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
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
dissenting and repugnant and some are neither consenting nor dissenting but adiaphora that is indifferent And he addeth These not hauing any foundation in the word may notwithstanding helpe for the furtherance of pietie The like answer is made by Doctor Whittaker Danaeus and who not that euer intreated vpon that question concerning the sufficiencie of Scripture SECT XX. Our fourth proofe is from Reason taken not onely from the nature of Ceremonies according to the common acknowledgement of all Diuines but also from the different practise of Reformed Churches You haue said that our Ceremonies though they be not Against the word yet because they are Besides the word are therefore vnlawfull Whence I first argue thus Nothing can in respect of God be called vnlawfull which is not Against the word because whatsoeuer is vnlawfull is a transgression of some law reuealed in his word But that which is onely Besides the word is not a transgression of the word Therefore your assertion is frustrate 2. Nothing that is Adiaphoron and indifferent can be pronounced simply vnlawfull But some Ceremonies of mans inuention without speciall warrant from the Scriptures are indifferent by the iudgement of Diuines of whatsoeuer sort or faction Ergo some such Ceremonies may be held lawfull 3. This may be prooued from the differences of Ceremonies in most Christian Churches M. Caluin hauing told vs that Christ would not prescribe particular Ceremonies to his Church because it is impossible that the same Ceremonies should be conuenient and agreeable to all so different Nations as are in the world And Oecolampadius will haue vs know that in the Churches of Basil Bearne and Tigurie there is magna concordia c. Great concord notwithstanding the varietie and difference of their Ceremonies So likewise by P. Martyrs allowance Quaeuis Ecclesia c. Euery Church may abound in her owne sence and thereupon he concludeth Non vrgendum c. That no man may vrge the very same Rites and Ceremonies vpon all Churches Lastly your Zepperus holdeth that The free obseruation of diuerse Rites is no hinderance to the Church nay saith he the varietie of Ceremonies in diuerse Churches is so farre from giuing offence that reason it selfe requireth that the libertie thereof should not be restrained From this ground the reason is impregnable that if in the Churches of Christ there may be yea and of necessitie must be difference in humaine Ceremonies then Ceremonies of humaine institution are of themselues indefinite and indifferent and in that regard can haue no speciall prescription from Diuine authoritie SECT XXI Our last proofe is from the confession and practise of the Non-conformists themselues The Lyncolneshire Opposites and euery Non-conformist require in all their bookes and writings to haue their Ceremonies so free that euery Parish may vse such Rites as by the discretion of the choycest Parishioners may be held most expedient by vertue of which their conceipted freedome it cometh to passe that Some Parishes will sit at the receiuing of the Communion and some stand Some will haue Godfathers and Godmothers and witnesses and some will be content onely with the naturall father Some will admit of publike Festiuals and holydaies and some of none And all this varietie they are perswaded may be had in diuers Churches without any variance at all Which Circumstantiall points are so far to be accounted Ceremoniall as they serue for a modification of our actions and gestures in the worship of God Hence I may argue If all these were of diuine authoritie then could they not be so diuerse for the law of Gods word is to all Nations the same But if they be of humaine institution then are they in that respect either vnlawfull or lawfull if vnlawfull then ought you not to vse the Ceremonies of mans ordinance if lawfull then you ought not to impugne them SECT XXII The Assumption of the Non-conformists against our Ceremonies in generall But these Ceremonies haue no warrant from the word of God being but humane Rites ordained by man c. Our first Answer in defence of our Ceremonies In the ordaining of Ceremonies two things come to be considered the first is in Thesi and generall position that it be warranted by the word whether it be by precept or else by permission and so we might say that the ordinance of Ceremonies may be called Diuine The second consideration is in respect of the Hypothesis and specification of the Ceremonies as prescribing of this or that gesture habit place or time and the like points of circumstance agreeable to the seruice of God these we say in respect of the permissiue appointment of Ceremonies are from God but in respect of the specification and determination of some one sort of Ceremonie rather than another they may be called humane Againe that you may better discerne of these termes take into consultation if it please you the aduise of M. Caluine who calleth those constitutions of the Church which are founded in Scripture prorsus diuinae Altogether Diuine and he taketh an example from Kneeling in solemne prayer which saith he is so Humane that it is also Diuine It is Diuine but why Euen because it is a part of that Decencie the care and obseruation whereof is commended vnto vs by the Apostle Let all things be done decently and in order But humane so farre as they are appropriated by men to some circumstance of person time or place and so it is in this Scripture rather intimated than expressed By which rule we are likewise authorized to call some Ceremonies of our Church in a kind of generality Diuine so far as they haue any dependance vpon that generall directiō of Scripture which cōmandeth that things be done in order Decencie to edification but humane in respect of the application of such rules according to the discretion of the Church Vrsinus whom you often produce for your choice witnes telleth you to the same purpose that Ecclesiasticall Constitutions are good so farre as they do specially assigne that which is generally rather intimated than expressed in the word of God Can you say then that all such actes are altogether Besides Scripture There is a second Rule of direction in case of Ceremonies which is the Equitie of them that are contained in Scriptures according to the example of Solomon in building his new Altar for Sacrifice besides that one Altar which God himselfe had ordained whereof one of your owne fellowship confesseth saying that he did it out of the equitie of Moses Law Notwithstanding this equity was so void of prescription that if this be necessary that act of Solomon might be iudged to haue wanted due warrant Thus much of the first generall Argument whereby they haue concluded against Scripture Fathers iudicious Diuines and all probable Reason that all Ceremonies belonging to Gods seruice which are inuented of man Besides the euidence of Scripture are vnlawfull CHAP II. SECT I.
