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
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
c. And euery plant that my Father planteth not shall be rooted out And as Math. 15.15 Thus haue you made the commandements of God of none effect by your Traditions Our Answer The first Text Mar. 7.8 mentioning washing of cups pointeth indeed at a Mystical Ceremony of Humane inuention which is there condemned but how Not because of the signification of a spirituall duety but for the Pharisaicall leauen of corrupt doctrine taught hereby for there was in it two ounces of leauen at the least the first was in attributing a legall purification to such their Washings thinking thereby to be cleansed from bodily pollutions through the touching of the bodies of the dead and such like euen as well as by the washings which God himselfe had appointed to the same end Their second errour was in their imputing of a spirituall vertue and efficacie vnto them of cleansing their soules from sin as is manifest by the reproofe which Christ vsed against those Ceremonies saying That which is without and entreth into man cannot defile a man but that which is within and commeth out of the man that defileth a man Therefore this their washing was not condemned as a meere Ceremonie but for the mixture of a false doctrine teaching an efficacy and vertue of purification which it had not Concerning the second Text the case standeth thus The Pharises by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is second Traditions taught their Disciples a strange peece of Catechisme called Corban to wit The gift that shall be offered by me shall profite thee that is Every voluntary offering that thou shalt giue to the Temple or for the benefite of the Priesthood shall gaine of God a blessing vpon thee albeit thou shouldest neglect thy parents in withdrawing that Gift from their reliefe in their great necessity For confutation of this errour Christ opposeth the commandement saying Moses said vnto you that is as S. Matthew hath it God namely by Moses said Thou shalt honour thy Father c. But you say Corban c. So that this Tradition of the Pharisees is a flat contradiction vnto the expresse Law of God And therefore so vtterly vnfit to confute the vse of Ceremonies which are not as directly condemned by Gods Word that we may thinke your minds were busied vpon some other obiects when you made this obiection We haue heard all your obiections against addition of Ceremonies in the state of the Old Testament and find that the further you seeke to depart from the Pharisees who did adde superfluous Ceremonies the more you winne fellowship with the Sadduces who abandon all additions of new Ceremonies vnder the same estate SECT III. Their second proofe from S. Augustine Augustine de doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 15. doth argue against significant Ceremonies Our Answer S. Augustine speaketh of Phrases of Scripture which when they make for piety and charity he would not haue expounded figuratiuely but when any sentences do seeme to command any thing that is Facinerous heynous and wicked then saith he must wee vnderstand them as being figuratiuely spoken As for example that saying of Christ Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. which for the same cause must needs receiue a figuratiue interpretation But how shall this concerne the matter of Ceremonies to proue them vnlawfull because they are significant By this inference it shall not be lawfull for vs to vse any phrase of speech whether figuratiue or proper because Omnis oratio est oris ratio euery speech of a reasonable man except he wil needs be as sounding brasse a tinkling cymbal is significant There is I confesse in S Augustine else-where these sayings Signa quae ad res diuinas pertinent Sacramenta appellantur If heereby you shall collect that S. Augustine will admit of no Signes of holy duties which are not Sacraments then shall you bewray your small acquaintance you haue had with the language of S. Augustine with whom nothing is more frequent or familiar than to call all Signes of any holy thing Sacraments And so by your consequence you shall haue as many Sacraments as there are parts and parcels of parables and similitudes To conclude whosoeuer shall but vnclaspe any one volume of S. Augustine he shall finde a manifest mention and approbation of some one or other Significant Ceremonie which was not of Diuine Ordinance This your alleaging one onely Father who notwithstanding maketh against you doth openly tell vs that you can conceiue small confidence that Antiquity did euer patronize your cause SECT IIII. Their third Proofe from the Testimonies of Protestant Diuines M. Calvin in Leuit. 