Twelve general Arguments, Proving that the Ceremonies imposed upon the Ministers of the Gospel in England, by our Prelates, are unlawful; And therefore that the Ministers of the Gospel, for the bare and sole omission of them in Church Service, for conscience sake, are most unjustly charged of disloyalty to his Majesty. 〈…〉 Math. 18.23. If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: But if I have spoken well, why smitest thou me? 1605. To the Reader. GOod Reader, We come not as voluntaries into this field of Contention, but drauged into it by the very hairs of our head: If our cause be righteous and good, Thou wilt easily grant ●in so great Imputations and Extremities inflicted upon us for the same) that we can ●oe no less, Then give reasons for ourselves ●nd it. All the favour I require of thee, 〈◊〉, That thou wouldst look into our cause 〈◊〉 not by the flashing lightnings, that come ●ut of the mouths of our Adversaries the Prelates) but by the light of our own Reasons, by which if thou shalt see the goodness of our cause, and innocency of our persons, the● embrace it with us. And in pity pray fo● us, (that without shipwreck of Faith and a good Conscience) we may endure patiently and meekly, what so ever God shall suffer to be inflicted upon us for the same; in these wicked and licentious times. The first Argument. All Will-worship is sin. To use these Ceremonies in Church Service in manner and form prescribed, is a Will-worship. Ergo To use them is sin. The Proposition can not be denied, for the Apostle Paul plainly condemneth Will-worship. The Assumption may thus be proved: All parts of Divine Service and Worship, imposed only by the will and pleasure of Man, upon the Ministers of Divine Service, and that of necessity, to be done, is Will-worship. But to use these Ceremonies in manner and form prescribed, is to use such Ceremonies as are 1. parts of Divine Service and Worship, 2. imposed only by the pleasure and will of Men, upon the Ministers of Divine Service, 3. 9 necessity to be done therein, Ergo, To use these Ceremonies in manner an● form prescribed, is a Will-worship. The Proposition is as clear as the Sun at noonday. The Assumption hath three parts, 1. That they are parts of Divine Worship and Service. This is proved evidently by this Argument: All Mystical and Ecclesiastical Rites and forms of Divine Service, instituted by Ecclesiastical authority, to be● Ministerial actions in the solemn Worship of God, and performed in that manner, and having that use in Divine Service, that if God should but ratify and confirm the same use, they should then be parts of his true Worship, (I say) all such Ceremonies are used as parts of Divine Worship But these Ceremonies in controversy, are either all, or the greatest part of them such. Ergo, ●hey are parts of Divine Worship and Service. The Proposition cannot with any modest face be denied; For else how ●ould a sole Divine ratification of the present use of them, make them parts of his true Worship? if they were not used as parts of his Worship before. The Assumption is as manifest, For if Christ should by some Revelation from heaven signify, That it is his will that a Minister in Divine Service should wear a white linen garment, In Baptism make the sign of a Cross, To these ends and purposes that are expressed in the Service book, then certainly they should be essential parts of his Divine Worship, else the jewish Rites and Ceremonies and our Sacraments are no parts thereof. The second part of the Assumption● the 1. Syllogism. That they are imposed only upon t● pleasure and will of man. This is evident. For those things th●● God leaves as indifferent to the wi● and discretion of man to do or leav● undone, being imposed by man upo● man, are imposed only upon the wi● and pleasure of man. The 3. part of the Assumption is: That they are of Necessity to be don● in Divine Service. Which is also out of all doubt, For● Minister stands bound to do them upon pain of suspension and deprivation: and God must have no solemn Worship in England, except it be administered in the same. Upon all this it follows, That to use these Ceremonies in manner and form proscribed, is to use such Ceremonies, as are parts of Divine worship imposed only by the will of Man, etc. The 2. Argument. It is a sin against God for him that is by way of Excellency a servant of JESUS Christ, (without a precise and direct warrant from him) at any time, (especially in the Solemn Worship of God) to give special Honour to Antichrist and his members, But to use these Ceremonies, is in that manner aforesaid, to give special Honour to Antichrist and his members, Ergo It is a sin against God to use them. The Proposition is manifest & clear to any that have an eye of Reason and any light of Divinity shining in it. For what is a sin if this be not: That a Servaunt of jesus Christ, even then when he is in the Service of Christ, should perform special Honour and Service to Antichrist, or any of his limbs. The Assumption is proved (If our adversaries will grant it, that the Pope is Antichrist, and that all the visible members of his Church, acknowledging him their supreme head, are members of him) by this reason. Such a Conformity to Antichrist and his Members in the Ceremonies of Religion and Form of Divine worship, as is not only besides the word of God, but in a special manner derogatory to all reformed Churches that have departed from the Synagogue of Rome, is a special honour to Antichrist and his members. But to use these Ceremonies in Divine Worship, is such a Conformity to Antichrist and his members, Ergo, To use these Ceremonies, in that manner aforesaid, is to give special honour to Antichrist and his members. The Proposition is without exception: For if it should be a special honour to the Bishops of England & their conformed Clergy: For the Churches of Scotland, voluntarily to leave conformity to the Churches of the low Countries, France, & Germany, and to conform themselves in Ceremonies, and Form of Divine worship to the Prelatical Clergy of England: It must needs be a special honour to Antichrist and his members, for any to do the like to them. The Assumption is thus proved: For a Minister of jesus Christ to conform himself in such peculiar Rites, Ceremonies and forms of Divine Service to Antichrist and his members, as all other reformed Churches have rejected for vain, foolish, and superstitious, is in a special manner derogatory to all other reformed Churches. But to use these Ceremonies in Controversy, is in that manner to Conform himself. Ergo, It is in a special manner derogatory to all other Reformed Churches. Both parts of the Syllogism are such as may easily be proved, if they be denied. The 3. Argument. All worship more than Civil, performed to any besides God, is a sin. To use these Ceremonies in manner and form prescribed, is to perform a more than civil honour (even a Religious) only to a human Power and Authority, Ergo, To use these Ceremonies, is to sin. The Proposition needs no proof, For there is no middle Honour between Civil and Divine, and therefore that which is more than Civil, is Divine. Now Divine Honour is to be given only to God, who will not have his Glory given unto another. The Assumption is thus proved: If these Ceremonies be Religious Ceremonies, and all Religious Ceremonies be a part of Divine worship, performed to that authority that suiteth & commandeth them. If also the authority that suiteth and commandeth them, is but merely human, Then the Assumption is true. But the first is true: Ergo, The latter is true also. The Proposition can not be denied of any reasonable creature. The Assumption hath three parts: I. That these Ceremonies are Religious Ceremonies. This needs no proof: For what shall we make to be Religious Ceremonies, If those Ceremonies be not, That are prescribed by the