A19142:1393
A19142:1393
A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D. Burgess his rejoinder for D. Morton The first partA fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D. Burgesse his rejoinder for D. Morton The first part
Amsterdam: printed by the successors of Giles Thorp, 1633
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
1. Because the Def. 3. or 4. times, repeated, and urged, (as much making for his cause) that our Church is so truly reformed, that it doeth most lively express the face, & full body of her Primitive Mother-Church; the Repl. therefore at last, was forced to say something to this; especially in this place, where it is questioned, if we will allow it to be called a reformed Church. He answered therefore in general, that in the main points of doctrine, and the grossest superstitions, our Church is reformed; but in regard of Ecclesiastical government, and some Ceremonies, it is not. To this it is rejoined, 1. That by face and body, was meant only doctrine and religion, not government, or Ceremonies. The Defend. therefore understood ⟨p. 403⟩this term, as Cardinal Peron; and the Replier as D. Andrues, who in the beginning of his answer, hath these words: Points of faith seem rather to pertain to the inward parts, then to the face. It is the Agend (of the Church, •e should have held him to. In that is the face of the Church, &c. After this, the Rejoinder making all the Primitive Church, that was within divers hundreds of years after the Apostles age, out of the Century-writers, and others, gathereth a catalogue of errors and defects, in doctrine, and observances, which by little and little, began in those times; and thence concludeth, that our doctrine is purer then it was in the Primitive Church, and also some observances. Now 1. this extension of the Primitive Church is taken without leave. 2. Those errors of doctrine may no more be attributed to the Primitive Church, then the errors of Mr. Mountague, and others like him (who are neither few in number, nor mean for power, as things go) may be to the English Church, 3. In the other matters of Ecclesiastical Policy, and Ceremonies, we hold that for which the Rejoinder formerly objected unto us, as a spirit of singular singularity, pag. 384. and now confesseth to be true; namely, that the Apostolical purity began presently after to be corrupted, and so proceeded in defection more and more. Yet all this doth not hinder, but divers corruptions may be found among us, which were not known in the first primitive ages. Nay let it be marked well, how strange an assertion is made up by this reckoning of the Rejoinders!
1. Because the Def. 3. or 4. times, repeated, and urged, (as much making for his cause) that our Churche is so truely reformed, that it doeth most lively expresse the face, & full body of her Primitive Mother-Churche; the Repl. therfor at last, was forced to say somthing to this; especially in this place, where it is quaestioned, if we will allow it to be called a reformed Churche. He answered therfor in generall, that in the maine pointes of doctrine, and the grossest superstitions, our Churche is reformed; but in regard of Ecclesiastical government, and some Ceremonies, it is not. To this it is rejoyned, 1. That by face and body, was meant onely doctrine and religion, not governement, or Ceremonies. The Defend. therfor understood ⟨p. 403⟩this terme, as Cardinall Perone; and the Replier as D. Andrues, whoe in the beginning of his answer, hath these wordes: Points of faith seeme rather to pertayne to the inward parts, then to the face. It is the Agend (of the Churche, •e should have held him to. In that is the face of the Churche, &c. After this, the Rejoynder making all the Primi•ive Church, that was within divers hundreds of years af•er the Apostles age, out of the Centurie-writers, and others, gathereth a catalogue of errors and defects, in doctrine, and observances, which by little and little, began in those times; and thence concludeth, that our doctrine is purer then it was in the Primitive Church, and also some observances. Now 1. this extention of the Primitive Church is taken without leave. 2. Those errors of doctrine may no more be attributed to the Primitive Church, then the errors of Mr. Mountague, and others like him (who are neither few in number, nor meane for power, as things goe) may be to the English Church, 3. In the other matters of Ecclesiasticall Policy, and Ceremonies, we hold that for which the Rejoynder formerly objected unto us, as a spirit of singular singularity, pag. 384. and now confesseth to be true; namely, that the Apostolicall purity began presently after to be corrupted, and so proceeded in defection more and more. Yet all this doth not hinder, but divers corruptions may be found among us, which were not knowne in the first primitive ages. Nay let it be marked well, how strange an assertion is made up by this reckoning of the Rejoynders!
