A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D.…

1. The Replier, seeing that all the cause (on the imposers part) dependeth on this place of Scripture, & finding nothing by any Logic ⟨p. 57⟩could be drawn from it for our Ceremonies, thought good to try, if there may not, from the same place be formed a better argument against them. This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare, and loosing the way: as if all the Def. his Retortions, and all the Rejoinder his paper shot which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him ro fly, or run away, were new Hares, and exorbitations. I know not else what privilege he hath, to use a weight and a weight, one for the Defend. with him self, and another for the Replier.

1. THe Replier, seeing that all the cause (on the imposers part) dependeth on this place of Scripture, & finding nothing by any Logick ⟨p. 57⟩could be drawne from it for our Ceremonies, thought good to trie, if there may not, from the same place be formed a better argument against them. This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare, and loosing the way: as if all the Def. his Retortions, and all the Rejoynder his paper shot which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him ro flie, or runne away, were new Hares, and exorbitations. I know not else what privilege he hath, to use a weight and a weight, one for the Defend. with him self, and another for the Replier.

2. The Argument is thus put together, by the Rej. pag. 77. All that is left unto the Churches liberty, in things pertaining to Gods worship, is to order them in comely manner. But to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to Gods worship. Therefore, to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not left to the liberty of the Church, I. e. it is unlawful. The Rejoinder answereth first to the proposition, and then to the assumption, but so as he mingleth both together, in many words: Yet I will follow his order.

2. The Argument is thus put together, by the Rej. pag. 77. All that is left unto the Churches libertie, in things pertayning to Gods worship, is to order them in comely manner. But to appointe and use the Ceremonies as wee doe, is not to order in comely manner any thinge perteyning to Gods worship. Therfore, to appointe and use the Ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the libertie of the Churche, I. e. it is unlawfull. The Rejoynder answereth first to the proposition, and then to the assumption, but so as he mingleth both together, in many words: Yet I will follow his order.

3. First of all he denieth the proposition to be found, in the Repl. his meaning. But I can see no reason of this denial. 1. He saith, that Order and Ordering is taken sometime largely, for all discipline, or policy, sometime strictly, for ranking of persons and actions handsomely one before, and another after, and so is opposed only to confusion, as in this place, 1. Cor. 14.40. Now this is far• from overthrowing the proposition, in the Repl. his meaning. For the Repl. meant order in the strict sense, ⟨p. 58⟩which maketh also for his purpose: and this the Rej. granteth to be the meaning of the Apostle in this place 1, Cor. 14.40. Which place the same Rej. pag, 75. confesseth to be the only place (in the N. Test.) by which power is given to the Church to constitute Cerem: From both which laid together it necessarily followeth that all which is left unto the Churches power under the title of order, is ordaining in the strict sense, 1. e. ranking of persons and actions handsomely, as the Rejoinder expoundeth it. Yet immediately after he accuseth the Repl. for saying order to be the right placing and disposing of things instituted, for time, place, etc. not showing why this disliketh him, or wherein differeth from his own explication. Only he saith that etc. often by the Repl. put to time, and place, is a blind. Which is not so, for by etc. is meant all circumstances of like nature with time and place, as number, measure, vicissitude etc. How many Psalms shall be sung, or chapter read, what, and how much Scripture shall be at this or that assembly expounded, how one part of worship shall succeed another etc. without a blind.

3. First of all he denieth the proposition to be found, in the Repl. his meaning. But I can see no reason of this deniall. 1. Hee sayth, that Order and Ordering is taken sometime largely, for all discipline, or policie, sometime strictly, for rancking of persons and actions handsomely one before, and another after, and so is opposed onely to confusion, as in this place, 1. Cor. 14.40. Now this is far• from overthrowing the proposition, in the Repl. his meaning. For the Repl. meant order in the strict sense, ⟨p. 58⟩

5. The first proof is, that it is manifestly collected out of the place in question, 1. Cor. 14. and the Def. seemeth to grant as much. To which the Rej. answereth. 1. that in that place, three distinct things are propounded, Edification, Decency, Order: and these three cannot be one. But edification being the end, Decency and order the means, they may well be contained in one: decent order, tending to edification, or (which is as much to our purpose) in two: decency, and order, for edification. A holy Sacrament, decently, and orderly administered, for edification, is not four distinct things, but one. His 2. is, that these words are the conclusion of the whole Tract. beginning at the eleventh chap. wherein are handled some things only concerning Decency, some more properly pertaining to Edification, and some which belong more peculiarly to Order. Ergo more is commanded in these words, then the comely placing of one thing after another. Let this be granted, yet it followeth not, that more is left unto the Churches liberty, then order, and decency, unto edification. For all things that are commanded, are not left unto the Churches liberty.