Church, to the Church only, tied to Religion only, and Religious functions, offices, & persons: To be acted and performed only in exercises of Religion and Divine Worship, and are mystical shadows & types of Religious Doctrine. II. That all Religious Ceremonies are parts of Divine Worship. This neither should need any proof, If those that are adversaries unto us in this cause, did not to much presume of the weakness of our discourse, and the strength of their own wit. For there being an external Divine Worship which properly consists in the outward Rites and Ceremonies of Religion: What Ceremonies can be called parts thereof, if such Religious Ceremonies as these, be not? For if bowing the knee, etc. in Divine Worship (though it be used also in Civil Worship) be a part of Divine Worship, much more are those Ceremonies that are peculiarly appropriated to Divine Service & Worship, & wherein part of the form thereof is made to consist. But it may (for further satisfying of men) be thus proved: All mere and immediate Actions of Religion are parts of Divine Worship. All Religious Ceremonies, are mere and immediate Actions of Religion. Ergo, They are parts of Divine Worship. Further, how can a man imagine that a mere Religious and Ecclesiastical Act, done by a Servant of God in the solemn Service and Worship of God, by precise Canon of the Church should be no part of Divine Worship, Sith all the solemn Rites & Ceremonies that are used in the solemn Services of Civil States, (especially such as are done in their presence) have been ever reputed parts of Civil Honour & Worship. lastly, considering that God in his Divine Worship, doth require the whole heart, and all the powers of the Soul during the act of his Worship, It were great presumption for any mortal Creature, to prescribe any Action to man during the same Act that is no part thereof: Considering that every Action so prescribed must of necessity pull a part of the heart from Divine Worship. III. That authority that instituted them is but merely human. This is most certain, for if they were instituted by Divine authority, They could not be esteemed Matters indifferent: and should not be in the power ●nd discretion of the Magistrate to disannul them. The 4. Argument. If it be lawful for a Minister of the Gospel without sin to use these Ceremonies in Divine Worship: It is lawful for him upon the same occasion to use any jewish, Turkish, Paganish or Popish Ceremony whatsoever. But it is not lawful for the Minister of the Gospel to use in Divine Worship, upon the same occasion, any jewish, Popish, Paganish or Turkish Ceremony. Ergo, He cannot without sin use these. The Assumption cannot for shame be denied, We prove the consequent of the Proposition. If any jewish, Turkish, Paganish, or Popish Ceremonies and Rite be a thing in it own Nature as indifferent as these Ceremonies are and either have, or may have by such like institution as good use, than the consequent of the Proposition is true. But the first is true. Ergo, The latter is true also. The Proposition, as I think, cannot be denied nor the Assumption, but by bringing some contrary instance in some of their Ceremonies: When any such ●hall be given, this Argument shallbe ●urther prosecuted. The 5. Argument. Every schismatical action done by a Minister of the Gospel is a sin.. To use these Ceremonies in controversy are schismatical actions. Ergo, To use these Ceremonies is sin.. The Proposition will be granted. I must prove the Assumption. All Actions of irregularity and n●● conformity to the Catholic church wherein we live, are schismatical Actions. To use these Ceremonies in controversy, are actions of irregularity, and non conformity to the Catholic church wherein we live. Ergo, The use of these Ceremonies in controversy are schismatical Actions. The Proposition cannot be denie● for if we be branded with the coal 〈◊〉 schism justly, for denying conformity in some Ceremonies, but to some of our own particular Churches wherein we live, though we be content, to join with them that use them in Divine worship: much more schismatics are they that are not conformable in Rites and Ceremonies to the Catholic Church wherein they live. I prove the Assumption. If all the Protestants, Pastors, Ministers & Governors living this day in Europe, and all the painful resident Pastors of our own country (except some non-residents, Idol shepherds, some that depend upon the prelacy, and some other that are forced and constrained to use them against their will) do not only refuse to use these Ceremonies, but esteem them vain, foolish and superstitious: Then the use of these Ceremonies are actions of irregularity and non Conformity to the Catholic Church. But the first willbe proved true, Ergo, The latter is true also. The Proposition is evident, by their own principles: For an irregularity & non-conformity to the Pastors and Governors of Churches, is an irregularity and non-conformity to the Church, for they are reputed the CHURCH REPRESENTATIVE: and if they be to be anathematized, & excommunicated that deny The Bishops and other Ministers assembled in the Convocation, to be the Church of England representative, then surely are all the Pastors of the visible Churches in Europe, the Catholic Church representative, & those particular Ministers in this Realm, that shall use not only different Ceremonies; but such as they have renounced and forsaken, are schismatics and irregular persons. The Assumption is evident in itself. The 6. Argument. All spiritual Communion with those idolaters amongst whom we live in the mysteries of their Idolatry and Superstition, is sin. To use these Ceremonies in Divine worship, is a spiritual Communion with the Idolatrous Papists (That do not only border round about us, but are tolerated in infinite numbers to live amongst us) in the mysteries of their Idolat. and Superstition. Ergo, To use these Ceremonies is to sin. The Proposition is his M. own, if Master B. have made a true report of the Conference at Hampt. Court, for therein his Ma. confesseth, That if we lived amongst idolaters, we ought not then to communicate with them in their Rites and Ceremonies. The Assumption is thus proved. If Papists be idolaters, if we be not only in league with whole kingdoms of Papists bordering upon us and near unto us, but have many Thousand professed ones living amongst us: if these Ceremonies be special mysteries of their Superstition if to use the same Rites that they do in theirs in our spiritual and Divine Service, he spiritually to communicate with them in the same: Then is the Sentence of the Assumption true. But we shall be able to prove, as soon as any shall deny, that the first and every part and parcel thereof is true. Ergo, The later is true also. The 7. Argument. To mingle Profane things with Divine, is to sin. To use these Ceremonies in Divine Worship is to mingle Profane things with Divine. Ergo, To use these Ceremonies in Divine Worship, is to sin. The Proposition shineth in the eyes of the very Heathen, who have esteemed it a dishonour to their Religion & worship, that any profane persons should be Actors in it, much more that any profane Actions should be mingled with it. The Assumption is thus proved. All peculiar Actions done in Divine Worship, that are neither Civil nor holy, are profane. These Ceremonies are peculiar actions done in Divine Worship, that are neither civil nor holy. Ergo, They are Profane. The Proposition cannot with any show of reason be denied, there being no mean between these in such actions as are prescribed to be done in Divine Service by Canon and Law: For though spitting, coughing, hemming, etc. if they be used for necessity, be neither civil, holy, nor profane Actions: Yet if there should be an Ecclesiastical Canon that should require the Minister to spit at every full period; or the people