4.22 Zepperus pol. Eccles. pag. 50. Iewell Beza do all condemne Ceremonies inuented by man which are of mysticall signification Our Answer You erre for want of a distinction of termes for the word mysticall signification hath two acceptions the one Sacramentall by signification of grace conferred by God the other is onely Morall by signification of mans spirituall duty and obedience towards God The Ceremonies which we defend are onely mystical-morall but the signification of Ceremonies which M. Caluin reproueth is onely that Mysticall which is properly Sacramentall as is euident in the place alledged where he speaketh of Sacraments Quibus annexa est promissio gratiae Whereunto God hath annexed a promise of grace And againe Testantur de gratia Dei Zeppperus speaketh not a word of any mysticall signification at all B. Iewell insisteth onely in the Sacramentall and hath not one word touching the morall nor any Protestant author that I haue read Beza onely excepted hath spoken absolutely against Signes Symbolicall and meerly significant Yet Beza himselfe I presume will be found hereafter to allow them in some Cases This distinction as it is pertinent so is it also of some importance and therefore ought to be diligently obserued as will better appeare in our Answer to their next obiection SECT V. Their fourth proofe from Reason Their first Obiection Symbolicall signification giueth vnto Ceremonies a chiefe part of Sacraments when they are appointed to teach vs by their signification Our Answer Our Ceremonies are onely morall signes as hath bene said signifying vnto vs morall duties to wit the Surplice to betoken Sanctity of life the Signing the forehead with the Crosse Constancy in the faith of Christ and Kneeling at the Communion our Humility in receiuing such pledges of our Redemption by Christ Iesus As for the Sacramentall signe Euery Sacrament hath two significations in in it the one is Ad modum signi to represent some spirituall thing the second is Ad modum sigilli to seale an assurance of some diuine promise of Grace So that a Sacramentall signe being as Sacramentall so likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seale of Gods promises as the Apostle calleth Circumcision is alwayes founded vpon the expresse couenant of God therefore none but the Author of the couenant may
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
being a sinne against the morall Law of God and Rounding of the head and cutting of the flesh for the dead was prohibited as being against the Law of Grace and for that it did demonstrate inordinate sorrow for the Departed as of men voide of all hope of the resurrection of bodies or immortalitie of the soules of men Lastly the commixtion of diuers kindes of seedes and of diuers kinds of beasts was forbid not for any naturall viciousnesse in the things themselues or in the vse that the heathen had of them but because in the prohibiting of these kind of Mixtures hee propounded vnto his people a Type of abstinence from irreligious Mixtures as wel corporall as spirituall that they should not dare to defile their bodies with bestialitie or yet by ioyning in marriage with people of diuers religions and that they should not pollute their soules by consenting vnto the worship of any strange God See now your manifold fallacies by labouring first to conclude the vnlawfulnesse of our Ceremonies which are things in their owne nature indifferent from the condemnation of an Heathenish sinne against nature Secondly to oppugne Ceremonies ordained to a good end to wit the representation of Christian virtues from the example of a wicked custome that plainly demonstrateth meere Infidelity Thirdly by condemning Ceremonies of godly signification as namely Purity constancie humility from the example of Ceremonies that signifie nothing but either bodily or else spirituall adultery which is Idolatry Which kind of consequences are meerely extrauagants wandring and gadding from the matter in question SECT III. Their second Instance from Scripture Such things as had good originals and beginnings amongst the Heathen were notwithstanding prohibited by the Iewes as for example the erecting of any titulary Pillars by the way Leuitie 26.1 Ergo c. Our Answer Had these Titulary pillars of the Heathen which were set vp at limits of their grounds a good originall and beginning trowe you It is an ill glosse that corrupteth the Text the words are these Thou shalt not erect a pillar nor shalt thou set vp any polished stone in your land which was the fashion of the Heathen that you may bow vnto them Whence Master Caluin collecteth Sequitur non aliam statuam hic damnari nisi quae ad Deum repraesentandum erigitur i. No statue was here condemned saith he but that which was erected to represent God It was not therfore the erection of Pillars that was forbiddeÌ„ for then the Patriark Iacob would neuer haue erected as we reade a Pillar for a religious monument but the thing prohibited was the Heathenish end purpose in erecting it Therefore you might aswell say that the theeuish taking of a mans goods as that this Heathenish manner of building