Reply to Mortons Defense of Ceremonies, Response to chapter 1

Reply to Mortons Defense of Ceremonies · Response to chapter 1

p. 1CAP. I.

SECT. II.

VVHATSOEVER is objected in this Section for the All-sufficiencie or perfect fulnesse of the Scripture, I will take for granted, because nothing is denyed by the Defendant. It is granted therefore at the first entrance, that the Scripture condemneth whatsoever is done, not onelyonly against the vvarrant and direction of the Word, but also that vvhichwhich is done beside it.

SECT. III.

BVT that which before the Defendant durst not denie, now he commeth to oppose in the proofes of it: Which is a strange course, in him especially that professeth a distinct logicall proceeding.

In the propounding of our confirmation, I note two things once here in the beginning for all following occasions to be marked, 1 this Defendant doth us wrong in distributing our confirmations into those vvhichwhich are taken from Scriptures, and those that are from the Fathers, and those that are from Protestant Divines: as if these were in our estimation of the same kinde. Wheras we professe that vvee ascribe no force unto any testimony of man, as if it vvere a proofe, but onelyonly bring such allegations in as illustrations in regard of our adversaries perverse prejudice. 2 He vvrongeth us likewise in that difference vvhichwhich he insinuateth betwixt the Fathers and our Divines, calling their testimonies Iudgements, and the other onelyonly Confessions: we acknowledge no such imparitie. If this vvere nothing but idle rhetorick in the Defendant, it may be passed by.

In the answer brought to Heb. 3 2, vve hauehave this distinction given us: some points concerning religion are doctrinall, and some meerly ceremoniall. The former are sufficiently revealed in Scripture: but the latter are left to the libertie of the Church. But 1 vvhy is that denyed here by a distinction, which passed vvithout deniall or distinction in the former section? 2 vvhat kind of distinction is this, vvhichwhich doth not distinguish of any terme vvhichwhich is in the objection? 3 the Defendant should hauehave done vvell to hauehave explained and confirmed his distinction. For doctrinall opposed to ceremoniall in the formall signification of these vvords, I never heard of before that I remember: and sure I am no sound reason vvill allow. Ceremoniall is opposed to Morall, and sometime to substantiall; but to doctrinall it cannot properly, because there is ceremoniall doctrine as vvell as morall or substantiall. 4 To vvhichwhich of these points vvill the Def referre the Hierarchie of Bishops? or are they no points of Religion? For the negatiue part of this answer, that ceremoniall points of Religion are not revealed in the Scripture, but left to the libertie of the Church: it is too too nakedly set down for to beare any colour of truth vvith it. For 1 vvas this true before the comming of Christ? then all the ceremoniall law is Apocriphall. 2 is this true universally (as it is heere set down) in the new Testament? then vvater in baptisme, and bread and wine in the Lords Supper, are no ceremoniall points of Religion. 3 the caution that is given Deut. 4. 2 and such like, did they not conteyne in them ceremoniall points of Religion? then it vvas lawfull for the Iewes, to adde, detract, and alter the ceremonies according to their pleasure; and doth not that law binde us as vvell as the Iewes? then vve doe the Papists wrong, in putting them to so much trouble as vve doe in finding out shifts to avoide the dint vvhichwhich such places giuegive them.

But to leaue this mishapen distinction: An answer is given at length to the place alledged out of Heb. 3. 2 concerning the comparison betwixt Christ and Moses: sect. 4 5.

SECT. IIII.

IN this Section comparison is made betwixt Christ and Moses in reall faithfulnes, as he calleth it. But this sufficeth not to loose the knot. For Moses vvas faithfull in all the house of God, and Christ vvas not inferiour, but in all parts of his office Propheticall concerning all points of Religion, vvas no doubt as faithfull as Moses.

p. 3SECT. V.

HEre the Defendant can find nothing to bring out of Scripure for Christs faithfulnesse in rituall ordinances, but as Moses appointed ceremonies, so Christ removed them. Is not this a proper explication of Scripture, to interpret a similitude by a dissimilitude? The Scripture maketh Christ like unto Moses: this Defendant expoundeth the likenesse to be in this, that Christ pulled down that which Moses had set up.