5. The first proof is, that it is manyfestly collected out of the place in question, 1. Cor. 14. and the Def. seemeth to grāt as much. To which the Rej. answereth. 1. that in that place, three distinct thinges are propounded, Edification, Decencie, Order: and these three cannot be one. But edification being the ende, Decencie and order the meanes, they may well be conteyned in one: decent order, tending to edification, or (which is as much to our purpose) in two: decencie, and order, for edification. A holy Sacrament, decently, and orderly administred, for edification, is not fowr distinct thinges, but one. His 2. is, that these words are the conclusion of the wholle Tract. beginning at the eleventh chap. wherin are handled some thinges onely concerning Decencie, some more properly perteyning to Edification, and some which belonge more peculiarly to Order. Ergo more is commanded in these words, then the comely placing of one thinge after another. Let this be granted, yet it followeth not, that more is left unto the Churches libertie, then order, and decencie, unto edification. For all thinges that are commanded, are not left unto the Churches libertie.

But that speaking in unknown tongues which the Rej. doeth refer to edification as distinct from order and decency, is by good Divines accounted to offend against the order and decency, spoken of c. •4. and 40. So D. Whitaker, de Script. q. 2. c. 18. disputeth against the use of an unknown tongue in Gods service, out of this very place: pugnat hoc vero cum [Greek or Hebrew] quam maxime. 1. Cor. 14.40. 1. e. this mightily overthrows that good order which he so much stands for. His 3. is, the Defend doeth no way seem to grant the proposition: because the Repl. undertaketh by argument to rescue this place out of the Def. his hands.

But that speaking in unknowē tongues which the Rej. doeth referre to edification as distinct from order and decencie, is by good Divines accounted to offende against the order and decencie, spoken of c. •4. and 40. So D. Whitaker, de Script. q. 2. c. 18. disputeth against the use of an unknowen tongue in Gods service, out of this very place: pugnat hoc vero cum 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 quam maxime. 1. Cor. 14.40. 1. e. this mightly overthrowes that good order which he so much stands for. His 3. is, the Defend doeth no way seeme to grant the proposition: because the Repl. undertaketh by argument to rescue this place out of the Def. his hands.

But this nothing at all argueth, that the Def. and the Repl. do not agree about the proposition, though they dissent about the place, as it is handled in the assumption. The Papists grant us, this proposition: No phrase is used by Christ, in those words: this is my body, but a Sacramental one. Yet because they deny the assumption: transubstantiating words, are not a Sacramental phrase, we undertake by argument to rescue this place out of their hands. So the Def. requiring no more, then order and Decency unto Edification, to be left unto the Churches liberty, for the establishing of our Ceremonies, doeth seem at least to grant, that all which is left to the Churches liberty is order and Decency unto edification, though he deny these to contain no more then mere circumstances, which is the assumption. Of Edification there is not mention made in the proposition, because that as an end, is out of question, and always included.

But this nothing at all argueth, that the Def. and the Repl. doe not agree about the proposition, though they dissent about the place, as it is handled in the assumtion. The Papists grant us, this proposition: No phraze is used by Christ, in those wordes: this is my body, but a Sacramentall one. Yet because they denie the assumtion: transubstantiating wordes, are not a Sacramentall phraze, we undertake by argument to rescue this place out of their handes. So the Def. requiring no more, then order and Decencie unto Edification, to be left unto the Churches libertie, for the establishing of our Ceremonies, doeth seem at least to grant, that all which is left to the Churches libertie is order and Decencie unto edification, though he denie these to conteyne no more then mere circumstances, which is the assumtion. Of Edification ther is not mention made in the proposition, because that as an ende, is out of question, and allways included.

6. Peter Martyr is cited, out of D. Whitaker, de Pontif. pag. 841.844. as agreeing with that which the Repl. would have. Here the Rej. enlargeth himself much for the sake (as he saith) of those that are unlatined.

6. Peter Martyr is cyted, out of D. Whitaker, de Pontif. pag. 841.844. as agreeing with that which the Repl. would have. Here the Rej. inlargeth himself much for the sake (as he sayth) of those that are unlatined.

