Reply to Mortons Defense of Ceremonies, Response to chapter 2

Reply to Mortons Defense of Ceremonies · Response to chapter 2

CHAP. II.

SECT. I.

THIS second Argument is taken from the kind, unto vvhichwhich such ceremonies as ours are, doe in their nature belong, viz. that they are parts of divine worship, and therefore (being mans inventions) unlawfull. Heere the Def. comes out with a wedge as he calleth it, distinguishing betwixt proper or essentiall parts of Gods worship, and improper or accidentall. But first he should hauehave done vvell to hauehave considered the nature and measure of the thing which he vvould cleaue, by the light of a definition. For otherwise he may spend his wedge, his beetle, and all his labour in vaine.

And so indeed he hath, as may appeare by his explication of this distinction. By proper and essentiall parts (saith he) we understand such ceremonies, which are so necessarily required to Gods service, as that the contrarie thereof must needs displease him. By accidentall parts (or appurtenances) such as serue onelyonly as accessorie complements, ordained for the more convenient discharge of the necessarie worship of God, i. e. for decorum and edification. For 1 if all those ceremonies be essentiall parts of Gods worship, vvhichwhich are such as the contrarity of them must needs displease God, then certainely all ceremonies vvhichwhich serue for decorum and edification must needs be essentiall parts of Gods worship: because the contrarie of decorum and edification must needs displease God in his worship. 2 What kind of wedging is this, so to distinguish the parts of Gods worship, as that the accidentall onelyonly, and not the essentiall shall serue for edification? 3 What cleaving or dissolving is this of the parts of worship, where the accidentall parts are rather said to bee appurtenances then parts, and yet granted to be parts? 4 What worship of God p. 17is there that is not essentiall? If it hath no essence of vvorship in it, surely it is no vvorship. 5 The accidentall parts of worship hauehave not so much communion vvith the essentiall, as the haire of the bodie (vvhichwhich is but an excrement) hath vvith the bodie: this the Def. expresly granteth in this Sect. and shall that which is not so much as an excrement unto the chiefe vvorship, be accounted or called a part of worship.

SECT. III.

FOr the proofe of this, that no humane inventions are lawfull parts of Gods worship, the Abridgement alledgeth Exod. 20 4. Deut. 12 32 Es. 1 12 Mat. 15 9 Col. 2 23, three of which are onelyonly mentioned by the Def. and two of the three onelyonly answered, or rather put of with miserable shifts? By the precepts of men Es. 29 9 are signified (saith he) such humane ordinances as were expresly contrary to the commandements of God. But 1 if here he taketh the word expresly as opposite unto pregnant consequence, as he doth p. 2 then I hope he will grant that there is the same reason of those humane inventions which are not expresly contrary. If he taketh it largely, as conteining such consequence, then he saith nothing to the purpose, because in that sense all Religious vvorship invented by man is expresly contrary to the commandements of God. 2 Christ himselfe Mat. 15 9, doth interprete this very place of vvil-worship in generall, where for brevity sake, I refer the Def. unto M. Calvin whom he calleth an honourable Witnesse in this controversie. He after long discourse concludeth thus, fixum ergo illud maneat, fictitios omnes cultus coram deo vanos esse: imo, teste propheta maledictos & detestabiles, i. e. This must be held for certaine, that all vvorships invented by man are before God, vaine, accursed and detestable. By adding and diminishing Deut. 12 32 is not meant (saith the Def.) addition of preservation, but addition of corruption. Where 1 the phrase is strange, by adding and diminishing is meant addition. 2 This glosse is cleane contrarie to the text, for the Lord chargeth that we doe not adde to the word, that so we may keep or preserue it Deu. 4 2 even as we keep or preserue carefully that which is committed to our trust 1 Tim. 6 20: now the Def. relleth us that some addition is the meanes of keeping or preservation. Card. Cajetan himselfe interpreteth the place far more judiciously and religiously, inhibetur additio etiam pretextu custodiendi mandata Dei, even of additions that are pretended for preservation of Gods law, com. in Deu. 10. 3 He should hauehave done well to hauehave manifested unto us the addition of preservation by some example: for that which he talketh of the coyner pertaineth onelyonly to corruption, of vvhichwhich no man doubteth. 4 I would know if there be not also a diminution of preservation, as p. 18well as an addition? in the text they are joyned together. 5 This pretence vvas the old shoeing-horne to draw on superstition into the Church, as Calvin noteth on Mat. 15 2, Legislatores ipsi non jacta…ant se novum quicquā tradere, sed tantum addere cavendi formulas, quae media essent adminicula ad servandam Dei legem, i. e. the old Masters of ceremonies pretended that they meant only to bring in additions of preservation. 6 This is Bell. answer to Calvin concerning this very point and place, de effect. sacr. l. 2 c. 32 prohibet dominus additionem corrumpentem, i. e. as the Def. translateth, an addition of corruption is forbidden. This I hope is another manner of symbolizing with Bellar. then that vvhichwhich the Def. formerly objected to Non-conformists.

SECT. IIII.

