CHAP. I.
Generall arguments against the Liturgie.

GOod morrow to you friend Nouatus, how haue you fared this cold Christmas.

Brother Irenaus, as my body is in health: so my minde is ill apaid to heare your good morrow; sauouring of Paganisme [Page 2] (being drawne from Bonum mane, vsed by the Romans) and your Christmas of Poperie, which ioyneth the Masse to Christ, as an Asse to an Oxe; or Dagon to Gods Arke.

The Latine word mane properly see­meth to signifie nothing but gracious or peace­able: whence we translate Manes, good spi­rits: and immanis Cruell. In which sense if we interprete Bonum mane: it shall betoken nothing but grace or Peace be with you: which kind of salutation soundeth more of heauenly Scriptures, then of earthly heathens. But if mane be taken for the morning, as being the most gracious time of the day: wherein the brayne is Cooled: the stomacke strengthe­ned: the heart tempered: and the spirits re­paired: How can this greeting of good mor­row more displease then haile, or [...] vsed by Luke 1. 28. the Angell to the Virgine: which as it see­meth to be deduced from Ionice [...] pro [...]. vt in [...]. [...], a season: So before Luke vsed it, the heathens did vsurpe it. For Agylla (chiefe Citie of Hetruria) was called Coere (as some thinke) of [...]. which was vsed by a Citizen in scorne to a Pelasgian besieger, the same day the Citie was sur­prised.

To let your Latine and Poetry passe: praier in common talke bewrayes little reverence. A­gaine Iohn 10. we ought not to salute or pray with them, whose religion is to vs vnknowne.

To let passe your hard Censures, by [Page 3] which you cut out the tongues of tongues: and plucke out the hearts of artes: Is there not a prayer exprest in the common talk of Ruth. 2. 4. Boaz and his reapers? Though the phrase haile were a­bused by hypocriticall Iudas, and the prophane heard of the people, (which preferre their sa­lutations before their saluations:) Can it not therefore with conuenient reuerence bee vsed by the Angell? Are not some sudaine ciacula­tions, reuerent prayers? As for your Scripture it is wrested. For Saint Iohn forbiddeth on­ly familiar greetings of knowne heretiques. The same Apostle elsewhere, permitteth vs to pray for all, (except the 1. Iohn 5. 16. sinners against the holy ghost.)

I esteeme not what you speake of prayer, who seeme to be ignorant of the meaning there­of: forasmuch as you loue the masse, a fatall enemy to all true prayer. And this appeares not only, because you familiarly name Lammas: Michel­mas: Christmas: Candlemas: But also because (I take it) you haue there in your hand an English Masse-booke.

The Saxons vsed this word Mas, or Mes for a feast: in which sense these times are so termed by vs, without any imitation of the Popish masse. Now if you can proue that the booke of Common prayer is a Masse booke, I shall not be so backward as not to consent: nor so froward as not to confesse the truth.

First in generall I thus obiect against your [Page 4] Liturgie: That which is taken out of the Masse booke of the Pope, who is an Idolater, Antichrist, and out of the Church: the same is to be reputed as the Masse booke. But such is your Liturgie. Er­go, &c.

I answer to your Maior: First, that the two former attributes which you ascribe to the Pope are impertinent: except your speech bee thus limited. That which is drawne from the Pope as he is an Idolater, &c. For else Saint Acts 17. 28. 1. Cor. 15. 33. Titus 1. [...]2. Iames 1. 17. Paul and Saint Iames had erred in borrow­ing the speeches of heathenish and Idolatrous Poets.

But it is written Deut. 12▪ 4. thou shalt not doe so: Therefore we may not pray as Idolaters doe.

If wee referre that precept to the fift verse: where the Hebrewes are forbidden to sa­crifice elsewhere then at the Tabernacle: it is meerely Ceremoniall neither can bind vs: But if it bee referred to Images in the third verse, it is morall indeed, but forbiddeth only communion with idolaters in that wherein they are such, and not otherwise. For exam­ple kneeling in prayer before Iupiters image is forbidden. Heere simply and absolutely in prayer kneeling is not interdicted. For it is a Dictate of nature that kneeling is a gesture a­greeable to Gods worship: But to doe this before the idoll of Iupiter (who was but a King, or is but a Planet, that is only prohibited as idolatrous.

[Page 5]

We shall dispute more largely of the par­ticular obiections, wherefore I proceed; The Pope is Antichrist: Therefore whatsoeuer is taken out of his Portuise, is Antichristian.

This is not vnlike an argument of a cer­taine Arrian, confuted by Zanchius. The Tri­nity is Defended by the Pope who is Antichrist, It is therefore Antichristian. In like manner wee might thus reason: The Turke (whom some count Antichrist, and all an Apostate) yea the Deuill acknowledgeth one God: The Pagans also beleeue that there is a God. To ac­knowledge therefore and beleeue these things is Turkish, Deuillish, Heathenish. In all these arguments there are the same Ab accidente. A dicto simpli­citer. Principij petitio non causa, &c. fallacians for ignorance of a limitation.

Antichrist is an Arch-heretique, whatso­soeuer therefore he maintaineth is hereticall.

To the old errour you adde a new, like Drunkenesse to thirst; the old appeares in the Consequence. For heresie (as the Greeke [...], to choose. word sheweth) is a choice of some errour direc­ly impugning the foundation of Religion. Now, where election is, there must needs be some refusall, so that he which reuolteth from all points of truth, ceaseth to be an heretique, and becommeth an Apostate, A Pagan, An Atheist: or some other monster. Your new errour is in the antecedent, wherein you say that An­tichrist is a chiefe heretique: For antichristianitie consisteth not so much in errour, and he­resie. [Page 6] as in tyranny ouer mens Consciences: to which it ioyneth things indifferent, as necessa­ry to Saluation.

I am glad you haue swallowed this bait: For I shal hereafter proue by this definition that your Seruice Booke is Antichristian: Meane while tell me is the Popes third attribute (namely that he is out of the Church) impertinent also to the matter?

More pertinent, but lesse true: For though the Pope, were neither in nor of, the Catho­lique: Better Catho­lique. yet certainly he is in the visible Church; As thus may appeare. First Antichrist (whom you take to be the Pope) sitteth in the Temple of God; that is, in the Church visible: Second­ly, the Pope (by your confession) is an here­tique. Now, that an heretique is in the Church, we know, both because none can be excommu­nicated but tbose that are within the Church. Neither will any deny that heretiques doe de­serue excommunication. As also because here­tiques, repenting after excommunication, are receiued into the bosome of the Church, with­out new Baptisme: which could not bee, if they werc vttterly cut off from the Church. Third­ly no Baptisme can be out of the Church: But in the Popes iurisdiction is true baptisme, which by no meanes can be iterated, vnlesse there come some violent Smith at Amsterdam. spirit which for haste will rebaptise himselfe. Not vnlike a frantque man, who though meate be present: yet, vpon pre­tence [Page 7] of hunger, eateth the flesh of his owne arme. The Pope therefore remayneth within the territories of the visible Church. Hitherto of your Maior. Now to your Minor wee say. That wee extract our Liturgie, not from the loynes, or lines of the Pope, but from Gods Word, and the primitive Church: howsoeuer the Pope may seeme to haue vsed, or vsurped the same.

Let not him that putteth on the Sword boast as he that putteth it off: For I hope shortly to refell what you haue said. Now from the Plat­forme of your Liturgie, I come to treat of the Second ge­nerall obiecti­on: the Litur­gie a Lethar­gie. end and purpose thereof: which seemeth to be, first, the hindrance of Preaching Sermons.

Proue that, and then raile your [...]ll.

That, whose length is such, that it taketh from the Minister, both conueniencie of time, alacritie of minde, and strength of bodie, in re­gard of preaching; the end thereof is the hin­drance of preaching: but such is your Liturgie: Ergo.

A cloud without raine. Your minor is vntrue: For first oftentimes the Preacher is not the same with the Reader: Especially in Catherall Churches and Chappels, as also where there is a Curat, or Coadiutor. Second­ly, one of the Chapters is in many Churches read by the Clark. Thirdly, part of the Psalmes, and other answers, are dispatched by him and the people. Fourthly, the Commination; Leta­ny, [Page 8] the Nicene and Athanasian Creedes, and di­uers other things are not appointed at all times to be read. Fiftly, many things may be omitted at the Ministers discretion, according to times, places, persons, actions. By all which it appeareth that the Minister is not so much tired before hee begin to preach, as you pre­tend.

In stead of medicines, you reckon so many diseases: as shall hereafter appeare. Now the se­cond end of your Liturgie is to quench all zeale in the people by the wearisome prolixitie thereof:

Your faction (so infamous for long prayers, vnder colour whereof widowes houses are de­uovred) should in this point haue beene more silent. Againe the length of this dutie should breed a certaine reuerence in vulgar mindes, which vse to contemne those things that are passed ouer with perfunctory brevitie: Lastly, the variable delight which commeth by hearing, singing, answering, doth rather kindle, then wea­ry deuotion.

CHAP. II.
Of set Prayer imposed by men, and of subscription.

IT followeth now: That wee produce those speciall argu­ments which impugne the Li­turgie. Which Booke is of two sorts. The old, compilde in the dayes of Edward the Sixt: which wanted the Psalmes, Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels: and the new composed in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and now established.

Remember by the way, that you oppose your selfe not only to Religious Princes: but euen to the glorious Martyrs.

Princes and Martyrs might erre. And it may be that Hooper, and some other Martyrs, did afarre off descry this land, which now wee haue found out. Vpon whose authoritie notwithstan­ding I rely not; but proceed to the old Liturgie. Wherein I will handle, First, the Circumstances, then the Substance. The Circumstances are foure. First, the person inioyning. Secondly, time. Third­ly, place. Fourthly, Ornaments inioyned. Concer­ning the Person inioyning, or the authoritie there­of, three questions may seeme to be moued: First, whether Prayer may be set? Secondly, whether it [Page 10] may be imposed by men? Thirdly, whether Sub­scription may be yeilded thereunto?

As in that which is called Parelius, though three Sunnes appeare, there is but one true Sunne; the other being only reflections thereof. So these questions three in appea­rance, are but one in substance. For if prayer may be set, it may be imposed by men. Neither may wee refuse to subscribe to that which au­thoritie doth lawfully impose.

Confound you the questions as you please. I will first thus argue against Set Prayer. Euerie thing lawfull is commanded in the Scripture: Now; Set Prayer is not commanded. Ergo.

Your Maior I thus oppose. Things in­different are not commanded and yet lawfull: Some lawfull things therefore are not com­manded.

I meane things lawfull in Gods worship.

To bring a Bible to the Church is not commander. Neuerthelesse it is lawfull in Gods worship. Ergo, &c.

It is commanded not Directly, but by Con­sequence: as being an helpe to Gods worship.

To sit, or stand in Preaching is not com­manded by the Consequence, and yet lawfull in Gods worship, as being vsed by Christ: Ergo. Besides your Minor failes. For Set Prayer is commanded. As appeares by Scriptures. Numb. 6. 23. Deut. 26. 13. & 15. Psalme 78. in Iohn 7. 37. and 18. 12. the title. Ier. 10. 11. Matth. 6. 9. Luke 11. 1.

[Page 11]

These testimonies shall be examined, when we intreat of the Lords Prayer. Now further, I thus reason. True Prayer hath the spirit of Prayer. But Set Prayer hath it not. Ergo.

The Spirit of Prayer is double. First, by infusion, which giueth abilitie to inuent extem­porall Prayer. Secondly, by Assistance. Thus a man may reade a Prayer, with the spirit of him that deuised it. With this spirit of serching diligence being assistant, Saint Luke wrote Luke 1. 3. Iude 3. his Gospell, and Saint Iude his Epistle.

Set Prayer to priuate men may be granted. But that it should be imposed vpon Ministers, who should not be destitute of the spirit of concei­uing prayer; cannot be affirmed without blushing. And that it may not bee imposed I thus proue. No part of Gods worship may bee imposed by mens authoritie: But such is set Prayer. Ergo.

Prayers in Hebrew may be commanded, and yet are parts of Gods worship, as being parcels of the Bible. Ergo.

They may bee commanded among the Iewes, not amongst vs. For though Prayer bee a substantiall part of Religion; yet the language is only a Circumstance.

No lesse is the setting of prayer, but a cir­cumstance thereof.

Surely such a one as deuoures the substance, for it quencheth deuotion.

Nay, it reuiueth deuotion, being most a­uailable to three things: Order, Decencie, E­dification. [Page 12] Order is helpt two wayes. For first, by reason of Vnitie comes Vniformitie, which is the pith of Order. Consider I pray you if euery man might at his owne arbitrement de­uise prayers, would there not be as many Li­turgies as there were gods among the Ethio­pians, where each man had a peculiar god? Se­condly, order in Prayer, that is a methodicall disposition of Petitions, gratulations, and the like, is most readily found in Set Prayer. Whereas your extemporall and vndigested prayers are ordinarily as vncertaine as the sands of Hammonia. The decencie of Set Prayer is manifest by the vnseemely Tautolo­gies, which carry the mind of him that prayeth without praemeditation, like Pauls ship be­tweene two Seas. Edification is two wayes ministred by Set Prayer. First, the hearers minde is called to concurre with the Minister. Secondly, a full complement of Petitions is hereby purchased, which on the sudaine could not be conceiued.

To grant you that Prayer may be imposed by authoritie, yet subcription to the Liturgie is an iron yoke.

Before you attempt to proue this, obserue these two things. First, that as the furies were the three daughters of the same night: So from the same night of errour doe issue the Separatists denying Set Prayer. The Anabaptist renoun­cing humane authoritie. The Noualist denoun­cing [Page 13] warre to subscription. For when the Bar­rowist will admit no meditation in prayer, doth he not seeme to harken after the reuelati­ons of the Enthusiast? And when the all pur­ging reformer will not subscribe to authoritie. Doth he not sing the same catch with H. N.

I regard not the Brownist nor Familist: but only the truth in sinceritie.

We ought to marke, not what you follow in words, but what followeth of your words.

To let goe your carping consequences: we detest the Anabaptist: and protest against the Barrowist.

I will demonstrate the former, vpon an other occasion to bee most vntrue, or vnproba­ble. Against the latter I thus reason. Of them that thinke the Church of England to bee no Church; they lesse transgresse against their con­science which doe forsake it. But the Barrowist and you, imagine so of our Church: The Bar­rowist therefore is more excusable then you.

Your Minor is vncharitable. For we hold it to be a true, though a corrupt Church.

You condemne her Liturgie, Ministerie, Gouernment. Ergo.

What wee condemne shall be tried in due place.

Meane while take this second obseruati­on. Doe you impugne Subscription in Word, or Deed? for many Conforme which will not Subscribe.

[Page 14]

We approue not them: For a daily publique Conformitie, is more then a single, and almost solitary Subscription. Now generally against Subscription I thus dispute. To subscribe to a thing that shall be altred is vnlawfull: But a new Translation is expected: and new Homilies pro­mised to bee set forth by common authoritie. Ergo.

If your Maior were firme. How might Ceremonia dicta est, à [...] & [...], to re­maine for a time. the Iewes in ancient time haue subscribed to the Ceremonies in Moses Law, which were to bee altred by Christ. Or how may Subiects sweare to the obseruation of a Law, which is repeala­ble at the next Session of a Parliament? A­gaine your Minor doth rely vpon two dreames. For first you suppose that in the new Transla­tion all things shall bee innouated according to your doubts, as Polycletus made an Image according to the minde of the multitude. Se­condly, whereas one and twentie Homilies be­fore promised are now extant, you still suspect that some errours shall bee obtruded vpon you by authoritie.

We haue as little cause to hope the first, as iust to feare the latter. My next reason then is this. To subscribe to knowne errours, is little bet­ter then heresie. But in your Seruice-booke is a masse of Errours. Ergo.

The Maior of this reason is refelled by the Minor of the former argument. For if the Translation shalbe corrected by reason of some [Page 15] errours supposed therein. It is cleere that the intent of Subscription is only to oblige vs, to thinke that no fundamentall errour is lurking in it: seeing no Booke (saue the authentique Canon of the text) can claime to it selfe simple immunitie from errour. The masse of errours Errorum massa Missa. mentioned in your Minor, will bee to massie a worke for you to proue.

My last argument doth thus proceed. It is a crying sinne to subscribe to antichristianisme. But such is your Liturgie according to your owne former definition, as being imposed vpon the Conscience with pretended necessitie. Ergo.

Your Minor is a misprision: For I said that Antichrist imposeth things indifferent as necessary to saluation. But you, altering the state of the question, intreat about necessitie of Conformitie, vnder the penalty of Depriuation, Ignorantia Elenchi. not of eternall life, but of a momentanie li­uing: And yet all both Nations and Religions haue vrged this vniforme order.

Doth not then Subscription binde the Conscience?

It bindes, as it is an oath tendered to God directly: and yet indirectly also, as it is an humane constitution. So ill Positiue Lawes tie the Conscience by vertue of the fift precept of the Decalogue.

Things indifferent cannot binde Consci­ence: But Ecclesiasticall Lawes are about things Figura dictionis & quatuor ter­mini. indifferent. Ergo.

[Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 16]

Your double medium causeth your ar­gument to play fast and loose. For Obedience in things indifferent is necessary, not indiffe­rent.

What, then are wee bound to obey our lawfull Superiour in all things?

In things necessarily good, wee doe im­mediatly obey God: men only by consequence. If men command things euill, we obey by tol­lerating what they inflict, not by performing what they inioyne. In the first they declare what God commands to be done: in the lat­ter, what to be indured. Wherefore it remai­neth that things indifferent alone, are the pro­per obiect of humane Commandements.

No action is indifferent, but each thing commanded is an action. Ergo.

Your medium hath two faces like Ianus. For an action is to be considered, either simply and alone: and so it is good; as being a moti­on depending on the first mouer. Or ioyntly, with Circumstances, and that in a double manner. First, in regard of the abilitie or possibilitie whilst it may be done. Secondly, in the act, when it is performed. Before it bee done, it is indifferent; but once breaking out into act, it becommeth distinctly good or euill, according to the Circumstances which deter­mine the same. Now an action commanded, is supposed as not yet done (whereupon the Hebrewes call the Imperatiue Moode, the [Page 17] first future) and so remaineth many times indifferent.

CHAP. III.
Of Feasts, and Fasts.

TO omit your winding Sophistry, and sundry other arguments a­gainst Subscription, not as feeble, but expecting a fitter place: From the person commanding, I passe to the things enioyned: Time, Place, Or­naments. Time I diuide into Feasts and Fasts. A­gainst your Festiuals I argue thus. Dayes made holy by men, are lawlesse; But such are your ho­lidayes. Ergo.

Your Maior is refuted by Ester 9. 21. 1 Mac. 4. 59. Iohn 10. 22. the Text.

These Feasts were appointed by Propheti­call inspiration; therefore not meerely by men.

This answer is like that of Sympathie, and antipathie, or influence of Starres, and the like refuges of ignorance. How know you that Queene Hester was a Prophetesse? or Morde­cai a Prophet? Would you trust the Story of the Maccabees, if there you should finde it written that Iudas was a Prophet? Is not this one of the Bookes that you would hisse out of the Church? Nay, may wee suppose that Iudas [Page 18] (had he beene a Prophet) would haue transla­ted to Leui, that dignitie which appertained to the Tribe of Iuda.

Dayes wherein God hath permitted man to labour; may not by men be sanctified: But such be your Church Holidayes. Ergo.

Your Maior is doubtfull, and dange­rous. For if you meane, that daies which are not consecrated by God, may not by men to him be dedicated, you will soone deface all the outward face of Religion: whereof the most no­ble act hath, and doth consist in dedicating Goods and Lands to the Church. But if you intend that dayes because they are indifferent, may not by authoritie bee restrained and deter­mined; then doe you bring into the Church an anarchie. In the one you follow Swingfeldius, in the other the Anabaptist; against which rocke, I perceiue you often rush.

I let slip your captious inferences, and ha­sten to the third proofe. Your holidayes are dedi­cated to creatures; therefore vnlawfull. My An­tecedent thus appeares: The Sabbath or Lords Day, you call Sunday, giuing it to the Sunne: which as it is reproued by Papists: So some haue Rhemists vpon Apoc. 1. 10. ignorantly turned it to the Sonne of God. With the like vanitie you giue Munday to the Moone. Tuesday to Tuisco, or Mars. Wednesday to Woden, or Mercurie. Thursday, to thundring Iu­piter. Friday to Frico or Venus. Saturday to Sa­turne: which Deuils were adored by Pagans.

[Page 19]

Wee doe no more dedicate our dayes to creatures by whose names wee tearme them, then the Hebrewes did the moneth Abib to an eare of Corne: for so doth the word import. Further I maruell that you call the Lords Day the Sabbath: for the men of your ranke were wont to stile this a Iewish name. But there bee some opinions that bee as short liued as certaine creatures by the riuer Hyppanis, which liue but a day. Yea but the Rhemists do mislike the name Sunday. By this you may coniecture that our Liturgie was not borrow­ed from the Missall. Besides what needed A­lesius to turne it into Latine, if it had bin before extant in the Portuise? Whereas you pretend, some haue deriued Sunday from the Sonne of God: true it is, they deduced it from the Sonne of righteousnesse, who is indeed the Sonne of the liuing God. Lastly, those Deuils which you pretend were, and are Planets, of whom eue­ry day is named, according as the Planet ru­leth at midnight before: As vpon Saturday night from twelue to one the Sunne raigneth, so the day ensuing is called Sunday. Besides that; a Musicall reason is rendred: Namely, that the fourth Planet is inclusiuely to be reckoned from the former. For example, Saturne hath his dominion vpon Saturday, then omitting Iupiter and Mars, you shall come to Sol, whose Dion in Augu­sto. most effectuall working is vpon Sunday.

What speake you of the Superstitious [Page 20] ruling of Planets: or ridiculous Musicke of Starres?

As it is idolatrous to worship Starres, or prophesie by them; [...]o to denie all their naturall operations and dominions in things inferiour, is wilfully to repeale the Statutes enacted in the Parliament of experience. No lesse friuolous is it, to deride the long obserued harmonious consent of Planets.

With the same boldnesse, haue you con­secrated the moneths to Ianus. Februus, Mars, Iulius and Augustus Caesar: which names you haue borrowed from the Heathens: whereas the numerall names of moneths were thought in Scrip­ture most conuenient.

