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
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.
you will also Ceremoniall Constitutions which are mingled with some false and corrupt opinion so did they vniuersally iustifie prescribe and practise Traditions such as ours are which were meerly Ceremoniall as you well know by the Canons of their Councels which your selues do obiect and your owne hearts can tell you that you oppose the Fathers against vs in this case not as their ingenuous children seeking to follow their iudgement but as men aduersely sinisterly affected as if in confuting vs you meant to condemne them if you could by their owne sayings As might haue easily appeared by their Testimonies if you would haue insisted vpon particulars SECT VI. Their last proofe from the Testimonies of Protestant Authors That Ceremonies imposed as parts of Gods worship are vnlawfull may appeare by the iudgement of the most iudicious Diuines who haue all by this Reason condemned the Ceremonies of Papists Caluin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 8. Pet. Martyr Chemnitius D. Mort Apol. part 1. cap. 89. and others Our Answer The true vnderstanding of the two acceptions of this phrase Parts of Gods Worship might easily haue rectified your iudgements for it is sometimes taken in Authours more strictly and properly for that essentiall forme and manner of worship wherein there is placed an opinion of Iustice Sanctitie Efficacie or Diuine necessity and so we hold it sacrilegious for any Church to impose or to admit of any such Ceremonie proceeding from humane institution Sometimes againe the same phrase is taken more largely for euery circumstantiall Rite which serueth for the more consonant and conuenient discharge of that essentiall worship of God and thus we hold it a peece of Christian libertie belonging to the Church to ordaine Ceremonies which may tend to Decencie Order and Edification as hath bene already shewen and acknowledged Herein therefore doth your inexcusable abuse of your Authors bewray it selfe that where they condemne onely such Ceremonies which are invented by men and brought into the Church by Papists and others with an opinion of such holinesse efficacie and necessity as whereby God is as properly worshipped as with the formes which he himselfe hath ordained thereupon you vrge and inforce them to the confutation of onely Circumstantiall and Accidentall Additaments vsed without all such superstitious respect Come we now to the examination of your witnesses 1. M. Caluin saith indeed that All those Constitutions are wicked in the obseruation whereof men place any worship of God Where by Worship he meaneth not any circumstance either of time place person or gesture which are required in the celebration of Gods worship but the inward vertue of worship which consisteth in an opinion of holinesse and iustice c. As you might haue learned from M. Caluin himselfe if you would haue taken out his next lesson where he condemneth the Papists but why Euen because they do conclude Ipsissimum Dei cultum in suis ritibus contineri Gods worship it selfe meaning the very essentiality of the worship of God to consist in their Rites And refuting it by the Scripture of Esay 55. In vaine doe they worship mee teaching c. expoundeth what hee meaneth by worship saying that The Papists in ritibus suis iustitiam quam Deo opponant quâ se ante tribunal sustineant quaerunt they seeke that righteousnesse in their Ceremonies which they may oppose vnto God and wherewith they may vphold themselues when they shall be called to answer before his Tribunall Surely there is no Protestant who will not call euery such figment of mans braine a very Idoll wherewith Gods worship is impiously profaned 2. Chemnitius also in the place alleaged speaking of the reseruation of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper sheweth that Antiquity vsed a Reseruation as-well as the Papists but yet with a great difference For Tridentini docent c. The Doctors of the Councell of Trent teach this Reseruation to bee a custome necessary and altogether to be retained but the ancient Fathers who had great reasons in regard of those times to obserue that custome yet did they not hold it necessary So that hee likewise condemneth that which is made an essentiall part of worship 3. Peter Martyr speaking of Ceremonies although hee verifieth your phrase of speech § 3. saying that Diuine worship doth not depend vpon the will of man but on the counsell and will of God yet doth he crosse and as it were controule your meaning of the word worship you vnderstanding thereby any Ceremonies which may serue for a complementall performance of that Diuine worship although it be not held as necessary hereunto But he saith expresly Licet Ecclesiae c. The Church hath power to prescribe and make Constitutions concerning the place time and manner of receiuing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper whether at morning or at night whether standing or sitting By this you see that he condemneth not the institution of the Accessarie and Accidentall parts of Gods worship but plainely approueth of them Your last witnesse answereth for himselfe that He in that place confuting the superstition of the Church of Rome doth not simply condemne all her Ceremonies but Farraginem tarbam onus Ceremoniarum to wit the immoderate multitude and intollerable burthen of her ceremonies in Feasts and Fasts in Gestures c. And you M. H. I trow in reprouing a man for a surfer or drunkennesse do not thereby meane to depriue him absolutely of his meate and drinke SECT VII Our generall Confutation of their former generall Propoposition especially from their owne witnesses The authority which the Church doth challenge or appointing circumstantiall and accidentall parts of Gods worship is from the liberty which she hath granted vnto her in magna Charta to wit the booke of holy Scriptures which expresly hath giuen vnto her authority to constitute such Rites as belong to Decency Order and Edification as hath beene already proued