, but hath bin thus conceiued, euen as I vrge it, by perſons of moſt reuerend note in the Church of God, ſuch as Caluin, Martyr, Zanchius, Vrſinus, Piſcator, p. 239Polanus, to the end that they doe not ſo lightly eſteeme of it and caſt it of, but may be moued more ſeriouſly to conſider of it: Their iudgements, I will deliuer in theſe two propoſitions.

1. The Iewiſh Ceremonies after the death of Chriſt, were in ſundry reſpects as inconuenient, & vnlawfull to be practiſed by Chriſtians, as the Ceremonies of the Church of England are pretended to bee: yet the holy Apoſtles of Chriſt did lawfully practiſe them, and cauſe others to practiſe them in caſes of neceſſitie, as of the peace of the Church, or propagation of the Goſpel.

Caluin in Act. 21. 24. fol. 355. That Ceremonie of vowing, practiſed by Paul, ſeemed to hauehave in it ſome things mingled with it (Parum conſentanea cum fidei profeſſione) ſmally agreeing with the profeſſion of faith: yet he defends his practiſe by the place, 1. Cor. 9. 20. Idem in Act. 16. 3. fol. 27. ſaith, Non licuiſſe fidelibus eas retinere, niſi quatenus earū vſus in adificationem faceret: That it was not lawfull for the faithfull to retaine their vſe, but onelyonly ſo farre forth as their vſe did make for the edification of the Church: yet in this caſe hee defendeth the practiſe of Paul, Paulo circumcidere Timotheum licuit. fol. 270. the like he doeth in Act. 21. 23. citing, 1. Cor. 9. 20.

Zanchius ſaith of the forbidding of ſtrangled and bloud, Act. 15. 28. that they were things Superstitionem Iudaicam redolentes, alſo of Pauls vow and purification, Act. 18. 18. & 21. 23. thus he ſpeaketh, Fuerunt tamen etiam illi tunc temporis ritus ſtipulae, cum fundamento Christo non congruentes: yet he defendes their practiſe by the law of charitie, and for the peace and edification of the Church, Comment. in Phillip. 1. fol. 45. (b▪)

Pet. Martyr calleth the Ceremonie of abſtaining from bloud and ſtrangled Citra controuerſiam Aharonicam: yet he defendeth the action as lawfull; Pro pace & conuictu credentium faciliori, Loc. com. inter Epist. fol. 1087.

Piſcator calleth the circumciſion of Timothy, rē moleſtā p. 240both to Paul and Timothy, in Act. 16. 3. yet hee defendeth that practiſe of his, by that ſaying of 1. Cor. 9. 19. 20. as alſo that practiſe of Act. 18. 18.

Now, that the Ceremonies practiſed by the Apoſtles, were as euill and inconuenient in their iudgement, as our preſcribed Ceremonies, the proofes of the next propoſition will manifeſt.

2. The practiſe of the Iewiſh Ceremonies, by the Apoſtles in a caſe of neceſſitie, ſuch as depriuation of Miniſtrie, is a ſufficient ground to moue vsus to conforme to the Ceremonies preſcribed in our Church, in a caſe of the like neceſſitie.

Peter Martyr defending the lawfull vſe (Veſtium Miniſtrorum Eccleſiae Anglicanae) alleadgeth the Apoſtles iniunction, of Act. 15. 23. of Iudaicall Ceremonies. Quis non videt Apostolos, pro pace & conuictu credentium faciliori, mandaſſe gentibus vt a ſanguine & praefocato abſtinerent? Erant haec citra controuerſiam Aharonica, ſi generaliter omnia quae in lege fuerunt complecti volueris. Loc. com. fol. 1087. inter. Epiſt. Hoopero.

Ʋrſinus: Speaking, De vitioſis Ceremonijs falſis opinionibus, cum veritatis inſectationibus ſaith, Ne que verò polluitur rectè ſentiens, cum vtitur Ministerio errantium, & Ceremonias etiam humanas ſeruat, ſi modò errores diſertè, & conſtanter improbet, & neque verbis, ne que factis aliquis palam, & per ſe impiam, & verbo Dei repugnans committat, & humanas traditiones pro cultu Dei ſe non habere profiteatur, Paulò Post: ſic Paulus obſeruatione Ceremoniarum accomodabat ſe infirmis, cum auerſarentur eum tanquam hostem legis & moris patrij & in hâcre non peccabat. And that wee may not doubt but that hee ſpeaketh of Ceremonies, as inconuenient as thoſe of our Church, in their iudgement; he addeth preſently after, that ſuch was the iudgement of P. Martyr; as alſo his practiſe, who when he came firſt into England, and the error of corporall preſence was as yet in force, did yet with profeſſion of his oppoſite iudgement, receaue the Lords Supper with p. 241them, Non obſtantibus ſibi illorum Ceremonijs licet ipſimoleſtis. exercitat. part. 2. fol. 838, 839, 840.

Zanchius perſwadeth the Miniſters being compelled by neceſſitie of Magiſtrates compulſion, and threats to the practiſe of ſuch Ceremonies, which may bee termed ſtipula & faenum. And giueth inſtance of the Apoſtles practiſe of Iewiſh Ceremonies, (as before is alleadged) concluding thus, Ergo multa toleranda ſunt ministris, ne pax ſcindatur Eccleſiarum, & vt vitentur Schiſmata, modò ne tales ſint, vel res, vel doctrinae quae pugnent cum fundamento, fundamentum que conuellant, in Philip. cap. 1. fol. 45.

Polanus in Ezec. cap. 44. fol. 807. moueth a queſtion de veste linea, of the Surpleſſe; Si in aliqua Eccleſia Euangelica prorſus non poſſit omitti vſus vestis lineae ſeu ſuperpelliceae, abſ que metu Schiſmatis, aut ſubreptionis haereticorum, quid tum faciendum? Hee anſwereth, Praestat tum vti veste linea, tanquam re adiaphorâ, quàm obstinata eius reiectione excitare Schiſma inter rumpere curſum veritatis doctrinae, & praebere occaſionem haereticis occupandi Eccleſiam. And of this his iudgement he giueth inſtance in the Apoſtles practiſe thus, Exemplum eſt in Paulo qui circumcidit Timotheum propter Iudaeos ſciebant enim omnes Patrem eius Graecum eſſe, Act. 16. 3.

Now to the anſwer of my firſt reaſon.

Which firſt reaſon of mine, when my Brethren went about to anſwere, if they would needes vnſtrip out of his owne coat which I had framed, and draw into a Syllogiſme of their owne, yet ought they not to make an argument, or new reaſon of their owne, and ſo to fight without an aduerſary: But their duetie was (as they wel know) faithfully to hauehave taken all the ſubſtance of that I ſet downe in the whole reaſon, and that eſpecially included in my Syllogiſme, which they hauehave not done: pietie and ſinceritie, and faithfull dealing ſhould goe together; and thus they ſhould hauehave laid it downe.

To refuſe to practiſe ſuch Ceremonies, which the Apoſtles by direction of the holy Ghoſt, and vponupon reaſons p. 242of common and perpetuall equity did practiſe themſelues, and cauſed others to practiſe, yea aduiſed and enioyned (as matters good and neceſſary to be done) on others, eſpecially in a like caſe in ſundry maine and materiall reſpects, is a ſin.

But to refuſe conformitie with our Ceremonies in the caſe of depriuation, is to refuſe to practiſe ſuch Ceremonies, which the Apoſtles by direction of the holy Ghoſt, and vponupon reaſons of common and perpetuall equitie did practiſe themſelues, and cauſed others to prctiſe; yea, aduiſed and inioyned (as matters good and neceſſary to bee done) on others, and that in like caſe in diuers maine and material reſpects.

Ergo: To refuſe to conforme in the caſe of depriuation, is a ſinne.

The Propoſition of this argument thus propoſed, is ſufficiently confirmed in that which is included in the ſecond member of mine anſwere to the firſt obiectiō, in theſe words [though we may not imitate the Apoſtles in things peculiar to their office, perſons and times, yet we may follollow them, and are bound in conſcience ſo to doe in matter of common equitie, and generall reaſon: for as the Apoſtles had warrant from the holy Ghoſt, ſo hauehave we warrant from the Apoſtles examples, and from the reaſons for which the holy Ghoſt moued them to doe theſe things.]

Thus if my Brethren had propoſed mine argument, they needed not to hauehave ſpent ſo many words, nor ſounded ſuch a triumph before the victory: viz.

1. That the propoſition is falſe and vnſound.

2. That I neuer go about to proue it: which aſſertion of theirs they ſtreight confute themſelues, by ſetting down my proofes of the propoſition.

3. That I forgot my ſelfe what I had vrged before.

4. That I weaken my propoſition, and make it of no ſtrength.

But let vsus ſee what materiall ſhew of exceptions they bring againſt the propoſition of mine argument.

p. 243Whereas I ſaid that the Apoſtles did vſe and inioyne the Iewiſh Ceremonies, not onelyonly by immediat authority from God, but by reaſons alſo and rules of common and perpetuall equity, and further did giuegive inſtance of the rule of expediency and neceſſity out of Act. 15. 28. The anſwere is, that though it be granted to be true, yet ſhall they be as farre to ſeeke as before they were: For ſtill the queſtion will be, whether there be the ſame reaſons now to moue vsus to the vſe of our Ceremonies as moued the Apoſtles then, becauſe they ſuppoſe there might be ſome ſpeciall cauſes might make thoſe Ceremonies neceſſary, which neuer fell out before nor ſhall doe ſo againe. And to this I ſay that there needed no ſuch further ſeeking as before: and the queſtions demanded touching common reaſons with the Apoſtles, were ſet downe in the ſelfe ſame place where they read the other, in the words immediately following, which reaſons are theſe; namely,

1. To winne the more, 1. Cor. 9. 19. 20. 21. 22. Now all men know, that this reaſon ſhould moue eueryevery godly miniſter in his place, and according to his parts and calling to labour the winning of ſoules, no leſſe then it did moue the Apoſtles, for all are required to be faithfull, 2. Cor. 4. 1. 2. all are alike commanded of God in the Prou. & all alike are to receiue reward, Dan. 12. 3.

