Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 2 · Section 6
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: wherin, what aequall 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 muche abused. Yet even these reliques of Arguments are defensible.
1. The first is: because they are imposed to breed an opinion of holinesse, by Mr. Hookers doctrine and therfore, as parts of Gods worship. To which the Def. answereth, that it is no meant of operative holinesse, eyther by infusion, or inhaesion, but onelyonly significative. Whence he concludeth, a perverse purpose of calumniation: and the Rejoynder (adding another distinction, betwixt holinesse in them, and in the users of them) maketh mention also of dotage. But 1. the Def. his distinction is vaine: because even significative holinesse is also a part of Gods worship. Otherwise some holinesse must be fained, which having no other immediat ende but that which directly and immediatly tende to the honoring of God, is no part of his honor. The Rejoynder also is vaine in limiting the matter to holinesse in them.
For those thinges which are instituted to that immediat ende onelyonly, that they may breed an opinion of holinesse, and so holinesse, in others, doe (in all reason) deserve the opinion of holinesse some way causall, or operative in themselves: because all breeding is causing, or working, 1. e. operative.
It was also observed by the Repl. (onelyonly in a parenthesis, by the way) that holinesse eyther by infusion or inhaesion, were unreasonablie by the Defend. disjoyned.
This the Rejoynder excepteth against, and sayth, in those termes ther is no more disjunction, then in these love or charitie, Magistrates, or Governours.
But he forgotte the proper English note of disjunction, eyther, or.
Where did he ever read suche a phraze: eyther love, or charitie, eyther Magistrates, or Governours?
It was also replied, that Mr. Hooker attributed operative holinesse to the Crosse, in allowing all that the Fathers ascribed to it. The Rejoynder his onelyonly materiall exception is, that the instance was here not of the Crosse, but of the Surplice. Yet the question is of our Ceremonies, which is as well concluded from one, as another, and the Rejoynder himself, even now, spoke of holinesse in them, as of many, not in it, as of one Ceremonie onelyonly.
Neyther is ther any more holinesse in one, then in the other, if both be onelyonly 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, goeing before those nakedly cited by the Def. and Rejoynder, be considered. The wise man could not mention so muche as the garments of Holinesse, but with singul…r reverence, and it will be evident, wherto he required reverence.
In the last place, Mr. Hookers opinion is slighted, as privat. Wheras all know, that he is in our Ceremoniall controversies, of as publicke 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 Spirituall Lords, and their Assistants, if they be truly holy, and spirituall in their authoritie, and in the exercise of it, will appoint no Ceremonie but holy: and by the observance of the sayd Ceremonies, have some spirituall honor redounding unto themselves: because the vertue which is found in any effect, doeth redounde allways to the prayse of the cause. Of this argument, the Rejoynder pronounceth, that it is a powring out of sal… scurrilitie, to the very lees, a scornefull jest, ascoffing, a spitefull jest, a vagrant thinge, the very noting wherof is answer enough. Now how should a man deal with suche disputers?
The Def. brought this Argument out of unknowen papers, into a publick booke, and answered it with sharp wordes. The Repl. onelyonly shewed the force of it: and for that, he is set upon a fresh with new wordes, like swords and daggars. Could they neyther suffer this reason to sleep in the darke, 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 Prelats in Convocation take to themselves, or in drawing a conclusion from them?
In the second place, our Rejoynder undertaketh to giuegive a reall 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 Rejoynder in answer to the Repl. his preface. pag. 61. complaineth of us, for infringing the libertie of the Churche in her Convocation, touching the appointment of externall 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 downe pag. 70. that the Clergie of England made the Canons. Neyther can any man doubt of this, that have but looked on the booke of Canons. The ratification of suche thinges by Civill authoritie, doeth no more take the institution of them from the Clergie, 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 assemblie may ordeyne them, and yet not make them holy.