HEre are two testimonies brought to confute the Non-conf. his interpretation of Scripture, wherby he would infer that all kinde of will-worship is unlawfull. For that is here the question and nothing else. The first Witnesse is Danaeus, where the consequence lyeth thus, if Danaeus in one place doth apply these Scriptures to grosser will-worship then our is, then he doth not allow that they condemne all kind of wil-worship; but the first is true: ergo. is not this a faire kinde of reasoning: just as the Papist Gregorius de Valentia reasoneth, abominable idolatry is condemned, 1 Pet. 4. 3, therfore not all idolatry.

The other Witnesse is Zanchius in Col. 2 23, where beside that the like consequence is made as before, I would desire any indifferent man to consider these vvords of Zanchie found in that verie place. One kind of wil-worship is if any new worship, wherby God is worshipped be invented and brought into the Church. For God will onelyonly be worshipped, and onelyonly with that worship which he himselfe hath appointed, Deut. 6 Mat. 15, also those in 1 Thes. 1 9. By an idol in generall is meant whatsoever in Religion is brought in without the word of God. He that looketh upon these words of Zanchie, will scarce tell what to think of this Def▪ his audacious alledging of this Author, and the vaine triūph which he groundeth upon him. He thought it seemeth that few or none would ever take the paines to examine what he said.

In the fift Section, there is nothing on either side but a dumb shew. It shall passe for me therfore in silence.

SECT. VI.

HEere come the judgment of Protestants to be examined concerning this question, Whether all parts of Divine worship invented by man be not to be condemned? Where first the Defendant bringeth forth his wedge again, distinguishing betwixt essentiall, and accidentall worship as before: but in other phrases; p. 19for now he telleth us, that essentiall worship is that wherein i… placed … opinion of Justice, sanctitie, efficacie, or divine necessitie and accidentall is any ri…e, which serveth for the more consonant and convenient discharge of that essentiall worship. But these are but words. For 1. worship doth not varie according to mens opinion: but consisteth in the nature of the action it selfe. Otherwise a man may goe to Masse, conceiving a privat opinion to himselfe, that he doth it not for justice, sanctity, efficacie, or divine necessity, but for some other cause. Or at the least a convocation house may appoint us the grossest of all the ceremonies in Poperie, and set another opinion upon it▪ 2. Sanctitie cannot be separated vvholly from such ceremonies vvhichwhich are proper unto religion. i. appropriated unto religious persons, actions, and purposes onelyonly, in the solemne vvorship of God. For they must either be holy, or civill, or prophane. But civill they are not; for then the bare omission of them vvould argue rudenesse and incivilitie: nor prophane, I hope, in the Def. opinion: therefore they must needs be holy. 3. There is no judicious Divine that useth to call circumstances of meere order and decencie, worship. Where did the Def. ever read that a pulpit, or a table, or a faire cloath, &c. was pronounced or stiled vvorship?

Come vve therefore to the examination of witnesses in particular. Calvins words are, Instit. l. c. 10. sect 8. all humane constitutions, in which the worship of God is placed, are ungodly. The Def. sayth, that 1. Calvin meaneth not by worship circumstances of order. Which is most true, neither was any reader so sottish, as ever tooke that to be his meaning. For vvhat sence could there be in these words, all humane constitutions, in which the circumstances of order are placed? 2. He telleth us that he meaneth the inward vertue of worship, which consisteth in an opinion of holinesse and justice. Where first I will not urge or grate upon the ill sound which these words have, the inward vertue of worship consisteth in an opinion. 2. How can an inward vertue be placed in an outward ceremonie? 3. The proper nature of worship is not in holinesse and justice, but in the honouring of God: and all externall ceremonies vvhose proper use is the honouring of God, are externall vvorship, as all diuinitie sheweth. This is therefore but an idle unlearned evasion, to talk of holinesse, and justice, in opinion, vvhen the question is of vvorship. Calvin never thought of such toyes. He amplifieth indeed his accusation against the Papists by such circumstances as those are, according as the Def. sheweth: but what Logick can thence conclude, that nothing else is conteined in the generall rule? Calvin himselfe professeth the contrary, as directly as if he had undertaken to confute this defender of ceremonies. For these are his words, Epist. 259. Si probe & penitus inspicitur, quid homines tantopere solicitet ad fabricandas p. 20ceremonias, reperiemus ex hoc fonte omnes fluxisse, quia quis que novum Dei cultum fingere ausus fuerit… atqui fictitios omnes cultus non modo repudiat Deus, sed etiam severe abominatur. i. The originall of all ceremonies was, that men would needs forge new worships of God: whereas God doth not onelyonly refuse such worships, but also abhorreth them.