Why may not moneths be stiled according to Planets, aswell as Saint Luke named a Acts 17. 19. [...] is a hill of [...] a Do­ricke word, for a Spring: be­cause Springs issue out of hils. Acts 17. 34 & 18. 24. Rom. 16. 1. & 14. Phil. 2. 25. Col. 1. 7. Acts 28. 11. Ioshua 15. 10. & 41. Dan. 1. 7. place Mars his Street or Hill? Or why not as­well as men haue retained the names of Planets after their Baptisme; For example, Denis was surnamed of Bacchus, Apollos of the Sun. Epaphras and Epaphroditus of Venus, Her­mes, and Mercurius of Mercury. So Phebae of the Moone: Was not the badge of the ship wherein Paul failed, called Castor and Pollux? Is not the like to bee seene in the Old Testa­ment; both in the names of Places: as Beth­shemesh, the house of the Sunne: and Beth Da­gon, the house of Dagon? As also of Persons? I will not insist, as some might doe vpon this: That Ianuary is not named of Ianus, but of [Page 21] Ianua, a Gate, as being the entrance of the yeare. Nor February of Februus, but a febribus of Agues, being a moneth obnoxious to that disease. No, nor March of Mars; but because things bred therein are martiall and valiant, a­greeable to the Planet, not to the Idoll Mars. Now wheras you are displeased that moneths haue their appellations from Iulius and Au­gustus Caesar: Why might not this be indured, aswell as the Citie of Dauid; or Gibea of Saul? 2. Sam. 6. 10. Esay 10. 29. If Places, why may not Times be tearmed af­ter men? But these names are borrowed from Heathens. Did not the Hebrewes borrow the names of their moneths from the Chaldeans? (Except wee thinke the fourth moneth Tam­muz Ezek. 8. 14. was taken from the Egyptians) Was not Abib the first moneth, surnamed Nisan? Tisri, the seuenth, Ethanim? Chisleu, the ninth, Bull? Of these some are apparētly, Chaldean words. Lastly, whereas you pretend, that the nume­rall names of moneths (as the first, second, &c.) were thought most conuenient. This to bee vntrue, you partly now perceiue, by the other names attributed to them in Scriptures. Also you know that September, & the three moneths following, haue names from number: and that in old time Iuly, and August were called Quintilis and Sextilis.

To let passe your Heathen names of Dayes and Moneths: I proceed to your Popish names, by which you honour Creatures: and especially Saints.

[Page 22]

Religious worship of Saints, is against the streame of our Church Doctrine. If we praise them, and God, in and for them; If we pro­pound them as triumphant lights and markes of imitation: with what viperous teeth can enuy carpe at vs, vnlesse the same also doe gnaw out the bowels of the Primitiue Church?

Obseruation of dayes is forbidden by Paul. Gal 4. 10.

Namely, as parts of Gods worship, or as such necessary workes, as without which saluation cannot be obtained.

Two dayes you obserue in honour of the Virgin, which you hold as meerely necessarie: the Purification, and the Annunciation.

Wee ascribe to them no necessitie but of order. Now whereas foure dayes were kept in Popery, for the Virgin Mary, wee haue abo­lished two. First, the day of her Conception. Secondly, of her Assumption; the one being blasphemous, the other fabulous. Concerning the other two, we consecrate them not to the Virgin, but to Christ: whose Conception is re­membred vpon the day of the Annunciation: and Presentation in the Temple, in the day of the Purification: as may bee collected both by the Collect; as also because wee reckon the yeare of our Lord from the Annunciation Day.

Besides this; you celebrate a day for Mi­chael [Page 23] the Archangell; whom you make a Crea­ture.

If some of your owne spirit were present they would reproue your method, for placing the Virgin Mary before the Angels.

I did it, because I suppose you preferre her before them: her that sinned before them that were euer sinlesse.

Some doubt not, but that all men elect are in Christ his humanitie exalted aboue An­gels. How much more doth this agree to her from whom did immediately proceed that which was assumed by the Godhead through the personall Vnion? Againe Christ tooke not Angels but the seed of Abraham.

The Elect indeed are said to bee equall to Luke 20. 36. Angels: wherefore it seemeth they are not su­periours to them.

They shall be equall to them in immorta­litie, as also in that they shall not need procre­ation. Neuerthelesse in some other respect, they may exceed them. But now, that Michael is a creature, appeares first by Daniel: where Dan. 10. 13. & 22. Michael is called one of the chiefe Princes: and therfore may not be Christ.

The Hebrew word which you translate Chiefe, may be turned former.

First, this cannot agree to Christ, who is not one of the former, but the first Prince: vn­lesse you make three Princes of the three Per­sons in the Trinitie; which speech will not in­dure [Page 24] the Hammer of a good construction. Se­condly, neither will it accord with Gabriels relation, who had not made mention of any former Princes.

If this your interpretation should be gran­ted, yet Michael is but one of the Chiefe, not absolutely the chiefe Angell, or the Archan­gell, as you seeme to insinuate: which as it con­tradicteth your Communion Booke, mentioning Archangels: So can it not bee ballanced with reason.

Obserue: First, that by this place in Da­niel, we proue Archangels to bee; which some haue disliked. For Chiefe Princes and Archan­gels seeme to vs equipollent. Secondly, though we stile Michael an Archangell: yet by this we doe not simply pronounce him to be Chiefe of all Angels. For though many Chiefe Priests doe seeme to bee reckoned: yet each of these was not High Priest, but some one, or at the Mat. 26. 3. most two, in the corruptedst times. The like may be said of the word arch-heretique, or Pa­triarke. Thirdly, neuerthelesse, we doe proba­bly thinke, both that there is one Chiefe created Diabolus found only in the sin­gular number. Daemon and Daemonium plurally. Angell: seeing Beelzebub is the Prince of De­uils: as also that this Archangell is Michael: not only because no other name of any Arch­angell is extant in Scripture, but principally be­cause the last and greatest worke of Angels 1. Thess 4. 16. (namely, the raising of the dead) is said to bee committed to his Ministerie.

[Page 25]

But Michael is called the Prince. Now the Prince and Captaine of the Church is Christ.

Though we should yeeld that story in Ioshua to be meant of Christ, (which yet hardly will Ioshua 5. 14. be euinced) notwithstanding wee deny it here to be so taken: First, because a Prince may ei­ther be absolutely so named (so is Christ alone) or by power delegate (and this may aswell a­gree to an heauenly Angell, as to an earthly King.) Secondly, because hee is called here Prince, with a tearme diminishing (at least in your construction, as you shall hereafter vn­derstand) for the Angell saith, There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Mi­chael your Prince. Againe wee proue Michael to be a creature out of the Thessalonians before cited. For first, the word Archangell seemeth to signifie rather a principall Angell, then the Prince of Angels. Secondly, it is there said, The Lord shall descend with the voice of an Archangell: by the Lord, wee vnderstand Compare Iohn 17. 3. with 1. Cor. 8. 6. Christ, as being opposed in relation to God. This speech then will haue no Coherence, Christ shall descend with the voice of the Arch­angell, that is of Christ.

It seemeth the latter words; (the trumpet of God) doe interprete these that come before (the voyce of the Archangell.) Besides it is certaine that Christ's voice shall raise the Dead. Ioh. 5. 26. & 28.

It is the voice and trumpet of God the Father, and the Sonne, in regard of the autho­ritie [Page 26] and power thereof: and yet of Michael in respect of his Ministerie. As the same is tear­med the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon. Again we proue the same by Saint Iude, where Iudges 7. 20. Iude 9. it is said Michael durst not: which word little beseemeth the maiestie of Christ.

The Greeke word may bee translated hee could not indure, that is, hee could not abide to re­uile because it was a sinne. And it may seeme the Story is taken out of Zachary: So that by the Zach. 3. 1. bodie of Moses, it may seeme we are to vnderstand the Religion of the Iewes.

That signification is new to Interpreters: As for your exposition it is so violent, as if it were allied to the Inquisition. The Literall sence may not bee relinquished, till necessitie doe inforce. Lastly, we confirme the same by the Prophesie of Michael, where it is said that Apoc. 12. 7. 11. hee and his Angel, ouercame the Dragon, by the bloud of the Lambe.

But the name Michael signifieth who is like God: which appellation can agree to none but Christ.

This reason is weake, being built vpon the sand of Etymologie. Againe, why may not this word signifie who is like to the strong one: and so fitly bee applied to a created An­gell.

From Angels I come to Apostles: Where I obserue first, That you haue disanulled the ho­liday of Pauls Conuersion; as also of Barnabas: [Page 27] and yet to them haue yee assigned Epistles and Gospels.

It was thought conuenient, that the Church should not be oppressed with multitude of holidayes: wherefore only the twelue Apo­stles were remembred, of which number Paul and Barnabas were not.

You seeme to intimate that Barnabas was an Apostle: and so indeed you stile him in his Collect.

The reason thereof is: First, because hee was chosen with Saint Paul: yea and seemed at that time to be preferred before him. Se­condly, because hee chose Marke the Euangelist for his attendant; aswell as Saint Paul did Si­las. Acts 13. 2. Acts 15. 39, 40. 1. Cor. 9. 5. 6. Thirdly, because he seemeth to be reckoned amongst the Apostles.

Next after the Apostles, I descend to the Martyrs: amongst whom you haue placed the Children of Bethlehem, whom I wonder you terme Innocents.

Were they not innocent, whose Parents were Iewes, who were in the Couenant of Circumcision.

But it may seeme: That this Diuine iudge­ment ouertooke them because their Parents in­humanely refused to lodge Ioseph and Marie.

Saint Luke yeeldeth a milder censure: Luke 2. [...]. namely, because there was no roome in the Inne: as it might bee by reason of the multitude of them, which hastning to bee taxed, preuented their comming.

[Page 28]

Could they bee Martyrs who could not vnderstand, much lesse acknowledge Christ?

Martyrs they were not, either as Saint Stephen in will and suffering: or as Saint Iohn, in will but not in suffering: yet they were Mar­tyrs insuffring for Christ: as the Children of the Israelites drowned by Pharao were in like man­ner Martyrs vnder the Law.

Not the punishment but the cause makes a Martyr, which they could not vnderstand.

The cause was Christ, a most fit cause of martyrdome; which though they vnderstand Math. 18. 10. Heb. 1. 14. not, yet because Gods Angels defend in­fants, aswell as the rest of the Elect, God vpon his diuine knowledge might auenge vpon He­rod their bloud, aswell as of other Martyrs.

Your diuision of Martyrs is vntrue: For Matb. 20. 23. compared with Ioh. 18. 11 Iohn died a violent death as appeares by the pro­phesie of Christ concerning him.

First, it may be; the Cup may signifie as­well affliction as death. Now that Saint Iohn was afflicted, it appeares by his confining in Pathmos; which is said to be vnder Domitian. Secondly, the speech of Christ may bee condi­tionall, not positiue; as if he had said, though you should drinke of the cup of my death, yet might you not sit at my right hand, &c. Now an hypotheticall speech doth not inferre a positiue assertion. Thirdly, though Saint Iohn were a Martyr like Stephen: yet because Steuen was the first voluntary Martyr; Saint Iohn (though [Page 29] best beloued) must be placed after him: yea and after them both, the Innocent Children; as be­ing Martyrs in another kind, dying for Christ besides, or before knowledge.

But Herods daughters childe (who then was at nurse in Bethelem) is said to be slaine with them: Could hee also being the vncircumcised Nephew of a vsurping Tyrant, an be tearmed an innocent Martyr.

First, if the most part were innocent; we draw the denomination from them: euen as we name them the Psalmes of Dauid, howso­euer Psal 90. was made by Moses, and Psal. 137▪ was framed in the captiuitie of Babylon long after Dauid. So wee say the Acts of the Apostles: and yet in that booke are described actions of Stephen, Silas, Apollos, and others which were not Apostles. Secondly, what if God would hereby shew, that hee intended to haue Martyrs aswell of the Gentiles, as of the Iewes: yea, and of infants as of men in yeares; seeing Christ is the Sauiour of them both. Thirdly, may we not say, that he which descended from Herod, was in a sort a Martyr that is, a witnesse of Gods power, who made Herod to kill his owne Sonne for rage, and yet deliuered Christ? Is not the like said of infants vpon a farre lesse respect by Dauid?

From your Feasts I proceed to your Fasts: Psalme 8. 2. and first I wonder at your Set Fasts?

Meane you by Set Fasts, as you did by [Page 30] Set Prayers? Haue not many Ministers of your opinion proclaimed and set sundry Solemne Fasts?

I meane your set yearely, and weekly Fasts: which should not be celebrated but when occa­sion Math. 9. 15. of sorrow is presented. Now it may bee that some occasion of publique ioy may bee offered at the time of your Anniuersary Fast.

God appointed a yearely Fast in the tenth Leuit. 16. 29. & 23. 29. day of the seuenth moneth: and it might bee that some occasion of common ioy might then haue fallen out: So that you must either ac­knowledge a dispensation of Gods precept for a time: or that a particular and accidentary ioy could not preiudice a statarie and generall sorrow for sinne. Whereas you pretend that Christ said, his Disciples should not fast till after his departure, only because they should not till then haue iust cause of mourning and Fasting, it is vnsound: Seeing that in the verse follow­ing, he rendreth another reason: namely, for that they were weake like old garments and bot­tles: and therefore vncapable of this new dis­cipline of Fasting.

I might returne you this answer: That the Fast mentioned in the Law was Ceremoniall: But, to grant that God might ordaine a yearely Fast; How appeareth it that the same libertie is permitted to men?

Indeed to fast vpon the tenth day of the seuenth moneth was a ceremony; Neuerthelesse [Page 31] a yearely set Fast, could be no more Ceremoni­all then to rest once in seuen dayes: the tearmes are altered the quantitie remaineth. Further that men may decree Set Fasts, it appeares by the Iewes, who fasted euery Yeare in remem­brance of the siege of Ierusalem, the winning See Iunius vp­on Zach. 8. 9. Math. 19. 14. thereof, and burning of the Temple, as also the death of Gedalia. The like is to be seene in the custome of the Pharisies, and Iohn the Baptist. Lastly, some gather the same out of the story of Hester. Hest. 9. 31.

Though Set Fasts might bee allowed: yet your Lent is but an apish imitation of Chrst his Fast.

No more apish then the custome of the Israelites, which they tooke vp in remembrance of Iacobs wrestling with the Angell▪ Now the Genes. 32. 32. custome of Lent, is not only ciuill, for the pre­seruation of Cattle, and employment of the Sea, and Riuers: nor meerely morall to tem­per lust, which riseth with the bloud in the Spring: to inable men for deeds of Libera­litie: but euen in a sort Religious (not as a part, but as a helpe of Religion) first to kindle Prayer, much dulled with plethorie of the bo­die, and multitude of businesse. Secondly, to helpe vs in the acknowledgement of our vn­worthinesse of Gods creatures. Thirdly, to prepare vs for the solemne Communion at Ea­ster: Besides, that we may fast and pray for the increase of grace, is cleere by the example of Act, 10. 30, 31. Cornelius.

[Page 32]

But what shall wee thinke of your Ember weekes?

They are preparatiues to the Ordination of Ministers: Before which how laudable it is Acts 13 2. to fast is manifest by the separation of Barna­bas and Paul.

What grounds haue your Fasts vpon Wednesdayes, Fridayes, and Saturdayes.

Friday was by all obserued because Christ died on that day. Some kept Saturday, for that Christ on that day lay in the graue, which was to all Beleeuers a season of great heaui­nesse. Others chose rather Wednesday, for that, vpon that day Iudas sold our Sauiour for money. Besides these causes a conuenient vi­cissitude or exchange of Fasting with eating was iudged most requisite. Which also was the cause of our Holiday Eues.

CHAP. IV.
Of Place; and Ornaments.

IT is now time; that from Time we should remoue our Speech to Place, and Ornaments, inioyned in the act of Vniformitie. Wher­in although Chancels only bee [Page 33] mentioned, yet Churches also seeme necessarily to be presupposed.

This is not vnlike Solon or Romulus, who made no Lawes for Paricides, because they hoped such villany would not be commit­ted. So it may bee our Law-giuers, did not there mention Churches, supposing no Chri­stian would be of so leaden a heart, and brasen a forehead, as directly to wish the abolishment of Churches. For what I pray you? Are you one of them that would haue Churches turned into Doue-coates and Alehouses?

Though that were iustifiable by the exam­ple of Iehu: yet it is sufficient for vs, if they were 2. Kings 10. 27. demolished. Neuerthelesse I speake not this of mine owne opinion, but according to the intent of some of the Brethren. The first reason is this. Churches are abused to Idolatry, therefore to bee destroyed.

By this argument, Salomons Temple be­ing abused by King Ahaz to manifest Idolatry, should haue beene razed by King Ezekias? Be­sides, what need you accuse the Barrowists? it is your owne argument: Will you leaue the nest like the Rauen, because the yong ones co­lour doth not in all points resemble you? Is not this your owne reason: The Crosse is abu­sed to Idolatrie, therefore to be abrogated? As for the example of Iehu, it moues vs not. For neither was Iehu a good man: neither is eue­rie action of a good man, lawfull: though [Page 34] lawfull, yet not necessarie in regard of imita­tion.

We insist not vpon Iehu his fact. Neither is our only, or principall reason against the Crosse, drawne from the abusing thereof to Ido­latrie (as shall appeare in due place.) Neither would wee simply therfore haue Churches defa­ced, for that they are so abused: but vpon more important causes: Else should wee wish also the ruine of Vniuersities; which notwithstanding we are contented should remaine, if these things only were reformed. First, if humane Arts were lesse studied. Secondly, if Degrees in Schooles were interdicted. Thirdly, if Marriages in Col­ledges were permitted.

Arts may not properly be called humanc, seeing they haue God for their Author, and are aides to expound diuine Scripture. First, for Grammar. Without the Hebrew and Chal­dee, the Old Testament cannot bee vnderstood exactly, because not only some part of the text is written in the Chaldean tongue: but prin­cipally because the Chaldee Paraphrase is the most apt interpreter of the Bible. The Greeke tongue is also needfull in regard of the Sep­tuagint, whom the Apostles more frequently cite then the Hebrew text. The Greeke to bee needfull in the New Testament, all acknow­ledge. The necessitie of the Syrian would ap­peare, if more diligence herein were vsed. As for the Latine, it is the tongue of the intercourse [Page 35] of all the Learned in Christendome. Further­more, hee that will conceiue Isaiah without Rhetorique; and Paul without Logioue: the Psalmes without Musique and Poetrie: the Arke and Temple, without Geometrie: the perfect Chronologie of the Scriptures, with­out Arithmetique and Astronomie: Leuiticus, Iob, and Canticles, without naturall Philoso­phy and Physicke: the Law of Moses without Ethiques, and Ciuill Law: the Stories of the Kings without Policie: Daniel, and the Apo­calips without Historie; the same must assay with Xerxes to saile through the mount Athos; and walke dry-shod ouer Hellespont. This age is too superficiall in knowledge: Cast it not in­to a more lazie Lethargie, with this your vn­seasoned zeale. Touching Degrees I say. Shall the meanest Mechanick Trade distin­guish the Apprentice from the Iourneyman: him from the occupier: and all from the Ma­ster or Warden of the Company? And shall there be no difference betweene Leuit & Priest? Priest, and High Priest? Lastly, what you say of Marriage, bewrayeth that you neuer slept in Parnassus: so great is the penurie of those places: and so dangerous the Marriage of persons Collegiate, vnlesse they bee Masters, Prouosts, or in the like Supreame place. But now returne from our Mother the Vniuersitie, to her Daughters the Churches: and shew vs those important causes for which you would haue them violated.

[Page 36]

Places built for Idolatry; should bee de­stroyed: But such are your Churches. Ergo.

The proofe of your Maior is mistaken. Groues, Altars, Images are by Gods appoint­ment to bee destroyed, or burnt (namely, the Tabernacle, or Temple remaining.) But that euery house or Church built to an Idoll should be pulled downe, and by no meanes conuer­ted to a Synagogue, cannot be inforced out of this place. Againe your Minor wants waight: For some of our Churches were built before, some since the daies of Poperie. Besides those which Papists did erect, were built for true prayer to God in Christ: what if much Idola­trie were mingled? Shall the siluer be repro­bate because of the store of Tinne.

Churches are those habitations of Anti­christ, Apoc. 18. 1. which are to be ruinated.

Some others would interprete them to be the Abbies, Nunneries, and such like cages of superstion. But it is not safe to build a doc­trine vpon so misticall a prophesie.

They are built East and West, which the Ezek. 8. 16. Prophet seemes to dislike.

No maruell: For they worshipped the Sunne rising. As for vs, we thinke that God is the God of the East, as well as of the North: and of the West, as well as of the South. Nei­ther haue wee any such custome as to bee con­tent ious for singularitie.

Their Dedication sauours of Superstiton

[Page 37]

If in ancient time any vnmeete prayers were vsed, wee abandon them in our Dedica­tions. Notwithstanding, that Churches may bee dedicated, both that they may bee appro­priated to God, and alienated from all Secu­lar vse, so that occasion of alteration be cut off: As also that more reuerence may bee added to Gods publique seruice, appeares; First, by the examples of Salomon, Zerubbabel, and Iudas Maccabeus, who consecrated that Temple: the last whereof did then dedicate it when it had beene three yeares and a halfe polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes: whereas by your doctrine hee should haue leuelled it with the ground. But our Sauiour was of an other iudgement, who many yeares after graced that Feast of Dedication with his own presence. Secondly, the same is cleare by the rule of the Apostle, auouching all things to bee sanctified by the Word and Prayer. The equitie of which 1. Tim. 4. 5. Canon seemeth to relie vpon the Law of God, whereby the builder of an house is exempted from seruice in warre, till hee hath performed the Dedication of his priuate building. Deut. 20. 5.

Chancels seeme to be ordained partly out of Superstition, partly, out of Pride: aduancing the Minister aboue the people.