to hem, and hawk at every transition in a Sermon, they must needs then be referred to one of these three heads, as shall easily be proved if it be denied. The Assumption is as clear. For first his Ma. (with words of great disgrace and contempt of those, that hold the contrary): hath lately protested that they are not urged as holy & Religious matters: And that they are not Civil Actions, hath been proved before, for there being an opposition in Reason between things Civil & Ecclesiastical, though they have some things common to both (as all opposites have) yet it is ridiculous to affirm that those things are Civil, that are merely Ecclesiastical, and are Actions peculiarly appropriated and tied to Divine Worship: For Civil Actions, are performed in Civil affairs, and though there is a common Civility also to be observed even in Divine matters: Yet those Actions cannot be called Civil, that are used only in Divine Offices and duties, no more than those can be called Ecclesiastical and Divine that are used only in Civil affairs. For it may be affirmed by as good reason, that an Ecclesiastical Officer employed only in Ecclesiastical matters, is a Civil Officer only. Or a Civil Officer employed only in Civil matters is an Ecclesiastical Officer only; as that a mere Ecclesiastical action, done in and by the Church only, should be a Civil Action. The 8. Argument. If it be lawful to use these Ceremonies in Divine worship, it is therefore lawful because they are either lawful in themselves; or being things in their own Nature indifferent, are made lawful by the commandment of the Magistrate to be used in Divine Service. But they are neither lawful in themselves to be used, nor therefore lawful because the Magistrate commands them so to be used, though they be Matters in their own Nature indifferent. Ergo, They are unlawful to be used in Divine Worship. The Proposition I think can not be denied, when it is, I hope it may be proved. The first part of the Assumption is clear: For if they were in themselves lawful, to be used, then might a Minister of the Gospel being left to his own discretion, by the Magistrate, invent, institute, and use the like Ceremonies, in the same manner without sin. For any man left to himself, may lawfully do that which of itself is lawful and indifferent. But a Minister should sin against God, if he should of his own head institute, & use the like Ceremonies to these, though permitted by the Magistrate; Except we should hold, that it is lawful, for a Minister to do any indifferent thing in God's Service, for a man may of any indifferent thing, make a Ceremony like unto one of these. The second part of the Assumption is thus proved. If they be therefore lawful, because being things in their own Nature indifferent, the Magistrate commands them to be done in Divine Service, Than whatsoever thing (being in it own Nature indifferent) is or shallbe commanded by the Magistrate is lawful to be done in Divine Service. But all things that are in themselves matters indifferent, are not lawful to be done in Divine Service, though the Magistrate should command them. Ergo, They are not therefore lawful to be used in Divine service, because the Magistrate commands them, though they be things in their own nature indifferent. The Proposition cannot be denied, For if some things indifferent in their own Nature being commanded by the Magistrate, are unlawful: It can be no good Argument to say, These things being indifferent are commanded by the Magistrate. Ergo, They may lawfully be done. much less therefore they ought to be done. Or as the Doctors of Oxef. affirm that they bind the conscience. The Assumption is more clear than the Proposition. If it be considered either what things are indifferent indeed, or go under the name and title of indifferent things. Eating & drinking; the avoiding the superfluities of Nature; due benevolence between man and wife; spinning and carding; killing of Oxen and sheep, etc. which of themselves have in them neither virtue nor vice, are therefore indifferent Actions; and yet I think none except professed Atheists, but will hold it a foul sin to do some of these Actions in any Assembly, much more in the solemn worship of God, though the Magistrate should command the same even upon pain of death. But if it be further considered, That Carding and Dicing, Masking and dancing; for Men to put on women's apparel, and women men's: Drinking to healths; Ribald, stage-plays, etc. are things indifferent to be done even upon the Lords own day: May a Minister of the Gospel upon the Magistrate's commandment do any of these in Divine Worship. And yet there is none of these, but may have applied unto them by the Wit of Man, a Mystical and Religious Sense; and then by this Bish. of Canterbury's Rule, They must needs be good and lawful Ceremonies: for his principal Argument to prove them lawful at his last Convention of London Ministers before him, was this. They are Ceremonies that teach good Doctrine, Ergo They are good Ceremonies. Whereas the filthiest actions and things that are may teach good doctrine. The holy Ghost resembleth the soul polluted with sin, to a menstruous cloth: A man fallen again into sin, to a Sow wallowing in the mire: might therefore a filthy sow and such uncelane clothes be brought into the Church, to be visible shadows, & representations of such things? Nay, what may not by this means be brought into God's worship, & yet by this reason be defended to be a good Ceremony if the Magistrates and Bishops should decree the same? A fools coat and a beggars, worn in Divine Service, may fitly teach this doctrine Not many Wise, not many Noble: A Minister clothed in such apparel as those that act the devils part in a play may teach this, That by Nature we are limbs of Satan and firebrands of hell, Men might wear women's apparel, and women's Men, The one to teach, That the Church is Christ's Wife; The other to teach, That Women in Christ are equal to Men. bearbaiting may teach us, How Christ was baited before the Tribunals of the pharisees, or the combat between the flesh and the spirit. But the grossness of these Assertions will appear in our Special Reasons against the Ceremonies in particular. The 9 Argument. To Administer unto the Church of God, Sacraments that are not of Divine institution, is to sin. To use diverse of these Ceremonies, viz. The Cross in Baptism, the Ring in Marriage, the Surplice, etc. is to administer unto the Church of God Sacraments that are not of Divine institution: Ergo, To use these Ceremonies, is to sin. The Proposition is granted of all, both Papist and Protestant. The Assumption is thus proved. All mystical bodily Rites and Signs of spiritual grace, administered to the Church of God in his solemn service, to confirm grace, and that by him that representeth the person of Christ, are Sacraments. The greatest part of these Ceremonies in controversy are such, & not of any Divine Institution. Ergo, To use them, is to administer Sacraments that are not of Divine Institution. The Proposition is most evident, & can not be denied of any that bears the face of a Divine. The Assumption is as evident, only this one clause may be doubted of: Whether these Ceremonies be administered to confirm Grace, which is thus proved. Those Ceremonies that are administered to edify the soul and consciences, are administered to confirm grace. These Ceremonies are administered to edify the soul and conscience. Ergo, They are administered to confirm Grace. The Proposition can not with any colour be excepted against. For to edify the soul, to confirm grace in the soul, and to feed the soul, are equivalent. The Sacrament of the Supper therefore being for this only cause a Sacrament, because it is a Mystical Rite, whereby the soul spiritually feedeth upon Christ. i. is edified in Christ: These being Mystical