2. To further and propagate the Goſpell, 1. Cor. 9. 23. which alſo is a common care appertaing to vsus now, as to the Apoſtles then. For the commandement giuen to the the Apoſtles doth ſtretch in reſpect of place to all Nations, Matth. 28. 19. Luk. 24 47. and in regard of time, to the end of the world, Mat. 28. 19. 20. Reu. 14. 6. 7.

Wherefore the following (might be or) ſuppoſall of cauſes might hauehave well beene ſpared, vnleſſe they had been named: For my Brethren doe well know that A poſſe ad eſſe non val et argumentatio.

Howbeit they confeſſe at laſt that the two forenamed reaſons be matters of common and perpetuall equity (what p. 244need then was there to ſeeke for that they had, or queſtion that they grant at laſt?) and yet againe they ouerwhelme them with a new ſupply of vnwarranted ſuppoſalls [that ſomething may be expedient for ſome perſons and times, as are not for other without a ſpeciall calling from God:] But heere againe the former rule cuts them off from arguing from a naked and vnproued ſuppoſal: And indeede it is but petitio principij, an encroaching on the point in queſtion: Beſides, it is a very feeble anſwere that is onelyonly affirmed without proofe; ſo might a man argue againſt the practiſe of eueryevery part of diſcipline practiſed by the Apoſtles, which may be ſaid to be proper to their function, time and place. Therefore it followeth by this kinde of argumentation: their practiſe may ſeeme to giuegive vsus no ſtronger warrant, then the practiſe of thoſe Ceremonies in the caſe of neceſſity, vnleſſe we were inſpired and had immediate authority from God: The like might be argued from other ſundry matters.

2. To the exception of the next member or allegation, that namely, the holy Ghoſt teacheth & ruleth the Church by the ſame reaſon reuealed in his Word, as well now as then: and therefore the reaſons warranting the Apoſtles to conforme to the Iewiſh ceremonies, may moue vsus to conforme to theſe in the like caſe;] It ſeemeth to me a palpable cauill, and it may ſeeme probable to others, that my Brethren would heere ſtudiouſly not vnderſtand my meaning. For what need was there for me (as they could poſſibly ſuppoſe, to proue a duty of common equity, by an extraordinary caſe, or by a ſentence of extraordinary ſence? And if there had beene that difficulty in that ſentence which they pretend: yet Grammer might hauehave put them in minde that ſentences of doubtful interpretation, ſhould be conſtrued by that which immediatly goeth before, or followeth after, eſpecially if it cohaere therewith. Now the rules or reaſons ſpoken of in that very place immediatly before, as alſo immediatly after this ſentence, are expreſly ſpecified to be rules p. 245and reaſons of perpetuall and common equity, which they could not be ignorant of, and therefore the inſtance of Abraham vrged this ſecond time commeth in heere as vnſeaſonably as it did before, that is as much to ſay, as to no purpoſe at all.

3. Laſtly, to the inſtance which I gaue out of 1. Cor. 14. 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 40. It is anſwered by my Brethren, that I affirme that which ſeemeth to hauehave no colour of good reaſon in it; namely, becauſe of the different natures of the Iewiſh ceremonies, and of theſe preſcribed by S. Paul in the forenamed place. Howbeit. I ſay againe, although there be diſagreement in reſpect of diſsimilitude of Ceremonies, the one ſort of them decent of themſelues, and by the light of nature, the other ſort (namely, for a Chriſtian to practiſe Iewiſh Ceremonies) vnſeemely; the one ſort fitted to all times, the other only practiſed in certain caſes, and in ſome Churches; yet there is agreement betweene them in thoſe things for which they are alleadged: For 1. both ſorts are matters ceremoniall and circumſtantiall, not ſubſtantiall or fundamentall. Ceremonia may bee genus to them both. 2. Both ſorts were preſcribed and practiſed by the holy Apoſtles. 3. Both ſorts had the ſame rules, grounds, or ends of practiſe: namely, Neceſſity, expediency, profit and edification of the Church. Now touching our Ceremonies, albeit they be not of that nature altogether with thoſe preſcribed of the Apoſtle, 1. Cor. 14. yet I ſuppoſe them to be of the nature of the Iewiſh Ceremonies practiſed by the Apoſtles, and therefore doe conclude with all godly learned teachers that euer vttered their iudgements herein, that for neceſſity, expediency, profit, and edification of the Church, as for the liberty of the Goſpel, and preuenting the depriuation of faithfull Teachers, they may lawfully, and muſt neceſſarily be practiſed, no leſſe then the Iewiſh practiſed, or the Chriſtian Ceremonies preſcribed by the Apoſtles, 1. Cor. 14. As for the queſtion concerning impious and Idolatrous orders, ſuch as a man ought rather to die, then yeeld p. 246vntounto their practiſe, I maruell my Brethren would not conſider, that if they ſpeake of other Ceremonies then ours, they are beſides our queſtion, and touch not the point in hand. If of ours, yet that they doe ſtill petere principium, vnleſſe they plainely prooue our Ceremonies as they are vſed in our Church, to bee ſuch indeede. And thus much alſo ſhall ſuffice for the defence of the propoſition of my Argument.

Now to the anſwere of the Aſſumption.

The anſwere, which my Brethren make, they hauehave reduced to 4. heads, replying to 4. parts of mine Aſſumption. Touching 1. the number, 2. the nature, 3. the warrant or ground, 4. the reaſons of practiſe of the Iewiſh ceremonies and ours.

IIn the firſt part of mine Aſſumption, whereas I affirmed that the ceremonies which the Apoſtles practiſed and preſcribed, were in number equall to our ceremonies; The anſwere of my Brethren hath three members.

The firſt member ſaith, That ſundry of the things I alleadge, can with no good reaſon be called Ceremonies, becauſe they would enforce my words againſt their will, to ſay that I defined a ceremony to be that, which is vſed onelyonly in Gods worſhip: But ſundry of the things alleadged were not ſuch, and therefore by mine owne account they were not Ceremonies. But my Brethren ſhould know, that howſoeuer I ſay, that there bee Ceremonies in Gods worſhips, yet that letteth not, but that there may be ceremonies out of G…ds worſhip; and ſo that collection of theirs is marred: But if for once I ſhall let it ſtand, and bee as they would hauehave it, what could they get by it? As though eueryevery ceremony of the ceremoniall Law, whereof wee ſpake, were not a worſhip of God, becauſe whatſoeuer God commandeth, is a worſhip to performe: Therefore theſe things were both worſhips, and Ceremonies in Gods worſhips ſometimes, which if my Brethren had remembred, they would hauehave blotted out this for a cypher; yea, by this reaſon, p. 247abſtaining from blood, and ſtrangled, muſt needes bee Ceremonies, though they would not hauehave it ſo: Which might further appeare, becauſe it is one diſtinction of the Ceremonies of Moſes law, that they were either of action, as circumciſion, or of abſtinence, as abſtaining from ſwines fleſh, blood, and ſtrangled: Becauſe they had ſignification, and were ſhadowes of good things to come, and therefore Ceremonies. Laſtly, becauſe ceremoniall duties, and therefore Ceremonies, ſeeing they were included vnderunder, and commanded by the ceremoniall law of God, and ſo receiuing denomination from that law: Which laſt reaſon my brethren themſelues doe giuegive hereof; therefore by their confeſſion they are Ceremonies. But they adde that I ſhall neuer be able to proue, that the Apoſtles or Churches did vſe them as Ceremonies, or as in obedience to that law: And I ſay againe, ſuppoſe I neuer goe about to proue it, what needeth me to doe it? What if I grant (as I doe freely) that it is true and euident, and that it can by no meanes bee proued, nay that the contrary is manifeſt? It ſuffiſeth me that they inoyned theſe things, that were ſome times duties, though not as they were duties of the law, meerely ceremoniall, and now after Chriſt his death, when as the holy Apoſtles practiſed them, were fruitleſſe, dead, vnprofitable in themſelues: yea which might & did proue hurtfull vntounto ſome, which held them ſtill as worſhips, Col. 2. 23. and meanes of iuſtification, Gal. 5. 2. 4. and euen neceſſary to ſaluation, Act. 15. 1. 5. Wherefore the inſtances of abſtaining from fleſh, or from mariage, for the wining of a Papiſt, and of Pauls departing from his right, are of no valew.

To the ſecond and third members, concerning the number and often vſe of the Ceremonies alleadged, I anſwere, that albeit they grant but ſixe of the Iewiſh Ceremonies, and alleadge nine and fortie Ceremonies of our Church: yet the Ceremonies which are queſtioned by the depriued Miniſters at this time, ſuch & ſo many I meane, as p. 248come vnderunder the compaſſe of their practiſe, or of this our queſtion, that is ſo many, the practiſe whereof would keepe a man from depriuation, are not ſixe, as Croſſe in Baptiſme, Surpleſſe, Ring in Mariage, obſeruation of Holy-dayes, & if there be one or two more, let it be ſo. It is a matter needles to contend about the number, and about the often vſe and iniunction of them. For if I proue but one Iewiſh Ceremonie, at one onelyonly time vſed lawfully by the Apoſtles, yet as euill in the moſt maine and materiall reſpects, as ours are, and that by reaſons of common and perpetuall equitie, thence I will argue the lawfulneſſe of the Apoſtles vſing them an hundred times, and in an hundred Churches. Againe if Paul did lawfully practiſe circumciſion on Timothy, and ſhauing, vowing, offering, and purifying on himſelfe, I will conclude, that he might as lawfully practiſe on the like occaſions, and for the ſame iuſt reaſons, the moſt part of the Ceremonies of the law ceremoniall, if need had beene, which amount to a farre greater reckoning, then the Ceremonies of our Church make them, as many as my brethren may. In a word, if they were lawfully practiſed, then might the practiſe thereof be lawfully inioyned vn-the Churches where neceſſitie enforceth; ſeeing it is the iniunction of a lawfull and needfull thing. As for thoſe proofes of mine, which my brethren doe ſift cleane contrary to my drift or practiſe; there was no neede for themſelues ſo to wreſt them, and then to lay the wreſting of them to my charge, as if from them I had concluded, quidlibet ex quolibet. They were orderly and perſpicuouſly ſet downe by mee vnderunder eueryevery head or member, in as much as that without wreſting and abuſing, they could not intend more then I did there cleerely proue by thē: For though I did vndertake to proue eueryevery head or member of my propoſition, by the Scripture annexed to them in ſeuerall; yet I did not vndertake to proue eueryevery member, or any member by eueryevery Scripture, as my brethren would inforce vponupon me: This dealing of my brethren was not ſo direct as I could wiſh.

p. 249And one thing more, that whereas I alleadge the Apoſtles iniunction of abſtaining from blood and ſtrangled; My Brethren anſwere, that theſe Ceremonies were not by them inioyned as Ceremonies to the Churches of the Gentiles: That alſo of their obſeruation of preaching on the Iewiſh Sabbath, they ſay it cannot bee called a religious obſeruation. As if they could produce or conclude out of my wordes, any ſuch abſurd or vnſound doctrine as my Brethren would ſeeme to thruſt vponupon me: Or as if it were not ſufficient to my purpoſe, that the Apoſtles inioyned to the Churches of the Gentiles, and obſerued the time of the Iewiſh Sabboth, matters which were Ceremonies of Moſes law, and in themſelues fruitleſſe, though not religiouſly, or as Ceremonies of the Lawe (as before I noted) ſuch an aſſertion would ſerue a Papiſt well, who obſerueth humane Ceremonies, as religious obſeruations, which our Church diſclaimeth, and therefore were it needleſſe for any man to ſtraine himſelfe to ſuch a purpoſe.