In Hezekias time (saith the Defendant) the idolatry about the Serpent, could not be cured but by abolishing the Serpent: but ⟨p. 404⟩in our most truly reformed Church, which doth most lively express the face and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church, this disease would be found curable without any such extremity. The meaning is according to the Rejoinder his interpretation: the disease of idolatry is more easily cured, in that Church, which doeth lively express the face, and full body, of those Churches, which were infected with many errors, and declining in many things, to superstition, then in Hezekias Church, most purely at that time reformed. Surely the Rej. in a great part of his gloss, forgot his text: otherwise he would never have in this manner confuted it.
In Hezekias time (saith the Defendant) the idolatry about the Serpent, could not be cured but by abolishing the Serpent: but ⟨p. 404⟩in our most truely reformed Church, which doth most lively expresse the face and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church, this disease would be found curable without any such extremity. The meaning is according to the Rejoynder his interpretation: the disease of idolatry is more easily cured, in that Church, which doeth lively expresse the face, and full body, of those Churches, which were infected with many errors, and declining in many things, to superstition, then in Hezekias Church, most purely at that time reformed. Surely the Rej. in a great part of his glosse, forgot his text: otherwise he would never have in this manner confuted it.
2. The first question was, If the Primitive Church had such chanting Idol-service, as is in out Cathedral Churches? The Rejoinder after some words spent about singing, (about which he bringeth not the least resemblance of that in question, until the fourth age after Christ) excepteth first, that Organall music was gods ordinance in the old Testament, and that not significant, or typical; and therefore is sinfully called Idol-service. 2. That all men whose hearts are not averse, by distraction, stupidity, or prejudice, feel such music to work much upon their affections. To this I say 1. that his denying of Organall music to have been significant or typical, is without reason, and against the current of our Divines; taken (as it may seem) out of Bellarmine de missa. lib. 2. cap. 15.) who useth this evasion against ⟨p. 405⟩those words of P. Martyr: Musical organs pertain to the Jewish Ceremony, and agree no more to us, then Circumcision. So that we may neglect it, and take him as saying, that nothing which was ordained in the old Testament (no not sacrificing of beasts) is now an Idol-service. 2. For that, and the other, both together, it is fit the Rejoinder should be put in mind how many, and what kind of men, he accuseth of distraction, stupidity, or prejudice!
2. THe first question was, If the Primitive Church had such chaunting Idol-service, as is in out Cathedrall Churches? The Rejoynder after some words spent about singing, (about which he bringeth not the least resemblance of that in question, untill the fourth age after Christ) excepteth first, that Organall musicke was gods ordinance in the old Testament, and that not significant, or typicall; and therefore is sinfully call•d Idol-service. 2. That all men whose hearts are not averse, by distraction, stupidity, or prejudice, feele such musicke to worke much upon their affections. To this I say 1. that his denying of Organall musicke to have beene significant or typicall, is without reason, and against the current of our Divines; taken (as it may seeme) out of Bellarmine de missa. lib. 2. cap. 15.) who useth this evasion against ⟨p. 405⟩those words of P. Martyr: Musicall organs perteyne to the Iewish Ceremonie, and agree no more to us, then Circumcision. So that we may neglect it, and take him as saying, that nothing which was ordained in the old Testament (no not sacrificing of beasts) is now an Idol-service. 2. For that, and the other, both together, it is fit the Rejoynder should be put in minde how many, and what kinde of men, he accuseth of distraction, stupidity, or prejudice!
1. Thomas Aquinas (in whose time this faction was not in general request,1 much less in the Primitive) in 22. q. 91. a. 2.4. opposeth thus: The Church useth no music for divine praises, lest it should seem to Judaize, and answereth thus: Musical instruments do more stir up the mind to delight, then frame it to a right disposition. In the old Testament there was some need of them, both, &c. and also because they did figure out something. Erasmus, in 1. Cor. 14. saith thus: We have brought a tedious and player-like music into the Church, a tumultuous noise of many voices, such as I think was not heard among the Theatres of Grecians or Romans. For which purpose, whole flocks of boys are maintained at great charges, whose age also is all spent in learning such gibble gabble. At such cost is the Church •or a pestiferous thing, &c.