Rites also, whereby the soul is edified, which it cannot be but also by feeding upon Christ, It must needs follow, That these Ceremonies are Sacraments. The Assumption is their own, for when they are urged with this, That all things must be done to edification, They hold all with one consent, That they do edify. The 10. Argument. It is a Sin against Christ the sole Head of the Church, For any one of his Ministers, (especially in the Administration of Divine things) either by word or Signs, solemnly to profess and acknowledge a spiritual Homage, to a usurped spiritual authority in the Church. But to use these controverted Ceremonies in manner and form prescribed, is even in the solemn Service of Christ, by solemn Signs, to acknowledge a spiritual Homage, to the spiritual authority of Lord Archbishops and Bishops, which is usurped. Ergo, It is a sin to use these Ceremonies. The Proposition may not be gainsaid: For all spiritual power usurped over the Churches of God, is an Antichristian authority, and to profess spiritual homage thereunto, is to profess spiritual homage unto Antichrist, which must needs be a sin. The Assumption hath two parts. I. That these Ceremonies are an acknowledging by solemn signs, a spiritual Homage to the spiritual authority of Archbishops and Bishops. Which is most evident; for it having been proved before, that they are mere Ecclesiastical, Religious & spiritual Actions, enjoined by an Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority, They must needs be Signs of spiritual homage to the same authority. For either the doing of a Religious and spiritual Action, in obedience to a spiritual authority, is a Sign of spiritual homage, or no Actions can be a Sign thereof. As therefore a serving man being a civil person, upon the Bishop's pleasure, wearing a Tawny Coat, and a Chain of Gold, holding up his Train, Going bareheaded before him; holding a Trencher at his Table: lighting him to the house of office: dressing his meat, rubbing his Horses, etc. doth by these Actions, as it were by solemn Signs acknowledge Civil homage to him, being a Civil Lord and Master: So a Minister of the Gospel and a Pastor of a particular Congregation, being by his office a mere spiritual man; being commanded by the Bishop, as he is a spiritual Lord and Master over the Church of God, To wear a Tippet, a square cap, a priests Gown & Cloak, a Surplice: to make Crosses upon child's faces; To put Rings on Bride's fingers, etc. and all this in their Divine Service. I say a Minister doth thereby give solemn Signs and Tokens of spiritual homage to their spiritual Lordships, even as by preaching the Word & Administration of Sacraments & prayer, he professeth by solemn Signs a spiritual homage to the spiritual authority of Christ. If they shall peremptorily affirm, That they are only Civil matters (as some in high place have done to myself) Then this will follow of it; Whereas the Bishops command now Ministers To wear a Surplice, a priests Cloak, etc. he may command them to wear Tawny Cotes, & liury cloaks; & in their courses to wait and attend upon him, as serving Creatures: For there is no more civil authority showed in requiring the one, them the other, If the one as well as the other be civil matters. Neither will it help their cause, That the Magistrate requireth these things to be done. For the Magistrate commanding Ecclesiastical matters to be done, his commandment doth no more make them civil, than his commanding the Sacraments & other parts of Divine worship to be administered, duly doth make them, civil matters. For the ratification by civil authority the Constitutions of Ecclesiastical authority, doth no more make them civil matters than the ratification and confirmation of civil matters, by Ecclesiastical authority doth make them Ecclesiastical or spiritual matters. Though therefore there is none of us that stand out in these matters, but have ever been content to yield unto their Lordships all civil honour, such as is given to Barons, Earls, Dukes, and Princes, yet except they were Gods & Christ's, we have no reason, to give spiritual homage unto them; which is it that in very deed they require in these things: And therefore hence it comes to pass, That as they turn out of their Palaces, Those servants that refuse their liveries, and to do their civil Services, So as though they were Lords & Masters in the Church, They turn the Ministers out of their offices, & shut them out of the Church, if they refuse to wear their spiritual Liveries, and to do them spiritual and Religious Service. But I come to the second part of the Assumption. II. That the authority of our Lord Archbishops and Bishops, is a usurped authority. This is sufficiently proved of late by Mai. jacob in his I. Assertion by many reasons, Only because the weight of the Argument leaneth upon it, I will use one Reason. Those Officers and Rulers in the Church that make claim to be of Divine institution, challenge to themselves Apostolical authority and jurisdiction as the only Successors of the Apostles; to sit only in Moses chair; To have sole power of the Keys; To cut from the visible Church, & receive again: To have power of creating & displacing all other Ecclesiastical Officers; To be the Universal Pastors of whole Dukedoms and Kingdoms, under whom all other Pastors are as Curates, etc. And yet for all this, are such as stand & are supported only by human Traditions and Ceremonies, such as a civil Magistrate may without sin, put out of the Church, And such as the true Churches of God may renounce (and yet continue the true Church) as Antichristian Usurpers and spiritual Tyrants. (I say) all such Officers & Rulers exercise a usurped authority in the Church: But our Archbishops & Bishops are such Rulers and Officers as are aforesaid. Ergo, They execute a Usurped power over the Church. The Proposition may easily be justified. For it inferior officers, viz. Pastors of particular Congregations, have had and may have firm continuance in the Church, without these human devises & inventions; If the Magistrate cannot without sin put them out of the Church; And if those can be no true Churches that renounce to have particular Pastors and Ministers over them, It must much more hold in such church-Officers & Rulers as these are, if their authority be lawful and good: For whilst the Apostles lived, They needed not any human Traditions & divises to support their authority: The Magistrates that sought to put them down sinned with a high hand: And that was no Church, that renounced and disclaimed their Office, Authority and jurisdiction. The Assumption is as easily justified. For 1. They make claim and Title to all those Prerogatives before rehearsed in the first part of the Proposition, and unto more than that, as shallbe proved if it be denied, 2. It is an Emblem of their own, NO CEREMONY, NO BISHOP. Ergo, No human Tradition and Invention, no Bishop, Ergo, The office of a Bishop is supported by them either only or specially. 