IIThe ſecond point of mine aſſumption, is touching the nature of the ceremonies, where my brethren do reſpect the ſecond member of my confirmation of the aſſumption to be this: That thoſe Ceremonies, which the Apoſtles and the Churches in their times vſed, were eueryevery way as inconuenient, and euill as ours are in their iudgement: And to make this good, my Brethren tel the Reader that I take vponupon me to ſhew.

1. That they are as euill in nature as ours are.

2. That they had been, and were aſmuch abuſed as ours hauehave been.

3. That the vſe of them wrought as dangerous effects as the vſe of our can doe.

4. That whatſoeuer is obiected againſt our Ceremonies might hauehave been ſaid againſt them.

To which report of theirs, I ſay, before I proceede further to anſwere, that, ſeeing trueth needs no falſhood or fraud for confirmation (for God needes not the helpe of p. 250mans lye) I doe greatly maruell, that my Brethren (men of that approued pietie, learning and ſharpe iudgement, ſhould be found failing in their fidelitie, as I doe herein challenge them.

1. In the vntrue reporting of my aſſertion, as is euident by collation of either part.

1. They report that I ſhould ſay, that thoſe Ceremonies which the Apoſtles vſed, were eueryevery way as inconuenient and euil as ours, and that it may appeare it was no ſlip nor ouerſight, they proceed to miſinterprete, that I ſhould ſay that they are, firſt, as euill in nature, as our ceremonies are; ſecondly, as much abuſed; thirdly, and hauing as dangerous effects in the vſe as ours hauehave.

2. Whereas it is true, that I ſay, that they were as inconuenient and euil as ours; but I ſay withall in ſundry maine reſpects, which is farre from that which my Brethren do report, namely, eueryevery way as euill.

2. The like dealing my Brethren vſe in miſreporting me touching the fourth member of the things alleadged: Firſt, I ſay, the ſame obiections in ſubſtance, and for the moſt part which are obiected againſt our Ceremonies, to proue them ſimply euill, might be obiected againſt the Ceremonies practiſed by the Apoſtles. But they wil hauehave me ſay, that whatſoeuer is obiected againſt our Ceremonies, might hauehave beene ſaid againſt them. But thus an elder Brother might eaſily put beſides his yonger Brother from that benefit of enioying his poore patrimonie: The Fathers will ſaith the elder Brother ſhall hauehave his Fathers goods for the moſt part; but the elder Brother ſaith, that his Father gaue him all whatſoeuer; what equitie were this, let my Brethren iudge.

Secondly another exception againſt my Brethrens lacke of fidelitie towards mee is this, that they alleadge the heads of probation, but they conceale the moſt part of the proofs of thoſe heads, by which they be confirmed. And further p. 251in taking ſuch things, which they thinke they may ſay moſt againſt, with greateſt probability, and leauing much more that ſtrongly maketh againſt them as by collation the Reader may iudge eaſily: But by this dealing who may not eaſily confute the cleereſt trueth, or confirme the ſtrongeſt error?

Now to the reply of my Brethren to this ſecond point, touching the nature of the Ceremonies, which is by them diſtinguiſhed into three members.

Firſt, they ſay that no one of thoſe teſtimonies of Scripture alleadged by me touching the titles giuen to Ceremonies, how abuſed, what euill effects they had, doth make any whit to my purpoſe, or can with any colour of reaſon be applied to any Ceremony vſed or inioyned by the Apoſtles; and they bring out three or foure inſtances to which they ſpeake, leauing cleane out and paſſing by all the other Scriptures cited by mee and annexed to the euill vſe and effects of thoſe Ceremonies, which are very many: which places and proofes doe ſtill remaine in full force, and had beene anſwered, as I ſuppoſe, if there were not that force in them which is vnanſwerable. Wherefore my Brethren ſhould not hauehave thus ſaid, that no one of the teſtimonies make any whit to my purpoſe, vnleſſe they had anſwered all; for wherefore ſhould they ſay [not one] and leaue ſo many vntouched? To anſwere three, and ſuffer more then thrice three or foure to eſcape their cenſure? But let vsus ſee the places which they deale withall. Firſt, they ſay the Ceremonies vſed or inioyned by the Apoſtles were no yokes or burdens or burdening traditions] This is vntrue: For circumciſion vrged, Act. 15. 1. is called a yoke. verſ. 10. and a burden, verſ. 26. Yet after that Paul circumciſed Timothy, Act. 16. 3. Whereupon I inferre that the holy Apoſtle did practiſe ſome legall Ceremon… (though in his owne purpoſe not as a legall Ceremony, or in obedience to the Law ceremonial, or as a yoke and burden, but in other materiall reſpects) in ſometime and on ſome perſon after that it appeared p. 252to him, and was euident that the ſame Ceremony among other perſons, and at other times was a yoke and a burden. And is it not ſtrange that my Brethren ſhould not ſee this, but impute it to me as a ſtrange thing? But they enioyned none ſuch Ceremonies as were yokes and burdens: admit of that, the queſtion is of practiſe of Ceremonies to auoide depriuation, not of inioyning. Next they affirme that they could not bee called ordinances of the world, commandements or doctrines of men, or voluntary religion; neither could they be termed impotent and beggarly rudiments:] I ſay againe, yes they might be ſo termed and that lawfully. For the holy Ghoſt in the Apoſtle doth expreſly terme them ſo in the ſame words; both the obſeruation of dayes, moneths, times and yeres Gal. 4. 9. 10. Holydaies, new Moones, Sabboth daies, Coloſ. 2. 16. 22. as alſo abſtinence from meates. Touch not, taſte not, handle not, Col. 2. 10. 21. 22. 23. which was the very thing enioyned by the Apoſtles, Act. 15. 28. If the Holy Ghoſt called them ſo, we may be bold to terme them ſuch. But my Brethren ſay that they could not be termed ſuch ſo long and ſo far forth as the Apoſtles did vſe or inioyne them. The which I anſwere by diſtinguiſhing betweene there nature and the vſe that the Apoſtles had of them. In their nature they were ſuch as they were called yokes, burdens, or burdening traditions, impotent and beggarly rudiments; not onelyonly in reſpect of the vnbeleeuing or ignorant beleeuing Iewes abuſe; but vntounto the godly and beſt inſtructed Chriſtians alſo; for which of them would willingly hauehave vſed them without occaſions of neceſſity to auoide a further incouenience? yea conſidering them alſo in themſelues: for ſeeing Chriſt himſelfe was come, the body of what ſound vſe or erudition could they be, what could they teach but Chriſt to come, which was already come, which alſo was an vntruth? or what comfort could they miniſter to the Gentiles to whom they were inioyned; or to Timothy and Paul by whom they were practiſed, but as yokes and burdens? only p. 253the comfort of their practiſe was the good purpoſe which they ſerued for, the winning of the Iewes, or retaining of them in the louelove of the Goſpell, as the reaſons alleadged by my Brethren out of Acts 21. 20. 24. 1. Cor. 9. 20. doe ſhew, which were the cauſes of the Apoſtles vſe of them, & made their practiſe lawfull. But this much is ſufficient to prooue the point in queſtion: For this ſheweth the nature of thoſe ceremonies to agree with the nature of ours. As the Iewiſh ceremonies, ſo likewiſe ours barely conſidered in thēſelues, which the Papiſts & many profeſſed Proteſtants abuſe, may be accounted in a ſort yokes burdens, burdening traditions, commandements and doctrines of men, voluntary religion, impotent and beggerly rudiments, &c. yet as the Ceremonies practiſed by the Apoſtles; ſo alſo ours by the ſame analogy in a caſe of neceſsity of expediency, to redeeme the liberty of the Goſpel in the Miniſtry of many good Teachers, they are good and neceſſary, and the commandements of God to practiſe.

2. The ſecond member of this Section affirmeth, That it will neuer be prooued by me, (and if not, then nothing is ſaid to the purpoſe) that when and where the Apoſtles, or thoſe Churches vſed them, they had beene notoriouſly knowen to hauehave beene ſo abuſed, or to hauehave wrought ſuch euill effects as I there ſpeake of.] And my anſwere is, That it is true, theſe ceremonies were not at all abuſed by any well grounded Chriſtians at any time or place. But it is not poſſible but my Brethren ſhould know, that the ceremonies well vſed by the Apoſtles, Churches, and other godly perſons, were knowen by them to hauehave been groſſely abuſed (euen as I alleadged in my firſt reaſon) by the refractary and weake Chriſtian Iewes eueryevery where, euen then when as they practiſed them (like as we know that our Ceremonies hauehave been, and are abuſed by Papiſts and weake Brethren) notwithſtanding which abuſe & knowledge thereof, they perſiſted to vſe them as often as neceſſity enforced, and iuſt occaſiō was offred. For Paul knew how the Iewes p. 254abuſed circumciſion, to eſtabliſh an opinion of the neceſſity thereof vntounto ſaluation, Act. 15. 1. yet after this knowledge he vſed it, Act. 16. 3. and when S. Paul circumciſed Timothy for the Iewes ſake, is it not euident that the Iewes had a falſe and abuſiue opinion and practiſe of circumciſion (to preuent whoſe vniuſt offence, Paul did it) notwithſtanding which, the Apoſtle practiſed Circumciſion on Timothy. Likewiſe S. Paul his reprouing of Peter for abuſe of Iewiſh ceremonies, in cauſing of Gentiles to conforme vntounto them, Gal. 2. 11, 12, 14. whether wee referre the time thereof to Paraeus in Gal. 2. 104.Gal 2:104Act. 11. 26. or as Paraeus doth to Act. 15. 30. 35. was before his circumciſing of Timothy, and his vowing and ſhauing of himſelfe, Act. 18. & 21.

