premised concerning the opinion of the Manichees let vs now come vnto the decree of the Councell If any shall fast on the Lords day propter continentiam quae putatur aut contumaciam for that which is held namely by the Maniches a continency or a contumacie and contempt to wit of the Christian profession in celebrating the faith of the resurrection of Christ Anathema sit let him be accursed But can you that would make this Argument against vs averre that any of our Ceremonies haue in them any signification of contempt to any one Article of Christian profession Doth not euery one of them rather manifest and demonstrate some speciall duty of Christianitie Those that are right Doctors indeed do imitate good Nurces who first chew and masticate the morsels in their owne mouthes before that they put them into the mouthes of their Infants But you collect the Decrees of Councels at all peraduenture without euer examining the reasons thereof and so deliuer them to your disciples to swallow downe whole And therefore no maruaile if that many of your flocke whom you feed with such vnprepared diet do swell so extremely with the windie crudities of their owne conceits SECT XVIII Their second Instance concerning the Ceremoniâ—s of Heretickes The Councell of Brac. 1. Can. 32. decreed that none of the Clergie should forbeare to eate flesh that they might shew themselues to differ from the Priscilianists Our Answer From a Fast you invite vs to a Feast but it seemeth you know no cause why for these Priscilianists were in the heresie of the Maniches who thought that Flesh had not the beginning and creation thereof from God but from the Authour of euill and vpon that opinion abstained from it Execrationis animo potiùs quà m deuotionis that is Rather vpon an intent of detestation of flesh than vpon any true deuotion As therefore it was ordained in the Councell of Ancyra that the Clergie-men in abstaining sometimes from the eating of flesh should notwithstanding nam visum est eas attingere touch it thereby to manifest their Orthodoxe iudgements namely that they had not this creature of God in any execration so in the fore-named Councell of Brac. it was decreed that Ecclesiasticall persons although sometimes they would refuse to eate flesh yet should they Praegustare olera cocta cum carnibus that is Tast of herbes sod together with flesh To what end Pro amputanda suspicione Priscilianae haereseos To cut off the suspicion of the Priscilian heresie As in the same Decree is fully expressed If now you can shew vs the like cause of remouing our Ceremonies then may you challenge of vs the like effect But tell vs what thinke you Do Papists iointly consort with vs in the same Acts either of wearing Surplices or of ministring of Baptisme or of communicating with vs without any opinion of adoring the Sacraments as in those daies the Priscilianists did ioyne at the same Ordinaries and Banquets with the Catholikes First therefore you should haue shewne your iust cause of suspicion and then might you boldly haue framed your Indightment SECT XIX Their third Instance concerning the Abuse of Ceremonies by Heretikes Gregorie as we finde him cited alleageth and approueth a Decree of the Councell of Toledo which forbad the Ceremony of thrice dipping in Baptisme because it was the custome of the Heretickes Our Answer If you had taken the paines to haue read Gregorie your selues and had not beene content to take this vp on trust and at the second hand of those who do alleage him although partly truly yet but onely in part he would haue taught you a lesson worth your remembrance which is this In eadem fide nihil officit sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diuersa That is The diuersitie of customes or Ceremonies vsed in the vnitie of the same faith cannot preiudice the holy Church And therefore you are to know that other reformed Churches whom you would make aduersaries to our Ceremonies haue no more cause to condemne vs then wee haue to condemne them for diuersity of Rites And concerning the Ceremonies obiected he sheweth that it is a thing indifferent in it selfe whether the Church vse thrice or but onely once dipping secondly concerning the cause of this Indifferencie Qâ—omodò in tribus mersionibus personarum vnitas in vna potest divinitatis singularitas designari He noteth that wheâ—her it be thrice or once both of them are signes of mysticall signification the thrice dipping betokning the Trinitie of Persons and the once the vnitie of one essentiall Deity thereby allowing of these kinde of spirituall significations in such Ceremonies Thirdly the cause why S. Gregorie would haue Thrice dipping changed into once was by reason of certaine Heretikes who made an hereticall construction of the first custome of the Thrice-dipping Dum mersiones numerantes divinitatem dividentes c. That is vpon the Thrice-dipping as 1. in the name of the Father 2. in the name of the Sonne 3. in the name of the Holy Ghost they diuided the Deity into three Gods Yea and that there was once in Spaine such a necessitie to change the same Rite the fore-named Councell of Toledo setteth downe in this manner