It was no Superstition among the Iewes to separate the wiues from their hus­bands, by certaine partitions in the Temple: as is probably collected out of the Prophet. The Zach. 12. 12. [Page 38] like is to be said of parting Minister and Peo­ple. Neither may we thinke this done in imi­tation of the Iewish Temple only, considering there is nothing like the Holy of Holies in our Churches: but only a distinction of places, that hearing, and receiuing the Communion, by this difference of place, might beget a certaine diuersitie of reuerence. As for the pride obie­cted; it sheweth your disordred minde, who by cutting off all differences of Degrees and Or­ders, would soone bring backe the people to the Chaos of irreuerence. Thinke you that Ezra when he made the Pulpit of wood, where­by hee was aduanced aboue the People, did it Nehem. 8. 4. of pride, or only that his voice might bee the more audible? Might not this also be intended: That by the heighth of his place, he might strike a certaine awfull reguard into his hearers hearts? Did not God for this cause giue to Moses, a shining face? Did he not therefore al­lot him, and Aaron the Priest, a place in the Mountaine, distinct from that of the multitude; that there might be conceiued a kinde of prehe­minence and dignitie of the Pastour aboue the sheepe? Is any man ignorant that the vulgar sort is led by formes, and externall differences in all affaires? Lastly, the charge of the Chan­cell being imposed vpon the Minister, may seeme to challenge forhim a peculiar allotment of place.

To ouerpasse the place: the next circum­stance [Page 39] is in Ornaments: whereof the most scan­dalous is the Surplice. Against the which I thus reason. No humane Rite may bee ordained in Gods seruice: But such is your Surplice. Ergo.

The method by your selfe duly propoun­ded, explaineth your Maior, but disclaimeth your Minor. For whereas you placed the Sur­plice among Ornaments: and ranked them a­mid the circumstances: Your Maior must thus be expounded: That humane rites, howsoe­uer they may bee circumstances of Gods wor­ship: yet ought not to bee inforced as any sub­stantiall part thereof: and so your Minor will not abide the Touchstone; seeing this garment is not ordained in, but about Gods worship. In summe, wee place therein, not necessitie of holinesse, but peaceable vniformitie of or­der.

You seeme to tie certaine holinesse vnto it: and so to incorporate it into Gods seruice: both in that you repute sundry Minsteriall actions be­ing done without it, as not at all performed. As also in that you put a barre of Silence before their mouthes that refuse it.

Your first allegation is little lesse then ca­lumnious: For you know, there is a maine difference betweene a nullitie, and a true act vnlawfully executed. For example, if Baptisme be administred without this attire, howsoeuer the action bee disorderly, yet may not the Sa­crament be iterated: and therefore this act can­not [Page 38] [...] [Page 39] [...] [Page 40] be adiudged for a meere nullitie. Your se­cond affection was refuted before when wee intreated of Subscription▪ To which notwith­standing this might be added. First, might Salomon put Shimei to death for violating his 1. Kings 2. 37. comandement concerning a thing in it owne nature indifferent▪ Namely, that he should not passe ouer the riuer Kidron? Nay, might hee tender an oath vnto him, to the intent that his obligation might be more firme? And may not we, both vrge you to Subscription to things in­different? & inflict punishmēt vpon you, if either you refuse to Subscribe: or if subcribing you af­terwards transgresse your promise? Might Shimei plead to the King, the thing you require me to sweare to, is in it owne nature simply in­different: & therefore this oath is but a burthen to my conscience? Could the King haue wished a more direct pretence of putting this male­content to death, then such an vnseasonable allegation as this? Secondly, could Ionadab by his commandement for euer interdict the Rechabites, the dwelling in houses, sowing of Ier. 35. 6, 7. Corne, planting Vines, drinking wine; (which all were things indifferent) and cannot the like necessitie of obedience to our Lawes in things of equall indifferencie seeme reasonable? Third­ly, the rule of Saint Paul ought to be remem­bred; If any man consent not to the doctrine, 1. Tim. 6. 3. according to godlinesse, he is puffed vp, &c. Is not consenting, a kinde of Subscription? Are [Page 41] not things indifferent and conuenient agreeable to the doctrine according to godlinesse. These 2. Thess. 5. 14. people therefore that are vnorderly, and leaue their station: are to bee xeduced to a sound minde, euen with some moderate correction.

Though the Surplice were indifferent: yet is it not conuenient, as thus may bee demonstra­ted. That garment which was worne by the Priests of Isis, Iewes, and Papists, is by vs to bee refused as inconuenient: But such is the Surplice; Ergo. The Minor is plaine by Story: and concerning Apoc. 18. 12. the Papists in part by Prophesie.

Your new found storie of the women Priests of Isis▪ refuseth your Maior. For I trust you cānot proue that the Priests of Israel ware the linnen Ephod before the Priests of Isis. Which if it bee so, then consider againe your Maior. The garment worne by the Priests of I­sis, may not be worne by the Leuites. But this is manifestly vntrue. The first part of your Minor is vncertaine: namely, that the garment of the Egyptian and Hebrew Priests, was like our Dalmatique, or Surplice. The latter con­cerning Papists is weakly confirmed. For first that word which is translated Linnen, by lear­ned men is auouched to be meant Silke. Now where will you finde a silken Surplice? Againe if all linnen vsed by the Whore of Babylon, should be abolished, what should become of the linnen at the Communion Table: nay, what should be done with the siluer Chalices? for they [Page 42] also were abused by her: and are mentioned likewise in that verie. Lastly, it were easie to proue out of antiquitie (but that you reuerence not herhoarie head) that the Surplice was, be­fore Poperie was hatcht.

Popery, being Antichristianitie did worke in the dayes of the Apostles, by sundry both er­rours and rites: Of which number the Surplice to be one, is proued by this Argument. Euerie Rite, or Ceremonie should edifie (so saith your owne Liturgie.) But so doth not your Surplice. Ergo.

It doth edifie, not by any proper action thereof: but by a profitable signification.

Humane significations cannot edifie: But such are those of the Surplice. Ergo.

Kneeling in praier is but humane, though it signifie reuerence to God. The like may bee said of sitting at the Passeouer: And yet some of your owne combination haue said, that it sig­nifies a spirituall familiaritie with God.

They haue said so of sitting at the Lords Supper, but not at the Passeouer, and yet indeed those two Sacraments are but one in substance. Besides though the things were humane: yet the significations were and are diuine: I meane in re­gard of the things themselues, not in respect of the appointment which was from men, led by the light of Nature.

In this sence, the signification of the Sur­plice is diuine: First in generall to testifie a [Page 43] reuerent distinction betweene the Minister and People. Secondly, in more Specialty to bee a symbole of Eccles. 9. 8. alacritie, of Apoc. 3. 18. integritie, of our long expected Matth. 17. 2. Acts 10. 20. Apoc. 3. 4. & 6. 11. glorie in heauen.

CHAP. V.
The Preface. Of the Common Prayers.

ARguments drawne from Scan­dal (though very forcible against the Surplice) yet shall be omitted till we come to the Crosse. Now from the Circumstances I pro­ceed to the substance of the Liturgie. Whereof there be two parts. First, only Speech. Second­ly action, ioyned with Speech, called a Rite or Ce­remonie. Concerning the first, either the people speaketh, or God. The people speaketh to God by Prayer, or by Confession. Prayers be either ordi­nary and common (which are continually read) or peculiar to some times (tearmed Collects.) In the Preface Inuitatorie to the Common Prayers we dislike two things. First, the words: (At what time soeuer, &c.) seeme to be alledged out of E­zekiell: which neither be there to be found: and withall, seeme to promise saluation to them, which deferre repentance to the very moment of [Page 44] death. For they insinuate, that a man may repent, at what time soeuer he will.

It is not a iust citation of the Prophets wordes: but an explanatiue allegation of the sence: For first, the word if, in the Prophet is Ezek 18. 21, 22. equiualent with these words in the Liturgie (at what time soeuer.) For it is a Logique ma­xime, that a temporal proposition is equipollent to a conditionall. Secondly, these words, (from the bottome of his heart) in the Liturgie, are explained by those in the Prophet (will re­turne from all his sinnes that he hath committed: and keepe all my statutes, and doe that which is lawfull and right) for hee that performeth these things doth indeed repent from the bottome of his heart. Thirdly, these words in the Prayer Booke (I will put them out of my remembrance) The like cita­tions are in Rom. 5. 5 & 1. Cor. 2. 9. out of Esay 28. 16. & 64. 4. are answerable to those in the Prophet (they shall not bee mentioned to him or remembred. The Hebrew word signifying both: By all which it is cleare, that late repentance is aswell fished out of the Prophet, as out of the Litur­gle. The truth is, If a man repent at any time, he shall bee saued. It followeth not hereupon that a man may repent at what time hee will as­signe, seeing repentance only comes from God.

You haue now contradicted a speech de­liuered by your selfe: Namely, that late repen­tance In a certaine Sermon. is not good.

To admit of your owne disioynted re­port. First, That is, late repentance, which is [Page 45] presumptuously procrastinated to the Catastro­phe of life. This is ordinarily as weake and sicke as the bodie, and is intombed with it. Secondly, Though this repentance by some miracle might be true, yet is it not good, that is, dangerous, and 1. Cor. 7. 1. scandalous. For the repen­tance of Adam and Salomon, are therefore not mentioned directly, because their offence did more hurt, then their repentance did good.

The second thing disallowed in the Preface, is in these words (saying after me.) By which the people are commanded to repeat the Confession after the Minister.

I neuer heard of any man punished for not repeating this in the Church.

If the thing were lawfull and conuenient, this Commandement might sufficiently binde. But the inconuenience thereof may thus ap­peane. As it is before a Prince, so it is before God: But it is not seemely before a Prince, that a Mal. 1. 8. whole Incorporation should speake together. For which cause a Speaker as a common mouth, is cho­sen to propound their suite. Wherefore it is vn­fit that the people should recite the Confession with, or after the Minister.

First, were your Maior true, then were it vnfit to sing Psalmes in Gods presence. For it will be hardly decent before a Prince to declare a suite singing:) Which argument, some of your feather haue taken vp against Church Musique: not remembring that with the same [Page 46] they impugne all Psalmodie: Secondly, this propsition would assist the Popish inuocation of God by Saints. Seeing we hardly approch to Princes, but by manifold mediators. Thirdly, the reason of the dissimilitude is this. No mor­tall Monarch can at once vnderstand all suitors: which is to God most easie: being the eye that sees all: the eare that heares all; and the hand that writes all. As for the argu­ment of the Prophet Malachy, it is of an A magis proba­bili. For it is the meaning of the place, à maiore ad minus. other colour, and indeed drawne from an o­ther place. Hee reasoneth from the greater to the lesse: For it is more likely, that a mortall Prince (whose breath is in his nosthrils) should accept of an imperfect present: then God who turneth the hearts of Kings, as riuers in the South. Your reason is drawne from the equall, which is a most vnequall comparison. Lastly, though the people rehearse the Confession after the Minister: yet is he their mouth, both in go­ing before, and instructing them: and so the lat­ter part of your Minor, is like a broken reed.

It seemeth the vnlearned should answer no 1. Cor. 14. 16. more then Amen.

First, from a conceiued to a set Prayer, the argument is weake. Secondly, If this in­terpretation of the place were rendred (how shall the vnlearned say Amen that is, how shall he vnderstand, and consent vnto those prayers, which I vtter in a strange tongue) how imper­tinent will your reason be? Thirdly, though it [Page 47] might be proued elsewhere, that the people is bound to answere Amen; will you hereupon inferre, that they may vtter no more. But more Deut. 27. 15. of this, when you come to the Responsals.

But by this practice a woman is allowed to speake in the Church, which Paul doth prohibit. 1. Cor. 14. 34.

He forbids women to teach, or propound questions in the Church: but not to answer A­men, or pray iointly with others.

This Confession, as it is repeated by the people; is neither publique prayer (as being re­hearsed by priuate men) neither yet that kinde of Prayer which we tearme priuate or solitarie (be­ing recited in a publique place) and therefore no true kinde of prayer.

This is like an ancient plea in Law. A pri­uate mans money was stolne out of a Temple. The question was; whether it were theft or sacriledge? But as I suppose the latter opini­on should there preuaile: So here I answer, That this is publique Prayer, as being dic­tated by a Minister, and repeated only by the whole Congregation in a place most pub­lique.

It seemeth strange, That the people is en­ioyned to repeate after this manner only this Prayer: the Confession, in the Communion: and the Creed of the Apostles.

The reason is obuious: because in the Confession of our sinnes, and faith there is required a most personall application: wherby [Page 48] many serious motions are stirred vp in the heart, otherwise most adamantine.

CHAP. VI.
Of the Lords Prayer.

AFter the Preface I come to the ordinarie Prayers: which either bee deliuered in prose, and pro­nounced in plaine direct speech: Or else are hymnes. Of the former kinde, The first wee dislike is, the absolution: which of late hath gotten a new name of remis­sion, at the instant request of some of our men.

Not vnlike the commander of the Turks: who will not be stiled King or Emperour, but Turke, or Great Turke: a name surmounting all ambition.

What reason wee had for the change of that name, you shall heare when wee treate of the visitation of the sicke. Now we will pro­ceede to the Lords Prayer: Wherein some bre­thren are displeased, because it is vsed as a Pray­er. But wee not allowing of their Zeale; doe not­withstanding dislike your battalogie: seeing you repeate it eight times at one meeting, vpon sun­drie occasions. As also that you omit the Doxo­logie, or conclusion of the Lords Prayer (for thine Matth. 6. 13. [Page 49] is the kingdome, &c.) which is found in the Gos­pell: And this omission is so much the worse, because it fetcheth the pedegree from the Masse-Booke.

Although you relinquish the brethren of the Seperation (which is she English word for a Schisme) yet I pray of all courtesie, let me ouer intreate you to answere their argu­ments concerning this matter.

Although you seeme to turne the buckler into the sword: and to shoote at suspicious ro­uers: yet least you should imagine mee to bee smoak'd with Barrowisme: I will attempt to an­swere the reasons, if you propound them.

The first reason is this: It is said: pray thus (that is in this manner, to this effect or sense.) It is not written pray this prayer (that is conceiue or take together these verie sylla­bles. This interpretation is confirmed; first by the like in Moses, where it is written, thus shall yee blesse (thus I say, and not this:) Se­condly, Numb. 6. 23. because else we were obliged to vse no other forme then the Lords prayer.

The reason faileth: First, because by this Eight times in Amos 1. & 2. Deut. 7 5. argument: when the Prophet saith, thus saith the Lord, and when God saith, Thus shalt thou deale: we should conceiue the rehearsall of the verie words: and the performance of the verie deede not to be inioyned. Notwithstanding we know that the Prophets had not only their mat­ter and method, but euen their verie words from [Page 50] the neuer erring spirit; and that Gods Law may not bee illuded: Secondly, it is written in Luke 11. 2. Luke, Pray saying: so that not onely the obser­uation of the matter, but euen the repetition of the words is commanded. The place in Moses is not aptly paraleld. For in what language will these words receiue a good construction. Blesse, this (that is, vse this precise forme of blessing:) Lastly, whereas they pretend, that we should be bound to vse no forme of Prayer, but the Lords: This onely indeede may bee insteade thereof: Namely, that we ought to vse this Prayer both as a mirrour, and exemplarie direction to all our suites: and as an absolute complement of our im­perfect Prayers.

The second argument is this: Wee reade not that this prayer was euer vsed by the Apostles.

We neuer read that the Apostles prayed together in publique, but once: and vpon a par­ticular Acts 4. 24. occasion (I meane where the words of their prayers are specified.) Vpon this negatiue testimonie, wee may not conclude in a matter of fact. For I haue heard some report out of old Books, that S. Peter vsed it in Baptisme. Howsoe­uer this be, (for it is vncertaine) yet as God com­manded a Feast, and Elias promised a double Leuit. 16 29. 2. Kings 2. 10. portion of the spirit to Elisha, though the perfor­mance of these be not set downe, yet no scruple is to be made of them. So, forasmuch as Christ commanded his Disciples to vse this prayer, we [Page 51] may not doubt of their obedience herein, though it be not exprest.

I render you due thankes for this digres­sion: Howbeit, you shall now perceiue that wee haue not digressed at all. To come then to your first exception of Battologie. Wee answere, that vaine repetition is, when words are repeated, being directed neither with reason of art, neither with zeale of the heart▪ neither with a supposall of a iustly im­plied necessitie. The two first seeme to bee in that famous repetition (for his mercie endureth 26 times in the 136. Psalme Matth. 26. 44. for euer:) the third in that rehearsall of Christ: All three appeare in our vse of the Lords Praier. For seeing that we know not what to pray as we ought, wee make this prayer as a comple­ment of all our imperfections, and that with arte and zeale (we hope) sufficient.

But why doe you iterate it eight times at one meeting?

It is as rare a thing to come to such a meeting as to behold a Tree bearing Nuts, Figs, Cheries, and Apples. But first we vse it almost in the entrance of our prayer after the Absolution: Secondly, after the Creed: wher­of one reason may bee drawne out of the Queenes Iniunctions, wherein it was appoin­ted, that after the second Lesson (if there were no Sermon) the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and ten Commandements, should bee read for the instruction of the ignorant: Another reason [Page 52] may bee this, many are not present at the re­hearsall of the Lords Prayer: seeing the mulet of absence is not inflicted, if men come whilst the Psalmes are in reading. This prayer there­fore, being so necessary, is conueniently then repeated, to aidee ther the negligence or neces­sities of many commers. Thirdly, we ioyne this Prayer to the Letanie, because it is oftentimes said alone (as vpon Wednesdayes and Fri­dayes.) Now this (as also all other Prayers) were imperfect without this supplement of the diuine Prayer: which if you denie, you fall into the quicke sand of Brownisme. The other fine times, namely, at the two Sacraments, Marriage, Churching, Buriall) because the actions are many times distinct and alone, yea and seldome, or neuer all concurre, may seuerally seeme to require the annexing of this heauenly Prayer.

You haue inuented shifts in appearance for your needlesse repetitions: But how can you cleake the omitting of the Doxologie?

First, you neuer heard of any man mole­sted or rebuked for repeating the same: For indeed the rehearsall thereof is not prohibited: Secondly, it is omitted, not only in the vul­gar translation but euen in one ancient Greek C [...]p [...]e (as Beza witnesseth.) Thirdly, it is al­so left out in Luke, who would not haue neg­lected Luke 11. 5. an essentiall necessarie part of so exact a Prayer.

[Page 53]

If this bee wanting, Prayer will bee de­fectiue: as contayning Petitions, but [...] Thanks­giuing.

First, some might say: That CHRIST taught vs to aske, but not to giue thankes: not because gratulation is lesse needfull, but more easte. For to a man that asketh accor­ding to knowledge, if his demands be gran­ted, it will be no great difficultie to bring in the haruest of thankes, according to his owne Seed-time of Petitions: Secondly, some doe auouch that in each petition all kindes of Prayer appointed by Saint Paul, are by 1. Tim. 2. 1. consequence implied: Thirdly, these words hallowed bee thy name, if they bee interpre­ted as a Thankesgiuing, your argument were at an end: Fourthly, this conclusion of the Lords Prayer will hardly bee inforced to be a Thankesgiuing, but rather a Doxologie or Recogni­tion of Gods due.

CHAP. VII.
Of short Prayers.

FRom the Lords Prayer, wee des­cend to those Prayers which are inuented by men. These be ei­ther but bits of Prayers, and short wishes, rather then Prayers: Or drawne into length (called the Letanie.) Of the first kind are these: O Lord open thou our lips. O Lord make haste to helpe vs, and the like, whose generall fault is their curt breuitie.

I remember you were offended at the length of our Liturgie: & now you are displea­sed at the shortnesse of our prayers? Not vn­like them, which being called Papists, doe an­swere that they should bee stiled Catholickes: And then being termed Catholickes, thus come vpon vs at the back doore, that we bee Heretiques, because we contradict them being Catholickes. Or not vnlike children which crie for yce, and when they haue it, crie because it is cold.

Leaue your descants: Though your Li­turgie bee long: yet some of your Prayers are but cuts, poore pittances, and crummes of Pra­yers.

If these also were inlarged, our Seruice [Page 55] Booke would be longer then a Westphalian mile, or the Which some haue fabled to contain twen­tie moneths, each moneth twentie dayes Gene. 19 20. Numb. 10. 35. Iosua 10. 12. Iudg. 15. 18. & 16. 28. Matth. 26. 39. 2. Cor. 13 13. Gal. 6. 18. Gene. 18. 23. 1. King. 8. 23. 2. King. 19. 15. Isa. 38. 10. Dan. 9. 2. Ion. 2. Hab, 3. Ioh. 17. yeare of the Cubans. But now to approach to the matter, wee find many short prayers in the Scripture, not exceeding, nay scarce equalising these of ours in length. As for long prayers, besides the Psalmes (which yet are not all of them prayers) wee find not many. In all not aboue nine: whereof three are subdiuided into sundrie Sections (name­ly that of Abraham, Salomon, and the Lords Prayer.) The other sixe onely seeme to haue continued length. By which it appeares that wee haue sufficient presidents, for both kinds of prayers. Againe, shortnesse of pra­yer is then most conuenient, when wee intend some greater action of an other nature, and yet holy, or at least lawfull: For this cause, long Grace, by discreete men is not allowed Lastly these short prayers, are certaine quicke Parce Ciuibus Miles faciem feri. prouocations to ardent Zeale, not bnlike Cae­sars briefe Apothegmes.

Besides the defect in quantitie: These pra­yers are also vitious, in regard both of the person vttering; and the matter vttered. The person vttering is named first a Priest: a terme not con­uenient to the Ministers of the Gospell.

Doe you terme our Ministers Euange­licall, being ordained by Bishops; men in your opinion Pettie Popes, and seruants of Antichrist?

For the present we grant them to bee true Ministers. For wee contend not about the sub­stance, but for the title.

[Page 56]

It seemeth your altercation is about words, which be the wooll of a Goate.

The word Priest is, by Consequence, dan­gerous: and therefore to be changed.

Before you change this tearme, how would you haue these men to be entituled?

Let them bee called Pastors Doctors, Prea­chers, Ministers, Bishops, Elders.

First, if Pastors be translated Shepheards, you will hardly allow the basenesse of that name: Secondly, if Pastors bee turned Fee­ders; and Doctors, Teachers, how can men, feed or teach, but by preaching? So that your three first tearmes are confounded. The name of Minister is in Greeke all one with Deacon: which after your construction is only conuer­sant about almes. The stile of Bishop I can prone to bee only proper to him that may or­daine Priests.

I will not now be intangled with that con­trouersie: Wherfore let them bee called Elders or Seniors; but Priests by no meanes.