3. Their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is derived from the King, else it is a flat denial of his Supremacy. Also themselves grant in their last Tables of Discipline, That the King hath power to increase or diminish the Circuit of a Bishopric: That he may make two or more Bishoprics of one, & one Bishopric to be two or more: Yea what should hinder but that he may divide the Bishopric of London into 800. For where God hath not defined the number of Parishes that a Bishop is to reign over, it must needs be a thing indifferent: in which by their own Doctrines the King hath authority without sin, to dispose. If therefore the King may as well (notwithstanding any thing in the Law of God) Give the Keys of the Church to every particular Pastor of a Congregation, over his own Congregation, as to a Bishop over a Diocese, which taketh away the very Essence of an English Bishop, He may without sin take away the very Office of the Bishop, which consists in having jurisdiction over many Congregations. Also it being not defined by the word of God, but left free what attire Bishops shall wear, as also what maintenance they shall have, The K. having absolute power in things indifferent, according to their own Doctrine, he may turn them out of their Rochetts and Parliament Robes. Thrust them out of their Palaces, and put them to their stipends, to live upon voluntary devotions of poor Christian people, and then a man may easily imagine what the office of a Bishop would be worth: For he that hath authority to prescribe to a Bishop and other Ministers, the Forms, Rites and Ceremonies of their Divine Service, hath also power much more, To prescribe, moderate and appoint their Apparel, Diet, and manner of maintenance. So that it is clear, That the King may without sin disannul the authorities, dignities and prerogatives of Bishops. Any of which shallbe (if it be denied) proved to be matters of greater indifferency, and therefore more appertaining to his Supremacte, than the prescribing of Forms of Divine Service and mystical Rites of Religion. For let the King take from the Bishop all indifferent things (which he may do by their own doctrine) and a Bishop will be no Bishop, as shallbe proved, if it be denied. 4. There is no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scotland, France, the low Countries, and other places (that renounce such Archbishops & Bishops (as ours are) as Antichristian and usurping Prelates) are true Churches of God: which they could not be, if the authorities & prerogatives they claim to themselves, were of Christ, and not usurped. For if it were the ordinance of Christ jesus, That in every Kingdom, that receiveth the Gospel, There should be one Archbishop over the whole Kingdom: One Bishop over many hundred Pastors in a kingdom, and all they invested with that authority and jurisdiction Apostolical which they claim iure Divino, to be due unto them, and to reside in them, by the ordinance of Christ, certainly that church that should renounce and disclaim such an authority, ordained in the Church, cannot be a true Church but a Synagogue of Satan. For they that should renounce and deny such, must needs therein renounce and deny Christ himself. Thus the Assumption, is cleared. The 11. Argument. All human Traditions and Rites enjoined to be performed in God's Worship, as necessary to Salvation, are unlawful. These Ceremonies in controversy, being but human Traditions, are enjoined to be performed in God's worship, as necessary to Salvation. Ergo, These Ceremonies are unlawful. The Proposition is freely granted of all our Adversaries hitherto. If any hereafter bv reason of some difficulties, the cause may be thrust into by granting the same, shallbe desperate as to deny the same: we shallbe ready to make it good at any time. The Assumption is thus proved. What soever, human Tradition, Ceremony, or Action, That may without sin, or inconvenience to any part of the Worship of God, be omitted in the same, and yet notwithstanding are enjoined and urged as more necessary, than those Actions that are by the word of God necessary to Salvation: I say, such human Ceremonies and Traditions, are enjoined as necessary to Salvation. But these Ceremonies are such, as may without any sin, or any inconvenience to any part of the Worship of God, be omitted in the same, and yet notwithstanding are enjoined as more necessary for Christians to do, than those Actions that are necessary to Salvation by the Word of God. Ergo, These Ceremonies in controversy are enjoined, etc. as necessary to salvation. He hath no blood of shame running in his veins, that will deny the Proposition. The Assumption hath two parts: The first is this. That these Ceremonies are such as may without sin or any inconvenience to any part of the worship of God, be omitted. This is evident: For 1. if they could not be omitted without sin in Divine Worship, they were Divine & not human Ordinances. For example: Though to go clothed to the Congregation be a Civil action, yet because it is a sin, for any to go naked to the Congregation, It is a Divine Ordinance, That men should go clothed thither. And in this case (as in any other case of sin) a man ought rather never Worship God publicly, then to go naked to the Congregation. For the omission of a Good action is no sin, when it can not be done, but by committing of a sin? 2. Divine Worship consisting in Prayer, the Sacraments, and the Word, no wit of man can show wherein the bare omission of any one of these Ceremonies is inconvenient to any one of these parts. For what inconvenience can a man (that is not drunk with the dregs and lees of popish superstition) find it to public prayer, to be said in the Congregation without a priests Surplice? The omission of ordinary pauses & Accents points & stops, the suppressing of the voice, or a loud whopping and hollowing out of the words, or an undistinct sounding of them, were such Actions as common reason will teach are inconvenient, for prayer, and so inconvenient that a man ought never to pray publicly in the Congregation, as the voice thereof, that should by Canon be tied thereto: And the Magistrate (though there were no Canon to the contrary) ought to turn such out of the Ministry that should omit such matters in prayer. But for a Minister to pray without a Surplice, can be in reason no more inconvenient, then for him to pray without book, without a pair of Spectacles upon his nose. And there may be as good reason given to prove it convenient, for a man that saith a thing without book, to put on a pair of Spectacles, as there can be to prove it convenient for him that is to pray in the Church, to put upon himself a white linen garment. The second part of the Assumption is this: That they are enjoined as more necessary for Christians to do, than those actions that by the word of God are necessary to Salvation. Which I prove by this collection of Reasons; 1. If the whole Solemn Worship and Mystery of jesus must stoop and yield to these; And these must not stoop or yield to them. 2. If those that will yield to these are dispensed with for omission of some duties that God requires of the Minister to be performed as necessary to Salvation, and those that are willing to do all necessary Services tending to the Salvation of Man, can not be dispensed with for the Omission of these, but must be turned out of Christ's Service. 3. If those that refuse only Conformity to these are worse than Idolatrous Papists. 4. If the bare omission of these, though upon tenderness of Cosscience, be Sedition, Schism, Disloyalty, Rebellion, a denial of the King's Supremacy, Anabaptistrie, Frenzy, Worthy imprisonment, Banishment, loss of Goods and living. 5. If all that profess these to be unlawful, are to be delivered up to Satan, and anathematized as men holding wicked & damnable errors. 6. If a man being in that Church, ought not to be of it where these Ceremonies are omitted. 7. If the bare omission of these, make a Minister by our law: more subject to deprivation and suspension, than the commission of the foulest Crimes, even Drunkenness, Blasphemy, gross Ignorance, Uncleanness. 