For Chemnitius, the Defendant telleth us that hee condemneth onelyonly a ceremony which is among the Papists made necessarie. But he should shew two things if hee would answer soundly: 1 that Chemnitius doth distinguish, as he doth, of will worship, as some were lawfull, and some onelyonly unlawfull. 2. hee should shew us at the least, that there is some vvorship which is not necessarie: for otherwise C…emnitius in condemning will-worship that is imposed as necessarie, doth condemne all wil-worship. Now we in our simple divinitie (for so it will be accounted) conceiue thus: All worship of God is that honour, dutie, and reverence vvhichwhich the reasonable creature doth owe to the creator: and therfore cannot understand, how such a…dutie is not necessary to be performed: or how there can be a vvorship, which being part of this tribute, may rest in mans choyce vvhether it shall be paid or no. Perhaps this necessitie pertaineth onelyonly to the vvorship commanded by God: but in that vvhichwhich man diviseth of himselfe, there is more libertie, there being no reason, that voluntary service should be constreined. If this be the cause, then the vvorship appointed by man, is no part of his love towards God, nor any testification of it. For if it vvere, surely it should be necessarie, seeing it is necessary to louelove God vvith all our hearts, vvith all our soules, and vvith all our strength.

The third vvitnesse is P. Martyr, loc. com. 770. vvhere he sayth, concerning things in their own nature indifferent, that speciall care must be had, lest any such thing be thought to make towards the worship of God, because divine worship dependeth not on mans will, but on Gods counsell. A man vvould think that these vvords are plaine enough for the condemning of all vvil-vvorship. True (saith the Def.) he veri…ieth your phrase of speech, but not your sence. And vvhy so? because (forsooth) he sayth in the same place, that the Church may appoynt circumstances of order: as if there were any among us that ever denied this: therefore he condemneth not the institution of accidentall parts of Gods worship. Let any man of sence give judgement here: P. Martyr sayth, it is lawfull to appoint circumstances of order, but unlawfull to appoint any worship. The Def. thus: P. Martyr alloweth men to appoynt circumstances of order, therefore he alloweth them to appoynt some worship. If this be not as plain a contradiction as any can bee framed, then (according to the proverb) let him that taught me logick, give me my money againe, Reddat minam Diogenes.

p. 21In the last place (as those which make a feast use to do) D. Morton setteth down himselfe. But he may be accused though for sitting down too soon: for in the Abridgm. I find Melancthon, Bullinger, Bucanus, Perkins and others invited to this meeting, vvho now by this hastinesse of the Def. can find no place. Yet let us heare what he sayth for himselfe. I do not (sayth he) condemne all the ceremonies of Rome, but the multitude and burthen of them. To vvhichwhich I answer, 1. the question is not here how many or how few you condemned of the Romish ceremonies: but by vvhat reason you condemned them. He that condemneth one ceremonie because it is a vvorship of mans devising, condemneth all vvorship that man deviseth: and he that condemneth a multitude in that name, condemneth one that is such, though it bee alone. 2. Because I hauehave heard men often speak in this maner of the fault that is in a multitude, I would willingly know, vvhat certaine limits and bounds are set by Gods law, for the number of humane ceremonies, such as now are in controversie. If there may be three, vvhy not foure, fiue, sixe, and so forth, as many as it shall please the convocation house, or him that can vvhen he vvill turne the convocation upside downe? surely, if once vve depart from Gods institution, there vvill be no place to rest our foot in, but vve must ever follow wind and tide, vvhichwhich in religion is basenesse it selfe.

SECT. VII.

HEre is promised a confutation of the proposition, viz. of this assertion, all will-worship whatsoever is to be condemned, and to that purpose he bringeth forth againe his Magna Charta, Let all things be done in order. But I think that plea is sufficiently confuted. In the next place he produceth or rather as the fellow sayd once, seduceth 2 vvitnesses, Vrsine and Zanchie. But beleeue me, when I looked vponupon the places vvhichwhich he alledgeth out of them, I could not but lift up my heart unto God, and say, O Lord, how can such conceited confidence fasten on a man that regardeth either conscience or credit? How dare mortall men upon such grounds as these, obtrude the conception of their braines upon thy▪ Churches? Vrsine (saith the Def.) hath catechised them wel. True: but our proud Prelats for the most part, do scorne not onelyonly that, but all other catechismes, except for fashion sake, that vvhichwhich beginneth with What is your name? and though I doe not account this Def. in that number, yet I may safely say, that hee never vvell considered vvhom or vvhat he cited out of Vrsine. All that he bringeth, is out of the commentary on q. 96. ob. 3. & 5. as it is set downe by Pareus. Now before obiections be brought, it is fit and p. 22usuall that the Thesis or sentence be set down against vvhichwhich those objections fight; and no vvise man will take up an answer made to an obiection, before hee considereth the assertion against vvhichwhich that objection is made. See then vvhat the assertion of Vrsine is: Ipsae ceremoniae (Ecclesiasticae sc. quae ab hominibus praecipiuntur) non modo cultus Dei non sunt: sedetiam conscientias non obligant, &c. the very same thing vvhichwhich we here maintaine, viz. that no lawfull ceremonies appointed by man, are the worship of God. Except therefore Ecclesiasticall ceremonies be therefore the vvorship of God, because they be not the worship of God, the Def. had no reason to alledge this place of Vrsin in this question: and so iust it is in the vvords here alledged out of the answer to the third objection, those things which serve accidentally to the glory of God, are not the worship of God. And to the 4. obj. By these examples wil-worship is not established. And to the 5. obj. Indifferent things (being done of faith) please God otherwise then the worship of God properly so called. Is it possible that any thing should be concluded from hence for vvill-worship? Surely no: and therfore the Def. himselfe maketh his conclusion out of these premises, that Divine worship properly so called is that which is ordained of God. Was there any of us that ever doubted of this? is it not the proposition vvhichwhich this Def. undertook to confute. But in a large sence (sayth he) humane ceremonies may bee held to he a part of divine worship. This is that which we hauehave heard averred before in this section. I had thought we should hauehave seene it proved. But alas it could be no more then affirmed, and that under the shadow of a sentence whereby it is flatly condemned. Zanchie (sayth he) distinguisheth the substance of worship from those things which are annexed to worship. Why so doe all the Non-conformists. What then? are ceremonies worship in a large sence, because they are annexed to worship? then the signe of the crosse is a sacrament because it is annexed to a sacrament.