The second generall Agument made by the Non-conformists against the three Ceremonies of our Church is That they are held as properly parts of Gods Worship The Maior All humane Ceremonies which are esteemed imposed or obserued as parts of Diuine worship are vnlawfull The Assumption But such are these Surplice Crosse in Bâ—ptisme and kneeling at the Communion Therefore these are vnlawfull Our Answer DIstinction is by the Logâ—cians called a Wedge because it is the onely meanes in all Disputes to dissolue the hardest Elenchs and knots of subtlety which if you would haue applied in this controuersie then should you not haue needed our answer to wit if you had but discerned the proper and essentiall parts of Gods worship from the improper and accidentall By the essentiall parts we vnderstand such Ceremonies which are so necessarily required to Gods seruice as that the contrariety thereof must needs displease him And the improper and accidentall parts or rather Appurtenances are such which serue onely as accessary complements ordained for the more conuenient discharge of the necessary worship of God It was proper to God as to create the body and all the naturâ—ll limmes and parts thereof whereunto man hath no power to add so much as an haire so to ordaine the perfect forme of his essentiall worship and seruice but yet for man to apply thereunto accessary Ceremonies for Decorum and Edification may no more be accounted a Derogation to Gods ordinance concerning his owne worship than it can be to his creation to cloath and apparell the naked bodie of man which is indeed rather to be accounted a note of our greater estimation thereof SECT II. The Non-conformists their proofes of the Maior from 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Witnesses These Ceremonies imposed are not onely not commanded as lawfull but prohibited as sinful For the Scriptures Fathers and Orthodox writers do condemne as sinful all wit-worship or will-worship whatsoeuer proceeding out of the forge of mans fancies Whatsoeuer precepts of men in Gods worship either for matter or manner deliuered and imposed by man although they seeme neuer so good in their owne sight Our Answer I doubt that we shall find you to bewray more will than wit and more fancie than sound reason in your pretended proofes Begin with Scriptures SECT III. Their proofes from Scripture Esay 29.13 God saith In vaine do they worship me teaching for Precepts Commandements of men In Deut. 12.32 We are commanded neither to adde nor to diminish And Coloss. 2. The Apostle condemneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will-worship Our Answer All these places of Scripture are meerely Heteroclits in respect of the point in controuersie For first by the Precepts of men in Esay are signified such humane ordinances as were expresly contrary to the Commandement of God as is plaine both by the description of their sin called a staggering drunkennesse signifying their Idolatrous conceits and also by the denunciation of Gods iudgements by fearefull destruction to come vpon Israel by the hands of a multitude of Nations Which kind of menaces were neuer published but for hainous and horrible transgressions Secondly the Adding and diminishing spoken of doth not meane addition of preseruation but addition of corruption like as the fraudulent Coyner of money doth corrupt the Kings Coyne either by adding baser mettall vnto it or by clipping any siluer from it and in both kinds he is a Traitor How much more high treason must we iudge it to be against the Highest himselfe when man shall aduenture either to make any Diuine precept or promise and set Gods stampe vpon it to make the speech to be Gods speech which is but the deuice of his owne forge or to diminish the estimation of Gods precept by accounting it but an inuention of man And the like may be affirmed of the Sacraments which are proper to that Diuine person who is the Testator it being no lesse sacriledge to corrupt the Sacraments which are the seales of Gods promises than to depraue his will of Commandements SECT IIII. A confutation of the Non-conformists interpretation of the Scriptures by their owne witnesses Your most approued witâ—esses make altogether against you First Danaeus obiecting against Papisticall Traditions the same places of Esay saying In vaine do they worship me teaching c. and Deut. 4.12 Nothing must be added c. told you that Ex superiorâ—bus c. He meant this of the Traditions which he spake of in the former Chapter and whereof he had said Huiusmodi traditiones humanae c. Such humane Ceremonies which are added as necessary appendices and parts of doctrine belonging to Christian faith or are deliuered as norma the Rule of Gods worship they do in effect accuse the word of God to be lame and imperfect which is plaine blasphemie as Tertullian teacheth in his booke of Prescriptions against Heretikes Secondly Zanchius hath told you that That place