First, the name of Elder is giuen by the Hebrewes to the Ciuill Magistrate: and by you Deut. 2. 4. Iudges 8. 14. Ruth 4. 2. to certaine Lay-men, which assist the Pastor in the Consistory: and by vs to men of ano­ther qualitie then Priests. For who can be ig­norant what bee Aldermen in Townes, and Seniours in Colledges? Secondly, the name Priest, is deduced from the [...]. Greeke word, which signifieth Elder. And now tell I pray [Page 57] you, why you disallow the tearme Priest?

First, because it signifieth a Sacrificer.

First, neither is this the proper significa­tion of the word: for in Hebrew it betokeneth Gen. 41. 45. 2. Sam. 8. 18. Hence the Tartarians call their King Kan of the Hebrew [...] of [...]. Sacerdos of Sacer, and Dos. For Dos in old time was of the masculine gender. a Prince, aswell as a Priest: In Greeke, a holy man, or one conuersant about holy things: In Latine, a holy Dowrie: of the English you heard before. Secondly, and though it should signi­fie a Sacrificer, yet were not the tearme dan­gerous. For the Priest of the New Testament, doth offer vnto God, the Sacrifice of prayer: and administreth the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is also a Sacrifice.

How can this be spoken without Poperie, which maketh men to eat Christ? A thing more infamous, then either that of the Caniballs, where men eate men; or that of the worshippers of Mo­loch, where God was thought to eat men: for here man deuoures God.

The Romish Sacrifice we allow not: And yet in foure respecs, the Sacrament may be ter­med a Sacrifice. First, because therein we of­fer our selues to God, as a reasonable Sacrifice: Secōdly, because we present him with y ^e fruit & calues Rom 12. 1. Some conie­cture that the Hebrew word [...] Hose 14. 3. that is calu [...]s was read [...], that is fruits, Heb. 13. 15. of our lips, the most acceptable sacrifice: 3: For that we giue him the Sacrifice of Almes: Fourthly, & principally because it is the Remē ­brance, Signe, Seale, & Instrument of applying to vs, the only Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse.

The second cause of our disliking this name Priest is, for that the Scripture doth not yeeld it to the Ministers of the Gospell. I

[Page 58]

The Prophet calleth them Priests and Esay 66. 2 [...]. Leuites.

That is only done in the Old Testament, Mal. 1. 11. by allusion to the Priests of the Law: as else­where Prayer is called a cleane Sacrifice, in the like sense.

And yet (as euen now you heard) the au­thor to the Hebrewes calleth prayer a Sacrifice by vertue of this allusion: whereby also the Prophet was moued to call our Ministers, Priests.

This hee did not because they should be so stiled: but because they should succed them, not in action but in Office.

Not in action? Did not the Priests of the Law both pray, and teach the people? Had they not many of the same outward Rites that wee haue (howsoeuer they may seeme some­thing to be varied in Circumstances?) Did not they vse Water, Bread, Wine; all which not­withstanding were by Christ retained?

But you cannot shew in the New Testa­ment, this name, in this meaning.

The name is giuen to all Christians by 1. Pet. 2. 5. & 9. Apoc. 1. 6. two Apostles: And why should wee denie it to Ministers, to whom principally it doth ap­pertaine?

That name is common to all: and there­fore may not be appropriated to them.

It may be ascribed to them, though not properly, yet principally: because they offer to [Page 59] God, not only solitary and priuate prayers (as other Christians doe) but euen the publique Supplications of the whole Church. For all true Israelites, were by the merits of Christ Exod. 19. 6. (though to come) made true Priests in this ge­nerall sence: and yet this hindred not, but that they of the house of Aaron, might bee cal­led Priests.

But the New Testament doth no where attri­bute directly this name to our Church Officers.

You still reason from negatiue testimo­nies which are but dumbe witnesses.

I reason from the practice of the Euange­lists and Apostles: which did of purpose auoid this name: because the Legall Priesthood and Temple were yet standing. In like manner should wee eschew this tearme because of the Popish Priesthood.

I hope in Isaiahs time the Priesthood and Temple were not abrogated, and yet he cal­led our Ministers Priests. As for the Popish Priests, they can no more hinder vs from the vse of this name, then the Priests of Tammuz could hinder the Priests of Israel. Did the Fa­thers therefore abstaine from this name, be­cause the Priests of Saturne and Iuno were at Carthage, or Iupiter at Rome, Pallas at Athens, and the like?

From the Priests wee come to the People: which also doe vtter publique Prayers: For like Priest, like People.

[Page 60]

I had thought you had beene satisfied when wee treated about the Preface of the Common Prayers.

You did then only indeauour to shew that the People might say after the Minister, not that they might answer him: The reason and end whereof I cannot conceiue.

The end thereof: First, is to ease the Priest: Secondly, to raise vp in the People, memory, attention, and zeale: the first to pre­pare the minde; the second to make it concurre with the Priest: The third, to apply the Pub­lique sayings to each priuate mans vse.

If a good intention might make a good action: the money changers in the Temple might be iustified, which helped the people to the money of the Sanctuary, but where is the warrant of your practice?

Our warrant is drawne from propor­tion: As the Priest would not suffer Dauid and his followers to taste of the holy bread vn­lesse they had beene seperate from women, by analogie to Gods Commandements vpon Mount Sinai: So wee cause the People to an­swer 1. Sam. 21. 4. Exod. 19. 15. the Priest by a proportionable reference to the practise of Miriam and Anna. Againe, seeing diuers of the Psalmes are prayers: And Exod. 15. 20, 21 Luke 2. 38. Consider the word [...]. publique psalmodie is approued by all men of tempered wits: Wee know not why the peo­ples Responsals or answers in praier should be reiected.

[Page 61]

There is no lesse errour in the matter then in the persons. The first fault of the matter is their vsing of Gloria Patri, which is but an hu­man: inuention.

Were it so yet were it tolerable (as we shewed when wee spake of Set Prayer.) But true it is that Athanasius, a man, inuented it: and the whole Church approued it: which (as we thinke) had the Spirit of God.

That whose first vse is decayed, ought to be abolished: but the vse of Gloria Patri is now decayed (which was to detest Arrians and Ma­cedonians denying the God-head of Christ; and of the Holy Ghost) now therefore it is to bee abro­gated.

First, the Maior is vntrue: For though the first vse of the Arke, were to preserue Noah with his Family: yet Moses made an Arke for [...] an Arke to preserue things aliue. Gen. 6. 14. whence Thebes was called by the houses thereof built of Cadmus ships. [...] an Arke to keepe things without life. Exod. 25. 10. another vse: And though the first vse of Man­na were to feed the people, yet it was reserued in the Golden Pot many hundred yeares. The like is to bee said of the Brazen Serpent, which though it healed not them that looked on it: yet was it kept till the dayes of Ezekias. A­gaine your Minor is weake: For at this day we know (by a certaine migration of soules, or art of Endor) sundry both Arrians and Samosa­tenians and Tritheites, Turkes, and Iewes, which doe no lesse impugne the Trinitie, then did the Old Heretiques. Besides the Gre­cians denying the Holy Ghost to proceed from [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] the Sonne, denie withall (in our opinion) the Sonne's equalitie with the Father, which see­meth to bee acknowledged by this Gloria Pa­tri. Are there not amongst vs many Familists, which are said to disclaime the God-head of the Holy Ghost? Are there not many stiffe­necked Atheists, which all in their liues, some in plaine words, denie the Glorie, Trinitie and Eternitie of God, which three things are or­derly combined in this Doxologie? Nay, is any man of that trāscendent capacitie, to whom it shal not be auailable to haue this more then Super-celestiall Mysterie often inculcated into his flitting memorie?

The words wee might better indure were they not so vnseasonably reiterated at the end of all the Psalmes; and sundry Hymnes.

You complaine (as I heare) that Al­leluia (Prayse yee the Lord) is omitted seuen­teene times in the end of certaine Psalmes: and yet when we, at the end of euery Psalme, doe most distinctly praise God, (which Alle­luia doth enioyne vs to doe) you seeme to be in Choller. Againe the end of this rehearsall, is, First, that the ignorant, which cannot reade, may be aduertised where each Psalme endeth: Secondly, that the true vse of Psalmes (which is the praising of God) may bee manifested in practice: Thirdly, That many irreuerent persons by meanes of this (which seemeth to be a kinde of prayer) may bee put in minde of [Page 63] the dutie which is most decent in the hearing of the Psalmes, namely, vailing the Bonnet, which many doe (with as little regard) neg­lect, as they which depart from Baptisme, be­fore the Thankesgiuing. Of which kinde of Sacrilegious prophanenesse, we obserue many lamentable trials among the dissolute mul­titude.

The second fault in the matter of these prayers, is found in these words after the A­postles Creed, There is none other that fighteth for vs but only thou O God.

Are there not sinnes enow? why make you more? what is the knot in this bulrush?

First, you seeme to pray for peace in your owne time, without regarding the po­steritie.

We pray for the one as being a blessing of God promised to two worthy Kings of Iu­da: 2. Kings 20. 19. & 22, 10. the latter we neglect not. Only we dare not presume that peace shall remaine with vs with her wings clipt for euer. When we aske bread for this day, doe we neglect to morrow? Doe we not tread as neere as may bee in the steps of Christ, who forbids vs to take care for to morrow?

Againe, when you pray for peace, because none fighteth for you but God: you seeme to in­timate that you would not feare warre if any should fight for you but God.

This is rather our meaning: That we [Page 64] feare no warre, but expect an eternall peace if God defend vs, who is the Lord of Sabaoth, (that is of Hoasts) At which word in the Te Deum some haue cauilled: not remembring that it is found in the Greeke Text of Saint Paul: For had it beene in the Te Deum: Sab­both Rom. 9. 29. not Sabaoth might not that also bee iustified? Did not sundry ancient Iewes tearme God, the Lord of the Sabbath Day? Is hee not indeed the Lord of rest, which that word implieth? But to returne from this seeming digression: God is our Psal 18. 2. & 121 4 & 127. 2 shield, and Psal. 73 25. watchfull keeper: him only wee haue in Heauen and Earth. And now remember you auouched Dan. 10. 21. Michael to bee Christ. Consider the words there written. There is none that holdeth with mee in these things but Michael your Prince. If Michael here bee Christ, are not the words the same in effect with these in our Liturgie at which you stumble? In summe, though An­gels and Men fight for vs ministerially, and in the nature of instruments; yet God only fighteth as principall Agent, teaching our Psal. 18. 34. hands to fight.

CHAP. VIII.
Of the Letanie.

THe Short Prayers being handled, I proceed to the Letanie: being a more continued forme of Pray­er: which (as I take it) doth want things needfull, and a­bound with things needlesse or euill. First, then it wanteth a Thankesgiuing, which is as necessa­ry a part of Prayer as Petition.

If there bee six or seuen Petitions in the Lords Prayer (for there are of both opinions) I beleeue the Lords Prayer will haue the same defect.

The conclusion of the Prayer, in these words (for thine is the Kingdome, &c.) is a Thankesgiuing: so that the prayer is not herein defectiue.

I shewed before, that to be no Thankes­giuing: But, if it bee, then is not the Letanie destitute of Prayers in this kinde. For these words, O holy, blessed and glorious Trinitie: and these, O Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the world, are they not a di­rect Doxologie? Haue wee not elsewhere sundrie formes of Thankesgiuing prescribed [Page 66] both in your larger sense, (as that of Gloria Pa­tri: and that in the beginning of the Gospell: Glory bee to thee, O Lord; together with Te Deum, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, Benedictus, and Benedicite: as also in the more strict accep­tion of the word (for example after Baptisme:) likewise in the Communion, in Churching, yea and in Buriall.) Doth not the Church vpon all occasions (besides the yearely Solemnities, which are nothing but Thankesgiuings to God for his benefits in his Sonne, Angels, Saints) appoint many Eucharisticall formes, publique­ly to be celebrated? What should I speake of the foure and twentieth of March: and fiue and twentieth of Iuly: the fift of August, and Nouember; whose gratulatory memorials, are obserued with all Symbols of Christian ioy.

But why doe you not ordaine a continuall Thankesgiuing to God, whose mercies are conti­nuall?

We reade the Psalmes daily, with sundry Hymnes of Thankesgiuing. Besides, if you suppose our gratulations should bee as particu­larly determined as our petitions, you turne Earth into Heauen: In Heauen there shall bee an eternall Alleluia, & cause or matter of Thanks­giuing: But on Earth, though our wants bee many of them, standing and continued, and so our petitions vnalterable: yet the variation of the benefits which wee receiue, doth many wayes diuersifie the formes of our gratulati­ons. [Page 67] In prescribing whereof Our Church is not negligent, when new occurrences fall.

From the want of things needfull, I goe on to the store of things needlesse or euill: and that either in the forme or matter, and obiect of Praier. In the forme we dislike these words: By the myste­rie of thy holy Incarnation, &c. which either wee take to be Oaths (things most strange in Prayer) or certaine magicall Exorcismes, and Coniurations: other sence of these words we cannot imagine.

You haue at once, hatched foure errours: whereof the two former concerne an oath. The first is, that wheresoeuer you heare this word by; you presently conceiue an oath. Whereupon, when you reade these words, by the life of Pharaoh: you coniecture that Ioseph Gen. 42. 15, 16. learned to sweare in Egypt by the life of a King: whereas the Hebrew hath simply Pha­raoh liues: which phrase notwithstanding sounds but harshly in our English eares: And yet some of your men doubt not to tell the peo­ple, that this was an oath.

Therein they doe not erre. For did not Iuda say to Iacob: the man charged vs by an oath? Gen. 4 [...]. 3.

First, the Hebrew Text may be thus ren­dred: the man did in contesting, contest, or in protesting protest to vs, that is, hee did charge vs with an earnest protestation. If this sence stand, your oath doth vanish: But because the word may signifie to attest▪ or call God to wit­nesse: or to adiure, (that is, to cause another [Page 68] to sweare) though the ordinary Translation be not changed: yet we may say: that either hee charged them to sweare they would bring Beniamin: or himselfe did call God to witnesse, if they brought not Beniamin they should not goe vnpunished? wherefore seeing Charitie craueth the most fauourable exposition; no ne­cessitie doth inforce vs to thinke that Ioseph his saying, by the life of Pharoh was an oath. The second errour is: That you make an Oath and Prayer things repugnant: whereas the two ingredients of an oath (the attestation of God, or calling him to witnesse: and the sup­plication made vnto him, that he would reueale the truth, and reuenge falshood) are both found in Prayer: wherein wee both call for his pre­sence; and vse many times as well impreca­tion conditionall, as postulation.

What? then would you haue men to sweare when they pray?

Nothing lesse: But onely by this you see that an Oath and Prayer agree in substance, howsoeuer they seeme to differ in circumstance of termes. Your third errour is, in that you suppose all charging of God by the remem­brance of his former benefits to be meere con­iuring. Thinke you Dido coniured, when shee said, Per Connubia nostra, that is, By our Aeneid. 4. Marriage I intreat you Aeneas to returne to mee?

I passe not for your Poeticall instance. [Page 69] What good construction can you make of these words in the Letanie?

Therein stands your fourth errour: For the interpretation of the wordes bee plaine: That we desire God to aide vs: by applying to vs those fifteene benefits there rehearsed, as euery man of meane capacitie may conceiue.

From the forme let vs goe to the obiect: according to which your Prayers may be diui­ded into Intercessions and Deprecations. Your In­tercessions are three: First, you pray that God would haue mercie vpon all men: whereas Christ would not pray for the world.

Christ knew the number of the Elect; so Iohn 7. 9. doe not we: wherefore his example herein is vnimitable. But now (I pray you) consider this reason. Whom God would haue saued, for them we may pray that God would shew them mercie: But God would haue all men saued: wee may therefore pray for his mercie towards all. 1. Tim. 2. 4.

Though your Minor might be answered The will of the signe is where­by God offe­reth grace in the preaching of the Gospell. Acts 17. 30. with those three knowne distinctions (First, that God willeth by the will of the signe: not of his good pleasure. Secondly, hee willeth it now: namely, since the death of Christ. Thirdly, all men: not euery particular man: but men of all orders, to be saued:) Neuerthelesse, your argu­ment may bee thus retorted vpon you: whom God will not saue, for mercy towards them wee may not pray: But God wils not that all men should be saued (for then there should be no re­probation [Page 70] or vse of Hell) we need not therefore pray thus for all men.

Your three distinctions vpon the place of Saint Paul may cleere our Letany: For as God wils all men to be saued: so doe wee pray for his generall mercy. Neuerthelesse, I thus answer your argument: First, then to let passe your faults in reasoning. Your Maior is ambi­guous: For if you meane the secret will of God: All the Propo­sitions are ne­gatiue: The Minor negatiue in the first fi­gure. So they did in old time to pa­ricides. put the case your Father were appointed by God, to indure some horrible death: if you not­withstanding should not pray against it, were you not worthy to be sowed in a sacke, with a Cocke, an Ape, a Dogge and a Snake, and so forthwith to be cast into the Sea?

But I speake of Gods reuealed will not of his secret. Now God hath reuealed in his word that Rom. 9. 21. 2. Tim. 2. 20. some are vessels of dishonour, and cannot be saued.

Hath God reuealed that hee will not haue all men now liuing to bee saued? As for prayer for the dead, it is repugnant to the doctrine of our Church.

Howsoeuer this point shall bee more fully tried in the Catechisme: yet it seemes you pray for the Dead in your second Intercession, where­in you say, remember not the offences of our fore­fathers.

Through the sides of the Letanie you strike at Baruch, and the writer of the Maccha­bees. Baruch 3. 5. 2. Mac. 12 42.

Wee thinke they all erre alike: seeing [Page 71] they defend Popish Prayers for the Dead.

What thinke you of the Prayer in the Psalme: Remember not against vs the former Psal. 79. 8. iniquities: That is (as Baruch expoundeth it) the wickednesse of our Fathers: which God of­tentimes visiteth vpon the children. And so Iudas Macchabeus prayed, that the sinne of the slaine men might not bring destruction vpon the whole Army: as the sacriledge of Achan did vpon the hoast of Ioshua: and as the sinnes of Saul, Ieroboam, and Achab brought forth ripe punishments in the dayes of their successours: For God punisheth the transgression of the fathers in the children two wayes: First, with eternall punishment: when hee deliuereth the children into a reprobate sense: that they may imitate their fathers fault, which fault not­withstanding is their owne in regard of acti­on: howsoeuer it be imputed to their Parents in respect of example. Secondly, with tem­porall Chastisement, although the Children be godly.

The former iniquities mentioned in the Psalme; may bee expounded of those sinnes, which men that are here brought in praying, had committed before the time of this punishment, and not of the sinnes of their Ancestors.

But is this interpretation against the analogie of faith? Doth not God indeed punish the sinne both of the Fathers vpon the children; and of the Dead vpon the Liuing?

[Page 72]

Though this be granted yet Iudas Mac­chabeus 2. Mac. 12. 43, 44. cannot be iustified who both prayed, and offered a sinne offerring for the Dead.

Howsoeuer you trust not vs: yet beleeue some, of whose skill and good intention here­in you cannot doubt. The summe of the an­swere Reynolds de Idololatria. is this: Iudas prayed for two things: First, that the offence of the slaine men might not be imputed to his Army? Secondly, Hee intreated for their ioyfull resurrection, chari­tably hoping that they had in the act of death repented of their sinne. Againe the sinne offe­ring for the dead may be vnderstood Causally, not Subiectiuely: For their sinnes were the cause why it was offered, yet were they not subiects capable of the benefits arising there­by.

This shift is cut off by the last wordes of the Chapter, which are these, that they might bee freed from sinne: And this clause can be refer­red to none but the slaine men.

These words (if they bee not corrupted) as the same author coniectureth (for you know that wee neither hold them Canonicall, nor reade them in our Churches) must be referred to the men in his Armie, which were aliue: Againe, some haue not doubted to answere that sinne may bee forgiuen after this life, Be­cause Sir Edward Hobbie against Higgins. the full pardon thereof is not declared till the generall iudgement. But now to return to the Letany; do you thinke that our prayer is popish?

[Page 73]

I suspect, that according to the Papists, you thinke the guilt to be taken away by death, and yet the punishment in Purgatory to re­maine.

The Papists imagine the guilt of Veni­all sinne only to bee remoued by death. Now this sinne (wherein the Souldiers of Iudas died) was mortall as cannot be denied: Wherefore wee gratifie not the Papists in allowing this Historie. Againe, where is your Charitie, when you charge vs with purgatorie, seeing the streame of our Churches Doctrine runneth against it.

I care not for your streame: For you looke Eastward, and row Westward: I will now passe to the third Intercession.

Before you passe; let mee know what you meane by this word Intercession?

What should I meane but a Prayer which we make for other men?

When we pray for all men, doe wee not pray for our selues? And when wee pray that God would not remember against vs, the sins of Our Forefathers, is not this Prayer made in behalfe of our selues; that God would not inflict punishment vpon vs for their transgres­sions.

I had thought; when you said all men: you meant all but your selues: And that in the other Prayer you had beene Suppliants for the dead. Now your third Intercession is Illuminate [Page 74] all Bishops, &c. Pray you herein for true, or for false Bishops?

In your opinion we cannot pray for true Bishops▪ For you imagine true Bishops to bee only ordained by your Discipline which wee haue not. Also you thinke that you are not bound to pray for men of a contrarie Religi­on to your owne: But the truth is, wee pray for both: namely, that God would giue the beginning of light to the false; and the increase thereof to the true Bishops.

It is vnseasonable now to tell what wee thinke in this point: For I will not at this pre­sent bee enwrapt in this question: Only wee thinke that you pray for Popish Bishops: A­gainst which I thus reason. For Antichrist; we may not pray: But Popish Bishops are the seruants of Antichrist: therefore not to be prayed for.

First your Maior is doubtfull to mee: For I beleeue, by Antichrist you meane the Pope.

I meane so: what scruple is there in it?

A scruple which you can neuer remoue: As I will thus confirme. Antichrist is not one man: But a state or succession of men: Now the Pope is only one man: and therefore can­not bee Antichrist. The Maior is affirmed by all Protestants: the Minor is confirmed by common sense.

By the Pope I meane the Papacie or Suc­cession of Popes: not this or that indiuiduall Pope.