But because the Non-conformists are so frequent in alledging of witnesses I shall desire them to consult with two such whom they haue especially and namely appropriated vnto themselues in this whole controuersie who I make no question will answer their obiection Wee beginne with Vrsinus who hath catechized them well where first bringing in the obiection viz. Quae ad gloriam Dei c. â—y those things which are done to the glory of God God is worshipped Bâ—t the Constitutions of the Church are done to the glory of God ergo God is worsâ—ipped by the ordinances of man He thus answereth and resolueth that Those things which are done to the glorie of God to wit per se of themselues that is such as are commanded by himselfe to the end that by them wee may expresse our obedience vnto him those acts are the worship of God But not those which accidentally do serue to the glory of God that is to the performance of those things which are commanded of God And a little after to this
A DEFENCE Of THE INNOCENCIE OF THE THREE CEREMONIES OF THE CHVRCH OF ENGLAND viz. The Surplice Crosse after Baptisme and Kneeling at the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament Diuided into two Parts In the former whereof the Generall Arguments vrged by the Non-conformists and in the second Part their Particular Accusations against these III. Ceremonies seuerally are answered and refuted 1. COR. 11.16 If any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome neither the Churches of God Published by Authoritie LONDON Imprinted for William Barret 1618. TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE GEORGE MARQVIS OF BVCKINGHAM Viscount Villiers Baron of Whaddon Master of his Maiesties Horse Knight of the most noble Order of the Garter Gentleman of his Maiesties Bed-chamber and of his most honorable priuie Councell MY LO IT hath bene your happinesse to haue had that highest Nobilitie that can befall vnto the sons of men I speake not now of Nasci but of Renasci through Baptisme in this our most Orthodoxe and flourishing Church which alas now by the same obligation arising from the due respect of a child vnto the Mother may seeme to require your Lordships aide and assistance especially against two sorts of Aduersaries by whom she is although in a different degree vnworthily and vniustly impugned the one whereof are the Papists and the other the Non-conformists The Papists persecute her with all their engines of hate as if she were an execrable Apostate notwithstanding they themselues to instance but in two points first worship with diuine honor as the person of the Son of God that which in their opinion may but in the iudgement of all other Churches doth remaine still according as Theodoret 1200 yeares since in expresse words determined in forme figure substaÌ„ce Bread which necessarily inferreth an high degree not only of a possible but eueÌ„ of an infallible Idolatry And secoÌ„dly haue they of late added twelue new Articles of Beliefe vnto our Christian Creed with an opinion of equal necessity which kind of addition vnto the Christian Faith doth proue them notoriously heretical and liable vnto the Apostles curse who pronounceth an Anathema vpon either man or Angell that shall coine any new doctrine of that kind ConcernÌ„ing the Non-conformist He although he doth owe his spirituall birth vnto the Church as wel as his natural vnto his Parents yet neuerthelesse doth he defame his Mothers religious worship infringe her wholsome libertie and contemne her iust authoritie thereby occasioning that horrid Schisme which is made by Separatists the dissected Sects and verie Acephalists of this present age Against the Papists I haue had many conflicts Now in this Treatise my purpose is principally to coÌ„tend against the Non-conformists which being finished I thought my selfe bound to deuote the same vnto your Honour in testimonie of my due acknowledgment for your Lordshiâ—s singâ—lar fauour and respect towards me and so much the rather haue I thus aduentured because the Treatise it selfe was first occasioned by your Lordship If therefore Right Honorable in that eminence of Fauour which you haue in the eyes of our most gracious Soueraigne you shall imitate his Maiesties admirable wisedome and zeale in the aduancing of This the true daughter of that primitiue Mother Church against whatsoeuer kind of Aduersaries She shall make you twice-honorable both in the eies of God and Man by blessing you with her prayers wishing vnto you Good lucke with your Honor and happie prosperitie for preseruing of her Peace whereunto according to my especiall dutie I resound an answerable Eccho beseeching God to prosper your Lordship and to accomplish you especially with all his spirituall blessings in heauenly things and to preserue you to the glorie of his sauing Grace Your Honours in all humble acknowledgement Tho. Cestren An Epistle to the Non-conformists to reâ—â—ce them from their Superstitions and Scandals against the Church IF you my brethren or any others shall maruell why I impute Superstition vnto you I may thinke that either they know not you or that you are not rightly acquainted with your selues because as there is a Superstition affirmatiue by an Idolatrous Touching tasting and handling of things that are held to be sacred so is there likewise which cannot be denied a Negatiue Superstition condemned by the Apostle which in regard of things that were falsly iudged vnholy and profane did prohibite saying Touch not taste not handle not Wherein notwithstanding not the act of Abstaining but obserue I pray you the erroneous opinion in forbearing and forbidding such things was the formall cause of Superstition Whereunto how farre you may be thought to symbolize by your Negatiue opinions concerning these your prohibitioÌ„s Knele not crosse not weare not c. this Treatise doth fully discusse and determine But you thinke it sufficient to haue produced M. Caluin B. Iewel M. Bucer P. Martyr Beza Zanchy Chemnitius Danaeus and other the best accomplished Diuines as Aduocates to pleade your Cause It is wel if you