Out of M. Calvin, Instit. lib. 4. c. 10. S. 30. he taketh upon him to decide this question. But he should hauehave dealt more plainly, and according to the scope of his author, if he had cited Bellarmine de pont. l. 4. c. 17. where the same words are according to his meaning. For in that place of Calvin there is nothing at all which vvithout grosse aequivocation will serve the Defendants purpose: For Calvins meaning was nothing lesse then to teach that Christ had given libertie unto men for to prescribe at their discretion mysticall signes in the Church: but onelyonly to dispose of such circumstances as in their kind are necessarie, but in particular determination doe varie. He instanceth in the next section in the circumstance of time, vvhat houre the congregation should meet: in the place, how large, or in what fashion the Church should bee built: in meere order, what Psalmes should be sung at one time, and what another time. These and such like circumstances of order and comelinesse, equally necessary in civill and religious actions are understood by Calvin: not significant ceremonies, proper unto religious worship, such as ours are now in controversie. This allegation therefore borroweth all the shew it hath from the ambiguous meaning of the word ceremonies.

The same deceit is in the known case which the Defendant adjoyneth to Calvins words. For if by Rites he meaneth such circumstances of order and decencie, as were before mentioned, then I grant all he saith: but if by Rites he meaneth ceremonies properly of religious nature, use, and signification, such as the crosse in baptisme, and surplice are knowne to be, then there is no reason in his speech. For 1. there is no necessitie that in any nation the Churches should hauehave any religious ceremonie of spirituall signification, beside those which Christ hath appointed to all: and if the Defendant can shew any such necessitie, then I would desire him also to shew by what rules, and for vvhat cause these religious ceremonies imposed upon us in England, are fitter for us, or tend more to our edification, then other ceremonies would, or then they would in any other nation under heaven. Except both these positions be proved, the words of this section are all but wind: and proved I am sure they never were nor will be.

p. 4SECT. VI. VII.

THe second place of Scripture handled by the defendant, is 2. Sam. 7. 7. Where I cannot but marvell why so resolute a disputer would passe by in silence, Deu. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Lev. 10. 12. all which places are alledged by the Lincolnshire ministers (against whom he professeth principally to write) & choose this place which they bring in after the former. Was there not a cause? But to take him as we finde him, he professeth plainly, that it vvas lawfull for David vvithout speciall vvarrant to build a house unto God: and in this he is so peremptory, that he condemneth the contrary opinion of notable precipitancie, and presumeth to make this example a ground of confutation against his adversaries, disputing as he pedantically speaketh first by extortion, and then by retortion out of this place. But if his extortion bee meere torting and torturing of the text, we need not feare his retortion.

Now that the purpose of David vvas partly condemned, appeareth plainly, 1. because it vvas prohibited, as here the Defendant in his answer expressely granteth. 2. Because as honorable M. Calvi… well observeth on Act. 7. 46. It was not lawfull for man to choose a place for Gods Name & Ark, but it was to be placed in that place which God himselfe should shew, as Moses doth often admonish. Neither durst David himselfe bring the Ark into the threshing floore of Arauna, vntill the Lord by an Angel from heaven had witnessed unto him that that was the place chosen by himselfe, 2. Sam. 24. 11. 3. Because it cannot bee absolutely excused from some mixture of rashnesse vvith zeal, that he should resolue absolutely to build an house unto God, before he knew either vvhat manner of house God vvould hauehave built, or when, or by whom: seeing vvithout the especiall direction and assistance of Gods spirit, nothing of this kind could bee well done. How could David hauehave built a house, except the Lord had filled vvith the spirit of vvisedome Bezaliel and Aboliab, or some such?