8. If her late Excellent Ma. Religion consisted in these: I say, If all these Assertions be true, then are they enjoined as more necessary to be done, than those Actions that by the word of God are necessary to Salvation. But all these 8. points are to be justified. Ergo, These Ceremonies are enjoined as more necessary to be done, than some Actions that are necessary to Salvation. The Proposition can not be gainesayed. It being a topic Axiom. Cuius privatio est deterior, illud ipsum est melius: to wit, The worse the Privation of a thing is, the better the thing is. For example: If blindness be worse than deafness: Then is the positive habit of seeing better than that of hearing. So, if non-conformity be worse than drunkenness, blasphemy, Idolatry, Filthiness of body, etc. It must needs follow, that Conformity is a more excellent thing in itself, than Sobriety; the true worship of God; the glorifying of the name of God, than a chaste and honest life: But all these are urged by the word of God, as necessary means to Salvation. For the holy Ghost saith: No Murderer, Adulterer, Unclean person, Idolater, etc. shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. If therefore Conformity be more urged by our laws, than these, and the Privation more punished. If this be more strictly required of Christians, yea of principal Christians, even the Ministers of the word, than the other, They must needs be urged more necessary to Salvation, than the other. For of the more excellency a Christian virtue is, the more necessary to Salvation it is. The Assumption in every part and parcel thereof may be justified by the practice and Assertions of our Adversaries, not only privately but in public. For the 1. God must not by Canon be Worshipped solemnly in England, except these be mingled with it, Though without them he might be never so well worshipped. For the 2. Those that yield to these, need not preach at all in our church except they will, No nor to do any other part of Divine Service in their own person, if they will maintain a Curate, that will keep the Ceremonial Law, and fairly Read or Sing the King's Service, as they call it: And yet if preaching were not necessary to Salvation, Paul that was above an Archbishop, should not have been under a woe, if he had not done it. For no Minister of the Gospel is under a woe That performeth all services to the Churches of God, that are necessary to Salvation. Neither was Paul's preaching, A reading of Homilies, or of a Service book. For the 3. Nothing is more notorious then for us that make scruple of these things to be reputed worse than Papists: One that is a great judge in these causes Ecclesiastical, affirmed it unto myself. Another openly at Paul's Cross in mine own hearing, made no doubt but the Papists were in the Church, but he made great doubt whether the Puritans were. And yet we are Puritans for nothing else but for refusing Conformity to their Ceremonies: For howsoever they slander us with many other gross imputations, yet they can not lay any thing to our charge but our Conscience in this. For all other matters concerning their own estates, and dignities, considering how desperate they are, and unreformable we can be content to leave them to the judgement of God, who (as it seems) intendeth to glorify himself by some other means, then by then conversion. For the 4. Read Scottish. Genevat. The Survey, Remonstraunce etc. And yea shall find all this laid to their charge. Also their practice sufficiently proveth it, for the ministers that are of late susspended and deprived, only refusing to use these Ceremonies, bear their condemnation under these names and Titles. The 5 and 6 is proved by their own late Canons, for if they be to be excommunicated ipso sacto as holding damnable & wicked errors, that shall Profess any of these Ceremonies to be unlawful, a man ought not to acknowledge himself a member of any such Church, as doth affectedly cast them out of god's worship: for for what error a particular person is not to be reputed a member of the Church but as a heathen and publican, for the same a whole church is not to be reputed a church but a synagogue of Satan. The 7 may be justified by many instances of many vile and impious persons of those kinds tolerated in the ministry. The 8 is proved by him that answers the Plea of the Innocent. Who Saith that they that call in question the lawfulness of these Ceremonies, call in question her late majesties Religion, which they could not do, except (at the least) part of her religion consisted in them. Further if this doth not sufficiently prove the main assumption, let these reasons following be weighed. 1 If the Church be necessary to salvation, and if the pillars of the church be necessary to the Church, and if the lord Bishops be the Pillars of the Church, and these or such like Ceremonies be the main Supporters of L. Bishops: then are these Ceremonies in the judgement of the prelate's, necessary to Salvation. For no Church no Salvation, no pillar of the church no Church, no L. Bishop no pillar of the Church, No ceremony no Lord Bishop. Ergo no Ceremony of this kind, no Salvation. 2 All divine constitutions binding conscience are necessary to Salvation: But by the late doctrine of the Prelates and others, these Ceremonies (being not unlawful) when they are commanded by the Church, are said not to be human but divine Constitutions, binding conscience; therefore they (as they are urged) are necessary to Salvation. For all divine constitutions binding conscience, are necessary to Salvation, or ●ls nothing on our part can be said in any sense to be necessary thereunto. 3 It is necessary to Salvation, that men should not only worship God, but worship him in a comely decent and orderly manner, it being a matter of damnation to worship God in a confused unseemly and disordered manner, but by the doctrine of our Prelates, comeliness, decency, and order consists, in the use of these Ceremonies, Ergo in their judgement, they are necessary to Salvation. Ob. The Church doth not intend to urge these things as necessary to Salvation. Ergo, They are not urged, ●s necessary to Salvation. Ans. 1 The Church urgeth not these things at all, but only 3 or 4 Bishops in the Church, which (if their own doctrine be true (are Usurpers over our Churches, & not so much as any true members of a Church. 2 what if the Synod should decree that the King should hold the arch bishop stirrup, and the Prnce & Nobles kiss his Toe, once or twice a year and withal they should protest, that they do not require this as a worship or honour to the Archbishop but only for Comeliness Order & Edification were not this a shameful shift as bad, as the thing itself. The 12 Argument All actions, not required by the word of God (though commanded by human authority) that are apparent means of the Damnation of the Souls of infinite numbers of men, are directly against the Law of charity, and therefore Sin. But these Ceremonies are such Actions Ergo The Proposition is without question. For if without commandment from God, I may upon the sole will and pleasure of the Magistrate, or governors of the Church, do that by which I shallbe a means of the damnation of my brother's Soul, which is the greatest breach of the law of charity that can be. Then may I do any sin at their Commandment without sin, for what greater sin can there be against the 2 Table then this, to be a witting instrument of my Neighbour's Damnation. Which though it be but a matter of jest to our great Doctors that have many Cures, and no care of Souls, yet to them which know the price of a soul it is more than if upon the more will of the Magistrates they should be forced to kill their own Children and d●●rest beloved's, with their own hand. OB. The Ma●●●●are having authority given him by God to command things Indifferent, he commanding th●● are to be done notwithstanding 〈◊〉 scandal of our Nighbour. Answ. 1 Though the Subject ought to obey his Magistrate in all Indifrent actions imposed upon him what soever, yet I desire that it may be proved, that God in his word hath given to any Power or Potentate upon Earth, any such absolute authority. The Magistrate is God's Leifetenaunt, and the glory of the Magistrate consists in this, in that under God he beareth a sword, to punish those that transgress his Laws, but he is by God's Ordinance to be the procurer and protector of the christian