shall be as well contented that according as Festus knowing S. Paul to haue appealed vnto Caesar did reasonably resolue saying Vnto Caesar shalt thou go I likewise vpon your allegations of such reuerend and iudicious Authors may challenge you to stand vnto the Testimonies of your owne Witnesses by whom you may easily vnderstand that the most of your Negatiue Opinions are so many Superstitions We haue receiued from you these Opinions concerning Ceremonies 1. No Ceremonie without speciall warrant from the word 2. No appropriation of any humane Ceremonie vnto Gods worship 3. No signification mysticall in any such 4. No vse of any such Ceremonie which hath bene once superstitiously abused 5. No bodily gesture in token of reuerence at the receiuing of the Lords Supper is lawfull Be you likewise pleased to take a view of the Testimonies of your owne Witnesses condemning your former assertions The first thus The Sadduces did reiect all maner of Traditions which had not bene deliuered by Moses like as do the Anabaptists and Libertines of these dayes who are notwithstanding confuted by the example of Christ in his obseruing of the feast of Tabernacles which was ordained by Iudas Machabaeus But the Papists like the old Pharises are in another extreame Besides to challenge a speciall prescription for all Ceremonies out of the word Is contrary to the wisedome of Christ and To Christian libertie The second of Not appropriating c. thus It infringeth The libertie of the Church The third against Mysticall signification thus To denie Symbolicall Ceremonies is a morositie in so much that the Papists are to be reproued for their dumbe and non-significant Ceremonies But these as Significatiue are lawful although not as operatiue yea Significant are profitable for admonition and for testification of our duties Finally the denying of this power to the Church is a Depriuing her of her Christian libertie The fourth of Abolishing of all Ceremonious vse of
things that haue bene once superstitiously abused thus The wickednesse of man cannot so farre pollute the good creatures of God Why The abuse of such things doth not cleaue to the things themselues but vnto the minds of them that do abuse them What then As it is superstition to place holinesse so it is to place vnholinesse in them To conclude This doctrine is Contrary to the intention of Christ and to the Libertie of the Church of Christ. The last which is of Not vsing any bodily reuerence at the holy Communion Thus Outward reuerence is requisite in Communicants both for the dignifying of Christs mysteries and for the increase of our Christian deuotion In a word to deny the Church power to choose her gesture of Reuerence is Contrary to the libertie allowed her by Christ. All these with diuerse other authorities and reasons are more expresly mentioned in the Treatise it selfe If you desire not to take vp your ware by retaile you may haue it in a generalitie For to instance but in one Ceremonie be it the Surplice the Reformed Churches although they vsed it not yet did they so certainly iustifie our practise thereof that as it is confessed If we shall condemne these indifferent things we shall condemne infinite Churches which are honoured of vs as most commendable Or thus We shall condemne all Churches of impious boldnesse Not to returne vpon you the many Parlaments and Conuocations which by the generall consent of the learnedst Diuines and the most wise and religious Gouernours in this kingdome haue established these Rites Before I shut vp this Epistle let me acquaint you with some other of your errors which may chiefly require your second thoughts I shal need but only to point at theÌ„ One is your often alleaging of Scriptures Fathers and other Authors and your open mistaking of their meanings as will euidently appeare The next is the many Repugnancies vnto your selues by such an extreme difference betweene your Swearing and Praying your standing and sitting your hands and tongues your heads and your knees c. as if there were some mile distance betweene you and your seluâ—s Not to mention your many obiectionâ— which make against your owne conclusions The third is the extreme iniurie that you do vnto the Church But you pretend peace because forsooth you preach not against Conformitie As though there were not a Preaching as well in the eare as on the house-top or not as well an exemplarie as there is an oratorie seducement else could not Saint Paul haue said concerning onely the Exemplarie Cogis eos Iudaizare And that which herein doth double your offence is that your opposition is grounded vpon a sinister conceit that our Church obserueth these Ceremonies in an opinion of Holinesse and Necessitie which is altogether contrarie to her owne expresse protestation Howbeit if her meaning in this case were but ambiguous or doubtfull yet would wel-conditioned children take things from a Parent with their right hands but your deprauing of her professed and plaine doctrine what can it else argue in you then an earnest bent to contention against the generall custome of the Church not vnlike vnto the Accipencer which vsually swimmeth against the streame The last is your notorious Scandals giuen vnto them that are without and them that are within the Church to the weake and to the strong yea and to the Church of God it selfe by breaking the hedge of peace and opening a gap for the wilde Bâ—re out of the Romish Forrest to enter in and â—oote out that goodly vine which many Pauls the industrious Bishops and Pâ—stors haue plainted and many Apollo's the faithfull Martyrs of Christ haue watered with their bloud And yet more specially that Scandall which you commit against your owne selues I meane so many of you as acknowledge the Innocencie of our Ceremonies fully cleared and your owne consciences sufficiently conuinced and do notwithstanding resolue I can scarce for honor mention so execrable a resolution to continue in opposition only for feare of discrediting your Ministerie which this Treatise proueth to be altogether false presumptuous partiall and pernicious