storie of Moses in Exodus For there Moses and the Elders of Israel are commanded by God to go vnto Pharaoh and tell him saying The Lord God of the Hebrewes hath met with vs and now let vs go three daze iourney into the wildernesse that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God And Chap. 8.8 Pharaoh said He was willing to let them go to sacrifice vnto the Lord. And more to the same purpose is recorded Chap. 10.15 and 26. Therefore God had required Sacrifice before the promulgation of the morall law SECT X. His second Reply But this was not so published before the law Our Answer It was published before the whole congregation of Israel and so published that before the giuing of the tables of Moses the sacrifice of the Paschall Lambe was prescribed vnto all the families of Israel God commanding thus Speake vnto all the congregation of Israel saying take euery man a Lambe c. Can you haue a more publicke precept than that which is spoken to All Neither is there in all this the least shadow of contradiction for the former exception against Sacrifice was not meant simply as absolutely forbidding the Sacrifices which God himselfe had commanded but comparatiuely onely as preferring obedience before Sacrifices And the argument of almightie God is very exact and emphaticall to wit that forasmuch as in the solemne publication of the Morall law of obedience there was no mention made of Sacrifices or burnt offerings therefore to Obey the morall commandements is farre more acceptable with God then Oblations Sacrifices being onely as the bodie but sanctitie as the very soule of Gods worship SECT XI Their fourth place obiected for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scriptures Esay 1.11 To what purpose is your sacrifice vnto me saith the Lord I am full of your burnt offerings And verse 12. Who required these things at your hands Our Answer That is who required them principally or who required them solely without obedience to the law of godlinesse The exception then is not against any defect in the thing is selfe which is the Sacrifice nor against the Act which is sacrificing but against the Actors because they offered their Sacrifices in hypocrisie continuing in transgression and sinne against God This is plaine for you know that the Leuiticall law of sacrificing was then in force insomuch that the people in not sacrificing had sinned by neglect of performing their due homage vnto God so then their transgression in sacrificing did onely arise from their hypocrisie and irrepentance in consideration whereof it is said the God had respect vnto Abel and his offering but vnto Caine and his offering he had no regard The difference then stood not in the things sacrificed as though Abel his corne were more precious in Gods sight then Caines cattell nor in the Act it being the same in theÌ„ both for both did offer sacrifice vnto God but the whole distance was in respect of the Agents to wit in that Caine did offer in enuie and Abel in charitie And to shew that the method of Gods respect beginneth at the person and not at the thing it is said God had respect vnto Abel and his offering verse 4. SECT XII The fift place by them obiected for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scripture Ier. 7.31 God complayneth saying They haue built the places of Tophet which is in the valley of the sonnes of Hinnon to burne their sonnes and daughters in the fire which I commanded them not neither came it into my heart Our Answer From these words which I commanded not you collect that the sinne here condemned was not against but onely besides the word of God as if these words Quae non mandaui illis facere were not the same in full sence with Quae mandaui illis non facere signifying that God did vtterly forbid them to do this And great reason for they did no lesse then sacrifice their sonnes and daughters vnto Molech which was the most execrable Idolatrie that euer was committed vnder the Sunne and therefore is called in the text verse 30. Thâ— abomination of Tophet How can you then say that this sinne was onely not commanded was it not also expresly forbidden as it is written Thou shalt not offer thy children vnto Molech When I first read this obiection I wondred to vnderstand that any of your schoole by telling vs of some things vnlawfull as besides the word of God and of some things vnlawfull as against it could so well symbolize albeit against your wills in termes with Bellarmine and some other Romish spirits who to maintaine their distinction of mortall and veniall sinne tell vs that the mortall sinne is contra legem against the law but the veniall sinne is onely praeter legem besides the law As though sinne being a transgression of the law and a contradiction vnto Gods command a man could imagine any sinne which is not against the law which were to conceiue sinne to be no sinne Be you therefore so discreete as to leaue this art of subtiltie vnto popish coyners who haue a faculty to stampe all their mettals although neuer so base with Caesars image intituling their owne fancies the Oracles of God Our answers vnto other allegations which you obiect concerning adding to Scriptures and will-worship are reserued to their proper places We proceede now to your proofe from Fathers SECT XIII The second proofe of the Non-conformists for their Negatiue arguing from Scriptures from the iudgement of ancient Fathers Basil calleth it a defection from faith to bring in any thing besides Scripture Cyprian saith Whence cometh this tradition Not out of diuine Scriptures Ambrose saith They that know not the sweetnesse of these waters viz. of Scriptures do drinke of the torrents of this world Augustine I. from that saying of Christ I haue many things to say which you cannot carrie c. saith Who therefore of vs can tell what those things are which he himselfe would not reueale Againe II. Away saith he with mens writings let the voice of God sound in our eares III. Let vs remoue the deceitfull weights of mens balances and admit of Gods ballances IIII. Who can deliuer vnto vs any speciaâ—l prohibitions of these execrable superstitions which are vsed in the knots of earings and serue not to the worship of God but to the seruice of diuels v. Is it lawfull to sacrifice vnto Neptune because we reade not of any thing directly spoken against Neptune Thus haue the ancient Fathers reasoned Negatiuely from Scriptures Our Answer You vndertooke to confute onely Ceremonies of our Church and such which were onely besides Scripture yet this you now labour to effect by such Testimonies of Fathers whereby they condemne not Ceremonies as being beside Scripture but onely Dostrines of men flatly contrary to the truth of Scripture For Basil in the place alledged confuteth not any matter of
and cannot the like alteration be had of Abuses in actions which otherwise in themselues are indifferent Thirdly in naturall and artificiall Obiects both Art and Nature seeme to exclaime against your Consequences For as the Orator speaketh Solem è mundo tollere videtur qui vsum propter abusum tollit He seemes to pull the Sunne out of the firmament that taketh away the vse of each thing for the abuse thereof For we may see there is a kind of sinne which may be called Daemon meridianus a deuill that danceth at noone-day whereby is meant that the glorious light of the Sunne is notably abused by some most impudent Transgressors for the acting of their sinnes in pompe and iollitie And is not the vniversalitie of creatures said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to groane and trauell in birth as desirous to be deliuered Surely from the tyrannie of mens Abuses In briefe to professe to reforme abuses onely by vtter abolishing of the things abused is as much as to teach the Chirurgion to professe no cure of mens diseased limmes but onely Abscision The Barber no Art but shauing to the quicke and euen flaying away the skinne The Magistrates no Rule of punishing but according to Draco his Lawes Sanguine scriptas onely by death SECT XXVII Our third Proofe from Reason is by shewing other meanes for reforming the abuses of things than by abolishing the things themselues The meanes which are to be vsed in reforming of things abused are three Abrogation Translation and Correction Our Non-conformists allow and practise onelie the first kinde vrging and pressing the necessitie of Abrogation Abolition and vtter extirpation of Ceremonies which haue once beene superstitiously abused But our Church in her singular wisedome as she hath most religiously dealt with the number of superfluous and Idolatrous Rites in the Romish Church which she hath abandoned so hath she discreetlie ordered those Ceremonies which she thought good to retaine by remouing onelie the abuses and superstitions and reforming them either by Translation or else by Correction I will giue an Instance in either of them First the Crosse about the celebration of Baptisme which was vsed of the Papists before the act of Baptizing in a superstitious opinion for a kinde of Adiuration for the auoiding whereof our Church hath translated the signe of the Crosse to haue place after the Sacramentall act as attending the Sacrament and making vp the retinue of ornaments about it As therefore M. Caluin speaking of the change of the Saboth day of the creation into the day of Christs Resurrection and as I may so say recreation of mankinde saith Dies Sabbati non sublatus sed translatus est that It is not quite remoued but translated So may we deale in alteration of Ceremonies as hath bene alreadie exemplified in the diuerse customes of ancient Churches And iudge I pray you whether our Churches alteration of a Ceremonie from a false and superstitious into a true and religious signification be not an excellent kinde of Translation Secondlie although Translation be a kinde of Correction yet seeing that euerie Correction is not a Translation we proceed to speake concerning that kinde of reformation of Ceremonies so abused which is by Correction whereof Chemnitius hath considered right well speaking of Ceremonies which haue degenerated from their truly wholesome vse Tales vel corrigendi vel mutandi vel exemplo Aenei serpentis prorsus tollendi sunt Such Ceremonies saith he are either to be corrected or altered or else according to the example of the Brazen Serpent they are to be quite taken away To which purpose Zanchius requireth them that retaine The feast daies which had beene superstitiously polluted vt ea superstitionibus defaecata sanctificentur that is That they being purged from the lees of superstition may be sanctified namely to an holie vse So that euen as where the snuffe of Torches or Candles doth grow so bigge and so blacke that it hindreth the light we do not therefore take away the light but rather do cleanse or cut off the snuffe it selfe In like manner such hath bene the wisedome of our Church and State in this Land in reforming of the Popish Abuses in our Ceremonies that she hath purged the superstitious doctrines which is their opinion of Efficacious holinesse and Idolatrous â—pplication of Diuine honour but yet hath she preserued the light of Morall significations which are Sanctity in the Minister Constancy in euerie Christian baptized into the faith of Christ and Humilitie in all faithfull Communicants at the receiuing of the sacred Mysteries of Christs death SECT XXVIII Our fourth Proofe from Reason against their last Generall Argument especially in their Assumption wherein they argued from the extirpation of the Ceremonies of Pagans for the abolishing of the Ceremonies of Papists Wee owe a right euen vnto our enemies and therefore must acknowledge that it is a like errour to affirme that there ought to be the same difference of Religion in case of Ceremonies betweene Protestants and Papists which should be betweene Papists and Pagans as it is to require the same distance betweene England and Calecute which is betweene Rome and England especially considering that the gods of the Gentiles were all deuils For among the innumerable Altars that were vsed of the Heathen we reade not of any one that had any truth of Religion in it but onely that one at Athens which had this inscription vpon it To the vnknowne God Which notwithstanding was alas but a glympse of true light for still God was vnto them but as vnknowne As for the Papist his Creed is the same with ours in beleeuing the Onely omnipotent God Maker of heauen and earth vnto whom he coÌ„mendeth his prayers although sometimes Recto sometimes but Obliquo modo and together with vs he professeth the Lord Iesus and beleeueth to haue propitiation in his Bloud So that the furniture of Habites and Vestiments which that Church vsed being primarily consecrated to that suprâ—eme end to wit the worship of God in Iesus Christ may not be esteemed of equall abhomination with the Habits of Paynims which were dedicated vnto diuels Besides there are betweene Vs and the Papists certaine other Communia principia Common Principles of Religion whereupon we vse to ground our Christian conclusions to wit Holy Scriptures Ecclesiasticall Stories Writings of ancient Fathers together with common Axiomes receiued of all Christian Schooles by reason whereof we can confute their errours and more easily reforme the Abuses of their Ceremonies by Correction But betweene Vs and Pagans the case is farre different For in that their Ceremonies are properly and immediately directed to false gods we haue none or but very few common axiomes whereby to reduce them from their Heathenish and Idolatrous opinions whence it is that the superstition of their Ceremonies is best refuted by onely remouing them SECT XXIX The fourth generall ground of Confutation of their former Argument is from the
that afterwards it may not be of any vse to them that are good and godly M. Bucer is somewhat large in this point but yet so pregnant and pertinent that we may not omit him I dare not say saith he that these Vestments speaking of the Surplice are so polluted by Antichrist that they are not to be permitted vnto any Church that hath knowledge of the libertie of all things For the Scripture doth euery where proclaime that euery creature of God is good vnto those that are good that is vnto the true beleeuers in Christ. I say good not onely in respect of the naturall effects as bread is good to feede but in respect of the diuerse significations and admonitions by them The propertie of a Rite or Ceremonie as it is Aaronicall or Antichristian doth not inhere vnto any creature of God or Vestment or shape or colour but in the minde and profession of men that abuse those good creatures of God vnto impious and godlesse significations for it cannot be called an Antichristian Ceremonie except some Antichristian Religion and communion be professed thereby c. I returne to the point of Appropriation to let you vnderstand that if your exception be not so much against the Appropriator although a Pope as against the Appropriation it selfe whereby such Ceremonies are deputed particularly vnto holy vse then are you to consider whether it may be thought agreeable to the law of good Decorum to see the Pulpit-cloth vsed in the stead of a flag in a May-game or the Communion-cup carried abroad for common vse to serue at an Ale-house or to behold so much as a Ministers gowne hanging on the backe of a Tinkar or Car-man Now if that you perceiue a deformitie in the common vse of such things that haue bene so exercised in Gods Seruice then tâ—e Appropriation of such things to publicke worship is not therefore a iust matter of Indecencie SECT VIII Their eight Accusation against the Surplice is from the former Abuse thereof The Surplice is notoriously knowne to haue beene abused by Papists to superstition and Idolatrie Durand calleth it the Armour of God wherewith the Priest is harnessed Their Missals say that thereby the Priest is defended from the temptatiòns of the wicked spirits without which neither water nor bels nor ought else can be hallowed This is also vsed in their abominable Masse which they make so peculiar to their Religion as that they pull it off them whom they do degrade Ergo it ought be remoued Our Answer We haue already discouered your great Abuse of Logicke in this Consequence whereby from the Abuses of things you inferre the necessarie extirpation of the things themselues For the present we are onely to repell this your particular exception against the Surplice To this purpose we must first enquire wherein you will haue the pretended Abuse to consist Surely this cannot be imputed to the matter of the Surplice for that is naturall nor to the fashion for that is onely artificiall nor to the colour for that is meerely accidentall We must therefore seek out the pretended Popish abuse in the Surplice as it is Ceremoniall In the Ceremoniall obseruation of the Surplice by the Romish Church we can conceiue but two points that may be considerable the first is their Dedication of it the second is the opinion that they conceiue thereof The consideration of the Romish practise is concerning the Dedication of the Surplice vnto an Idolatrous seruice This cannot be a