concerning will worship condemned by the Apostle Col. 2.27 did point at certaine Hypocrites of those times who did obtrude vpon Christians Traditions of their owne deuising in pretence that they proceeded from God And vpon these words of the same Apostle Let no man deceiue you in meate or in drinke c. he presseth it against the Popes thunder-blasts of paper-shot saying that Seeing althings necessary to saluation haue bene deliuered vnto his Church by Christ therefore may we contemâ—e the Popes execrations and Anathema's whereby he pronounceth damnation vpon them that approue not his Traditions as not holding them necessarie to saluation You see how many arrowes you haue drawne out of Gods quiuer the holy Scripture and by this time may perceiue what kind of mark-men you are seeing that the marke being to confute Ceremonies which aâ—e onely Besides and not Agaâ—nst the word or will of God you haue chosen such arrowes as are too heauie for your bow all of them being such Texts which condemne heinous and enormous sins directly reproued by holy Scripture therfore musts needs light far short of the Marke For tell vs I pray you in good conscience are our Ceremonies expresly condemned by Scripture as was Idolatry in Esay 29 saying thereof In vaine do they worship me c. or as the wicked corrupting of the Law of God Deut. 12. saying Thou shalt not adde c. or as that hereticall doctrine against Christian liberty in meates Col. 2 I thinke you cannot bee so perswaded except you your selues can by your authority make some new Scripture to proue it SECT V. Their proofes from the Iudgements of the Fathers The Fathers do reiect Will worship as Idolatry Augustine Ierome Cyprian Chrysostme do all speake against new doctrines and humane Traditions Our Answer The Fathers do indeed reiect Will-worship wherein as we do willingly subscribe vnto their iudgement so may we iustly reprehend you for your wilfull wresting of the Fathers sentences Who as they did condemne all such doctrines Traditions yea and if
to conclude from the lawfull vse of Ceremonies in our Church to an appropriation of the Romish abuse of them gaue me iust cause to call your Consequence vnconscionable for as much as your owne hearts can tell you that our Church is not so earnest to entertaine the vse of any one Ceremony formerly obserued in the Church of Rome as it is zealous to abhorre her superstition in all her abuses some of them being Brutish and Sencelesse some Childish and ridiculous some Heathenish and Idolatrous wherby such their Ceremonies respectiuely are become to be most properly Popish Thirdly you argue that if these viz. Surplice Crosse Kneeling at the receiuing of the Communion be iustly vsed then there is a iust cause that these to wit Oyle Spittle Images and the Priests sprinkling of water may likewise be had in vse because all are equally for Remembrance We confesse that Spittle was vsed by our Sauiour Christ in the healing of the Dumbe and Oyle by the Apostles in curing of many other diseases yet both miraculously but to imitate the worke of a Miracle without the Miraculous power is but an Apish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to hold such a miraculous Ceremony after the vertue be gone is but to preserue a Carcase because it had beene once possessed of a soule We come to your other Instances in the vse of Images and that which they call Holy-water to the end that you may the better discerne your owne iniurious and odious comparison For first the true vse of Images with vs is onely for Historicall commemoration but in the Popish Church it is for a superstitious adoration by kneeling vnto them praying by them and by determinating a kinde of religious worship in them and therefore onely in regard of such their superstition is to bee called Popish The second which is their sprinkling of water vpon the people for remembrance of their Baptisme if it were applyed onely for to make them often mindfull and careful to keep their Vow of Christianity made once vnto God in Baptisme it might be called a Morall Ceremony and Christian But that sprinkling of water as it is vsed in the Romish Church not onely as significatiue but also as operatiue with an opinion that it hath power both of purging veniall sinnes and of driuing away deuils is in that regard also Popish execrable For what is this else but to take vpon her to constitute a new Sacrament seeing that a Sacrament is a signe of representing and of exhibiting and conferring of a spirituall Grace Shee therefore who hath made the profession of the definite number of but Seuen Sacraments an Article of Faith hath by this new inuention of Holy-water made vp Eight I may not pretermit a Witnesse who hath made you an answer long since vnto this Obiection which notwithstanding you regest againe as if this Cole-woort had neuer bene sod before The Authour is Peter Martyr Neque mihi dixeris c. Neither may you say vnto mee saith Peter