Ceremonies but condemneth onely heresies and blasphemies against faith Ambrose reprooueth the prophanenesse of carnall worldlings that contemned the comforts of holy Scriptures Cyprian handleth onely a doctrinall point concerning Baptisme in an opinion of the necessitie thereof Augustine in his first place refuteth Heretikes who in the name of Christ imposed on Christians certaine doctrines as necessary which Christ neuer reuealed In his 2. and 3. places the Donatists in a doctrine against plaine Scriptures concerning the Church In his fourth the superstitious opinion of some concerning a kind of witchcraft in knots of earings which in the iudgement of August is condemned by this Scripture Haue you no fellowship with diuels And in his last place the horrible sinne of Idolatrie in sacrificing to Neptune which Scripture euery where condemneth in her seuerall execrations against all worshipping of false Gods All these places of Fathers are taken à scriptura negante that is from Scripture forbidding the vnlawfulnesse of such things which are directly contrary to the will of God reuealed in Scripture and not à scriptura negatâ that is from the silence of Scripture in matters called in question onely besides not against Scriptures Whence no solid argument can be made against things indifferent There is yet one other Testimonie which maketh a better shew for your Negatiue argument in the question of Ceremonies SECT XIIII Their Obiection out of Tertullian Tertullian de corona militis cap. 2. to them that thought it lawfull for men to weare garlands on their heads because they are not forbidden by Scripture answereth saying That is prohibited which is not permitted Our Answer But how doth this reproue our Ceremonies which are permitted and therefore not prohibited And what shall we say to these men who blush not to confute the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies ordained by man which are without speciall warrant of Scriptures from the iudgement of Tertullian who in the same booke doth alledge and professe many such Ceremonies whereof he confesseth saying Harum aliarum si legem expostules Scripturarum nullam habemus c. i. If you expostulate with vs concerning the lawfulnesse of these and such like Disciplines we confesse that we haue no Scripture for them SECT XV. The third proofe of the Non-conformists for their Negatiue argument from Scripture by the pretended testimonies of Protestants And our best Diuines do iustifie against the Papists the Argument which concludeth negatiuely from the authoritie of the Scripture in this Case This kinde of reasoning negatiuely from Scripture is called indeed ridiculous by Bellarmine and other Papists but it is worthily iustifyed by our most Orthodoxall Diuines Amongst others D. Morton Apol. part 2. cap. 49. pag. 166. proouing out of the Fathers that the Scriptures make contra nouas omnâ—s inuentiones And in his Appeale lib. 2. cap. 4. sect 4. By the samâ— Argument he condemneth from the testimonie of Pope Iulius the vse of milke in steed of wine in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as also the wringing in of the grapes and sopping in of the breed euen because these Ceremonies are not found in the institution of Christ. Our Answer The same Doctor qui me mihi prodis ait answereth that you could not do him greater iniurie nor your cause more preiudice than so notoriously to falsifie his direct meaning in both places For in his Apol. arguing in defence of the sufficiencie of Scriptures against the Romish Traditions he prooues out of the Fathers that All things necessarie to saluation are contained in Scripture whether concerning doctrine of faith or manners of life But as for matters meerely Ceremonious which in his iudgement he holds to be in their owne nature indifferent and not necessarie to saluation he takes a precise exception against them and excludes all obiections concerning such Rites as being aliens from the matter handled in that place For the exact state of the question there is set downe concerning matter of doctrine onely yet for all this our Non-conformist will needs not onely leuell at a wrong marke but also shoote against me with my owne bow and make me seeme to dispute negatiuely from Scripture touching points meerely Ceremoniall The Appeale doth indeed mention Ceremonies yet not all but such onely as were inuented and appointed to be essentiall parts of a Sacrament as namely milke in stead of wine sopping in of bread into the cup and wringing in of the grape Now all these had in them a nature of doctrinals through an opinion of a necessary vse For sacramentum est verbum visibile A Sacrament as Augustine saith is a visible word Wherefore to ordaine new materiall Elements in the Eucharist as parts thereof is in a manner to inuent a new Sacrament which is a sacrilegious deprauation of the will of the Testator Iesus in which case a Ceremonie besides the word is flatly against the word and such were these For concerning taking of bread and eating and afterwards of taking the cup and drinking Christ doth prefine seuerally Do this where the vse of milke in stead of wine and of sopping in the bread and eating it without