Proptereà quòd quidam Sacerdotes simplam quidam trinam mersionem faciunt à nonnullis schisma esse conspicitur fidei vnitas scindi videtur nam dùm partes diuersae in baptizandis aliquo contrario modo agunt alij alios non baptizatos esse contendunt Certainly if euer any could haue shewne the like necessitie against any of our Ceremonies then our most wise and religious Pilots of this Ship of Christ that abandoned all the heresies in Popedome would neuer haue entertained these other Rites But they were well perswaded that these our Ceremonies could not by their onely morall significations ingender or harbour any hereticall opinion SECT XX. Their last Instance from Antiquity concerning Ceremonies abused by Heretickes Leo aduiseth all Christians to shunne the vipâ—rous conferenâ—e of Heretikes and that in nothing they would be like vnto them who in name onely are Christians Our Answer You will still be like your selues in alleaging sentences of Fathers without due consideration of their sences The words of Leo stand thus Take you heed beloued of the craft of Satan who doth not onely seeke to intrap you by caâ—nall concupiscence but doth also sow Tares together among the seeds of faith to the end that whom he cannot corrupt by euill deedes them he may subuert by wicked errours Flie you therefore the arguments of humane Doctrine and shun the viperous conference of Heretickes haue you nothing to do with them who being Adversaries to the faith are Christians onely in name Which words Haue you nothing to do with them you take as spoken absolutely against all kinde of Conformitie with such and thereupon you except against alâ— likenesse in Ceremonies whereas Leo onely giueth a caution but to eschue doctrinall
giue any other man leaue to interpret M. Caluin he will readily tell you that he by this part of the Commandement excludeth those Images similitudes onely which men erect for a kind of representation of the God-head This appeareth by his owne phrases first Negat igitur hoc praeceptum in toto mundo reperiri veram Imaginem Dei This Commandement saith he denyeth that there is to be found in all the world any proper Image of God Secondly shewing that this precept was giuen for the condemning of the worships vsed among the Gentiles Qui in forma Creaturarum putabant Deum repraesentari Who thought saith he that God was to be represented in the forme of Creatures Thirdly hee saith Affingere Deo Imaginem per se impium est quia hâc coruptelâ adulteratur eius maiestas fingitur sibis dissimilis That is It is an impietie to faigne an Image of God And yet againe Et sanè nimis indigna est deformitas Deum facere similem Ligno vel lapidi It is a vile deformitie to make God like vnto wood or stone All which sentences condemne onely the representatiue Similitude of God and not without good reason for if the words of the Commandement should be taken absolutely as you inforce it then away with all Art of Caruing and painting of any figures or similitudes which opinion in the iudgement of M. Caluin is at the least foolish for thus he saith Quod quidam stultè putârunt hîc damnari sculpturas picturas quaslibet refutatione non indiget c. It seemeth therfore that this Obiector in so expounding of M. Caluin had his eyes so fixed vpon these words of the Commandement onely to wit Images and Similitudes that he could not see the works of God Commandement that is the Similitudes and Images themselues namely of Cherubins Lyons and other Creatures which God himselfe commanded to be represented in his Tabernacle as afterwards he ordained the Brazen serpent to be erected in the wildernesse all which were appointed by God himselfe for Ornament Decencie and Signification respectiuely but not either for any personall representation of God or else diuine worship For there are two things which are forbid by this Commandement 1. Representation of God by an Image 2. Adoration of any Image The first by the first part of this Commandement Non facies c. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe grauen Image c. The second by the words following Thou shalt not bow downe to it nor worship c. which point Zanchius another of your Witnesscs doth expresse at large SECT III. Their second Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse about the administration of Baptisme is that it detracteth from the perfection of the Sacrament of Baptisme and that in diuers respects 1. Respect is because it is vsed as an Addition vnto Baptisme The signe of the Crosse is imposed as an addition to Baptisme and in the very act of Baptisme the Minister saith Wee receiue this child into the Congregation of Christ his Flocke c. which sheweth it to be vsed as a substantiall part of Gods worship Our Answer It is no tollerable disposition in a child that will admit a suspition against his mother contrary to both the manifest protestation of her meaning yea and also her expresse Construction of the very words that are here obiected First she professeth and protesteth saying The Church of England since the abolâ—shing of Poperie hath euer held and taught and teacheth still that the signe of the Crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament for when the Minister dipping the infant in water or laying water vpon the face of it as the manner also is hath pronounced these words I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost The Infant is fully Baptized so as the signe of the Crosse being afterwards vsed doth neither adde any thing to the vertue or perfection of Baptisme nor being omitted doth detract any thing from the effect and substance of it And indeed the Tenure of the words themselues can admit no other interpretatioÌ„ which the Minister in preparing to make the signe of the Crosse vttereth in this maner We receiue this child into Christ his Flock euidently signifying that the child now baptized is by Baptisme already incorporated into the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church therefore is pronounced by the Priest not in fieri but in facto esse as the Schoole speaketh to be publikely Receiued into it and to be acknowledged as a visible member thereof for this whole clause is fully distinct from the words following And do signe him with the signe of the Crosse in token that hereafter he shal not be ashamed to fight manfully c. Marke here I pray you that the signe is called a Token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed Consider with your selues whether any could interpret that which is called a Token of a duty to be practised afterward to be a signe of Baptisme it selfe which was already actually performed except either his mind had bene preoccupated with notable preiudice or else his affection peruerted with some extreme lust of Contradiction SECT IIII. Their second Reason to make the signe of the Crosse derogatorie from Baptisme It is vsually made whilest that the words of Institution are in pronouncing Ergo c. Our Answer This is no more in effect than for vs to say Some ignorant ones if yet there are any such haue transgressed the Ordinances of the Church by vsing the Signe as you imagine contrary to our acknowledged direction and profession thereof and the Non-conformists do as willingly transgresse the same Ordinances by not vsing them at all If therefore the former sort of Ministers as indeed they must needes be are reprooueable the Non-conformists cannot be altogether excusable But yet that we may suppose that some such preposterous Ministers may be found it would be notwithstanding your parts either to reforme them if they be tractable or if refractary then to informe the Church against them so might both you haue lesse cause to be offended by them and we by you SECT V. Their third Reason to make the signe of the Crosse derogatorie to Baptisme The same may excuse the Papists who vse it before Baptizing as we do after nay it is worse after Baptisme then before because it is nearer the errour of them that held Episcopall Confirmation to be a perfection of Baptisme Our Answer The Fathers indeed vsed the Crosse immediatly before Baptisme as the Centurists haue proued out of Origen Cyprian and Tertullian wherof we reade also in Basil where he placeth this amongst the Apostolical Traditions They might haue added Arnobius and Augustine Accordingly there was brought in Exorcisme and Insufflation now practised by the Papists yet in a farre different straine from the Custome of these holy
was in the house of God as much yea and more perfect in faithfulnesse then Moses SECT V. II. Comparison betweene Christ and Moses in Rituall and Circumstantiall ordinances Come we to the Ceremonials Moses indeed was faithfull to deliuer all the lawes of Ceremonies expresly and particularly vnto the Israelites who were therefore schooled and exercised with a multitude of Rites lest they might cast their eyes vpon the ey-pleasing Ceremonies of the Gentiles who compassed them round about and so be inticed to Idolatrie Yet all that masse of Ceremonies is called by the Apostle A burthen importable But Christ howsoeuer he would haue Ceremonies in the Church yet as for number not manie so excepting the Sacraments which were of his own institution for vse not of absolute necessitie did therefore remoue the law of Iewish Ceremonies disburdened all Christians from the necessited vse of them And thus also was Christ faithfull as Moses But why do we compare the seruant of the house with the Lord and Sauiour thereof As for your obiection concerning Christ his fidelity in prescribing of all particular ceremonies which are not the formall parts of Gods worship but certaine appurtenances thereunto if as you seeme you shall be as willing to subscribe to the iudgement of M. Caluine as you are zealous from his iudgement to prescribe vnto others this question will be easily decided For that honorable witnesse hath iudiciously obserued that although our Lord Christ would haue all things comprized in the sacred Oracles of Scripture which are necessary to saluation whether they belong to the doctrine of faith or to the formall and essentiall parts of his worship yet concerning the externall forme of gouernement and Rites of the Church Quià in externa disciplinâ ceremonijs non voluit c. because Christ saith he would not prescribe