Laſtly, was it not knowen to the Apoſtles, when they obſerued the occaſion of the Iewiſh Sabbath to preach vntounto them, that the Iewes had an opinion of neceſſity of obſeruation of that day? as they had, Ioh. 9. 16. Luc. 13. 14. Matt. 12. 2. Or could Paul and the Apoſtles bee ignorant, that vowing, offring, contributing, ſhauing, (dueties of the ceremoniall Law) were abuſed by the Iewes both before they practiſed them, and where they practiſed them, and euen by occaſion of their practiſe, which doeth eaſily appeare by the violence which the Iewes vſed on a bare ſuſpition, that Paul was a profeſſed enemie vntounto the Legall rites, Act. 21. 21, 27, 29. As for that which my Brethren alledge concerning Paul, who hauing vſed circumciſion and other Ceremonies, doth after with great bitterneſſe reprooue and condemne the vſe of them, Gal. 4. 9 10. and 5. 12. Tit. 1. 14. I will omit that which ſome ‖‖Gual. in Gal. 2. Hom. 10 fol. 29. b. Codoman. annal. ſ. Scriptur. Ambroſ. Chryſoſtomus.Gal 2learned men obſerue, that the Epiſtle to the Galat. was written before the Councill of Ieruſalem, Act. 15. (and then thoſe reproofes of his muſt goe before the circumciſing of Timothy, and ſhauing of himſelfe, Act. 16. & 18.) becauſe it is controuerted and holden otherwiſe by ††Paraeus prolegom. in Ep. ad Rom. fol. 48. 49. Idem pro. em. in Epiſt. ad Gal. fol. 22. 23.other godly learned men; But to it I ſay, that that reproofe of Paul was not vſed in reſpect of the time after, but in reſpect of the different caſe, it was a caſe of confeſſion, p. 255that is, hee was called to confeſſe a fundamentall truth in Titus caſe, which he was not in the caſe of Timothy. For the falſe Brethren would hauehave compelled Titus to hauehave beene circumciſed, meaning his conſcience, as preſſing it **Thus do all our godly learned men hold Paraeus in Gal. 2. f. 81. 82. Paulus Titum … cumciſione defendendo recte fecit, quia falſ… nionem circumciſionis neceſſariae ad ſalutem ſta… lire non debuit. Aretius in Act. 16. 3. f. 75. Titum noluit circumcidere, quia videbat hoc peti tanquam ad ſalutem neceſſarium. Idem ad Gal. 2 f. 224. circumciſionem Galatis obtruſerunt vt ad ſalutem neceſſarium, post obſerua hîc quando ſint … adiaphora, túm ſcil. cùm neceſſitas illis ani…ctitur, habet enim meritum aliquod in cauſa ſalutis. Gualt. in Act. hom. 106. f. 199 Propter ho… Titum circumcidere noluit, eo quod illos libertati fidelium aſtutè inſidiari videret. Gal. 2. lege reg. vniuerſalem eo loci. Idem in Gal. 2 Hom. 11 f. 32. quando Timotheum circumcidit, nulla erat eo loci de circumciſione controuerſia. In Titi autem cauſus de circumciſione controuertebatur, & erant qui hanc ad ſalutem dixerint eſſe neceſſariam. Piſcator in Gal. 2. obſeru. ad v. 3. 4. 5. Titum circumcidere noluit propter Iudaeos pertinaces … exemplo iſto abuterenter ad iactandum conſenſum Pauli de ſuo dogmate quaſi ſ…l circumciſio ad huc in N. T ſit neceſſaria ad ſalutem. Calum. Titum circumcidere non poterat, quia puram Euangelij doctrinam proderet in Act. 16. 3. fol. 271. a. Perkins. in Gal. 2. tom. 1. fol 218 b. as if he ſhould ſay, For my part I was ready to circumciſe Titus, if there had beene a meete occaſion: Falſe brethren would hauehave impoſed a neceſſitie vponupon vsus: Then I and Titus refuſed. After learne that a thing indifferent, when it is made neceſſary to ſaluation (as circumciſion was) is not to bee vſed. This concluſion ſerues to ouerthrow the Popiſh religion, &c. Looke Beza and Roll. on this place.Gal 2Acts 16:3ex neceſsitate ſalutis, as Acts 15. 1, 5. or as a worke iuſtificatory, Galat. 5. 2, 3. whereby Paul notes, that circumciſion would hauehave beene a bondage, as they did, Act. 15. 10. Whereupon I conclude that Paul, euen after the reproofes of the Epiſtle to Galat. 2. and 4. and Tit. 1. would hauehave beene no leſſe ready to hauehave circumciſed Titus, in a like caſe with Timothy, then hee was to circumciſe Timothy after the decree of the councell of Ieruſalem, as Maſter Perkins noteth on Galathians 2. and ſo I ſay touching our Ceremonies, though in our Church to redeeme the miniſtry and libertie of the Goſpell, a man were bound to conforme to the preſcribed Ceremonies: yet if wee were called to a caſe of confeſſion, if the Ceremony were vrged as needfull to ſaluation, if our conſcience were compelled to vſe them, if iuſtification were taught in their vſe, I holde plainely, that a man ſhould loſe goods, liberty, life & miniſtry, then to conforme vntounto them: wherefore there is no ſuch abſurdity, as my Brethren preſuppoſe, in affirming that which is with ſo good euidence approued, and that which I p. 256alleadged in my anſwere to the ſixt obiection (though my brethren promiſed to anſwere it but did not) ſtandeth firme.

3. The third member (fearing leaſt it might be proued, which in the former member is denied) putteth caſe, that if ſuch abuſe, or euill effects of ſuch Ceremonies vſed by the Apoſtles, had beene knowne before, or when they vſed them: yet would not this proue them eueryevery way, as inconuenient and euill as ours] where my brethren forget that they goe on in peruerting my words. For I ſaid not, that I would proue them eueryevery way ſimply as inconuenient as our Ceremonies, but added expreſſely in ſundry maine reſpects. Let it be ſuppoſed that thoſe Ceremonies, were ſometimes Gods ordinances, & inioyned to Churches by the Apoſtles, & that theſe our Ceremonies were neuer good, nor in themſelues may ſerue to any good vſe, what ſerueth this to ouerthrow my concluſion, which is this, that the Iewiſh Cermonies were as inconuenient, and euill as our Ceremonies? then in conforming to the like caſe we ſhall doe well: and if wee doe euill in conforming to the Ceremonies to preuent depriuation, then did the Apoſtles and other perſons euill in a much like caſe to conforme to Ceremonies, as euill and inconuenient as ours are deemed in many maine reſpects. And here my brethren thinke fit to examine the contents of my ſecond reaſon, which is brought for the proofe of this point: Which is this as they affirme for mee [that nothing in ſubſtance is obiected againſt our Ceremonies, which might not hauehave beene ſaid as well againſt thoſe, which the Apoſtles and the Churches in their times did vſe.] Here againe I call vponupon my brethren for fidelitie, for I propoſed my ſecond reaſon thus [That the ſame obiections in ſubſtance, and for the moſt part which are brought forth againſt our Ceremonies, to proue them ſimply and in nature ſinne, may be obiected and applied to the doctrine, and practiſe of the Apoſtles.] The differences are theſe: firſt, I propoſe the reaſon affirmatiuely, they p. 257negatiuely: Wherewith they giuegive themſelues more aduantage to confute, and mee leſſe to defend, as all men knowe. Secondly, they ſay, that nothing in ſubſtance is obiected, leauing out that which I added [and for the moſt part:] Thirdly, they adde, which might not hauehave been ſaid, [as well] which words I hauehave not, but they hauehave added for their owne aduantage: Which alteration if my Brethren had not made, they needed not accuſe me, that I left out much of the force and ſubſtance of their arguments; For I well know, that in ſome things, agreement in both caſes would not ſtand, and yet my reaſon would hauehave iuſtified it ſelfe. But I muſt goe along to ſee how well my Brethren proue the point they affirme, namely, that the arguments made by them doe ouerthrow our Ceremonies, and yet neuer a one doe giuegive the leaſt touch to thoſe which the Apoſtles and the Churches vſed; and to this purpoſe they runne ouer foure members, or orders of differences betweene the Ceremonies of our Church, and thoſe practiſed by the Apoſtles.

The firſt ſort of difference affirmeth that our Ceremonies are, firſt, humane inuentions; ſecondly, notoriouſly knowen to be abuſed to ſuperſtition & falſe doctrine; thirdly, and of no neceſſary vſe in the Church, all which ſuppoſe I grant, let my Brethren tell me plainely, whether theſe exceptions might not hauehave beene vrged by the Paſtors of the Gentiles, touching the iniunction made at Ieruſalem, as abſtinence from blood and ſtrangled, and touching the practiſe of Circumciſion, ſhauing, vowing, offering, and obſeruation of the Iewiſh Sabboth by Paul and the Apoſtles: That namely, theſe Ceremonies are ſimply vnlawfull, and in nature euill. Firſt, becauſe Ieſus Chriſt heing come, which was the body, of whoſe comming they were ſhadowes, and therefore in their nature rudiments of great pouertie and weakeneſſe (impotent and beggerly rudiments) and in themſelues conſidered, of no vſe or profit; and therefore leauing to be Gods commandements, (for God commanded p. 258them as ceremonies, in the time of the Law, not in the time of the Goſpel) in as much as being preſſed by the blinde and wilfull Iewes, they were called the commandements of men, Col. 2. Tit. 1. I would know here of my Brethren, what maine difference there is betweene the inuentions of men, and the commandements of men.