those Pillars had a good originall and beginning SECT IIII. Their third Instance from Scripture Deut. 7. and Exod. 23. God commandeth to destroy the statues and groues of Idolatry and to extinguish their names And that we cannot be thought to haue sincerely repented of the Idolatry or superstition on except we cast away with detestation all the instruments and moâ—uments of it See Caluin in his Sermons vpon Deut. Their Answer See Caluin say you whom I haue seene vpon these places of Scripture and vpon the full sight thereof am iustly moued to call vpon you as you haue done vpon your Reader saying See Caluin and then surely you shall see a foule errour in your Collection from Caluin who is so far froÌ„ speaking any thing for your aduantage that in his Exposition of these places he doth flatly confute you For in these Scriptures Exo. 23. and Exo. 34. Deu. 7. 12. Numer 23. where we reade of nothing but of Destroying of all the Images Groues Altars and rooting out the very names of the Heathenish gods although indeed he doth inferre that omnia insignia Idololatriae that is all the monuments or tokens of Idolatry were to be abolished by the Iewes yet where the question is whether Christians be precisely bound to doe the like he so distinguisheth betweene the commandements of the Decalogue and these Appendices as he doth betweene the Law Morall and the Politique or Iudaicall notifying vnto vs that the Morall precepts do oblige all men vnto the end of the world as being enacted against all formall Idolâ—trie but these politique precepts of Destroying of Altars Groues c. which are materials onely Differ saith he from the other namely from the Commandements of the two tables so as to bind onely the Iewes during the time of their Paedagogie but not the Church Christian to the end of the world And therefore comming to the point concerning Churches the places of Gods worship he resolueth saying Neque nobis religio est templa retinere quae polluta fuerunt Idolis accoÌ„modare in meliorem vsum quià nos non obstringit quod propter consequentiam vt loquuâ—tur legi additum est That is We may lawfully vse the Temples or Churches which haue bin defiled and abused wâ—th Idols and apply them to a better vse because that doth not bind vs which was added to the meaning the moral Law onely by consequence therby meaning the peculiar occasions of those times The summe whereof saith he doth tend thus farre namely to shew in what deteâ—â—ation Gâ—d held all manner of Idolatry and therefore would haue thâ—m to aâ—olâ—sh the very names of such things as had euer beâ—nâ— dedicated vnto Idols But you will say Shall we then haue no regard of other superstitious circumstances Caluin seemeth to preuent this Obiection saying Fatâ—or quidem c. Indeed I confesse that all such things are to be remoued which may seeme to nourish Idolatry so that obserue I pray you this moderation we our selues in vrging too vehemently things which are in their owne nature indifferent be not too superstitious Meaning that the vrging a prohibition and an abolishment of them is that negatiue superstition wherof you haue beene already found guilty in oppugning our Rites as superstitious onely because they are Significant As though any thing could be iudged therefore Superstitious because it carrietâ— with it a true Orthodoxe and Christian signification SECT V. Their fourth Instance from Scripture Daniel would not defile himselfe with eating of the Kings meats Dan. 1.18 Our Answer Seire est per causas scire The onely solide knowledge of any thing is the vnderstanding of the true causes thereof First therefore Daniel did not abstaine from these meates of the King because they were the Kings for Then saith M. Caluin vpon this place should he haue shewne himselfe very inconstant when afterwards he tooke a liberty to himselfe to eate thereof Why then will you say did he abstaine Reade but M. Caluin his Comment and it will resolue you that Daniel was now in an exile from Gods worship and that the King sent vnto him all his Kingly seruices delicates to the
subiect to seducement when they fall to haue any priuate parle and communication with that subtile Tempter And which is the third point we know that the very office of Preaching much more that of Sacrifizing is flatly denyed to that Sexe So that I may iustly call this your Comparison friuolous did it not better deserue to be termed calumnious first inasmuch as you indeauour to controll the Ceremonies appointed by the deliberate aduice of the religious Gouernours of our Church and to confute them by obiecting Ceremonies deuised by priuate persons in their clanculary meetings according to their rude fancies Secondly to oppose vnto Ceremonies which are celebrated by men the destinate Ministers of Christ set apart as you your selues are for such a diuine ministratioÌ„ the practize of women who are euen by reason of the frailty of their Sexe interdicted