[Page 75]

What then? May we not pray that this Pope that now sitteth at Rome may bee con­uerted, although hee bee in in the seat of Anti­christ? May we pray for a Pope, and not for the Popish Bishops? Againe in your Minor you change the Medium; and turne the state of the question: For from Antichrist, you run to Antichrist his seruants.

Betweene him and his seruants there is as much difference as betweene Hell and Ge­henna.

Your charitie is too hote, and smels of the Brimstone of that place whereof you speake: Thinke you that Antichrist can bee saued?

I thinke hee cannot No more can his ser­uants.

Can they not relinquish his seruice, and become Reformed Christians.

They may, but then they cease to be his seruants.

You meane then, That wee may pray for them as Bishops but not as Popish. Now we pray that God would illuminate all Bishops, that is, deliuer them from the darknesse of Po­perie, and all manner of errours. Againe, why beate you the bush in this manner? I know you meane that our Lord Bishops are Popish, and the seruants of Antichrist; Neither can you be ignorant, that for their sake principally this Prayer is intended.

[Page 76]

If it be so, I am the more sorrie, except you meane to pray for their conuersion. Howsoeuer it be, I will not now enter into that combat. But from your Intercession I make haste to your De­precations: which either concerne things spiri­tuall or temporall. Of the first kind is this Prayer: From fornication and all other Deadly Sinnes: wherein you seeme to make fornication no sinne.

Doe wee pray to be deliuered from it as from a Punishment▪ or as from a Sinne?

You made the doubt your selfe. Bee you the Oedipus: sure I am, you make it no sinne as may thus be proued: All sinne is deadly (as no Protestant will denie) But fornication, in your Le­tanie, is no deadly sinne; and consequently no sinne. The Minor thus appeares, You say; For­nication, and all other deadly sinnes: whereby you distinguish Fornication from the other, as not being of that kinde.

When Dauid saith, Sheepe and Oxen yea, and the beasts of the field: doth hee exclude Sheepe and Oxen out of the num­ber of the beasts of the field? When Saint Paul saith, As the Apostles and the brethren of the Lord; and Cephas. Doth hee denie the Lords brethren and Cephas to bee Apostles? Doe not the Papists themselues ac­knowledge Fornication to be one of the Dead­ly sinnes? And doe you vilifie vs in respect of them?

[Page 77]

You vilifie your selues in making seauen deadly sinnes like Papists: which some humorous men haue applied to the seuen Planets, accor­ding to the dayes of the weeke: As Pride to the glorious Sunne: Enuy to the pale Moone: Wrath to fierce Mars: Couetousnesse to subtle Mercu­rie: Gluttonie or Drunkennesse to prodigall Iu­piter: Lust to wanton Venus: Sloth to dull Saturne.

I dispute not now whether these men did inuent this method, partly for memorie, partly to shew that lanets, though they compell not mans minde, yet they incline his affection vnlesse he breake and tame his naturall dispo­sition. Only this I demand: Doe the Pa­pists make no other deadly sinnes then these seuen? Is not heresie with them capitall? Doe they not make sixe sinnes against the Holy Ghost? Presumption, Despaire, Finall Impeni­tencie, Obstinate Malice, Inuidence, or Enuie against Gods grace in our brother: resisting of the knowne truth.

Yea your selfe made Enuy, not long agoe, In a Sermon vpon Rom. 1. 29 a sinne against the Holy Ghost.

It was then declared, that there is but one sinne against the Holy Ghost: and there­fore that those sixe things reckoned by the Schoolmen out of Saint Austine, are rather parts then kindes of that sinne. Also it was shewed that Enuy was of two kindes. The first, whereby one desireth anothers happinesse [Page 78] to be translated to himselfe: Another, where­by he is sorrie that any vertue remaineth in the Matth. 13. 28. world. This latter is in him that is called the enuious man: and may be a part of that dread­full sinne against the Holy Spirit.

But you said in another Sermon that Wit­ches sinne against the Holy Ghost.

I said it not of my selfe, but recited it out of the Kings Maiesties Booke called the Demo­nologie: The worthinesse whereof I thought to bee such (though it had beene written by a man vnknowne, or meerely priuate) as might stop all Cauils. But now what can you al­leage against it? Doe not some Witches plain­ly renounce God, and that with a voluntarie and direct obstinacie? Doe they not often blaspheme that God whom they haue known and acknowledged? Can this iniquitie bee distinguished from the sinne against the Holy Ghost.

It was affirmed (by them that reported it to vs) that these were your assertions: Witches sinne against the Holy Ghost: Enuy is the sinne against the Holy Ghost.

Men of your profession should be diligent hearers, and slow beleeuers. For you know that Fame is like the vrine, which, till it bee chafed, and tried, is as deceitfull as an Harlot.

Well if the Papists and you make more dead­ly sinnes then seuen: why are these seuen only rec­koned?

[Page 79]

Let the Papists themselues tender a rea­son of their owne popular diuision: As for vs, wee account all firme in it owne nature to bee mortall.

But you seeme to imply the vulgar Popish distribution of Sinnes into Mortall and Ve­niall.

Doe none diuide Sinne in this manner but Papists? Doth not Bellarmine tell you, Bellar. lib. 2. de peccato. that Lutherans hold all the sinnes of the Elect to bee veniall: of the reprobate to be mortall? Dare you denie the Publique Doctrine of our Church, that all sinnes (except that against the Holy Ghost) howsoeuer, in their owne nature, they be deadly, yet are made through the me­rits of Christ, veniall, and pardonable.

From spirituall things I come to temporall: Whereof both the number and matter are by vs disliked. Touching the first. The number of your prayers for Temporall benefits, exceedeth them which are made for Spirituall graces: whereas of the six Petitions in the Lords Prayer, the fourth only is for Temporall things.

When wee pray in the sixt Petition: Lead vs not into temptation, against what temp­tations doe we pray?

Temptation is from God, either immediate­ly without meanes (as that which is termed the Diuine temptation, namely, when the wrath of God doth immediatly seize vpon the Consci­ence:) Or else by meanes, which are three: First, [Page 80] the Deuill who stirres vp the blasphemous tempta­tion: Secondly, the flesh, or part vnregenerate, from which doe issue both the temptations of sinne, affrighting the Conscience, and of Fancie molested with Melancholy: Thirdly, the world, by and in which are raised outward temporall af­flictions.

I will not now dispute about your diui­sion: Only you confesse, that in this sixt Peti­tion you pray against temporall affliction, and so for a temporall blessing. But now tell me I pray you, when in the seuenth Petition wee say Deliuer vs from euill; what euill is vnder­stood?

These words not the seuenth: but a part of the sixt Petition: For the coniunction But, knitting them to the former words, doth make them but one sentence, and one Petition.

By this your reason there wil be but foure Petitions: Considering to these words, Giue vs this day our daily bread, the rest of the Prayer is annexed by three coniunctions: Namely, twice And, and For. Againe, Beza telleth [...]. you, that the word But, is oft times taken for And.

To grant that these words may make the seuenth Petition yet by the word euill, wee are to vnderstand the euill one, that is the Deuill.

The word may be put in the neuter gen­der, and so may signifie Math. 5. 37. Iohn 5. 19. euill, or wickednesse: Againe, though wee should receiue your in­terpretation [Page 81] concerning the Deuill, were not Iob's afflictions inflicted by the Deuil, meere­ly temporall? you perceiue then, that here al­so wee pray for temporall securitie. Further I pray you consider these words, forgiue vs our sinnes: doe wee in this fift Petition desire the remission of the guilt of sinne: or also of the pu­nishment thereof.

I am no Papist to separate the punishment from the guilt?

Are there not temporall, aswell as eter­nall punishments of sinne?

What will follow thereupon?

That, in this Petition also, wee make supplication for things temporall. And now retire (if you lift) to the second Petition: Thy kingdome come. Doe you here vnderstand the kingdome of power, of glorie, or of grace?

The kingdome of grace, as it is exercised in the Church Discipline: erected by Pastours, Doctours, Elders, Deacons, Widowes.

Is not this an externall and temporall gouernment? (for I hope it shall not last in Heauen) doe you not pray for the outward peace of this your Disciplined Church? Here also it is plaine; that for things temporall, this Prayer is tendred. There remaines the first Petition (as you call it) Hallowed be thy name: What exposition thereof doe you giue?

Namely; That Gods name may be sancti­fied by vs; doing his will.

[Page 82]

If this bee true: the third Petition (Let thy will be done) is meerely void.

It may then thus be expounded; Let thy name bee hallowed in the confusion of the enemies of thy Church.

Doe you desire their eternall, or only their temporall confusion?

Wee desire first their conuersion: then the repressing of their malice: and for the quiet of the Church, wee craue their temporall ruine. As for their euerlasting downfall, wee commit that to the sole Moderator of such dreadfull execu­tions.

Then some thing temporall is requested in this Petition also: So that of the seuen Petitions, all but the third doe in part implore Gods aide aswell for Temporall, as for Spiri­tuall benefits. Further (I pray you) reade Sa­lomons Prayer: wherein of fifteene Petitions, you will hardly make One for things meerely 1. Kings 8. 23. & 54. Spirituall.

First, the Iewes were a People much led by sense: and therefore by sensible Obiects to be al­lured vnto Religion: Secondly, although the things prayed for, in shew bee Temporall: yet Gods blessing annexed vnto them is Spirituall.

Our people are no lesse carnall, at least in part: For who hath so much of the spirit as is not in great measure allayed by the flesh? Againe if your second caution may stand (as indeed it must) remember these two things: [Page 83] First, that the fourth Petition craueth Con­tentment and Gods blessing, in the attainment, vse, and losse of the things of this life: which you cannot but agnize to bee Spirituall: Se­condly, that the Prayers in our Letanie, may admit the like construction. Further your ar­gument may be answered, two other wayes: First, that all the suites that wee present to God for temporall things, may easily be redu­ced to the fourth, sixth, and seuenth Petitions: Secondly, these are but one and twentie in number, whereas our Prayers for things spiri­tuall, are in a manner numberlesse.

Wee insist not so much vpon the number, as vpon the matter of these Prayers: and spe­cially of two of them: First, you pray against Lightning and Tempest: whereas Lightning is but rare in Winter.

We pray not simply against Lightning. (For we know it to bee a Meteor, very benefi­ciall in nature) but against the damage arising thereby, which is in the Winter more peril­lous; because lesse vsuall. Againe, (according to the ancient diuision of the yeare, into Sum­mer and Winter) we pray against the dangers of the whole yeare: Namely, against Light­ning most frequent in Summer, and tempest in Winter. Or thus, against Lightning most ter­ble in Winter; and Tempest in Summer.

The second errour in the matter of your Prayer, is: That you pray to bee deliuered from [Page 84] suddaine Death. This to bee defectiue, I thus proue. Against that which ought not to bee in the Elect, we ought not to pray: But Death ought not to be suddaine to the Elect: (who should rather be prepared and awaite for it,) wee ought not there­fore to pray against suddaine Death.

Although it were more fit for you to licke The Minor ne­gatiue in the first figure: and all the reason standing vpon negations: nor indeed being capable of-amendment. your reason as a Beare doth her whelpes (for as yet it is all shapelesse.) Neuerthelesse I de­nie your Maior vpon this reason. Against that which ought not to bee in the Elect, wee ought not to pray: But sinne ought not to bee in the Elect: Against sinne therefore wee may not pray.

To let this passe, I come to another Ar­gument: That, against which wee pray is either a sinne, or a Iudgement: But suddaine Death is nei­ther (for it hath befalne the Elect.) In vaine therefore doe you pray against it.

If you imagine that no sin hath befalne the Elect; you will rush vpon the Libertine er­rour of Coppyn and Quintaine, two Belgian Coblers; which patched vp this opinion, that sinne in the Elect is but imaginarie.

You traduce mee. I brought it, to proue that it is no Iudgement.

In the former reason you said it ought not to be in the Elect: and now you auouch it to bee no sinne: How will you soder these things together?

Howsoeuer it may bee a sinne: yet [Page 85] it is no iudgement to the Elect.

Though it bee no iudgement, May we not pray aswell against sinnes, as against iudgements? But why is it no iudgement?

Because it doth befall the Elect, which no iudgement doth.

Why then doth the Apostle 1. Pet. 4. 17. Reade more of this in the last Booke of the Bishop of Win­chester against H. I. say, Iudge­ment doth begin at the house of God? Againe is it not lawfull to pray for a comfortable Death? Is it not some comfort to die with renewed Faith, Repentance, Reconciliation, and Setting of the house in order? Lastly, is not Suddaine Desolation, a iudgement threatned to the Prou. 1. 27. wicked?

But there is no Rom. 8. 1. condemnation to the E­lect.

Yet some of them die with more scandall, and lesse ioy of conscience, yea and enioy lesse ioyes in Heauen then others of their brethren: and may not wee pray for the best gift.

CHAP. IX.
Of Hymnes.

FRom your ordinarie Prayers in Prose, wee come to your Hymnes: which wee disallow both for forme and matter. Touching the forme: wee like not your Church Musique, Vocall, and Instru­mentall: Against which some haue thus reaso­ned: Musique was inuented by Iubal, One of the Gen. 4. 21. wicked stocke of Caine: and therefore not to be v­sed in the Church.

Touching the Antecedent, I demand first, How you proue that hee inuented Mu­sique?

He is said to bee the Father of all that play vpon the Harpe and Organs: vnder which words all kindes of Instrumentall Musique are compre­hended.

To grant that (which yet you can neuer euict:) yet the word Father doth not signifie an Inuenter: For in the former verse Iubal is said to be the Father of cattle, that is, of fee­ding cattle: Did not Abell keepe sheepe before him?

But here are meant greater cattle: or else [Page 87] that he perfected the art of Shepheards, begunne by Abel.

The force of the word, will not establish Peculium à Pe­cudibus dictum. Vnde & pecu­culari & pec­care. the first, considering it signifieth Possession, which may agree aswell to Sheepe and Goats as to Oxen and Horses. As for the latter, though it bee not credible, that Abel should want art, yet to grant it: By this you per­ceiue that Iubal did not inuent, but adorne it. The like is to bee said of Iubals Musique. For you shall neuer perswade that a liberall art was inuented by a man. Secondly, did Iubal inuent Church Musique?

No: But if he, being of the cursed race of Caine, did inuent it, we may not vse it in the Church.

This is your olde sandie consequence: Genes. 36. 24. Deut. 22. 10. 1. Kings 1. 33. vpon which you built your first generall obie­ction: But did not Anah finde out Mules? and yet neither Dauid, nor Salomon refused to vse them. Are therefore tents vnlawfull or the feeding of cattle: or the workes in Iron & Brasse: because the two first (as you expound it!) were inuented by Iubal, and the two latter by Tu­bal Caine?

Things done in the Ceremoniall Law, are to be abolished: But such was Church Musique: Ergo.

Ballance the wordes of your Maior. Was not saying and reading vsed in the Ce­remoniall Law? Will you haue these also ab­rogated?

[Page 88]

These things did concurre with it, but were not parts of it▪ as was Musique.

Then is your Minor but a broken reed: As may thus be proued. All parts of the Cere­moniall Law were set downe by Moses: Now Church Musique was not ordained by Moses: But by Dauid and Salomon: And therefore not Ceremoniall.

Your Maior seemes to want weight: For Salomon not Moses did erect the Temple: and yet I trust you will not denie it to bee a part of the Ceremoniall Law.

The Temple was but the Standing Ta­bernacle inlarged: and so in substance all one withit.

Church Musique doth not edifie: and there­fore to be disallowed.

Touching your antecedent, I demand first. What Musique you intreat of? Doe you dislike all singing in the Church: which some of the Separation haue termed the cro­king of Rauens?

No: but your artificiall Musique, which because it is not vnderstood doth not edifie.

Secondly, then I demand: Did you 1. Cor. 14. 26. Ephes. 5. 19. Col. 3. 16. euer heare of Musique that was not artificiall? were not the Psalmes and Hymnes (mentio­ned by Saint Paul) made by art, or that which is aboue art (namely the spirit of Prophecie.) If your vulgar Psalmodie bee good (as no doubt it is) how much more excellent shall [Page 89] your Artificiall Musique be? which also is so plaine, that euery man of meane diligence and capacitie may conceiue it with reuerend de­light. And now let mee aduertise you of your double contradiction to your selfe: First, you said that Musique was not lawfull in the Church, because it was inuented by Iubal: and yet after made it a part of the Ceremoniall Law, and could not denie the vse thereof by Dauid and Salomon: Secondly, yet stumbling againe, you auouch that it doth not edifie: As if any part of the Law Ceremoniall, or any thing instituted by Dauid and Salomon, were such as could not tend to edification.

Musique did edifie then, but not now.

You should haue produced some reason of your assertion: Meane time wee had ra­ther beleeue Athanasius in the East, Ambrose in the West: Augustine in the South (which did partly erect, partly allow Church Mu­sique) then your bare spirit of Contradiction.

Saint Paul shewes that Musique cannot e­difie, 1. Cor. 14. 7. because the vulgar knowes not what is piped.

First, the Apostle speaketh of a Pipe, in whose sound there is no distinction: Secondly, of such a Pipe, he saith, how shall it be knowne what is piped? His meaning is, how shall the most expert Musician know the meaning thereof? Now can you charge our Musique with indistinction of sounds.

[Page 90]

Your Musique is indistinct being barba­rous: 1. Cor. 14. 11. Barbarus bic ego sum quia non intelligor vlli. And that so it is, it appeares by the Apostle in the same place, because the multitude doth not vnderstand it.

Doth not the multitude conceiue that the words of Te Deum are sung or some such like Hymne?

But they cannot vnderstand the Musi­call Proportions: and so the Musique doth not edifie.

If you meane an exact vnderstanding, some will doubt whither any Musician hath it, being a matter of so deepe contemplation: But if you conceiue a confused and general know­ledge, this may not bee denied to the multi­tude.

I meane a competent vnderstanding of Musique, without which no man can iudge thereof.

Though it require much skill to iudge: yet a mediocritie of Science will serue to bee delighted, and thereupon to giue a certaine confused iudgement. For there is a naturall sympathy betweene mans soule and melodie. Now obserue, if your argument were good, then the vulgar might not heare a Sermon, be­cause they cannot distinctly iudge of the me­thod, and ornaments thereof; being taken from the Armorie of Logique, and Wardrobe of Rhetorique: nor of the truth of the Citati­ons which are drawne from Hebrew, Chaldee, [Page 91] Syrian, and Greekish fountaines: And thus in stead of Church Musique, you would abrogate Sermons, especially before the multitude. In summe; As God loueth a cheerefull giuer, so much more a cheerefull worshipper. So that Musique is requisite that deuotion may be re­freshed by delectation. And take this for a Maxime, An enemie to Musique, an enemy to Muses.

From the forme wee come to the matter Luke 1. 46. & 68. & 2. 29. of Hymnes: which are either taken out of Scrip­ture, or inuented by man: Of the first kinde are these; Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc Dimit­tis: wherein wee first disallow; that being vtte­red at the beginning vpon a particular occasion, they are now conuerted to a common vse.

First, If that were true: What thinke you of the Epistles of Saint Paul to the Gala­thians, and to Philemon, being written vpon most speciall, and vrgent necessities?

There are contained in them, most Oecumeni­cal doctrines for the vniuersal good of the Church.

The same may be said of those Hymnes (as you tearme them) for indeed it may bee doubted, whither things taken out of the Scriptures be Hymnes: Forasmuch as proper­ly they be termed Hymnes which be inuented by the art of Ecclesiasticall men. Secondly, you will hardly alledge any particular occasion of these Songs, especially of the two former.

But of the last wee may: For Simeon [Page 92] desired to die, because hee had seene Christ.

Hee desired to bee dismissed in peace, be­cause he had seene Gods promise fulfilled: And so may wee desire to be with Christ, vpon the acknowledgement of his reuealed will in the Gospell.

The second thing that we dislike is; That these Psalmes are more often repeated, then the Psalmes of Dauid.

You know it is written: That the least in Luke 7. 8. the Kingdome of Heauen is greater then Iohn the Baptist: So we say, That the Songs of the New Testament, are greater and more to our edification, then those of the Old Couenant, because they concerne the Gospell, which is both a greater and a neerer light.

Wee will speake more of the Magnificat, when wee come to treate of the translations. The second kinde of Hymnes was inuented by men: As Te Deum, and Benedicite: wherein first we dis­like that mens inuentions should bee obtruded vpon the Church.

Why set you before vs twice sodden Cole­worts? Set Prayers to bee lawfull wee haue proued before. Now Hymnes inuented by men are nothing but Set Prayers: And there­fore lawfull.

In the Te Deum wee dislike those words When thou hadst ouercome the sharpnesse of death, thou didst open the Kingdome of Heauen to all be­leeuers. Whereby wee suspect you meane that [Page 93] Christ after his death, deliuered the Fathers from Limbus, from which time all beleeuers imme­diatly enter into Heauen.

Did not Christ first goe into Heauen to Iohn 3. 13. & 14. 2. Heb. 9. 8. 1 [...]. & 11. 40. prepare a place for vs, as saith the Scrip­ture?

Hee went thether first not actually, but virtually: because hee merited our going the­ther.

Did hee merit it by any other meanes, then by the vertue of his Death, Resurrection, and Ascention?

Hee did not: But we feared some Snake, lurking vnder this grasse.

I leaue your iealous suspitions: Foras­much as you know that Lymbus Patrum is generally reiected by Our Church.

CHAP. X.
Of Collects, and Creeds.

I Should speake of the Benedicite, but that it is amongst the Apo­cryphall Bookes: and therefore it shall be deferred till we speak of the Lessons: Now from the Ordinarie Prayers wee proceed to the Collects: whereof the most be extraordinary. But in the [Page 94] forefront of them we will place the third Collect for Grace being also an ordinarie Praier: and ta­king part of both: wherein wee approue not these words (Grant that this Day wee fall into no sinne.) Against which we thus reason: It is vnpossible, that wee fall into no sinnes: And therefore to pray for it vtterly vnlawfull.

Your Antecedent is ambiguous, as may thus appeare. Not to sinne is possible: But to fall into no sinne, is all one with not to sinne: and therefore possible. The Maior is proued by Saint Iohn who saith, hee that is 1. Iohn 3. 9. borne of God, sinneth not: neither indeed can sinne.