sufficient cause of an vtter abolishing of all the vse thereof for the Apostle teacheth concerning the Idolothyta that is meates sacrificed vnto Idols which notwithstanding he commendeth to the vse of Christians that they are so to be vsed being first sanctified by their prayers and thankesgiuing albeit they were indiuidually the same things that had bene Idolatrously polluted It will not auaile you to reply that this alteration and change of Idolatrous meates was for a Ciuill and not for any Religious vse Because the Apostle in the same place saying Idolum nihil est An Idoll is nothing in the world signifyeth as M. Beza hath well commented that The Idoll had no power or vertue either to pollute or sanctifie that which was offered vnto it How then can that being but a nihil haue force to pollute the religious vse thereof Which were to make something of nothing But if we shall admit of your owne assertion to thinke that the same things which haue bene Idolatrously abused may not afterwards be applyed vnto any religious purpose yet what can this inferre against the Surplices now worne in our Church which are not indiuidually or numerally the same that haue bene Dedicated to Romish worship The next point remaineth concerning the opinion and intention of the Papists in the vse of their Surplices wherein onely consisteth the formall cause of Abuse which if it may be found in the vse of our Surplices then must we necessarily confesse our Surplices to be as truly the same in their superstitious abuse as in respect of matter and substance we are sure they cannot be iudged the same The conceit and opinion that Papists haue in this Ceremonie is to iudge it partly significatiue as a signe of a morall dutie partly operatiue as hauing in it an efficacie of holinesse to defend vs from temptations or else to hallow certain other things as hath bene shewne If you meane to impugne the Significatiue propertie then we say that the Papists opinion is herein iustifiable as we haue already proued not onely in our generall confutation of your iudgement in that behalfe but in our particular Answer concerning the Surplice euen by the Testimonies of your owne Witnesses But if you condemne the opinion of operatiue power in the Surplice then our Answer is that our Surplices are not Popish seeing that we ascribe no such efficacie vnto them To conclude therefore for as much as the opinion and intent of the worshippers is the onely character and forme to discerne and distinguish a religious worship from that which is superstitious the doctrine of our Church concerning all such Ceremonies being so syncere and iustifiable and the opinion of the Church of Rome in consecrating of her Rites so idolatrous it must needs be an iniurie and indeed an impiety to call their Popish and our English Surplices so precisely the same We appeale againe vnto M. Bucer for the decision of this point he supposing our Vestments to be the same that were abused in Poperie doth notwithstanding resolue thereof saying Quicquid de abusu harum vestium dicitur id non in vestibus sed impuris haerere animis That is Whatsoeuer can be obiected concerning the Abuse of these vestures that cannot be said to cleaue vnto the vestures themselues but to the vncleane minds of those that do abuse them SECT IX Their ninth Accusation against the Surplice is from the effects thereof both by begetting an opinion of
D. Whitak receiue at their hāds for his condemning the Popish vse of the Chrisme as hauing no warrant by holy Scripture not considering that he in his controuersie about the sufficiencie of Scripture as all other iudicious Diuines do exempteth the question of Ceremonies so farre forth as they are imposed or obserued without mixture of a superstitious opinion annexed by the imposers as the Papists both professe and ordaine in their Chrisme by attributing therunto a spirituall efficacy and power which the whole Catholike Church of Christ cannot by any Ecclesiasticall ordinance infuse into any naturall thing or signe howsoeuer religiously consecrated or decently inuented But you wil reply that all Ceremonies of mans inuentiō are contrary to the Scripture I answere by a briefe distinction Some Ceremonies are merae meerly Ceremonies some are mixtae mixt they that are meerly Ceremonies need no speciall warrant from Scripture because they are sufficientlie warranted by the generall approbation of Gods word which giueth a permission and liberty to all the Churches to make their owne choice of Ceremonies according to the rules of Order and Decencie But the mixt Ceremonies whereunto the imposers or the generalty of obseruers of them annexe some superstitious and erroneous opinion whether it be of merit or of inherent holinesse efficacie or reall necessity do in this case change the nature and become Doctrinall and in this respect are condemned as being not onelie Besides the warrant but plainlie Against the precept of holie Scriptures Thus much concerning our answere SECT XVI Our generall Confutation of the Non-conformists shewing that they haue failed in the maine ground of their Generall proposition when in the question of Ceremonies they disput◠negatiuelie from Scripture Our proofes arise from 1. Scripture 2. Iudgement of Fathers 3. Consent of Protestants 4. Reasons The first proofe is from Scriptures Saint Paul 1. Cor. 14. Let all things be done decently and in order And againe Let all things be done vnto edifying By vertue of which permission the Apostle doth grant a generall licence and authoritie to all Churches to ordaine any Ceremonies that may be fit for the better seruing of God This one Scripture not to trouble you with any other at this present is vniuersally vsed by Fathers and all Diuines although neuer so diuerse in their professions for one and the same conclusion SECT XVII Our second proofe is from Fathers by the testimonie of the Non-conformists owne witnesses Hereunto serueth the confession of Zanchius saying Ecclesiasticarum Ceremoniarum c. Some Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies were vniuersall that is allowed and admitted alwaies of all Churches and therefore called Catholike as for example the celebration of the feast of Christ his Natiuitie of Easter Ascension Pentecost and the like Wherefore the argument which the Non-conformists take from the testimonies of Fathers onely in colour and pretence the same may we in good conscience and in truth retort vpon them For that practise which the ancient Churches of Christ did alwaies maintaine may not be deemed to derogate from the authoritie of holy Writ but the Ceremonies here specified were vniuersally practised throughout all Christian Churches euen as the Non-conformists themselues do well know and sometimes also acknowledge Ergo some Ceremonies not particularly warranted by Scripture may be lawfully vsed in our Church Concerning the iudgement of ancient Fathers we shall be occasioned to giue more instances throughout euery argument SECT XVIII Our third proofe is from the generall iudgement of Protestant Diuines A common Aduersarie should be held as an indifferent witnesse betweene both parties and who is either more common or more aduerse than Bellarmine Now he contending in nothing more earnestly than to proue an Insufficiencie of the written word doth commonly oppose against Protestants the vse of such Ceremonies as were anciently obserued and haue passed currant vnder the name of Apostolicall Traditions that are not once mentioned in Scripture of which kind is the obseruation of Easter Pentecost c. Ergo saith he the Scriptures are not sufficient But marke the answer of Protestants in this case The Protestants grant saith Bellarmine that the Apostles did ordaine certaine Rites and orders belonging to the Church which are not set downe in Scripture This he acknowledgeth of Protestant Diuines in generall SECT XIX The Non conformists answer I do not beleeue Bellarmine herein Our Reply But you shew no reason why Will you be content to beleeue Protestants themselues either those whom Bellarmine did impugne or else those who did refute Bellarmine Chemnitius doth sufficiently cleare this point for his owne part by distinguishing of Rites and obseruing some to haue bene Diuine by the institution of Christ which he calleth essentiall and necessarie and some Apostolicall which he saith we do obserue and some Ecclesiasticall to wit Qui non habent Scripturae mandatum aut testimonium Which haue no commandement or warrant in Scripture which saith he are not altogether to be reiected You haue heard the exact and most accurate iudgement of M. Caluine to wit that Christ would not prescribe particularly concerning Ceremonies what we ought to follow but would referre vs to the directions of generall Rules c. Iunius was a iudicious refuter of Bellarmine vnto whose obiection for Traditions out of the Fathers besides Scriptures he answereth and auoydeth the force of the argument saying Omnia haec ad ritus Ecclesiae pertinent c. All these are onely such things as belong vnto the Rites of the Church And againe as determining the very cause The Scriptures saith he containe in them all matters of doctrine belonging necessarily vnto faith and good life but do set downe onely a generall law concerning Rites and Ceremonies 1. Cor. 14. Let all things be done honestly and in order Therefore the particular Rites appertaining to the Church because they be ambulatory and mutable might well be omitted by the Spirit of God and permitted to the conueniencies of the Church for all men know that there is longè dispar ratio a great difference betweene doctrines of faith and manners and the matters of Rites and Ceremonies So he But most exactly where the same Iunius maketh this distinction Some things are necessarie in themselues and by the authoritie of the Scripture such are the substantiall doctrines belonging to faith and godlinesse of life Some things are not necessarie in themselues but onely by authoritie of Scripture such are those which are recorded in Scriptures for other causes than for any vse absolutely necessarie And some other things are neither necessary in themselues nor yet by authoritie of Scripture such as are matters rituall whereof he had said before They are not mentioned in Scripture but omitted by the Spirit of God And profound Zanchius in his confutation of Romish errors and in the question of sufficiencie of Scripture hath this distinction of Ceremonies Some saith he are consenting vnto Scriptures some are
and the very Leauen of the Pharises from whence there issued a Religious reuereuerence far exceeding that respect which we shall hereafter proue to be lawfully attributed vnto our Ceremonies SECT XI Their third Reason These Ceremonies imposed are for their vse and practise preferred before necessarie duties and principall parts of Gods worship as to weare a Surplice or Preach not vse the signe of the Crosse or Baptize not practise other Ceremonies or els you shall not exercise any other ordinance of God Our Answer This is but dull sophstry for who seeth not that this is not a preferring of wearing a Surplice before preaching as you fondly imagine but to preferre an orderly and discreet Preacher before one that is factious and exorbitant If the Lord Chancellour hauing appointed a commission for his Maiesties seruice and designing a place most conuenient for that purpose afterwards vnderstanding some one or other of the Commissioners to be so peremptorily selfe-willed as to refuse to sit with the rest of the Commissioners in the place appointed shall exempt that party and put him out of the Commission placing another in his stead should it not argue want of common reason to inferre heereupon that the said Lord Chancellour had hereby preferred the circumstance of a place before his Maiesties seruice SECT XII Their fourth Reason They are knowne to be imposed as parts of Gods worship for many people in all parts of the Land are knowne to be of this mind that the Sacraments are not rightly and sufficiently administred or receiued without them Our Answer This your Argument if it be rightly examined will not proue so strong as strange For to conclude thus Many people within the state of this Kingdome do hold these Ceremonies to be necessary parts of Gods worship Ergo they are imposed and obserued as necessary parts of Gods worship may by as good or rather better reason be retorted vpon your selues thus Most people in the Land hold them not to be necessary parts of Gods worship Ergo they are not imposed as essentiall and necessary parts thereof Secondly you ought to haue made a difference betweene the iudgement of the Gouernours in imposing and the opinion if yet there be any such of some people in obseruing of them as necessary For this your Reason can make no better Logicke then if one would cōclude that Vsury the State not punishing the taking of ten in the 100 iustifiable by the Law of God because some people make the like collection But to collect what is the minde of Gouernours from the fancy of some inferiours is but to tell vs that if the legge do halt the lamenesse thereof must be said to be in the braine And because you do commonly obiect the multitude of people tell vs in good sadnesse of what sect you suppose this people to be that hold the necessity of these things Are they Popish But these haue not so great a conceit of our Ceremonies as they are knowne to be administred in our Church Or are they of your owne disciplining who by your calumniations are taught to thinke that the Church hath imposed these Ceremonies in an opinion of necessity so as to make them Essentiall parts of Gods worship Then must we tell you that the seducement of the Scholler is the sinne of the Maister Or lastly are they some of the people who are otherwise conformable Then doubtlesse these if yet there be any such will not be found to be many as you suppose but the same people may be thought to fall into that misconceit not so much by the imposition of the Church vpon you as by your vehement opposition against the Church whereby some such simple people are brought to beleeue that your imputation although most calumnious is true to wit that these Ceremonies are imposed as necessary parts of Gods worship But forbeare you this slander and those people will soone relinquish their errour SECT XII Their fift Reason The omission of them euen without the case of scandall and contempt is more sharpely punished then any other sinnes committed against the Law of God as periury or adultery Our Answer What therefore Ergo for this is your marke they are preferred before the precepts of God and made parts of Gods Worshippe This consequence is not necessarie for it falleth out herein as vsually it doth in the like case in all weal-publiks where we see more exact and grieuous prosecution of Iustice against a pilferer than against a swearer against a false Coyner of money than a man-slayer Not that hereby Christian Common-wealthes do professe that the other Sinnes are in their owne nature lesse hainous or that they do not professedly preferre Gods glorie before all other respects But because stealth of mens goods and adulterating or corrupting of Coine do more immediatly worke the ruine of the common peace therefore the commonwealth as euery sensible thing naturally doth affect is bent immediatlie to seeke the preseruation of it selfe that so it may be more able to establish those things which concerne the glory of God by repressing of more hainous crimes whether by temporall punishment or els by the spirituall censures of the Church And so it sometimes falleth out in the proceeding of the Church it selfe which seeketh by these censures to preserue her owne peace and integritie against those who do vniustly defame her Furthermore suffer me to deale plainely and to tell you that your Parenthesis which complaineth that you are so grieuously punished for onely omission of those Ceremonies euen without the case of scandall and contempt is no better then an open slander against the Church of God for you cannot instance in any one Minister that hath beene so grieuously punished for the bare omission of a Rite without his persisting opinionatiuely refractarily that publickly in flat contradiction against the Church If that the practisioners in the Law should obstinately refuse to weare the ordinary Gowne of a Counsellour or party-coloured habite of a Sergeant would the graue Iudges of the Land passe it slightly ouer as a bare omission and not rather iustly punish it as an intollerable contempt SECT XIIII The contrary-minded albeit neuer so peaceable learned or godly minded if they shall declare their contrary iudgement are accounted Puritans and Schismatickes and by Canon if they shall offend censured as excommunicate Our Answer Although perhaps you haue reason to wish the release of some yet ought you specially to consider your owne deserts and know that Schisme which is the diuiding of affections taketh beginning from the difference of opinions albeit in points of lesse moment and then reckon the multitude of Separatists who haue had their first principles of opposition against our Church out of your Schoole of contradiction by your vile aspersion of no lesse a crime then Idolatry it selfe And after iudge whether there be not some cause to call your opinion Schismaticall as still nourishing the cause of a