But it is manifest, that a holy assemblie, as it is suche, gathered together in the holy name of Christ, as their efficient, and finall cause, cannot but putte a holy forme 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 acte of prayer. But instituted significant Ceremonies are evidently of another holinesse, to all that doe 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 farr from being denied by us (upon the supposition of the lawfulnesse of suche a function, as they take upon them) that it is the ground of our reason, to prove their ordinances holy. So that the Rejoynder might (in this place) have spared those sweet words of his: stomacke, without wit, or learning: these men say (in effect) to all other men, stand backe, 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 neyther of these doe agree to our Convocation. Heerupon the Rejoynder (having nothing to say that was pertinent) speaketh something of right Ecclesiasticall Synodes, accuseth the Separatists with Mr. Iacob, and lastly affirmeth our Convocations to be gathered for a speciall dutie of Gods service, though he will not tell us, what it is, and confesseth, that litle good is sometimes (he might have sayd at any time) doen at their meetings. Which kinde of answering I leave to the judgement of any reader.
3. A third reason, feched out of M. Hy. his papers, is, that Crosse and Surplice are set apart from civill uses, and appropriated unto the actes of religion in Gods service. To which the Def. answered, by equall comparison of Pulpit-cloth, Communion cup, and place of meeting in like manner appropriated. Wherupon the Repl. was, in generall, that the Def. did well understand what was meant by appropriation. This putte the Rejoynder into a passion, expressed by many wordes: a pretty sleight, for that which cannot be defended, by those which are pusled and toyled, a f…im …, lent by Mr. Iacob, a mere shift, proceeding out of an haughtie desire of defending that which hath been once spoken. And this is all that I finde rejoined to that passage. To which I say nothing.
A reason was rendred of the former assertion: because a Pulpit-cloth Communion-cup, and Meeting-place are onelyonly civill, being taken from the ordinarie civill customes of men. To which the Rejoynder opposeth, that no civill man will say, that they are onelyonly civill in their application: Whiche is verie true. Nor will any Grammarian say, that good Hebrue, Greek, or Latine, are onelyonly gramaticall in their application, because they are applied to the expressing of all kinde of trueths and falsehoods: and yet they are onelyonly gramaticall etimologie and syntaxe. No Naturalist will say, that the earth and ayre are onelyonly naturall in application, and yet they are onelyonly naturall beinges.
It was further added, that clothes, cups, meeting places etc. are of the same use out of Gods service, that they are in it.
This is occasion of admiration, and exclamation to the Rejoynder. But he might have considered, that the immediat ende of a clothe, is to cover; of a cup, to drinke out; of meeting places, to meet in: and then where is the strangenesse of this assertion? Is ther not the same immediat use of a mans eyes, in reading one booke, as another, of a mans eares, in hearing one voyce, and another, how soever the subject seen, or heard, may differ in nature or kinde.
A distinction was likewise used, betwixt appropriation of this or that individuall, and of the kinde. To this it is rejoined, 1. that the individualls are neverthelesse appropriated. Whiche is not so: because appropriation of the kinde and individuall both, is more then of the individuall alone. Individuals may be extrinsicallie, & accidētally appropriated, the kinde remayning intrinsically common, & indifferent. 2. That some individualls (without all their kinde) have been appropriated to holie uses. Of whiche no man doubteth: because one individuall may be so used, without other. But is ther therfor no difference, betwixt extrinsecall, accidentall appropriation of one Levite to the Ministrie, and the whole tribe? 3. Not all kinde of linnen garments, or crosses are appropriated to religious uses.. As if the question were of linnen garments simplie, though they were used without any suche institution as a Surplice hath, onelyonly for the naturall conveniencie of it, or of crossing the fingers, upon occasion, to drive away flies, that come crosse upon a mans face. Ther was (in the last place) mention made of the significancie of our Ceremonies, which maketh them in their intrinsecall nature (as suche) without any further expectation of occasionall application, to be proper to religion. But of this our Rej. would not hear, in this place. Let it therfore passe to the next chapter.
4. A fourth confirmation wholly dependeth on Matth. 15. Where the Def. would have it, that our Saviour condemneth not the act of washing (that is sayth the Rej.) the monitorie significant signe of washing, used by the Pharisies, but their intention, & opinion, in attributing legall and operative sanctitie, to that their owne 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 holinesse cleaveth to our Ceremonies. This is denied by the Rej. and yet in his whole dispute, he maketh them worship, though accidentall, arbitrarie, and improper. Neyther can any man impose a double or treble religious Ceremonie without intention and opinion of some holinesse belonging to it, more then to that which is not so religious.