1. He telleth us that P.M. doeth distinguish, though not divide, comeliness from order. Which we do also, For take the Repl. his words in the most rigorous sense you can, yet comeliness of order, doeth distinguish con linesse from order, no less then comeliness of a man, doeth distinguish it from a man. 2. He addeth, that P. Mart. doeth there instance in the Ceremony of thrice dipping, and in the observation or institution of Feasts. But let the Reader know, that those words, Ceremony, observation, institution of feasts, which the Rejoinder hath set down in a differing letter, to be noted as P.M. his words, are not to be found in the place of P.M. but are added by the Rejoinder for advantage. P.M. expoundeth the meaning he had in all his instances by what place, what time, what manner. If therefore the Repl. did not look upon that place,¹ but took it on trust, from the trusty hand of D. Whitaker (as the Rejoinder objected to him) yet it proveth good and fitting. So that the Rejoynd. forgetteth himself much, when upon this uncertain, and momentlesse conjecture, he compareth the Repl. to a hungry creature (or dog) that runneth away with a bare bone. D. Morton once (at the least) alleged some testimonies on trust: and therefore, being challenged for them, he confessed that he had them from Mr. Stock. Yet the Popish adversary (author of the Sober reckoning) did not compare ⟨p. 62⟩him to a dog, but only said, that he sent to stocks and stones, for satisfaction about them. Which I do not allege to the disparagement of either D. M. or Mr, St. but only to show by comparison how the Rej. doeth sometime overflow, in his terms. 3. For D. Whitaker, he telleth us, that he only saith, that Ecclesiastical laws belong only to order, or ordering, but not as it is distinct from comeliness. As if any of us did so. The Repl. his words: ordering in comely manner, do not (I hope) refer all to order, considered a part from all comeliness.

1. He telleth us that P.M. doeth distinguish, though not divide, comelinesse from order. Which wee doe also, For take the Repl. his wordes in the most rigorous sense you cā, yet comlinesse of order, doeth distinguish cō linesse from order, no lesse then comelinesse of a man, doeth distinguish it from a man. 2. He addeth, that P. Mart. doeth there instance in the Ceremonie of thrise dipping, and in the observation or institution of Feasts. But let the Reader know, that those words, Ceremonie, observation, institution of feasts, which the Rejoynder hath set downe in a differing letter, to be noted as P.M. his words, are not to be found in the place of P.M. but are added by the Rejoynder for advantage. P.M. expoundeth the meaning he had in all his instances by what place, what time, what manner. If therfore the Repl. did not looke upon that place,

This is the full sum, of all that Rejoinder had to except against the first allegation. And yet here upon this nothing, it pleaseth him to accuse not only the Repl. but these men, of haughty and Magistral fashion, gulling, and deceiving, great and shameful sin, and the poor Repl. at the least, for a man destitute of common honesty. It seemeth he was very angry at something. Let the understanding Reader guess, at what?

This is the full summe, of all that Rejoynder had to except against the first allegation. And yet heere upon this nothing, it pleaseth him to accuse not onely the Repl. but these men, of haughtie and Magistrall fashion, gulling, and deceiving, great and shame•ull sinne, and the poor Repl. at the least, for a man destitute of common honestie. It seemeth he was very angry at something. Let the understanding Reader guesse, at what?

6. For more manifestation of the Repl. his vacuity of common honesty, the Rej. referreth us to the second testimony out of Junius, against Bell. cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86.87. and cap. 17. n. 9.10.12.13.

6. For more manifestation of the Repl. his vacuitie of comon honestie, the Rej. referreth us to the second testimonie out of Iunius, against Bell. cōt. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86.87. and cap. 17. n. 9.10.12.13.

Omitting therefore unnecessary repetition, let us hear the reasons of extraordinary dishonesty, 1. Junius ca. 16. n. 86.87. saith only first, that those humane laws are only necessary, in the Church, which tend to this, that all things may be done decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. Secondly, that these are improperly called laws in the Church, being more properly constitutions, or Canons.

Omitting therfore unnecessarie repetition, let us heare the reasons of extraordinarie dishonestie, 1. Iunius ca. 16. n. 86.87. sayth onely first, that those humane lawes are onely necessarie, in the Churche, which tende to this, that all thinges may be doen decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. Secondly, that these are improperly called lawes in the Churche, being more properly constitions, or Canons.