Seconly, becauſe they were abuſed to ſuperſtition, and falſe doctrine many wayes, and had very many euill and pernicious effects, as I hauehave proued in the firſt reaſon of my firſt argument, Numb. 11. 12. which cannot be denied with any ſhew of contradiction.

Thirdly, becauſe they were notoriouſly knowen to hauehave bin ſo abuſed, euen wherſoeuer the Chriſtian faith was planted in Italy, Graecia, Aſiaminor, Syria, Coeloſyria, Iudaea, Creta; and may wee thinke, that the famous controuerſie and Councel at Ieruſalem for deciding thereof, about the falſe opinion about Circumciſion was not notoriouſly knowen vntounto all the Chriſtian Churches, which alſo preſcribed ſome Iewiſh Ceremonies, on occaſion of abuſe of other, as alſo the tumult made on Paul by the furious Iewes at Ieruſalem: In a word, whereſoeuer the Iewes were (as they were ſcattered almoſt in eueryevery part) and new Iewiſh conuerts, there muſt needes be knowen their notorious abuſes of the legall Ceremonies; and I much admire that my Brethren ſhould denie this.

Fourthly, Becauſe they are of no profitable vſe, becauſe of no vſe at all, (I meane in themſelues, and in their nature being conſidered) being as ſhadowes without a body, weak rudiments without ſignification, ſhewes without ſubſtance, types and ſimilitudes without an antitype, yea, reſemblances of nothing: Though I denie not but they were of neceſſary and very profitable vſe in the Apoſtles practiſe; but that was not in reſpect of any power in themſelues, or of any vertue which the Apoſtles gaue them by their iniunction, but as meanes and weapons of neceſſitie to defend the Church from miſchiefe, and the Goſpel from interruption, p. 259which by no meanes they would hauehave practiſed without ſuch neceſſitie; the like I ſay of our Ceremonies. Theſe things being ſo cleere and euident, it muſt needs follow that theſe Ceremonies, in their nature, muſt bee tainted with that formal and inſeparable euil, which the arguments of the depriued Miniſters doe faſten on our Ceremonies, ſo farre forth as they agree in theſe Circumſtances alleadged: which my Brethren fearing, are faine to runne into their old and onelyonly refuge; That though they had been neuer ſo much abuſed, and had been alſo in any other reſpect of no neceſſary vſe, yet this aagument toucheth them not, becauſe they were vſed by warrant of Apoſtolicall and diuine authoritie: But that I may driue my Brethren from this their vltimum refugium, I ſay their anſwere is of no force at all, which appeareth by theſe reaſons.

1. Becauſe the anſwere of our Brethren is barely affirmed, without all ſhew of proofe or reaſon, which is ſufficiently confuted with a bare deniall and matter of this nature, Eâdem facilitate comtemnitur qua probatur, as the olde ſaying of Hierome is: yea the Holy Ghoſt is ſilent and giueth not the leſt touch, to intimate that this action was peculiar to the Apoſtles, and how can my Brethren ſpeake ſo confidently where the Holy Ghoſt is ſilent.

2. Becauſe of the equall neceſſity of the Church in all ages, and like care which God hath of his Church in giuing equall remedy, who doth not onelyonly command and inioyne duties for the purity and comely order of the Church, but alſo prouideth remedies againſt the diſeaſes thereof. Now is there not a neceſſity for other things (aſwel as for theſe Primitiue Churches) to appeaſe diſſentions, ſchiſmes, tumults, interruption of the Goſpell, depriuation of Miniſters, ariſing from inconuenient and abuſed Ceremonies? Muſt all other Churches beſides theſe for eueryevery inconuenient Ceremony, or other thing of like nature with the Iewiſh Ceremonies, ſuffer the Church to bee ouerthrowne, and the Goſpell interrupted? did God giuegive them p. 260onelyonly priuiledge thus to conforme, and not to others in other caſes, or did he giuegive remedy to their euills, and take it from vsus? If it ſeemed good & neceſſary to the Holy Ghoſt in one cauſe for the good of the Church, to giuegive way to the practiſe of inconuenient Ceremonies of this nature; by what reaſon ſhould it not bee ſtill as good and neceſſary for other Churches in the like caſe, in the ſight of the ſame bleſſed ſpirit to practiſe the like Ceremonies?

3. Becauſe Saint Paul, rehearſing his practiſe of conforming to the Iewiſh Ceremonies, doth draw his practiſe thereof out of a generall doctrine, 1. Corinthians 9. 19. The generall doctrine is this; That though hee were free from all men (as eueryevery faithfull Miniſter is) yet he made himſelfe the ſeruant of all men (as in this ſenſe eueryevery faithfull Miniſter ſhould doe) to winne the more. From this ground he deduceth his particular practiſe, verſ. 20. of becomming a Iew vntounto the Iewes, that is, of practiſing the Iewiſh Ceremonies for the Iewes ſake to auoide their ſcandall, and to winne them to the Goſpel; ſhewing and declaring that out of this generall doctrine any godly and ſincere Miniſter of the Goſpel, might lawfully and ought needfully to conforme to the like Ceremonies of the Iewes in the like caſe, to win them and to gaine liberty to the Goſpell. Therefore I conclude the Apoſtles practiſe of Iewiſh Ceremonies was not peculier to them, as ariſing from meer Apoſtolical authority, and that the practiſe of like inconuenient ceremonies in the like caſe is lawful & needful.

4. Becauſe the ſame Apoſtle, declaring his withſtanding of the practiſe of Iewiſh Ceremonies in other caſes, doth ſpecifie the reaſons thereof, namely, 1. They would compell men vntounto it, Galat. 2. 2. and bondage their Chriſtian liberty, Galat. 2. 4. with Act. 15. 1. 5. 10. 19—3. And it was not the right way to the truth of the Goſpel, Galat. 2. 14. Therefore I conclude they practiſed the Iewiſh Ceremonies by a certaine and ſtanding reaſon, and not alone by Diuine or Apoſtolicall authority. If they had not beene p. 261Apoſtles, by theſe reaſons they would hauehave practiſed them in theſe caſes or the like.

5. Becauſe by this means any ſhifting diſputant, may ſhift off al neceſſity of the practiſe of any part of Apoſtolical diſcipline and order, namely of excōmunication of obſtinate offenders, becauſe a matter peculiar to the Apoſtles, as Eraſtus Eraſt, de excom. in Theſ. fol. 46. Theſ. 58.& others doe, or of the Churches meeting on the Firſt day of the weeke, as many Libertines and Sabbatarians do, & things of like nature: yea alſo of our particular aſſurance of true grace, iuſtification, remiſſion of ſinnes, and ſaluation▪ which we vſually ground from the example of the Apoſtles, Rom. 8. 38. 39 Gal. 2. 20. 1. Tim. 1. 1. 15. which yet the Papiſts put off with this our Brethrens anſwer, It was peculiar to the Apoſtles, it was of ſpeciall reuelation. For Bellarm. de iuſtificat. lib. 3. cap. 9 in reſp. ad 7. teſtimon. Staplet. de Iuſtific. l. 8. c. 24. f. 297. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 38.Rom 8:38what is the difference betweene their anſwere and the anſwere of my Brethren, being both alike preſſed without reaſon, or rather contrary to ſound reaſon.

6. Becauſe all godly learned iudgements (before my Brethren) hauehave iudged as I iudge hereof; Therefore their anſwere is againſt all godly learned iudgements; with whom if I erre, (not obſtinately as ſeeing no better reaſon) I ſhall retaine my peace. The Scriptures that I quote to prooue the Iewiſh ceremonies, practiſed by the Apoſtles, to hauehave been in themſelues of no neceſſary vſe, humane inuentions, and abuſed to ſuperſtition, my Brethren diſalow, and ſay that they are miſ-vnderſtood, and miſ-applied by mee, as they hauehave ſhewed; the trueth whereof appeareth in my Anſwere to that ſhew of theirs. And they ſay further, that I contradict my ſelfe cleerely and ſtrongly, and therewith they conuince mee: But why? Becauſe I diſtinguiſh of their different titles, nature, and vſe, in different reſpectes; namely, that in ſome reſpects I ſaid, that they were called commaundements of men, and ordinances of the world, impotent and beggerly rudiments, ſhadowes of things already come, and therefore fit to be aboliſhed, as being of no neceſſary vſe, but very hurtfull and offenſiue in p. 262ſundry maine reſpects, and becauſe the Apoſtles taught againſt their not neceſſary vſe, and yet in other reſpects were practiſed and taught by the direction of the Holy Ghoſt, as matters good and neceſſary, Act. 15. 28. then both which members of affirmation, what can be more cleere? vnleſſe my Brethren will ſay (which I am aſſured they will abhorre to ſay) that the Holy Ghoſt doth contradict himſelfe in the Apoſtles, for that I herein ſay no more then I am taught to ſay by the Holy Ghoſt in the holy Scriptures, by all claſsicall writers. The ſecond ſort of difference which my Brethren make betweene our ceremonies, and the Ceremonies of the Apoſtles practiſe, ſheweth that our Ceremonies being humane ceremonies, are firſt appropriated to Gods ſeruice: Secondly, ordaind to teach ſpirituall dueties by their myſticall ſignifications, which theirs were not. To the firſt of which, I ſay, Firſt, That ſome of the ceremonies practiſed by the Apoſtles, albeit they were not appropriated to Gods ſeruice, that is, his immediate worſhips, yet they might ſeemes to be appropriated thereunto; ſuch as circumciſing, offring vowing. For what were theſe things, being performed as God required, but the immediat ſeruices of God, or elſe as ſhewes thereof? If hee did them as ſhewes onelyonly of Gods ſeruices, and not as ſeruices there might ſeeme to bee a taking of Gods Name in vaine: or if he did by them ſerue God when they were out of vſe, and left to be commanded of God, there might ſeeme to be ſome fault in Pauls action. Well then, how ſhall wee cleare Saint Paul of one or other errour? Verily not as my Brethren would doe, who would ſay, that hee did it by meere diuine authority, and nothing elſe; as if God ſhould for a time command theſe Ceremonies a new vntounto the practiſers thereof.