The Arguments brought by the Defendant for the contrary opinion are nothing worth. 1. Nathan (sayth he) had allowed the purpose of David, v. 3. But iudicious Iunius answereth (in his notes upon that place) that so Samuel out of humane infirmitie, said that Eliab vvas the man vvhom God vvould hauehave king, 1. Sam. 16. 7. 2. God calleth Da…id his servant, which hee never doth in reproofe. Which is not true, though the reproofe be for a thing simply evill: as is plainly to be seen Isa. 1. 3, …er. 2. 13. and in many such places, vvhere my people is as much as my servant. But the very word Servant also is twice thus used in one verse, Isa. 42. 19. much lesse when the affection is good in the generall, and blemished onelyonly p. 5by some circumstance. For then why may not a good title bee given as an allowance of that vvhichwhich is good, and yet the evill be at the same time reproved? so many learned divines doe interpret that of the Midwiues, Exod. 1. 19. 20. 21. Moses was reproved and brought to his graue for a sinne, and yet when his death is recorded, it is sayd that Moses the servant of the Lord died, Deut. vlt. The Churches are sharply reproved Rev. 2. & 3. and yet are stiled by the name of Churches, and golden Candlestickes: and their ministers who are chiefly reproved are called Starres. 3. there is another reason rendred by Salomon of this restraint. 1. Reg. 5. 3. 4. But the Defendant should mark that one reason doth not exclude another. In this place of Samuel two reasons are rendred, as Tremelius and Iunius note, the second of which is taken (as he saith) from the example of Davids auncestors, vvho never vndertook any such thing, because they knew the calling of God vvas to be exspected. 4. God himselfe commended this purpose of David. 1. King. 8. 17. As if the same affection may not in divers respects be both commended and condemned. But this evasion of Mr. Hy. 1 passe over, sayth the Defender, as childish and absurd. And why so I pray? 1. Because God himselfe did interpret this affection for a deed. 2. Hee did note this deed as speciall, saying in both respects, thou didst well, that it was in thy heart. In which words if there be any consequence, or good sence, then not onelyonly Mr. Hy. his evasion, but logick it selfe is childish and absurd.

SECT. VIII. IX. X. XI.

IN these passages two places of Scripture are obiected, vnderunder the name of Mr. Hy: but I verily thinke Mr. Hy hath some vvrong done him in the matter. Howsoever, I will not undertake to maintaine that these places are fitly alledged and urged: though by proportion the force of the argument used in those places (who required these things at your hands) is strong against our ceremonies. We will not imitate D. Cary now Bishop of Exeter, that proved the Surplice by the armour of light, Rom. 13. 12. nor them that prove kneeling at the communion, and at the word Iesus, out of the bowing of the knee of all creatures, Phil. 2. 10. nor those that fetch the crosse out of the letter Tau. Eze. 9. 4. Neither need the Defender please himselfe in this, that by some places of Scripture the ceremonies are not condemned: it is enough if they were condemned but by one onelyonly testimony of Scripture, or by one sound argument drawne out of Scripture, though no more could be brought. But what kind of dealing is this, for him that professeth a confutation principally of the Lincolne shire Ministers, to passe by divers texts of Scripture alledged by them, and to bring forth other of an vncertaine author, never publickly propounded in any of our writings?

SECT. XII.

THe last place of Scripture handled in this Argument, is Yer. 7. 31. the force of which, as it pertaineth to the purpose in hand, is in the last vvords, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The reason lieth thus (to take honorable Calvins interpretation upon the place) seing God under this title onelyonly condemneth that which the Iewes did, because hee had not commanded it them: therefore no other reason need be sought for the confutation of superstition, then that they are not by commandement from God. Now the Defendant answereth, that this was a thing forbidden, and in that sence was sayd not to be commanded. What is this to the purpose? therein lieth the strength of our argument: that not to command in things that pertaine to worship, is all one with forbidding. But you collect (sayth he) that this was not against, but onelyonly besides the word. It is not our collection but his owne vaine conceit. Our argument is drawne from the forme of speech here used. See Mr. Cartwright in his Reply p. 48. fully clearing this poynt. When I read this objection first (sayth he) I wondred that in disting…ishing besides the word and against it, you simbolized so well with Bell…rmine, in his distinction of mortall and veniall sinne. He was as it seemeth, in a wondring humour. But 1. why doth he not wonder not onelyonly at our late Divines, but at Chrysostome also, as symbolizing with Bellarmine, vvhen he in Gal. 1. 8. doth so distinguish betwixt teaching contrary to the Gospell, and beside the Gospell? Why doth he not wondringly also accuse Iunius for symbolizing with Bellarmine, while he refuteth Bellarmine by this distinction, contr. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 10? it were easie, if needfull, to produce other honorable partners in this fault: but we need no other then perswaders to subscription, vvho hauehave drawne divers into this net, by telling them, that though the things they stand upon be beside the word, yet they are not contrary thereunto, and that onelyonly is affirmed by subscribers. 2. Wee are not the authors of this distinction, but they which thereby excuse humane inventions in Gods worship. Wee are constrained to follow and ferret them in their own holes. See Mr Cartwr. Repl. p 36. 3 yet if need vvere, there might be shewed though not a reall, yet a rationall distinction betwixt these two. 4. The Defendants answer doth expresly herein symbolize with Bellarnine de Pout. l 4. c. 19.