cursed Schisme although not alwaies effectuating the same In the next place obserue with vs the daily convulsions increasing in the members of the Church whilst as some distracted in their affections will hold of Paul and others of Apollos some heare one kinde of Ministers Preach to the despite of others some will receiue the Sacrament at the hands onely of conformable and some onely of vnconformable Ministers to the great dishonour of Christ whose Word and Sacraments they haue in respect of the persons of men Concerning the Censures of the Church you cannot be ignorant that it hath beene the common discipline in all Churches ancient and lately reformed to impose and challenge of Ecclesiasticall persons a subscription to the orders constituted therein ordeining that in the end such persons should be deposed from their places that shall factiously oppose thereunto to the disturbance of the peace of the Church M. Beza writing vnto the French and Dutch Churches heere in England for their direction in point of Discipline deliuereth vnto them his 28. Article in these words Hac ratione perlatis legibus c. The Constitutions being thus made whosoeuer shall factiously repugne them and will not suffer themselues to be reclaimed much more they who shall conspire together against Ministers and Elders they are worthy to bee handled as the publicke enemies of the Church I do not speake this to exasperate the Churches censures against you but to moderate your conceits and detractions against the Church who vse to esteeme of her not as of a naturall Mother but rather as of a curst Step-dame But why Because forsooth she will haue an vniformity of order amongst her children and will not suffer her lawfull command to be factiously contemned SECT XV. Our generall Confutation of the Non conformists against their generall Assumption wherein they obiected that our Ceremonies are imposed to be obserued as the proper and essentiall parts of Gods worship Against their generall Proposition we haue proued from their own witnesses to wit Caluin Chemnitius Peter Martyr Vrsinus and Zanchius that onely those Ceremonies are properly made parts of Gods worship wherein the worship of God is said essentially and absolutely to consist Now we must confute their generall assumption by the expresse profession of our Church which teacheth and publisheth to the world that she doth not either impose or obserue any Ceremonies with any opinion of efficacy holinesse or necessity but onely for Decency Order Edification and Conueniency It will become euery childe of the Church to heare his Mothers Apologie for her selfe in this case who telleth vs saying 1. Our meaning is not to attribute any holinesse or speciall worthinesse to the said Garments 2. We teach that the Crosse is not part of the substance of the Sacrament this Signe doth neither adde to Baptisme nor detract from it 3. These Ceremonies which we haue retained vpon iust cause may be altered and changed and therefore may not be esteemed equall with Gods Law 4. In these our doings we condemne not other Nations or prescribe any thing but to our owne people onely for wee thinke it meete that euery Country should vse such Ceremonies as they shall thinke best to the setting forth of Gods honour and glory and to the reducing of the people to a more perfect and godly liuing without errour or superstition Can any Christian require a more Orthodoxe profession concerning Ceremonies than this is whereby it is made euident that our Church retaineth these her Ceremonies for Decency without opinion of Holinesse for Order without making them of the Substance of Gods seruice with a Christian liberty as thinking them Alterable and Changeable without opinion of Necessity And lastly in an Vnitie of Christian Brother-hood with other reformed Churches abroad And therefore may most iustly challenge vniformity within her selfe This profession of our Church is so manifest vnto her most earnest Opposites that the whole Assembly of Non-conformists in Lincolne-shire acknowledge it who do notwithstanding to our wonderment at their boldnesse parallell our Church with the Romish which neuerthelesse they confesse to be iustly condemned by M. Iewell and other Diuines for the opinion of Necessity and Holinesse which they put in their Ceremonies And indeed very iustly for although sometimes Bellarmine and some other Papists seeme to disclaime the Necessity of Ceremonies and the placing of Holinesse in them otherwise than as they are Signes of holy things yet ought we rather yeeld credite vnto their more publicke practise and profession Bellarmine telling vs that their Ceremonies haue power ex opere operato to cure diseases driue away deuils purge veniall sinnes c. All which effects do imply an efficacious and necessary holinesse Seeing therefore it is plaine that wee attribute no other Holinesse vnto our Rites than that which is common to all such like Ceremonies namely to be Significatiue and Alterable whereas the Papists to ascribe vnto theirs an holinesse Operatiue and Necessary with what conscience do men fashion their quils to impute that guilt of Superstition to our Church which she hath and doth both by her doctrine and practise condemne in the Romish sect Hitherto of their second Argument CHAP. III. The third generall Agument brought by the Non-conformists against the three Ceremonies of our Church onely because they are Significant SECT I. Maior Prop. All Humane Ceremonies being appropriated to Gods seruice if they be ordained to teach any spirituall dutie by their mysticall signification are vnlawfull Assump But such are these three namely the Surplice Crosse in Baptisme and kneeling at the receiuing the holy Communion Ergo they are vnlawfull 1. Our Answer to their Maior Proposition THIS point of Mysticall signification yea or onely of signification by Ceremonies in the opinion of almost all the Non-conformists pierceth so deepely into the bowels of this cause that it giueth it a deadly wound notwithstanding all our meanes and manner of defence which contrarily we iudge either to be so dull and blunt that it cannot make the least impression to hurt our cause or whatsoeuer sharpenesse is in it it must needs offend our Opposites if that either Reason or examples of Scripture or the continuall custome of the Church of God yea or the semblable practise of the Non-conformists themselues may be thought worthy to be called a iust defence In the interim we attend to heare their proofes SECT II. Their proofes pretended to be taken from 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Testimonies of iudicious Diuines In Marc. 7.8 Our Sauiour doth reproue the Pharises for laying aside the commandements of God and holding the Traditions of men as the washing of pots and cups and v. 9. You reiect the commaâ—dements of God that you may keepe your owne Traditions for v. 10. Moses said Honour thy father and Mother c. and v. 11. You say that if a man shall say to father or mother Corban that is to say it is a gift
is appointed vnto Diuine seruice So here likewise for there is not a more Diuine Seruice then vpon iust occasion the due and lawfull swearing by God This is a worship which God doth appropriate to himselfe Thou shalt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship the Lord thy God how and sweare by his name The last point is the Ordaining of the Ceremony to teach any spirituall duty by mysticall signification And what more spirituall duty can you require than is the confidence in Christ the Messias who is the foundation and life of all Diuine Mysteries which by the iudgement of all ancient Fathers and for ought that euer I could learne of all their children the Orthodox Diuines of the Church after them is this viz. That Christ the Messias and Sauiour of mankind was to issue out of the thigh and loynes of Abraham according as God had promised vnto him saying In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed The Moralitie then of the signe to the seruant was this that as he beleeued to haue any life by Christ the Author of life which was to descend from Abraham by Isaac and his seed so he would be faithfull vnto him So that this oath was vnto his seruant a signe as of his faith to God so of faithfulnesse towards Abraham his Master SECT X. Our second proofe to confirme the lawfulnesse of a signe of morall signification is from the Examples of the old Testament vnder the Law The Obiection of the Non-conformists In the time of the Law when God saw it good to teach his Church by significant Ceremonies none might be brought or receiued into the worship of God but such onely as the Lord himselfe did institute This reason is vsed against the Popish Ceremonies by M. Caluin Iunius Lubbertus and others Our Answer And this Reason is good against the Popish abuse of Ceremonies which is to bee discerned from our vse of such in these two points first in their significations whereby that Church doth commonly teach some new doctrine not warranted by Scriptures secondly in their application by her superstitious opinion of necessity and holinesse whereby they are made essentiall parts of Gods worship as by your witnesses will be manifestly shewen In the meane time we pursue this point by our seuerall examples SECT XI Our first kind of Examples is by instancing in the Ordination of Festiuall dayes 1. Instance in Mordecai and Ester Although God had assigned diuers solemne Feast-dayes for his more frequent worship yet did Mordecai appoint the Feast called by the Hebrewes the Feast of Pur that is of Lottes for a continuall and thankefull remembrance of their generall deliuerance from that cruell Massacre whereunto the heathen had then allotted and designed them And accordingly our State and Church hath ordained a set Feast-day which wee may likewise after the Greek call the feast of Pûr euen by the same word retained in our English Fyre wherein we celebrate the remembrance of Gods mercifull and miraculous preseruation of vs from that Fyery and Hellish Powder-plot machinated by the sonnes of Belial for the consuming of our most religious and gracious Soueraigne together with the whole state of the Kingdome SECT XII 2. Instance in the Feast of Dedication by Iudas Machabaeus 1. Machab. 2.59 There was appointed an anniuersary Feast of the dedication of the Altar ordained by Iudas Machabaeus And this Feast as your owne witnesse Danaeus confesseth seemes to be approued by our Lord Iesus in that he did grace it with his owne blessed presence Now all solemne Feasts of this kind are of a Ceremoniall nature and in asmuch as they haue their institution from man may rightly be called Humane neuerthelesse so farre as they serue to magnifie God for some speciall mercie as else to excite man vnto a thankefull commemoration of the singular fauours which he hath receiued at the hands of God in these respects they are truely called Diuine Hence therefore you see it is good cause why they ought to be called significant So then you haue by these Examples as it were the Anatomy of your proposition through euery ioynt viz. 1. A Ceremony of humane inuention by Iudas Machabaeus 2. Appropriated vnto Gods seruice in a solemne Feast 3. Ordained to teach a spirituall Duty of thankefulnesse 4. Significant for benefits or blessings receiued And all these as you see stand iustifiable by Analogie from the example alleged SECT XIII Their first Replie The Church may appoint holy-dayes in certaine cases but it is one thing to restraine part of the day and another to restraine the whole day Our Answer If any man shall require of you some euidence to prooue that Christ hath so cantled out his Churches high Commission for Ecclesiasticall causes as to affoord it a power to appoint one halfe of an Holy-day and to deny vnto it liberty of ordaining the other halfe I suppose you would alwayes remaine indebted for an answere For did not God vse to haue as well his Euening as his Morning sacrifice and shall it now be lawfull to serue God onely by halfes howsoeuer euen this halfe which you haue haue granted doth sufficiently establish the whole matter in question for if the Church in this case haue power to ordaine a Ceremony which doth implie a signification of the dutie of a thankefull remembrance how should any Ceremonies be onely therefore held vnlawfull because they are significant SECT XIIII Their second Replie Howbeit the example out of Ester 9. of the two dayes which the Iewes instituted in the remembrance of their deliuerance is no sufficient warrant for these feasts in question For first as in other cases so in this case of dayes the estate of Christians vnder the Gospell ought not to be so Ceremonius as was theirs vnder the Law Secondly that which was done there was done by a â—peciall direction of the Church of God either through the Ministery of the Prophets which they had or by some other extraordinary meanes which is not to be followed of vs. Our Answer Firsâ— vnto the first part of your Replie we say that if an institution of a new Ceremonie were lawfull vnder the estate of the Old Testament when the people of God were so pressed with Rites that the Apostle called them an importable Yoke then doublâ—sse the addition of one or two Ceremonies in the state of the Gospel may not so rigidly be iudged vnlawfull Your second Assumption which we may rather call a Presumption is that you imagine some speciall Direction from the spirit of God vnto them without any certificate reuealed to your selues for proofe thereof Whereunto I onely say as Saint Hierom speaketh of the like imagination Eâdem facilitate reijcitur quâ obijcitur SECT XV. Our second kind of Examples is from the like ordaining of Ceremonious Instruments belonging vnto the worship of God by 4. Instances 1. Instance is in the Altar Iosh. 22. We
euen as we being gathered together in these earthly temples do magnifie him and therfore these our earthly temples ought to raise vp our mindes to the contemplation of the celestiall Which vse is profitable and not to be contemned Thus much Zanchius Wherefore if you will allow such kind of Ceremoniall significations you consent with vs if you reiect them then you doe dissent from all ancient and primitiue Christians Yet many of you are not so farre falne out with Symbolicall Ceremonies and the vniuersall practise of Antiquitie but that you doe willingly obserue the Ceremoniall Festiuals of Ester Pentecost c. now celebrated in our Churches as likewise the dayes not so much fatals as natals of the Apostles Now in the solemnization of these Anniuersaries you cannot but reflect on the remembrance of some spirituall things as these to wit the power of Christ his Resurrection the donation of the gifts of the holy Ghost made in visible signes of fiery tongues the glorious Ascension of our euer-blessed Sauiour into heauen together with the admirable constancy of the Apostles in suffering for the profession of the holy faith heereby admonishing vs to imitate their Example of Constancie and faithfulnesse vnto death that with them we may obtaine the same glorious Crowne of euerlasting life SECT XXXIII Our fift and last Proofe for the Confutation of the Generall argument of the Non-conformists by Reason We cannot want Reasons to prooue that our Ceremonies may be significant which our Common Prayer booke doth signifie so to be and is therefore condemned by the Non-conformists Their Opposition to our Communion-Booke The Communion Booke saith of these Ceremonies that they are neither darke nor dumbe but significant which is vnlawfull SECT XXXIIII Our Confutation of the Non-conformists by Reason confirming the lawfulnesse of Morall signification from the Confession of their owne Witnesses Because the Non-conformists haue pleaded thus absolutely against Significant Ceremonies by the same ReasoÌ„ if that may be called Reason which fighteth against it selfe we are to shew that no Ceremonie can be properly so called if it be altogether destitute of signification for to require Ceremonies without all signification is all one as to imagine day without light or fire without heate For were it not so M. Caluin had no reason to inueigh so much against the Papists because that many of their Ceremonies are non-significant Furthermore saith M. Caluin is not this fault worthy our inueighing against non intellectas Ceremonias ostentant c. They make a pompous shew of Ceremonies that are not vnderstood as if it were some stage-like dumbe shew or else some magicall incatation For some Ceremonies in Popery are separated from doctrine that they may hold the people with signes void of all signification Thus Caluin The same exception doth P. Martyr take against some Romish Ceremonies euen because Their significations are often vnknowen not onely to the beholders but to the Actors themselues who being asked of the meaning of diuers of their Rites either say nothing or if they answer any thing they contradict one