breaking are flatly repugnant to the precept of Christ and consequently can haue no affinitie with our Ceremonies which are onely held as circumstantiall Rites and no way essentiall parts of any Sacrament or prescribed forme of Gods worship Which being so the Dr. whom you alledge may presume that the man who could be so audacious as to wrest this testimony to vpbraid and thwart the Author himselfe distorting his words against his expressed and professed meaning will deale no lesse iniuriously with farre more worthy Diuines and so indeede he doth For he with others of his opinion hath singled out a principall champion of our Church to witt Bishop Iewell for the countenancing of their Negatiue Argument from Scripture in this case of Ceremonies who in the place by them quoted confuting the superstition of Papists speaketh not one word of any Rites which in his owne iudgement were onely besides the warrant of Scripture as these men pretend but of such Romish Ceremonies which he iudged to be flatte contrary thereunto to wit the Popish reseruation of the Sacrament beyond the Sacramentall vse for their publike procession and their priuate Masse which are directly against the Institution of Christ prescribing the true vse of the Sacrament to consist both in Taking Eating and communicating together and this vse he further bindeth by obligation of that precept Doo this Which that reuerend Bishop doth so fully expresse as if he had indeauored with one breath to blow away the superstition of Papists and the opposition of Non-conformists For thus he addeth speaking of the negatiue manner of arguing This kinde of proofe is thought to hold in Gods Commandements saith he because his law is perfect And therefore he could not vnderstand any abuse which he thought not to be contrary to Gods commandement The like measure doth
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
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
The second generall Agument made by the Non-conformists against the three Ceremonies of our Church is That they are held as properly parts of Gods Worship The Maior All humane Ceremonies which are esteemed imposed or obserued as parts of Diuine worship are vnlawfull The Assumption But such are these Surplice Crosse in Bâ—ptisme and kneeling at the Communion Therefore these are vnlawfull Our Answer DIstinction is by the Logâ—cians called a Wedge because it is the onely meanes in all Disputes to dissolue the hardest Elenchs and knots of subtlety which if you would haue applied in this controuersie then should you not haue needed our answer to wit if you had but discerned the proper and essentiall parts of Gods worship from the improper and accidentall By the essentiall parts we vnderstand such Ceremonies which are so necessarily required to Gods seruice as that the contrariety thereof must needs displease him And the improper and accidentall parts or rather Appurtenances are such which serue onely as accessary complements ordained for the more conuenient discharge of the necessary worship of God It was proper to God as to create the body and all the naturâ—ll limmes and parts thereof whereunto man hath no power to add so much as an haire so to ordaine the perfect forme of his essentiall worship and seruice but yet for man to apply thereunto accessary Ceremonies for Decorum and Edification may no more be accounted a Derogation to Gods ordinance concerning his owne worship than it can be to his creation to cloath and apparell the naked bodie of man which is indeed rather to be accounted a note of our greater estimation thereof SECT II. The Non-conformists their proofes of the Maior from 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Witnesses These Ceremonies imposed are not onely not commanded as lawfull but prohibited as sinful For the Scriptures Fathers and Orthodox writers do condemne as sinful all wit-worship or will-worship whatsoeuer proceeding out of the forge of mans fancies Whatsoeuer precepts of men in Gods worship either for matter or manner deliuered and imposed by man although they seeme neuer so good in their owne sight Our Answer I doubt that we shall find you to bewray more will than wit and more fancie than sound reason in your pretended proofes Begin with Scriptures SECT III. Their proofes from Scripture Esay 29.13 God saith In vaine do they worship me teaching for Precepts Commandements of men In Deut. 12.32 We are commanded neither to adde nor to diminish And Coloss. 