It was in the second place observed, that more holinesse was attributed to those washings, then is by many among us to the crosse, cannot be proved out of the text, ther being no one circumstance in it, which may not fitly be applied to our Ceremonies. To whiche the Rej. sayth 1. that those are blinde & superstitious persons, which attribute suche thinges to the Crosse, not the Church imposing. Iust as Bellarmine, in the place by and by to be cited, answereth Calv. about the same matter:Si qui sunt inter Catholicos rudioras, &c. Eos corrigendos putamus, &c. If there be any more rude among hir Catholiques, we hold them worthy to be corrected. But are not our blinde Protestants, and those rude Papists, hardened in their superstition, by the imposing & urging of those thinges which they superstitiously dote on?
The Pharisies (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 Saviours 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 Baptisme is deficient, unsufficient, and so defiled: if it want the Crosse?
For further answer, it was alleged by the Repl. that not onelyonly Calvin in Mat. 15. but also Bellarmin himself (de eff. Sacr. l. 2. cap. 32.) sayth, that the Pharisies washing was condemned as vaine, and unprofitable, setting aside, intention, and opinion of legall, operative holinesse. The Rejoynder answering first for Bellarmine, sayth he is abused: because (forsooth) he speakes that falsely, to defend the Popish Ceremonies. As if it were not the common notion of all Christians, that vayne and unprofitable Ceremonies are to be condemned, or as if Bellarmine alone sayd 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 vayne and unprofitable.
Who would have thought, that D.B. would defende vaine and unprofitable Ceremonies, in Gods solemne worship? But Chemnitius (sayth he) observ…s, that Christ condemned not these washings simply as prophane fopperies, nor as simplie unlawfull, but in respect of religion placed in them. Not simplie profane fopperies, that is, voyde of all shew from Scripture, or reason, nor simplie unlawfull, if the actes 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 adjoyned unto them. Now ther is superstitio not onelyonly pernitious, but also vaine, and superfluous. Filucius, tract. 24. cap. 2. And chemnitius, in the same place affirmeth, the Pharisies washinges to have been condemned, for that (notwithstanding their vanitie; and want of Divine institution) they were made some part of Gods worship.
As for Calvine, the Rej. doeth not denie, but that passage alleged is found in the place, the inventing of Ceremonies was an idle vanitie, before the high opinion of Religion was added unto it. Yet (sayth he) 1. he cleareth our Ceremonies, which was cast upon the Iewish superstitious washings. From some of that blame, (it may be granted) but not from all. For then those wordes (which the Rejoynder confesseth him to set downe) should have beē a contradiction to the other. 2. This shread (added he) is falsely alleged as touching the intention. And why so I pray?
Because (forsooth) Calvins 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 vanitie.
But if this were his meaning, how can that meaning agree with the meaning of these wordes: It was of idle vanitie 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 vayne or superfluous worship is condemned by Christ, Mat. 15. let these testimonies, and reasons be wel considered.
The Preists had brought in many Novelties, tho Moses with great terrour had threatned them not to ad any thing, Plurima nova introduxerant sacerdotes, quamvis Moses, magno cum terrore, comminatus suerat, no quid adderent, ex quibus illasuere, de loti…nibus Duplex fuit culpa. Nam & innovatio ipsa non parvum erat crimon, & quia illas observationes magis curabant, quam mandata D…. Crimen illud prius non statim a…guit Chirstus, non …rivolum id esse atque superfluum, dicit, ne inflammarentur. Tolet, upon Lic. c. 11. annot. 84. Altora causa, propter quam has lotiones sprevit, fuit illorum superstitio. Pharisai induxerant has lotiones, non ob civilē quandam & naturalem decenriam, & mun. di…iem, sed quasi ad religionem pertinentes, ut qui contemnerent, contra Dei cultum agere …enserentur, quivero servarent, Deum in eis colore viderentur. Hoc autem eis non licebat, quibus proh. bitū erat à Deo, Deut. 4. no quid adderent, Obid, quasi superstitiosas lotiones hujusmodi Christus rejeci… Quam causam indicat Matheus, cap. 15. Omnis plantatio quam non plantavit Patermeus, eradicabitur. Similiter Marcus cap. 7. in va…um me colunt, d…entes doctrinas & praecepta hominum, &c. Qua propria inventione constitu…nt, contra Dei mandatum.of which number of additions were those things of washing. There was a double fault for the innovation it selfe was not a slight metter and then this, that they stood more upon those observations of their owne then they did on the Commandements of God. 1. That first offence Christ doeth not praesently reproove 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 Pharises had put in the sayd washings, not for any naturall and civill decentie or cleanelinesse, but as perteining to religion, who so did contemne thē were judged to offend against Gods worship, and who so did observe them seemed cheifly to regard, Gods worship in them. But this was in no wise lawfull for them to doe who were so streightly 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 sayth: Every plant which my heavēly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted out. And Marc. ch. 7. In vaine do they worship me teaching the Doctrines, and praeceps of men, &c. Such things as men sett up of themselves against any Commandement of God.