Diuerse other things might haue bene obserued but to conclude Be you exhorted beloued brethren if there be in you a due hatred of Superstition any ioy in the Spirit of vnitie any zeale of the successe of the Gospell or any conscience of truth embrace the peace of the Church and the God of peace replenish your hearts with all spirituall Graces and preserue vs to the glorie of his Sauing Grace TO THE READER BE thou aduertised Christian Reader that the Obiectors in this Treatise are principally the Assembly of the Lincolnshire Ministers in their booke called the Abridgement c. printed 1605. The other in the Margent who for the respect I haue vnto them are but halfe-named are the Ministers in the Diocesse of Chester whose Reasons of their Refusall of Subscription so many as they could either borrow of others or inuent of themselues I keepe by me in writing and haue as methodically as I could ranged them into order in this Treatise Good Reader studie the peace of the Church and eschue all differences touching these matters which are apparently in their owne nature Indifferent Pag. 37. lin 4. Obiect 1. c. Dele the whole line Pag. 49. lin 5. after iudicious Diuines adde 4. Reasons Pag. 61. Sect. 9 after 5. Their owne practise adde 6. Reasons Pag. 100. lin 3. for Their reade Our Answer Pag. 1â—8 lin 26. reade Maozim Pag. 1â—2 lin vlt. in marg dele 1. Pet. 2.8 pag. 294. lin 30. râ—ade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE CONTENTS OF THIS ENSVING TREATISE PART 1. It consisteth of Two parts 1. A general Defence of the Ceremonies aboue mentioned 2. A particular Defence of each one seuerally CHAP. 1. In the first Part the Non conformists vse sixe Arguments against the foresaid Ceremonies Their first generall Argument is because Euery Ceremonie should haue Special warrant froÌ„ Scripture which as they say these haue not The PropositioÌ„ of this Argument they labour to proue by Scriptures Their I. Text is Heb. 3.2 of Christs faithfulnesse in Gods house Our Answer Sect. 3. c. II. Text 2. Sam. 7.7 God saying to Dauid Shalt thou build me an house Our Answer Sect. 6. c. III. Text Ier. 7.22.23 I commanded not your fathers concerning Sacrifices c. Our Answer Sect. 8. c. IV. Text Esa. 1.11 Who required these things at your hands Our Answer Sect. 11. V. Text Ier. 7.31 God saying Which I commâ—nded you not Our Answer Sect. 12. Their second proofe for their Negatiue arguing from Scriptures is from the iudgement of ancient Fathers Our Answer Sect. 13. c. Their third proofe is from the Testimonies of Protestant Diuines Our Answer Sect. 15. Our generall Confutation of their first Argument in disputing Negatiuely from Scripture in the question of Ceremonies by Reasons Our I. Reason
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
as little cause to insult and boast to see our Ceremonies now purged from their former superstition as they should do to see some of their Brothellers conuerted by vs vnto honesty and holinesse of life SCET. XI Their second Obiection of Scandall by our Ceremonies is in respect of profane persons The profane will draw Arguments from hence to contemne all Religions Our Answer From whence I beseech you From the seemely apparrelling of Religion or rather from the stripping her naked of her lawfull and accustomed attire Nay and you may easily coniecture whether the profane are more likely to draw arguments for their neglect or contempt of Religion and Pietie rather from a decent vniformity in lawfull Rites than from an horride disparity in them through your daily dissentions He that doubteth hereof may as well question whether the Saw or the Citharen maketh the better Musick SECT XII Their third Obiection of Scandall by our Ceremonies is in respect of the weake Brethren These cannot but be a scandall to the weake brethren and to the wicked to the weake brethren by being drawn thereunto against their conscience or else doubtingly Our Answer You haue heard our answer touching the wicked now heare a little concerning the weake These whom Christ would not haue to be scandalized hee doth point them out to be pusilli little ones meaning such as are newly wained from the world and called to feed on the Manna of the word And such babes in Christ were those Proselites whom Saint Paul did so much tender in matter of Scandall vntill they should become more ripe and strong in the knowledge of the mysteries of faith Now would we faine vnderstand who be these weaklings whom you so much respect in this Case Are they not for the most part such whom you haue most diligently catechized and whom you therefore iudge to haue more vnderstanding in the mysteries of Christ and knowledge in the reuealed will of God than others If then these whom you thinke to be more exactly seene in all essentiall parts of Christian learning must concerning points of things indifferent be counted weake then do you greatly wrong your owne iudgements by whose examples they are made weake Nay euen you selues my brethren are become these weake-ones in not being able to disgest these Ceremonies which by the confession of all Diuines are in their owne nature indifferent though you would hardly take it well that any should ranke you in the number of weake ones Yet if you be not such why do you make this a Reason to mooue the Church to respect and free you from all scandall occasioned by Ceremonies or if you be indeed weake persons why exercise you your strength in nothing more than in opposing the wisdome of the whole Church by your most scandalous contradictions We are perswaded that strength of knowledge could not take any offence at matters of Indifferencie And therefore that the guilt of your weaknesse should cause you to seeke direction from them vnto whom you owe your obedience SECT XIII Their fourth Obiection of scandall by our Ceremonies is in respect of their vnconformable Congregations and Parishâ—s But especially are these Ceremonies dâ—ngerous when they shall be brought in vpon Congregations which haue once refused them then by no reason can they be called indiffereâ—t Our Answer Your