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

His fourth is, that ordering and manner of disposing, is ill divided from comeliness. Neither did the Repl. intend so to divide, but rather to conjoin them, understanding by that manner of disposing, comeliness. But if the Rejoinder had not cached up some show of confounding comeliness with order, which was not intended by the Repl. he had been in this argument wholly at a loss.

His fourth is, that ordering and manner of disposing, is ill divided from comelinesse. Neyther did the Repl. intend so to divide, but rather to conjoine them, understanding by that manner of disposing, comelinesse. But if the Rejoynder had not cached up some shew of confounding comelinesse with order, which was not intended by the Repl. he had been in this argument wholly at a losse.

His 5. and last answer is, that by Basils leave some things, in themselves, may, and sometime must be tolerated. But he should have remembered, that the question here is not of tolerating, but of appointing and using.

His 5. and last answer is, that by Basils leave some thinges, in themselfs, may, and sometime must be tolerated. But he should have remembred, that the question here is not of toleratíng, but of appointing and using.

Now if it be lawful, to appoint and use empty and unprofitable Ceremonies in Gods worship, let those Worshippers judge, that tremble at the Majesty of God, and are afraid in any manner to appear empty and unprofitably before him.¹ Nay (to pass by our Divines) let the Papists themselves judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. confesseth those Ceremonies to be forbidden, which are unprofitable altogether, and vain precepts, unprofitable & frivolous Ceremonies, only by humane Spirit invented. ²And de effect. Sacrament l. 2. cap. 32. empty and good for nothing. More than needs, and not a jot tending to any Godliness, and who not?

Now if it be lawfull, to appoint and use emptie and unprofitable Ceremonies in Gods worship, let those Worshippers judge, that tremble at the Majestie of God, and are afrayd in any manner to appear emptie and unprofitablie before him.¹ Nay (to passe by our Divines) let the Papists themselvs judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. confesseth those Ceremonies to be forbidden, which are unprofitable altogether, and vaine praecepts, unproffitable & frivolons Ceremonies, onely by humane Spirit invented. ²And de effect. Sacrament l. 2. cap. 32. empty and good for nothing. Morethen needs, and not a jot tending to any Godines, and who not?

1. 1Mandata inutilia prorsus, & vana, inutiles, & frivolae Ceremonia solo spiritu humano adiaventa.
2. 2Inanes & inutiles. Estius in Tit. 1.14. Supervacanca, etuibil ad piet item condu•evic•.

1. The Rejoinder answer 1. that order requireth new time, place, and measure: which is a Sophistry in the Proposition before abused, and confuted.

1. The Rejoynder answer 1. that order requireth new time, place, and measure: which is a Sophistrie in the Proposition before abused, and confuted.

2. His second is, that ordering in comely manner, or comeliness requireth the institution of such formalities, as shall be suitable to the dignity and variety of divine actions. Where the term formalities is not so formal, that a man may spy in it the difference it hath from other things, the Rejoynd. in his manuduction, pag. 36. appropriateth it to Bishops Roshe•s etc. even as they are distinct from Surplices: the Bishops went before the Hearse in •heir formalities, the Clerks in their Surplices. So that it seemeth to mean some Ceremonies of state, and dignity: of which kind neither Cross, nor Surplice is any. Howsoever, unto ordering of one thing doeth not require another new thing, but only disposing of that one. For if it did, then that new thing (because that also must be ordered) would require another new thing, and that also for order sake another, so that no one thing could be ordered, without an infinite heap of new things.

2. His second is, that ordering in comely manner, or comelinesse requireth the institution of suche formalities, as shall be sutable to the dignitie and varietie of divine actions. Where the terme formalities is not so formall, that a man may spie in it the difference it hath from other thinges, the Rejoynd. in his manuduction, pag. 36. appropriateth it to Bishops Roshe•s etc. evē as they are distinct from Surplices: the Bishops went before the Hearse in •heir formalities, the Clearks in their Surplices. So that it seemeth to mean some Ceremonies of state, and dignitie: of which kinde neyther Crosse, nor Surplice is any. Howsoever, unto ordering of one thing doeth not require another new thing, but onely disposing of that one. For if it did, then that new thing (because that also must be ordered) would require another new thing, and that also for order sake another, so that no one thing could be ordered, without an infinite heap of new thinges.