I wonder (sayth the Def.) how such poynts should seeme to be so raw to some of the Non-conformists. What poynts? those assertions which Vrsine and Zanchy expresse? they seeme to all of us well digested axiomes of Divinitie: but the consequence vvhichwhich the Def. would draw from hence, is evidently so raw, that none but a very Ostridge can concoct it.

SECT. IX.

TO proue that our ceremonies are imposed and used as vvorship, this argument is brought: Those ceremonies which hauehave the kinde, nature, and definition of worship belonging to them, so that they want nothing but a right author to make them true w…rship, p. 23those are in their imposition and use worship, and for want of a right authour, are false wor…ip: but our ceremonies are such. Ergo.

The Def. his answer is, that this learning never saw print, as he thinketh, that the institution of God doth not alter the common nature of worship. 1. It may be that hee never saw it in print: but I can witnesse, that Mr. William Bradshaw, a man that knew how to frame an argument in logicall manner, as well as any Bishop in England, set this reason down in Print some 14 yeares since, in one edition (as I remember) of his treatise concerning indifferent things. But an answer to that treatise, or to this argument, was never yet seene in print, though that begging of the question be the chiefe ground of those invectiues vvhichwhich are ordinarily used in Sermons and vvritings about these questions, viz. that they are things indifferent. This argument is also found in a treatise of the same authors, concerning Divine worship, printed 1604. 2. Though it had never seen the print before now, yet that doth not hinder, but it may be sound. For all sound reasons are not found in print. 3. There is none of our Divines that treateth of vvorship in generall and particular, but hath for substance this learning, viz. that religious worship is that which is done to the honour of God: and if it bee according to Gods commandement, then it is true; if not, then it is false. The Def. cannot name one of all that ever handled the common place of worship, that hath …ot so taught, which if it be true, then the institution of God doth not alter the common nature of vvorship: 1. it doth not make that vvorship which otherwise being used to some end, and in the same manner, without Gods institution, vvere no worship at all.

But Gods institution (sayth the Def.) doth distinguish necessary worship from indifferent, and essentiall from accidentall. Grant all this: what can be made of it? Doth it therefore alter the common nature of worship, making that worship, vvhichwhich without it being used in the same manner, and to the same end, is no worship? here is no consequence at all. Beside, neither scripture, nor interpreters of Scripture, nor any good reason will allow, that there is any indifferent worship of God. Neither is it the institution of God (common to all worship) which maketh one more, and another lesse principall: but the nature of the thing instituted by him.

But the offering of any coloured sheep was indifferent before the Leviticall law: afterward, the offering of an unspotted lamb, was necessarie and essentiall in the worship of God. To which objection I answer, 1. This his opposition of offering any coloured sheep before the Leviticall law, to the offering of an unspotted lamb afterward, is vain and without ground from the law of God; seeing it doth no where appeare in the Scriptures, but that it was as lawfull to offer p. 24any coloured sheep after the law given as well as before. God requires by Moses, that the offerings of his people should be perfect, Levit. 1. 3. 10 &c. And this might well be notwithstanding diversitie of colour. The party-coloured sheepe of Iaakob were not imperfect, but of the perfectest sort, and that by the speciall direction and blessing of God, Gen. 30. 41. 42. with 31. 11. 12. God complaineth of those that offered corrupt sacrifices, torne, lame, and sicke, Mal. 1. 13. 14. But for difference of colour, there is little colour or shew of reason, that God gaue any such charge in his law. And it is the Doctors ignorance of the story, or want of due consideration that moved him thus to write. Secondly, suppose a lambe without spot to be forbidden, then I answer, That if any man before the commandement had offered an unspotted Lamb with the same mind that after it was to be offered with, as thinking that his sacrifice should in that respect hauehave been the more acceptable unto God, because it was of a lamb unspotted, then the offering of such a lambe had been as essential worship before, as it was after, though it could not be so true and lawfull.