For the other allegations of Scripture quoted in the Abridgement for confirmation of the same truth vvith the former, the Defendant referreth us to Chap. 2. Sect. 2. 3. 4. 5. vvhere onelyonly one of them is touched.

SECT. XIII.

TO many testimonies alledged out of the Fathers, answer is given, 1. That they speake not of things onelyonly beside the Scripture, but of things contrary: which answer is againe repeated under the forme of a distinction betwixt Scriptura negans, and negata. 2. They speak not of ceremonies, but of doctrines.

To vvhichwhich the reply is easie: 1. our meaning is mistaken, I feare, wilfully, when wee are made authours of an opposite distinction betwixt beside and against in this case. It sufficeth vsus that beside in poynts of religion, bee all one with against. 2 Though those generall sayings be applyed to doctrines in most of the places alledged, yet that hindereth not, but▪ the truth of them may be taken so generally, as to include also religious ceremonies. A particular or proper conclusion may be drawne from a generall proposition, and yet the proposition remaine generall still in the largest extent that it is capable of.

SECT. XIIII.

TO the testimonie of Tertullian de Cor. c. 2. That is prohibited which is not permitted, two things are likewise answered, 1. that it maketh not against our ceremonies, for they are permitted: vvhichwhich is nothing else but a meere shift. For Tertullians meaning must needs bee of other permission then the Defendant can chalenge to our ceremonies, though he begg the question: otherwise there should be no sence in his words. 2. he sayth, Wee may blush to speak of Tertullian in this case: because hee professeth traditions in the same booke. To which I answer: that then all our writers may blush vvho alledge many things out of the fathers which they in other places gainesay. 2. Wee blush not to make vse of truth where we finde it, though error follow it at the heeles; rather let our Idolizers of the Fathers blush, vvhen they see their shame. Yet of this answer wee shall hauehave occasion to make use hereafter.

SECT. XV.

IN this Section answer is made to some allegations brought out of Protestant Writers (not unto all vvhichwhich the Abridgement citeth for the perfection of the Scriptures) where 1. the Defendant answereth for himselfe, that his meaning was not of matters meerly ceremoniall. And so, say I, the meaning of our argument vvas not of such meere ceremonies as the Defendant here describeth in the end of this Section, if he meane by meere ceremonies mere order and decencie: but our ceremonies are of another nature, because they hauehave doctrine or teaching in them, and therefore are doctrinall, as he pleaseth to speak, or mixt, 2. confessing that in one place he speaketh of ceremonies, he limiteth his speech to such ceremonies as are made essentiall parts of a sacrament, as Milke in stead of Wine: sopping in of bread into the cup, and wringing in of the grape; these ceremonies hee accounteth doctrinall. But here I vvould faine heare a good reason, vvhy sopping of the bread into the cup is more doctrinall, or more against the vvord, then the crosse in baptisme. Bread and Wine were ordained by Christ to a holy use in the Church: so is not the crosse: sopping hath some agreement vvith reason: crossing hath none; sopping was vsed by Christ himselfe the same night, and at the same table vvhere the sacrament was appointed: crossing vvas never used by Christ or his Apostles. In sopping there is no new materiall signe appointed, but a new fashion onelyonly of vsing the old: in crossing a new signe is obtruded. So that sopping seemeth to bee better then crossing. If opinion of necessary use doth put a difference: our men can easily conclude in the Convocation house, that it is not the opinion of the Church of England, and then all will be well. If sopping seeme to bee a part of the sacrament: crossing when it is done in the very act of sprinkling, (as many times it is) maketh as much shew of bearing a part in baptisme. But what if out of the Lords Supper, a little before, or a little after, vvhile the prayers are making vvhichwhich belong to the Supper, there should be appointed such a sopping to bee used of all that communicate for mysticall signification, I vvould know of the Defendant whether this were allowable or no by his doctrinall distinction? If not, vvhy should he shew more favour to the crosse?