As for the Dignity of divine actions, that is best suited with mans reverent and humble simplicity, not with outward shows of dignity, invented by man. The woman's ordinary veil was more suitable to the dignity of Gods worship, then if she had adorned her self with gold, and precious stones.

As for the Dignitie of divine actions, that is best suited with mans reverent and humble simplicitie, not with outward shews of dignitie, invented by man. The womans ordinarie vaile was more suitable to the dignitie of Gods worship, then if she had adorned her self with golde, and pretious stones.

Pauls plain cloak was more suitable then the richest Cope in all Rome. If Order requireth outward shows of dignity, then Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches an imitable example of religious order, for the Council of Trent sess. 22. professeth, their mass Ceremonies to be invented. That the Majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.

Pauls plaine cloak was more suitable then the richest Coap in all Rome. If Order requireth outward shews of dignitie, then Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches an imitable exāple of religious order, for the Councel of Trent sess. 22. professeth, their masse Ceremonies to be invented. That the Majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.

¹12. To show further that Order requireth not such Ceremony as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, signifying no such thing. Now the Rejoinder granteth that originally the word doeth not contain within the compass of it, such kind of Ceremonies, though by usage it may. Which is very true: but helpeth not, except the Def. or Rejoinder whose principal Argument is taken from this place, and only retorted by us, can prove, that in this place, the word order is extended beyond his original signification. He will not therefore stand with us, about the signification of the word in this place: let order (saith he) in this place signify no more then placing. But he maketh his retreat to the word Comeliness: asking if comeliness be nothing? I answer yes, it is some thing: but the Replier did not insist in that word, because he ⟨p. 77⟩took the force of the Def. his Argument from this place principally to lie upon order.

¹12. To shew further that Order requireth not suche Ceremonie as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, signifying no suche thing. Now the Rejoynder granteth that originally the word doeth not conteyne within the compasse of it, suche kinde of Ceremonies, though by usage it may. Which is very true: but helpeth not, except the Def. or Rejoynder whose principall Argument is taken from this place, and onely retorted by us, can prove, that in this place, the word order is extended beyond his originall signification. He will not therfore stand with us, about the signification of the word in this place: let order (sayth he) in this place signifie no more then placing. But he maketh his retrait to the word Comelinesse: asking if comelinesse be nothing? I answer yes, it is some thing: but the Replier did not insist in that word, because he ⟨p. 77⟩tooke the force of the Def. his Argument from this place principally to lie upon order.

1. 1Quo Majestas tanti Sacrificij commendaretur.

But seeing the Rejoinder hath given up Order, I will add a word or •wo concerning Comeliness.

But seeing the Rejoynder hath given up Order, I will adde a word or •wo concerning Comelinesse.

I take this for granted, that seeing the Rejoinder confesseth Order here to be taken in strict signification, as opposed only to confusion, pag. 78. he will also consent with us, that Decency in the same place and sentence, is to be taken in strict signification, as opposed only to the vice of undecencie. Now hence it followeth, that Decency requireth nothing but that which is necessary to the avoiding of undecencie.

I take this for granted, that seing the Rejoynder confesseth Order heer to be taken in strict signification, as opposed onely to confusion, pag. 78. he will also consent with us, that Decencie in the same place and sentence, is to be taken in strict signification, as opposed onely to the vice of undecencie. Now hence it followeth, that Decencie requireth nothing but that which is necessarie to the avoiding of undecencie.

I ask therefore, if undecencie in Gods worship cannot be avoided, without double, treble, sacred significant Ceremonies, of mans inventing? If not, then the Apostles did much forget themselves, in their public worshipping of God, before men had invented such Ceremonies, for that is no answer which the Rejoinder after giveth: all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of Comeliness. All Churches are bound to avoid undecencie, and to do that which Decency requireth, or bindeth them unto. If yea, then Decency doeth not require such kind of Ceremonies.