singularly and especially concerning externall discipline and Ceremonies for that he foresaw these things were to depend on the occasions and opportunities of times nor did he thinke one forme to accord with all ages hereupon must we haue recourse saith M. Caluin vnto the generall Rules that all things whatsoeuer the necessitie of the Church shall require may be tried by them Finally he deliuered nothing expresly in these points because these things are not of necessitie to saluation but ought to be accommodated vnto the edification of the Church according to the different disposition and custome of times and countries So he very iudiciously and prudently Now this is a knowne case that the old Testament was deliuered vnto one onely people of the world but the commission of the Gospell was Go into all Nations and preach This nett was to ouerspread the whole world therefore the Iewes had a prescription of particular Rites most fitly agreeing to the politie of their Church and Common-weale but the whole world of people which are as different almost in nature as in Nations and languages were necessarily to haue the most common rules of Ceremonies with libertie of applying them according to the conditions of each countrey and the occasions thereof as they should best tend to their edification SECT VI. The second place obiected for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scriptures 2. Sam. 7.7 In all the places wherein I haue walked with the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel saying Why build ye not me an house of Cedar Therefore shalt thou say vnto my seruant Dauid thus saith the Lord God of hosts c. This Scripturâ— sheweth that no Ceremonie may be inuented by man for Gods worship seeing that Dauids intendment and purpose of building a Temple vnto God is â—ere reprooued by God as vnlawfull which was the cause that God did prohibit him by Nathan in these words verse 5. Go tell my seruant Dauid saying Shalt thou build an house for me to dwell in whereas I haue not dwelt in any house c. Our first Answer God did not condemne the intent and purpose of Dauid to build a Temple to the Lord for first Dauid had consulted with the Prophet about it and Nathan gaue him his Fiat vers 3. Go saith he to Dauid do all that is in thy heart for the Lord is with thee Secondly the tenor of the prohibition was vers 5. Say to my seruant Dauid Shalt thou build me an house God neuer gaue any such honorable and gracious Title to any man as to call him My seruant in reproofe of any transgression Thirdly the reason rendred by Salomon why God prohibited Dauid and commanded Salomon to build him an house was because Dauid was yet in warres and Salomon had now rest on euery side The restraint then was not in respect of any vnlawfulnesse in the Actor but for the vnseasonablenesse of the Act. Lastly what can be more forcible to conuince these men of notable precipitancie in affirming that God condemned this holy purpose in Dauid than that God did commend it himselfe for so Salomon professed saying It was in the heart of Dauid my father to build an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel and the Lord said vnto Dauid my father Whereas it was in thy heart to build an house to my name thou didst well that it was in thy heart And can they require either a better commendation than the Lords or a plainer tenure thereof than this thou didst well SECT VII Our second Answer Our former Answer was as I may so say by way of extortion to draw from the Non-conformists a confession of their error but this second is by retortion returning against them the whole force of their owne argument from the same example which they haue obiected For if that this Act of Dauid without speciall warrant were commended by God then all institutions of Ceremonies by man belonging to Gods Seruice are not therefore to be condemned because they want that expresse warrant which they pretend SECT VIII The third place obiected by the Non-conformists for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scripture Ier. 7.22.23.31 For I spake not to your fathers nor commandâ—d them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Aegypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices But this thing commanded I them Obey my voice and I will be your God Ergo Ceremonies which are besides the speciall warrant of Scripture are vnlawfull Our Answer In this proofe you presume that the offering of burnt sacrifices was without warrant and besides Gods Commandement because God said in the first place I command them not in the day c. I answer First that God indeed did not make any mention of Sacrifices in that very day wherein he gaue them the law of Commandements yet neuerthelesse he had commanded sacrifices long before the deliuery of the morall law in Sina SECT IX His Reply That cannot appeare Our Answer Nay it cannot but appeare to them that will open their eyes and reade the
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