That place admitteth sundry good expo­sitions: As first, the regenerate cannot finally fall into sinne: Secondly, no not totally for a time: Thirdly, a man, so farre forth as hee is regenerate cannot sinne, but only in regard of the flesh, which lusteth against the spirit.

Which-soeuer of these interpretations you apply to this place; there may be sufficient iustifications to the words of the Collect espe­cially the two former: For it is very lawfull for vs to pray, that wee may neither finally nor totally for a time, fall into sinne: That is, (as the Prophet saith) that wee may bee kept Psal. 19. 3. from sinnes presumptuous: Againe; this truth may be thus manifested: Not to bee led into temptation is possible: But not to fall into sinne, is all one in effect with not to bee led into temp­tation: [Page 95] And therefore equally possible.

Your Minor seemes to reele: For a man may bee led into temptation; and yet not fall into sinne: For Christ sinned not: and yet was led in­to temptation.

The speech were blasphemous, were it not vttered of ignorance: For to bee led into temptation is to be carried into the midst there­of, and to bee ouercome by it: which (as you know) cannot agree to Christ. This exposi­tion may thus bee proued: Either wee pray that wee may not bee led into temptation: or that wee may not yeeld to temptation: The latter to bee lawfull no man doubts: But the former I hope you will not auer. It remaines therfore: That the scope of the Prayer is, that wee may not bee surprised with temptation, so that it may occasion vs to fall into any crying and habituall sinne.

There bee other Proper Collects, at whose words and doctrine wee are offended: The first Defect in the words is obscuritie.

By this argument you might condemne many of the Psalmes: which though they bee meere Prayers: yet in many places are as ob­scure as truth, which is hidden in Democri­tus pit: But what is the obscuritie which you pretend.

In the Collect vpon Trinitie Sunday (as you terme it.) These words are as darke as the leaues of Sibilla: (and in the power of the Maiestie) to worship the vnitie.

[Page 96]

No maruell in a matter as profound as Hell, if some phrase be not so cleere: For if a man should demand of you, the difference be­tweene the generation of the Sonne, and the proceeding of the Holy Ghost? Or how the Sonne should be called a Distinct Person, and yet be in his Father: Or how the Father should communicate all his being to his Sonne; and yet continue his owne being distinct from that of his Sonne. Or how the Father by the Sonne should actiuely breath out the Holy Spi­rit? Or how the wisdome of God should dif­fer from his iustice (considering in God there can bee admited no composition) I beleeue though you had the aid of all Phrasologistes, you would hardly reconcile and explaine these phrases; which notwithstanding are receiued in the Church, as most necessarie. But as for the difficultie, at which here you stumble, it is of no moment: For it is plaine that we wor­ship the Vnitie of the Three Persons in the power of the Diuine Maieistie, acknowledging them Three to be one in powerfull Maiestie, or Maiesticall power, according to a vulgar Hest. 1. 4. & 7. Acts 8. 23. He­braisme knowne to children.

There are some other words, in shew dan­gerous: as first the tearme of Penance in the Col­lect vpon Iohn Baptists day.

Either Penance is an old word, signifying Repentance: or else it betokeneth the Ecclesia­sticall Absolution which is giuen to men that shew the signe of penitence.

[Page 97]

The former signification is vncertaine: Of the latter wee will reason in the Visitation of the sicke. Your second perillous terme is that of Chances in the first Collect after the Offertorie: Whereas this name Chance, howsoeuer it bee vsed by the Heathen Philistim Priests: yet is it 1. Sam. 6. 9. not found in Scriptures taken vp by the Godly. And no maruell, seeing by this word the Proui­dence of God is denied: and our ignorances of se­cond Causes proclaimed.

This tearme is taken vp by Christ him­selfe, Compare [...]. Luke 10. 31. with the verse of Empedocles cited by Ari­stotle, Phis. Lib. 2. cap. 4. where hee saith, that by chance there came a Priest. Now for the denying of God's prouidence, it is vntrue, Chance being either meere or mixt. Meere Chance derogateth from the all-seeing prouidence of God: so doth not mixt chance: For although all things bee most certainly appointed, and foreseene by God: yet he ordaineth some second causes to bee vnfalli­ble: some to be mutable and contingent. This is most manifest in the will of man, which though it bee not free from the necessitie of in­fallibilitie, (whereby the secret operation of God, doth bow it to what side of the ballance he will) yet is it most free from the necessitie of Coaction. So that our actions, howsoeuer conditionally they bee necessary (namely in re­gard of God's Decree) yet absolutely in their owne nature they proceed from a cause con­tingent, and changeable.

By this you perceiue that by GODS [Page 96] [...] [Page 97] [...] [Page 98] Decree, there can bee no Chance.

There are two degrees of Gods Decree: First, generall, whereby hee decreeth things in their owne absolute nature to be contingent, and free. Secondly, more speciall, whereby he determineth the indifferencie and contingen­cie of things, enclining them according to his owne good pleasure. In regard of the former, Chance may, and must be allowed; not only in respect of the second causes (as the common opinion runneth) but euen in regard of Gods Determination, the first cause of the being of all things.

Besides words, we blame Doctrine intima­ted in your Collects: The first whereof is, the Doctrine of Merit, insinuated in these words vpon Ashwednesday, or the First Day in Lent (that we worthily lamenting our sinnes, and know­ledging our wretchednesse, may obtaine of thee, the God of all mercie, perfect remission and forgiue­nesse.) Here, the cause of the pardon of sinnes is made to bee our lamentation for them, and ac­knowledgement of them.

It is not the cause, but the concurrent, concomitant, or rather antecedent, thereof: and that not for the purchasing of it, but of the assurance of the same to our consciences. For al­though the forgiuenesse of our sinnes be in na­ture before repentance (whereof the things na­med in the Collect are effects and signes:) Ne­uerthelesse in regard of apprehension thereof [Page 99] (which some call Certioration) it doth oft times follow the same. Tell me; when Christ said, Many sinnes are forgiuen her, because she loued Luke 7. 47. much; Did he make her loue, the cause of the remission of her sinnes?

No, but rather the contrary; For he ma­keth her to loue much, because her manifold sins were pardoned: So that her loue was an effec­tuall signe not an efficient cause of the condona­tion of her iniquities.

The like may bee said of those thinges which are mentioned in the Collect.

Nay, but you make forgiuenesse of sinnes to be obtained by these things.

Did not Elias obtaine the restraint of raine 1. Kings 17. 1. Iames 5. 17. by Prayer?

Not by the merit of his owne Prayer: but for that his Prayer issued from faith, which apprehended CHRIST: vpon whose merit all the efficacie of Prayer doth depend.

So our Lamentation, &c. proceedeth from Repentance; Repentance issueth from Faith; Faith layeth hold vpon Christ: of whose onely merit, all the force of our lamen­tation, and Confession of sinnes dependeth. And what is all this to Popish Merit? If your iealousie did not prouoke you to coine vn­thought of errours in our Liturgie.

The second is the Doctrine of Despaire, which you manifest in two Collects: First, in that vpon the twelfth Sunday after Trinitie, in these [Page 100] words giuing to vs that that our prayer dare not presume to aske: Secondly, in the fift Collect af­ter the Offertorie: Those things which for our vn­worthinesse we dare not, and for our blindnesse we cannot aske, vouchsafe to giue vs: In both which wee espie a double fault: First, a contradiction: for you pretend that you dare not aske and yet doe aske.

What thinke you of that contradiction? I beleeue, Lord, helpe my vnbeliefe? Marke 9. 24.

It is only in appearance, For he might in a confused generalitie beleeue that the Messias was able to performe this Miracle, and yet in distinct specialtie did not beleeue that this Iesus was the Messias: Or else, he might doubt, be­cause he had no particular promise: howsoeuer he beleeued Gods Vniuersall Power and Goodnesse: Or lastly, he might distrust in regard of his owne vnworthinesse; and yet conceiue no scruple of Christ's potent mercie.

So may we aske that of God through Christ, which wee dare not craue when wee consider our owne vnworthinesse; looking downe (like the Swan or Peacocke) to our foule feet.

The second fault offensiue is, that you Pro. 28. 1. Ephes. [...]. 12. Heb. 4. 16. renounce that boldnesse, and confidence which Salomon; Saint Paul, and the Authour to the Hebrewes doe commend.

Why? was not Saint Paul the Authour to the Hebrewes?

[Page 101]

We shall reason of that in Matrimonie: returne therefore to your argument.

The same Salomon then that ascribeth the boldnesse of Lions to righteous men, doth elsewhere pronounce him blessed that feareth Prou. 28. 14. alwayes: And the same Apostle, which exhor­teth vs to confidence, doth charge vs to finish our saluation with feare and trembling: for wee Phil. 2. 12. may bee bold in regard of God's endlesse mer­cie, and yet feare in a double respect: First, with the feare of reuerence, which causeth the Angels to couer their faces with their wings: Secondly, with a feare of Gods displeasure, Jsa. 6. 2. vpon the deepe consideration of our owne in­dignitie, in regard of our manifold transgressi­ons, partly secret, partly breaking out vpon the least occasion. By the first wee doe weigh our owne infirmitie, as wee are creatures: by the latter our vilitie, as we are Sinners, and haue the flesh mingled with the spirit. Besides this caution which is plainly expressed in the latter Collect in these words, which wee for our vn­worthinesse dare not: whereby wee intimate, that yet we dare through the Dignitie of Christ. There is yet an other clause in the former Col­lect, namely, in these words, which our Prayer dare not presume; whereby all scruple is re­moued. For you that talke so much of the spirit of Prayer; will you reckon Presumption among the vertues thereof?

No, but we reckon it among your vices [Page 102] that make confidence presumption: For to craue what God in Christ hath promised is no presump­tion, but confidence: and to doubt thereof is Diffidence not Humilitie.

To doubt in reguard of Christ is diffi­dence: but to make a demurre in reguard of our owne imbecilitie is true lowlinesse.

From the Peoples Prayers, wee come to the Confessions vttered in the three Creeds: that of the Apostles, the Nicen, and the Atba­nasian. The matter whereof howsoeuer wee al­low: yet first we dislike that you vse the often rehearsall of them: and seeme to equalize them to the Canonicall Scripture.

Wee hold it expedient oft to rehearse the 2. Tim. 1. 13. Heb. 6. 1. patternes of wholsome words and doctrines of the beginning of Christ: and these Sym­boles wee place next the Scriptures: not one­ly because they are extracted out of them: or by reason of their Antiquitie, (the first of them being penned either by Apostles or Apo­stolique men) but in part also for their perspi­cuitie and perfection ioyned with breuitie: the vtilitie whereof is now discouered by misera­ble experience. For the Grecians at this day by reason of their bondage vnder the Turkes, being not able to trauell much in Scriptures, or other Learning, haue only these ancient Symboles left them; as arguments for their iudgement; and Monuments for their faith.

Secondly, wee doe principally dislike. [Page 103] That the Creed of the Apostles is rehersed by the Minister and People standing.

Concerning the Peoples answeres, I In the fift and seuenth Chap­ters. haue spoken before, both in the Preface and Short Prayers.

Yea, but what reason can you render, why the People should stand?

The ancient cause thereof was, That 1. Pet. 3. 15. compared with Mat. 10. 18 & 1. Tim. 6. 13. Consider the difference betweene [...] and [...] in Luke 18. 11. & 13. illîc situs, hîc distantia notatur. men might shew their readinesse to professe their faith, when they were to stand before persecuting Iudges. But now there is an other reason of great vse, Namely, to aduertise the people, that this is A Creed and not A Prayer: for then kneeling were more conuenient then standing: whereas commonly Children take it for a Prayer by tradition from their ignorant El­ders.

CHAP. XI.
Of God's speech in the Liturgie.

FRom the speech of the people to God (vttered in Prayer and Con­fession) wee ascend vp to the speech of God himselfe to the peo­ple: declared partly in the Ten Commandements, partly by their sanction: and that either by threatning or commination: or by instruction which is offered, either to the younger sort (in Catechisme) or to the Elder (in Homilies) In the rehearsall of the Ten Commandements, these words are omitted which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of Or bond­men. Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 31. Pro. 30. 6. Apoc. 22. 18. bondage? Against which, thus I reason? No part of Gods Law may be omitted: But these words are a part of the Law, and therefore not to be omitted.

The proofes of your Maior are imper­tinent: and so commonly the men of your con­dition do vse to lade their Margins with Texts of Scripture, as men doe Cammels till they crie. For whereas these Scriptures doe forbid omission in practice, or interpretation at the most, you apply them to reproue omission in rehearsall: But now confirme your Minor, and all shall be granted.

[Page 105]

First, the Hebrewes point these words as they doe the Commandements: and number the letters of them among the sixe hundred fiftie three letters of the In the fiue Bookes of Mo­ses are found written 653. Commande­ments, name­ly, 288. affir­matiues (ac­cording to the ioynts of the body) and 365. negatiues (ac­cording to the dayes of the yeare:) Reade for these Phil­lip Ferdinando the Iew. Law. Secondly, they seeme to bee the affirmatiue part of the first Comman­dement: whereby we are (by implication) char­ged to haue, and acknowledge the true God.

Parts of the Commandements are of two kindes. Substantiall and Circumstantiall (called Sanctions.) The Substantiall part, wee finde omitted in the rehearsall of the Tenth Com­mandement vsed by Saint Rom. 13. 9. Paul. For I be­leeue that these words, thy neighbours house, thy neighbours wife, &c. declaring the obiects of concupiscence, cannot be denied to be essen­tiall parts of the precept. As for the Sanction, we finde it left out in the repetition of the fift Math. 19. Commandement: for so these words are ac­counted that thy dayes may be long in the land, &c. Now your first Argument doth only in­force these words to be a Sanction, or proeme of the Precept, considering the Sanctions of the second, fourth, and fift Commandements, are so pointed by the Hebrewes (although with a difference:)

It may seeme strange that the second Com­mandement, and the three following should haue Sanctions annexed; and the first bee destitute thereof.

The ratifications adioyned to them doe follow them: But the confirmation (for which [Page 106] you contend) doth come before the first Com­mandement. And therfore your argument hath no firme proportion: Again this Sanction may be generall to the whole Decalogue: Neither can you necessarily proue it to be appropriate to the first precept: And though it it were pe­culiar to the same, yet why may it not bee o­mitted in the repetition? especially so farre forth as it particularly concerneth the Chil­dren of Israel, which only were freed from the iron furnace of Egypt.

We are also deliuered from the Spirituall Egypt of Sinne and Poperie. So that for this rea­son Apoc. 11. 8. likewise it should be mentioned.

When Moses repeateth the Law, the se­cond time, he omitteth the sanction of the fourth Commandement, which was added to it in the first promulgation thereof: Namely, Gods rest after the six dayes of Creation: and in place Exod 20. 1. Deut. 5. 15. thereof doth put the deliuerance from Egypt: by which we obserue two things: First, that all Sanctions are not of necessitie to be inculcated in the repetition of the Law: Secondly, that this confirmation drawne from the Deliue­rance out of Egypt, doth pertaine as well to the fourth, as to the first Precept. Besides when Saint Paul doth rehearse the fift Commande­ment, Ephes 6. 3. instead of the Land of Canaan hee na­meth the Earth, because Canaan was peculiar to the Hebrewes. In like proportion, howsoe­uer Egypt may spiritually signifie Sinne; Po­pery, [Page 107] or rather Hell: yet because we haue pro­mises of a better Testament, we may omit the mention of Egypt, according to the saying of the Prophet. Your second argument is ouer­throwne Ier. 16. 14, 15. by the first. For if these words bee therefore part of the Commandements, because they are pointed like them (I meane as a San­ction may be tearmed a part accidentall) then may they not bee stiled the affirmatiue part of the first Commandement, because they are not All the Com­mandements, but the fourth and fift haue two accents in each word: they only but one. pointed like the Fourth and Fift, which are counted affirmatiue Precepts. Besides where will you finde a Commandement, wherein the affirmatiue and negatiue part are both ex­prest?

It may be found in the fourth Precept. For as wee are charged to sanctifie the Sabbath: so are we especially interdicted all worke vpon that Day.

Were that granted, which may not bee, (because the affirmatiue speaketh of Sanctifica­tion, the negatiue of rest:) yet how will you make these wordes, I am thy Lord thy God, &c. an affirmatiue Commandement? Conside­ring that in them there is no assertiue charge, but only a narratiue claime of Gods right, vn­lesse by implication of Consequence you frame an affirmation: by which kinde of Art, you may finde an affirmatiue in each precept.

The sceond thing wee dislike, in your re­hearsall of the Law, is the Prayer inserted by the [Page 108] People betweene euery Commandement: (Lord haue mercie vpon vs, and incline our hearts to keepe this Law.)

Is there not a Prayer put betweene euery Commination in Deuteronomie? Is not (A­men,) Deut. 27 15. &c or (So be it,) a direct Prayer ioyned with an assent? Is not this Prayer of the People in our Liturgie directed by the patterne, and Exod. 19. 8. Deut. 5. 27 & 29 & 1 [...]. 18. & 32. 29. Psal. 81. 13. words of Scriptures?

After the Commandements comes the Com­mination; wherein we dislike these words (vn­till the said discipline may bee restored againe: which thing is much to be wished.)

I haue heard some of your brethren say that these words are very laudable: because in them is partly promised, and partly wished▪ at least in their opinion) that Discipline of the Church which you pretend to be most ancient: but wee auouch to bee so new that hardly any of you can agree about the fundamentall points thereof

At first we hoped some such good motion was in the mindes of them that framed the Liturgie: But since that time wee haue found the true meaning of the riddle, namely, that the in­tention thereof is only a Popish Lent Penance.

Had you ploughed with our Heyfer; and read the words immediatly going before, this should haue beene no riddle or Aenigma: The wordes are these: In the Primitiue Church; there was a godly Discipline, that at the beginning [Page 109] of Lent, such persons as were notorious sinners, were put to open penance. But you as cunning in compounding and deuiding, as hee that left out these words of the Psalme Psal 91. 11. Math. 4. 6. to keepe thee in all thy wayes, haue onely remem­bred these words. In the Primitiue Church there was a godly Discipline: and so building Castles in the aire, benighted your selues, in wandring in the wildernesse of your owne fancies. But tell mee doe you dislike our open Penance.

What we dislike you shall know, when we come to the Visitation of the Sicke. Now there remaine two things: The Catechisme and the Homilies. The Latter whereof shall be deferred to some fitter opportunitie. In the Catechisme these words are most dangerous: Redeemed mee and all mankinde; by which the errour of vni­uersall grace seemes to be defended.

Saith not the Scripture that the bene­fit by Christ is come to Rom. 5 18. all euen to iustification: and that he died for 2. Cor. 5. 14, 15 all: and what difference put you betweene all men, and all mankinde.

By all there, wee vnderstand all the Elect.

So here wee may interpret all the Elect of mankinde. Againe, how are Sinners against the Holy Ghost sanctified by the bloud of the Heb. 10. 29. 2. Pet. 2. 1. Testament? and how are Seducers bought by our Lord?

Some say in Appearance and Profession; [Page 110] others say better that Christ died sufficiently for all men but effectually for beleeuers alone.

Your latter answer cleareth all the doubt: For Christ his Bloud was sufficient for the Redemption of all Mankinde, had they beleeued. Others more subtilly answer, That as the Law intended to condemne all: So Christ purposed to saue all though vpon a dif­ferent respect) And this they exemplifie by the diuers letters of Ahashuerosh: and by the re­sistance made by the Angell: but this is as Hest. 8. 14. Dan. 10. 13. Subtle as Safe.

CHAP. XII.
Of the Sacraments in generall: and of Baptisme.

OTher exceptions against your Ca­techisme (because they belong to the Sacraments) shall bee hand­led in them. Now therefore, from Speech onely, wee come to Speech and Action mingled: of which are com­pounded both Sacraments and other Rites. Tou­ching the Sacraments in generall: wee dislike these words in the new addition to your Cate­chisme (two generally necessary to Saluation:) wherein you discouer your errour concerning [Page 111] both the number and end of the Sacraments. The first may bee thus proued: Where there bee two Sacraments generally necessary, there more then two be necessary in speciall: But the latter is vnsound: Therefore also the former.

That your Maior is dawbed with vn­tempered morter may thus appeare: Where foure elements bee generally necessary for liuing creatures, there more then foure are in speciall necessary. But the latter is vntrue; Therefore like­wise the former.

Your Maior is doubtfull: For this word Which last is not only in trees but euen in Mineralls. generally, may bee referred to the predicate, thus. That the foure elements are in generall necessary for all things which partake of Life (whither it be the life of Motion, of Sence, or of Vegeta­tion) and so the Speech is true: But if you referre it to the Subiect, and make foure general elements, and more particular besides: you will runne within the premunire of an errour.

In like manner, must our speech be in­terpreted: Namely, that there bee two Sacra­ments, generally necessary for all men. But now confirme your Minor, for I beleeue you founder in this opinion.

Sacraments may not come by the corrupt following of the Apostles: Neither may they be only States of life commended in Scripture: But principally they may not want a visible signe, or Ceremony ordained of God: But the fiue Popish Sacraments, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Ma­trimonie, [Page 112] and Extreame Vnction, are such; And therefore can be no Sacraments of the Gospell. And by consequent, there are onely two, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper.

First, your Maior is not so sure as you dreame of. For (tell me I pray you) must the signe of each Sacrament be visible? Might not Ahijah the Prophet be partaker of the Passe­ouer after his sight failed him?

I did not meane that euery receiuer must see the signe but that the signe must be visible, at least to some.

And not to the receiuer? To him then, it is not a visible signe: and so no actuall Sacra­ment.

Some by Visible vnderstand Sensible. Namely, that which may bee apprehended by any outward sence.

This exposition as it is large, and yet true; So will it be preiudiciall to your selfe. To come next to your Minor: First, tell me, Did Matrimony come from the corrupt following of the Apostles?

That first clause of the Minor is only ment Marke 6. 13. Iames 5. 14. of anoyling, taken from the imitation of the A­postles, howsoeuer the gift of healing bee now ceased.

Yea, but is Anoyling, a state of life com­mended in Scripture?

That part of the Minor is to bee applyed to Orders and Matrimony.

[Page 113]

Belike then you affirmed that ioyntly of all the Sacraments, which should haue beene deuided among them.

We most insist vpon the last clause: Name­ly, that they haue no visible signe.