another which is a certaine argument that there is no truth in them Now amongst other Rites of this nature wee may ranke that of their Priests muttering of the words of consecration in secret which Doctor Raynolds doth iustly condemne as being Against the practise of Churches of Fathers Apostles and of Christ himselfe But they say saith Doctor Rainolds of this dumbe shew which crept into the Church that it was ordained by the holy Mother Church lest those wordes so holy and so sacred should come into contempt And can there be a better Example of a Dumbe Ceremonie or more iust reason of casting it out then because it is dumbe In briefe all these Considerations Proofes and Examples aboue mentioned drawne from the religious persons of the old Testament both before and vnder the Law from the Apostles in the new from the vniuersall practise of all Churches that are within the horizon of Ecclesiasticall Record from the testimonies of their owne Witnesses from the practize of the Non-conformists themselues and lastly from the necessary consequence of Reason may sufficiently free our Ceremonies from any guilt as they terme it of superstition as though they were therefore superstitious euen because they are significant CHAP. IIII. The fourth generall Argument vrged by the Non-conformists against the foresaid Ceremonies is taken from a pretence that they haue been abused to Popish Superstition SECT I. Their Argument Maior No Ceremonies which haue beene notoriously knowne to haue been of old and still to be abused to Idolatry and Superstition especially if there be now no vse of them in Gods Church can bee lawfull but must be abolished whether they haue beene the Ceremonies of Pagans Iewes or Heretikes Assumption But these Ceremonies haue beene Idolatrously polluted by Papists namely the Surplice Crosse in Baptisme and the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament Ergo they ought to bee remooued and abolished Our Answer IF you require that Ceremonies so abused be abolished as if there were no other Cure for such sores but onely abcision and cutting off the members by the ioynt then wee deny your Maior But if you vnderstand such things as in their owne nature are not ill but indifferent or by excepting things necessary you meane an absolute and not a conuenient necessity we denie your Assumption And now that you see your markes looke to your aime and first proue if you can your Proposition then afterwards your Assumption for otherwise you can conclude against our Ceremonies iust nothing at all SECT II. The Proofes vsed by the Non-conformists against such Ceremonies which haue beene Superstitiously abused Their Proofes are from Examples of the abolishing of Ceremonies that haue beene either Heathenishly Iewishly or Heretically abused Their first Obiection concerning heathenish Ceremonies by diuers Instances in Scriptures This may appeare by Godâ— word forbidding all prouocations vnto spirituall fornication and commanding vs to separate our selues from Idolaters aâ—d to â—e as vnlike them as may be especially in their religious obseruations and Ceremonies and Instruments of Idolatry that so wee shew our vtmost detestation of them and to cast out the very memory of them and to cast away euen such things as had a good originall if they be not still necessary and commandâ—d of God when once they are knowne to bee defiled by Idolatry or abused by it according â—s for example sake God commandeth Leuit. â—8 not to be like the Heathen c. And Leuit. 19.28 c. Our Answer In this place of Scripture are forbid three kinde of things which were in vse among the Heathen the first was the sinne of Incest the second the fashion of Rounding their heads and cutting their flesh for the dead the third their sowing of their grounds with diuers seeds and letting their beasts of diuers kindes to ingender together Now wee know that Incest was forbidden as
of God was peremptoâ—y charging the Gouernors of Israel to subvert all the places of Hâ—athenâ—sh worship to destroy their altars breake downe their images burne their gâ—oues demolish their Idols and to roote out the very name of those places yet notwithstanding afterwards in the time of the Iudges was Gedeon permitted to offer of his owne accord a sacrifice vnder an oake Whereupon Saint Augustine is noted to obserue That the custome of Gods people whereby they offered sacrifice euen without the Tabernacle if onely to the true God and not vnto strange Gods was so farre approued by God himselfe that he was said to be exaudiens offerentes which I may interpret to yeeld vnto the prayers of them who did offer sacrifices Which example we haue propounded although not as euery way imitable yet to prooue that to doe things in their owne nature not impious for the furtherance of Gods worship is not so culpable as some would inforce SECT XXIIII Our second Proofe is from the iudgement of ancient Fathers The Fathers did not alwayes abolish such Ceremonies as had beene formerly abused for they as your selues know did for a long time continue the Iewish Ceremony of Ester obserued by the godly Bishops and Martyrs of the Churches of Asia albeit not Iewishly that is to the same end whereunto the Iewes did celebrate it Yea and the Ceremonie of Circumcision was for many yeeres continued in the succession of many Christian Bishops of Ierusalem although not Sacramentally after the profession of the Iewes thereby to signifie that Christ the promised seed was to come in the flesh which was a Ceremony Propheticall but Historically to shew their descent from the loines of their grand Patriarke Abraham the first father of Circumcision So likewise the Testimonies which your selues haue alledged and obiected out of the Fathers shew that they did not euermore purge the former Abuses of Ceremonies by priuation in remoouing the things themselues but sometimes onely by translation As for example The Councell of Nice changed the Iewish Easter into the Lords day And the Councell of Gangris abolishing the Fasts which some vsed vnchristianlie on the Lords day Can. 18. did in the 19. denounce an Anathema and curse against them who should condemne other Fasts appointed by the Church Many such like changes are found in antiquity concerning Fasts Feasts Habits and other like adiuncts of holy worship Which doe altogether disable the validity of your Position that would extinguish all Ceremonies which haue at any time beene superstitiously vsed either after any Iewish Hereticall or Heathenish opinion Lastly you haue been so frequent vrgent and instant in alledging the Testimonies of ancient Doctors for the abolishing of all things which haue beene formerly abused that a man would thinke you professe your selues to be children of those graue Fathers and to yeeld your selues to be gouerned by their prudent directions But it is well knowne to as many as haue seene the faces of the aforesaid Fathers either in the generall Histories of the Church or in their owne bookes that all of them did both maintaine and practize the vse of mysticall Ceremonies Will you therefore admit of their iudgements why then do you reiect such kind of Ceremonies will you not allow them why do you then obiect such witnesses whose vniuersall consent you can so easily contemne Nay but to refuse as you often doe to be tryed by the Testimonies of such Fathers whose patronage in the very same cause you haue so peremptorily challenged must needs bewray in you preuarication rather than confidence in this maner of proofe SECT XXV Our third Proofe for Confutation of their Tenent is from Reasons And our first Reason is from an Inconuenience There was neuer almost any truth so diuine or Ceremonie so sacred which the filthy mouthes and sordid fingers of some heretikes haue not wickedly polluted Thus diuers of them haue not forborne to peruert to their Hereticall sences both the Sacraments of our Lord Iesus being vnto vs the two seales of the Couenant of Grace As first concerning Baptisme some Heretikes haue erred in the matter Baptizing with fier so did the Seleuci some in the forme In nomine ignoâ—i Patris as did the Marcitae some in the persons baptized by Baptizing the dead as did the Cataphryges some by Rebaptizing as doe the Anabaptists Secondly concerning the Eucharist likewise the Cathari would not admit for the matter Bread as thinking this Creaturue was from an euill beginning The Aquarij would not allow of Wine But of all other the Papists haue most prophaned this holy Sacrament by their manifold Sacriledge as well thorow their irreligious opinions as by their Idolatrous Adorations Wee are not ignorant that you doe except against some things which being abused by man were not commanded by God notwithstanding these instances may serue to teach vs that seeing the best things and of most holy vse haue beene subiect vnto hereticall abuses of godlesse men it will be almost impossible for vs to find any Ceremonie which shall be altogether without exception And to be forbidden to vse any Ceremonie would bring no small preiudice to our Christian libertie SECT XXVI Our second Reason is taken from the absurditie of the Non-conformists Rule of reforming Abuses onely by Abrogation and of curing Contraries by Contraries Whereas the Non-conformists say that Contraries are to be cured by contraries as if there were no way to purge Superstition but by the extirpation of all Monuments and Remembrances thereof I would wish them to consider whether to argue as they haue done from the abuse of a thing to the necessarie abolishing of the vse thereof be not as great an abuse of true Logicke as a Scholler in any reasoning can possibly commit Because according to the right Topique place concerning Vse and Abuse the Axiome standeth rather thus Whatsoeuer is subiect to abuse the same may be turned to a right vse And the reason is good because Vsus Instrumenti est per se abusus verò est per accidens Nothing can bee excepted from this Rule but onely sinnes and defects which are not things abused but meerely Abuses themselues In the causes Levitically-Legal a Woman polluted and defiled with an vncleannesse might be purged from her issue of bloud And a man that had a running issue in his flesh might be cleansed Seeing therefore these Legall pollutions had their cleansings how then is it that you assume so conclusiuely that A Ceremonie being once superstitiously defiled cannot afterwards be made cleane Secondly in Morall causes for there may be an Analogie betweene the Leuiticall pollutions and cleansings and the Morall abuses and their reformations a woman that hath committed folly although she cannot recouer her Virginitie yet vpon her repentance she may repaire her honesty Againe the person that is as sacrilegious as Dionysius may be restitution and almes become as truely Gods Almoner as Zacheus May it bee thus in persons
testimonies of their principall witnesses You your selues in this question haue obiected M. Caluin P. Martyr and Zepperus as if they had abandoned all vse of Romish Ceremonies with as an extreme a detestation as they do the very Heathenish whereas if you would haue consulted with M. Caluin in a place professedly assigned for the Auoiding of Romish superstition he would haue taught you that there is a maine difference betweene Turkes and Papists Because Multa habemus c. There are many points common saith he betweene vs and Papists especially this that we haue both our Denominations from Christ c. And after he inferreth that Although there be many Ceremonies among the Papists which we may not obserue yet saith he Nequis me adeo austerum esse vel praecisi rigoris c. lest any man may thinke me to be so rigorously precise that I would forbid a Christian ne se Papistis vlla in Ceremonia aut obseruatione accoÌ„modet that is to apply himselfe in any Ceremony vnto the Papists Be it knowne that it is not my purpose to condemne any thing which is not directly euill in it selfe Now who knoweth not that the thing which is made Euill onely through Abuse cannot be said any way to be euill in it selfe And we haue heard already of his allowance of materiall Churches howsoeuer they were once polluted with Romish superstition whereof Zepperus confesseth saying The Popish Temples what were they but the Receptacles of all Idolatrie which did bellow out nothing but meere abhominations yet from hence it doth not follow that the Churches of Protestants must therefore be destroyed and new ones built in their steads because those Temples were not the immediate instruments of Idolatry as the Altars were which could not but serue immediatly vnto their God Mauzim euen to the execrable sacrifice of the Masse And although we reade in the Ecclesiasticall Storie of Ruffinus of the destruction of an Heathenish Temple by conuert Christians and of Constantine his Edict for the demolishing of the Temples of the Gentiles and Heretickes the like of the Edict of Theodosius the elder that is no more than we may say of some Churches and Temples which stand in remote places instituted by Papists for the vse of Pilgrims and Passengers whereof there is no conuenient vse In this Authour you may obserue a distinction betweene things immediatly as Altars and mediatly as Temples dedicated to Idolatrie and that Zepperus excluding the latter yet alloweth of the first although the Temples so polluted with Idolatry be now materially and indiuidually the same which are vsed by Protestants in the syncere and holy worship of God P. Martyr is plentifull in this point first putting in a Caueat which will be for the direction of your consciences if you will hearken vnto him if you will not yet then also will it make for your correction Cauendum est profectò c. Wee must in any case take heed saith he lest that we do presse the Church with too much seruitude as to thinke that we may vse nothing which hath bene Popish Surely the ancient Fathers tooke the Temples of Idols and conuerted them into holy houses of God wherein Christ our Sauiour should be worshipped and the Reuenewes which had bene consecrated vnto the gods of the Gentiles for the maintenance of their Vestall Virgins that they tooke for the support of the Ministers of the Church albeit such things had serued not onely to the honour of Antichrist buâ— of the diuels themselues Yea and also the very verses of the Poets which were dedicated vnto the Muses and diuerse gods or for the vse of Comedies or seruing in the Theater for pacifying of their gods such did Ecclesiasticall Writers the holy Fathers vse so farre as they found them fit good and true and were thereunto directed by the example of the Apostle who did not disdaine to cite Menander Aratus and Epimenides and to set downe the same words which were otherwise prophane and to apply them to Gods worship Except perhaps you shall deeme that the words in holy Writ do serue so much vnto Gods worship as do the visible words of the holy Sacraments Furthermore who doth not know that wine was consecrated vnto Bacchus Bread to Ceres Water to Neptune Oliues to Minerua Letters to Mercurie Songs to the Muses or to Apollo All which notwithstanding we doubt not to apply as well in Sacred as in Ciuill vses albeit they had beene dedicated vnto the very Diuels So he Whereby as we see he putteth in a caueat against all fierce and calumnious Disputers who inferre from euerie former abuse of Surplice a necessarie abolishing of all vse thereof SECT XXX Our fift and last ground of Confutation of their generall Argument against our Ceremonies in respect of their former Abuses is taken from the Confession and Practse of the Non-conformists themselues The first and fairest obiects which offer themselues vnto our eyes among the Ceremonies in Romish worship and their Churches Chalices Vestiments Bels and if you will also their round Wafer-cake all which haue bene Idolatrously abused by Papists Their Churches were most superstitiously dedicated after the manner of charming their Chalices and Table-clothes were no lesse immediate Instruments of their Idolatrous Masse than were their Altars their Bels were baptized with an opinion of infused Holinesse and vertue to driue away Diuels Durandus and Durantus two Maisters of the Ceremonies in the Romish Church do deriue many superstitious Significations from these almost all other Instruments of Romish seruice even vnto the verie Knots of the Bel-ropes The Case thus standing must we now by the Conclusion of our Non-conformists stand chargeable to turne our Temples into Barnes or Hay-lofts which I wish were not practised by some that will seeme to make most coÌ„science against a Ceremony Siluer Chalices into wooden cuppes Bels into Gunnes and Bel-ropes into halters c Nay euen your selues are not so farre fallen out with Popish Ceremonies but that you can be contented to except out of your Position such as may bee of necessary vse Yea and one who is held as a principall and as it were Super-intendent among you doth more fully expresse your opinion than others thus Many of our Churches were builded by Papists and dedicated to the honour of Saints and seruice of some Idol yet these being in the first foundation which I take to hâ—ue beene in Constantines time intended for the true worship of God and hauing both then and now a needfull vse among vs may be retained I thinke that Gregory did well who said vnto Augustine the Monke being then in England that for the Pagan and Idol Churches he should onely purge them and not pull them downe yea and Popish vestments may serue for substance of the stuffe to make window Cushions or a Pulpit-Cloth Prouided alwayes that there be no Crosse nor Crucifix vpoÌ„ it The like may be said of