Did the Def. never read nor heare, that matter and forme doe usually make up the essence of things? and that in institutions which are means to an end, the respect of that end is also required to the being, but a right efficient not so? let him consider a litle of the grounds of logick, or read our most logicall Divines, such as Sadeel is, and he shall soone perceive the truth. or else without that labour, let him or any other of common sence tell me, if the Temple of Ierusalem should hauehave been built with all the appurtenances, and sacrifices with other observances there used, without any commandement of God, according as they vvere by his appoyntment, had there not been essentiall false worship erected unto God? hauehave the Papists and Heathens no essential false worship, but onelyonly accidental? It is a shame to confute such unlearned conceits.

SECT. X.

HEre are many proofes conjoyned under the name of M. Hy. and others: the answers to which are just such as the ceremonies be, meerly formall, without essence or substance of truth.

The first is, ceremonies are imposed to breed an opinion of holinesse, as M. Hooker affirmeth, p. 61. and therefore are parts of Gods worship. The consequence is not denied by the Def. not yet the antecedent directly: so that the vvhole argument seemeth to be granted, onelyonly the Def. sayth, that Mr. Hooker did not asscribe operative holinesse either by infusion or inhesion (which two p. 25tearms are vnreasonably by him dis-ioyned) but onelyonly significatiue, as his words import. To which I answer, 1. that as the nice distinctions vvhichwhich are now used in the schooles of Iesuits, do not help, but that Popish superstition is as grosse as ever it was in practise: so this distinction of operatiue, infusion, inhaesion, significatiue, doth nothing helpe, but the common people in many places inclined to superstition, doe attribute as much holinesse to some of these ceremonies, as they doe to some holy ordinances of God. 2. The Patrones of our ceremonies, such as Mr. Hooker vvas, doe attribute that holinesse to the ceremonies vvhichwhich the Fathers did. Now that they asscribed operatiue holinesse unto some of them, Mr. Parker hath made, plaine in his booke of the Crosse, Part. 1. p. 77. 90 92. &c. 3. Mr. Hooker doth not here speake of reverence signified by the ceremonies, but of reverence to be signified towards them, as being things holy and vvorthy reverence. 4 What Mr. Hooker asscribed unto the crosse, is to be seen in M. Parker, p. 91.

The second reason is, because the ceremonies are the constitutions of a sacred Synod. The force of vvhichwhich argument lyeth in this, that a holy Assembly of spirituall Lords and their assistants, if they bee truely holy and spirituall in their authoritie, and in the exercise of it, will appoynt no ceremonies but holy: and by the the observance of the said ceremonies, hauehave some spirituall honour redounding unto themselues, because the vertue vvhichwhich is found in any effect, doth redound alwayes unto the praise of the cause. To this the Defendant giveth no reall answer: onelyonly he doth affirme (contrary to the truth) that our Convocations may bee called sacred, as well as the Churches of Christ Saints by calling. Whereas beside other differences, Churches are of God: our convocations are of man. Churches are gathered for the holy Worship of God: convocations (as experience sheweth) for nothing lesse.

The third reason is, because the ceremonies are appropriated to the acts of Religion in Gods service. To this the Defendant answereth by denying the consequence, because the Pulpit cloth, the communion cup, and the place of meeting are so appropriated, and yet not essentially holy. But herein he sheweth, that he doth not understand well vvhat it is that he opposeth. For these things wherof he speaketh, are onelyonly civill, being drawn from the ordinary civill customes of men, and are of the same use out of the service of God, that they are in it: and therefore howsoever some speciall individuals of this kinde may be appropriated unto religious acts, yet the kinde is not: neither hauehave those specialls any other signification in the service of God, then they hauehave in the service of men. These therefore are not such ceremonies as now are in question, nor so appropriated to religion.

p. 26The fourth confirmation is from Math. 15. vvhere such ceremonies are blamed of Christ by this reason. To this the Defendant answereth, that the act of washing is not there reproved, but the invention and opinion of an operatiue sanctitie and holinesse attributed unto it. But first, to vvhat purpose doth he deny, that the act of washing simply considered in it selfe, vvas unlawfull? was there ever any so durtie, that hee would affirme such a foule fancie? Secondly, the intention and opinion of holinesse is that vvhichwhich now our ceremonies are charged with. Therfore in that there is no difference. Thirdly, that the Pharisies attributed any more operatiue holinesse unto their washing then many amongst us doe to the crosse, cannot bee shewed out of the Text. There is not one circumstance there vvhichwhich may not fitly bee applied to our ceremonies. Fourthly, not onelyonly Calvin upon the place, sayth that… the inventing of such ceremonies vvas an idle vanitie, even before the high opinion of religion vvas added vntounto it: but Bellarmine himselfe De effect sacr. lib. 2. cap. 32. confesseth that Christ reproved this ceremonie in the Pharisies, because it was vaine and unprofitable.

SECT. XI.

HERE is set downe a reason of Mr. Hy. to proue that our Ceremonies in their use and practise are preferred and honoured aboue principall parts of Gods worship: because the ablest ministers that are, may not be suffered to exercise any ministerie in England, except they will apply themselves to these Ceremonies. To this the Defendant answereth, that it is dull So…histry: because by this meanes onelyonly an orderly and discreet Preacher is preferred before one that is factious and exorbitant.

