storie of Moses in Exodus For there Moses and the Elders of Israel are commanded by God to go vnto Pharaoh and tell him saying The Lord God of the Hebrewes hath met with vs and now let vs go three daze iourney into the wildernesse that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God And Chap. 8.8 Pharaoh said He was willing to let them go to sacrifice vnto the Lord. And more to the same purpose is recorded Chap. 10.15 and 26. Therefore God had required Sacrifice before the promulgation of the morall law SECT X. His second Reply But this was not so published before the law Our Answer It was published before the whole congregation of Israel and so published that before the giuing of the tables of Moses the sacrifice of the Paschall Lambe was prescribed vnto all the families of Israel God commanding thus Speake vnto all the congregation of Israel saying take euery man a Lambe c. Can you haue a more publicke precept than that which is spoken to All Neither is there in all this the least shadow of contradiction for the former exception against Sacrifice was not meant simply as absolutely forbidding the Sacrifices which God himselfe had commanded but comparatiuely onely as preferring obedience before Sacrifices And the argument of almightie God is very exact and emphaticall to wit that forasmuch as in the solemne publication of the Morall law of obedience there was no mention made of Sacrifices or burnt offerings therefore to Obey the morall commandements is farre more acceptable with God then Oblations Sacrifices being onely as the bodie but sanctitie as the very soule of Gods worship SECT XI Their fourth place obiected for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scriptures Esay 1.11 To what purpose is your sacrifice vnto me saith the Lord I am full of your burnt offerings And verse 12. Who required these things at your hands Our Answer That is who required them principally or who required them solely without obedience to the law of godlinesse The exception then is not against any defect in the thing is selfe which is the Sacrifice nor against the Act which is sacrificing but against the Actors because they offered their Sacrifices in hypocrisie continuing in transgression and sinne against God This is plaine for you know that the Leuiticall law of sacrificing was then in force insomuch that the people in not sacrificing had sinned by neglect of performing their due homage vnto God so then their transgression in sacrificing did onely arise from their hypocrisie and irrepentance in consideration whereof it is said the God had respect vnto Abel and his offering but vnto Caine and his offering he had no regard The difference then stood not in the things sacrificed as though Abel his corne were more precious in Gods sight then Caines cattell nor in the Act it being the same in theÌ„ both for both did offer sacrifice vnto God but the whole distance was in respect of the Agents to wit in that Caine did offer in enuie and Abel in charitie And to shew that the method of Gods respect beginneth at the person and not at the thing it is said God had respect vnto Abel and his offering verse 4. SECT XII The fift place by them obiected for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scripture Ier. 7.31 God complayneth saying They haue built the places of Tophet which is in the valley of the sonnes of Hinnon to burne their sonnes and daughters in the fire which I commanded them not neither came it into my heart Our Answer From these words which I commanded not you collect that the sinne here condemned was not against but onely besides the word of God as if these words Quae non mandaui illis facere were not the same in full sence with Quae mandaui illis non facere signifying that God did vtterly forbid them to do this And great reason for they did no lesse then sacrifice their sonnes and daughters vnto Molech which was the most execrable Idolatrie that euer was committed vnder the Sunne and therefore is called in the text verse 30. Thâ— abomination of Tophet How can you then say that this sinne was onely not commanded was it not also expresly forbidden as it is written Thou shalt not offer thy children vnto Molech When I first read this obiection I wondred to vnderstand that any of your schoole by telling vs of some things vnlawfull as besides the word of God and of some things vnlawfull as against it could so well symbolize albeit against your wills in termes with Bellarmine and some other Romish spirits who to maintaine their distinction of mortall and veniall sinne tell vs that the mortall sinne is contra legem against the law but the veniall sinne is onely praeter legem besides the law As though sinne being a transgression of the law and a contradiction vnto Gods command a man could imagine any sinne which is not against the law which were to conceiue sinne to be no sinne Be you therefore so discreete as to leaue this art of subtiltie vnto popish coyners who haue a faculty to stampe all their mettals although neuer so base with Caesars image intituling their owne fancies the Oracles of God Our answers vnto other allegations which you obiect concerning adding to Scriptures and will-worship are reserued to their proper places We proceede now to your proofe from Fathers SECT XIII The second proofe of the Non-conformists for their Negatiue arguing from Scriptures from the iudgement of ancient Fathers Basil calleth it a defection from faith to bring in any thing besides Scripture Cyprian saith Whence cometh this tradition Not out of diuine Scriptures Ambrose saith They that know not the sweetnesse of these waters viz. of Scriptures do drinke of the torrents of this world Augustine I. from that saying of Christ I haue many things to say which you cannot carrie c. saith