sheepe charging in that one person euery Preacher of the Gospel that vpon all loues which they owe vnto Christ they would lose no opportunitie of feeding his flocke Which speech of loue ought to make a greater impression in our hearts than that other direfull denunciation of Woe SECT XV. Their last Obiection is from a pretended Apparence of Euill 1. Thess. 5.22 The Apostle among other his exhortations admonisheth the Thessalonians to abstaine from all apparence of euill meaning thereby all such Doctrines which haue in them any colour of errour such as these Ceremonies haue because of their former abuses by Romish Papists Our Answer The Apostle speaketh of the opinions of priuate men which others might haue iust occasion to suspect euen because they were priuate and peraduenture had some aliance with the knowne errours of corrupt Teachers But the doctrine of our Church concerning Ceremonies is publique and manifested to the consciences of all men to be most Orthodoxe and sound purged from all the Leauen of that Romish superstition which attributeth an efficacious sanctity to the characters of mans inuentions So that mindes not possessed with sinister iealousie may easily see that integrity in our Church in respect of the spirituall purity which Caesar wished to finde in his wife in respect of the corporall that is To be voide as of fault so also of suspition of fault Contrarywise your manner of opposition vnto the Church by Non-conformity is not onely a shew and appearance of euill but euen an apparent and publique euill it selfe being a disobedience without ground to that Ordinance which God hath placed ouer you to the distracting of mens mindes by drawing some into Schisme as will appeare in our Confutation following SECT XVI Our generall Confutation of their last generall Assumption by prouing the Non-conformists guilty of many Scandals This point can need no great dispute if you shall but call to minde the first distinction of Actiue and Passiue scandall the Actiue being a giuing of offence by prouoking others vnto euill whether directly by some euill Act or indirectly by an Act indifferent in it selfe In both which the fault is to be imputed to the Agent But the Passiue scandall is a being prouoked to euill onely by taking offence at some Act either good or at least not euill in it selfe and the fault arising from thence is proper to the party offended And now let vs try whether this your withstanding of the Orders and Ordinances of the Church doth not necessarily inferre vpon you a manifold guilt of both these kinde of scandals against others SECT XVII The diuerse Scandals occasioned by the Non-conformists may be reduâ—ed vnto 4. heads 1 By weakning some that remaine in the Church 2 By driuing some out of the Church 3 In hindering others from the Church 4 By an high contempt against the Church it selfe The first Scandall occasioned by the Non conformists is in weakning some that are yet in the Church Your Actiue scandall worketh apparently both against Pusillos the weake and also against Perfectos the stronger sort of Christians We beginne with the weake persons whereof some beholding your vehement opposition against the Church stand amazed thereat as Vulgar men vse to do when looking earnestly vpon the ecclipse of the Moone they presently dreame of some change and alteration of the season but whether it will be for better or for worse they cannot prognosticate So these Weaklings hearing of such differences among the Ministers of the Word although in matters of lesse moment do wonder what may be the euent thereof and thereupon become more remisse in the profession of Religion whilest by your detracting from the Ordinances of the Church many take occasion soone to neglâ—ct the outward worship of God whereupon their inward zeale and deuotion soone cooleth and in the end vanisheth away SECT XVIII Their second kind of scandall is by driuing some out of the Church The parties which are driuen out of the Church are a word full of horrour the Separatists that is true Pharises both in name and pride of selfe-conceite who hauing bene once catechized by you that our Ceremonies are to be refused and abolished as being Idolatrous haue therefore at the sight of your opposition as men that behold an Earth quake waxen giddy in their braines knowing onely from whence but not whither to flie For vpon the reason of your Refusall of our Ceremonies they hold it as reasonable to refuse you thinking it necessâ—ry to haue no communion with them who ioyne theÌ„sâ—lues in a worship which is in any degree polluted with Ceremonies that are Romishly Idolatrous Therefore they flie But whence as Cain did From the presence of God in his Church And whither will they then Euen to Aâ—sterdam to seeke out a Religion they know not what as likewise Cain did into the Land of Nod which signifieth a place of giddinesse and vexation where euen as Cain built new houses they frame new Religions which made to day they as little children vse to do with the Puppet-works of their owne hands cast and breake downe the next day following Now if you shall aske these Deformists why they breake out into Separation may they not call the Non-conformists the first occasion thereof think you Thus of the Weake whom your Example hath driuen out of the Church SECT XIX Their third Scandall is by barring and hindering some from â—â—ming intâ—â—uâ— Câ—uâ—ch How many Papists are they who I wish that daily experience could not speake in this case being exhorted to embrace the Euangelicall truth presentâ—y oppose as a barre your diuisions and oppositions against our Church being vtterly vnperswadâ—ble to enter into a Church where all ancient Rites are professedly reiected And this scandall is not new for Bâ—shop Iewell obserued in his time that Papists were scandalized by such as then could not abide the signe of the Crosse Vnto whom that reuerend Father answered in the name of the most and best Diuines yea and of the Church of England it selfe Thanking God that the Protestants both could abide the signe of the Crosse yea and did also willingly and ioyfully take vp their crosse for the glorious name of Christ. But you oppose SECT XX. Their Reply Wee are not for winning of the Papists to offend our Brethren Our Answer Although I presume you will not denie euery Papist I meane especially such an one which is mis-led by simple ignorance all interest of Brother-hood in Christianity yet because you vnderstand by them whom you may not offend such Professors who ioyne with you in a nearer propriety and that I may speake with Tertullian consanguinity of doctrine giue me but leaue to demand of you who they are whom you in an opposition against Papists do single out for your Brethren Whether such as do conforme themselues to the Ordinances of the Church or onely them that persist in Vnconformitie or both You cannot meane the Conformable for these
God and subiect the true worship of God to their owne comments and deuices vnto the obseruation whereof they do binde the consciences of men praecisâ necessitate by a strict necessity So he Wherein there is nothing spoken which the examples of Romish doctrine doth not confirme whereby they Pharisaically make voyde the precepts of God by the Traditions of men which was condemned by Christ and that so expresly that M. Caluin durst againe assume saying Vicerint sanè si quouis modo ab hac Christi accusatione purgare se poterant that is We are ready to yeeld them the victorie if by any meanes they shall be able to free themselues from this accusation of Christ but what excuse can they make seeing that first it is held with them a wickednesse infinitely more heynous to omit their auricular confession once within the yeare than to haue liued impiously all the yeare long secondly to infect their tongues with the least taste of any flesh vpon one Friday than to haue defiled their bodies with filthie and fleshly fornications from day to day thirdly to put their hands to worke on any day that is dedicated to their owne deuised Saints than to haue exercised their whole bodies in all facinorous and mischieuous acts fourthly for a Priest to match himselfe in marriage with one wife than to wallow in a thousand adulteries fiftly to breake their vow of pilgrimage than to falsifie their faith in their promises sixtly not to be somewhat superfluous in bestowing excessiue costs for the prodigious and vnprofitable gawdines of their Churches than to be wanting in contribution to the reliefe of the poore in their extreme necessities seuenthly to passe by an Image without reuerence to it than to reuile all sorts of men with all contumely and reproach eightly to omit the muttering with themselues in their Mattens some certaine houres many words without vnderstanding than neuer to conceiue a lawfull prayer with their vnderstanding So M. Caluin And what is it if this be not to preferre the Traditions of men before the commandements of God Furthermore concerning the matter of Popish Ceremonies he addeth as followeth As very many of their Ceremonies cannot easily so all of them if they be congested together cannot possibly be obserued so huge is the heape of them how therefore shall not the minds of men be extremly scortched with anxietie and terrour by this difficultie yea impossibilitie of keeping such ordinances wherewith their consciences are by them so fettered He proceedeth Such and so infinite is the multitude of these Ceremonies that we may truely say that they haue brought a Iudaisme into the Church of God For if Augustine could complaine in his daies that the Church of God was so pressed with the burthen of Ceremonies that the state of the Iewes might seeme to be more tollerable What complaints would that holy man haue made if he had liued in our times to see the seruitude which we behold at this day seeing that the Ceremonies are now ten-fold more for number and euery iot of them is more strictly and rigourously exacted by an hundred-fold Here here is matter for your pens to worke vpon and to inueigh against this so outragious a tyrannie of Antichrist by your many Vae's and not to take part with Pharises in complaining against the true Disciples of Christ for the vse of Three guiltlesse Ceremonies as it were for onely plucking of the Eares of Corne and coupling together things which are as different in nature as in number from the Romish Rites For as there is no great multitude in the number of Three so in these our Three none of vs did euer place any essentiall worship of God or power of Iustification or religious pietie and sanctification or do in our estimation preferre them before yea or do so much as equall them with any Ordinance of God or finally yeeld vnto them any other vse than a religious Decorum and godly signification Now then for any to complain as one of you haue done that The burdens laid vpon you by our Church are more grieuous than your fore-fathers were able to beare is but an argumēt that he can hardly point out his Father that doth not know his owne Mother for if he acknowledged himselfe a true childe of our Church he would not cast such a slander of oppressing Gods worshippers with Burthens which I am sure his Fathers haue and now the most learned and discreete among his Brethren do beare with better consciences than he can forbeare them Thus much of their first Reason SECT VII Their second Reason why these Ceremonies preiudice our Christian liberty is taken from a pretence that they are imposed with an opinion of binding mens consciences We haue nothing as yet to settle our doubtfull consciences vpon but these two points which are also in some doubt that Magistrates authority binds conscience and that the Rites imposed are indifferent But our Diuines teach vs that Humane Lawes do not bind mens consciences and that men do not incurre the guilt of eternall damnation but onely by violating the Lawes of God Our Answer If you had vnderstood those your Diuines aright you would haue distinguished betweene the manner and measure of binding of conscience where by manner is meant the authoritie of Binding and by measure the limits of this obligation of conscience Let vs begin with the Manner which is the authoritie of immediatly binding the conscience of man so as to make his transgression damnable before God which authority proceedeth onely from him who can first prohibite the internall acts of mans minde as being able to discerne the thoughts of mans heart as it is written It is the Lord that shall manifest the secrets of the hearts of men And who knowing mans thoughts can secondly iudge according to mans conscience To wit God onely concerning whom Saint Paul saith Their conscience bearing them witnesse and their thoughts accusing or excusing in that day when God shall iudge secrets of men And thirdly who iudging mens thoughts can accordingly render punishment or reward euerlastingly an act likewise proper to God as S. Iames teacheth There is one Lawgiuer who is able to destroy and saue But the Lawes of men are said to bind mens consciences not immediatly but as it were reflectiuely by way of consequence that is by vertue of the Supremacie of God that commandeth obedience to the iust lawes of men All this seemeth to be grounded vpon that Apostolicall doctrine that saith Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers for the powers that are are ordained of God Where we first obserue that Magistracie is Gods Ordinance whereof he further saith It is necessarie that you be subiect whereby there is imposed vpon subiects that necessitie of obedience whereof we spake which notwithstanding no way derogateth from the libertie of doctrine Thirdly the same Apostle maketh this necessitie fast by a bond of
saith Caluin is commanded to abstaine from meates 1. Cor. 10.28 where albeit God commandeth him to abstaine in things indifferent in respect of Scandall yet doth not man thereby lose the libertie of conscience because his own conscience hath respect vnto God viz. by beleeuing that the meat is in nature indifferent and may in due time be lawfully eaten but his abstinence hath respect vnto the Conscience of another that he be not offended who thinketh such eating vnlawfull And throughout the whole Treatise he sheweth that To make such Traditions necessary to eternall life and to place in them the iustice of remission of sinnes and the summe of all religion and pietie is to inuade the Kingdome of Christ by whom we haue libertie of conscience in things indifferent All which doth euidently shew that Christian libertie doth not coÌ„sist in the vse or dis-use of things indifferent but in an opinion of the necessitie of vsing or not vsing them Which point may be yet furthermore most plainly demonstrated thus In the case of Scandall where by the doctrine of the Apostle I am bound in conscience to abstaine from eating certaine meates for feare of offending a weake Christian my conscience notwithstanding is free in regard of my opinion to beleeue that the meate which I abstaine from may be eaten or not eaten in due time and place SECT XIII Our second Reason of Confutation from the profession of our Church Hearken I pray you vnto the publique profession of our Church whereby albeit shee challenge a necessarie obedience to her command yet doth she not command or teach any vse of these Cereremonies in any opinion of necessitie thereof but saith plainly These Ceremonies are retained for Discipline and Order which vpon iust causes may be altered and changed and are not to be esteemed equall with Gods Law What then needeth this lowd clamour or rather lewd slander which some blush not to cast vpon her imputing vnto her no lesse a crime than the bereauing them of their Christian Libertie by whom notwithstanding they themselues do at this day enioy all the spirituall freedome and happy interest that they haue in Christ. SECT XIIII Our last Proofe or rather Reproofe against the Non-conformists shewing that they by their manner of refusing these Ceremonies haue superstitiously withstood that Christian liberty which they would seeme to defend Christian libertie as hath bene alreadie proued and acknowledged is properly impeached by a Doctrinall necessitie namely by teaching men to beleeue some thing to be necessarie in it selfe which Christ by the power of his new Testament hath left to his Church as free and indifferent Which kind of doctrine our Church condemneth as false and superstitious And this Superstition is two-fold the one is affirmatiue the other negatiue Affirmatiue superstitioÌ„ is to affirme the vse of any thing that is indifferent to be of absolute necessitie as without which the faith of