Now, if ever, hee speaketh like an Ordinarie, like a Bishop, vvhen hee sitteth in his Pontificalibus, to iudge the poore according to the Lawes of iniquitie. It seemeth some galled place of his conscience was touched, vvhen mention was made of silencing able and godly ministers for trifling ceremonies of mans invention. How much better vvere it for such men to enter into their hearts betimes, and thinke vvhat answer they can giuegive unto God for such palpable treacherie? But to examine a little the reason that is in this answer; under the tearme of Dull Sophistri…: hee more then denieth the consequence of the reason: yet if it be rightly understood, all his wit will not avoyd the dint of it. For 1. thus I take the meaning, which is the practise: he that is an able godly minister, if he will not use these ceremonies, p. 27may not be suffered to hauehave place in the Ministerie: but he that will use these ceremonies, though he may neither comparatiuely to the other, nor any thing competently by himselfe, be either able or godly, shall hold his place in the Ministerie. Therefore these ceremonies are preferred before the maine things of the Law and Gospell. 2 I take it thus: though there cannot be found able & discreet conformable Ministers enough to supply all the Parishes of England, yet many able and godly men are shut out of the Ministerie because they vvill not conforme to these ceremonies: therfore conformity to these ceremonies is preferred before the maine duties of Gods vvorship. If all the Defendants sharpnesse of wit can answere the bluntnesse of this Argument, vvhichwhich every Plowman that is a good Christian doth usually make against the Prelats proceedings, then I for my part will be contented to be called dull, for from my childhood hitherto I ever took it to be unanswerable.

The comparison of the Lord Chancellor vvill doe him no help in this case. For that Chancellor were unworthy of his own place, vvho would for his own pleasure, or for the circumstance of a place, which may easily be changed, put out of commission a graue wise man, when another like unto him could not be found. Beside the case is nothing like: for in the circumstance of a place for commissioners to meet in, there can be no conscience pretended. But here offer hath been made by the Ministers thus wronged, solemnly to confirme by oath, that nothing but conscience doth keepe them from conforming.

Now for the sweet termes vvhichwhich it pleaseth the Def. heere to use, I vvill desire no more, then that he would bring them back againe to his owne conscience, and aske that before God, 1 whether old M. Midsly of Ratsdel, vvho after he had laboured neere 50 yeare in the Ministerie to the conversion of thousands, vvas inhumanely silenced by the Bishop of Chester, vvere a factious and exorbitant man? and that vvhichwhich I say of him because he belonged to Chester, I understand of many hundreds vvhichwhich hauehave in like manner been oppressed. No doubt the evill servant which is spoken of, Mat. 24 49, vvhen he began to beat his fellow servants better then himselfe, called them factious and exorbitant fellows: but he vvith all that are like him, know better, and one day shall be constreyned to giuegive other witnesse. 2 I vvould know of the Def. also whether all or the most of them vvhichwhich are in the Ministerie be orderly and discreet men in that religious meaning which belongeth to Ministers? This I am sure of, the voyce of all the Country goeth cleane otherwise. When M. Midsly, and his sonne after him vvere silenced at Ratsdel, all that country knoweth what p. 28an orderly discreet Preacher came into the place. When vvorthy M. Baines vvas silenced at Cambridge, as a factious exorbitant man, there vvas, beside many other unworthy Ministers, one commonly called the Vicar of hell, vvho vvas kept in, as an orderly discreet Preacher. 3 If faction and exorbitancie may be charged on them that neglect a ceremonious canon upon conscience, what name shall be found fit for the Prelates, vvho vvilfully, vvithout and against conscience continually liue in and by the breach of many substantiall, ancient and wholesome Canons? for this see M. Parker of the crosse, part. 2 c. 9 s 4.

SECT. XII.