meaning is knowne to wit that by Congregations refusing them you vnderstand particular Parishes whereof your selues are Rectors or Lecturers neuer consideâ—ing that the great Congregation which is the whole Church of England in her representatiue body of Synod haue all by that authoritie whereunto you are otherwise bound to obey prescribed vnto particular Parishes and Congregations the vse of these Ceremonies he therfore that shall ascribe more power to particular Congregations for the refusing than to the great assembly of the whole kingdome in imposing a determinate vse of things indifferent may by the same with iustifie any by-lawes deuised by honest men in particular Parishes with refusall and contradiction of Parliament Lawes and Statutes enacted by the whole kingdome and ratified by his Maiesties Royall assent But seeing you are more in loue with the Lawes of a Parochiall assembly than of a Nationall Synod I would know for it is materiall by whose Suffrages and voyces you would haue Ceremonies approued or condemned in your Congregations whether by men or by women If by men of what condition must they be whether of Gentrie or Yeomanrie or c. Thinke not that I am idle in these Interrogatories seeing that they tend to bring you to the sight of your error which is indeed intollerable for what is this else but to preferre sheepe before their Pastors that is ignorance before knowledge in the policie of gouernment of the Church not to speake of the vnreasonablenesse of your manner of reasonning which is à minore ad magis affirmatiue whereby you giue vs occasion to inuert your owne Argument against you thus If a small Congregation may haue power to determine of the indifferencie coÌ„ueniencie of Ceremonies then the constitution and ordinance of a greater Congregation and that also by lawfull authoritie predominant such as euery Nationall Synod is ought much more to haue power to the same effect Howsoeuer when the refusall of your Congregation is rightly examined it will be found that before any voice or Suffrage is propounded for receiuing or reiecting any of your Lawes the Minister in the Parish will first in the Pulpit giue the definitiue sentence Whence it will consequently follow that each of your Congregations must in effect conclude from but one voice Thus farre of the weake SECT XIIII Their first Obiection of scandall against our Ceremonies in respect of the vnconformable Ministeâ—s themselues And as there is danger in the vse of these Ceremonies in all Congregations so especially if they shall be brought backe againe into those where they haue bene long out of vse and receiued by such Ministers as are knowne to haue refused them heretofore For where he should prouide by all good meanes that his Ministrie be not desspised by this meanes he shall giue euident occasion vnto his people to blame his Ministrie and to call into question the truth of all his Doctrine Our Answer If you shall as duely discerne as I shall truly discouer the manifold crimes which you seeme to bewray in this one supposition I suppose that you will be ashamed to haue published such I shall say no more then I meane to prooue a false presumptuous irreligious partiall and pernicious a pretence as this is First I haue aduentured to call it false and I thinke vpon good ground because most of you haue once at your Ordination into the Priesthood and many of you also the second time at your Institution into your Benefices subscribed vnto the lawfulnesse of these Ceremonies here in question which now vpon a pretence of strictnesse of conscience you do so vrgently
God and subiect the true worship of God to their owne comments and deuices vnto the obseruation whereof they do binde the consciences of men praecisâ necessitate by a strict necessity So he Wherein there is nothing spoken which the examples of Romish doctrine doth not confirme whereby they Pharisaically make voyde the precepts of God by the Traditions of men which was condemned by Christ and that so expresly that M. Caluin durst againe assume saying Vicerint sanè si quouis modo ab hac Christi accusatione purgare se poterant that is We are ready to yeeld them the victorie if by any meanes they shall be able to free themselues from this accusation of Christ but what excuse can they make seeing that first it is held with them a wickednesse infinitely more heynous to omit their auricular confession once within the yeare than to haue liued impiously all the yeare long secondly to infect their tongues with the least taste of any flesh vpon one Friday than to haue defiled their bodies with filthie and fleshly fornications from day to day thirdly to put their hands to worke on any day that is dedicated to their owne deuised Saints than to haue exercised their whole bodies in all facinorous and mischieuous acts fourthly for a Priest to match himselfe in marriage with one wife than to wallow in a thousand adulteries fiftly to breake their vow of pilgrimage than to falsifie their faith in their promises sixtly not to be somewhat superfluous in bestowing excessiue costs for the prodigious and vnprofitable gawdines of their Churches than to be wanting in contribution to the reliefe of the poore in their extreme necessities seuenthly to passe by an Image without reuerence to it than to reuile all sorts of men with all contumely and reproach eightly to omit the muttering with themselues in their Mattens some certaine houres many words without vnderstanding than neuer to conceiue a lawfull prayer with their vnderstanding So M. Caluin And what is it if this be not to preferre the Traditions of men before the commandements of God Furthermore concerning the matter of Popish Ceremonies he addeth as followeth As very many of their Ceremonies cannot easily so all of them if they be congested together cannot possibly be obserued so huge is the heape of them how therefore shall not the minds of men be extremly scortched with anxietie and terrour by this difficultie yea impossibilitie of keeping such ordinances wherewith their consciences are by them so fettered He