1. Thomas Aquinas (in whose time this faction was not in generall request,1 much lesse in the Primitive) in 22. q. 91. a. 2.4. opposeth thus: The Church useth no musick for divine praises, lest it should seeme to Indaize, and answereth thus: Musicall instruments doe more stirre up the minde to delight, then frame it to a right disposition. In the old Testament there was some need of them, both, &c. and also because they did figure out something. Erasmus, in 1. Cor. 14. sayth thus: We have brought a tedious and player-like musicke into the Church, a tumultuous noyse of many voyces, such as I thinke was not heard among the Theaters of Grecians or Romans. For which purpose, whole flockes of boyes are maintained at great charges, whose age also is all spent in learning such gibble gabble. At such cost is the Church •or a pestiferous thing, &c.
It is evident that that some Ecclesiastical chanting and roarings in our Temples (scarce also understood of the Priests themselves) is a most foolish and vain abuse, 1and a most pernicious let to piety. I make no question but all that kind of ⟨p. 406⟩music was a part of the legal pedagogy. In the solemn worship of God, I do not judge it more suitable, then if we should recall the incense, tapers, and other shadows of the Law, into use. I say again, to go beyond what we are taught, is most wicked pervicacy.
It is evident that that some Eccl•siasticall chanting and roarings in our Temples (scarse also understood of the Priests themselves) is a most foolish and vaine abuse, 1and a most pernicious let to piety. I make no question but all that kinde of ⟨p. 406⟩musicke was a part of the legall pedagogie. In the solemne worship of God, I doe not judge it more sutable, then if we should recall the incense, tapers, and other shadowes of the Law, into use. I say againe, to goe beyond what we are taught, is most wicked pervicacy.
It would be too tedious, if I should reckon up all that have assented to these. I will add only the two and thirty grave learned men, which were chosen in King Edwards days, to reform Ecclesiastical laws, and observances they judged this law fitting,1 It likes us well to have this tedious kind of music taken away. Certainly these were neither distracted, nor stupid men: whence their prejudice came, let the Rejoinder himself judge.
It would be too tedious, if I should reckon up all that have assented to these. I will adde onely the two and thirty grave learned men, which were chosen in King Edwards dayes, to reforme Ecclesiasticall lawes, and observances they judged this law fitting,1 It likes us well to have this tedious kinde of musicke taken away. Certainely these were neither distracted, nor stupid men: whence their prejudice came, let the Rejoynder himselfe judge.
3. The second question was about these children of the earth, dealing with the keys of Christs Heavenly Kingdom, whether they can be found in the face, or body of the Primitive Church? The Rej. 1. answereth plainly and roundly, No. Yet these human creatures, are those that keep most mis-rule among poor Christian men and Ministers also, in Ecclesiastical censures, of suspension, and excommunication, with intolerable exactions. That assertion therefore of the Defend. that the Church of England doth most lively express the face ⟨p. 407⟩and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church, is in one great part of it, dashed by the Rejoinder his No. 2. The Rejoynd, addeth, nor did any Presbyters execute any Church censures, without leave or consent of their Bishops, or unpreaching Elders at all, execute any censures of the Church. Now […] this is nothing to the purpose, but a mere diversion, •hat something might seem to be said beside No. 2. For •he first, I answer with Junius in Bel. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. •4. an. 27. Censures are in common to be acted by the Presbytery: so that as the other Presbyters did not act them without the consent of the chief Presbyter, or Bishop, •o neither could any Bishop do it without them, of and •y himself. That Bishops afterward dared so to do, it was tyrannidis indignae, mere tyranny. 3. For the confutation of the second, I propound a remarkable place in •rigen, against Celsus lib. 3. extant also in his Philocalia, collected by Gregory Naz. and Basil, set forth in greek •nd latin, by Tarinus: were cap. 18. Unto Celsus, objecting that Christian teachers sought for simple foolish auditors, Origen answereth, that Christian teachers did first discern and try their auditors; and of the approved, they had two orders,1 one of beginners (that were catechised) and another of those which had made further progress. And among these latter (distinct from teachers) he relateth thus: Some are appointed who are to •ook to the life and mann•rs of such as are admitted, that they which do ought unseemly, may, as need shall require, be excluded the Congregation, and they which do otherwise, may e cherished, and daiy grow better. This is the translation of Tarinus. The rest of the Rejoinder to this question