gouerned by the word of God in all such things as belong to mans saluation meaning things absolutely necessary to the worship of God as hath beene amply proued But touching such things as appertaine vnto Discipline it is lawfull for the Church to make Lawes Canons and Constitutions so doth the Apostle teach that women must pray with their heads couered and men bare-headed So doth the Church ordaine in what place at what time quomodò after what manner whether standing or sitting men must communicate And M. Caluin obseruing the Apostle's reproofe of persons contentious in Ceremoniall points which is v. 16. If any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such Custome nor yet the Church of God when he met with some that did out of the same spirit of contention resist the Constitutions of that Church of Geneua he maketh a generall application thereof against all such turbulent and factious spirits Qui bonos vtiles ritus nullâ necessitate convellunt i. Who vnnecessarily do oppugne the profitable Rites of the Chucch Here I need not make any recapitulation of these seuerall points the indifferent Reader may easily finde in the confession of the fore-named witnesses 1. That these are things indifferent 2. That they were prescribed as fit for those times 3. That consequently they were to be dutifully obserued 4. That they were Symbolicall and had in them significations of morall duties 5. That they were applyed to Diuine worship 6. and lastly That the same authority doth still remaine in the Church to ordaine the like Significant Ceremonies whensoeuer there shall be iust occasion thereunto Thus much of the Apostles time We descend lower SECT XXIX Our second Proofe for Confutation of their last generall Argument and for our Confirmation of the Morall vse of Ceremonies is from the vniuersall Custome of the Church of Christ as well Primitiue as Successiue Concerning all these times whosoeuer is conuersant in the Ecclesiasticall Histories or in the writings of Fathers of former ages may make good this our Assertion to wit That the Church hath liberty to ordaine Rites and Ceremonies of Mysticall signification thereby to represent spirituall duties and that properly in the publique seruice of God And also may proue so farre forth as by light of Story can appeare that euer since the Apostles daies it hath bene the constant and consonant doctrine of the Church held by all the most Orthodoxe Fathers and glorious Martyrs of Christ who watered the Church with their bloud whereby it became so blessedly fruitfull in the procreation of an innumerable off-spring of faithfull Christians in all succeeding ages amongst whom we that do now professe the Gospell of saluation haue by the mercy of God our interest in the couenant of Grace and consequently in the assured hope of our eternall inheritance Yea and that which as I think should astonish the heart of any aduersary in this point of Church-liberty in making Ceremonies hath euer bene so vndebatably held for an vncontrollable truth throughout the whole processe of times that no one man as I suppose either Orthodoxe or Hereticall hath euer till of late bene heard either to haue written or so much as spoken against the Generall of it I shall not need to seeke euidence out of Stories in this behalfe the Non-conformists themselues are not ignorant hereof who besides many other Instances do as often as they see occasion againe and againe repeate the custome vniversally vsed in the Churches throughout the world to wit of Standing in the time of publicke prayers in all the Lords daies betweene Easter and Pentecost whereby the primitiue Fathers did signifie their faith of Christ his Resurrection If this were a Diuine Ceremony why do you not obserue it But if it were Humane and yet had as you know a Mysticall signification of some spirituall dutie by representing both the remembrance of Christs Resurrection and also the protestation of their Christian faith therein which Signe likewise was appropriated vnto the publicke worship of God in the act of holy prayer then can you not but acknowledge in this one Ceremony that Antiquity doth pleade for our whole defence nor can you gaine-say but that herein the iudgement of our Church Quoad thesin in generall for we do not heereby iustifie euery Ceremony which was held either of diuers Fathers or Churches in seuerall times but that which was vniversall must needs convince you of Novelty in this kinde Lastly Zanchie doth witnesse concerning the obseruation of our Festiuals of Easter Pentecost c. that they haue since the time of the Apostles continued to this day this then is another Catholicke Ceremony of Morall signification SECT XXX Our Third Proofe for Confutation of their last Generll Argument and for our Confirmation of the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies which are of Morall signification is from the testimonies of their owne Witnesses M. Caluin is alwaies worthy of the first place among the innumerable company of late Diuines and he saith Nè quis nos calumnietur c. Lest any man slander vs by iudging vs nimis esse morosos to be too peeuishly precise as though we would take away all libertie in externall things here I do testifie vnto my godly Readers that I contend not about Ceremonies which concerne onely