proceedeth Such and so infinite is the multitude of these Ceremonies that we may truely say that they haue brought a Iudaisme into the Church of God For if Augustine could complaine in his daies that the Church of God was so pressed with the burthen of Ceremonies that the state of the Iewes might seeme to be more tollerable What complaints would that holy man haue made if he had liued in our times to see the seruitude which we behold at this day seeing that the Ceremonies are now ten-fold more for number and euery iot of them is more strictly and rigourously exacted by an hundred-fold Here here is matter for your pens to worke vpon and to inueigh against this so outragious a tyrannie of Antichrist by your many Vae's and not to take part with Pharises in complaining against the true Disciples of Christ for the vse of Three guiltlesse Ceremonies as it were for onely plucking of the Eares of Corne and coupling together things which are as different in nature as in number from the Romish Rites For as there is no great multitude in the number of Three so in these our Three none of vs did euer place any essentiall worship of God or power of Iustification or religious pietie and sanctification or do in our estimation preferre them before yea or do so much as equall them with any Ordinance of God or finally yeeld vnto them any other vse than a religious Decorum and godly signification Now then for any to complain as one of you haue done that The burdens laid vpon you by our Church are more grieuous than your fore-fathers were able to beare is but an argumēt that he can hardly point out his Father that doth not know his owne Mother for if he acknowledged himselfe a true childe of our Church he would not cast such a slander of oppressing Gods worshippers with Burthens which I am sure his Fathers haue and now the most learned and discreete among his Brethren do beare with better consciences than he can forbeare them Thus much of their first Reason SECT VII Their second Reason why these Ceremonies preiudice our Christian liberty is taken from a pretence that they are imposed with an opinion of binding mens consciences We haue nothing as yet to settle our doubtfull consciences vpon but these two points which are also in some doubt that Magistrates authority binds conscience and that the Rites imposed are indifferent But our Diuines teach vs that Humane Lawes do not bind mens consciences and that men do not incurre the guilt of eternall damnation but onely by violating the Lawes of God Our Answer If you had vnderstood those your Diuines aright you would haue distinguished betweene the manner and measure of binding of conscience where by manner is meant the authoritie of Binding and by measure the limits of this obligation of conscience Let vs begin with the Manner which is the authoritie of immediatly binding the conscience of man so as to make his transgression damnable before God which authority proceedeth onely from him who can first prohibite the internall acts of mans minde as being able to discerne the thoughts of mans heart as it is written It is the Lord that shall manifest the secrets of the hearts of men And who knowing mans thoughts can secondly iudge according to mans conscience To wit God onely concerning whom Saint Paul saith Their conscience bearing them witnesse and their thoughts accusing or excusing in that day when God shall iudge secrets of men And thirdly who iudging mens thoughts can accordingly render punishment or reward euerlastingly an act likewise proper to God as S. Iames teacheth There is one Lawgiuer who is able to destroy and saue But the Lawes of men are said to bind mens consciences not immediatly but as it were reflectiuely by way of consequence that is by vertue of the Supremacie of God that commandeth obedience to the iust lawes of men All this seemeth to be grounded vpon that Apostolicall doctrine that saith Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers for the powers that are are ordained of God Where we first obserue that Magistracie is Gods Ordinance whereof he further saith It is necessarie that you be subiect whereby there is imposed vpon subiects that necessitie of obedience whereof we spake which notwithstanding no way derogateth from the libertie of doctrine Thirdly the same Apostle maketh this necessitie fast by a bond of
conscience saying that We must be obedient for conscience sake How as if the obligation of conscience in obeying man were immediatly tyed vnto man No but vnto God and therefore that obedience vnto Magistrates is there expressed because that Magistracie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinance of God And lastly concerning Gods punishment he addeth They that resist shall receiue condemnation thereby imputing a guilt of damnation vpon all wilfull and contemptuous disobedience We may not therfore confound the distinct Courts Iurisdictions one whereof is Gods and the other is Mans The first being spirituall and inuisible the second onely ciuill and sensible But rather ought we to acknowledge the Act of binding mens consciences which is spirituall and inuisible to be properly belonging vnto Forum coeli God iudging according to the inward transgression of mans heart but not vnto forum soli wherein man hath power as to punish so to iudge directly onely the outward Acts of men It is God therefore and not man that properly and directly bindeth the conscience of Man SECT VIII Our second Answer is by confuting the Non-conformists owne Obiection from their owne Witnesses Our Diuines say you teach that Humane Lawes binde not the consciences of men Where by Our Diuines you vnderstand such Doctors of our Church who condemne your Non-conformity as though all other Diuines whom you vsually produce in fauour of your cause were contrarily-minded Among whom one catechising you in the duty of obedience vnto the Politicall lawes of men telleth you that Such politicke precepts of Magistrates and other Gouernours meaning of Parents and Masters do bind the consciences of men that is saith he we must necessarily performe