4. The question is if any such were in the Primitive Church? The Rejoinder 1. answereth concerning Pomp, that Peace and beneficence of Princes brought in this difference of outward state. But all difference of outward estate was not meant by Pomp. For so […] Ministers, that have convenient means for a libe••• kind of life, with hospitality, should be pompous. W• are not so simple, as to account the Pastor of Sutton Col•• field, (as such) pompous. There is certainly a pomp••• that doeth not agree to a Minister of the Gospel: as th• pompous state of a Baron, or Earl (which the Defende• himself, at his third flight, unto Durham, is risen to that requireth many idle attendants, for no other us• but only for Comportment, & Lustre of state; that which must have so much time spent in bridling of the Bishops horses, as the ancient B b. took to preach dive•• sermons in, as M. Hooper speaketh; that which make• a poor man afraid to speak unto his Minister, without such trembling, as Majesty breedeth; that which woul• make it ridiculous, for a mean man to desire a visitation of him, for himself, his wife, or children, in sickness or other perplexity; that which requireth a Chaplain• not only to do other duties of religion for him, bu• even to give thanks at his table, and that standing, whi•• ⟨p. 409⟩he sitteth; that (to omit other characters) which maketh all his doings Lord-like, by way of Commandment: I will not here speak of, draw an excommunication against him; take him Pursuivant; Jailer, see to your prisoner; as being notorious in divers of them: but only note one example, out of mine own experience, which many others can parallel by •heirs: I w•s once, & but once (I thank God) before a Bishop: and being presented unto him, by the chief Magistrates of n Incorporation, for to be preacher in their town; the lowly man first asked them, how they durst choose a preacher, without his consent? You (said he) are to receive the preacher that I appoint you. For I am your Pastor, though he never fed them. And then, turning to me, how durst you (said he) preach in my Diocese, without my leave? So that without any other reason, but mere Lordship, the whole Incorporation, and I, were dismissed, to wait his pleasure: which I (for my part) have now done this twenty year, and more.
If this kind of Pomp were in the Primitive Church, or if it be not in ours, the Replier may be blamed for mentioning Pomp in his Quaere.
If this kinde of Pompe were in the Primitive Churche, or if it be not in ours, the Replier may be blamed for mentioning Pompe in his Quaere.
2. Concerning Ordination, the Rej. his answer is, that the Bishop do•th it not (regularly) all alone. What is this to sole power of doing it? If an Irish or Welsh Bishop, ordaineth one at London in his chamber, or in some Chapel, and admitteth him that commended the person to him, for to join with him, for fashion sake, in the gesture of hands-imposing, be he of what place or Diocese soever, in whom is the po•er o• Ordination? If the ⟨p. 410⟩Bishop of London, ordaineth a minister at large, and biddeth his Chaplain, or Chaplains, do so much as add their hands to the business, is there power in the Chaplain, more then in any other, that by chance may be present? Power of Ordination is not given (by our Laws) to individua vaga, that is to say, Vagrant men, of whom the Law taketh no notice, such as were wont to be called Hedge-Priests, but to authorized Prelates. These are toys, to mock the Church (if not God) with. Such doings were never heard of in that Church which deserveth the title of Primitive. Of Excommunication, the same answer is given; and so the same answer may serve.1 Let this only be added, that therein, the Bishop hath such absolute power, that he may derive the same to his Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, & such like Underlings, to be dispensed by them, even unto the commanding of Gods Ministers for to denounce their Censures, without any discerning what equity there is in the cause, and what assistance of Ministers is required, appeareth by this style: John Hone, Dr. of Law official &c. to all Rectors, &c. For as much as we (proceeding rightly and lawfully) have adjudged all and every one, whose names are under-written to be excommunicated; and since the discreet Mr. Rouland Allen Priest, hath excommunicated them, by our mere office in writing; we do therefore commit to you &c. to denounce openly, &c. given under the Seal of our Officiality, such a day, and such a year. If any footsteps of such an approved power could be showed in the Primitive Bishops, all Christians might marvel at so sudden and monstrous a defection. But both Defend. and Rejoynd. ⟨p. 411⟩know, that it is a relic of Popedom.