Christianitie or the true worship of God cannot possibly consist Of which kinde we haue had many examples in Poperie The negatiue superstition is to deny the lawfull vse of any thing which Christ hath left free with whâ—ch kind of superstition not onely Papists but also many ancient Heretikes haue bene dangerously infected the Marcionites teaching that it is not lawfull for any man to marrie the Discalceati to weare shoes the Tatiani to eate flesh the Seueriani to drinke wine And that there is a Negatiue Superstition it is euident by an heresie that had taken roote in the verie infancie of the Church teaching concerning meats and other indifferent things and saying Eate not touch not handle not Now your Negatiue superstition in opposing against those Ceremonies doth bewray it selfe by your doctrinall opinion saying for example Weare not a linnen Surplice and that by two degrees The first is an opinion of the vnholinesse and pollution in it because as you say it hath bene abused by the Papists in their Idolatrous Masse This opinion I iudge to be notoriously superstitious and so it seemeth to be acknowledged by M. Iewel who speaking of the Surplice doth iudicially account it to be an equall errour To commend any apparell as holy and to condemne it as vnholy the Papists are in the first extremitie and you in the other Which Negatiue superstition is flatly condemned by that saying of Saint Paul An Idoll is nothing that is as M. Beza confesseth It hath no power to vnhallow any thing that was offered vnto it Which is apparent by the conclusion of the same Apostle where excepting the case of Scandall as it then stood he did teach that men might eate of the Idolothytes or meates sacrificed to Idols making no question for conscience sakâ— The second degree of your Negatiue Superstition is seene in your other opinion which you alleage for refusing of it euen because it is prescribed vnto you in Gods worship in a necessitie of obedience Which is a plaine ouerthrow of Christian libertie by taking away from the Church that authoritie of ordaining Ceremonies and prescribing obedience thereunto which by the practise of the Vniuersall Church of Christ from the daies of the Apostles vnto these latter times was neuer questioned by any Orthodoxe yea or Hereticke excepting onely the Acephalists and is at this day condemned by M. Caluin and all other Diuines of sound iudgement But we were to proue this kinde of Negatiue opposition vnto Ceremonies to be superstitious and to bring in with it a doctrine of seruitude vpon the Church by the confession of their owne Witnesses If this were not a Superstition M. Caluin could not haue warned Christian Churches as he hath done to take heed lest in opposing of Ceremonies they be not too superstitious Nor could P. Martyr haue concluded that To thinke that that speaking of the Surplice which hath bene vsed in Poperie may not be vsed of vs is to oppresse the Church with too much seruitude This I thought fit in this place onely to point at that my Reader may discerne that our Church is not so Superstitious in her prescribing of Ceremonies as the Non-conformists are superstitious in opposing against them as will furthermore appeare in full view by our Answer to your particular Accusations against the Surplice and the rest whereunto we instantly descend PART II. A PARTICVLAR DEFENCE OF THE INNOCENCIE of the Three Ceremonies viz. Surplice Crosse after Baptisme and Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion in opposition to All the Particular Accusations made by the Non-conformists against them CHAP. I. I. Of the Surplice SECT I. The first Accusation of the Non conformists is in respect of the distinction of Habite In appointing any seuerall apparell vnto Ministers there is some iniury done vnto them For Bucer professeth that in all the Churches where he had bene Teacher he tooke order that no speciall apparell might be prescribed for the Ministers to weare Our Answer ALTHOVGH as in Women the best
these Fathers Yea and if M. Cartwright had not apprehended the same sence he would neuer haue made so silly and indeed sencelesse an answer vnto this point as he doth saying of this white Attire that it was indeed their Holy-dayes apparell which they vsed indifferently the same dayes as well without as within the place and time of Diuine Seruice Which exception I take to be no better than a betraying of his whole cause For if it be lawfull for a Minister to vse a distinct habit in respect of an Holy-day then may he as lawfully distinguish himselfe from others in respect of an Holy Act such as is his sacred ministration function according to the practize for the iudement of Antiquitie is hereby cleerely discerned of ancient Christians who not long after the dayes of the Apostles were wont as it is acknowledged by your owne Witnesses at the time of their Baptisme to attire themselues in white whence came our Dominica in albis wherein veteres Episcopi the ancient Bishops when they went about to administer the Holy Supper did put on white apparell Why then may we not conclude with the same Zanchie de veste super pellicea that is concerning the wearing of the Surplice at the time of the celebration of the Lords Supper To wit As we reade not saith he thâ—t either Christ or his Apostles ordained any thing concerning the vse of any peculiar apparell in the administration of this Sacrament so do we not reade that they did forbid any such vestments therefore it is free for vs to vse or not to vse them You are willing to heare M. Bucer when he shewth his dislike of the Surplices then vsed as inconuenient but passe him ouer when he excuseth them as not to be necessarily abolished And concerning the fashion and colour of the Surplice in the Ministery he denyeth that there is any such cause of exception Either in the matter colour or fashion thereof And further addeth Quodsi Ecclesia aliqua c. If any Church with the pure consent of her members had this custome so to come to the Lords Supper according to the ancient manner of children at their Baptisme as to vse a white garment should any man affirme that there is no libertie permitted to the Church to ordaine such a Ceremony Surely we must say that then shall it not be lawfull for the Church to appoint any thing without expresse warrant from Scripture and so shall we condemne all Churches Impiae audaciae of wicked sawcinesse for all Churches vse in the celebration of the Lords Supper to obserue time and place and gesture of body or else denie that Christ hath freed vs from the abuse of his good Creatures SECT IIII. Their fourth Accusation against the Surplice is in respect of the Signification The Defenders of the Surplice do make it a Ceremony significant Our Answer We haue already prooued in thesi that Ceremonies may be vsed which are Significant and that so much the rather because Significant For the present we are to deale onely in Hypothesi to shew that the Surplice is not therefore vnlawfull because it is vsed as a Signe of some morall signification Wherein you may be abundantly satisfied by the exact iudgement of your owne Witnesses amongst others P. Martyr in his Epistle vnto Bishop Hooper concerning this very point resolueth as followeth Besides the defenders of this Ceremonie saith he may pretend some iust and honest signification for the Ministers of God are called Angels and Angels as once Mal. 3.2 appeared alwayes in white Vestments and how shall we depriue the Church of the libertie that shee may not signifie some thing by her actions and Rites so that she do not place meaning any essentiall and necessary parts of Gods worship the worship of God therein But you will say that the Ministers should rather be Angels than signifie themselues to be such I say saith the same Martyr you might haue made the like answer vnto Saint Paul when he ordained that the woman should haue her head couered in the Church vrging to that purpose onely the signification of subiection because any of the Church of Corinth might haue readily replyed saying The woman should indeed be subiect vnto her husband and not signifie her selfe so to be But the Apostle saw that this is profitable for vs that we doe not onely liue iustly but that also wee be put in mind of our duties Thus farre P. Martyr Yea and your Zepperus concerning the point of signification by white vesture doth excuse the ancient Church in the dayes of Chrysostome and Ierome to wit We reade nothing saith he of the Histrionicall and superstitious habits meaning of Papists in the monuments of purer antiquitie except onely of the white vesture whereof Chrysostome and Ierome make mention quâ vsi sunt sine superstitione in signum commonefactionem honestatis vitae which they vsed saith he without any superstition in a signe and for an admonishment vnto them of an honest life Zanchius is of the same iudgement touching a morall signification by the Surplice comparing vestments de lino lana and granting that whether the vesture be made of white linnen or of woollen both are indifferent determineth saying that white will better become the Minister of the Sacraments propter significationem for signification because it is Symbolum a signe of innocencie and sanctitie whereupon it is that in the Apocalyps white robes are said to be giuen vnto the Saints So he I may not pretermit M. Bucer who alloweth of distinct Apparrell in the Ministeriall function Et eò magis c. And so much the more saith he if that these Attires be deputed vnto some holy signification and admonition which we may perceiue in the signification of the womans veile 1. Cor. 11. And to this end the Holy Ghost did make speciall mention of the white Attyre of Angels SECT V. Their fift Accusation against the Surplice is in respect of the resemblance it hath to the Iewish Vestment Our Diuines condemne the Massing garments because they are Iewish and Aaronicall Our Answer It is true they doe indeed condemne the vse of those Iewish garments as they are some what Iewishly vsed by the Papists who make themselues therein little better than Iewes Apes through their imitation of the Aaronicall pompe almost as well in the number as in the fashion of their Ministeriall garments and that also from a Iewish ground euen because they were once ordained by God in the Leuiticall Law adding furthermore thereunto an opinion I say not of Legall which was Iewish but of a spirituall sanctitie which is now meerely Popish and was anciently a Pharisaicall superstition condeÌ„ned by Christ. In which respect D. Raynolds did iustly reprooue the Popish Ceremonies but yet no otherwise than he doth linnen clothes and couerings of Altars and Festiuâ—ll dâ—yes namely as they
That they did apply those good sayings vnto their owne wicked inuentions namely to that Pleroma that is according to their owne Interpretation vnto God but yet such a God as those Heretikes had moulded in their owne phantasticall braines farre differing from the infinite and absolute nature of God Wherefore vpon due examination of the testimony out of Irenaeus grounded vpon the words of Christ you may by your Obiection as well make Christ as Valentinus the first Inuentor of the Signe of the Crosse. SECT XII Their sixt Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse is because as is pretended the Hereticke Montanus was the first Countenancer thereof among Christians That Montanus gaue it first credite amongst Christians the Centurists seeme to affirme saying Et quideÌ„ Ceremonias mutuatas a Montanistis induxit Tertullianus auxit vt vnctionem externam signum crucis â—blationes pro defunctis quas consuetudines fatetur non esse institutas in sacra Scriptura Our Answer Not that Montanus may be said to haue bene a more countenancer of the Crosse than of threefold dipping in Baptisme which Tertullian being then a Montanist did there mention following Montanus in the obseruation of such Rytes which had bene vsed of Orthodoxe Fathers before euer Montanus was borne who liued about the yere 173. But some of the Ceremonies which together with the Crosse are related in that place of Tertullian were long before that mentioned by Irenaeus Iustin Martyr and Ignatius There is nothing more easie than defamation by calling any child a Bastard especially when it doth not certainly appeare who was the right Father thereof yet what need such iealousie in this Case concerning the Father of this Signe may it not be sufficient for vs to know infallibly that the mother was an honest woman for such was that ancient Church of Christ wherein the Signe of the Crosse was first vsed and practised as we are bound to prooue in the Section following SECT XIII Their seuenth and last Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse is because of the superstitiousnesse which ancient Fathers are pretended to haue had therein The Canons professe to vse and esteeme of it as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did but sundry of them put holinesse in it and wrote of it very superstitiously Some telling vs that it was a terror against Diuels attributed a power thereunto of working miracles afterwards it was vsed in Italy in signum salutaris expeditionis whence it tooke then the name of Cruciata expeditio such as some record that Constantine and Theodosius had taken vp before What shall we say but that the Crosse hath beene as superstitiously abused by the Fathers as by the ranckest Papists sauing that Papists haue rancked it with Diuine worship and so bestowed more honour vpon it then euer the Fathers did afford it but the Church of England Can. 30. doth professe to maintaine it in the same vse which it had with the ancient Fathers therefore it must needes follow that the Signe of the Crosse is superstitiously vsed Our Answer If I should note any man to be as rancke a Traitor as euer was Rebell in Ireland SAVING THAT he doth acknowledge his due obedience vnto the King would not any thinke that I bewrayed thereby both malignancie and folly And how doth this differ I pray you from your censure of the Fathers noting them to haue as much abused the Signe of the Crosse as the ranckest Papists Sauing that they did not bestow diuine worship on it Howsoeuer the matter go we must iudge the Fathers by your Censure to haue bene superstitious But it would haue became the children of those ancient Fathers to haue acknowledged that Orthodoxe sence in their writings which Protestant Diuines of principall note and your owne Witnesses haue obserued There was indeed often mention made among the ancient Fathers of the Signe of the Crosse but Chemnitius willeth you to marke what kind of Signe it was In the Primitiue times saith he there was not any Image or figurature of the face of man hauing his armes spred out and nayled to the Crosse but in the dayes of Tertullian and afterwards the Christians did fashion a Transuerse figure as it were a Crosse and did Signe themselues but this was not a signe for worship or Adoration non enim tunc aliquid subsistens erat for there was not any thing really subsistent in that signe but it was onely professio commonefactio a profession and remembrance that they should beleeue in Christ Crucified and put all their hope and confidence in him Thus farre Chemnitius to let vs vnderstand the integritie of Antiquitie in this point because there cannot be the like superstition in the Crosse as it is a signe Transient which there may be in it as it is permanent Secondly Zanchie distinguishing of the Histories concerning Images some he calleth true and some fabulous and in the true obserueth that Things Speaking of the Signe of the Crosse were not then turned into superstition which were tollerable saith he in those times when as there was no such danger of Idolatry After he confesseth that At the signe of the Crosse the Diuell was repelled yet not by power or vertue of the Crosse but by faith in Christ crucified euen as grace is conferred vpon vs by the Sacraments not through the power of the Sacraments but by our faith in Christ crucified whereby we receiue those Sacraments but Papists attribute an efficacie vnto it ex opere operato euen by the power of the signe And lastly speaking of the principall cause of the Signe of the Crosse in the forehead addeth saying praecipua causa ea non reprobanda the chiefe reason which we may not disallow was to testifie that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified So he whereby you see he freeth the ancient Fathers from the imputatioÌ„ of Superstition approueth the reason of their Vse of the Crosse in Token that they should not be ashamed c. Which reason our Church hath expresly specified as the onely and sufficient cause why she hath retained the Vse of this Ceremonie P. Martyr dissenteth not from the former Witnesses so much almost as in Syllables and afterwards iustifieth the placing of the Crosse in Banners Coynes and Crownes of Kings and Emperours which saith he was done without any Superstition to testifie that they defended the Christian faith Zepperus reckoneth many Ceremonies which had bene anciently vsed in Baptisme and among others the Signe of the Crosse and exorcisme which he calleth superstitious but yet confesseth that they were vsed in those ancient Churches nulla cum superstitione without all superstition being voyde of opinion of worship merit or necessitie but in a good intent thereby to gaine more reuerence and admiration vnto this diuine Sacrament and to exercise the deuotion of mens minds in the celebration thereof vntill at the length they grew to that height of impietie and