by Scripture to intermeddle in such kind of seruice Thirdly to compare Ceremonies of outward gesture which may be lawfully applyed otherwise than immediately vnto God with Ceremonies of Sacrifizing which cannot euen so much as in the outward Act be performed but directly to God without the guilt of Idolatry And fourthly to condemne Rites of false and Idolatrous inuentions by matching them with Ceremonies of godly and Christian significations what could you else meane by all this but as it were to suborne a fellon to condemne an innocent SECT XV. Their ninth instance concerning Paganish Ceremonies Augustine himselfe also prescribing a direction how to winne the Pagans hath these words If you aske how the Pagans may be wonne how they may be inlightened how they may be called to saluation Let vs leaue all their solemnities and forsake their toyes Our Answer Wee might easily haue vnderstood the meaning of Saint Augustine by Saint Augustine himselfe if you had not broke off his speech at the middest for his words immediately following are these Vt si non consentiant veritati nostrae erubescant paucitati suae i. That if they consent not to that truth professed by vs they may bee ashamed meaning the fewnesse of their followers of their own paucity Wherby he instructeth the Christians not to conuerse together with Pagans in any of their Heathenish Rites Euen as our Church doth likewise forbid her people to assemble together with Papists in their superstitious solemnities and not that onely but doth also what would you haue more condemne and punish those that shall partake with them in such fooleries I should furthermore aske you why you skipped ouer that last clause of Saint Augustine Vt si non c. whereby you haue made your selues like to that man Qui toto deuorato boue defecit in cauda Hitherto we haue heard of your Instances in excepting against the Ceremonies of Pagans SECT XVI Their second kind of Obiection for the remouing of Ceremonies that haue beene abused is in obiecting Iewish Rites Their first Instance In the Councell of Nice it was decreed that Christians might not keepe the Feast of Easter at the time nor in the manner as the Iewes did Let vs say they in nothing agree with that detestable roote of the Iewes Our Answer First you cannot be ignorant how that there was a time when it was lawfull for some Christians to keepe the Feast of Easter the very same day wherein it was celebrated of the Iewes For your Authour whom you alleage doth fully relate that All the Churches in Asia according to their old custome did celebrate the Feast of Easter the 14. of the Moone which was the very day wherein the Iewes were commanded to solemnize their Passeouer Then he bringeth in that famous Bishop Polycrates mentioning Polycarpus Thraseus Sagarus all Bishops and holy Martyrs besides Papyrius Melito and seuen other Bishops of his owne kindred who by ancient Tradition did all obserue the Iewes festiuall day of Easter Secondly afterwards it was decreed by the Councell of Nice that Easter should be celebrated as you haue truly alleaged differently from the custome of the Iewes but yet you haue omitted the causes there specified by Eusebius whereof one was the hatred of the Christians against the Iewes who had defiled their hands with the bloud of the Son of God and remained still inthralled in the blindnesse and madnesse of their errour Another reason was because of the insolent insultation that the Iewes then made vpon the Christians as though that Christians could not haue kept any obseruation of that feast sine ipsorum disciplinae subsidio without the helpe of their discipline A third reason there mentioned is that by vniformitie of this one custome they might bring the Christian Churches vnto vnitie which by diuersitie of opinions concerning the time of the obseruation of the same feast had been distracted into contrarie factions These were the principall Reasons which moued the Fathers of that Councell to alter the Iewish Feast of Easter and to translate it vnto our Lords day not absolutely as you pretend for the auoiding of all resemblance that it had with the Iewish custome for then must they haue condemned all the godlie Byshops and holie Martyrs of Asia who obserued the same time of Easter with the Iewes but because of the after-obstinacie and insolencie of the Iewes vpbraiding the Christians for imitating of them vpon an opinion of necessity and also for the reducing of Christian Churches agreeing in one faith vnto an vnity of one affection You see then that the comparing as commonly you haue done the practise of Churches in admitting or reiecting of Iewish or Heathenish customes without their speciall Reasons is no better discretion than if you would argue some men to be wiser than others by comparing their bodies together without any regard of their reasonable soules Otherwise you might haue easily perceiued that neither we can haue