2. The Apostle condemneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will-worship Our Answer All these places of Scripture are meerely Heteroclits in respect of the point in controuersie For first by the Precepts of men in Esay are signified such humane ordinances as were expresly contrary to the Commandement of God as is plaine both by the description of their sin called a staggering drunkennesse signifying their Idolatrous conceits and also by the denunciation of Gods iudgements by fearefull destruction to come vpon Israel by the hands of a multitude of Nations Which kind of menaces were neuer published but for hainous and horrible transgressions Secondly the Adding and diminishing spoken of doth not meane addition of preseruation but addition of corruption like as the fraudulent Coyner of money doth corrupt the Kings Coyne either by adding baser mettall vnto it or by clipping any siluer from it and in both kinds he is a Traitor How much more high treason must we iudge it to be against the Highest himselfe when man shall aduenture either to make any Diuine precept or promise and set Gods stampe vpon it to make the speech to be Gods speech which is but the deuice of his owne forge or to diminish the estimation of Gods precept by accounting it but an inuention of man And the like may be affirmed of the Sacraments which are proper to that Diuine person who is the Testator it being no lesse sacriledge to corrupt the Sacraments which are the seales of Gods promises than to depraue his will of Commandements SECT IIII. A confutation of the Non-conformists interpretation of the Scriptures by their owne witnesses Your most approued witâ—esses make altogether against you First Danaeus obiecting against Papisticall Traditions the same places of Esay saying In vaine do they worship me teaching c. and Deut. 4.12 Nothing must be added c. told you that Ex superiorâ—bus c. He meant this of the Traditions which he spake of in the former Chapter and whereof he had said Huiusmodi traditiones humanae c. Such humane Ceremonies which are added as necessary appendices and parts of doctrine belonging to Christian faith or are deliuered as norma the Rule of Gods worship they do in effect accuse the word of God to be lame and imperfect which is plaine blasphemie as Tertullian teacheth in his booke of Prescriptions against Heretikes Secondly Zanchius hath told you that That place concerning will worship condemned by the Apostle Col. 2.27 did point at certaine Hypocrites of those times who did obtrude vpon Christians Traditions of their owne deuising in pretence that they proceeded from God And vpon these words of the same Apostle Let no man deceiue you in meate or in drinke c. he presseth it against the Popes thunder-blasts of paper-shot saying that Seeing althings necessary to saluation haue bene deliuered vnto his Church by Christ therefore may we contemâ—e the Popes execrations and Anathema's whereby he pronounceth damnation vpon them that approue not his Traditions as not holding them necessarie to saluation You see how many arrowes you haue drawne out of Gods quiuer the holy Scripture and by this time may perceiue what kind of mark-men you are seeing that the marke being to confute Ceremonies which aâ—e onely Besides and not Agaâ—nst the word or will of God you haue chosen such arrowes as are too heauie for your bow all of them being such Texts which condemne heinous and enormous sins directly reproued by holy Scripture therfore musts needs light far short of the Marke For tell vs I pray you in good conscience are our Ceremonies expresly condemned by Scripture as was Idolatry in Esay 29 saying thereof In vaine do they worship me c. or as the wicked corrupting of the Law of God Deut. 12. saying Thou shalt not adde c. or as that hereticall doctrine against Christian liberty in meates Col. 2 I thinke you cannot bee so perswaded except you your selues can by your authority make some new Scripture to proue it SECT V. Their proofes from the Iudgements of the Fathers The Fathers do reiect Will worship as Idolatry Augustine Ierome Cyprian Chrysostme do all speake against new doctrines and humane Traditions Our Answer The Fathers do indeed reiect Will-worship wherein as we do willingly subscribe vnto their iudgement so may we iustly reprehend you for your wilfull wresting of the Fathers sentences Who as they did condemne all such doctrines Traditions yea and if
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
premised concerning the opinion of the Manichees let vs now come vnto the decree of the Councell If any shall fast on the Lords day propter continentiam quae putatur aut contumaciam for that which is held namely by the Maniches a continency or a contumacie and contempt to wit of the Christian profession in celebrating the faith of the resurrection of Christ Anathema sit let him be accursed But can you that would make this Argument against vs averre that any of our Ceremonies haue in them any signification of contempt to any one Article of Christian profession Doth not euery one of them rather manifest and demonstrate some speciall duty of Christianitie Those that are right Doctors indeed do imitate good Nurces who first chew and masticate the morsels in their owne mouthes before that they put them into the mouthes of their Infants But you collect the Decrees of Councels at all peraduenture without euer examining the reasons thereof and so deliuer them to your disciples to swallow downe whole And therefore no maruaile if that many of your flocke whom you feed with such vnprepared diet do swell so extremely with the windie crudities of their owne conceits SECT XVIII Their second Instance concerning the Ceremoniâ—s of Heretickes The Councell of Brac. 1. Can. 32. decreed that none of the Clergie should forbeare to eate flesh that they might shew themselues to differ from the Priscilianists Our Answer