But my anſwere is this, that if Saint Paul and the Apoſtles did not appropriate the practiſe of Gods ſeruice one way, that is, to his immediate woorſhip: yet did they appropriate the practiſe of them vntounto the ſeruice of God another way, that is, for the libertie of the Goſpel, the appeaſing of p. 263fraternall diſcord, the winning of the more: the compaſſing of which in the performance of theſe Ceremonies were the true ſeruices of God. Wherefore euen the Ceremonies of the Apoſtles practiſe, were appropriate to the ſeruice of God: But theſe were not humane inuentions, but I hauehave ſhewed that they left in themſelues, to be Gods commandements, and ſhould not hauehave beene practiſed without neceſſitie, that is, of doing ſeruice to God in theſe fore-named endes. And touching ſignification, ſome man might thus argue, that either the Iewiſh Ceremonies practiſed by the Apoſtles, had a ſignification in their intention, or none at all. If none, then they might ſeeme needleſſe and vnprofitable, and ſo the Apoſtles might ſeeme to be the practiſers of idle actions, which (ſay I) is moſt true, were it not by their practiſe to wine the more, and to furder the Goſpel, which made them actions very fruitfull, and to good purpoſe. But if they had ſignification in their intentions, then this ſignification was either true or falſe, not any falſe, as of Chriſt to come, which was their old and decaied ſignification, Col. 2. vnleſſe they might hauehave ſtill a kinde of lawfull, and yet vntrue ſignification of Chriſt to come in their mindes, which expecting the Meſſias with an vpright heart, belieued not as yet in the Meſſias come; therefore they muſt hauehave ſome true ſignification, if any at all impoſed on them; but this we read not, therefore we cannot affirme (as I ſuppoſe) that they had any ſignification at all: Wherefore I maruell my brethren would giuegive inſtance of the vſe of other Sacraments (ſuch a trifle to play withall) as knowing that in the Apoſtles, it might imply an abſurditie in vsus, an euident impietie. But it will bee demanded, I know, that if I grant the Ceremonies of the Apoſtles practiſe, to bee void of ſignification in their intention, what then is this vntounto our Ceremonies, which are ordained to teach ſpirituall duties, by their miſticall ſignification? But my brethren ſhould remember, that the queſtion here is not of the lawfulneſſe of impoſing ſignification on Ceremonies p. 264(not of Gods ordaining) but of the lawfulneſſe of the vſe of Ceremonies, in a caſe of neceſſitie, on which ſignification, ſignification is impoſed by others: And thus theſe Ceremonies will accord to the point in queſtion. For ſeeing thoſe Ceremonies had a ſignification of the ſuperſtitious, and not well informed Iewes, before whom they were vſed by the Apoſtles, and for whoſe ſakes ſome of them, were inioyned to the Gentiles; the queſtion is whether an Apoſtle in a caſe of ſuperior reaſon, as to redeeme Miniſterie, might conforme vntounto them (or to the like in the like caſe) lawfully, notwithſtanding that ineuitable ſcandall, that hee ſhould occaſion vntounto the beholders; namely, to apprehend by them I ſay, not a true ſignification (in which reſpect our ſignificatiue Ceremonie of the Croſſe ſeemeth more tolerable) but a falſe, namely, to ſignifie to them Chriſt to come, which was already come. And if he might lawfully doe this (as it is euident he might) then let my brethren tell me, wherefore a Miniſter of the Goſpel, now may not lawfully vſe ſuch a Ceremonie, which (being no commandement of God) is by others ordained and impoſed to teach ſpirituall things, by their myſticall ſignification, and not intentionally, or approuedly in the minde of the vſer.

As for that which is included in the third difference, I muſt needes confeſſe it hath more waight, then any thing I know alleadged againſt our Ceremonies, if my brethren can ſoundly proue, that namely our Ceremonies are eſteemed impoſed, and obſerued as parts of Gods worſhips (whereby firſt of all I doubt not, but my brethren doe meane eſſentiall parts of Gods of worſhips, not accidentall) And ſecondly, that theſe our Ceremonies are eſteemed, impoſed, and obſerued, by the intention and doctrine of the Church of England, for things of ſuch nature. For this I conſtantly auerre and reſolutely holde, that if they can be proued matter of this nature, that they are doubtleſſe to bee refuſed of all, in a caſe of confeſſion, vntounto the loſſe of p. 265Miniſtery, and of life it ſelfe: Howbeit of this I can by no meanes be perſwaded as yet, and I will giuegive my Brethren the reaſons thereof, namely, becauſe the Church of England doth not ſo eſteeme them, impoſe them, or obſerue them for parts of Gods worſhip.

But here it wil be firſt asked, what I mean by the Church of England? To which I anſwere, that as the Church is conſidered two wayes, firſt, for the Congregation of the faithfull, ſcattered here and there, or for the whole ſocietie of Engliſh men compact in one entire body, viſibly profeſſing the religion of Chriſt diſtinguiſhed from the bodies of Scotland, France, Germany, & other Countreys: So by the Church of England in either acception, ceremonies are not eſteemed, impoſed, or vſed as parts of Gods worſhips. Of the Church in the former ſence, I know my Brethren make no queſtion; the latter I will iuſtifie: For the doctrine and practiſe of the Church of England, I take to be that which by cōmon conſent of the whole State, King, Nobles, Biſhops, Iudges, Commons in Parliament is taught and commanded: Whatſoeuer commeth hence, cometh from the compleate bodie of the Church of England, and is to bee aſcribed to it, as to the viſible Church: Now the doctrine of this Church of England is included in the Bookes eſtabliſhed by this power, which are, the booke of Articles, and the booke of Common prayer: Now for the doctrine of our Church in this point, the booke of Articles expreſly teacheth: firſt, that it is not lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to Gods word, Act. 20. Secondly, that the Church ought not to enforce any thing to be beleeued, beſides the holy Scriptures, for neceſſitie of ſaluation. Act. 20. Thirdly, that nothing of traditions and Ceremonies be ordained againſt Gods word, Act. 34. Fourthly, that eueryevery particular or Nationall Church hath authoritie to ordaine, change and aboliſh Ceremonies, or Rites of the Church, ordained onelyonly by mans authoritie, ſo that all things bee done to edifying, Act. 34. So likewiſe the Preface p. 266of the common prayer booke, tit. of Ceremonies enacted by Act of Parliament (that is, by the authoritie of the viſible Church of England) this doctrine of Ceremonies is ſet downe: [We thinke it conuenient that eueryevery country ſhould vſe ſuch Ceremonies as they ſhall thinke fit, to the ſetting forth of Gods honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a moſt peafect and godly liuing without error or ſuperſtition: and that they ſhould put away other things which they perceiue to bee moſt abuſed, as in mens ordinances, it often chanceth diuerſly in diuers countreys. And thus wee ſee the doctrine of our Church doth not eſteeme any Ceremonies, as parts of Gods worſhips but doth diſclaime it vtterly. And for the application of their doctrine to our Ceremonies that wee may ſee what maner of Ceremonies, and of what nature the Church of England doth propoſe to be practiſed, and with what affection ſuch as practiſe them ſhould performe it: the ſaid Preface to the Booke of Common prayer ſaith of the Ceremonies preſcribed in that Booke: [That they are retained for a diſcipline and order, which vponupon iuſt cauſes may bee altered and changed, and therfore not to be eſteemed equall to Gods Law.] Now according to this doctrine and application thereof by our Church all doctrines and practiſe of intention and action ſhould bee conformed, to this they ſhould be referred: If there bee any contrary direction or doctrine taught publiſhed, or inioyned by any one perſon, or many together, or in diuers places, it is nothing to the point: For they who preach eſteeme, practi…e and impoſe any Ceremonies otherwiſe, by any conceit, word or acte, then according to the afore mentioned direction they doe it contrary to the iudgement of the Church of England, and it is to bee eſteemed as the iudgement and practiſe of priuate perſons, violating the doctrine and lawes of this Church, for the which they ſhall anſwere vntounto God, and are liable to the cenſure of authoritie. Whatſoeuer Ceremonie therefore of our Church is either impoſed, or the omiſſion p. 267cenſured by any perſons, or by any Miniſter practiſed, or obſerued by ſuperſtitious or ignorant people, as a part of Gods worſhip, is onelyonly accidentall, adherent, and not inherent to our Church; neither ought it to bee laide vntounto the charge of our Church: Neither doe any of the Diuines, Abridg. fol. 38. 39.mentioned in the depriued Miniſters reaſons, nor can any Diuinity iuſtifie or ſay that the queſtioned Ceremonies are impoſed by the Church as parts of Gods worſhips, for this cauſe, or will perſwade men to ſuffer themſelues to be depriued for refuſing to cōforme vntounto them. For here is no ſuch caſe of confeſſion, to which we are inforced; ſeeing we may all freely and ought, as in obedience to the Church, confeſſe the doctrine thereof agreeing to Gods Word, and conforme vntounto the Ceremonies according to the doctrine, namely, as to things which are no worſhips of God, nor needfull to ſaluation. And as for them that hold, teach, or conforme vntounto them, as to the parts of Gods worſhips, they are to be eſteemed as malefactors condemned by the Church, which can no more preiudice the doctrine of the Church, then the practiſe of theeues, rebels, and murtherers can preiudice the good lawes of our Common-wealth that are made againſt them; and it were no leſſe ſtrange to blemiſh our Church with the iudgement or practiſe of the one, then to brand the Common-wealth with the practiſe of the other.