HEre is alleaged the opinion vvhichwhich many people in all parts of the land hauehave concerning our ceremonies, viz. that the Sacraments are not rightly & sufficiently administred without them. To this the Def. answereth three things, 1 That most people hold the contrarie: 2 That the opinion of people in observing doth not proue the judgement of governours in imposing: 3 that it is most likely that those people which thinke so are brought into that conceite by the opposition which it made against the ceremonies. But first, I would faine know of the Defendant vvhy he passeth by in silence, not onelyonly the testimony of Chemnitius cited by the Abridgement for confirmation of this part of the assumption, but also the passages of Gods vvord, and many of the best Divines, vvhichwhich are also alledged there in the proposition, and applyed unto this part of the assumption by the Authors of the Abridgement? surely this is not plaine dealing. Secondly, I answer that the opinion of a few may make that an action unlawfull, vvhichwhich the opinion of many other cannot make lawfull, as is to be seen 1 Cor. 10 28, if any man say unto thee. Thirdly, it doth not appeare the most are otherwise minded. For the most being used unto the ceremonies, and not unto good teaching, may well be thought to hauehave the same opinion of humane ceremonies vvhichwhich they hauehave of divine. Fourthly, the Def. forgetteth vvhat vvas to be proved in this place: for the question is not onelyonly vvhether ou… ceremonies be so imposed, but also vvhether they be so esteemed and observed, as appeareth in the Abridgement. Novv the opinion of the people proveth I hope in vvhat manner they are esteemed and observed. And vvhile they are so observed, they that still impose them in those places vvhere they are so observed, may truely be interpreted so to impose them. In actions of this kinde (saith Hooker l. 5 p. 165) wee are more to respect what the greatest part of men is commonly prone to conceiue, then what some few mens wits may devize in construction of p. 29their particular meaning. Fiftly, the last conceit is ridiculous, that the opposing and condemning of ceremonies should make men thinke that the Sacraments are not sufficiently administred without them. The popish people (saith he) hauehave no great conceit of our ceremonies. Why is it then that Gretser, and some other Iesuits call our Prelats Calvino-papistae, Popish Calvinists? How is it that by these ceremonies vve are borne in hand that the Papists are likely to be drawn unto cōmunion vvith our Church? Whence is it that all our Church-papists are great maintainers of the ceremonies? The rest (saith he) which are not of your disciplining are not so many. O miserable out-facing of God and man… Who hath disciplined for this threescore yeares almost all the people of Wales? Who but the Prelates and their creatures hauehave had the disciplining of all the Cathedrall Churches in England, and all the poore Parishes that depend upon them? Who are the Discipliners of all the Non-residents and Pluralists forlorne charges? and who of the many ten pound cures? Doe these seem a few in the Def. eyes?

SECT. XIII.

THe omission of ceremonies is here alledged to be more sharply punished, then many great sinnes against the law of God, though it be vvithout so and all and contempt. To this the Def. answereth, first by denying the consequence, viz. that if this be so, then these ceremonies are preferred before the precepts of God, and unlawfull. But 1 vvhy saith he nothing to the Churches of Germanie, to Melancton, Martyr, Chemnitius, Bez…, Iunius, Lubbertus, Polanus, Bucanus, Pilkinton, Perkins, and the whole Clergie of England, brought in as allowing of this consequence, in the Abridgement? Are not all these worth one answer of the Defendants? 2 The reason that he giveth for punishing more severely the omission of a ceremony, then hainous sins, is frivolous. For the true peace of the Church doth more depend on the keeping of Gods lawes, then of observing mans inventions: especially of such things vvhichwhich never brought peace vvith them to any Church, but as fire from hell hauehave alwaies bred a combustion. Neither yet can the Defendant justifie that vvhichwhich he saith of civill governments, that they lawfully at any time more severely punish that offence which is every way lesse, then another vvhichwhich is greater. Howsoever, he that hath but halfe an eye may see that it is but a sophisticall evasion, common to our Prelates with the Papists. I will not therfore insist in this: if you please, you may see more of this matter in M. Parker of the Crosse, part. 2 c. 1 s. 16 17. He answereth in the second place, That it is not omission, but contempt that is punished, p. 30…s if … Counsellour should refuse to weare … L…yers gowne. But … meere omission hath been often punished with suspension. 2 The Convocation house by their Canons hauehave provided and appointed punishments for meere omissions. If those canons be not in all such points rigorously executed, it is either some personall good vvhichwhich is found in some Officers, or else meere shame. For though canons doe not blush, yet the executioners hauehave some forhead left. 3 There may be continued omission, upon other causes beside contempt, as ignorance, conscience &c. so that vvhile the Def. so peremptorily chargeth others for slandering the Church of God, he manifestly slandereth them, which for any thing I know are as much the Church of God as the Prelates. Concerning this contempt see more in M. Parker p. 2c. 1 s. 14. As for the Lawyers gowne, it is not long enough to cover the nakednesse of this answer; no though it be stretched to the length of one of our great Prelates long traines vvhichwhich are carryed up after them. For except the Counsellour would swear that he refused on conscience, and that he could shew the judgement of the best Lawyers for his opinion, condemning such a robe as unlawfull, the case is not like: and if the case be so put, I account that Lawyer worthy to be turned over the bar, that could not defend himselfe from contempt.

SECT. XIIII.

IN the next place, the same thing is confirmed by the particular indignities, vvhichwhich peaceable, learned, godly minded men doe suffer, for but declaring of their contrary judgement: as that they are accounted Puritanes, Schismaticks, and by canon excommunicated ipso facto, so as no Councell ever censured any heresie, vvithout liberty of appeal, vvhichwhich is not denyed to great malefactors. Conf. at Hampton. p. 26 …. 6 & 98. In the repeating of this Argument, I adde that out of the Abridgement, vvhichwhich the Def. for I know not vvhat reason, omitted. Now in his answer he neither denyeth antecedent, nor consequence, so that the judicious Reader may safely take all to be granted. Yet that he might seeme to say somevvhat, 1 he granteth that wee hauehave reason perhaps to wish, that some penalties were released. And hauehave we not reason then to think the Convocation vvhichwhich set these penalties was nothing lesse then led by the spirit of God? And if the Def. can thus shew his differing judgment from that Convocation in the penalties, what disorder or exorbitancy is it for another to shevv his differing judgment from them and him in ceremonies.