Now out of the first saying, the Repl. concluded, that Junius did judge the Apostle to leave no more to the Churches liberty, then to order Gods ordinances in decent manner: And out of the second, he inferred the same conclusion: because any Constitution, above ordering in decent manner that which before was enjoined, is properly a law. What extraordinary dishonesty is here? 2. Jun•u cap. 17. n. 9. saith only that to make new laws in divine things is to decline 1. c. in points of faith or necessary rules of sanctimony. But Junius maketh no mention at all, either of faith, or sanctimony, or necessity, Nor Bell. himself in that place. Neither is the question there handled, of points of faith or things absolutely necessary to sanctimony. All double treble Ceremonies reductively Sacramental, and worship, are by the Rej. his own dictates double sacred: and that is it which Junius meaneth by divine. 3. Bell saith that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of laws contrary to the law of God. Whereunto Junius n. 10. answereth, t•at any laws at all, added to Gods laws, are contrary to the law of God, speaking of proper laws, without any backing of Gods law, binding the Conscience, as he showeth cap. 16. n. 86.8. Here 1. the Rej. left out those words of Junius, neither contrary nor beside the word: which if he had translated, then the Readers memory might have recalled, how this place cited before for the defence of that phrase, was but shifted by the Rej. p. 46.2. It is to be marked, that the Def. and Rej. there answer to Deut. 4. is the same with Bel. p. 134.3. That exposition of laws without backing, is of the Rej. his own forging. No such thing is found in the places quoted, nor yet did Bel. profess to defend any such thing.

Now out of the first saying, the Repl. concluded, that Iunius did judge the Apostle to leave no more to the Churches libertie, then to order Gods ordinances in decent manner: And out of the seconde, he inferred the same conclusion: because any Constitution, above ordering in decent manner that which before was injoined, is properly a law. What ex•raordinary dishonestie is here? 2. Iun•u cap. 17. n. 9. sayth onely that to make new laws in divine thinges is to decline 1. c. in poyntes of fayth or necessarie rules of sanctimonie. But Iunius maketh no mention at all, eyther of faith, or sanctimonie, or necessitie, Nor Bell. himself in that place. Neyther is the question there handled, of poyntes of faith or thinges absolutlie necessarie to sanctimonie. All double treble Ceremonies reductively Sacramentall, and worship, are by the Rej. his owne dictates double sacred: and that is it which Iunius meaneth by divine. 3. Bell sayth that the addition forbidden

Of binding the Conscience, enough hath been said in the head of Difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish.

Of binding the Conscience, enough hath been sayd in the head of Difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish.

4. Junius n. 12. answering to Bellarmines his saying, that God (in the N.T.) gave only the common laws of faith and Sacram. leaving the specials to the Church etc. affirmeth Gods laws to be perfect re, ratione & modo, and those of the Church to be but Canons and disposings of convenience, for better observing of divine laws.

4. Iunius n. 12. answering to Bellarmines his saying, that God (in the N.T.) gave onely the common laws of faith and Sacram. leaving the specialls to the Churche etc. affirmeth Gods laws to be perfect re, ratione & modo, and those of the Churche to be but Canons and disposings of conveniencie, for better observing of divine lawes.

Where note 1. an example of an etc. for a blind, or blinding, which the Rejoinder formerly told of. For in that eat. is contained, pro locorum & temporum diversitate: quia non possunt diversissimi populi conuenire in ijsdem legibus & ritibus. 1▪ e. for this cause, special laws of ritual things, are left to the Churches liberty, because of variety, which falleth out now by occasion of times and places: Which is the very thing that the Rejoinder pawned his credit, Bell. never said, pag. 15.16. Note also 2. that Junius doeth not in this place mention Canons, as the Rej. pleaseth to alter his words in reciting of them. But Cautions, and dispositions. Now a Caution about the performance of any thing, is not an institution of a new thing. 3. Junius is found to say as much as he was alleged for, and to the contrary we have from the Rejoynder a nihil dicit.

Where note 1. an example of an etc. for a blinde, or blindinge, which the Rejoynder formerly tould of. For in that ete. is conteyned, pro locorum & temporum diversitate: quia non possunt diversissimi populi conuenire in ijsdem legibus & ritibus. 1▪ e. for this cause, speciall laws of rituall thinges, are left to the Churches libertie, because of varietie, which falleth out now by occasion of times and places: Which is the very thinge that the Rejoynder pawned his credite, Bell. never sayde, pag. 15.16. Note also 2. that Iunius doeth not in this place mētion Canons, as the Rej. pleaseth to alter his words in reciting of them. But Cautions, and dispositions. Now a Caution about the performance of any thing, is not an institution of a new thing. 3. Iunius is found to say as muche as he was alledged for, and to the contrarie we have from the Rejoynder a nihil dicit.