them neither can they be neglected without offence vnto God we are bound to obserue them euen without the cause of scandall as for example To carry Armes is not a worship of God in it selfe but it is made a worship of God accidentally when the Magistrate shall command vs to carrie Armes because that obedience due to the Magistrate is the worship of God Another to the same purpose instructeth you that The conscience of a Christian knowing that Magistracie is the Ordinance of God doth willingly yeeld obedience This cause saith he moueth godly men to obey the Lawes of Magistrates euen then when they haue power to deceiue them and to transgresse without punishment and this is the difference betweene the godly and wicked the one obeyeth for feare of punishment the other doth it in conscience A third will reueale his iudgement in the Section following SECT IX Our third point in answering is to shew that Ecclesiasticall Lawes haue no lesse force in the case of Conscience than haue the Politique Your former Witnesses although they attribute to the Politique Lawes a power of binding mens consciences yet do they deny the same to the Ordinances which are of Ecclesiasticall cognizance Among others P. Martyr affirmeth Ecclesiastica non obstringunt conscientias si remoueatur contemptus scandalum nè aut tumore animi de industriâ constituta rescindamus aut turbemus communem pacem Ecclesiae At praeceptis ciuilibus iubemur parere non tantùm propter tram sed etiam propter conscientiam nec alienam sed nostram So hee whereof Vrsinus indeuoureth to giue vs a reason saying Nam violatione legum Ecclesiasticarum sine scandalo non violatur prima tabula decalogi cui seruire debent at violatione legum politicarum etiam extra scandalum violatur secunda tabula quià vel reipub aliquid detrahitur societas politica laeditur vel aliqua laedendi occasio praebetur But can this reason satisfie any reasonable man thinke you as though that diuine authoritie which in the behalfe of obedience vnto politique Magistrats saith vnto subiects Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and to seruants Obey them that are your bodily masters and to children Obey your parents in the Lord the same doth not likewise charge and command people concerning their spirituall parents and Gouernors saying Obey them that are set ouer you for they watch as those who must giue account for your soules Now the commandement of obeying proceeding equally in both from the same diuine authoritie it must needs follow that the obligation and bonds of Obeying in both is of equall necessitie to charge vs as well to preserue the peace of the Church as of the common-wealth For is there not in the Church a Societie and is not also a breach of the vniforme concord and peace of the same Societie an vnsufferable iniurie and mischiefe as wherby Aliquid Reip. Christianae detrahitur ipsa Societas Ecclesiastica laeditur c. And therefore how shall not this be a violation of the second table as well as the like transgression against lawes politique But I need not vse much arguing to confute the former opinion 1. because the opinion it selfe is not common 2. because it can haue no place in our Church wherein our gracious Soueraigne Lord and King hath set his Royall stampe vpon our Constitutions and Ceremonies by his Maiesties politique authoritie And lastly because the light of Scripture is euidently against it especially in diuers Aposâ—olicall Constitutions whereof some were Ceremoniall and yet challenged obedience in their times Thus much of the manner of obliging mans conscience We proceed to the measure SECT X. Our fourth point in answering is to expresse how farre humane Lawes do bind mens consciences and whether all iust Lawes do not bind them against Scandall and contempt of authoritie as the measure of Obedience It is not onely the vniforme iudgement of the Authors aboue mentioned but also the vniuersal consent of all diuines that write of this argument that al persons are bound in conscience to performe obedience as wel to Gouernors Ecclesiastical as vnto Ciuill so farre as to auoid all Scandall and coâ—tempt against their lawfull precepts and Ordinances so that to suppose an Aduersary in this case were but to fight with a shadow This therefore being but a measure of the bond of Conscience I proceed to inquire wherein the transgression of conscience by Scandall and contempt concerning matters indifferent doth principally consist SECT XI The Obiection of the Non-conformists If a bare omission of a Rite were a contempt then all that vse bowling which the Lawe disalloweth and do not weare Caps and such habiâ—s as the Statutes inioyne should be contemners Our Answers This point concerning the measure of that obligation of conscience in the question of due obedience requireth a more exact and accurate discussion because this Case is variously disputed off in the Schooles Some take their measure from the will of the Law-giuer conceiuing that the conscience of the Subiect is then bound to obedience whensoeuer the lawfull Gouernour doth impose any Law with an intention that men should make conscience of his command Some fetch the measure of Obligation from the