Martyr speaking of the vse of the Surplice there shall be now a gap open for all abuses to water sprinkled by the Priests Incense and infinite such other abuses because your Aduersaries will answer you that there must a meane be kept that the Church of God be not burthened with these kind of things and that no worship or efficacie of Religion be placed in them as we see there is in that water-sprinkling and Incense c. So he And do you not furthermore see by happy experience that Open gappe of many Ceremonis whereof you spake to be now through the wisedome and prouidence of our Church quite shut vp seeing that she is contented to admit of so few and no more Lastly you can with as little reason diuest a Church Christian of her liberty and power of ordaining of significant Ceremonies because it is possible that she may abuse that power by instituting vnfit superstitious and burthensome Rites as it were to seeke to depriue a Ciuill Magistrate of all power of Nomotheticall authority in making of lawes because there is a possibility he may abuse them Thus much in answer to your Generall Proposition SECT VIII The Assumption of the Non-conformists But these Ceremonies in question are ordained by the will of men to teach some spirituall dutie by their mysticall signification for thus the booke of Common Prayer speaketh of them that they are neither dumbe nor darke but apt to stirre vp the dull mind of man to the remembrance of this duty to God by some speciall signification Our Answer Will you still oppugne Ceremonious signes which are mystically significant euen because they are significant is a mans speech lesse reasonable because it hath sence or is it therefore ill for that the signification thereof is good Yet this is in effect your exception against our Ceremonies Wee therefore remit you to your owne witnesses with whom you may contend some whereof will bee found to condemne the Papists for vsing of Dumbe Ceremonies without significations and darke beyond mens capacities some to admit of Symbolicall Ceremonies as incitements to the better performance of spirituall good things and some also to approoue of signes and remembrances of spirituall Duties But if you would be loath to wrastle with so learned Diuines then wee send you to expostulate with your owne selues who confesse in the end that you are not altogether destitute of some such like Symbolicall significations Finally I shall not need in this place to set before you those Mysticall Ceremonies which are to be exemplified from diuers Instances in Patriarches before the Law holy men vnder the Law Apostles in the New Testament after them in the state of primitiue Antiquity And lastly in the whole current of succeeding times SECT IX Our generall Confutation of the generall Argument of the Non-conformists by proouing the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies which are of morall Signification yB 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Reason 4. Witnesses of the Non-conformists themselues 5. Their owne practise Our proofe by Scriptures Of Examples taken from Scriptures some are before the Law some in the time of the Law and some after the Law in and about the time of the Apostles Examples of significant Ceremonies before the Law in Abraham Abraham commanded his seruant that hee might haue security of his faithfulnesse in a businesse of importance to wit for the prouiding of a match for his sonne to lay his hand vnder his thigh sweare vnto him c. What one point is there in their generall proposition which is not fully satisfied by this Example Your first point is that our Ceremonies are humane So heere the laying of his hand vnder Abrahams thigh was humane if by Humane you vnderstand that which a godly man deuiseth by his own reasonable Iudgement For Abraham appointed the foresaid Ceremonie without any speciall reuelation from God so farre as by Scripture is reuealed vnto vs. The second point is that the Ceremony
do make men transgressors of Gods Law or depraue the truth of Gods worship or depriue the worshippers of grace and saluation Nay but which doth make your Calumniation most apparent shee hath plainly professed the contrary both in iudging her owne Ceremonies Alterable and in not condemning the different Ceremonies of other reformed Churches as hereafter will plainly appeare SECT V. Their second place of Scripture This is a speciall part of the libertie which Christ hath purchased for vs by his death and which all Christians are bound to stand for Gal. 5.1 Stand fast saith the Apostle vnto the liberty vnto which Christ hath made vs free and be not intangled with the yoake of bondage Shewing that the seruice which we are now to do vnto God is not mysticall Ceremoniall and carnall as it was then but plaine and spirituall Our Answer The Assembly of Non-conformists who made this Obiection from that Text of the Apostle Gal. 5.1 did as it may seeme neuer consult with the