Decencie and Order or else Si Symbola sint if they bee signes and incitements vnto that reuerence which we should performe vnto God for our dispute is against those workes which some do as properly belonging vnto God and wherewith they thinke that God is truely worshipped Thus M. Caluin as you see in the last part of this sentence disalloweth onely such Ceremonies of Humane Inuention which men make to be essentiall parts of Gods worship And in the former part thereof he doth allow of Symbolicall Ceremonies so far as they may be Signes and Incitements to the more due performance of Gods worship Euen as in another place answering a Question conceiued about Ceremonies he saith Ergonè inquies nihil Ceremoniale rudiâ—ribus dabitur ad invandam eorum imperitiam Will you then say saith he shall nothing that is Ceremoniall bee permitted to the ruder sort for the helpe of their ignorance Here a Non-conformist would haue made a peremptory answer they shall haue allowed them to Ceremonie at all which is of symbolicall signification But M. Caluin more iudiciously and discreetly Id ego non dico tantùm contendo vt modus adhibeatur qui Christum illustret non obscuret I say not so saith he onely I contend that a meane may be kept which may manifest Christ and not darken and obscure him And for exemplification of this meane hee propoundeth the institution of Christ for our imitation whose Sacramentall Ceremonies are both Paâ—ce Few and minimè laboriosae very easie The same witnesse likewise else-where doth allow a priuate vse of Pictures cum rerum gestarum notatione which are set forth with the narration of Storie quae vsum in
docendo monendo aliquem habent which haue saith he some vse in teaching and admonishing the Reader Yet Pictures you know haue no other property then signification And Luther saith Chemnitius held Images which did represent the Histories of Acts done as things indifferent which might be had both for ornament and for remembrance without superstition according to the rule of Scripture Which kind of Pictures as Zepperus holdeth them from the decree of the Councell of Franckford may be kept in the Church without impiety to the same purpose namely ad refricandam rerum praeteritarum memoriam which notwithstanding doth no whit aduantage the Romish superstition in their manner of Adoration Iunius likewise speaking of the Festiuall daies of Pentecost anciently celebrated in the Christian Churches answereth that they did serue Ad iustam quandam c. For the due commemoration of that speciall benefite of God which happened to the Church as vpon that day And is not this also Symbolicall And this Symboll of Feasts was formerly witnessed by Danaeus in the feast day of the Dedication of the Altar Furthermore Chemnitius Apud vetustissimos quidem puriores Scriptores legimus c. saith Wee reade in the most ancient and purer Writers that their Rites did signifie something and admonished men of the doctrine of the Sacrament comprehended in the word of God But wheresoeuer there is in these ancient Writers any mention that by Exorcisme or Exsufflation the euill spirit is driuen out of the party Baptized and likewise that by vnction and imposition of the hands of a Bishop after Baptisme the holy Spirit is giuen These things which the Fathers vnderstood to be done significatiuely That is by way of signification were afterwards peruerted by others and held as operatiue in an opinion of efficacie and power for such effects In these words Chemnitius approueth of the Fathers significant Ceremonies and condemneth the Popish superstition of more then significant Now although these Testimonies may suffice to confute and condemne the generall Argument of the Non-conformists against Significant Ceremonies yet when as in our answer to the particular exceptions against our foresaid Ceremonies of white garments and Crosse in Baptisme we shall proue in these Ceremonies from the direct acknowledgment of P. Martyr Chemnitius B. Iewell and Zanchius an approbation of their Morall signification of Puritie of life and constancie in the faith respectiuely I hope our Opposites will abate something of their Contradictions against our Rites at least in respect of signification whereof yet more remaineth to be said in our last proofe In the interim we approach to that which followeth in the next place SECT XXXI Our fourth Proofe for the Confutation of the last generall Argument of the Non-conformists against our Ceremonies and for the Confirmation of Morall signification in such Rites is as from the confession of witnesses so especially from the Practise of the Non-conformists themselues Our first Instance is in the forme of an Oath After much sayling in this Sea of dispute hauing thus farre passed through the Maine I now direct my course home-ward to the Narrow Seas of our Non-conformists by instancing in such particular Ceremonies wherein either our Opposites are found to be ordinary Actors or else their Witnesses are become Approvers of some Symbolicall Ceremonies God commanding in his Law saying Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and sweare by his Name sheweth sufficiently how