Estius in Tit 1.1. Mand…ta homanum ad pi…tatem nihil conducentia intelliguntur Mat. 15 & Mar: 7. in lo…ionibus multis supervacuis.In Mat. 15. Marc. 7. the Commandments of men do meane such Commandments which conduce nothing at all to piety, as those Superfluous washings.
5. In the fift place, another reason (or charge) was brought out of Mr. Hy. his papers, that the Ceremonies imposed, are (for their use and practise) preferred before principall parts of Gods worship: because this is the Pralats Canons: wear a Surplice, or preache not: Crosse, or baptize not. This the Def. accused of dull Sophistrie: because by this meanes, onelyonly an orderly discreete preacher is preferred before one that is factious and exorbitant. Of this base Bonnerly speache, the Repl. shewed his just detestation. For which he is censured by the Rejoynder of casting it out of the mouth of his stomacke, of malice, intemperat railings, and a furious spirit. All which I leave to the readers judgement. OnelyOnly this I observe, that he would excuse all or most of the Prelats, from willing silencing any able and godly ministers for omission of our Cerremonies, and doeth absolutely denie, that the Def. ever silenced any Minister (willingly or unwillingly (for onelyonly omission of Ceremonies. Concerning which termes (willingly, and onelyonly omission) some light of explication were needfull. For onelyonly omission of Crosse, or Surplice, by oversight, or other accident, the Pope himself will not silence a Preist, as all Popish Divines tell us, in affirming that to be no mortall sinne. 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 sayd to doe it unwillingly, this requireth interpretation, which will certainly be found tardy. For clearing of this charge, from the imputation of dull Sophistrie, the Repl. first propounded it in this manner: an able godly Minister without the use of these Ceremonies, is not suffered in the Ministerie, wheras an unable & ungodly one, with the use of them, is suffered: therfore they are praeferred before maine thinges: VponUpon this, the Rejoynder 1. observeth, that from hence doeth not follow that conclusion: therfore our Ceremonies are made parts of Gods 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 shew us Mr. Hy. his concealed papers for the proof of that supposition. He addeth 2. that all Prelats are to be charged with this practise: and that they have no suche 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 Canonicall practise. Yet neyther any authors, nor any defenders of the Canons, can be excused from partaking in this practise, no not the Rejoynder himself. And as for those Praelats, which have great power to doe evill, and litle, or none, to doe good (or which is all one, power effectually to hinder good, and not evill) they have a very dangerous standing, dangerous (I say) as well for others, as for their owne selves. Yet, when our Prelates procured that authoritie of doing evill, they might as easily, and more lawfully have procured the other, of doeing good: not to say, that none of them doe so muche for reforming or removing of bad Ministers,Estius in Ti. 1.1. Man… honunum pi…tatem conducentia intelliguntur Mat. 15 & Mar: 7. … …ionibus … tic superv. as is in their power to doe, eyther by themselves, or by other meanes. Nay is it not knowen, how suche kinde of catle are not onelyonly 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 Canonicall order. 2. He can scarce name one, that he hath knowen deprived for that he was unable. 3. The Turkes and Infidels would cashier their Preists for some ungodlinesse. What a poor rejoinder is this?