liberty, of his subjects, That therefore he hath power granted him of God (upon his own pleasure) to take away the same, especially in such a case requires proof out of the word of God. 2. If he have such a power, yet those things that God leaves to his will to command, or not to command, he cannot command under a greater penalty then bodily death; for his sword can cut no deeper, and then in the case of Scandal a christian subject ought rather to suffer the Magistrate to take away his life, then to do that which shall procure the Damnation of his Brother's Soul. And in thus doing, he is no contem nor of the Magistrates Law, but a● fulfiller of the Law of Charity, in not destroying his brother's Soul upon the mere● pleasure of a mortal man. OB. But the commaundiment of the Magistrate takes away the scandal. When the thing is done in obedience to him. An. This is another desperate shift As though the conscience of the weak brother that judgeth a thing indifferent to be a Sin willbe ever the more satisfied and relieved in the matter by the authority of the Magistrate, nothing but the authority of God either can or aught to satisfy a doubting conscience. And as for them that put superstition in things Indifferent, and are that way scandalised the authority of the Magistrate or church commanding them, their scandal is increased, and not removed by the same. OB: But we must more respect Obedience to the Magistrate, than the scandal of inferior persons, the thing commanded being indifferent, and not evil. Ans. 1 The thing commanded is not Indifferent, then when it is a scandal, and stumbling block to our brother. 2: We must obey the Magistrate only in the Lord, but this is not to obey him in the Lord, only upon his pleasure to destroy a soul for whom Christ died. 3. An obedience to the Magistrate so far as to the condemnation of our brother's soul, must be a special obedience, in some special good and just commandment which cannot be verified of a commaundiment that requireth only a thing indifferent, much les such an indifferent, as is a scandal and means of destruction to men's souls 4 Such a forbeareing of obedience only in love to the salvation of our brother's Soul, being without apparent contempt of the Magistrate, and having adjoined with it, a meek submission to the mercy of the Magistrate, cannot be called a disobedience. but is in deed a better obedience than theirs, that do contrary, who in their obedience bring the blood of the souls they destroy, both upon their own heads and the Magistrate which is a sin in the eyes of God worse than rebellion. OB. But by obedience to these Ceremonies many souls by means of preaching are saved, which shall want the means in the refusal. Ans. 1 We must not destroy the souls of some, that we may save the souls of other, we must do that which is just, though the world go to wreck for it. 2. The greatest good that a man can do, cannot counteervaile the least evil, much les so great an evil as to be a witting instrument of the damnation of a brother's soul. 3 He that preacheth cannot assure himself of the salvation of one soul by the same, for that is wrought by the work of the spirit of God And he hath little cause to hope for a blessing upon that preaching, which he purchaseth with the price of blood, yea of the blood of souls. OB: But the K. the Magistrates & state are scandalised also at the omission of them, and their scandal is more to be respected then the scandal of inferior parsons, for the useing of them. Ans. 1. For his Majesty, we doubt not but (if the prelate's would) he would easily yield to the removal of them, and therefore he cannot be scandalised at the refusal, when it is of mere conscience, though of conscience deceived. 2 The States and Inferior Magistrates of the kingdom, have in all Parliaments showed themselves willing, and ready, to set their hands to the removal of them. 3 If the King & State willbe scandalised, because upon their mere will & pleasure, I will not do that which I am persuaded will be a means of the destruction of their souls for whom Christ died. They willbe much more scandalized at me if I do it, For such an obedience as this, must needs be a means of begetting or confirming straying sins in their souls, for as it is a kind of deifiing of themselves, To require (even in the case of scandal) a thing indifferent to be done; so they that shall in such a case obey, cannot but nourish exceedingly that corruption from wh●ch such a commaudement shall proceed. 4 The soul of the meanest and poorest in a kingdom cost as great a price, and is as dear to Christ, as the soul of the Noblest, and in the matter of scandal as great heed is to be taken to them, as to any other: And it shows of what spirit these men are of, that think they may betray the souls of Christ's little ones. rather than displease a mortal man. Ob. What? Must the Magistrates laws be changed, for every humour that will pretend scandal? Aunsw. Yea, such laws as command only things indifferent, in cases of general scandal are to be changed, of particular scandal, are (at the least) to be dispensed withal; For if laws that command things necessary are some times to be dispensed with, and if of them it is said. Extreme right, is Extreme wrong. Much more than such laws as require only such things as are indifferent. 1 Such things that (but for the commanders pleasure) makes no matter whether they be done or Noah. Which are indeed unworthy to be commanded of worthies. 2 A pretended scandal in humour is easily discerned by those that are wise and not malicious, for they that are ready to perform all obedience to the Magistrate in all other heavier & greater things, are ready in his service to spend their goods & lives, that think nothing to dear for the redemeing of his safety, that are in all other things as obedient, and more obedient than any other of his subjects: It is not to be supposed of any, (that are not possessed with the malicious spirit of Antichrist.) That such should refuse to obey the King's pleasure in a toy, and a trifle, (such as are all things indifferent) except that in obeying him, they were persuaded that they should sin against their own conscience, which next unto God, they have cause to please, far above all the Kings of the earth, for it hath greater power to torment them, than they have. But I prove the Assumption. All apparent means of confirming men in Schism, Superstition, and Idolatry, by means whereof many have profesedly lived, and died therein, without repentance: are apparent means of the damnation, and destruction of many souls amongst us: But These Ceremonies are such. Ergo. The proposition cannot be denied, for what action of man can be said to be a means of the damnation and destruction of another's soul: If thes actions be not that confirm men in such foul Sins: So that either a man can do nothing that shall destroy his brother's soul (which is directly against the express words of St. Paul,) Or else such a conformity, in such actions as Confirm men in such Damnable Sins, doth destroy his soul. The Assumption is as evident as any such matter can be. For 1. The Papists not only amongst us (which are innumerable) but others also do profess, that by our use of thes Ceremonies) which are consecrated mysteries of their own Religion) they are confirmed in the truth of their Religion, and the falsehood of ours. And good reason they have so to judge: For if the broth be good that the Devil is sod in, sure the Devil himself must needs be good also. 2 Those christians of the Separation that are called Brownists being many hundreds, professing the same faith that we do, are by the retaining of Relics, confirmed in their Schism, and Separation from us; And live & die in this opinion: That our Churches are no true Churches, and that a man cannot without sin communicate with them. And