Secondly, closly sliding by the chiefest accusation of Puritanism, vvhichwhich yet is most ordinary, and most impure, he saith for schisme, p. 31that those vvhichwhich vvill not conforme unto our ceremonies doe teach the principles of Separation. To vvhichwhich I answer 1 That there vvas never yet any Prelate that confuted the opinion of Separatists any otherwise then by ralling vvords: vvhereas on the side, diverse most averse from conformity hauehave foundly confuted them. 2 Our principles doe no more tend to Separation, then Saint Iohns rule doth, vvho vvhen Diotrephes played the Dioecesan in the Church, did vvrite unto the faithfull people that they should not follow the evill vvhichwhich vvas among them, but the good, 3 loh. 11.

Thirdly, he talketh of diverse distractions in the Church, while some vvill heare onelyonly a conformable Minister, and some onelyonly an unconformable. But what is this to the purpose? For by this reason Conformers may as well be accused of schisme as Notconformers. Againe, if all did conforme, there would be still the like distractions for some would onelyonly heare preaching Ministers, and some would never bee present but at reading. Some vvould onelyonly heare godly Preachers: and some vvould onelyonly tast Lettice fit for their lippes. Who should then be the authours of schisme?

Fourthly, he telleth us that all Churches challenge a subscription to their orders. But 1 all Churches cannot possibly doe this lawfully: because some Churches doe directly contradict other in their decrees. 2 Few Churches require such a forme of Subscription as ours is, though they hauehave not the tenth part of doubts and difficulties in their formes, which we hauehave in ours. 3 I aske again that vvhichwhich M Parker hath asked vvithout an answer, that a Minister of the Gospell should be deprived for disusing Popish ceremonies, vvhen vvas it ever the judgement of any man vvhichwhich vvas of note for learning, unlesse he vvere interessed in the quarrell? Calvin, Bucer, B…za, Martyr, Zanchie, and many other hauehave given their judgement concerning those controversies: but shew either any of them, or among Iewel, Fulke, R…ynold, Whitakers, Perkins, or any such, that ever allowed of such tyrannie. If there vvere any one among them of that opinion, vve should hauehave heard of him. For our Defendant dares bring in the name heere of B…za himselfe as making for him: Notwithstanding B…za doth not onelyonly condemne our Ceremonies in plaine termes, Epist▪ 8, but also in this very place vvhichwhich is quoted out of Ep. 24 doth cashier our ceremonies in the first vvords quoted by the Defendant himselfe, Constitutions being thu… made &c. What understandeth the Defendant by thus, or ha… ratione? Surely those conditions going before, which doe as absolutely condemne our ceremonies as any argument in all the Abridgement.

SECT. XV.

AFter full satisfaction given to our Arguments about the point of the worship (as the Def. vvould hauehave the Reader beleeue) he commeth to confute our Assumption. viz. the ceremonies are not esteemed, imposed, and observed as parts of Gods worship. But first I would know of him, vvhy he that talketh so much every where of their own Witnesses their own Witnesses, doth here first of all giuegive no answer to our Witnesses, as hath been formerly shewed: and then passeth by that vvhichwhich is alledged in the Abridg. p. 40 out of his own Witnesses, D. Covel, and D. Walkes? If they be not his Witnesses, they are at least the ceremonies Witnesses: he should therefore hauehave given some respect. But we shall hauehave another Champion come after this Def. as it is likely, vvho vvill as little regard him. For justum est quod Spartae prodest, all is good that makes for the times.

Secondly, whereas he hath nothing to bring for confutation of our arg…ment, but onelyonly the judgement of the greater part of the imposers, I say, this is no vvay sufficient: For the question here is not onelyonly of imposing, but also of esteeming and observing.

Thirdly, I answer to the places alledged, that it cannot be Logically concluded either from any one, or from all of them, that they are not imposed as parts of Gods vvorship. We doe not attribute any holinesse or speciall worthiness (saith the canon) unto the garments. No more (say I) is any speciall holinesse or worthinesse to be attributed unto water: yet in baptisme it hath a holy relation to holinesse. The crosse is not of the substance of the Sacrament. What then? it may notwithstanding be vvorship: except the Def. will acknowledge no vvorship but in the Sacrament. These ceremonies may be altered and changed: by vvhom? By those that appointed them. Shew me any Papist that dares affirme that the Church of Rome hath not authority to alter & change the ceremonies which her selfe hath appointed. But the opposites doe acknowledge this. Abridg. p. 53. 55. just as much as this Def. doth in this place acknowledge the same of the Church of Rome, vvhen he saith in this very page, that Bellarmine with some other Papists seeme to disclaime the necessity of ceremonies, and the placing of holinesse in them. So that in all this Section there is nothing to be found but vaine conceited confidence.