In excusing of B. Iewel, and D. Whitakers, nothing is sayd by the Defendant, which hath not formerly been confuted.

Now it might bee here expected, that the Defendant should hauehave sayd something concerning those generall rules which God hath set downe in his vvord for the direction of the Church in rites and orders Ecclesiasticall, mentioned by the Lincolne-shire Ministers in this argument, p. 44. But neither here, nor in any other place of this booke, doth the Defendant so much as indevour to shew that our ceremonies are needfull and profitable for the edification of the people, by the more comely and orderly performance of that service which hee hath expresly prescribed in his word. This is a main matter vrged in the Abridgement, vvithout which the ceremonies cannot be innocent in their vse: and all that the Defendant p. 9hath hitherto endevoured to answer is in the Abridgement brought in to other end then to proue that no ceremonies are to be brought into the Church vvithout those conditions: and yet for all this, our ceremonies in this chiefe poynt are left destitute of all defence. If therefore all were granted which the Defendants argumonts or answers in this booke maintaine, yet the ceremonies wil be found nocent, and to be rejected, if it be but for their unprofitablenesse, according to that of Basil, foreign.

SECT. XVI.

THE Defendant here undertaketh to proue, that God in the scriptures hath granted a generall licence or authoritie to all Churches, to ordaine any ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God. But what if this were granted? what is it to the purpose? what maketh it for our ceremonies in controversie, except he can shew that they are fit for the better serving of God? Now this he no where undertaketh to prove, nor dare, I thinke, professe so much in writing, without many vnwarrantable limitations.

The onelyonly scripture he bringeth is, 1. Cor. 14. 26. 40. concerning order and decencie, a place much profaned by the patrons of our ceremonies, as shall be shewed. This place is vsed (sayth he) by Fathers and all Divines, for one and the same conclusion. It is much used, I grant, and as much abused. But 1. it is not used by all Divines, to proue the institution of such ceremonies as ours lawfull. For they are much mistaken vvhichwhich think our ceremonies to be mere matters of order: and as for decencie, they hauehave been often proved to be farre from it: which of it selfe to every indifferent eye is more then apparant. 2. it is not used to this purpose by any that hauehave authoritie sufficient to perswade us that it will beare such a conclusion, except they will shew us by what Logick they form their consequence, which the Defendant is not able to doe for them. 3. This scripture being rightly understood, doth not onelyonly not justifie such ceremonies as ours, but plainly condemneth them. For the manifesting of which assertion, because it may seem strange to those eares that are accustomed to other sounds, I will here distinctly set down an argument drawn out of these words, against such ceremonies as ours are.

All that is left vntounto the Churches liberty in things pertaining unto Gods worship, is to order them in comely maner. This is manifestly collected out of the place in question: so the Defendant seemeth to grant, so P. Martyr vnderstandeth it, as is to be seen in his commentarie upon 1 Sam. 14. which judgement of his is cited and approved by p. 10D. Whitaker de Pont p. 841. & 844. confirmed also by Iunius against Bell. cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86. 87. &c. 17. n. 9. 10. 12. 13. where he sheweth that Christ is the onelyonly law-giver that appointeth things in his Church: and that he hath appointed all that are requisite: and that the Church maketh no lawes (properly so called) to appoint any new things to be used, but onelyonly canons, orders, directions, ordering in seemly maner those things which Christ hath appointed: and that if she addeth any thing of her own, she doth decline. The reason is, because unto her is commited no authoritie of appointing new things, but a ministerie to observe and doe such things which Christ hath appointed. vide etiam Iun. de transl. imper. l. 1. c. 2. n. 26. 27. 31. This is also confirmed by sound reason, both in respect of the wisdome required in all law-makers, & perfectly found in Christ, and also in regard of the nature of such institutions. For the former reason teacheth, (as Aristotle sheweth Rhet. 1. 3.) that all which possibly may, should be appointed in the law by the giuer of it, and nothing left unto the ministerial iudges, but that which must needs be left, as matters of fact, &c. Now in the worship of God, all but particular circumstances of order, may easily bee appointed (as in very deed they were) by our law-giver Christ. As for the nature of such institutions, that doth also require so much: for whatsoever is aboue civilitie therein, if it bee not a circumstance of order, it is worship, and therfore invented by man, unlawfull will-worship. For vvhatsoever is used or acted by him that worshippeth God, in that act, it must needs be either grounded on civill humane considerations, and therefore civilitie: or an act and means of worship, and therfore worship: or the ordering and manner of disposing those acts & meanes, and therefore lawfull, if lawfully and fitly applyed: or else, at the least, idle and vaine, and therefore to be avoided, according to that of Basil, foreign: A fift cannot be given. By all this it may appeare, that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what she will, no not of things in their own nature indifferent, and say they be in order, or for order: but onelyonly to order those things vvhichwhich God hath appointed.