From a Fast you invite vs to a Feast but it seemeth you know no cause why for these Priscilianists were in the heresie of the Maniches who thought that Flesh had not the beginning and creation thereof from God but from the Authour of euill and vpon that opinion abstained from it Execrationis animo potiùs quà m deuotionis that is Rather vpon an intent of detestation of flesh than vpon any true deuotion As therefore it was ordained in the Councell of Ancyra that the Clergie-men in abstaining sometimes from the eating of flesh should notwithstanding nam visum est eas attingere touch it thereby to manifest their Orthodoxe iudgements namely that they had not this creature of God in any execration so in the fore-named Councell of Brac. it was decreed that Ecclesiasticall persons although sometimes they would refuse to eate flesh yet should they Praegustare olera cocta cum carnibus that is Tast of herbes sod together with flesh To what end Pro amputanda suspicione Priscilianae haereseos To cut off the suspicion of the Priscilian heresie As in the same Decree is fully expressed If now you can shew vs the like cause of remouing our Ceremonies then may you challenge of vs the like effect But tell vs what thinke you Do Papists iointly consort with vs in the same Acts either of wearing Surplices or of ministring of Baptisme or of communicating with vs without any opinion of adoring the Sacraments as in those daies the Priscilianists did ioyne at the same Ordinaries and Banquets with the Catholikes First therefore you should haue shewne your iust cause of suspicion and then might you boldly haue framed your Indightment SECT XIX Their third Instance concerning the Abuse of Ceremonies by Heretikes Gregorie as we finde him cited alleageth and approueth a Decree of the Councell of Toledo which forbad the Ceremony of thrice dipping in Baptisme because it was the custome of the Heretickes Our Answer If you had taken the paines to haue read Gregorie your selues and had not beene content to take this vp on trust and at the second hand of those who do alleage him although partly truly yet but onely in part he would haue taught you a lesson worth your remembrance which is this In eadem fide nihil officit sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diuersa That is The diuersitie of customes or Ceremonies vsed in the vnitie of the same faith cannot preiudice the holy Church And therefore you are to know that other reformed Churches whom you would make aduersaries to our Ceremonies haue no more cause to condemne vs then wee haue to condemne them for diuersity of Rites And concerning the Ceremonies obiected he sheweth that it is a thing indifferent in it selfe whether the Church vse thrice or but onely once dipping secondly concerning the cause of this Indifferencie Qâ—omodò in tribus mersionibus personarum vnitas in vna potest divinitatis singularitas designari He noteth that wheâ—her it be thrice or once both of them are signes of mysticall signification the thrice dipping betokning the Trinitie of Persons and the once the vnitie of one essentiall Deity thereby allowing of these kinde of spirituall significations in such Ceremonies Thirdly the cause why S. Gregorie would haue Thrice dipping changed into once was by reason of certaine Heretikes who made an hereticall construction of the first custome of the Thrice-dipping Dum mersiones numerantes divinitatem dividentes c. That is vpon the Thrice-dipping as 1. in the name of the Father 2. in the name of the Sonne 3. in the name of the Holy Ghost they diuided the Deity into three Gods Yea and that there was once in Spaine such a necessitie to change the same Rite the fore-named Councell of Toledo setteth downe in this manner Proptereà quòd quidam Sacerdotes simplam quidam trinam mersionem faciunt à nonnullis schisma esse conspicitur fidei vnitas scindi videtur nam dùm partes diuersae in baptizandis aliquo contrario modo agunt alij alios non baptizatos esse contendunt Certainly if euer any could haue shewne the like necessitie against any of our Ceremonies then our most wise and religious Pilots of this Ship of Christ that abandoned all the heresies in Popedome would neuer haue entertained these other Rites But they were well perswaded that these our Ceremonies could not by their onely morall significations ingender or harbour any hereticall opinion SECT XX. Their last Instance from Antiquity concerning Ceremonies abused by Heretickes Leo aduiseth all Christians to shunne the vipâ—rous conferenâ—e of Heretikes and that in nothing they would be like vnto them who in name onely are Christians Our Answer You will still be like your selues in alleaging sentences of Fathers without due consideration of their sences The words of Leo stand thus Take you heed beloued of the craft of Satan who doth not onely seeke to intrap you by caâ—nall concupiscence but doth also sow Tares together among the seeds of faith to the end that whom he cannot corrupt by euill deedes them he may subuert by wicked errours Flie you therefore the arguments of humane Doctrine and shun the viperous conference of Heretickes haue you nothing to do with them who being Adversaries to the faith are Christians onely in name Which words Haue you nothing to do with them you take as spoken absolutely against all kinde of Conformitie with such and thereupon you except against alâ— likenesse in Ceremonies whereas Leo onely giueth a caution but to eschue doctrinall