Who therefore of vs can tell what those things are which he himselfe would not reueale Againe II. Away saith he with mens writings let the voice of God sound in our eares III. Let vs remoue the deceitfull weights of mens balances and admit of Gods ballances IIII. Who can deliuer vnto vs any speciaâ—l prohibitions of these execrable superstitions which are vsed in the knots of earings and serue not to the worship of God but to the seruice of diuels v. Is it lawfull to sacrifice vnto Neptune because we reade not of any thing directly spoken against Neptune Thus haue the ancient Fathers reasoned Negatiuely from Scriptures Our Answer You vndertooke to confute onely Ceremonies of our Church and such which were onely besides Scripture yet this you now labour to effect by such Testimonies of Fathers whereby they condemne not Ceremonies as being beside Scripture but onely Dostrines of men flatly contrary to the truth of Scripture For Basil in the place alledged confuteth not any matter of
D. Whitak receiue at their hāds for his condemning the Popish vse of the Chrisme as hauing no warrant by holy Scripture not considering that he in his controuersie about the sufficiencie of Scripture as all other iudicious Diuines do exempteth the question of Ceremonies so farre forth as they are imposed or obserued without mixture of a superstitious opinion annexed by the imposers as the Papists both professe and ordaine in their Chrisme by attributing therunto a spirituall efficacy and power which the whole Catholike Church of Christ cannot by any Ecclesiasticall ordinance infuse into any naturall thing or signe howsoeuer religiously consecrated or decently inuented But you wil reply that all Ceremonies of mans inuentiō are contrary to the Scripture I answere by a briefe distinction Some Ceremonies are merae meerly Ceremonies some are mixtae mixt they that are meerly Ceremonies need no speciall warrant from Scripture because they are sufficientlie warranted by the generall approbation of Gods word which giueth a permission and liberty to all the Churches to make their owne choice of Ceremonies according to the rules of Order and Decencie But the mixt Ceremonies whereunto the imposers or the generalty of obseruers of them annexe some superstitious and erroneous opinion whether it be of merit or of inherent holinesse efficacie or reall necessity do in this case change the nature and become Doctrinall and in this respect are condemned as being not onelie Besides the warrant but plainlie Against the precept of holie Scriptures Thus much concerning our answere SECT XVI Our generall Confutation of the Non-conformists shewing that they haue failed in the maine ground of their Generall proposition when in the question of Ceremonies they disput◠negatiuelie from Scripture Our proofes arise from 1. Scripture 2. Iudgement of Fathers 3. Consent of Protestants 4. Reasons The first proofe is from Scriptures Saint Paul 1. Cor. 14. Let all things be done decently and in order And againe Let all things be done vnto edifying By vertue of which permission the Apostle doth grant a generall licence and authoritie to all Churches to ordaine any Ceremonies that may be fit for the better seruing of God This one Scripture not to trouble you with any other at this present is vniuersally vsed by Fathers and all Diuines although neuer so diuerse in their professions for one and the same conclusion SECT XVII Our second proofe is from Fathers by the testimonie of the Non-conformists owne witnesses Hereunto serueth the confession of Zanchius saying Ecclesiasticarum Ceremoniarum c. Some Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies were vniuersall that is allowed and admitted alwaies of all Churches and therefore called Catholike as for example the celebration of the feast of Christ his Natiuitie of Easter Ascension Pentecost and the like Wherefore the argument which the Non-conformists take from the testimonies of Fathers onely in colour and pretence the same may we in good conscience and in truth retort vpon them For that practise which the ancient Churches of Christ did alwaies maintaine may not be deemed to derogate from the authoritie of holy Writ but the Ceremonies here specified were vniuersally practised throughout all Christian Churches euen as the Non-conformists themselues do well know and sometimes also acknowledge Ergo some Ceremonies not particularly warranted by Scripture may be lawfully vsed in our Church Concerning the iudgement of ancient Fathers we shall be occasioned to giue more instances throughout euery argument SECT XVIII Our third proofe is from the generall iudgement of Protestant Diuines A common Aduersarie should be held as an indifferent witnesse betweene both parties and who is either more common or more aduerse than Bellarmine Now he contending in nothing more earnestly than to proue an Insufficiencie of the written word doth commonly oppose against Protestants the vse of such Ceremonies as were anciently obserued and haue passed currant vnder the name of Apostolicall Traditions that are not once mentioned in Scripture of which kind is the obseruation of Easter Pentecost c. Ergo saith he the Scriptures are not sufficient But marke the answer of Protestants in this case The Protestants grant saith Bellarmine that the Apostles did ordaine certaine Rites and orders belonging to the Church which are not set downe in Scripture This he acknowledgeth of Protestant Diuines in generall SECT XIX The Non conformists answer I do not beleeue Bellarmine herein Our Reply But you shew no reason why Will you be content to beleeue Protestants themselues either those whom Bellarmine did impugne or else those who did refute Bellarmine Chemnitius doth sufficiently cleare this point for his owne part by