Context both because they expound this Scripture as spoken of all mysticall Ceremonies which the Apostle deliuereth onely of Iewish Rites as also for that they vnderstand those words to be spoken meerely of Ceremonies as if they had beene vnlawfull in themselues which the Apostle speaketh mixtly as implying thereby that doctrine of necessitie which false Apostles had attributed vnto them namely an opinion of necessitie whereby the whole Gospel of Christ concerning iustification by remission of sinnes was consequently ouerthrowne according as the Apostle concludeth saying Stand in the Libertie wherewith Christ hath made you free c. And againe Behold I Paul say that if you be circumcised Christ can profit you nothing Why but onely because Circumcision being the Seale of the Couenant of the Morall Law doth exact of euery one that holdeth Circumcision necessary to saluation an absolute performance of euery minim and iot of the same Law therfore it followeth whosoeuer wil be iustified by the Law becometh a Debter to the whole Law and consequently Christ is become of none effect vnto you Next concerning Iustification by the Law of the old Testament whereof Circumcision was the Seale the Apostle teacheth that the difference of the Old and the New Testament in respect of Iustification is as much as betweene Agar the seruant ingendring vnto bondage and Sarah the Mistris and free-woman that bringeth foorth the heire of promise so that whosoeuer will be heire of saluation must first become a noble Sarasin and not remaine a base Agaren that is he must be such an one as seeketh perfect iustification by the Gospel which worketh obedience in loue and not by the exact and strict Righteousnesse of the Law which driueth men into a slauish obedience through an hellish feare This your owne Witnesses could not but vnderstand and know that that Yoake condemned in this Scripture doth not signifie the vse or yet so much as the mysticall signification of Circumcision because the Apostle Saint Paul himselfe did circumcise Timothy but by it is vnderstood that opinion of the necessitie of this Ceremonie to saluation which the false apostles had taught among the Galatians which is so vndoubtedly there condemned that M. Caluin sticketh not to call them Insulsos Interpretes Absurd or vnsauory Interpreters who teach that the Apostle in this Epistle contendeth onely for the Libertie of Circumcision in regard of the vse and not rather against the necessitie of that vse for the obtaining of Iustification and saluation thereby Which necessitie howsoeuer it may be found in Popish doctrine of Mysticall Rites yet shall you as soone prooue Rome to be England as find the Popish superstition in our English profession concerning the vse of Ceremonies Thirdly in your obiection you vnsoundly and vnsauorily confound these two termes Mysticall and Carnall as though euery Mysticall Ceremonie were consequently Carnall Know you not that the Sacraments of the new Testament are the most Mysticall Ceremonies of all others neuerthelesse none but an vnchristian or rather Antichristian spirit would call them Carnall For albeit the Iewish Ceremonies deserued that name because they signified first and primarily outward and carnall promises as the cleansings of the flesh and the enioyments of earthly blessings but remission of sins and heauenly blessednesse they shadowed onely remotely and vnder a second veile yet the Sacraments of the Gospell are immediate Signes and Seales of the spirituall things themselues such as are remission of sins redemption from death diuell and hell and a full interest in the promises of an eternall inheritance So likewise it sauoreth of the flesh and not of the Spirit to call our Ceremonies to wit Surplice Signe of the Crosse and Kneeling Carnall except you can finde any Carnality in Sanctity Constancie in the faith of Christ or in religious Humility which are the immediate and Morall significations that these three Ceremonies do represent SECT VI. Their second Obiection is taken from Reason Their first Reason If these Ceremonies do not take away our Christian liberty and insuare the consciences of men by their imposition how shall not the Popish Ceremonies be excusable and free from accusation in this behalfe Our Answer from their owne Witnesses To question How in this case must needs be a note of inexcusable ignorance for what more impardonable ignorance can there be than not to reade that which our Church hath set downe in capitall letters wherein she auoucheth her owne integritie professing to vse but a few Ceremonies and those also without opinion of Necessity and not this onely but furthermore doth often condemne the Church of Rome for infringing of Christian liberty by her Ceremoniall constitutions both in respect of the nature and number of her Rites First I say in regard of their Nature by attributing vnto them such an opinion of Necessity which taketh away all Indifferencie