the main ground of this is, for that we mingle with Divine worship these base & vile inventions of men, Yea, of the accursed Antichrist. What? Is a linen rag, and a Christ's cross &c. to be reputed of so great value & price, that the fellowship & spiritual communion of so many christians, (as sound in religion as any prelate in the Realm) should be contemned and rejected for them? 3 Common experience teacheth us, that there are infinite numbers in this realm, ignorant & superstitious folk, that place as much, or more holiness in these things, then in the holy Ordinances of God; And how can it be otherwise, when they shall see the Rulers of the Church, mingle Heaven, Earth, and Hell together in this manner about them. Cursing and anathematizing all that shall not embrace them. How can they but imagine, that the sight of a surplice upon a priests back shall bring them to heaven, when they shall see those that keep Heaven Keys, send a man, for want of such a wedding garment, ipso facto, to Hell? 4 If it be but considered, that all other Protestant Churches have rejected them as menstruous clothes, that more than the greatest number of Pastors in our own Land, that desires the name of faithful & painful Teachers, either count them impious, or at least the burdens, or reproaches of our Churches: that the first appoynters of them, (after our separation from Rome) intended only a toleration of them, that the most scandalous and lewd persons in our congregations, are the hottest for them, that every Parliament since her majesties reign hath been forward in the removing of them, that the defence of them hath driven men to run into the broaching of many gross and popish e●●o●●● And that so many ministers, (a catalogue of whose names and states, I could wish were published to all posterity, that it may see the wonderful mild & moderate government of prelate's) have endured and expected daily to endure the greatest extremities for the same: I say, if these things be duly considered, a man shall easily see, that these ceremonies are stumbling blocks, laid by the Devil and his Agents in the ways of all the people of this Realm, to hinder the progress of the Gospel, and to make all men stumble in the ways of Salvation. How long Lord jesus. AN ADDITION. NOt only our Conformers unto Rome, but they also that abhor the same, can hardly endure to hear, that these ceremonies are parts of divine worship, for whose further satisfaction I add this one Argument. Whatsoever being used in divine worship is directly contrary to the .2. Commandment, is a part of divine w rshipe. The● Ceremonies are used in divine Worship & are directly contrary to the 2. commandment. Ergo The Proposition is evident, for all outward Idolatry is divine worship & nothing but Outward Idolatry is directly forbidden in the .2. Commandment. The .2. part of the Assumption is thus proved, All inventions and devises of man, grounded only upon the will of man, and not upon any necessity of nature, or civility, set a part 〈◊〉 God outward worship are contrary to the s●c●●d● commandment. These c●●●m●nye are such, Ergo. The proposition we prove thus. Either all such devises and inventions are contrary unto t●e second commandment, ●r el● their is no * A trope or figure o● s●each wherein under o e k●nde of Idola●●● a●●●ts dden. Synecdoche theirin, But there is a Synecdoche in the 2 commaunddement. Ergo. The Assumption or latter part of this syllogism cannot be denied of any, but such as shall desperately set themselves, against the truth of God. For if their were no figure or Trope in the commandment, then to bow down unto, & to worship the Sun, Moon and Stars, or any other of God's creatures, yea, or any image made by any other, should be no breach of this commandment, much les to offer jewish Sacrifices of sheep & Oxen, to circumcise, to go a pilgrimage to Saints, to kiss the Pax, to sprinkle with holy water, to baptize Bells, or to use any other Popish rites, in which if a man sin not against the second commandment, he sinneth not against any. Again, it would be demanded, against what commandment, Nadab and Abihu sinned, when they offered strange fire. The israelites when they abused gideon's Ephod, judg. 8 27. The Corinthians in eating meat offered to Idols in the Idols temples, 1 Cor. 9 Either they sinned not against this commandment, and by consequent against none, or else there must needs be, a wonderful large Trope in the same, which I think never any divine jew or Christian, Protestant or Papist ever denied before now. The proposition is as evident if it be considered, that in the 2 commandment, literally a 〈…〉 o● speech, nothing is forbidden 〈…〉 o● im●ge●●or worship, 〈◊〉 unto them, and wors●●● 〈◊〉 the●, now i● there be a Synecdoche 〈◊〉 co●●●●ndement, there must of nec●●●●● 〈◊〉 not only other kinds of false out●● a●d wor●●●p of Idolatry, different in form from making, & bowing down unto Images & Ido●●, but their mu●t be also some common ca●● or ground, u●on which making & bo●●●● unto Images is ●●●●●dden, which must 〈…〉 Argument, and reason by which 〈…〉 outward worship are 〈…〉 images, and con●e●●●● 〈◊〉 at, else ●t were senseless to make a●y thing t●at attempt a bowing down unto ●●●ges t● 〈…〉 ●der that name & 〈…〉 is condemned vnd●● an●ther, it is ●●c●●e that thing doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ate with i● i● the same cause for 〈◊〉 it is c●●●●mned ●tor example i● un●●● 〈…〉 unto Images▪ jewish C●● 〈…〉 for a● 〈…〉 an●●●n●e be called 〈…〉 some 〈…〉 f●r●● 〈…〉 unto t●●m 〈…〉 wh●ch mu●● be as it 〈…〉 unto it ●n● them. Now let all the wits in the world lay their heads together & they shall never be able to devise any such common g●nu● that shallbe the comen cause why not only b● w● down t● ma●●s, but why un●er it an other ●●nde or Idolatry and false worships is condemned, but this. for that they were ●●mane devices, & inventions, and therefore under the most usual and general received invention of man, God condemneth all other 〈◊〉 used to the same end. If this be not the reason then there are & may be infinite, Outward Idolatries & Superstitions that cannot with any reason be referred to this commandment. Therefore it must needs follow that either there is no tr●●e in the commandment or that all such inventions of man are forbidden in the same. An advertisement. I had thought (good re●●er) to have fortified some other points in the Arguments, which to them that do not consider may seem weak, but I forbear ●or some special reasons, I am ●nly to admonish thee of one de●e●t amongst others t●at 〈…〉 me. viz. The mistaking of the Archishops' Argument though I 〈◊〉 it better t●●● was, ●or thus it is, and 〈…〉 been pour●ed. 〈…〉 good, are lawful and good ceremonies. The doctrine of these ceremonies is sound and good, Ergo. Which is subject to the very same absurdities that the other and more also. For 1 the doctrine of them is unsound & false, for the doctrine of them is this, that they are matters indifferent, of order decency, and edification, no parts of Divine worship, that they are schismatics that will not conform unto them, enemies to the Supremacy and State, that it is a wicked error to hold them unlawful & superstitious that they are to be excommunicated that affirm them to be so. etc. All which is unsound doctrine concerning them. 2 Grant the doctrine sound, yet it followeth not that the Ceremonies are good, for the thing may be wicked, and yet the doctrine of it sound. For, There is a sound doctrine of all Vices. 3 In what respect doth he affirm the doctrine to be sound and good? Is it not from the use and end that is assigned unto them by himself? Because they are appointed for such & such ends? Hence will follow the very same absurdities, that I have observed in the former. For then any ridiculous or base Ceremony, may be instituted, so it be under pretence of a good end.