distinguishing of Rites and obseruing some to haue bene Diuine by the institution of Christ which he calleth essentiall and necessarie and some Apostolicall which he saith we do obserue and some Ecclesiasticall to wit Qui non habent Scripturae mandatum aut testimonium Which haue no commandement or warrant in Scripture which saith he are not altogether to be reiected You haue heard the exact and most accurate iudgement of M. Caluine to wit that Christ would not prescribe particularly concerning Ceremonies what we ought to follow but would referre vs to the directions of generall Rules c. Iunius was a iudicious refuter of Bellarmine vnto whose obiection for Traditions out of the Fathers besides Scriptures he answereth and auoydeth the force of the argument saying Omnia haec ad ritus Ecclesiae pertinent c. All these are onely such things as belong vnto the Rites of the Church And againe as determining the very cause The Scriptures saith he containe in them all matters of doctrine belonging necessarily vnto faith and good life but do set downe onely a generall law concerning Rites and Ceremonies 1. Cor. 14. Let all things be done honestly and in order Therefore the particular Rites appertaining to the Church because they be ambulatory and mutable might well be omitted by the Spirit of God and permitted to the conueniencies of the Church for all men know that there is longè dispar ratio a great difference betweene doctrines of faith and manners and the matters of Rites and Ceremonies So he But most exactly where the same Iunius maketh this distinction Some things are necessarie in themselues and by the authoritie of the Scripture such are the substantiall doctrines belonging to faith and godlinesse of life Some things are not necessarie in themselues but onely by authoritie of Scripture such are those which are recorded in Scriptures for other causes than for any vse absolutely necessarie And some other things are neither necessary in themselues nor yet by authoritie of Scripture such as are matters rituall whereof he had said before They are not mentioned in Scripture but omitted by the Spirit of God And profound Zanchius in his confutation of Romish errors and in the question of sufficiencie of Scripture hath this distinction of Ceremonies Some saith he are consenting vnto Scriptures some are
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
gouerned by the word of God in all such things as belong to mans saluation meaning things absolutely necessary to the worship of God as hath beene amply proued But touching such things as appertaine vnto Discipline it is lawfull for the Church to make Lawes Canons and Constitutions so doth the Apostle teach that women must pray with their heads couered and men bare-headed So doth the Church ordaine in what place at what time quomodò after what manner whether standing or sitting men must communicate And M. Caluin obseruing the Apostle's reproofe of persons contentious in Ceremoniall points which is v. 16. If any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such Custome nor yet the Church of God when he met with some that did out of the same spirit of contention resist the Constitutions of that Church of Geneua he maketh a generall application thereof against all such turbulent and factious spirits Qui bonos vtiles ritus nullâ necessitate convellunt i. Who vnnecessarily do oppugne the profitable Rites of the Chucch Here I need not make any recapitulation of these seuerall points the indifferent Reader may easily finde in the confession of the fore-named witnesses 1. That these are things indifferent 2. That they were prescribed as fit for those times 3. That consequently they were to be dutifully obserued 4. That they were Symbolicall and had in them significations of morall duties 5. That they were applyed to Diuine worship 6. and lastly That the same authority doth still remaine in the Church to ordaine the like Significant Ceremonies whensoeuer there shall be iust occasion thereunto Thus much of the Apostles time We descend lower SECT XXIX Our second Proofe for Confutation of their last generall Argument and for our Confirmation of the Morall vse of Ceremonies is from the vniuersall Custome of the Church of Christ as well Primitiue as Successiue Concerning all these times whosoeuer is conuersant in the Ecclesiasticall Histories or in the writings of Fathers of former ages may make good this our Assertion to wit That the Church hath liberty to ordaine Rites and Ceremonies of Mysticall signification thereby to represent spirituall duties and that properly in the publique seruice of God And also may proue so farre forth as by light of Story can appeare that euer since the Apostles daies it hath bene the constant and consonant doctrine of the Church held by all the most Orthodoxe Fathers and glorious Martyrs of Christ who watered the Church with their bloud whereby it became so blessedly fruitfull in the procreation of an innumerable off-spring of faithfull Christians in all succeeding ages amongst whom we that do now professe the Gospell of saluation haue by the mercy of God our interest in the couenant of Grace and consequently in the assured hope of our eternall inheritance Yea and that which as I think should astonish the heart of any aduersary in this point of Church-liberty in making Ceremonies hath euer bene so vndebatably held for an vncontrollable truth throughout the whole processe of times that no one man as I suppose either Orthodoxe or Hereticall hath euer till of late bene heard either to haue written or so much as spoken against the Generall of it I shall not need to seeke euidence out of Stories in this behalfe the Non-conformists themselues are not ignorant hereof who besides many other Instances do as often as they see