which is done as well by holding and exercising them as necessarie meanes of attaining vnto eternall life as also by placing in them the chiefest and most essentiall part of Gods worship Secondly in respect of their number and multitude which is become importable These two exceptions against the Church of Rome which we haue onely pointed at are particularly and largely acknowledged and set downe by that golden quill of M. Caluin throughout his fourth booke of Institutions cap. 10. where he inueigheth against as he calleth it Barbarum imperium the Barbarous Thraldome of Popish Ceremonies But why Euen because if we respect the nature of them they affirme saith he their Lawes to be spirituall and properly belonging vnto the soule and necessarie for eternall life whereby the Kingdome of Christ is inuaded and Christian liberty of mens consciences is altogether ouerthrowne seeing that they seeke iustification and saluation in their owne obseruations wherein they place Ipsis simum Dei cultum vt ità loquar in ipsis contineri the summe of all Religion and piety meaning the essentiall worship of
If you could demonstrate that this gesture is either vsed as a proper part of Gods worship or else that it receiueth from vs that Popish Adoration which you pretend then might you with one breath iustifie your opposition against the Church and condemne her imposition of such Rytes vpon you but that in proofe this as likewise the rest of our Ceremonies are not maintained or obserued in our Church as essentiall parts of worship but onely as circumstantiall and conuenient adiuncts and appendices we haue already bestowed an whole Chapter And as for our manner of Kneeling heere questioned we make no doubt to vindicate it from all crime of Idolatry yea or the least suspition thereof SECT XXIIII The first Reason of the Non-conformists to proue our manner of Kneeling Idolatrous because before a Creature To adore God in or before any creature without warrant of the word of God is Idolatry Our Answer This Position may not run current without all exception for to exclude from the act of the Adoration of God or of Christ all these Prepositions of by in before onely in respect of the creatures were consequently to forbid vs to pray by or with our tongues the Instruments of Adoration or In the Temple the house of God and the place of the solemne Adoration or yet either directly against vs Before the Table of this sacred Banquet and Supper called the Lords Table or else vpwards Before the heauens aboue towards the Celestiall seate and Sanctuary of God Therefore except you will compell vs to Adore God with our lippes and eyes shut you must admit of some limitation and by some distinction shew when or how a man may adore by in or before a creature without Idolatry whereof we are to say more in the Sections following SECT XXV Their second Reason to proue our fore-said Gesture of Kneeling Idolatrous because there is in it a Relatiue worship Because all relatiue Adoration of God before a creature with respect vnto it is Idolatry But the reuerence vsed in the receiuing of the Sacrament is a relatiue adoration of Christ with respect vnto the Sacrament for they say they do reuerence to the Sacrament which is Idolatrous Our Answer We expected that you would at least haue endeuored to proue in our manner of Kneeling a Popish kind of relatiue worship which is as in their Câ—ucifixe to fastâ—n our diuine Adoratâ—on vpon the Creature that it may so by a representatiue relatâ—on be conueied vnto the Creator whereof we are to speake in the Section following But in stead of worship by representatiue relation to Christ you speake onely of a Relation from God vnto the Crâ—ature telling vs of a relatiue Adoration of Christ with respect vnto the Sacrament which is extremely different as you may iudge by your owne Actions For do not you your selues allow a relatiue Reuerence and that iustly in reading the word of God a Reuerence in praying vnto God a Reuerence in religious hallowing of the Lords day a Reuerence in entring into the solemne place of Gods worship which is the house of God and haue not all these a relatiue respect betweene God and his Creatures for the Scriptures which are but lines of Incke are Creatures yet such as are called holy Scriptures and are Signes exprâ—ssing vnto vs the Truth of God The words of mans voice are such Creatures which by ancient learning are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Signes of things signified thereby and being vsed in prayer vnto God do present our Humilitie thankefulnesse and Adoration vnto him The Sabbaoth day is as all other dayes a Creature of God and yet is set apart and appropriated by GOD vnto his Adoration and commanded in that regard to be hallowed of vs which is in a respect that we haue from God vnto it The solemne place of Gods worship where-soeuer it bee is a Creature of God and hath reference vnto God as an house to the