Now where my Brethren ſay that the Apoſtles neither obſerued nor impoſed the Ceremonies of the Iewes as parts of Gods worſhip, I referre them to my anſwere in the former member touching the ſeruice of God; and do adde that if they vſed them not as parts of Gods worſhip taken ſtrictè, yet they did vſe them & inioyne thē as parts of his worſhip taken latè, or in a larger ſence, ſeeing God may be ſaid to be worſhipped by that he is ſerued, and he is ſerued by duties done according to his will, and they conformed, & inioyned cōformity to thoſe ceremonies that they might do duties according to his will, viz. the winning of the Iewes, the p. 268freedome of their teaching and the like. But now whereas it is demanded further by my Brethren, what it is vntounto the purpoſe I alledge, that the Iewes eſteemed, impoſed, obſerued them as neceſſary to ſaluation, Acts 15. 1. 5. and the reſt. I anſwere, firſt, that I might make thoſe Ceremonies analogicall with ours, that as our Ceremonies were and are holden as parts of Gods worſhip and needfull to ſaluation by the Papiſts, ſo were thoſe practiſed by the Apoſtles, eſteemed by the Iewes; yet the Apoſtles vſed them in caſe of neceſſity, and ſo may wee theſe in the like caſe. Secondly, Abridg. fol. 38.I euer held it as an argument vrged by the depriued Miniſters to perſwade to the diſuſe of our Ceremonies, that being in themſelues needleſſe (a man hauing no neceſſity to vſe them) there is occaſioned the ſtumbling of the weak, by them the Papiſts and ignorant peoples abuſe and opinion of Gods worſhip: In which reſpect the practiſe of the Iewiſh Ceremonies might apparantly be taxed, had it not beene in a caſe of ſuperiour reaſon. For the practiſe of them was in that caſe good & neceſſary, notwithſtanding whatſoeuer abuſe or offence might hauehave bin taken thereat, ſo that they were done, firſt, voluntarily and not preſſed on there conſcience as Gods worſhips; ſecondly on iuſt occaſion, as to redeeme the preaching of the Goſpell, and to win ſoules to Chriſt.

The fourth and laſt kinde of difference alleadged by my Brethren betweene our Ceremonies, and the ceremonies of Apoſtolicall practiſe and iniunction of the rules preſcribed in the word, for the direction of the Church in the matters of ceremony, which are not kept in the impoſing and vſing of our Ceremonies, (as my Brethren ſay) but were in thoſe others by the Apoſtles. Firſt, they ſay they are no way needefull: which may be vnderſtood either in reſpect of inioyning by our Gouernours, or of practiſing by our Miniſters. In the inioyning of them, againe we may conſider the inioyning of them in their firſt plantation, or for the preſent. The inioyning of them in the firſt plantation in p. 269King Edwards dayes, of what neceſsity it was, it might eaſily be collected, if we either conſider the nature of coacted Churches, gathered and reformed by authority of Princes, where the moſt are worſt, and of how great difficulty it is to reforme all diſorders at the firſt, in compariſon of Churches gathered by voluntary coition, where all being willingly aſſembled, will alſo willingly vnite their thoughts and proceedings to the beſt: and this is one maine reaſon of the different degrees of reformation of different Churches. This Church of England therefore being a coacted Church, it is eaſie to imagine of what difficulty it was to reforme all things at the firſt; where the moſt part of the Priuy Counſel, of the Nobility, Biſhops, Iudges, Gentry, & people were open or cloſe Papiſts: where few or none of any countenance ſtood for religion at the firſt, but the Protector, and Cranmer. Wherefore, howſoeuer thoſe worthy perſons were ſollicited and ſtirred vp by Caluins letters, howſoeuer they laboured at the firſt, and did what in them lay, deſiring to doe more, as appeareth in the Preface of the common prayer Booke, & in the Rule before Commination: howſoeuer they refined the booke of Common prayer in an 5. & 6. Edwardi; yet neceſsity compelled them there to ſtay. The generall reaſons whereof, are excellently obſerued and ſet downe by Zepperus, which elſewhere I hauehave cited in my reaſons. Now if we looke to the preſent iniunction of our Ceremonies, it is not for me to conteſt with authority, or to call her to account for her proceedings; ſhe pretendeth neceſſity of enioyning them; that omnis mutatio est periculoſa, & plena ſcandalis (and therefore alſo muſt be obſerued for the only will and pleaſure of ſuch as inioyne them.) Now if authority on theſe, or other like grounds will hauehave the Ceremonies practiſed, or elſe will proceede to Depriuation, there is heere an ineuitable neceſſity of conforming in the Miniſters: in which reſpect Conformity is ſimply needefull. In this ſenſe alſo, though the ceremonies themſelues be ſuppoſed to be ſmally profitable, yet conformity to p. 270them in this caſe of neceſsity, is moſt profitable for the edification of the Church, though it bee denied by my Brethren. And howſoeuer it may be granted, that offence and hinderance to edification doe ariſe from theſe our Ceremonies; yet it is certaine that there is no ſhew of compariſon betweene the offence and hinderance of the peoples edification▪ ariſing from the practiſe of the Ceremonies, and the ſuffring of Depriuation for not conforming by eueryevery Miniſter, which my Brethren in their argument doe teach. Now for the Iewiſh ceremonies, to omit my Brethrens repetition of Appſtolicall authority, as being dealt withall before; they ſay they were ſquared and directed by the rules of the holy ſcripture. But to vnderſtand this better, we muſt needs diſtinguiſh betweene the different reſpects wherein wee may conſider them, firſt in their nature, and then in their practiſe, and then againe as it was needleſſe or conſtrained, or occaſioned by iuſt reaſon of neceſsity for the furtherance of the word, and good of the Church. In their nature they were fruitleſſe, vnprofitable, empty, burdenſome, and moſt indecent. Alſo in their needleſſe vſe they were not needfull or profitable, they ſerued rather to deſtroy then edifie. They were not profitable for order or decency, they tended to infringe the Chriſtian liberty, and they were ſo farre from hauing no offence in them, that they were aboue meaſure ſcandolous; all which I hauehave ſo proued to my Brethren, in my firſt and ſecond reaſons of this my firſt argument, that though they deny and wonder, yet they meddle not with any proofe thereof, knowing that the very citation of the place would confute them. But in their conſtrained vſe, or vſe occaſioned by reaſons of neceſſity forealleadged, that conformity to theſe Ceremonies was profitable, neceſſary, ſeruing to edifie, by making way vntounto the Churches peace, and preaching of the Goſpel, it was ordered to vſe them: and this vſe of the practiſe of indecent Ceremonies, in nature did vphold one higher decency, euen the decency of Apoſtolicall preaching, conuerting ſoules, planting of p. 271Churches, and vnitie of brethren, and thus that paradoxe or riddle is abſolued, which my brethren thought impoſſible to bee belieued, that an indecency, ſupported decency, which if they had called to their remembrance, they might hauehave ſeene how this fourth argument, of the abridgement againſt our Ceremonies, doeth very fitly ſquare to thoſe which the Apoſtles vſed.

Yet one thing remameth to bee conſidered, which ſo much offendeth my brethren, that they ſcarce hold it poſſible, for a godly or learned man to hold, namely, to charge the holy Apoſtles; firſt, that they were offended in impoſing that they did; and ſecondly, that they taught againſt the things which they iniòyed▪ that namely, they ought not to bee vſed by the Iewes or Gentiles. But to the firſt I ſay, that if it were neceſſitie, that moued the Apoſtles to inioyne abſtinence from bloud and ſtrangled, which were legall Ceremonies, for they are called neceſſary things fol. 15. 28. yea without that neceſſitie, they would not hauehave inioyned them: if without neceſſitie vrging, they would not hauehave inioyned them, yea they muſt needes bee vnwilling, and loth to doe that which without neceſſitie, they would not doe: If they were loth to doe it, then they muſt needes hauehave ſome offence in them, for doing that they were loth to doe: And for the ſecond▪ let me remember my brethren, who thinke I forget my ſelfe, once againe to ſay vntounto them, that the holy Apoſtles did teach againſt the things, which they inioyned and practiſed, as appeareth by theſe plaine inſtances Paul preached againſt circumciſion, Acts 21. 21. Gal. 5. 2. and ſo did Peter before the practiſe thereof; yet Paul practiſed circumciſion on Timothy, Acts 16. 3. Paul preached againſt the Iewiſh Sabboths obſeruation, Col. 2. 16. 17. Gal. 4. 10. yet he obſerued them vſually, Acts 13. 14. 44. and 18. 4. and 17. 2. Paul taught againſt abſtaining from meates [touch not; taſt not; handle not] Col. 2. 20. 21. yet the Apoſtles (and Paul among them) preſcribed difference of meates, Acts 15. 28. Let my brethren p. 272therefore giuegive me leaue, to thinke without any further maruell, that though I grant it were abſurd and impious, to ſuppoſe that the Apoſtles practiſed thoſe Ceremonies they preached againſt in the ſelfe ſame reſpect, and ſo farre forth as they practiſed them, ſo farre forth to preach againſt them; yet in diuers reſpects this may well ſtand. The Apoſtles therefore preached againſt the Ceremonies, not becauſe they held them ſimply impious in themſelues, for then they could not practiſe them without impietie, but becauſe that Chriſt the bodie was come, the ſhadowes were vnprofitable, and becauſe that many abuſed them perniciouſly, and held them neceſſary to ſaluation, in which reſpect, in ſome caſes the Apoſtles refuſed the practiſe of them: Againe, the Apoſtles practiſed them not, of any louelove they bare them, or for any opinion of neceſſitie, or the leaſt profit in themſelues, being impotent and beggarly; but onelyonly being compelled for the neceſſitie of the ſuperior ends, which themſelues doe giuegive of ſuch their doings. My brethren deny not but that the Apoſtles practiſed theſe Ceremonies, Caluin. in Act. 21. 20. 21. fol. 353. 354.Acts 21:20Acts 21:21and that lawfully. But they cannot be perſwaded, that they preached againſt the practiſe of them, yet Caluin will teach them, that Stephen did long before preach the aboliſhing of the ceremoniall law: And for this very place of Acts 21. 21. whereof my brethren are ſo peremptorie, that Paul had not taught ſo in deed, but that the Iewes had beene ſo informed of him, that hee preached againſt the practiſe of the Iewiſh Ceremonies: Howbeit, Caluin apprehends it otherwiſe [Etiamſi aliquâ ex parte verus erat rumor, quo offenſi fuerunt Iudaei, fuiſſe tamen callumniâ asperſam Legis abrogationem docebat Paulus.] Againe. [Qui aduentu Christi abolit as fuiſſe Ceremonias docent, adeò non ſunt in legem contumelioſi, vt potius eius veritatem confirmant] Againe. [Non minus Iudaeos, quàm gentes a Ceremonijs liberat, quas col. 2. 14. decretanominat] Aagaine [Paulus promiſcuè Iudaeis & Gentibus libertatem docebat partam eſſe: Nam istae ſententiae generales ſunt, 1. Corint. 7. 19. Col. 2. 11. 16. Corint. 10. 25. Galat▪ p. 2735. 1. and 4 3.] In a worde, that my Brethren may altogether leaue to wonder at that I wrote, as at a ſtrange matter or that they ſhould thinke that godly and learned men forget them ſelues in ſuch a point as this, let themſelues conſider of the aduice of thoſe godly, learned, and Bucer. Script. Angl Ep ad Cranm. …o. 6852 P. Mart. loc. com. inter Epist. amico in Angliam, fo 1127. Beza Epiſt. 12. fol. 99. & 8. fo. 77. V…ſin. exercitat. part. 2. fol. 835, 836, 837, 838, 839.excellent perſons, which they giuegive to Miniſters in the caſe of neceſſitie and depriuation; namely, that they practiſe the Ceremonies, and yet preach openly againſt the things they practiſe, namely, againſt the inconueniences of their practiſe, and of their vnwillingneſſe to doe them: the names of them are theſe, Bucer, P. Martyr, Ʋrſinus, Beza. Wherefore, though my Brethren hauehave laboured with ſo great vehemencie againſt this argument of mine, yet is it not ouerthrowen by them, or mee, as they would hauehave it, but ſtill remaineth firme, for ought that my Brethren hauehave ſayd yet.