sacred a thing an Oath is which is an immediate Invocation of God and how it is appropriated vnto the honour of God which God himselfe doth challenge as a part or at least proper cognizance of his supreme worship Now the outward forme of an Oath as it is enioyned by Law and assumed and practised by the Non-conformists themselues is this to lay their hand vpon the book of God and to kisse it swearing by the Contents thereof that is by the way of stipulation pledging and pawning all the promises of saluation in Christ which are recorded in that booke vpon that truth which they do professe to performe in Swearing Then their kissing and handling of that booke is the visible Signe that the taking of an Oath is the worship of God in it selfe whereby we adore the Author of that booke of blessednesse And lastly the end of all this is a vow to averre the truth of their own conscience vnto man In all which you haue 1. The handling and kissing of the booke a Ceremonie of mans Institution 2. The end to expresse our faith toward God and truth to man which are of Morall signification 3. The manner by an Invocation of God in calling him to witnesse and so appropriating it to Gods worship which is fully as much as this cause can challenge at our hands If any should bee so scrupulous as to doubt of the lawfulnesse of this kinde of Oath he may take his warrant from the example of Abraham in that Ceremoniall forme of Swearing which he prescribed vnto his seruant before the Iewish and Leviticall Law of Ceremonies was enacted by God SECT XXXII Our second Instance is in the Obseruation of the Lords day You may if it please you consider the three Ceremoniall points of our Saboth by a three-fold figure The first was to signifie a Rest from Sin which is a Spirituall Saboth The second to note the Resurrectiō of Christ for which cause the day of the Iewish Saboth was changed into the day of Christ his Resurrection whence it hath the denomination to be called The Lords Day The third is the euerlasting Saboth whereof the Apostle speaketh saying There remaineth Sabatismus a time of Saboth or Rest for the people of God What Christian man is there religiously affected towards God as he ought who in the celebration of the Lords Day doth not call to remembrance the Resurrection of Christ vpon that day and also why may lie not in his religious discretion from the Analogie betweene this our bodily Saboth here on earth and that Rest in heauen entertaine a contemplation of the euerlasting Saboth and rest of Blessednesse thus prefigured in the Temporall and accordingly make to himselfe for his better edification a double Mysticall vse of the Lords Day To which purpose Zanchius saith of our Churches the places of Gods worship Sicut Tabernaculum Templumque Salomonis typi fuerunt corporis Christi sic nostra tēpla typi sunt vmbra coelestis templi vbi coelestes spiritus animique fidelium collecti laudant Deum sicut nos hic in terrenis hisce templis colimus Debentque haec terrena ad illud coeleste animos nostros subleuare Vsus hic contemnendus non est quià vtilia haec sunt That is As the Tabernacle and Temple of Salomon were types of the body of Christ so our Temples are types and shadowes of the celestiall Temple where the heauenly spirits and soules of the faithfull are assembled for the praysing of God
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
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
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
Fathers as namely to driue away Diuels not onely out of the bodies but euen out of the soules of Infants The which power they likewise ascribe to the signe of the Crosse as it is a Sacramentall Ceremonie But our Church to the end that she might remoue this point of Superstition hath wisely ordained that the signe of the Crosse should be vsed after that Baptisme is fully ended yet notwithstanding is she here calumniously traduced by you as worse then the Popish Lingua quò vadis what shall we call this maladie whereby our Church if shee Symbolize with Papists but so much as in a Surplice is accounted Popish and Antichristian and if contrarily she alter that vse of the signe of the Crosse to the end that shee may crosse and controll the Superstition of Papists yet euen then also is she censured to be yea worse then Papisticall How fitly do such Obiectors exemplifie those way ward and vntractable Children mentioned in the Gospel whom neither weeping nor piping could please or still As for your Reason taken from the superstitious opinion of Romists concerning Confirmation it is not worthy the repeating For our Church teacheth not that Confirmation is a perfecting or confirming of Baptisme but onely of the parties baptized by calling them to a personall profession of the faith which their Godfathers and Godmothers as it were their Guardians did in their Infancie promise should be by them performed To conclude our Church placing the vse of the Signe of the Crosse after the end of Baptisme to remoue the superstitious opinion which the Papists had thereof in their abuse of this Signe immediatly before Baptisme you may now if it please you