Neither is that built vpon a Rocke: For haue not Confirmation and Orders the visible signe of imposition of hands? Can you con­ceiue of Matrimonie without hand-fasting: Or of Extreame Vnction without Visible In­fusion of oyles? Nay, if Sensible bee Visible: and Audible be Sensible: Is not Confession in Penance directly Audible, & so Visible by your owne interpretation?

What then? Doe you reuiue the Seauen Popish Sacraments?

Nothing lesse: But onely I manifest vn­to you, with what leaden weapons you im­pugne the iron enemie, namely, the Papist. A­gainst whom while you deferre to fight, our Church becomes like the Oake cleft with wedges made out of her owne bodie.

If this Argument be weake you condemne the Booke of Articles, which propoundeth the Art. 25. same reason.

You mistake the meaning of the Booke, yea, and the words also. The words are thus: Being such as are growne, partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles: Partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet haue not like nature of Sacraments, with Baptisme and [Page 114] the Lord's Supper: for that they haue not any visible Signe, or Ceremonie ordained of God. Here first, you perceiue that the word Partly was twice left out of your argument: where­vpon came your fallacie of Compounding and Diuiding: And so it may bee the hauing of a visible signe (taking Visible in his proper sence) doth exclude Penance They being onely a state allowed in Scripture doth shut out Matrimo­ny, as the corrupt imitation of the Apostles doth Anoyling. Some such like thing may bee thought of Confirmation and Orders: But it is vncertaine.

Yea, but they all fiue are denied to haue a visible signe.

Some coniecture, that by Visible is meant that which is perceiued by many sen­ses: and this kind of Signe may bee proper to Baptisme and the Lords Supper. But the plaine answere is: That no Sacraments excepting those two haue a visible signe generally neces­sarie to saluation.

Without Orders there can be no Mini­stery: without the Ministery no Visible Church: without which there can bee no ordinary salu­tion.

Orders are mediately necessarie for all: but immediately for Ministers alone.

From the number of the Sacraments I come to their end: Namely, their necessity: against which I thus argue: Those things without which [Page 115] saluation may be obtained, are not necessary to sal­uation. But such are the Sacraments. Ergo.

I thus encounter your Maior. Those things without which saluation may bee obtai­ned, are not necessary to saluation. But without Miracles, Saluation may be had, And therefore Micracles (euen those of Christ) shall bee need­lesse to saluation.

Miracles are no ordinary meanes to salua­tion, but extraordinary.

So Sacraments are not extraordinary, Which here­sie denieth all outward Sa­craments. but direct and ordinary meanes: for vnlesse you be a Swingfeldian; you must acknowledge that neglect or contempt of Sacraments is a Barto life eternall: And so both the doubtfulnesse of your Maior, and falshood of your Minor, doe at once appeace in their colours.

My second reason is this: Things necessary to saluation doe conferre grace: But Sacraments do not; and so are not necessary.

Your Maior is not well poised. For, is therefore the Sabbath needlesse to saluation, be­cause it doth not conferre grace? Againe your Minor wants the bridle of bondage, and li­miting distinction. For though Sacraments doe not actiuely, Physically, and by infusion con­ferre grace, yet none but publique enemies to all Sacraments, will denie that they bring grace passiuely, and by the assistance of the concur­rent Spirit of God. Euen as the Circles of Ma­gicians and Spels of Witches, are said to bee [Page 116] operatiue, not of themselues (being meere quantities) but by the concurrent assistance of Satan with whom the bloudie couenant is stricken. Now that Sacraments are necessary to Saluation, it appeares by three things: First, because they are Gods Ordinances, and so most needfull: Secondly, because they are markes of the Church visible, out of whose bosome there is no ordinary saluation. Thirdly, because faith is begun in Baptisme: and strengthned in the Lords Supper. The necessitie whereof is greater, then of water and fire: nay, then of friendship.

This shall bee tried in the particular Sacrament to which wee now descend. It seemeth then, that you make fiue Sacra­ments: Baptisme, Confirmation, The Lords Supper, Penance, and Orders: which last be­cause it is not expressed in the Liturgie, we will now omit.

You confest before, that wee made only two Sacraments generally necessary: why doe you then place Confirmation be­tweene Baptisme, and the Lords Supper? And where doe you finde our Sacrament of Penance?

The reason of these things, shall after­wards be In Confir­mations and the Visitation of the sicke. declared. Now I come to Baptisme. In the dignitie you giue to Baptisme we note two errours. First, you corruptly cite the words of Christ to Nicodemus (Vnlesse a man be borne of [Page 117] water, and of the Holy Ghost.) For by water you vnderstand the Baptisme of the Floud (as you terme it) Whereas indeed by water you should conceiue nothing but the purging efficacie of the holy Spirit.

Wee embrace the literall sense: why doe you flie to a figure without important neces­sitie?

Yea, necessitie doth vrge vs so to doe: For else we should grant the necessitie of exter­nall Baptisme to saluation.

You heard before, that Sacraments were thus necessarie: Why doe you now rowle the same stone?

Proue in particular now, Baptisme to bee necessary to saluation.

First, Circumcision was thus necessary: For the soule vncircumcised was to be Gen 17. 14. cut off from the people of God. Yea, God would haue slaine Moses because hee neglected the Circumcision of his Exod. 4. 24. Sonne. Nay, the necke of the Asse-coult not Exod. 13. 13. redeemed, was to bee broken, which redemption was proportio­nable to Circumcision, as appeares by the Exod. 22. 30. time thereof. But Baptisme is answerable to 1. Pet. 3. 21. Circumcision: therefore equally necessa­rie. Secondly, Baptisme is tearmed the lauer Titus 3. 5. of regeneration, whereby the Church is Ephes. 5. 26. san­ctified: It is also called the Baptisme of repen­tance, vnto remission Marke 1. 4. Acts 19 4. of sinnes. Yea, Peter and Paul being demanded what men should [Page 118] doe to be saued? The one in direct words, both in practise, did vrge Acts 2. 37, 38. & 16. 30, 33, 34 Baptisme, aswell as be­liefe. Yea, Christ himselfe saith: Hee that be­leeueth, and is baptized, shall bee Marke 16. 16. saued. And Peter peremptorily auerreth that Baptisme 1. Pet. 3. 21. doth saue.

First, it seemes by these places: That sal­uation is not ascribed to Baptisme, but rather to Faith (in the Acts) to Repentance (in Marke:) to the putting away of the filth of the flesh (in Peter.)

Tell mee I pray you by whom are these three things wrought?

By the Spirit of God.

And what relation hath the Spirit to Baptisme?

It is the essentiall inward forme thereof: whereby the water is assumed, as the manhood by Christs God-head.

If that were true, why doe you separate the forme from the matter; which God hath conioyned: But I must here aduertise you, that you sticke in a vulgar errour. For I de­mand: Is a Sacrament a thing simple or else compounded.

It is compounded of a thing earthly, and a thing heauenly.

What is that heauenly thing?

The Spirit of God which purgeth our sin­full soules, as water doth our vncleane bodies.

Then obserue this argument: Those [Page 119] things of which a thing is compounded; are the matter thereof: but of water and the holy Spi­rit Arist. Phys. lib. 2 cap. 3. Met. lib. 1 cap. 3. & lib. 4. cap. 2. Baptisme is compounded, these therefore are the matter thereof.

What then doe you make the forme of Baptisme?

The vnion of the Water and the Spirit: as the vnion of Christ his Deitie and Huma­nitie is the forme of his Person: And as the v­nion of the soule and bodie, is the forme of man. And this to bee true, you might haue learned by Athanasius Creed: the matter whereof you Obserue by this that most heresies in di­uinitie do pro­ceed from er­rours in Lo­gique and Phi­losophie. could not before disallow; The wordes are these. For as the reasonable Soule, and flesh is one man: So God and man is one Christ. By this you may obserue, That the Spirit is not disioyned from the water in Baptisme: conside­ring, they both concurre to make the matter thereof.

But wee cannot be assured: that the Spi­rit doth alwayes concurre with the water, how­soeuer you do confidently auouch that Children, In the rubrick of Confirmati­on before the beginning of the Cate­chisme. being baptized, haue all things necessary for their Saluation, and be vndoubtedly saued. Tou­chinh the former clause thereof, I intreate you now to be silent, because I will obiect it in Con­firmation.

The latter clause then needes little de­fence: For seeing Baptisme is the ordinarie meanes of saluation: why should wee cause­lesly doubt of their Saluation, which haue [Page 120] beene made partakers thereof? For not only Charitie, but euen Equitie forbids vs to doubt.

Yea, but some scruple remaineth because we want the certaintie of infallibilitie.

That certaintie is needlesse in our ordi­nary censures of other mens eternall state: For where prudence vpon necessitie doth not weigh down the ballance, Charitie must heaue it vp: and (according to the Law) fauours must be inlarged. And now let me admonish you of the like cauill, made against the words in our Liturgie in the Buriall; which are these: In sure and certaine hope of resurrection to eter­nall life: By which wee doe not imply a cer­taintie of infallibilitie, but of equitie alone. For although persons bee baptized, yet, if they bee excommunicated▪ or other wayes hainous Ma­lefactors, wee denie them the vse of Christian Buriall: Forasmuch as by the rule of prudence wee presume not to speake of them in that manner.

Of your Popish Superstitions in Buriall, wee shall treate in due place. Now against your Scriptures brought for the necessitie of Baptisme: although I might except against these words in Genesis (shall be cut off from his people:) as being meant of Temporall Death, not of Eternall Dam­nation: yet because I finde some of our owne men, so to expound it also, I will omit it; and come to my second exception, which is this. You pretend that Baptisme is before Faith: whereas [Page 121] both in Marke and the Acts it is set in the lat­ter Acts 8. 37. place. Yea, and Philip requireth faith of the Eunuch; before hee would admit him to Bap­tisme.

We denie not but in men of yeares faith may come before Baptisme.

By Faith alone wee are saued, what need then of Baptisme?

If you speake of absolute necessitie, God could haue saued vs, not only without Bap­tisme, but euen without faith: yea euen with­out Christ. For if hee had giuen vs immutable grace before our fall, Christ's death should not haue beene necessarie; and so faith had beene void, and consequently Baptisme. But, if you intend a conditionall necessitie in regard of God's Decree: it will appeare that Christ's death was an efficient cause howbeit not the principall (for that was God's loue) but a wor­king Iohn 3. 16. meritorious cause. As also that faith is an instrument actiue, and Baptisme passiue: apply­ing to vs the merits of Christ's death. Againe, whereas you say, that wee are saued by faith alone: Doe you imagine that faith may bee void of good workes?

I detest that Poperie: But what is this to Baptisme?

Is it not a good worke and fruit of faith, to seeke for externall Baptisme?

Yet by this it is manifest, that Baptisme suc­ceedeth faith, which contradicteth your assertion.

[Page 122]

Though Baptisme do only confirme faith in men of yeares, is it therefore needlesse to Saluation? But yet Infants faith is apparant­ly concurrent with Baptisme, by which it is be­gotten. For as Infants may be elected by Pre­destination; and also may be comprehended in the Couenant, and faith of Parents: So with­all, there must be required in them the Spirit of God, which shall worke analogicall faith, or the Seed-plot thereof: from which at the time of effectuall Vocation, or Conuersion, shall issue the seasonable fruits of Sanctification.

My third exception against your Scriptures is this: Whereas it is said, He that shall beleeue and be baptized, shall be saued: it is immediate­ly added, He that shall not beleeue shall be condem­ned: So that Baptisme is omitted as no necessarie meanes of saluation.

Your proofes are taken from silent wit­nesses (which cannot bee of force.) In this manner: Baptisme is not mentioned as need­full, and therefore is not needfull.

Yet according to the rules of discretion, Baptisme should be named aswell in the negatiue, as in the positiue.

By the same rule, what is largely set downe in the former, is vnderstood in the lat­ter: because it is presupposed that no heartie beleeuer will neglect Baptisme.

Besides these exceptions against the texts by you alledged, wee haue other reasons to dis­proue [Page 123] the necessitie of Baptisme. As first many Persons Circumcised and Baptized, haue yet failed of eternall life: And therefore it seemeth, that these are not necessary meanes of saluation.

Many that haue had sufficient cold and drought in their bodies, haue yet died of grie­uous diseases: and therefore these qualities are not meanes of life.

Heate and moysture must also concurre: or else these are insufficient.

So the Spirit must concurre with Water, or else it is not auailable: For though the Spi­rit be not tied to Meanes: yet may we not vili­fie the meanes as vneffectuall: or moue cause­lesse doubts touching the assistant cooperation of the Spirit.

I secondly thus argue: Paul came not to 1. Cor. 1. 17. baptise: Therefore Baptisme is not necessarie to saluation. The Consequence is apparant: For Paul without controuersie, came to procure all things necessary thereunto.

Your Consequence is ambiguous: For an ordinary Pastor's office, is necessary to the saluation of many: And yet Saint Paul, be­ing an Oecumenicall Apostle, who had the care of all Churches, could not attend that functi­on. Againe, your antecedent is impertinent: The meaning is open, That hee was sent ra­ther to preach, then to baptize. For, that hee baptized some, appeares out of that place. The like Phrase is in these words: I will haue Math. 12. 7. [Page 124] mercy and not Sacrifice? That is, rather mer­cie then sacrifice. What? will you make Sa­crifice not necessarie in the time of the Law? By all this it appeareth: That for feare of the necessitie of Baptisme, you relinquish the letter of the text without necessitie.

Though this were yeilded: yet for two other reasons, we may not here expound water literal­ly. First, because where the Holy Ghost and fire are conioyned: fire may not be taken according Luke 3. 16. to the letter: vnlesse wee will follow the vaine custome of the Aethiopians, which set fierie prints vpon their Infants through the mistaking of this text.

We need not goe so farre as Aethiopia for our interpretation. Compare the Storie of the Acts, and there will be no ambiguitie: for Acts 1. 5. & 2. 3, 4. as Iohn fore-told, and Christ promised: So the Apostles indeed were baptized with the Holy Ghost by the Ministerie of fiery tongues: which if the Aethiopians could procure, wee would not blame their fierie Ceremonie.

Our second reason is this: The scope of Christs speech, is to intreat of regeneration: which is the worke of the Spirit alone: And therefore, Iohn 3. 8. it is not probable that there hee should speake of outward Baptisme.

Your sequell is euidently refuted by the words of Christ: If when I tell you earthly Iohn 3. 12. things you beleeue not, &c. where by things earthly wee vnderstand things elementary: [Page 125] which appellation may well agree to water, in Baptisme. In summe, remember this: That whereas many, through a seeming subtletie do embrace tropicall expositions: they bewray themselues to be of stomacks distempered, not induring solid ordinarie meates.

The second thing whereby you magnifie Baptisme, appeare in these wordes: By the Bap­tisme of thy welbeloued Sonne Iesus Christ, didst sanctifie the floud Iordan, and all other waters, to the mysticall washing away of sinne: where finde you any warrant for this new deuice?

I wonder where the knot lieth, for I conceiue it not as yet: Is it in this? That we say, that all waters are sanctified to the my­sticall washing away of sin in Baptisme? Thinke you that Abana and Pharphar are better then other Riuers? Can you prohibit any kinde of 2. Kings 5. 12. water to be vsed in Baptisme?

That is farre from our meaning. But wee dislike that you ascribe the Sanctification of wa­ter to the Baptisme of Christ, as to the cause.

Why was Christ baptised?

That all righteousnesse might be fulfilled. Math. 3. 15.

What? doe you meane the righteousnesse of the Law?

I meane of the Gospell.

Did he fulfill it for himselfe or more prin­cipally for vs?

I am no Papist, to dreame that he merited any thing for himselfe.

[Page 126]

Nay, was hee borne: did hee liue or die for himselfe?

All for Vs without doubt.

He was then baptized for vs.

I may not denie it.

Wherefore as his Birth, Life, and Death did sanctifie the same things in vs; So by the water of his Baptisme; all waters are sancti­fied: euen as all beasts drinke safely when the Vnicorne hath put his horne into the water. So that hee may bee called the first-fruites of the Baptized, aswell as of the Dead.

Hitherto of the Dignitie and holinesse of Baptisme. Now follow the actions of witnesses, (or Godfathers as you call them:) which are foure. First, you admit questions to bee propounded to them: Secondly, they promise sundry things for the Children: Thirdly, the Children by their meanes, are said to haue Faith and Repentance: Fourthly, They impose names vpon the Infants. Of which the three first, are absurd, vnreaso­nable, and almost ridiculous: and therefore pro­phane, or blasphemous: The fourth is vniust, considering it is the parents due to giue names to their Children.

I should maruell much (but that amongst Nouelists, nothing is to bee wondred at) that you can tolerate Godfathers: But now I re­member my selfe, they bee suffered in Geneua. Now tell me (pray you) by what Scripture do you allow them.

[Page 127]

Some pretend an ancient custome begun by a Roman Bishop (in the dayes of Antoninus Pius) who first ordained that certaine choice witnesses should present the Children to the Con­gregation, in case their Parents were dead, or fled for persecution: Others alledge the witnesses re­corded in Isaiah the Prophet. Isa. 8. 2.

But now you know are the times of peace: and so the former cause is void: As for the latter, it was drawne from a Propheticall and singular practise, and therefore hardly may be vrged as imitable. Could we produce no firmer Scriptures for our Ecclesiasticall pra­ctice, then such as those, would you not cry out vpon vs as Hercules Furens, or as Orestes.

What better proofes then haue you for your Godfathers?

Children are truly said to be baptized in­to the faith of others: which speech is by many mistaken. For they suppose they are baptised into the faith of their immediate Parents only: which being granted; the Children not only of Pagans, and Turkes, which are taken in Warre, but euen of persons excommunicated, yea of all that are destitute of true faith shall be interdicted the vse of Baptisme: Whereas the truth is: that Infants are receiued into the faith and bosome of the Church, which is the Keepresse of the Couenant. The Church there­fore chuseth certaine witnesses as representatiue persons: to whom the questions are tendered: [Page 128] and by whom the promises are vttered in the behalfe of the Babes. No maruell then, though by their meanes, Infants be said to haue Faith, and Repentance; and to receiue their Christian names from them, as being their Fathers in God: and therefore not vnaptly tearmed Godfathers. The generall proofe of which thing is drawne from all Lawes; which allow sundry actions done by Guardians in the mi­noritie of their Wards, to be as firme as if the Pupils themselues had performed them in their owne persons being come to the yeares of discretion.

To admit this reason: yet to preiudice the Parents, who should haue the right of naming their Children, cannot but bee very iniurious.

You are worse afraid then hurt: For they are very contentions Godfathers which aske not the Parents consent in this matter. But where be your Scriptures to proue that this is only the priuiledge of Fathers.

We haue the example of Adam, Iacob, Gen. 5. 3. & 35. 18. Luke 1. 63. and Zacharie.

Wee could oppose to these the examples of Leah: and the wife of Phinees. Gen. 29. 32. 1. Sam. 4 21.

Leah did it only by the consent of her husband Iacob: as may bee collected by his pra­ctice in changing Benoni to Beniamin: As for Phinnees wife she was a Widow.

Your examples also are not void of all scruple: For it is said, That Sheth receiued Gen. 4 15. [Page 129] his name from Euah: which (as it may seeme) requested Adam that this name might bee im­posed. As for Iacob; it seemes that his wiues did ouer intreate him for the names of his Children, except only the last. Now for Za­charie, Luke 1. 59. your instance is impertinent: For it is probable by the Story that the friends and kinsfolke did of Custome name the Child. And that Zachary did countermand them only by vertue of the Angels Charge: But you contend Luke 1. 13. for trifles.

From Publique Baptisme, we come to Pri­uate. The necessitie whereof wee dislike, as imi­tating the Popish Limbus Infantum.

I had thought that the necessitie of Sa­craments in generall, and of Baptisme in par­ticular, had beene confirmed sufficiently, why doe you now seethe the same Coleworts?

It seemes you pretend necessitie of Baptisme to saluation: and therefore would haue it admi­nistred at home in such cases.

These things are ill vnderstood, and worse conioyned: For the necessitie we intend, is not that of Saluation, but in regard of infir­mities or other inconueniences: As for exam­ple, If a Childe amongst the Hebrewes, had beene sicke on the eighth day, Circumcision, vpon necessitie should haue beene deferred: would you haue called this the necessitie of sal­uation? Againe, if wee say that Children vn­baptized, and so dying, are (in respect of ordi­nary [Page 130] meanes) forlorne; and out of the course of Saluation, may not the Speech, being well tem­pered, be truly iustified?

You had need of good skill to temper the mettall of this speech.

These Cautions will serue to allay it, namely, That if there be neither Baptisme, nor desire of the same: and that neither in the In­fant nor in his Parents, nor in the visible Church (wherein he is borne, or into which hee is ca­sually brought;) Then, without extraordina­rie grace, hee is excluded from the meanes of saluation. And what is all this to the Limbe of Infants? For although the Childe bee dam­ned, nay, though hee suffer a lesse degree of torment, (for degrees of Hell paines I hope you Mat. 5. 22. & 10. 15. Luke 10 48. 1. Cor. 19. 41. will not denie) yet this will not make the Po­pish Limbus: which is (as the Papists deter­mine it) the punishment of losse, and not of sense: Or of sense outward, but not inward: the fire, but not the worme. In summe, the Papists make a new kinde of punishment: wee only another degree.

Be this as you say: yet you cannot proue Baptisme to be so necessary, that it should produce both Lathro-baptisme: and Anti-baptisme (which latter is a kinde of Anabaptisme:) In your Lathro-baptisme (or priuate Baptisme) first we disallow that it is administred priuately in houses.

Were not Circumcision and the Passeouer Exod. 4. 25. & 1 [...]. 28. [Page 131] both celebrated within the wals of the house? Did not Philip baptize the Eunuch in the next Acts 8. 36. water he met with not expecting any Ecclesia­sticall Assembly to assist him? Hath not the Church beene confined to a Acts 1. 13. Chamber? and to a priuate Rom 16. 5. 1. Cor. 16. 19. house? Was not the Iaylour with all his Family baptized by Saint Paul within Acts 16. 33. dores? Are not Priuate Chaplaines allowed in the Houses of great Personages? But of all men, you should be silent herein, whose Clas­ses and Conuenticles, haue beene like to the House of Lecca to Catiline.

The second thing we dislike is: That you allow priuate Persons (euen women) to admini­ster Baptisme, vpon this pretended extremitie.