I aske therfor, if undecencie in Gods worship cannot be avoided, without double, treble, sacred significant Ceremonies, of mans inventing? If not, then the Apostles did muche forget themselves, in their publicke worshipping of God, before men had invented suche Ceremonies, for that is no answer which the Rejoynder after giveth: all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of Comelinesse. All Churches are bound to avoide undecencie, and to doe that which Decencie requireth, or bindeth them unto. If yea, then Decencie doeth not require suche kinde of Ceremonies.

Neither doeth it in deed, any more than Order.¹ So Mr. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is, when the service of God is performed with convenient and fit circumstances of time, place, person, and gesture, and hereof the Apostle speaketh. 1. Cor. 14.40.

Neyther doeth it in deed, any more thē Order.¹ So Mr. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is, when the service of God is performed with convenient and fitt circumstances of time, place, person, and gesture, and heereof the Apostle speaketh. 1. Cor. 14.40.

1. 1Decentiae est cum cultut Dei, idone•t atque convenientibut temporis loci, personae & gestus cire•• stantijs absolvitur. De ha• Decentia, Apostolus loqui tur. 1. Cor. 14.4•.

The plain simple trueth, without Ceremonial affectation, is, that Decency is (in this place) nothing ⟨p. 78⟩but good civill fashion,¹ agreeable not only to worship, but also to any grave assembly. Decency (saith Pareus upon the place) is opposed to vanity, Spots, riot it stands not in hoods, Caps, or visors of fond Ceremonies. etc.

The plaine simple trueth, without Ceremoniall affectation, is, that Decencie is (in this place) nothing ⟨p. 78⟩but good civill fashion,¹ agreable not onely to worship, but also to any grave assemblie. Decencie (sayth Pareus upon the place) is opposed to vanity, Spottes, ryott it stands not in hoods, Caps, or vizardes of fond Ceremonies. etc.

1. 1D•••rum apponitur vanita•i, sordibut, •uxni: non est in casuli•, cappl•, aut ceremoniarum lar•is, etc.

I dare appeal to D.B. his conscience, if Baptism be not as decently administered without the Cross, as with it? and public prayers made as decently without a Surplice, as with it? Let Conscience here speak, and the Rejoinder hearkening unto it, will (without doubt) confess, that Decency in this place doeth no more require either Cross or Surplice, then Order, and that both of them together doeth no more require those Ceremonies, then a hundred other, which in England (though not at Rome) are denied unto them.

I dare appeall to D.B. his conscience, if Baptisme be not as decently administred without the Crosse, as with it? and publicke prayers made as decently without a Surplice, as with it? Let Conscience here speak, and the Rejoynder hearkening unto it, wil (without doubt) confesse, that Decencie in this place doeth no more require eyther Crosse or Surplice, then Order, and that both of them together doeth no more require those Ceremonies, then a hundred other, which in England (though not at Rome) are denyed unto them.

To this purpose, Mr. Attersoll, in his second book of the Sacram. cap. 5. saith well: If they refer all this trash and trumpery (of humane Ceremonies in Baptism) to order and comeliness, as Hosius doeth, do they not thereby blasphemously accuse the Baptism of John, and of the Apostles, of uncomeliness and disorder? whereas the comeliness and dignity of the Sacraments is to be esteemed by the word of God, by the institution of Christ, by the simplicity of the Gospel, and by the practise of the Apostles: Nothing is more comely, decent, and orderly, then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth: nothing is more uncomely and unseemly, then that which man inventeth in the service of God, and in the celebration of the Sacraments, ⟨p. 79⟩thereby inverting and perverting the holy ordinances of God.

To this purpose, Mr. Attersoll, in his second book of the Sacram. cap. 5. sayth well: If they referre all this trash and trumperie (of humane Ceremonies in Baptisme) to order and comelinesse, as Hosius doeth, doe they not therby blasphemously accuse the Baptisme of Iohn, and of the Apostles, of uncomelinesse and disorder? wheras the comelinesse and dignitie of the Sacraments is to be esteemed by the word of God, by the institution of Christ, by the simplicitie of the Gospell, and by the practise of the Apostles: Nothing is more comely, decent, and orderly, then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth: nothing is more uncomely and unseemly, then that which man inventeth in the service of God, and in the celebration of the Sacraments, ⟨p. 79⟩therby inverting and perverting the holy ordinances of God.