compare this alteration and your obiection concerning Confirmation in as you call it nearenesse of error and then let that man among you dispute whether an errour in Baptisme be not nearer vnto the Corrupting of the Sacrament of Baptisme then to the Corrupting of the doctrine of Confirmation which is out of Baptisme who doubteth whether a wound in the head or in the heele may more nearely endanger the health of the braine SECT â—I Their fourth Reason why the Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme may be said to derogate from the perfection thereof Yea but it is said to be a Token of the profession which the child must make in the spirituall combat Ergo this being a proper end of Baptisme is vsed as a part of Gods worship in Baptisme Our Answer This Argument is as loose and lanke as the former for Baptisme is in it selfe a Token and Signe of a Couenant stipulation betweene man God but this signe of the Crosse appointed by man is onely a Token of protestation betweene particular men the members of the Church of Christ which is the Congregation of Christians then assembled and the Church it selfe Besides Baptisme is a signe of Regeneration that is Gratiae collatae of Grace conferred by the Spirit of God but the Crosse in the fore-head is onely a signe of mans constant profession of Christianity which he ought to haue amongst them that are the enemies of the doctrine of the Crosse of Christ which are two distinct and farre different ends Thirdly I could not but maruaile that you should therefore exclaime against this Signe because it is vsed as a Token of Christian profession especially if you were acquainted with your owne learned Witnesses who taught their Readers both to obserue and approue First that the vse of the Crosse in the primitiue Church was thus Chemnitius a profession and commone faction of beleefe in Christ crucified Secondly that this kind of Testification thus M. Iewel is not to be disallowed Thirdly that it was vsed to the end that Thereby the persons Baptized thus P. Martyr might testifie their faith All which and much more will appeare for the iustification of this Token when we come to answer your seuenth Accusation where you shall heare Zanchie affirme that this vse of the Signe of the Crosse to testifie that we are not ashamed of Christ crucified is not to be disliked SECT VII Their fift and last Reason why the Signe of the Crosse may seeme to be made an essentiall part of the Sacrament and consequently a derogation from the perfection thereof But vnderstand that the last Canons do adde that by the Signe of the Crosse the childe is dedicated to the seruice of Christ now some of these are the proper ends of Baptisme Ergo not to be ascribed vnto mans additions Our Answer Although the word Dedication might be drawne by the generality of the signification to an other sence than the Church did intend because of the doubtfull ambiguity which is in it yet you ought to consider that some mens Wits are giuen to iudge of words by the sound and not by the sence But if you will be in the number of those cleane creatures which do diuide the hoofe and chew the cud you will easily distinguish and discerne that there is a two-fold we speake onely of the Humane Dedication one Declaratiua which is by way of Protestation the other Consecratiua by Consecration This distinction may be inlightned by example If a man who is piously deuoted doth build an Oratory or Chappell for Gods worship which he doth sequester by Vow and Promise from the common vse and lastly assigneth it vnto the seruice of God this is called a Dedication by Protestation Afterwards for a more solemne appropriation thereof to the worship of God the Episcopall Consecration is required to the end that by prayers and other religious Rites that place may be publiquely Dedicated to the same seruice this is Dedication by Consecration And how much more may this distinction take place in the case now in question For by the formall words of the institution of Christ the childe is Dedicated vnto God by Consecration in Baptisme which is a Sacrament of Grace but the Dedication which is signified by the Signe of the Crosse is not by any proper Consecration vnto God or Token of grace receiued from God by such a Signe made but onely of a declaratiue Token of duety which afterwards the person baptized ought to performe concerning his constant and visible profession of the Christian faith The summe of all is that the difference betweene the Dedication by Baptisme and by this Signe is no lesse than a Sacramentall Stipulation with God and a Morall representation and protestation vnto man SECT VIII Their third Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse is from the Popish abuse thereof The Signe of the Crosse is notoriously knowne to be abused to superstition and Idolatrie by Papists for both Stapleton and Bellarmine make it the speciall Badge of their Idolatrous religion ascribing to it the miraculous effects of driuing away diuels expelling diseases sanctifying the persons that are marked with it and that which they worship cultu latriae which is the very same kind of worship