A fourth consideration is, that a farre lesse offence defended, is more punishable then a greater confessed, and that certayn evills, in themselves lesser, may doe more hurt, then others in themselves greater. Whiche consideratiō, if it be applied to the purpose, will appear in the proper colours: If a Minister confesse 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 doe more hurt, then an unable and ungodly generation of Ministers conforming. In that which is further added, under the title of lastly I finde 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 ther cannot be found able and discreet conformable Ministers, enough to supplie all the Parishes of England, yet many of godly men are shut out of the Ministerie for unconformitie. Therfore Conformitie is praeferred before the maine dueties of Gods worship. Heer the Rej. having litle to say, setteth notwithstanding two colours on the matter. 1. That the consequence is not simplie true, but onelyonly that they conceive the non-conformitie may, by consequence, be a greater hurt, then an able and godly Ministrie, in suche places, as want it, would recompence. As if this crying sinne were onelyonly their conceyt, not their practise, or that their conceits could make this sinne no sinne! or that the salvation of many thousandes of soules, could not recompence the hurt that would come upon the refusing of human Ceremonies? What is this other then daubing rotten walls with untempered morter.
His second colour is, that non-conformitans are no lesse blameable, whoe had rather have no worship, then conformitie. Whiche is as muche as if he should say, that whosoever will not sinne for Gods glorie, doeth as muche offend, as he that will not suffer God to be glorified by those which will not to that ende be content to sinne 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 Praelats proceedinges, and that the Repl. (being, as it seemeth first brought up amonge suche plaine people) had from his childhood tooke it to be unanswerable. Heerupon, the Rej. 1. answereth the blunt argument, with this sharpnesse: It is like as if one should say, that God, admitting no man to the Priesthood with bodily blemish, did therfore praeferre bodily perfection before spirituall. Wherin, he deceyveth him…elf, & others muche, 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 spirituall fitnesse for that office. And according to the second, he should have sayd, 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 absurde for the Rejoynder to owne.
His second note is of Plowmen, and Children, that they are not the best Logicians. Whiche though it be true, yet is nothing to the purpose: because many Plowmen have good naturall logicke, to reason withall. Otherwise they did very inconsideratly, whoe vented so good reasons under the title of the prayer, and complaint of the Ploughman, as in Mr. Foxe is to be seen, Edw. 3. amonge which reasons (a remarkable thinge) this very slighted argument is one. For so are the wordes: O Lord, for breaking of thy law, the Praelats will set men penance, or pardon them, and maintayne them, as oft as they trepasse. But Lord, if a man once break their laws, or speak against them he may doe penance but once, and after be burnt.
The summe of which, Mr. Foxe, in the margent, thus gathereth: The breaking of the Popes law is more punished, then the breaking of Gods law. And as for children, I am perswaded, that D.B. himself, had some trueths so evident unto him, that by no contrarie shew of logick they could ever be wrunge out of him. Sure I am that Timothie, knowing the Scriptures from a childe, had many suche.
Neyther was ther mention made eyther of plowmen or children, But onelyonly to shew the evidence of this trueth, not the logicall Demonstration of it.
That which was added, by way of limitation, to the name of a plowman, namely, that it was understood of suche a plowman, as is also a good Christian, is very bitterly, and yet as very unreasonablie carped at by the Rejoynder as savouring strongly of that spirit of Separation, which hath been hunted after in the ch…se of inconformitie. For (sayth the Rejoynder if any will beleive all his conceytes) this shewes, that with these men the adversaries of Ceremonies and Bishops are the onelyonly good Christians.
Which is a strange streine, to come from D. B. who both hath been an unconformist, and since he hath changed that title, cannot but know, that sundrie unconformists have caried themselves towardes himself, in all respects, as toward a good Christian. And what stronge savour is in this: every plowman that is a good Christian doeth unsua…ly make this Argument. Doeth he imagine, that onelyonly 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 doe apprehend this course of Bishops silencing Ministers for suche Ceremonies is ungodly, and Antichristian. If he did not know so muche, yet he cannot be ignorant, that the word here interposed by the Repl. for limitation, usually, doeth except some more ignorant, or lesse attentive good Christians. And I doubt not, but the Rejoynder will affirme, that every good conforming Minister in England, doth usually account them for scismatickes that condemne the Ceremonies: yet I would not thence conclude, that with him, those of that judgement are the onelyonly good Ministers. For ther is as muche sinne against charitie, in rash accusing others of uncharitablenesse, as ther is in being uncharitable: of which fault, the Rejoynder 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 (sayth 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 Chancelour, would, for his owne pleasure, or for the circumstance of a place easily change, or put out of Commissiō a grave wise mā, whē another like unto him cānot be found. These last words another like unto him cannot be found, are cached up by the Rejoynder and under the shew or sound of them, the Inconformists are by him tossed (as it were) in a blancket, as being of a high straine, beyond all other men, in their owne persuasion etc. But he might have considered (if sinister affection had not hidden it from him) that the case immediatly goeing before this answer, was of shutting out able godly Ministers for inconformitie, when ther cannot be found able and fit conformable Ministers enough. Wherupon is inferred, that the comparison of the L. Chancelour will not help the Def. in this case.