owner thereof Now shall these be vsed with a Religious Reuerence and with a relatiue respect and shall onely the blessed Sacrament of our Lord Iesus Christ bee Celebrated without any such Reuerence Procul hinc procul este But I know you cannot be so profanely-minded toward this Sacrament because you are not ignorant that this is the whole Argument of thâ—t Chapter of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. telling them of the visible Iudgements of God vpon many of the Corinthians thus Many of you are sicke and many are asleepe that is dead but why ob hanc causam for this cause saith the Apostle to wit because they came so profanely vnto it as if they had come to the heathenish Bacchanals or to their owne Domesticall Tables For thus he saith Haue you not houses to eate and drinke in but you come hither not discerning the Lords bodie As if he had said do you come so homely vnto this spirituall Banquet ordained for the refreshing and replenishing of your soules which you are to partake of with hope of remission of your sinnes in this life and of a blessednesse both of your bodies and soules in the Resurrection of the iust through the vertue and price of your redemption by the death of Christ in his body Crucified and blood shed for you SECT XXVI Their first Confirmation of the aforesaid pretended Idolatry by relatiue worship in Kneeling Yea there hatâ— bene fâ—unâ— in aâ—â— ageâ— the roote of Idolatry if not grosse Idolatry it selfe to â—iue to the signe that shew of outward Reuerence and Aâ—oration which is duâ— to the thing signified and to the giuer himsâ—lfe Our Answer What a sinister supposition is this as though that the Reuerence due to Châ—ist were giuen vnto the Sacrament of Christ this we confesse were true Idolatry You may not thinke much if our Church do now sharpen her Censures and Coâ—rections against you who thus multiply your Caluâ—niations against her especially in this branding her with no lesse heynous a Crime than Idolatry which is as being the most vile of all other called in holy writ not onely abominable but also abomination it selfe It will therefore concerne you to make good your godlesse aspersion by some manner of reason for this which you deliuered in the last place is rather a reproofe of your supposed guiltines than any proofe thereof Sâ—CT XXVII Their sâ—cond Confirmation of the pretended relatiue Idolatrous worshâ—p Else why is it not vsâ—d in Baptisme as well as at this Sacrament excâ—pt that with the Idolatrous Papists we wiâ—l say that it is of greater dignitie thâ—n the Sacrament of Baptisme Our Answer Nay rather seeing that you know the doctrine of the Church to esteeme both the Sacraments of equall dignitie for as much as they proceede from the same authoritie of our Sauiour and are ordained for the same end euen to be seales of faith concerning the promises of saluation vnto vs Why do you make such an odious obiection and not rather
thinke that this Reuerence is inioyned without any Papisticall intent Cannot this satisfie you but you will stil exclaime and say Why is this reuerence done at the receiuing of the Eucharist except it be with the Idolatrous Papists I tell you this is done not to consent with the Idolatrous Papists but absolutely to confute them who cannot but acknowledge that our Sacrament of Baptisme is a very perfect Baptisme according both to the essentiall matter and manner which Christ himselfe ordained But as for our Sacrament of the Eucharist they do as hath bene shewen vilifie it as common and ordinarie bread and wine The difference then as you see is not in an opinion that the Eucharist is of greater dignitie than Baptisme with vs but because it is of lesse esteeme among the Papists Notwithstanding be not offended with me if that I cannot thinke any of you so irreligious as not to be willing to kneele reuerently in holy prayer vnto God in the time of the Celebration of Baptisme especially when prayer is vsed to God to blesse his owne ordinance in the behalfe of the child Which manner of worship is so farre from Idolatrie that the very Infant baptized if it could speake would say that the Adoration there is not directed vnto the Element of the water but vnto God for his grace vpon the child Sâ—CT XXVIII Their third Confutation of the pretended Idolatry by Relatiue woâ—ship Or why do we not condemne tâ—e Papists for Kneeling and praying before a Crucifixe This Bellarmine doth inferre vpon the opinion of them that hold that Christ although he be not corporally present may be adored in the Sacrament then saith he it is not Idolatry to Kneele bâ—fore an Image And indeed thus the Papists answer Wee say they do not worship vnto the Image but vnto God that is represented thereby Our Answer There is in the place alledged obiected against Protestants a Testimony out of Nazianzen in the same place P. Martyrs Answer to that Testimony is fully related then followeth the Reply of Bellarmine