First, our Lawes disclaime it, as a thing not expedient: Secondly, notwithstanding we hold it lawfull: But here mistake not our meaning: For although both before, and in the doing, we allow it not, yet, being once done, we account the action for no nullitie.

Wee know that you defend Zipporah for circumcising her childe: but wee are of another minde.

If a man should demand of you a place of Scripture, where Priests and not Priuate men; Nay, where men and not women are commanded to circumcize Infants, I beleeue you would sooner finde the head of Nilus, then such a place. Might not euery one offer the Passeouer in his owne house? Nay, in case [Page 132] the mistresse of the house were a widow, and had none of her Family but of the female sexe. Can you proue that shee was bound to send for a Priest or a Man to slay the Paschall Lambe for her?

Yea, but Christ commanded his Apostles to baptize: and therefore this cannot be tolera­ble Math. 28. 19. in priuate men.

It is said, That Christ baptized more then Iohn: yet in his owne person he baptized John 4. 1, 2. none, but only vsed the ministery of his Dis­ciples. So it may be the Apostles baptized not by themselues but by Acts 10. 48. 1. Cor. 1. 17. Acts 6. 3. others, which thing is also to bee vnderstood of their administring the Lords Supper: as is collected by the speech of the Twelue to the multitude: For a though it seeme principally to be spoken of almes: yet because almes were commonly ioyned with the Communion, it may be both were implied.

But it is against reason, that any saue Eccle­siasticall persons should be trusted with Baptisme.

The same is agnized by our Lawes, not because the thing is absolutely vnlawfull (much lesse for that being performed it is a mere nullitie) but only because it is not conue­nient, as hath beene said.

From Lathro-baptisme, we come to Anti­baptisme: which is a Conditionall Baptisme: A strange kinde of Law: Not vnlike some of the Edicts of Claudius Caesar: For in case it be doub­ted, whether the Infant bee truly baptized at [Page 133] home, the Priest is commanded, thus to rebaptize him: If thou be not baptized already, I baptize thee, &c.

An aboundant caution, hurts not (saith the Law.) For (tell me I pray you:) If you should find a young Infant in the streets of some City: and through the bowels of compassion did in­tend the education thereof, would you bap­tize it, or no?

It were the safer course to baptize it.

It may bee then you rebaptize it: For peraduenture it was baptized before it was exposed.

The ignorance of the fact, whereof my selfe am not the author doth excuse me, because it is presumed to be inuincible.

In like manner, when, by no inquirie, it can bee certainly knowne what was done in Priuate Baptisme, this Cautelous Prouiso may take place. And yet some Master Tho­mas Hutton. thinke that this was neuer yet put in practice. Some rumours haue beene to the contra­rie: but the thing is am­biguous.

CHAP. XIII.
Of the Crosse in Baptisme.

HItherto haue we treated of the parts of Baptisme: Now fol­loweth the consequent or thing annexed thereto: Namely the Crosse: which sinneth against the Ten Commandements: and first, against the first precept, by Idolatrie.

Is the Crosse an inward Idoll of the heart: or else an Idoll externall?

It is an Idoll: an Idolathite: a monument of, and a motiue to Idolatrie. Now although it doe only tempt to the conceiuing of an inward Idoll: (which temptation is forbidden in the Tenth Commandement alone) yet properly it is but an Outward Idoll, violating the First Commandement and so to be abolisht.

Your speech is as fruitfull of errours, as Nilus of slime. At this time it hath hatched sixe Monsters: whereof the three first are slips in Method, where from, commonly false opinions doe proceed. The first is, That you make tempting and motiue to bee two seuerall things: whereas in this case they both agree. The second is: that you place tempting to I­dolatrie [Page 135] in the Tenth Commandement, whereas to be a motiue to the same sinne, is by you made a transgression of the first Precept.

Tempting may be without Consent: where­as a motiue, implyith consent, or assent: and so the former is in the tenth, the latter in the first Commandement.

Your words are confused: But I haste to your matter. Tell me (I pray you) the order of sinnes against the Commandements.

All sinnes are either against God (forbid­den in the first Table) or against our neighbour (interdicted in the second:) Againe, the sinnes against our neighbour are either with consent (prohibited in the fift and the foure following Precepts.) Or without the same (restrained onely in the tenth Commandement.)

Where then are sinnes against God with­out consent prohibited (namely, the first moti­ons and abstractions from Him?) Are they not in the first? So that you erred, when you made temptation to Idolatrie, a sinne against the tenth. Your third default is, that you make an outward Idoll to bee forbidden in the first.

How may this appeare to be an errour?

You erre from the opinion, both of the Learned, and of the Vulgar: First, the Lear­ned thinke, that in the first Precept, the only hauing, and the acknowledging of the True God, is enioyned: and his true (both inward and outward) worship in the Second. Second­ly, [Page 136] the most vulgar wits are of opinion that God's inward worship is commanded in the first, and his outward in the second Precept. By both which sentences, you are cast in your suite: Forasmuch as all externall Idols, are to bee referred to the next ensuing Commande­ment. Hence you may learne, First, That your three next errours (namely, that euerie Idoll is to be abolished: that the Crosse is an Idoll: That it tempteth to Idolatrie.) Se­condly, that your three next arguments (name­ly, that it is an Idolothite: a Monument of, and a motiue to Idolatrie) are to be handled in the Second Precept.

I proceed then to the second Commande­ment.

I pray you let me intreate you, before you proceed, that you would repeate in order the sinnes against the nine next Commandements committed by the Crosse.

The second Precept is violated by the Su­perstition: The third, by the Hypocrisie: (for it brings vaine feare and trust:) The fourth, by the impietie (for it thrusts out Ministers that would celebrate the Sabbath.) The fift by the Iniustice: The sixt by the murther, (for it is scandalous.) The seuenth, by Adulterie, (as being the punish­ment of Idolatrie:) The eighth by the wrong: The ninth, by the slander. The tenth, by the Concupiscence of the Crosse (for it tempteth vs to adore Popish Idolls:)

[Page 137]

Your ten imputations may be drawne to three: For first Hypocrisie, and prophane im­pietie, cannot agree with Superstition: Se­condly, if you proue not the Idolatrie, your al­legations will bee cold concerning adulterie and temptation: Thirdly, if the Crosse bee nei­ther Idolatrous, Superstitious nor Scandalous: you will hardly manifest the iniustice, wrong, or slander of the Crosse. It resteth then, That you proue the Idolatrie, Superstition, and Scan­dall of the same: The rest of your Snow-balls will melt of themselues.

First, then I proue the Idolatrie of the Crosse, by those foure Arguments which I before remembred.

But before you repeate them: Consider these Consequences. First, the Church of the Lutherans maintaine images, which we terme idols, as iustly as you doe the Crosse: Shall we then say, that they be idolaters: Secondly, if the Crosse bee an idoll: Then, either haue the Brownists done well in seperating them­selues from idols: Or we (with the Reformed Churches) haue done ill, in pretending no greater cause of Separation from Rome, then her idolatrie.

An Idoll may be taken either essentially (such were the Calues of Ieroboam from which the Le­uites did separate 2. Chron. 11. 14. themselues) Or else by par­ticipation and occasion only (such was the Al­tar of King 2. Kings 16. 11, 14. Ahaz, from which no Seperation [Page 138] was made.) Of the first kinde are the Idols of Rome, which make their Church Idolatrous, and iustifie our Separation from them: Of the latter sort, are the Images of Lutherans, and our Crosse: And therefore the Barrowists haue erred in their seperation from vs.

Our Crosse then is only an Idoll by occa­sion; That is, a motiue to idolatrie; and so your fourth and first Arguments are confoun­ded. Againe, What reasoning is this: There is idolatrie in the Crosse, only by occasion and possibilitie; and yet you declaime at large a­gainst the actuall Idolatrie thereof: But of this hereafter: Now repeate the first Argu­ment.

Euery Idoll is to be abolished, as appeares both by Deut. 7. 5 & 12. 3. Ioshua 23. 7. Lawes, and by Gen. 35. 4. Exod. 32. 20. 2 Sam. 5. 22. 1. Kings 15 13. 2. Kings 10. 26. & 11. 18. & 18. 4. & 23. 12. examples. But the Crosse is an Idoll: and therefore to be abolished.

If your Maior were true, Then the Sun and Moone so much worshipped by the Hea­thens. Paul and Barnabas deified by the men of Acts 14. 12. Listra: yea, and the bread in the Sacrament (as being adored by Papists) should bee de­stroied, and abrogated.

My Maior admitteth two exceptions: First, of Gods creatures, (such are the Sunne, and Moone: such were Paul and Barnabas.) Se­condly, of Gods Ordinances (such is the bread in the Sacrament (for these may not bee destroyed though they be idolized.

Your exceptions are neither true, nor suf­ficient: [Page 139] For first, God destroied the Gods of E­gypt: Numb. 33. 4. and yet these being (Aspes, Croco­diles, Dogges, and the like) were his creatures: Likewise he commanded the Groues (things not to bee exempted from the number of his Creatures) to be burnt. Iosias also put downe the horses of the 2. Kings 23. 11 Sunne) and yet they were things created by God: Secondly, the brazen Serpent (being Gods Ordinance) was (not­withstanding) broken in pieces by Ezekias: Thirdly, Churches of Christians are neither Gods creatures, nor his direct ordinances: yet may not be demolished, howsoeuer they haue beene polluted with Idols.

First, your instances may bee disproued: For it is not certaine that God destroyed the Gods of Egypt. It may be also that by Gods, are meant the Images only. The Groues were to bee burnt, not as created by God, but as ordered by mans art. The Horses of the Sunne were remoued by the King, but not destroyed: Secondly, Churches were ordained by God, as appeares by Salomons Temple. Thirdly, if God, neither spare his owne Creatures, nor ordinances, how shall we spare the inuentions of men.

First, your answeres to my instances, leane vpon vncertaine supposals, and wrested distin­ctions: Secondly, what you say of Churches is vntrue: For both the house of 1. Sam. 5. 20. Dagon was more ancient then Salomon's Temple: and (by your owne In the third Chapter of this Booke. confession) this Temple was a [Page 140] part of the Ceremoniall Law: and so hath no agreement with the Churches of Christians: Thirdly, you confesse your owne exceptions to be false: Forasmuch as God neither spareth his owne creatures nor his ordinances, being defiled with Idolatrie: Fourthly, you seeme to answer nothing to the Brazen Serpent.

I will reserue that to another place: Now what answere you to the Lawes and Examples by mealledged?

They proue only that the same indiuiduall idolized things are to be destroied, but not their whole kind. For example: We may not burne all trees, because one tree hath beene transfor­med into an Idoll. And now I pray you confirme your Minor: Namely, that the Crosse is an Idoll.

Euery humane ordinance, adored by Papists, is an Idoll: But such is our Crosse: and therefore to be reckoned amongst Idols.

Your Maior must be thus limited: Eue­ry humane ordinance, which was idolatrous in the first institution, is an Idoll: Else Churches shall be Idols: and the Brownist iust, that wi­sheth their ruine: Againe, your Minor is vn­true: For our particular aeriall Crosses were neuer worshipped by Papists. Now we may not for the abuse of some indiuidualls, abolish the whole kinde. Neither indeed is our Crosse of the same kinde with the Popish, differing therefrom in operations: For their Crosse is [Page 141] said todriue away Deuils: to Consecrate things vnto God, and the like: which things wee as­cribe not to our Crosse. Now the diuersitie of operations, doth sufficiently distinguish the kindes of things artificiall: of which number is the Crosse.

I will in an other sort inforce this Argu­ment. The brazen Serpent ought to haue beene de­stroyed because it was worshipped: But our Crosse is as the brazen Iohn 3. 14. & 8. 28. & 12. 32, 33. Serpent: And therefore (being worshipped) is to be destroyed.

If the premises were true, they would onely inforce the destruction of the Popish Crosse, which hath no affinitie with ours. But indeed, first, your Maior is vntrue.

Ezekias is praysed for 2. Kings 18. 5 it: Therefore hee ought to haue done it.

Your Consequence is weake: First, be­cause it may bee it was a thing indifferent, namely, whether he would destroy or remoue the Serpent. For tell mee. A Prince is praised for building a Church or Hospitall: shall wee say hee was bound to doe it? Was it not left arbitrarie to him, whether he would by this, or some other meanes declare his Princely magni­ficence to the Church, or to the poore? Se­condly, it is probable, that the King did this by a diuine instinct.

When I vsed the like In this first booke, Chap. 3. answere, you dis­allowed, it as vnsound.

But I haue a firme reason for my Asser­tion. [Page 142] A diuine ordinance could not bee disanul­led, but by a diuine ordinance and instinct. But such was the brazen Serpent: And therefore without some such instinct could not be lawfully defaced. But this instinct being speciall cannot bee exemplarie. Besides, your Minor is not well confirmed out of Saint Iohn: First, be­cause a figure cannot be the signe of a figure, but of a thing figured: except you meane that it was a paralel figure, as Baptisme 1. Pet. 3. 21. to the Floud: But so you honour the Crosse more then we: Secondly, these places especially the first (for the two latter make no mention of the Serpent) doe resemble Christ to the Ser­pent, and the Crosse only to the Pole, or In­strument on which the Serpent was eleuated: So that if you had spoken pertinently, you should haue thus reasoned: The brazen Ser­pent, being worshipped, was to be defaced: But Christ was as the brazen Serpent: And therefore being worshipped, is to bee defaced: This con­clusion would serue well vnder the standard of Christ's Enemies.

My second argument to proue the Idolatry of the Crosse is this. The Crosse is an Idolothite (or thing offered to Idols: and therefore is with them to be abolished.

Your reason is firme against the Popish Crosse and so drawes in the same yoke of im­pertinencie with the former: Againe, it is a phrase of hard concoction to say that an Idoll [Page 143] was offered to Idols: Lastly, meates consecra­ted to Idols might not be refused, but in case of 1. Cor. 10 25. scandall: and therefore you may reserue this bul-rush till you come to that place.

Thirdly, I thus proue the Idolatry of the Crosse: It is a Relique and Monument of Idola­trie: and therefore Idolatrous.

If this word Monument be deduced from Monimentum à [...] (per­maneus) vel à monendo monu­mentum: vt do­cumentum, ac nocumentum, à docendo nocen­do (que) ducta. remayning, then how can our transient aeriall Crosse be a Monument. But if it be taken from warning, then is it onely a Monument, as it is a motiue to Idolatrie. And so your third and fourth Arguments iustle together, as the Rockes called Symplegades in the Euxine Sea. And this your fourth reason you may let passe till you speake of Scandall: For if it be not Scan­dalous it is no motiue to Idolatrie.

From the Idolatrie of the Crosse, I flie to the Superstition thereof: which I proue also by foure Arguments: First, the Crosse was inuen­ted by Valentinus the Heretique; and confirmed by a Fabulous Vision fathered vpon Constantine: namely, that he saw, the figure of the Crosse in the aire: and heard these words: Ouercome in [...]. Or by this, or to this (name­ly to Christ) of whom this Crosse is a re­membrance. this whereupon hee is said to haue made the signe of the Crosse in his Standard: Whereas it is more likely that he saw the Letters of Christ's name: and therefore it cannot be but superstitious.

That Valentinus vsed it, wee denie not: But you cannot proue that he was the Inuen­tor thereof. This is some thing like your Sto­rie [Page 144] you told of Iubal the inuentor of Musique. Againe, the Primitiue Church was not so nice as you: to refuse all inuentions of Heretiques. What? will you reiect Printing and Gunnes, because they were found out by Papists? Will the Papists neglect verses in their Bibles, be­cause Robert Steuen. a Protestant was the ^s Authour of them? As for that which you relate of Constantine, thinke you we will not rather beleeue his eies, and the consent not only of his Armie, but euen of the whole Church, then your contradictory, and lately-borne vnlikelihoods?

My second reason to proue the superstition of the Crosse is this. The first vse of making the Crosse is abolished: (Namely, the Profession of Christ's Crosse before the Pagans which derided the same.) It is therefore superstitious.

The weaknesse of this reason was decla­red, when we spake of Gloria Patri: for though the first vse were growne old, another equally profitable may succeed: Againe, there be too many despisers of the Crosse, especially the men of your heate: in regard of whom the first vse may remaine in his full vigour.

The Crosse at first was vsed in presence of the Pagans, not in Baptisme, whether the Paynims were not admitted.

The vse thereof was ancient in Bap­tisme: euen during the time of Paganisme: But our contemners of the Crosse, are admit­ted to behold (I had almost said to celebrate) our Sacraments.

[Page 145]

Thirdly, I thus reason. The Crosse is added to Baptisme, and that as a Sacramentall or Signify­ing Signe: And is therefore superstitious.

Your Antecedent leanes vpon an errour, and a slander. Your errour is, that you suppose Sacraments to bee bare signes, and not to con­uey grace by assistance: The Crosse is a signe: yet not Sacramentall, but humane and volun­tary: not of our couenant with God; but of our profession towards men: As if a man should put a Map of Canaan in the end of the Booke of Iosua: not as a diuine addition thereto; but as an humane explication thereof. In like man­ner the Crosse doth historically, not sacramen­tally describe vnto vs Christ's death: Where­fore it is a Slander that we adde it to Baptisme as Sacramentall or Essentiall.

Wee may not set an other Altar by that which 2. Kings 16. 14 is God's: nor a threshold by his Ezek. 43. 8. threshold: and therefore wee may not adde the Crosse to Baptisme.

These places only proue, that Idolatrie may not bee mingled with Gods worship: Now the Idolatrie of the Crosse you were not able to proue.

Fourthly, I thus argue against the Crosse. It was remoued out of the Lords Supper. And therefore in like manner is to be taken out of Bap­tisme.

First, being a thing indifferent (as wee maintaine it) it was lawfull to abolish it in [Page 146] the one, and to retaine it in the other Sacra­ment. Secondly, the retaining of the Crosse in the Lord's Supper, was more dangerous, by reason of the Artolatrie, (or worship of the bread) as also because there it was more per­manent, and durable, then in Baptisme.

Because you make the Crosse a thing indif­ferent, I passe to the third thing, which is a Scan­dall: as being most conuersant about things of that kinde. And thus I argue: A thing, though indifferent, yet being Scandalous is to bee remoued. But such is the Crosse: to be remoued therefore.

If all were granted, yet are you bound to Subscription: For in things indifferent, howsoeuer offensiue, the Scandal doth redound vpon the Commander, not vpon him that o­beyeth. For example: If a Master charge his Seruant to roast that piece of meat, which is more fit to be boyled: shall the Seruant plead indifferencie out of his disobedience? Can any Family or Common-wealth long indure with such rude discipline? But to let your Argument stand in force: First, your Maior must be limi­ted to Scandall giuen, and not taken: and then is your Minor vntrue: For the Scandall of the Crosse is not iustly giuen, but vniustly taken. This appeares by two reasons. First, as it is commanded, for to vse it, is a thing indifferent: but to reiect it is the sinne of Disobedience to lawfull Authoritie: Secondly, though it were not enioyned: yet is it not offensiue for two [Page 147] causes: First, because they which are offended hereby, are neither in number, nor dignitie, comparable to them which are not scandali­zed: Secondly, because a thing scandalous, is an act (that is a deed, speech, or gesture) causing the weake to erre out of the way, or to stumble in it: For as much as they are not weake, which pretend themselues hereby to be offended, it cannot iustly bee tearmed scan­dalous.

They bee weake that are offended by the Crosse, some within, and some without our Church: within are both Ministers and People.

The Ministers may not iustly be accoun­ted weake: For if they confesse it, why do they resist that wherein they acknowledge their owne weaknesse? If they denie it, how comes it to passe, that they write so largely, and (as they thinke) learnedly against it? Againe, If they denie it they cannot bee scandalized: for none can be offended but weake Brethren.

No men in a controuesie will acknowledge their owne weaknesse: So that, by this reason none can be offended.

Ministers are presumed to bee strong in common construction: especially when they dare by writing oppose themselues to the Church: which is not vnlike the heaping of Mountaines against Heauen.

Yea, but the People are offended two wayes: First, the Sheepe are scattered when the Shepheard [Page 148] is smitten: especially when his necessarie office is taken from him for things indifferent, such as you pretend the Crosse to be.

Disobedience in things indifferent, is sin­full, and not indifferent: And better it were the People to bee vtterly vntaught, then to bee carried about with so many windie fancies as haue beene exhaled out of your dennes.

Secondly, the People are scandalized at the Crosse, in that they feare it will bring backe Po­perie, and Israel into Egypt: forasmuch as it doth tempt and moue vs to Idolatrie.

It may mone by accident but not of it selfe: As the beholding of our naked Churches may moue an ignorant old man to consider the gorgeous Ornaments in Poperie: and perad­uenture to bewaile the want of Images and Pictures then in vse. Such vaine surmises as these had long agoe beene remoued, if with the shew of lenitie, wee had not tolerated the bellowes of Sedition. For as the austeritie of women driueth away Adulterers; So the Se­ueritie of Gouernours silenceth the factious.

As within; so without the Church many are offended with the Crosse, both friends and ad­uersaries. Our friends of the Reformed Churches haue abolished the same: and therefore cannot approue in vs the toleration thereof.

If these Churches differing from vs in matters of great moment (as appeares in the questions touching the Hierarchie, Tithes, [Page 149] and the like) doe yet notwithstanding account vs their friend: How much more will they en­dure our dissenting from them in a matter indif­ferent as is the Crosse? Rome and Millaine may haue diuers Rites, and yet but one faith.

Our Aduersaries both Barrowists and Papists, by our vse of the Crosse, receiue no small Scandall.

The Learned in both these factions may not bee accounted weake: and so cannot bee offended. The number and worth of Brownists vnlearned is no way to bee equal­lized in matter of offence, to Our State and Multitude. As for the vnlearned Papists, I thus retort their argument. To remoue the Crosse being a thing indifferent, should haue beene a thing Scandalous at the entrance of the Gospel, forasmuch as the greatest part of the Land was thē Popishly addicted. So, that if nothing had beene yeelded to their infirmitie, they would haue degenerated from Poperie to A­theisme. Neither is the remouall thereof now lesse offensiue. For innouation in things indiffe­rent, without important necessitie, is perilous both to the State and Church. Thus your ar­guments, which afarre off, seemed to bee like a great ship, being neerly and narrowly viewed, are found to bee nothing but certaine logs floa­ting vpon the water.