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
you that the Romish Church alloweth a worship of Images without relation vnto any person whose Images they be You are chargeable to shew that this superstition may be iustly imputed vnto vs. It is manifest that you cannot for the worship which you call into question is onely relatiue and this of Bellarmine is professedly giuen to Images and to signes without any relation at all SECT XXXIIII The second absolute and direct Romish worship of the Sacrament Idolatrously It is the Romish profession to adore the Sacrament namely the corporall substance contained therein as the very person of the Son of God in the proper substance of his bodily presence which we iudge Idolatrous not onely by an Accidentall possibility but by an absolute infallibility For first that the worshippers do adore the bread with diuine honour in stead of Christ himselfe which possibility the Doctors of the Romish Church do coÌ„fesse may happen to their Adoration of the Eucharist by reason of many possible accidents as if he that consecrateth haue not had a true Ordination or in consecrating of the Sacrament haue not a right Intention or in vttering the words of Consecration faile in his syllabicall pronunciation or if the formes of the Sacraments themselues by vnfit admixtion or putrifaction lose their perfection In all these for euerie one of them is possible possibilities it may fall out that the Romish worshippers do adore with Diuine honour the element of bread in stead of the Son of God which what is it but at least an Accidentall Idolatry but yet true Idolatry They haue in this case no other colour of euasion than to tell vs that when they kneele downe to adore this Sacrament they do it with an implicite and inward conceit of the minde saying If Christ be present then I adore thee c. But this is a most miserable shift to make Adoration which is the highest honour homage which man oweth properly to God vnto an Hypothetical beleefe if Christ be there The truth of God telleth vs that whosoeuer coÌ„meth to God He must beleeue that God is that is honour him with a Diuine faith that he is wheresoeuer he is adored But in Ifs and And 's that is in fallibilities there can be no Diuine faith Ergo this Suppositiue faith is meerely supposititious because it is impossible that the Ielousie of God should admit of a doctrine or Religion whereby it must necessarily happen sometime that the creature should be worshipped with honour properly due vnto the Creator himselfe This be spoken of the possibility How much more Idolatrous must they appeare to be when as by necessary consequences from Scripture iudgement of ancient Fathers and the aduocation of the perfectest Senses of man it may be infallibly proued that that which they adore as Christ himselfe remaineth still in figure forme and substance the same Bread that it was before Consecration This inferreth such an infallibilitie of their Idolatry that it is impossible but the Popish Adoration of this Sacrament must be Idolatrous From which kind of Idolatry whether possible or infallible you will free vs before we conclude this cause Hitherto haue we shewne what kinde of worship in receiuing the Sacrament ours is not namely not Popish whether you consider the Relatiue kinde of worship by making the Sacrament an obiect of Adoration In quo or per quod or else the absolute manner of Adoration by worshipping the Sacrament tanquam obiectum quod adoratur We are now to shew what is the obiect of our Reuerence in receiuing the Sacrament SECT XXXV The Relatiue Reuerence which is vsed in our Church in respect of the Sacrament is without note of Idolatry First if our Relation be made from the Signe to Christ the thing signified then is the Sacrament obiectum à quo significatiuè the Signe mouing vs to that Sursum corda to lift vp our mindes from the earthly obiect of Sense Bread c. to the body of Christ the spirituall obiect of faith vpon his Tribunall Seate in Heauen Wherein as hath bene proued out of your owne Witnesse there can be no shadow of any Idolatrous Adoration Or secondly our relation may be taken from Christ to the Sacrament as betweene a giuer and his gift and so in Kneeling downe we take this holy Sacrament as the mysticall pledge and seale of the body and bloud of Christ the price of our Redemption apprehended by faith Whereas therefore the deuout Communicant is vpon his Knees praying to the blessed Trinitie to be made a welcome partaker of so heauenly a Feast and praysing the supreme Deity for these Royall tokens of his grace this respect and relation being a reuerent taking of this so inestimable a gift as from the hands of Christ according to his owne Ordinance cannot come within the least suspicion of Idolatry SECT XXXVI This our former relation of Reuerence betweene a Giuer and his Gift is illustrated by a Similitude We were ready to illustrate our former Reuerence