Thus farre the proposition, or first part of my syllogisme: the assumption followeth.

But to appoint & use the ceremonies as we doe, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to Gods worship. The reason is, because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing, but onelyonly the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted. This appeareth 1. by the notation which is given of the word it selfe, which both in greek & latine is taken from the ranking of soldiers in certain bounds & limits of time & place. Dicebāt enim militibus tribuni, hactenus tibi licet, hic consistes, eô progrediere, huc p. 11revertere, foreign, inde ordo Scalig. and 2 by the definitions which are given therof, by Philosophers and Divines. Tull. off. lib. 1 eadem vis videtur ordinis & collocationis. Ordinem definiunt compositionem rerum aptis & accommodatis locis. Locum autem actionis, opportunitatem dicunt esse temporis. Aug. de civit. lib. 15 cap. 13 order is the disposition which fit places to things equall and unequall, id est, when things are handsomely ranked, some to goe before, and some to follow, as P. Martyr expoundeth it, loc. com. cl. 4 c. 5.

3 The same also is confirmed by our Divines, vvho usually giving instances of order, doe infist in time, place, and such like circumstances, making a difference betwixt mysticall ceremonies and order, many times condemning the one, and allowing the other: as the divines of France and the low Countries, in their observations on the Harmonie of Confessions Sect. 17 Beza Ep. 8. Iun. in Bell. append. tract. de cultu imaginum c. 7 n. 12 13 14.

4 By the context of the Chapter, viz. 1 Cor. 14. it plainly appeareth, that order is opposed to that confusion spoken of v. 33, and therfore importeth nothing but that peaceable proceeding vvhereby they that should speak, speak one by one, and the rest attend, &c. v. 30 31. So Basil expoundeth it, shewing order to consist in sorting of persons, some to this, and some to that according to their office, and in determining of time and place, foreign: p. 459. foreign. and p. 530. foreign.

Lastly, neither Luk. 1 8, neither in any place of Scripture doth the word order import any more then hath been said.

As for comelinesse, that is nothing but the seemlinesse of order. For as P. Martyr saith in 1 Cor. 11: it is such a tempering of actions as vvherby they may more fitly atteine their end. Otherwhere it may conteine that natural or civill handsomenesse, which is spoken of ch. 11 13, as it doth ch. 12 23, and so includeth all that which is grounded on civility, as a faire cloth and cup for the communion, a faire and firme vessell for baptisme: but not the appointing of new mysticall ceremonies, for then such ceremonies were here commanded to all Churches, vvhichwhich the Def. I think vvill not say: and then the Apostolick Assemblies should hauehave worshipped God uncomelily.

p. 12Thus we hauehave both proposition and assumption of our Argument against the ceremonies confirmed out of this place, which the Defendant choose as the onelyonly place that could be brought for them. Now I hope vve may adde the Conclusion.

Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawfull.

SECT. XVII.

COncerning the Fathers vve are told out of Zanchius, that they had alwaies some universall ceremonies, as certaine feast daies, not appointed by God. To this vve answer, 1 If this alwaies bee taken in the largest extent, to signifie from the beginning, wee cannot beleeue the truth of this Assertion: neither can the Defend. proue it. Who can think, that presently upon the Apostles departure, their disciples should presume to be vviser then their Masters? 2 the first beginning of these feasts, vvas not by canonicall imposition to binde men unto new ceremonies, but a voluntarie accommodation in respect of the infirmity of some in the Church, or comming towards it. This appeareth by the variety vvhichwhich was betwixt one Church and another in observing of them; and by the testimonie of Socrates, alledged and allowed by this Defend. himselfe, Apol. p. 2 lib. 2 c. 9. 3 The mischiefe that came in by these observations, in that they so soone overshadowed, obscured, and justled out of dores the simplicitie of the Gospell, and many ordinances of Christ, do sufficiently shew, that the fathers in these things had neither direction nor blessing from God.