Now what kinde of straine is this then in the Rejoynder to conceal the case, and stretche the wordes as it were with his teeth, unto suche a strange odious meaning of so witlesse a bragge. Yet if ther had been no suche dependance of these wordes upon that case, they might be well defended, as understood of an absolute comparison (eyther for abilitie, or pietie) but in relation to this or that people; from whome suche Mininisters are sometime plucked away by violence, whose like, in regard of that people (which have been muche edified by them, and more inwardly knowen, and also (upon good ground) affected unto them, then they can suddainly unto any other) cannot be found.
Otherwise, D. Burges, in his Apologie (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 wel acquainted with the condition of their sheep. It might be also added, that though another like might be founde, yet it is not in the power of that L. Chancelour, or the Bishop to finde, bringe, & place him in the same Commission, because (for the succession) he must depende upon the Patrons pleasure, not limited to another like the predecessor.
But that this wresting of the Replyer his words, was affected (in some sort against conscience) it may appear by this, that no man will surmize, the Repl. to thinke, that to no unconformable Minister a Peer may be founde: because it is to be supposed (at the least) that another unconformable one may not onelyonly be equall, but also superior unto him in all absolute perfection.
It was also observed, for answer to this instance of a L. Chancelour, that about the circumstance of place, for Commissioners to meet in, ther can be no Conscience pretended, wheras in our Ceremonies, solemne oathes are offered, that no thing but conscience doeth keep us from them. The Rejoynder 1. opposeth, that this unlikenesse maketh, nothing to the question. And yet it sheweth, that a Chancelour may in civill 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 Gods glorie) 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 conforme. To which I say 1. that he who was immediatly before, so curious in houlding to the question, should not presently have digressed from it: as the Rejoynder here doeth, in turning the comparison, which was made betwixt a L. Chancelour 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 conforme. 2. Of that so, if the same meaning be kept on both sides, I muche doubt.
For our Conscience is, that in no place, nor uponany mans commande, we may conforme: and theirs is, that upon great urgent extremities, they may some time, and in some place conforme. I am perswaded, 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 conforme.
After this, the Repl. added something, about the Def. his Pontificall termes, 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 evill servant, who beat his fellow-servants, better then himself: Mat. 24.49.3. That all those who are placed in the roome of silenced Ministers, are not orderly and discreet Preachers. 4. That faction and exorbitancie may better be charged upon the Prelats, for breaking many substantiall, ancient, wholsome Canons, then upon us, for breaking a Ceremonious Canon. Now (setting aside the Rejoynder his wandring wordes, with the hony 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: whoe seeth not, that to deprive men of their Ministerie for not using of the Ceremonies (for that was objected) is to preferre an orderly and discreet Preacher, before one that is factious and exorbitant. If this be not generally spoken, let any reasonable ear discerne.
2. The second he doeth not absolutely gain-say but casteth the like, or rather a farre greater fault in our faces: that wee (forsooth) doe condemne to the p…t of darknesse. Bishops, Conformitants, and in a manner all that are not of our partie. Whiche is so manifest a slander, that the evill servant spoken of Matth. 24.49. could hardly vent one more shamelesse.
3. The third he confesseth: But would make it impertinent though it clean overthroweth the Def. his generall assertion, before expressed. He addeth also certayn frothy wordes, conteyning litle else, beside manifest slanders, which if he were put to suche an oath, as they call juramentum calumniae, he would not owne.
4. The Prelats willfull, and continuall breaking of many, substantiall, & wholsome Canons, is not denied by the Rej. but yet to save their credit, he addeth, that all suche Canons doe not binde every particular Churche, but her owne. In which wordes there is neyther rime, nor reason. The Canons objected, may be seen in Master Parker, part. 2. c. 9. sect. 4. to be Canons of our owne Churche. What then hath the Rejoynder sayd to the purpose? His other stuffe hath been sundrie times examined, and found nothing worthe.