by the comparison of receiuing a gift from the hand of earthly Maiestie but we perceiue that the Non-conformists are ready to preoccupate SECT XXXVII The Non-conformists preuention vnto our Comparison There is no proportion betweene the Ciuill reuerence giuen to a King or to the gift which we râ—ceiue from him and this religious reuerence to these bodily things for there is far more danger of Idolatry here then there Our Answer This obiection noteth onely a danger of Idolatry but this is to feare where no feare is for although there be not a Proportion of equality betweene a Ciuill and Religious reuerence yet is there a proportion of similitude and the one doth singularly illustrate the other in this case For as a Ciuill gift ought to be taken with a Ciuil reuerence from the hand of an earthly Soueraigne so must a Spirituall gift and the Instruments thereof be receiued with a Spirituall and Religious Reuerence as from the Maiestie of Christ who instituted and ordained it for vs. And as the Ciuill reuerence vsed in receiuing the gift of the King doth not derogate from the dignity of the King but rather establish it because the whole reuerence redoundeth to the King so this our religious receiuing of holy Rytes doth magnifie the Author but no way deifie the gift And doubtlesse none can be so simple as seeing any Subiect reuerently taking any grant or especially gift from the hand of an earthly King by the token of a Ring or if you will be a rush as to imagine that worship to be derogatiue to the Royaltie or Maiesty of the King SECT XXXVIII Our second ground of Confutation is taken from the Testimonies of their owne Witnesses requiring of Communicants Reuerence in receiuing any such Ordinances of God We are not ignorant that many Protestant Authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion but how as it is vsed Idolatrously of Papists in
Bels Fonts Tables FlagoÌ„s Pulpits all which hauing some profitable vse in the Church of God may by the warrâ—nt of Gods word be retained although in Poperie they haue beene abused Thus farre this Non conformist Marke now I pray you from whence and whither you are come Your first Conclusions were for the extirpation of all Ceremonies formerly abused to Idolatry whether Iewish Heathenish or Popish and that as you affirme necessarily and absolutely to the quite abolishing not onely of the things themselues but euen the Monuments and names yea and the very shadowes and resemblances of them that at length all memorie of them may be swallowed vp of obliuion and these your assertions you pretended to be grounded vpoÌ„ Scriptures Councels Fathers and Testimonies of Protestant Diuines Thus in your former Conclusions But contrarily now in your Confessions and practises you yeeld vnto vs the vse of Shadowes of names and of things themselues which haue bene once defiled by Idolatrous pollutioÌ„ 1. Shadowes for you forbeare not to decke your houses with Bay-leaues notwithstanding you held this an execrable Ceremonie among the Pagans Nor do you alter the situation of your Churches and Chancels towards the East albeit that Ceremonie hath bene Heathenishly abused to the adoration of the Sun And do you not ordinarily as well in your vulgar English as in Latin call some of the dayes of the weeke by names anciently appropriated vnto the seuen Planets or to the Heathen gods viz. Dies Saturni c. Saturday Sun-day Moon-day Besides you do religiously and Christianly celebrate monthly Communions to the remembrance of Christ notwithstanding that the Pagans had their monthly festiuals in the beginning of their Calends And finally if you will needs stand vpon names you may not lawfully so much â—s name the word Ceremonie if as some hold the same word Ceremonie haue bene borrowed by the Romish Pagans from their goddesse Ceres Nor can you be said to abstaine from all appearance of Iewâ—sh obseruations whilest with vs you Christianly celebrate the feast of Pentecost which the Israelites did obserue Iewishly or else by hauing the tables of the commandements written vpon the pillars of the Churches which the Iewes did write vpon the Posts of their houses But what do we talking of names and shadowes you are furthermore contented in some things to retaine their materials and to change onely the fashions for you allow that Popish vestmentâ— be changed into Cushions for the Churches vs and Copes into Pulpit-clothes And you agree that some other things as Bels Fonts Tables aâ—d Churches themselues although neuer so filthily polluted may both in forme and in matter contiue the same Is there not then an huge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betweene your former Conclusions and these after Confessions We come now to examine your Reason of allowing any of the former Ceremonies although they haue bene Idolatrously abused You alledge that you onely allow them because they are profitable and necessary But what absolutely necessary This you cannot affirme because the primitiue Church as you well know of a long time kept not their worship in Temples but in Cryptis euen in priuate houses and deserts Nor vsed they seats or Cushions for in the time of persecution they were