But that which the ancient Churches of Christ did alwaies maintaine may not be deemed to derogate from the authority of holy Writ. If alwayes include the Apostolicall times, I grant. If otherwise, then let the Def. take to himselfe that vvhichwhich he unreasonably cast upon us before, of symbolizing with Bellarmine con. l 4. c. 9. The same answer which our Divines giuegive there, will serue here. Wherunto may be added that vvhichwhich M. Parker hath in his book of the Crosse, p. 2 ch. 9 s. 6 and de Polit. Eccles. l. 2.

SECT. XVIII.

FOr Protestant Divines, Bellarmines confession is alledged, who saith, That Protestants grant that the Apostles did ordaine certaine Rites and Orders, belonging to the Church, which are not set down in Scripture, cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. To vvhichwhich I answer, 1 Rites and Orders may be ordained, though such ceremonies as ours be unlawfull. And Bellarmines meaning could not be of such Rites as our Ceremonies p. 13are, except he spake against his conscience, for he confesseth, de cult: sanct. l. 3 cap. 7, that some of our Divines, as Brentius by name condemne such as unlawfull. 2 Bellarmine craftily bringeth in this confession of our diviues, that he may make them contradict themselues, as appeareth in the same place. His Confession therefore in this place is not so indifferent, as the Def. would hauehave it: 3 our Argument is not from the Scriptures negatiuely against the authority of the Apostles, which vvas all one with that of the Scriptures, and therefore understood in our Proposition, but against the ordinarie authority of the Church. Except therfore the Def. can proue either that our ceremonies vvere the rites brought in by the Apostles, or that our Convocation house hath the same authority vvhichwhich the Apostles had, this confession of Bellarmine is nothing to the purpose.

SECT. XIX.

HEre the Protestants themselues are brought in confessing as much as Bellarmine said of them. But the first witnesse Chemnitius saith nothing, but that some Ecclesiasticall rites, though they hauehave no commandement or testimonie in Scripture are not to be rejected: vvhichwhich in the sense now often expounded, I willingly grant. Yet the Def. should not in stead of Testimonie of Scripture, hauehave put warrant of Scripture: For testimonie neither in usuall acception, nor yet in Chemnitius his own meaning, is so large as warrant.

The place of Calvin hath been answered before. Iunius is plainly of the same minde, and so to be interpreted, so also Zanchius, Daneus and Whitaker: But because Iunius is stiled here by the Def. vvith his deserved title of Iudicious, it will not be amisse to shew his judgement fully about such additions as our ceremonies are. To name therefore one place for all at this time, because there he speaketh professedly his judgement, and bindeth it with a solemn oath, for the sincerity and impartialnesse of his conscience in that behalfe: The place I meane is in his Ecclestasticus, lib. 3 cap. 5. towards the end. Where first he distinguisheth betwixt things necessarie, and others not necessarie in the administration of the Church: and concerning even the latter sort, he modestly, but throughly sheweth how little libertie is left unto men. If any man (saith he) either by Civill or Ecclesiasticall authority will adde things not necessarie nor agreable to order, wee would not pertinaciously contend with him, but desire onelyonly that he would seriously consider of three things. 1 By what authority or example he is led to thinke that the holy Church of God, and the simplicity of the mysteries of Christ (whose voyce onelyonly is p. 14heard by his sheep, Iunius here speaketh to our Defen. who pag. 3. calleth his ceremonies The garments of Religion.according to the commandement of the Father, Ioh. 10 27) must be clad with humane traditions, which Christ doth reject … 2 To what end he judgeth that his things should be added unto those that are divine? For if the end be conformitie with others, it were more equitie, that other Churches should conforme to those which come neerest to the word of God, as Cyprians counsell is, then that these should conforme to the other. If the end be comelinesse, what is more comely then the simplicity of Christ? what is more simple then that comelinesse? If there be no other reason beside will, then that of Tertullian is to be thought of, the will of God is the chiefe necessitie, and that the Church of God is not tyed unto mans wills in things divine. The 3 thing to be thought on it, what event alwaies hath followed upon humane Traditions, as daily experience doth shew.