5. All these considered, it will appear, that the Rej. had more will, then power, to maintayne, 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 peices out of the Abrigement: which for substance are suche as diverse times have been handled before: and therfor need not muche labor in this place.
The first is, that many people in our land, are knowen to hold the Sacraments not rightly and sufficiently administred or receyved without them. For the force of suche an opinion in the muliitude, many testimonies are alledged in the Abrigement, and applied unto this assertion, not in deed to prove the same simplie, but to shew what is the consequence of it. All these the Def. left out, and the Rej. had no minde 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 unlawfull, which the opinion of many other cannot make lawfull. 1. Cot. 10.28. To avoyd this, the Rejoynder had nothing materiall to say, before he had changed unlawfull into simplie unlawfull.
The just number of those that are so minded, cannot be proved, or disproved, without numbering and examining all the people. It was not therfore any meaning of those that gave the rule to reckon by the poul▪ as the Def. and Rejoynder would have us.
Neyther is this observation brought in to prove imposing and observing, conjunctly, as they would bear the reader in hād, but only for the observing, other proofes being added for the imposing. Yet it was observed by the Repl. that while actions of this kinde are superstitiously observed, they that still impose them in those places where they are so observed, may truely be interpreted so to impose them. To which the Rejoynder giveth no other proper answer, but onelyonly leaving out the pith of that assertion, may be truly so interpreted, substituteth another; of a purposed ende: and then misinterpreteth actions of this kinde, as if they were meant of the speciall kinde of thinges, and not of unnecessarie actions known to be superstitiously abused.
It was also noted as ridiculous in the Def. that those people which thinke that Sacraments are not rightly administred, or receyved without the Ceremonies, are brought into that conceyt by our condemning of the sayd Ceremonies. The Rejoynder answereth, that this condemning of them, must needs make some thinke 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, ther is no mention made of right or unright Sacraments.
For lessening of the number of those which so esteeme of our Ceremonies, the Papists are first removed, as having no great conceyt of them. Which I leave to experience. OnelyOnly because the Rejoynder requireth testimonie, I can informe him, that Gretser, Apol. pro Greg. 7. p, 8. hath these words: A Lutheran, preaching in …erteine garments like the Ape of the preists, Pradicans Lutheranus ut Sacerdotum simius, vestibus certit indutur, Missam Germa nicam celebrat.celebrates a German Masse. And the Rejoynder himself confesseth in the next wordes, they have a better conceyt of them, then of the contrarie, and that suche 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. Adde 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 confirme our wholle Service and Liturgie. The Papists therfore have no cause whie they should not have a good conceyt of our Ceremonies, which of all the Service come neerest to, and make most for them.
As for the rest, that so conceyt of the Ceremonies, which are not of your disciplining, sayth the Rejoynder) 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 forlorne charges, who are not disciplined by us, were eyther few or of reformed judgement. Surely D.B. is not like himself, when he upon ingagement 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 Gods law, in perjurie and adulterie. Now this hath formerly been handled. In this place therfore, it shall suffize, to set a few notes, upon the Rej. his answers. 1. He distinguisheth betwixt punishing, and punishing as a sinne. As if punishment in the internall nature of it, were not of sinne! 2. He distinguisheth betwixt internall peace of the Churche, consisting more in observance of Gods commandements, and the peace of her externall pollicie, impeached by the neglect of her constitutions. Wheras 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 Gods commandements: which is all the Repl. affirmed. 3. He distinguisheth betwixt an offence every way lesse, and in it owne nature lesse, whenas the question is not, whether the neglect of our Ceremonies, be not onelyonly in it owne nature a lesse offence, but also in all the circumstances of it. The Def. and Rejoynder themselves confesse, that this neglect, in the nature of it, is no offence at all. 4. Because suche answers were termed Sophisticall evasions, the Rejoynder twice crieth out of rayling: forgetting (without doubt) how often he had abused the same terme against the Repl. and that in the next former section, he had mainteyned the Def. his accusing a plain popular argument, not onelyonly of Sophistrie, but even of dull Sophistrie. For the Rejoynder certainly will not confesse himself a rayler. The rest is not worth repeating, that paper should be twice blotted with it.