superstition which is to be seene in the Church of Rome at this day M. Perkins although he acknowledgeth not any further Antiquity of the vse of the Crosse in either Sacramēt beyond the 400 yeere after Christ yet doth he confesse first that Crux transiens apud puriorem ecclesiā communiter in vsu fuit non Crux permanens The transient signe of the Crosse was in common vse in the purer Church meaning the signe done suddenly with the finger but the signe of the Crosse in any mettall not till 400. yeares after Christ. Secondly that for the first 300. yeares after Christ which he calleth the purer Church it was vsed as a signe of the externall profession of Christian faith Thirdly that miracles were done of God at the signe of the Crosse that had ioyned vnto it a manifest or at least a secret inuocation of the name of Christ crucified so that the vertue was not to be imputed vnto the signe of the Crosse but vnto the faith of the worker and inuocation of Christ. Much time would not suffice to reckon vp the Testimonies of Authors who haue iustified the anciēt Churches in the vse of the Crosse. Therefore because Bishop Iewell hath discussed this matter at large I haue reserued his Testimony for the next Section Hitherto of our seuerall Answers vnto your particular Accusations SECT XIIII Our Confutation of the Non-conformists Detractions against the vse of the Signe of the Crosse by their owne Witnesses I wish that this whole cause may be determined by him vnto whose iudgment you do often appeale in the whole question of Ceremonies and whose name we acknowledge to be most worthily honourable in the Church of Christ. Bishop Iewel therefore doth expresse his iudgement as followeth The signe of the Crosse I grant was had in great regard and that the rather both for the publique reproach shame that by the common iudgement of all the world was cōceiued against it also for the most worthy price of our redēption that was offered vpon it which he speaketh of the practise of Christians before the dayes of Constantine then after the application of the example of the Emperour Constantine concerning other Princes he addeth Euen so Christian Princes at this day vse the same Crosse in their Armes and Banners both in peace and in war in token that they fight vnder the Banner of Christ. Last of all whereas M. Harding saith that the Professors of the Gospell cannot abide the signe of the Crosse Let him vnderstand that it is not the Crosse of Christ or the signe thereof that we find fault withall but the superstitious abuse of the Crosse. God be thanked that they whom M. Harding cōdemneth haue bene able not only to abide the signe but also to take vp their crosse and to follow Christ and to reioyce and triumph in the same Do you not now perceiue what a large sound lecture this admirable Doctor in Gods Church hath read vnto you and in how many points your gainsaying of the vse of this signe is confuted First Bishop Iewell approueth of the signe of the Crosse as it is made a significant Token of Christian Constancie in Banners which you will not abide to haue place in the Appendice vnto the ministration of Baptisme Secondly he alloweth the ancient vse of the same signe at the time of Celebration of Baptisme notwithstanding the execrable abuse thereof in the Romish Church which you vrge as a necessarie Cause to haue it vtterly abolished Thirdly you commonly alledge and that not without some ostentation a multitude of Diuines as albeit in Titles rather then in truth Aduersaries to these and all such kind of Ceremonies Notwithstanding he bringeth in the Consent of holy men and Martyrs that is Witnesses of the faith of Christ who vndergoing the morall Crosse which is persecution euen vnto Martyrdome it selfe were also witnesses of the lawfulnesse of this Ceremoniall signe of the Crosse so that you can haue small Cause to account your suffering for Contradicting this Ceremoniall Crosse the morall Crosse of Christ. Fourthly the same godly Bishop noteth these Martyrs to haue admitted of this signe of the Crosse that I may so say iam flagrante delicto euen when the abuse of Popish superstition and Idolatrie was at the height and when in detestation thereof they yeelded vp their dearest liues vnto Christ which notwithstanding in your Conceits cannot be vsed without superstition euen now when superstition is banished Wherefore the Argument wherewith I will conclude this part of Confutation standeth strongly against you thus Seeing that the vse of the Crosse was as hath bene confessed by your best witnesses void of superstition in purer Antiquitie the same notwithstanding the former abuse by Papists may be practized in our Orthodoxe Churches with like sincerity The reason is euident because there is the same possibilitie of reforming of an abuse that there is of correcting an error As therefore our Church hath by the mercie and grace of God purged her selfe from the erronious opinion of Poperie and now defendeth the Primitiue Catholique truth concerning the signe of the Crosse so may shee as well be thought to haue abandoned the superstitious practise of Poperie and to haue reduced this signe vnto her primitiuely lawfull vse whereof M. Bucer said euen in the first time of the reformation of religion when as yet the signe of the Crosse was Idolatrously abused by Papists that it might haue among the truely-professed a Christian vse Hoc signum c. This signe saith he not onely because it is most ancient but also for that it is plaine for a presēt admonishing vs of the Crosse of Christ is neither vndecent nor vnprofitable Whereunto might be added the consonant iudgements of Chemnisius P. Martyr Zanchy and others but I hasten to the third Ceremonie CHAP. III. Our particular defence of the Innocencie of the Third Ceremony which is the gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion SECT I. THE Non-conformists inlarge themselues in this Argument seeking to oppugne it by all the vehemency and violence of affection that they can but when their Exceptions and Accusations shall be throughly discussed they will perceiue I hope that they haue not bene more hot in their Zeale then cold in their Reasons whereunto I now proceed according to my former methode both Answering and Confuting their Accusations against this Gesture of Kneeling SECT II. The first Accusation vsed by the Non-conformists against the Gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the B. Sacrament is from the example of Christ and his Apostles That which is contrary both to the example of Christ in the first Institution and also to the example of the Apostles and primitiue Church successiuely and that which is against the intention of Christ being in it selfe Idolatrous must needs be abolished as vnlawfull But such is the Gesture of Kneeling in the receiuing of the Eucharist Ergo
essentiall and necessarily to be performed in this Sacrament are all vnder that expresse commandement of Christ saying Do this c. beginning first at these words Christ tooke bread and when he had blessed it he brake c. All which circumstances deliuered by Precept the Church is tyed to obserue Vpon this occasion it were no great difficulty to shew how the Church of Rome at this day hath degenerated from ancient Rome by transgressing the commandement of Christ who said Do this c. and by doing contrarily in diuers weighty obseruable points and circumstances there commanded by Christ as namely first Christ tooke bread gaue thankes and blessed it Ergo the consecration that Christ vsed was in prayer and not in these foure words This is my body Secondly Christ taking bread brake it and as is confessed took diuerse parts out of one loafe and set not before them as it were so many breads diuers wafers Thirdly Christ gaue it vnto them saying c. Ergo they heard what he said and his words were not vttered or rather muttered in an vnaudible voice Fourthly Christ commanded them saying Take Ergo he spake vnto them in a knowne tongue and not in a language they could not vnderstand Fiftly Christ gaue saying Take Ergo doubtlesse for the point is confessed from the light of Antiquity so they tooke it as he gaue it namely with their hands and had it not put into their mouthes Sixtly Christ that said to them all present Take said also Eate Ergo the vse of the Sacrament was propounded to be eaten and not to be onely gazed vpon and persons present were Actors and not Spectators onely Seuenthly Christ likewise tooke the Cup giuing it vnto them saying Drinke you all of this Ergo the Communicants did equally participate of both the Elements as being the pledges of both the Body and bloud of Christ not dismembring the Seale of the Couenant nor defrauding the faithfull of their complementall right Lastly Christ expressed the speciall end of the Eucharist Do it in remembrance of me which is as S. Paul doth interprete it Shewing the Lords death Ergo it is vnproperly called a Sacrifice Propitiatory seeing that the death of Christ is thereby onely Commemoratiuely shewne and not operatiuely and corporally executed herein Thus we finde that how many actions haue bene mentioned concerning the Institution of Christ so many preuarications and transgressions haue bene committed by the now Church of Rome which the ancient mother Romane Church would haue condemned as sacrilegious if they had bene practised by any Church in her time But you call vpon vs to consider your next Exception SECT XI The second Accusation vsed by the Non-conformists against Kneeling is from the Intention of Christ by foure pretences Their first pretence is from the nature of a Banquet Christ ordained this for a banquet whereat we are to act the part of the Guests of Christ in imitation to resemble our Coheirship with him in his Kingdome now it suteth not with a Coheire or Guest with Christ to kneele at the Table and it is contrarie to the Law of Nature to Kneele at a Banque twhich is a Gesture of inferiority and abasement and we may not lose our fellowship with Christ to sit thereat whereby Christ would represent vnto vs our Banquet in heauen Our Answer We acknowledge this Sacrament to be the most gratious Banquet that euer was ordained for the sonnes of men But how As a bodily Banquet trow yee No for if our Sauiour had meant to haue furnished out a bodily Banquet he would haue bene more plentifull in other varieties than in Bread and Wine But it is a mysticall Banquet for the replenishing of our soules spiritually with the body and bloud of Christ which we feed vpon Non dente sed mente non per fauces sed per fidem that is Rather with the minde than with the mouth as the Fathers speake And therefore you are not to require or expect therin the very forme and fashion of an ordinary banquet where it will become men to talke eat and drinke to inuite and pledge one another and how then can you exact of vs the manner of Sitting And for any of you so to speake of familiaritie and holding it vndecent for adopted Coheires with Christ to kneele as the receiuing of this Sacrament I thinke it can hardly be heard euen of some of your owne fellowship without some horror of mind For seeing that the Right of our adoption is the same in vs without the Sacrament which it is in the receiuing thereof then by your Argumēt it must be held an Indecorum in any Christian to be seene praying any where vnto Christ the Son of God vpon his knees SECT X. Their Reply It is one thing to be a Coheire and another thing to act the person of a Coheire at other times when we present our selues in supplication then take we vpō vs the persons of suters so we humble our soules in prayer but at this Banquet we represent the persons of Coheires as we shall be at the great Supper in heauen and now it is our office to giue resemblance hereof Our Answer We haue indeed such kind of Similitudes in Scripture to shadow out vnto vs the happie fellowship of the Communion of Saints in heauen as the calling it a great Supper wherein All things are prepared namely that either the infinit loue of God would or the omnipotencie of the same loue could prouide for the eternall enioyment of the faithfull in Christ Iesus who talketh furthermore of Sitting eating and drinking in his Kingdome But to tell vs that this Supper of the Eucharist was propounded to be an expresse and proper Type and Similitude of the heauenly is more than I thinke any Ancient learning euer taught For the immediate mysticall obiect of this Supper is the body and blood of Christ the words of Christ pointing it out This is my body and This is the new Testament in my blood But how Of his bodie and blood as glorified in heauen No but as Crucified and shed on the Crosse which is expressed sufficiently by Christ calling it blood shed for you And the end of this Sacrament is set downe thus In remembrance of me Now Remembrance is not of things to come but only of things past to wit the worke of Redemption by his Passion in his body and blood whereof Saint Paul hath made a plaine Comment As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this Cup you shew the Lords death till he come Which Comment was taken from the Analogie of the Sacrament with the thing signified thereby for the bread broken betokeneth his bodie Crucified for vs the wine powred out resembleth his blood shed and separated from his bodie Can you find in all these any one Type of the Celestiall ioy which is signified else-where by the promise of eating and drinking in the
necessity together whereas you ought to haue distinguished them and acknowledged that as it is necessary for the Patiâ—nt to take some receipts of physicke not as essentiall as his daily food but accidentall because of his present infirmitie So may we say that the Gesture of Kneeling is not prescribed as a necessarie forme of receiuing the Communion for then should we condemne not onely the present but also the primitiue Churches but yet as necessarie for the reforming of the prophane and irreligious behauiour of many in these wrâ—tched dayes wherein we liue SECT XXI Their fift Accusation against the Gesture of Kneelâ—ng at the receiuing of the Sacrament is from the fiâ—st Inuention thereof as being Antichristian The vse of Kneeling in receiuing the Sacrament grew first from the perswasion of the reall presence and Transubstantiation being neuer inioyned to any Church till Antichrist grew to the full height there being no action in all his seruice so Idolatrous as this It was appointed by Honorius the third anno 1220. Our Answer There are three things considerable in our custome the first is a gesture of outward Adoration the second is this kind of gesture which is Kneeling the third is to know whereunto the Adoration is directed First therefore that in the daies of ancient Fathers there was vsed an outward Adoration at the receiuing of holy Sacraments by bowing of the body is so knowne a truth that the Non-conformists themselues will acknowledge it otherwise I should haue alleaged to this purpose Cyril of Ierusalem Catech. mystagog 5. ad recens baptizatâ—s pag. 546. Ambrose lib. 3. desp S. c. 12. Greg. Naz. de obit Greg. August in Psalm 98. Nemo carnem illam manducat priusquam adorauerit Chrysost. ad Pop. Antioch hom 61. Adora Communica Which Testimonies although they do not all iustifie the Popish manner of Adoration whereby the Papists adore in an opinion of Transubstantiation the Element of bread as the very person of the Son of God yet do they euince an outward Humiliation of the body to God and vnto Christ at the receiuing of these pledges as from the hands of Christ which the words of Cyril in the place aboue cited do explaine who speaking of taking the Cup saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bowing thy selfe after a manner of Adoration and worship saying Amen Here you haue a gesture of Adoration I say not to the Cup but at the receiuing of the Cup vnto Christ by relation of a gift from a Giuer I say againe vnto Christ for that Adoration was directed vnto him vnto whom the oration and prayer was due in saying Amen In the next place after we haue learned that there was a gesture of Adoration vsed we are to enquire concerning this gesture of Kneeling Is not this a gesture of Adoration which is often both commended and commanded in holy Scripture If then the Adoration of Christ in receiuing of this gift be lawfull Shall the more humble gesture make the act of Adoration lesse lawfull The third point remaineth which is to vnderstand aright whereunto or to whom this Adoration is to be directed without danger of Idolatry This is taught vs by our Liturgie according herein with the most ancient Liturgies of the Primitiue Church Sursum corda Lift vp your hearts to wit vnto the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ that gaue his Sonne and