saith Caluin is commanded to abstaine from meates 1. Cor. 10.28 where albeit God commandeth him to abstaine in things indifferent in respect of Scandall yet doth not man thereby lose the libertie of conscience because his own conscience hath respect vnto God viz. by beleeuing that the meat is in nature indifferent and may in due time be lawfully eaten but his abstinence hath respect vnto the Conscience of another that he be not offended who thinketh such eating vnlawfull And throughout the whole Treatise he sheweth that To make such Traditions necessary to eternall life and to place in them the iustice of remission of sinnes and the summe of all religion and pietie is to inuade the Kingdome of Christ by whom we haue libertie of conscience in things indifferent All which doth euidently shew that Christian libertie doth not coÌ„sist in the vse or dis-use of things indifferent but in an opinion of the necessitie of vsing or not vsing them Which point may be yet furthermore most plainly demonstrated thus In the case of Scandall where by the doctrine of the Apostle I am bound in conscience to abstaine from eating certaine meates for feare of offending a weake Christian my conscience notwithstanding is free in regard of my opinion to beleeue that the meate which I abstaine from may be eaten or not eaten in due time and place SECT XIII Our second Reason of Confutation from the profession of our Church Hearken I pray you vnto the publique profession of our Church whereby albeit shee challenge a necessarie obedience to her command yet doth she not command or teach any vse of these Cereremonies in any opinion of necessitie thereof but saith plainly These Ceremonies are retained for Discipline and Order which vpon iust causes may be altered and changed and are not to be esteemed equall with Gods Law What then needeth this lowd clamour or rather lewd slander which some blush not to cast vpon her imputing vnto her no lesse a crime than the bereauing them of their Christian Libertie by whom notwithstanding they themselues do at this day enioy all the spirituall freedome and happy interest that they haue in Christ. SECT XIIII Our last Proofe or rather Reproofe against the Non-conformists shewing that they by their manner of refusing these Ceremonies haue superstitiously withstood that Christian liberty which they would seeme to defend Christian libertie as hath bene alreadie proued and acknowledged is properly impeached by a Doctrinall necessitie namely by teaching men to beleeue some thing to be necessarie in it selfe which Christ by the power of his new Testament hath left to his Church as free and indifferent Which kind of doctrine our Church condemneth as false and superstitious And this Superstition is two-fold the one is affirmatiue the other negatiue Affirmatiue superstitioÌ„ is to affirme the vse of any thing that is indifferent to be of absolute necessitie as without which the faith of Christianitie or the true worship of God cannot possibly consist Of which kinde we haue had many examples in Poperie The negatiue superstition is to deny the lawfull vse of any thing which Christ hath left free with whâ—ch kind of superstition not onely Papists but also many ancient Heretikes haue bene dangerously infected the Marcionites teaching that it is not lawfull for any man to marrie the Discalceati to weare shoes the Tatiani to eate flesh the Seueriani to drinke wine And that there is a Negatiue Superstition it is euident by an heresie that had taken roote in the verie infancie of the Church teaching concerning meats and other indifferent things and saying Eate not touch not handle not Now your Negatiue superstition in opposing against those Ceremonies doth bewray it selfe by your doctrinall opinion saying for example Weare not a linnen Surplice and that by two degrees The first is an opinion of the vnholinesse and pollution in it because as you say it hath bene abused by the Papists in their Idolatrous Masse This opinion I iudge to be notoriously superstitious and so it seemeth to be acknowledged by M. Iewel who speaking of the Surplice doth iudicially account it to be an equall errour To commend any apparell as holy and to condemne it as vnholy the Papists are in the first extremitie and you in the other Which Negatiue superstition is flatly condemned by that saying of Saint Paul An Idoll is nothing that is as M. Beza confesseth It hath no power to vnhallow any thing that was offered vnto it Which is apparent by the conclusion of the same Apostle where excepting the case of Scandall as it then stood he did teach that men might eate of the Idolothytes or meates sacrificed to Idols making no question for conscience sakâ— The second degree of your Negatiue Superstition is seene in your other opinion which you alleage for refusing of it euen because it is prescribed vnto you in Gods worship in a necessitie of obedience Which is a plaine ouerthrow of Christian libertie by taking away from the Church that authoritie of ordaining Ceremonies and prescribing obedience thereunto which by the practise of the Vniuersall Church of Christ from the daies of the Apostles vnto these latter times was neuer questioned by any Orthodoxe yea or Hereticke excepting onely the Acephalists and is at this day condemned by M. Caluin and all other Diuines of sound iudgement But we were to proue this kinde of Negatiue opposition vnto Ceremonies to be superstitious and to bring in with it a doctrine of seruitude vpon the Church by the confession of their owne Witnesses If this were not a Superstition M. Caluin could not haue warned Christian Churches as he hath done to take heed lest in opposing of Ceremonies they be not too superstitious Nor could P. Martyr haue concluded that To thinke that that speaking of the Surplice which hath bene vsed in Poperie may not be vsed of vs is to oppresse the Church with too much seruitude This I thought fit in this place onely to point at that my Reader may discerne that our Church is not so Superstitious in her prescribing of Ceremonies as the Non-conformists are superstitious in opposing against them as will furthermore appeare in full view by our Answer to your particular Accusations against the Surplice and the rest whereunto we instantly descend PART II. A PARTICVLAR DEFENCE OF THE INNOCENCIE of the Three Ceremonies viz. Surplice Crosse after Baptisme and Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion in opposition to All the Particular Accusations made by the Non-conformists against them CHAP. I. I. Of the Surplice SECT I. The first Accusation of the Non conformists is in respect of the distinction of Habite In appointing any seuerall apparell vnto Ministers there is some iniury done vnto them For Bucer professeth that in all the Churches where he had bene Teacher he tooke order that no speciall apparell might be prescribed for the Ministers to weare Our Answer ALTHOVGH as in Women the best
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