contented to vse their Stations which sheweth that their common gesture was standing Againe there was a time when the Ministers were golden and their Chalices but wooden and indeed the Church vnder persecution did forbeare to put on any ornaments of vestures and then Baptisme was not in Fonts but in Riuers and Fountaines Nor were people assembled to the publike Seruice of God by the sound of Bels but of mens voices All which accidentall supplies do plainly shew that the Profit of these things which you your selues thinke worthy to be continued is of no absolute necessitie Lastly you may enquire of the Church of Geneua why she imposeth the Wafer-cake to be obserued of her Ministers and people albeit shee is not ignorant that the round Wafer among the Papists had the signification of the pence for which Christ was sold by Iudas and became after their Romish consecration not onely Idolatrous but the very Idol it selfe Vpon these Premises I make bold to argue thus If your imagined necessitie which is in truth but a conueniencie be of power to take away the Idolatrous pollution of Temples Bels Tables Chalices euen as it is said By the warrant of the word of God which requireth Decency Order and Edification in his seruice then doubtlâ—sse the Decency Order and Edification it selfe which are to be discerned in our Ceremonies may be thought much more able to purge and purifie the Ceremonies which haue bene changed from their Popish vse But of the Profit and conueniencie of our Ceremonies we shall haue occasion to speake more particularly when we shall come to the confutation of your particular Accusations I haue no delight to wade any longer in this lake of Abuses and therefore leauing these our Confutations to the consideration of our ingenuous Reader I passe from this fourth generall Argument of the Non-conformists against our Ceremonies vnto the Argument following CHAP. V. SECT I. The fift generall Argument of the Non-conformists against the aforesaid Ceremonies taken from the Scandall which they impute vnto them Maior Then especially doth a Ceremony become in vse vnlawfull when it cannot be vsed without scandall and offence for the holy Ghost speaking of indifferent things strictly chargeth to take heed that we neither put an occasion to fall or lay a stumbling blocke before a brother Rom. 14.13 nor make him weake ver 21. nor giue him cause to speake or thinke ill of vs ver 16. nor grieue him thereby ver 15. The Reason is giuen because it tendeth to the destruction of him ver 20. And that all Ceremonies become vnlawfull in the case of scandall is the iudgement of Diuines Assumption But these Ceremonies of Surplice Crosse in Baptisme Kneeling at the receiuing of the Communion are Scandalous Ergo they ought to he remooued Our first Answer to their Maior by exposition of the word Scandall SOme vnderstand by the word Scandall euery kind of grieuing or angring of any Brother but if this were true then might Christ be said to haue Scandalized Peter whom he did much perplexe and grieue when after Peters third denyall of him he asked him saying Simon louest thou me But this grieuance being not ad ruinam but ad correctionem for instruction not for destruction cannot be properly called a Scandall Againe the Apostle is exact in forbidding euery Christian to do that wherewith any Brother may be offended scandalized or weakened from which diuersitie of words some do extract different sences as that offendiculum Offence must signifie that act of one man whereby another is hindred in the course of faith and godlinesse so that he goe backe-ward from his profession And secondly by scandalum scandall they vnderstand such an hinderance
which maketh a man fall either into dangerous errours in doctrine or else some sinfull act of conuersation Thirdly by weakenesse they interpret such an hinderance whereby a Christian is made onely more slow and remisse in the profession and course of Christianity Which three phrases are notwithstanding expounded more pertinently by others to be set downe thus seuerally not by way of distinction but for exaggeration of the sinne of wilfull offence against Christians in prouoking of them vnto any damnable errour or sinne by any sensible externall meanes And in this last sence do we proceed to discusse this Argument concerning scandall SECT II. Our second Answer is by distinction of the kindes of scandall I. Diuision That distinction of scandall will best fit our purpose whereby it is vsually diuided into these two members the one is called Actiue the other Passiue SECT III. Our I. Subdiuision of Actiue Scandall is in respect of the partie Agent direct indirect The Actiue is in respect of the partie Agent who by an Act which he doth shall willingly prouoke another to any euill And this kind admitteth many Subdiuisions First than an Actiue Scandall is either directly euill or onely indirectly The direct manner of scandall is when the Act is euill in it selfe Thus the Act of Dauids murther was scandalous And this kind of scandall is no way excusable being euill ratione obiecti which is properly sinne The Indirect scandall is seene in Acts which are in their owne nature good or at least not