vnto Christ himselfe the Lambe of God that sitteth vpon the Throne that gaue himselfe for our redemption by his body and bloud Now to come to the point and for the present to grant that some wicked Pope had inuented Adoration by Kneeling yet are wee notwithstanding discreetly to distinguish of colours lest that for want of due circumspection we call Blacke white and white blacke To this purpose I shall expedite this doubt by certaine demands I aske then first whether euery Inuentiâ—n is to be condemned because the Authour thereof was some euill Pope He that should affirme this must consâ—quently deny the vse of a Gunne because the Inuentor thereof was a Fryar or the wearing of a Coate because the Taylor happily was a Theefe Secondly I aske shall we condemne the gesture it selfe because it is Kneeling To affirme this were consequently to condemne not so much the Inuention of man as the Ordinance of God who often requireth in his worship the act of Kneeling Thirdly I aske must we therefore refuse this gesture because it is for Adoration To affirme this were consequently to disallow the ancient custome of bowing the body for that was a gesture of Adoration Fourthly I aske ought we to abhorre this gesture of Kneeling onely as it was applyed by the Pope for a Diuine Adoration of the Hoast it selfe This we confesse to be indeed a Popish Inuention and as execrable an Idolatry as Christendome hath euer seene and to condemne this onely is fully to iustifie our Church which doth as much detest that abhomination as any Aduersarie of that Romish Synagogue As for Honorius whom you fancy to haue bene the first Inuentor of the foresaid manner of Adoration by Kneeling it is more then my bookes do teach me sure I am that you will witnesse Zepperus saith Honorius decreuit vt cum eleuâ—tur hâ—â—tia sâ—lutaris quâ—sque se reuerenter inclinet Which words to incline reuerenth do notifie vnto vs rather the bowing of the body that the bending of the knee albeit I will not contend about the fiâ—st Authour of this Adoration whether Honorius or Innocentius for it is not materiall SECT XXII Their sixt Accusation against the gesture of Kneeling is taken from the Popish Abuse thereof The gesture of kneeling in the act of receiuing is notorioâ—sâ—y knowne to haue bene of old and to be still abused to Idolatry by Papists by whom it is dâ—ilâ—y vsed in the worâ—â—ip of their breaden god aâ—d that vpon an Iâ—â—latrous intent that the bread is become God yea and one of their strongest Arguments to iustifie that their Idolatrous conceit of Transubstantiation is because else the Church â—â—ould commit Idolatry in kneeling before the Elements Our Answer And it is as well knowne that Protestants in Kneeling at the receiuing of the consecrated Elements do not â—buse them to Idolatry but do as much hate the Romish Moloch to wit that their breaden god as doth any Non-conformist knowing and professing that truth which Theodoret a thousand two hundred yeares since published in expresse termes saying that Bread after the words of Consecration doth remaine still bread both in forme in figure and in substance Whereby the infatuation of the Romanists appeareth to be palpably grosse the rather because they can haue no colour of euasion as I haue shewed else-where SECT XXIII The seuenth and last Accusation vsed by the Non-conformists against the gesture of Kneeling is a pretence of Idolatry This gesture is used as a part of Gods worship becâ—use it is hel◠〈◊〉 a reliâ—ious Aâ—â—ration by all men Our Answer
you that the Romish Church alloweth a worship of Images without relation vnto any person whose Images they be You are chargeable to shew that this superstition may be iustly imputed vnto vs. It is manifest that you cannot for the worship which you call into question is onely relatiue and this of Bellarmine is professedly giuen to Images and to signes without any relation at all SECT XXXIIII The second absolute and direct Romish worship of the Sacrament Idolatrously It is the Romish profession to adore the Sacrament namely the corporall substance contained therein as the very person of the Son of God in the proper substance of his bodily presence which we iudge Idolatrous not onely by an Accidentall possibility but by an absolute infallibility For first that the worshippers do adore the bread with diuine honour in stead of Christ himselfe which possibility the Doctors of the Romish Church do coÌ„fesse may happen to their Adoration of the Eucharist by reason of many possible accidents as if he that consecrateth haue not had a true Ordination or in consecrating of the Sacrament haue not a right Intention or in vttering the words of Consecration faile in his syllabicall pronunciation or if the formes of the Sacraments themselues by vnfit admixtion or putrifaction lose their perfection In all these for euerie one of them is possible possibilities it may fall out that the Romish worshippers do adore with Diuine honour the element of bread in stead of the Son of God which what is it but at least an Accidentall Idolatry but yet true Idolatry They haue in this case no other colour of euasion than to tell vs that when they kneele downe to adore this Sacrament they do it with an implicite and inward conceit of the minde saying If Christ be present then I adore thee c. But this is a most miserable shift to make Adoration which is the highest honour homage which man oweth properly to God vnto an Hypothetical beleefe if Christ be there The truth of God telleth vs that whosoeuer coÌ„meth to God He must beleeue that God is that is honour him with a Diuine faith that he is wheresoeuer he is adored But in Ifs and And 's that is in fallibilities there can be no Diuine faith Ergo this Suppositiue faith is meerely supposititious because it is impossible that the Ielousie of God should admit of a doctrine or Religion whereby it must necessarily happen sometime that the creature should be worshipped with honour properly due vnto the Creator himselfe This be spoken of the possibility How much more Idolatrous must they appeare to be when as by necessary consequences from Scripture iudgement of ancient Fathers and the aduocation of the perfectest Senses of man it may be infallibly proued that that which they adore as Christ himselfe remaineth still in figure forme and substance the same Bread that it was before Consecration This inferreth such an infallibilitie of their Idolatry that it is impossible but the Popish Adoration of this Sacrament must be Idolatrous From which kind of Idolatry whether possible or infallible you will free vs before we conclude this cause Hitherto haue we shewne what kinde of worship in receiuing the Sacrament ours is not namely not Popish whether you consider the Relatiue kinde of worship by making the Sacrament an obiect of Adoration In quo or per quod or else the absolute manner of Adoration by worshipping the Sacrament tanquam obiectum quod adoratur We are now to shew what is the obiect of our Reuerence in receiuing the Sacrament SECT XXXV The Relatiue Reuerence which is vsed in our Church in respect of the Sacrament is without note of Idolatry First if our Relation be made from the Signe to Christ the thing signified then is the Sacrament obiectum à quo significatiuè the Signe mouing vs to that Sursum corda to lift vp our mindes from the earthly obiect of Sense Bread c. to the body of Christ the spirituall obiect of faith vpon his Tribunall Seate in Heauen Wherein as hath bene proued out of your owne Witnesse there can be no shadow of any Idolatrous Adoration Or secondly our relation may be taken from Christ to the Sacrament as betweene a giuer and his gift and so in Kneeling downe we take this holy Sacrament as the mysticall pledge and seale of the body and bloud of Christ the price of our Redemption apprehended by faith Whereas therefore the deuout Communicant is vpon his Knees praying to the blessed Trinitie to be made a welcome partaker of so heauenly a Feast and praysing the supreme Deity for these Royall tokens of his grace this respect and relation being a reuerent taking of this so inestimable a gift as from the hands of Christ according to his owne Ordinance cannot come within the least suspicion of Idolatry SECT XXXVI This our former relation of Reuerence betweene a Giuer and his Gift is illustrated by a Similitude We were ready to illustrate our former Reuerence by the comparison of receiuing a gift from the hand of earthly Maiestie but we perceiue that the Non-conformists are ready to preoccupate SECT XXXVII The Non-conformists preuention vnto our Comparison There is no proportion betweene the Ciuill reuerence giuen to a King or to the gift which we râ—ceiue from him and this religious reuerence to these bodily things for there is far more danger of Idolatry here then there Our Answer This obiection noteth onely a danger of Idolatry but this is to feare where no feare is for although there be not a Proportion of equality betweene a Ciuill and Religious reuerence yet is there a proportion of similitude and the one doth singularly illustrate the other in this case For as a Ciuill gift ought to be taken with a Ciuil reuerence from the hand of an earthly Soueraigne so must a Spirituall gift and the Instruments thereof be receiued with a Spirituall and Religious Reuerence as from the Maiestie of Christ who instituted and ordained it for vs. And as the Ciuill reuerence vsed in receiuing the gift of the King doth not derogate from the dignity of the King but rather establish it because the whole reuerence redoundeth to the King so this our religious receiuing of holy Rytes doth magnifie the Author but no way deifie the gift And doubtlesse none can be so simple as seeing any Subiect reuerently taking any grant or especially gift from the hand of an earthly King by the token of a Ring or if you will be a rush as to imagine that worship to be derogatiue to the Royaltie or Maiesty of the King SECT XXXVIII Our second ground of Confutation is taken from the Testimonies of their owne Witnesses requiring of Communicants Reuerence in receiuing any such Ordinances of God We are not ignorant that many Protestant Authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion but how as it is vsed Idolatrously of Papists in
if that they had beheld the decent integritie that is vsed therein All this while we haue kept aloofe off we come at last to parly with the Non-conformists themselues SECT XXXIX Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists and iustification of Our selues is from the confession of Bellarmine excusing Protestants from the suspition of Adoration euen because they hold the matter of the Sacrament to remaine Bread This our Iustification I confesse is against their will for it issueth out of an obiection which the Non-conformists haue made to accuse and condemne our Church The Non-conformists Obiection And Bellarmine hauing said that we whom he calleth Caluinists and Sacramentaries do not adore the Sacrament neither saith he should any man maruell at that seeing they do not beleeue that Christ is really present but that the bâ—ead in the Eucharist is indeed nothing else but the bread that came out of the Ouen Our Answer Do you not remember Iosephs Cloke which his Mistresse caught hold of to draw him to her lustfull bed who notwithstanding afterwards in a complaint vnto her husband turned the same Cloke as a witnesse against Ioseph to conuince him of folly notwithstanding it was indeed and in truth a full demonstration of her owne filthinesse and dishonesty And see you not how wittily you do imitate that fact of Iosephs Mistris by obiecting to the Church of England the speech of Bellarmine which in true construction may be a sound and euident Argument for her iustification Seeing that Bellarmine so great an Aduersary confessing that Protestants do not adore the bread euen because they beleeue it to be bread doth consequently acknowledge that they by their receiuing of this Sacrament cannot possibly be guilty of the Romish maner of Adoration of the outward Elements What needeth therefore so great an outcry in the eares of simple people to the slander of the true Church of Christ by associating her as afterwards ye do with the Synagogue of Antichrist in an Idolatrous reuerence I alwayes expected that as often as you take from the mouth of Bellarmine such kind of speeches as this obiecting that we thinke the Sacrament to bee nothing else but bread that came out of the Ouen you should haue shewne your selues zealous Aduocats for the common cause by controlling the Iesuits impudencie according as M. Iewell might haue instructed you in his Answer against the like scoffe of M. Harding in vilifying of our Sacrament Whereas M. Harding saith he vniustly defameth vs as reckoning the Sacraments of Christ nothing else but Tokens let him vnderstand that we both thinke and speake reuerently of Christ his Sacraments as knowing them to be the Testimonies of Gods promises and instruments of the holy Ghost and as we make not the Sacrament of Baptisme bare water notwithstanding the nature and substance of water remaineth the same still so we make not the Sacrament of Christ his body and blood bare bread and wine for as Saint Augustine saith Videndum est non quid sint sed quid significent We must not regard so much what they are namely in substance as what they signifie to wit according to the new nature that they haue of a Diuine Sacrament SECT XL. Our fourth Confutation of the Non-conformists and Iustification of our selues issueth from the Non-conformists owne Practise First by their Intentionall Reuerence You would account it an extreme iniurie to be censured as contemners or profaners of these holy mysteries or not to celebrate and receiue them reuerently with the truely religious affections of your hearts and mindes which you professe will be the dutie of euery worthy Communicant that shall rightly discerne in this Sacrament the Lords body This being granted which without impietie cannot be denyed it ministreth vnto vs an Argument whereby you may bee confuted as I suppose without all contradiction Fist I may reason thus That manner of Reuerence which it is lawfull for a Christian to conceiue in his mind the same is as lawfull for him the case of Scandall excepted to expresse in his outward gesture of bodie But it is lawfull for a Christian to conceiue such a Relatiue Reuerence as from the sight of the Sacrament being Obiectum à quo to raise his thoughts to a contemplation of the mysticall and spirituall obiect of faith signified thereby and vpon the vnderstanding of the mysticall euen the body and blood of Christ really albeit not corporally exhibited vnto vs in this Sacrament to receiue these visible pledges of our redemption by the death of Christ as the Obiectum propter quod with all holy and reuerent deuotion of heart and mind Therefore it is lawfull to performe a sensible and bodily reuerence at our outward receiuing thereof The infallibilitie of this Consequence ariseth froÌ„ the difference which is betweene the inward and outward Reuerence for the inward reuerence is the formall part and very soule of reuerence and farre exceedeth the bodily which is but onely the materiall Where therefore the materiall and bodily forme of Reuerence is acounted Idolatrous there the Intentionall and formall much more because the worship is in it selfe and Act indifferent and so may become either religious or superstitious by the vse or abuse thereof according to the intention and mind of the Agent euen as we may discerne in this one word Aue vsed in salutation for many came to Christ and said Aue O haile Master and did honour him the Iewes also bowed to him said Aue dishonoed him The difference of these two consisted not in the out ward gesture which was the same both sorts Saluters but from the diuerse Intentions the one kinde performing their salutations in ciuilitie but the other in mockery Euen so the gesture of Kneeling is an act indifferent in it selfe being vsed as wel of Children to their Parents as of either religious persons to God or sacrilegious vnto Idols but the formall distinction of each one proceedeth from the mind and affection of the Actor for that which is in childreÌ„ pietie in subiects loyaltie the same is in the truely religious deuotion and in the superstitious and sacrilegious Idolatrie Vpon these Premises wee inferre this conclusion that if there bee in you an inward relatiue reuerence of soule in the receiuing of this blessed Sacrament from a respect had betwixt the Doner God and this holy Sacrament being so precious a pledge of our saluation then can it not be vnlawfull to giue some expression of this your religious intention by the same visible reuerence in one or other outward gesture of the body especially being to participate of the Sacrament the seale of mans redemption both body and soule And indeed the bodily parts of man are nothing else but the Organs and Instruments of the affections of his soule If therefore that godly Indignation which the Publican had against his sinnes be shrewing as it were his owne heart commanded his hands to Knock on his breast If Hope