This vvas the judgement of Iudicious Iunius, vvherby it is manifest that he favoured not our ceremonies, nor would hauehave pleaded for them as the Def. under colour of his name.

Because Zanchius also is brought in with his deserved Title of a profound Divine, speaking nothing to the purpose in hand, I will set down his judgement concerning this point, out of that Epistle to famous Qu. Elizabeth, vvhere he treateth expresly of ceremonies, and of our ceremonies. Est autem Ecclesia sicut in doctrina, sic etiam in ceremoniis ad Ecclesiae Apostlicae regulam informanda. The Church must be ordered by the rule of the Apostolicall Church, as vvell in ceremonies as in doctrine. What can be said more contrarie to the Def. his distinction?

SECT. XX.

AT length vve are come to Reason. But if this reason were sound and certaine, I see no cause vvhy it should not hauehave had the upper hand of humane testimonies.

1 The first reason is grounded on the Defendants phantasie meerly. For it supposeth that vve hold some points of Religion to be onelyonly besides the Word, and no vvay against it: vvhichwhich not onelyonly I hauehave confuted before as a cavill, but M. Cartwright long since in his Reply, p. 56: the very vvords also of this argument which the Def. here opposeth doe shew that vvee hold such things condemned by the Scriptures, and therefore against the generall rule of them, though onelyonly beside their particular prescription.

2 The second reason concludeth nothing vvhichwhich we will not grant, in the sense formerly expressed, viz. that by those some ceremonies be meant circumstances of meere order, and by man… invention, be understood mans particular determination. Otherwise p. 15the assumption is palpably false. Beside the proposition also is untrue, if foreign a thing indifferent, be taken in such a generall sense as some time it is found used in by Divines. Vide Sopingii Apologet. respons. ad lib. anonym. p. 166.

3 The third and last reason is taken from the difference of ceremonies vvhichwhich may and must be in the Churches of Christ. The answer is, that this difference ought to bee onelyonly in determination of particular circumstances of order, for time, place, &c.

SECT. XXI.

THis sect. is of al other most ridiculous. For, first it supposeth every circūstance to be of the like nature with the ceremonies in controversie. Secondly, it supposeth all circumstances to be of institution. Thirdly, it supposeth contrary circumstances ceremoniously to be practised, by the same men as of institution: for otherwise the cavillation hath no shew. Now all these are conceited dreames. But vvhat if vve should argue thus? You say these ceremonies are divine: and yet dare not deny but the rejecting of them in other Churches is divine. You retaine these ceremonies as divine, and yet hauehave rejected other ceremonies of like nature as divine as these. What divinitie is in such courses?

SECT. XXII.

AFter al this adoe about the proposition of the first argument, now vve are told of an assumption out of the Abridgment, and M. Hy. viz. that these Ceremonies hauehave no warrant from the word of God. For M. Hy. I cannot say much: But I am sure the Authors of the Abridgement hauehave great vvrong done them. Whosoever vvill turne to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abridgement, shall presently see that the words vvhichwhich our Def. hath turned into a Proposition, are there but part of an illustration belonging to this Proposition, All ceremonies that swerue from the rules given in the word for the Churches direction in matters of ceremonie, are unlawfull. The assumption of vvhichwhich is, but the ceremonies in question swerue from those Rules. Now all the chiefe pith both of proposition and assumption is by the Def. omitted: a by thing is put in place of the proposition, a new assumption is formed: and yet, all fatherd upon the Abridgment. But to passe by that, the assumption here set down is defensable enough.

He telleth us that in generall and in permissiue appointment, these ceremonies are from God, and divine. A permissive appointment, I never heard of before, nor can understand how it vvill be excused from an implicit contradiction. But for the explaining of himselfe, he bringeth Calvin affirming that some constitutions of the Church founded in Scripture, may be called divine, because they are parts of that decencie vvhichwhich God hath commanded. All which being granted, and the like saying of Vrsin, maketh nothing at all for such ceremoniess as ours are, except the Def. can proue, that they are constitutions of meer order and decencie, agreeable also to the other rules prescribed: the contrary whereof hath been formerly declared. One rule of direction vvhichwhich he calleth equity, is heere onelyonly touched, and commeth after to be handled, to vvhichwhich place I reserue it.

Thus much for the maintenance of that Argument which the Def. maketh the first.