euill but yet because either in respect of time or place or of some other Circumstance the act doth occasionally fall out to be scandalous as did the eating of things offered vnto Idols which was therfore forbidden being a sin either more or lesse according to the diuerse affections of the Offender For this indirect scandall may happen to be after two sorts sometime without the intention of the Agent who hath no meaning to giue any such offence of which kind we may reckon the fact of Saint Peter when he did so partially apply himselfe vnto the Iewes to the scandall of the Gentiles And this we call the lesse sinne The other maner of indirect scandall is that which sometimes proceedeth from the wicked intent in the Scandalizer and such was the sinne of many Heretikes who would vse Fasts and other Ceremonies of deuotion and austerity to draw disciples after them and to seduce men from the truth of Christ. Thus much in respect of the partie Agent SECT IIII. Our 2. Subdiuision of Actiue scandall in respect of persons offended either weake strong The second Subdiuision hereof is in respect of the persons that are offended for it is either perfectorum hominum of men throughly grounded or pusillorum of weake and more simple Concerning the Perfect the Stumbling blocke is on their part that gaue scandall albeit the parties that are offended are not thereby scandalized that is not so offended as to stumble and fall And thus it may be said that Peter did scandalize Christ himselfe when wishing Christ to fauour himselfe and not to die he receiued that answer from Christ Satan thou art a scandall vnto me For albeit this motion proceeded from a good and most friendly intent in Saint Peter who was the speaker for it was onely that Christ should fauour himselfe for the preseruation of his life yet did Christ discerne therein a wicked purpose of the suggester the diuell for the which cause Christ called Peter Satan because in Peters seeking to hinder the death of Christ Satan sought to hinder mans redemption But Christ preferring mans saluation before his owne life taught vs by his owne example to deale with all such scandals or blockes which are temptations to hinder vs in our course of Christianitie euen as a man would do with a blocke that lyeth in his way that is to Cast it behind him for so said Christ in his answer Get thee behind me Satan As for the Pusilli weake ones our Sauiour speaketh in their behalfe saying He that offendeth one of these little ones that beleeueth in me it were better c. Thus much in respect of the Parties SECT V. Our 3. Subsidiuision of Actiue Scandall in respect both of persons and cause either Determined Vndetermined A third subdiuision is both in respect of the cause and of the persons in cases of indifferencie For sometime this case is determined by the Church and sometimes it happeneth not to be publiquely defined When such a matter is once fully concluded by the Church whether in part or in whole so that it doth not euidently appeare to be against the Word of God so far forth it greatly cōcerneth all such persons to conforme themselues thereunto according to the doctrine of S. Paul in a question of Ceremony If any seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God For indeed all men are bound in conscience to preserue aboue all things the regard of the generall peace of Gods Church before the grieuance of any sort or sect of men Which the Apostle also doth expresly teach saying Giue offence to no man neither to the Iew nor to the Gentle nor which the Apostle addeth in a further speciality to the Church of God Because such a Scandall is so much the more heinous than others by how much more pernicious a thing it is to the endangering of the health of the whole body than to weaken or lame any one limb or member thereof But if the case be either not at all or but onely in part determined by the Church then is there a charitable consideration to be had of other mens consciences who are not perswaded of the lawfull vse of indifferent things Then the generall rule is that so farre as a man may vse indifferent things without offence of others he need not to forbeare them Eate saith the Apostle making no question for conscience sake Why Because God hath giuen man a liberty to vse such things or not to vse them And the Apostles reason is this For the earth is the Lords But in case of offence against others the Rule is Not to eate namely in the behalfe of another mans conscience This was the cause that the Councell of the Apostles giuing libertie to vse such meates as had bene formerly accounted vncleane did notwithstanding make a restraint from eating of Strangled and Bloud and things offered vnto Idols lest thereby they might giue offence to the Iewish Proselites newly called to the faith And for the same cause the Apostle in great circumspection did circumcise Timothie to auoyde the Scandall of the Iewish new Conuerts and lately called to the faith of Christ but at another time would not circumcise Titus lest he might giue way to false Apostles who defended an absolute necessity of Circumcision to the preiudice of the liberty of the Gospell Thus much in respect of both Cause