like cause of hatred against Papists who are professed Christians as they had against the obstinate Iewes the murtherers of the Lord of glory nor yet the Papists the like cause of insultation against our Church for imitation of them seeing that she holdeth none of their Rites without a professed difference of opinion and with a detestation of their superstition SECT XVII Their third kind of Obiection is by instancing in Ceremonies abolished because of the abuses of Heretikes Their first Instance The Councell of Gangris Can. 18. Anno 324. ordained that none should fast on the Lords day because the Manichees had taken vp that day to fast on Our Answer And they had iust cause so to ordaine but so had not you to conceale the cause which is deliuered by Leo Bishop of Rome in these words The Manichees denying that Christ was borne in the true nature of man obserue the Lords day in pensiue fasting which the Resurrection of Christ hath consecrated vnto vs to be celâ—brated with ioy which custome of fasting they deuote vnto the Sonne that they may altogether dissent from vs in the vnity of faith Thus much being
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
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
if that they had beheld the decent integritie that is vsed therein All this while we haue kept aloofe off we come at last to parly with the Non-conformists themselues SECT XXXIX Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists and iustification of Our selues is from the confession of Bellarmine excusing Protestants from the suspition of Adoration euen because they hold the matter of the Sacrament to remaine Bread This our Iustification I confesse is against their will for it issueth out of an obiection which the Non-conformists haue made to accuse and condemne our Church The Non-conformists Obiection And Bellarmine hauing said that we whom he calleth Caluinists and Sacramentaries do not adore the Sacrament neither saith he should any man maruell at that seeing they do not beleeue that Christ is really present but that the bâ—ead in the Eucharist is indeed nothing else but the bread that came out of the Ouen Our Answer Do you not remember Iosephs Cloke which his Mistresse caught hold of to draw him to her lustfull bed who notwithstanding afterwards in a complaint vnto her husband turned the same Cloke as a witnesse against Ioseph to conuince him of folly notwithstanding it was indeed and in truth a full demonstration of her owne filthinesse and dishonesty And see you not how wittily you do imitate that fact of Iosephs Mistris by obiecting to the Church of England the speech of Bellarmine which in true construction may be a sound and euident Argument for her iustification Seeing that Bellarmine so great an Aduersary confessing that Protestants do not adore the bread euen because they beleeue it to be bread doth consequently acknowledge that they by their receiuing of this Sacrament cannot possibly be guilty of the Romish maner of Adoration of the outward Elements What needeth therefore so great an outcry in the eares of simple people to the slander of the true Church of Christ by associating her as afterwards ye do with the Synagogue of Antichrist in an Idolatrous reuerence I alwayes expected that as often as you take from the mouth of Bellarmine such kind of speeches as this obiecting that we thinke the Sacrament to bee nothing else but bread that came out of the Ouen you should haue shewne your selues zealous Aduocats for the common cause by controlling the Iesuits impudencie according as M. Iewell might haue instructed you in his Answer against the like scoffe of M. Harding in vilifying of our Sacrament Whereas M. Harding saith he vniustly defameth vs as reckoning the Sacraments of Christ nothing else but Tokens let him vnderstand that we both thinke and speake reuerently of Christ his Sacraments as knowing them to be the Testimonies of Gods promises and instruments of the holy Ghost and as we make not the Sacrament of Baptisme bare water notwithstanding the nature and substance of water remaineth the same still so we make not the Sacrament of Christ his body and blood bare bread and wine for as Saint Augustine saith Videndum est non quid sint sed quid significent We must not regard so much what they are namely in substance as what they signifie to wit according to the new nature that they haue of a Diuine Sacrament SECT XL. Our fourth Confutation of the Non-conformists and Iustification of our selues issueth from the Non-conformists owne Practise First by their Intentionall Reuerence You would account it an extreme iniurie to be censured as contemners or profaners of these holy mysteries or not to celebrate and receiue them reuerently with the truely religious affections of your hearts and mindes which you professe will be the dutie of euery worthy Communicant that shall rightly discerne in this Sacrament the Lords