Against the Def. his distinction, betwixt omission, and contempt, the Replie was 1. that mere omission hath been punished with suspension. Of which the Rejoynder 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 onelyonly put in prison, but also continued in the same, above the Iudges pleasure.
The Repl. for affirming, that punishments for mere omission, are provided for by Canon, is accused by the Rejoynder of an untrueth in print.
Yet the Rejoynder cannot be ignorant (beside other examples) that every man not kneeling, is to be denied the Sacrament, and that the Minister administring to suche, is by the Canon, to be suspended.
So that this was trueth in print, ever since the Canons were in print: except suspension from the Sacrament, & from the Ministerie be in his account no punishment.
8. The last thing noted out of the Abridgement is, that non-Cōformitants are accounted Scismatikes, Puritanes, and excommunicates, ipso facto, without appeal: which is without example. The Rejoynder here 1. denieth that flatly, without more words, which is plainly cited out of the 6. Canon, let the Canon therfore be looked upon, and that is enough. 2. He sayth that the ould anathema sit was as muche as to excommunicate ipso facto.
And yet King Iames himself, in his answer to Perone, doeth shew, that the olde anathema sit, was onelyonly a declaring who ought to be excommunicated, and not an excommunication de facto. 3. He sayth for Appeal, that none is admitted, from the highest Court, suche as the Convocation is. As if eyther 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 muche libertie were left unto a poor Minister, now standing at the Bishops barre, as to appeal to the next Convocation. The Rejoynder surely did not well consider what he spake.
4. Wheras the Def. granted, that we have reason perhaps to wish, that some poenalties were released, the Rejoynder interpreteth this reason to be suche as all men that feel the smart of punishment (for whatsoever offence) may have. Which is nothing else, but to looke on, with laughter, at all the greivous thinges which any Ministers have suffered, for this cause. And yet every foot the Rejoynder putteth on another person, and (as I am perswaded) hath another heart.
After this, the Rejoynder commeth to the slanders of Puritamisme, and Schisme. And as for Puritanisme, he sayth the Def. slided by it, as a terme not imposed upon us by him. As if we may not complaine of, or inferre a consequence, from any terme, except it be imposed upon us by D. Morton, or D. Burgesse or at the least, they were not bound to answer for any termes, except suche as they themselves have imposed!
For Scisme, and Separation, after some sparkeling wordes of rash-blasphemous, and firie Sirs, he telleth us 1. (1. that nothing may be established in the Churche, which God hath not commanded in his w…rd, 2. that all formes of worhip and all m…re Ecclesiasticall rites, not praescribed, 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 Rejoynder eyther to declare what is Separation, or what is a principle, this question would be easilie 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 adde any thing therto. 2. The second confounding mere rites, with formes of worship, is not ours, but onelyonly by the Rej. his fiction. 3. The third supposeth, that which we utterly denie, that the calling of our Ministers doeth essentially depende upon the Bishops calling. 4. The fourth is made scismaticall, by a scismaticall conceyt of the Rej. namely, that every Church is to be utterly condemned▪ and so separated from, that hath any thinge in it, by participation idolatrous. His ever being of this opinion, may be answered in that fashion which he answereth the like phraze withall, pag. 216. He hath not ever been the best Logician. His profession, of separating (this day, ere he sleep) if he did beleeve these principles, is nothing else but a rhethoricall flourish, which he would twice recall, before he would separate from those that bowe to Altars, or even those which worship an ubiquitarie bodie, in the Lords 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 booke intituled, the unreasonablenesse of the Separation) hath sufficiently shewed how unreasonably they are pretended, and abused. If the Rejoynder hath any thing to rejoigne therto, I would willingly see with what fore-head he can doe it.
The other talke 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 sayd, with the wordy rejoynder to it, so vainely opposed, and so often repeated.
Only (in few wordes) 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 Apologie, and in that writing (at the least) was a kinde of publick wrighter, having had as muche approbation, as this Rejoynder hath for his rejoynder as appeareth out of the Rejoynder 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 onelyonly to be unholy in the kinde: as if some singular true divine worship may be unholy. 4. What a wilde consequence he buildeth upon: if the crosse 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 therfore not essentiall worship; when yet he confesseth the Popish Ceremonies to be changeable, and yet essentiall worship. 6. What science ther is, for a Rejoynder upon suche groundes to charge the Repl. for violating his conscience?