vpon that Answer of P. Martyr and now our Non-conformists bring in their reference from Bellarmines Reply So that this play consisteth necessarily of foure parts Nazianzen the speaker P. Martyr the expounder Bellarmine the Replyer and the Non-conformist the Applyers of Bellarmins conceit It will not displease our Reader to see each partie Act his owne part First Nazianzens Testimony is this Super Altare coli Christum Christ is Adored vpon the Altar Whence the Papists collect that men must adore with diuine worship the Sacrament that is vpon the Altar Secondly P. Martyr Answereth Coli quidem Christum sed coli in Symbolo sicut in symbolo significatur That is Christ is worshipped in the signe is he is signified therby Thirdly Bâ—llarmine replyeth Then saith he may it be lawfull to fall downe before the signe and to Adore Christ there although absent froÌ„ thence consequenly is it lawfull to fall downe and worship the Eucharist and Images of Christ neither is this Idolatry as Protestants exclaime Fourthly hence our Non-conformists follow Bellarmine and borrow of that good fellow his staffe to knock their fellow brethren but leaue P. Martyr now defending the common Cause of all Protestants as if they had conspired to betray their owne Adoration into the hands of a common Aduersarie But we must in part excuse them because they dealt not thus in malice against his person but in ignorance of his iudgement for P. Martyr discussing the same Argument else-where doth fully expresse his owne meaning Adoration saith he consisteth in Inuocation confession and giuing of thankes all which are due vnto God and vnto Christ wheresoeuer they do manifest themselues vnto vs which is done three manner of wayes First by the inward thought of the heart moued by the Spirit of God in our earnest apprehension of God and of Christ then followeth our Adoration of them by inuocating Confession and giuing of thankes Secondly they declare themselues sometimes by externall words as by holy Scriptures godly Sermons And thirdly by outward signes as in the Arke of the Couenant and in our Sacraments yet so that Adoration be not fixed vpon the symbols or signes but in Spirit and in Truth vpon Christ sitting on the right hand of God in Heauen Notwithstanding because the simple people by reason of the errour of Transubstantiation rooted in them cannot so easily vnderstand this I should thinke that men should abstaine from outward prostrating themselues in kneeling vntill they bee better instructed I confesse that many do godlily kneele and Adore at the hearing of these words Et verbum caro factum est where notwithstanding not the words but the things are adored euen so the signes in the Sacrament are not adored Wherein P. Martyr could haue no other meaning than by a significatiue relation from the signe to the thing signified For a man in Kneeling at the Sacrament should vpon the sight thereof abstract his thoughts from the sensible obiect and lifting vp both his eyes and his heart vnto heauen should Adore that is as he saith inuocate confesse and giue thankes vnto God and vnto Christ. But how shall this Answer iustifie the Popish manner of worship Kneeling before and to an Image sometimes inuocating the Image it selfe and fixing their thoughts vpon it or at least vsing to Adore Christ with it as we shall proue Whereas contrariwise this our Adoration of Christ arising from the sight of the Sacrament is no more in the iudgement of P. Martyr than when at the hearing of the sensible words of the Scripture or of a godly Sermon our thoughts are not fixed vpon the Elements of words and syllables but by them are eleuated and drawne vnto Inuocation and thanksgiuing vnto God According to this meaning P. Martyr you see alloweth Kneeling at the receiuing of the Sacrament to a peple instructed Now if after three-score yeeres preaching our people haue not bene sufficiently instructed the cause must be imputed either to the ignorance or negligence of their Teachers except you will haue vs thinke that they are past instruction Hitherto of our particular Answer SECT XXIX Our more generall Confutation of the Non-conformists prouing both that a Reuerence is due at the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament and that the Reuerence by Kneeling hath not Affinity with Romish Idolatry first by Reason and the grounds thereof As differences of Colours are best discerned when they are compared together so may we most easily distinguish the diuers opinions both of our Protestants from Papists and of Papists among themselues concerning Relatiue or Respectiue worship by onely relating of their different obiects especially in these termes concerning Reuerence We shall therefore first discouer the errour of Poperie herein and so will the truth of our Reuerence be better discerned SECT XXX Our first ground of Confutation is by discouering of the Romish superstition in her maner of worship whether Relatiue