body This being granted which without impietie cannot be denyed it ministreth vnto vs an Argument whereby you may bee confuted as I suppose without all contradiction Fist I may reason thus That manner of Reuerence which it is lawfull for a Christian to conceiue in his mind the same is as lawfull for him the case of Scandall excepted to expresse in his outward gesture of bodie But it is lawfull for a Christian to conceiue such a Relatiue Reuerence as from the sight of the Sacrament being Obiectum à quo to raise his thoughts to a contemplation of the mysticall and spirituall obiect of faith signified thereby and vpon the vnderstanding of the mysticall euen the body and blood of Christ really albeit not corporally exhibited vnto vs in this Sacrament to receiue these visible pledges of our redemption by the death of Christ as the Obiectum propter quod with all holy and reuerent deuotion of heart and mind Therefore it is lawfull to performe a sensible and bodily reuerence at our outward receiuing thereof The infallibilitie of this Consequence ariseth froÌ„ the difference which is betweene the inward and outward Reuerence for the inward reuerence is the formall part and very soule of reuerence and farre exceedeth the bodily which is but onely the materiall Where therefore the materiall and bodily forme of Reuerence is acounted Idolatrous there the Intentionall and formall much more because the worship is in it selfe and Act indifferent and so may become either religious or superstitious by the vse or abuse thereof according to the intention and mind of the Agent euen as we may discerne in this one word Aue vsed in salutation for many came to Christ and said Aue O haile Master and did honour him the Iewes also bowed to him said Aue dishonoed him The difference of these two consisted not in the out ward gesture which was the same both sorts Saluters but from the diuerse Intentions the one kinde performing their salutations in ciuilitie but the other in mockery Euen so the gesture of Kneeling is an act indifferent in it selfe being vsed as wel of Children to their Parents as of either religious persons to God or sacrilegious vnto Idols but the formall distinction of each one proceedeth from the mind and affection of the Actor for that which is in childreÌ„ pietie in subiects loyaltie the same is in the truely religious deuotion and in the superstitious and sacrilegious Idolatrie Vpon these Premises wee inferre this conclusion that if there bee in you an inward relatiue reuerence of soule in the receiuing of this blessed Sacrament from a respect had betwixt the Doner God and this holy Sacrament being so precious a pledge of our saluation then can it not be vnlawfull to giue some expression of this your religious intention by the same visible reuerence in one or other outward gesture of the body especially being to participate of the Sacrament the seale of mans redemption both body and soule And indeed the bodily parts of man are nothing else but the Organs and Instruments of the affections of his soule If therefore that godly Indignation which the Publican had against his sinnes be shrewing as it were his owne heart commanded his hands to Knock on his breast If Hope
actio a continuing of the same gesture at the administration and participation thereof either because of the publique Psalmes then vsed in the Church or for that you are exâ—rcised in a diuine meditation about the Analogie between the elements of bread and wine and the body and bloud of Christ signified thereby by as reall an applying of the same body and bloud of Christ to your soules for the nourishment thereof as you haue a reall and substantiall incorporation of the bread and wine into your bodies that you are presently ready to proceed in other prayers so that being vncouered you cannot be said so much to put off as to keep off your hats nor to be made kneele but to be found kneeling at the receiuing of this Sacrament He that condemneth in his own conscience an other mans direct vncouering of the head at the receiuing of the holy Sacrament as superstitious being himselfe vncouered and shall notwithstanding excuse his owne gesture because of the former pretence of a continued action or spirituall meditation This man shall be but as S. Iames calleth him a Paralogizer and deluder of his owne soule because no act is called gooâ— nisi ex integra causa that is whâ—n it is good in euery part but it is euill ex quouis defectu that is vpon any one defect Therefore the continuance of the same gesture caÌ„not maâ—e that action good wherein any part thereof in respect of the obiect is condemnable in it selfe because if the reuerence at the receiuing be vnlawfull I ought in my behauiour as well to haue declined that which ought not as to haue practised that which ought to haue beene performed especially where for God is a iealous God there could be the least iealousie of Idolatry The nature