3. The second question was about these children of the earth, dealing with the keyes of Christs Heavenly Kingdome, whether they can bee founde in the face, or body of the Primitive Church? The Rej. 1. answereth plainely and roundly, No. Yet these human creatures, are those that keep most mis-rule among poore Christan men and Ministers also, in Ecclesiasticall censures, of suspension, and excommunication, with intolerable exactions. That assertion therefore of the Defend. that the Church of England doth most lively expresse the face ⟨p. 407⟩and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church, is in one great part of it, dashed by the Rejoynder his No. 2. The Rejoynd, addeth, nor did any Presbyters execute any Church censures, without leave or consent of their Bishops, or unprea•hing Elders at all, execute any censures of the Church. Now 〈…〉 this is nothing to the purpose, but a meere diversion, •hat something might seeme to be said beside No. 2. For •he first, I answer with Iunius in Bel. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. •4. an. 27. Censures are in common to be acted by the Presbytery: so that as the other Presbiters did not act them without the consent of the chiefe Presbyter, or Bishop, •o neither could any Bishop do it without them, of and •y himselfe. That Bishops afterward dared so to doe, it was tyrannidis indignae, meere tyranny. 3. For the confu•ation of the second, I propound a remarkable place in •rigen, against Celsus lib. 3. extant also in his Philocalia, •ollected by Gregorie Naz. and Basil, set forth in greeke •nd latine, by Tarinus: were cap. 18. Vnto Celsus, ob•ecting that Christian teachers sought for simple foolish •uditors, Origen answereth, that Christian teachers did •irst discerne and try their auditors; and of the approo•ed, they had two orders,1 one of beginners (that were •atechised) and another of those which had made fur•her progresse. And among these latter (distinct from •eachers) he relateth thus: Some are appointed who are to •ook to the life and mann•rs of such as are admitted, that they which doe ought unseemely, may, as need shall require, bee ex•luded the Congregation, and they which doe otherwise, may •e cherished, and dai•y grow better. This is the translation of Tarinus. The rest of the Rejoynder to this question ⟨p. 408⟩hath nothing in it but wordes.
4. The quaestion is if any suche were in the Primitive Churche? The Rejoynder 1. answereth concerning Pompe, that Peace and beneficencie of Princes brought in this difference of outward state. But all difference of outward estate was not meant by Pompe. For so 〈…〉 Ministers, that have convenient meanes for a libe••• kinde of life, with hospitalitie, should be pompous. W• are not so simple, as to account the Pastor of Sutton Col•• feild, (as such) pompous. Ther is certainly a pomp••• that doeth not agree to a Minister of the Gospel: as th• pompous state of a Baron, or Earl (which the Defende• himself, at his third flight, unto Durrham, is risen to that requireth many idle attendants, for no other us• but onely for Comportment, & Luster of state; that whic• must have so much time spent in brideling of the Bishops horses, as the ancient B b. tooke to preache dive•• sermons in, as M. Hooper speaketh; that which make• a poor man afraid to speak unto his Minister, withou• such trembling, as Majestie breedeth; that which woul• make it ridiculous, for a meane man to desire a visitatio• of him, for himself, his wife, or children, in sickness• or other perplexitie; that which requireth a Chaplain• not onely to doe other duties of religion for him, bu• even to give thankes at his table, and that standing, whi•• ⟨p. 409⟩he sitteth; that (to omit other characters) which maketh all his doeings Lord-like, by way of Commandement: I will not heer speak of, draw an excommunication against him; take him Pursiva•t; Iailour, see to your prison•r; as being notorious in divers of them: but onely note one example, out of mine owne experience, which many others can parallel by •heirs: I w•s once, & but once (I thank God) before a Bishop: and being praesented unto him, by the cheif Magistrates of •n Incorporation, for to be preacher in their towne; the lowly man first asked them, how they durst choose a preacher, without his consent? You (sayd he) are to receyve the preacher that I appoint you. For I am your Pastor, though he never fed them. And then, turning to me, how durst you (sayd he) preache in my Diocesse, without my leave? So that without any other reason, but meer Lordship, the wholle Incorporation, and I, were dimissed, to wayt his pleasure: which I (for my part) have now doen this twenty year, and more.