IIIAnd ſo much for the anſwere of my Brethren to theſecond part of mine aſſumption, touching the nature of our Ceremonies, & the Ceremonies practiſed by the Apoſtles. Now of the third member, touching the warrant & ground of conformity. In the anſwere whereunto my Brethren begin with the practiſe of a fallacy, which is called, fallacia compoſitionis, my Brethren might vnderſtand (for they lacke not ſenſe) that as the former part of their aſſumption (which they would hauehave me ſpeake [That namely, the Apoſtles by diuine inſpiration, and commaundement from God, required the Churches to vſe] was not intended to be connected or ioyned with the latter part, which is, [To vſe ſuch and ſo many Ceremonies] ſo was it not immediatly ioyned with it in my propoſition; nay, in the proofe thereof, it was diſioyned and placed by it ſelfe, and the proper or peculiar Scripture of probation annexed to it. Inaſmuch as (without violence offered) they muſt needs vnderſtand the inioyning of the Apoſtles to bee vndrſtood of Act. 15. onelyonly, and the number to hauehave reference to Numb. 9. where the Ceremonies were enumerated: now my Brethren or p. 274their anſwerer, (whome it ſeemed they truſted in ſundrie things too farre) takes my proofes for number, and applieth them to inioyning; and the decree of inioyning, where there was but two Ceremonies, they applied to number: The which confuſed ſhuffling of things together, which ſhould be ſeparatly conſidered (as they were propoſed and proued) is done but to make ſhew of abſurditie in my reaſon, which is but the tricke and cunning of a Sophiſter, to get aduantage to his feeble cauſe, and not the direct dealing of a ſound diſputant, which my Brethren needed not to borrow for the defence of that they are aſſured is the trueth.

This beeing obſerued, my anſwere is the ſooner made. To the Contents of their firſt member of Replie, touching the number, I referre them backe to the place in my anſwer, which they referre mee to theirs. To the ſecond member my Brethren ſtill remaine vnmindfull, that the queſtion is not of inioyning here, but of conforming in a caſe of neceſſitie: But the force of my reaſon drawen from the Apoſtles inioyning thoſe Ceremonies (Act. 15.) ſtands in this, that if the Apoſtles in caſe of neceſſity did inioyne Ceremonies to Churches, as inconuenient as ours are pretended to bee in many maine reſpects (as they did act 15.) then might they much more practiſe thē, or the like in the caſe of neceſſity. As for the circumciſion of Timothy, and Iames perſwaſion to Paul, they are brought in to proue another member of my propoſition and not this. The matter of the third member might hauehave beene ſpared, as being altogether ludicrous and trifling (ſaue onelyonly that they miſreport the iudgement of Zanchius, who inclineth to the De redempt. fol. 492. b. Alſo touching the iudgemēt of the Magdeburgenſes, look D. Reinolds de Idolol. lib. 1. cap. 4. fol. 158. 159.contrary iudgement, to that for which they alledge him, and ſaith that it is recepta illius loci interpretatio) vntill they come vntounto the place which my Brethren ſay, I put moſt confidence in, which they finde to bee Acts 15. Which place it ſelfe vnleſſe they had gone about directly to confute, they could hauehave ſaid nothing to the purpoſe. For what p. 275is it to the point, when I ſpeake of inioyning, and doe bring a place to proue it, for them to inſiſt vponupon the number; but according to the old ſaying, Ego de allijs, tu de caepis, which might bee referred to the Dialogue of Eraſmuus de abſurdis? As for the enſuing repetion of the things which before they alleadged in the ſame words almoſt, [that the things enioyned in Act. 15. were not Ceremonies: that they were impoſed not as ceremoniall, but as morall dueties: that Timothy his circumciſion was not a Sacrament, and the reſt: they are by me ſufficiently replyed vntounto before.

IVThe fourth and laſt member of my aſſumption, is of reaſons of ſuffering depriuation, where my Brethren in their anſwere beginne againe with miſreporting of my wordes: For my reaſon ſaith not, that the Apoſtles and Churches were moued to inioyne and practiſe Ceremonies for reaſons of no greater weight; but for reaſons partly equiuolent and partly inferiour to the auoiding of depriuation. And I am ſorry that in ſo little compaſſe of two or three ſheets of paper my Brethren ſhould ſo many times ouerſlip themſelues, which if in this part of their anſwere they had not done, it had beene to ſmall purpoſe to bring in ſo large a proofe of that (in the firſt Section heereof) which no man denieth that the Apoſtles office is of greater dignitie or excellency, then the office of an inferiour Miniſter. For in that I ſaid partly equiuolent, I left roome enough for any man to vnderſtand that the reaſons were not altogether equiuolent; and yet this very point being caeteris paribus, vnderſtood as the office of a Miniſter, is the ordinance of God, as well as the office of an Apoſtle; ſo the one in theſe dayes is no leſſe neceſſary for the ſaluation of the faithfull man now, then the other then: and a Miniſter in theſe dayes ought no leſſe to bee carefull of the loſſe of his Miniſtery; or interruption of the Goſpell, then the Apoſtles then: and therefore I ſee not but the ſame reaſons and practiſe they vſed then to that end, we ſhould alſo now vſe for the profit of Gods Church.

p. 276Next, in the ſecond place there is one thing by the way, that I cannot be perſwaded of that my Brethren ſay, that the very vſing of the Iewiſh ceremonies then would edifie; whereas they ſhould rather ſay, that the effect of ſuch vſe did edifie onelyonly: For that the bare vſe of them being in it ſelfe conſidered, might in many reſpects be ſcandalous, and did miniſter occaſion to the corrupt Iewes of ſtumbling, as I hauehave prooued. But it is much, that my Brethren ſhould affirme, that conformity to our Ceremonies to preuent Depriuation, ſhould not doe any good at all; and further, that a Miniſter ſhould doe much more hurt by his conformity, then good by his Miniſtry: As if the liberty of preaching the word were ſo great good by the Apoſtles practiſe to the Church, and with vsus (by Gods bleſſing on his owne ordinance) it were no good at all: Or as if the practiſe of the ceremonies would nullifie or confound the bleſſing of Gods ordinance of preaching (and then how can the preaching of Conformitans bee bleſſed of God?) Or as if the vſe of our Ceremonies would deſtroy more ſoules, then preaching could conuert or eſtabliſh in the faith: Or (laſt of all▪ as if the vſe of the ceremonies were more apt and forcible to peruert a man to his deſtruction, then preaching to conuert him to ſaluation. Which ſuppoſals as they are moſt vntrue, and my Brethren I know will not denie: ſo if they graunt them to be falſe, a Miniſter conforming to redeeme the free paſſage of his preaching, ſhall hauehave a better bargaine out of queſtion by his practiſe, then my Brethren heere doe vndertake to driue on his behalfe.

Now touching the laſt point, if my Brethren will hauehave me grant, that the Apoſtles were well aſſured in their conſciences they did that which was not onelyonly lawfull▪ but needfull for them to doe: Then ſtill I muſt needs conclude, that ſo long as we doe performe the like practiſe with them in the like caſe, and on the like reaſons, (as it doeth yet appeare) wee may very well hauehave aſſurance ſufficient for it in our hearts; And ſo in degree (according to our modell) we p. 277may be ſaid to hauehave an equiualent reaſon for the auoyding of our Depriuation. As for that full aſſurance, which my brethren ſay they enioy; namely, that they hauehave Gods expreſſe commandement to the contrary, and that they ſhould doe euill in the ſight of the Lord, to conforme vntounto our Ceremonies, euen to auoid de priuation: It ſeemeth to me a ſpeach, neither Theologicall nor ſafe. I ſay not Theologicall, for that Theologie is aſſurance of matters fundamentall, which in their nature are onelyonly euident, and vnqueſtionable among the faithfull, which this is not. And I ſay againe not ſafe; becauſe, as wee are expreſſely charged not to call good euill: ſo if our Ceremonies ſhould in their nature proue indifferent, wee ſhould feare to call them ſimply, and in nature euill, both becauſe it is vntrue, and the conſequences are pernicious, which come from thence. And if it bee good and needfull in a caſe of depriuation, to conforme vntounto our Ceremonies, as all good iudgements, and godly learned teachers and Churches hauehave taught, till now our brethren are become aſſured otherwiſe: Me thinks this plerophoricall confidence of my brethren ſhould not bee ſo ſafe for them; but rather to ſet a ſide all ancient preiudice, to hearken carefully to that which is diſputed, and concluded by the chiefeſt lights, and iudgements that euer the Church of Chriſt ſince the time of the Apoſtles obtained of God; to iudge charitably of their differing brethren, and modeſtly of themſelues; and to iudge nothing before the time, till the Lord come, who will lighten things that are hid in darkeneſſe: And if they will not yeeld vntounto this trueth, yet to leaue it as a matter of diſputall nature till the day doe try, and the fire conſume the ſtubble of the errors of Gods faithfull ſeruants.

FINIS.