of due reuerence will more clearely appeare by a sight of the contrary If any Tenants seeing their Lord riding with his seruants some before and some behind yet but meanely furnished for their attendance should be disposed to laugh and iest at them exercise the same scoffe vpon their Lord approaching would it be any tollerable satisfaction to say when they should be called in question that they did but onely continue their laughing and iesting Or will you hereupon suspect that you haue erred in being vncouered and hereafter make amends with couering your heads This would be but an hiddie and giddie retractation by which you must needs contradict the custome as I suppose of all the reformed Churches in Christendom whereof one of your own choicest Witnesses testifieth saying De hâ—c membro inter omnes pios constat reipsa enim hâ—c comprobant cùm ad Sacramentorum participationem reuerentèr apertóque Capite accedunt hà c ratione protestantes aquam illam Baptismi panem vinum Coenae non amplius esse res profanas sed sacras per quas Christus seipsum suamque gratiam coÌ„municat eóque esse reuerentia dignas c. It is a thing granted saith he of all godly men and indeed testified and approued of them by their comming to the participation of the Sacraments Reuerently with their heads vncouered protesting thereby that the water of Baptisme and the bread and wine in the Lords Supper are no coÌ„mon but sacred things whereby Christ doth communicate himselfe and his graces vnto vs and that therefore they are worthy of this reuerence Euen as saith he the word preached although it is not to be adored yet must it be reuerently handled is the word not of men but of God and so likewise the Sacraments in the administration of them aâ—e worthy of reuerence whereunto appertaineth the saying of the Apostle commanding vs to eat and drink that cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthily which worthinesse and dignity although it doth properly consist in the minde indued with faith anâ— loue yet may we not without cause referre it vnto the externall reuerence whereupon it was that they that came to the Lords Supper irreuerently were seuerely chastned by the hand of God 1. Cor. 11. You see how exactly this your choice and venerable Witnesse hath pleaded for an externall gesture of reuerence by vncouering the head at the receiuing of such holy Rytes which he maketh to be the same in the case of worship with the bowing of the knee You will peraduenture reply if the case standeth so concerning vncouering our heads why are we then condemned for irreuerence and why is Kneeling required Shall I tell you I can conceiue but three reasons hereof the first is because diuers of you are thought to be vncouered not with any intention to expresse your reuerence at the receiuing of this Sacrament because you condemne those that performe any reuerence by kneeling therefore yee are vrged to kneele that thereby you may manifest your vnanimity of one iudgement with our Church Secondly the order of kneeling hauing bene established by the Church and being as hath bene proued a Ceremony indifferent it is lawfully exacted and ought to be performed by you for expression of vniformitie Lastly because that women also who because of their sex may not be vncouered might shew the deuotion of their soules by their bodily representation of kneeling this gesture is required for an vniuersality of Conformitie To conclude be you exhorted but to permit your internall reuerence to become visible by bodily gesture or suffer your knees to be answerable to your heads in outward reuerence and then may we all ioyne the hands of true fellowship and godly vnion in the participation of this holy Communion and a more acceptable Thankesgiuing in the Eucharist vnto the Trinity in one indiuisible Vnitie whereunto be ascribed all glory and prayse for euer Amen FINIS Gal. 1.8 Psal. 45.5 Psal. 12 2.6 a Col. 2.21 b Act. 25. v. 10.12 c Danaeus Isag de Tradit cap. 29. * These other Testimonies ensuing are cited and expressed in this Treatise throughout d Caluin e Zanchy f Bucer Zanc. and others g Caluin h D. Rainold i Chemnis k B. Iewell Zanchy Chemnis l Bucer m P. Martyr Beza n Bucer o B. Iewel p Caluin q B. Iewell P. Martyr r Caluin B. Iewel Zanchy Zepper P. Martyr s Bucer P. Martyr t P. Martry loc comm pag. 1086. u Bucer Gal. 2.14 Abridg. Linc. part 1. pag. 44. M. Hy M. Pag Heb. 12. Luc. 2. Act. 15 10. Heb. 3. Caluin Inst. l. 4. c. 10 § 30. Matt. 28.19 Mar. 16.15 Abridg. Linc. quò supra Hy. disp 1. Reg. 5.3.4 1. Reg. 8.17.18 M. Hy M. Hy. Exod. 3.18 Exod. 8.8 M. Hy. Exod. 12.13 M. Hy. Gen. 4.4.5 Abridg. Linc. implyeth pag. 44. Vers. 31 and more expresly 1 Kin. 23.10 Leuit. 18.2 Infra cap. sect 2. 3.4 â— c. M. Hy. Bas. lib. de fide Cy. Epist. 74. ad Pomp. Amb de voca gen lib. 2. Aug. Tom. 9. col 478. Idem Tom. 9. col 1089. Idem Tom. 7. con Donat. li 2. ca. 6. col 365. Idem Tom. â— Epist. 73. Aug.