occasion againe and againe repeate the custome vniversally vsed in the Churches throughout the world to wit of Standing in the time of publicke prayers in all the Lords daies betweene Easter and Pentecost whereby the primitiue Fathers did signifie their faith of Christ his Resurrection If this were a Diuine Ceremony why do you not obserue it But if it were Humane and yet had as you know a Mysticall signification of some spirituall dutie by representing both the remembrance of Christs Resurrection and also the protestation of their Christian faith therein which Signe likewise was appropriated vnto the publicke worship of God in the act of holy prayer then can you not but acknowledge in this one Ceremony that Antiquity doth pleade for our whole defence nor can you gaine-say but that herein the iudgement of our Church Quoad thesin in generall for we do not heereby iustifie euery Ceremony which was held either of diuers Fathers or Churches in seuerall times but that which was vniversall must needs convince you of Novelty in this kinde Lastly Zanchie doth witnesse concerning the obseruation of our Festiuals of Easter Pentecost c. that they haue since the time of the Apostles continued to this day this then is another Catholicke Ceremony of Morall signification SECT XXX Our Third Proofe for Confutation of their last Generll Argument and for our Confirmation of the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies which are of Morall signification is from the testimonies of their owne Witnesses M. Caluin is alwaies worthy of the first place among the innumerable company of late Diuines and he saith Nè quis nos calumnietur c. Lest any man slander vs by iudging vs nimis esse morosos to be too peeuishly precise as though we would take away all libertie in externall things here I do testifie vnto my godly Readers that I contend not about Ceremonies which concerne onely Decencie and Order or else Si Symbola sint if they bee signes and incitements vnto that reuerence which we should performe vnto God for our dispute is against those workes which some do as properly belonging vnto God and wherewith they thinke that God is truely worshipped Thus M. Caluin as you see in the last part of this sentence disalloweth onely such Ceremonies of Humane Inuention which men make to be essentiall parts of Gods worship And in the former part thereof he doth allow of Symbolicall Ceremonies so far as they may be Signes and Incitements to the more due performance of Gods worship Euen as in another place answering a Question conceiued about Ceremonies he saith Ergonè inquies nihil Ceremoniale rudiâ—ribus dabitur ad invandam eorum imperitiam Will you then say saith he shall nothing that is Ceremoniall bee permitted to the ruder sort for the helpe of their ignorance Here a Non-conformist would haue made a peremptory answer they shall haue allowed them to Ceremonie at all which is of symbolicall signification But M. Caluin more iudiciously and discreetly Id ego non dico tantùm contendo vt modus adhibeatur qui Christum illustret non obscuret I say not so saith he onely I contend that a meane may be kept which may manifest Christ and not darken and obscure him And for exemplification of this meane hee propoundeth the institution of Christ for our imitation whose Sacramentall Ceremonies are both Paâ—ce Few and minimè laboriosae very easie The same witnesse likewise else-where doth allow a priuate vse of Pictures cum rerum gestarum notatione which are set forth with the narration of Storie quae vsum in
subiect to seducement when they fall to haue any priuate parle and communication with that subtile Tempter And which is the third point we know that the very office of Preaching much more that of Sacrifizing is flatly denyed to that Sexe So that I may iustly call this your Comparison friuolous did it not better deserue to be termed calumnious first inasmuch as you indeauour to controll the Ceremonies appointed by the deliberate aduice of the religious Gouernours of our Church and to confute them by obiecting Ceremonies deuised by priuate persons in their clanculary meetings according to their rude fancies Secondly to oppose vnto Ceremonies which are celebrated by men the destinate Ministers of Christ set apart as you your selues are for such a diuine ministratioÌ„ the practize of women who are euen by reason of the frailty of their Sexe interdicted by Scripture to intermeddle in such kind of seruice Thirdly to compare Ceremonies of outward gesture which may be lawfully applyed otherwise than immediately vnto God with Ceremonies of Sacrifizing which cannot euen so much as in the outward Act be performed but directly to God without the guilt of Idolatry And fourthly to condemne Rites of false and Idolatrous inuentions by matching them with Ceremonies of godly and Christian significations what could you else meane by all this but as it were to suborne a fellon to condemne an innocent SECT XV. Their ninth instance concerning Paganish Ceremonies Augustine himselfe also prescribing a direction how to winne the Pagans hath these words If you aske how the Pagans may be wonne how they may be inlightened how they may be called to saluation Let vs leaue all their solemnities and forsake their toyes Our Answer Wee might easily haue vnderstood the meaning of Saint Augustine by Saint Augustine himselfe if you had not broke off his speech at the middest for his words immediately following are these Vt si non consentiant veritati nostrae erubescant paucitati suae i. That if they consent not to that truth professed by vs they may bee ashamed meaning the fewnesse of their followers of their own paucity Wherby he instructeth the Christians not to conuerse together with Pagans in any of their Heathenish Rites Euen as our Church doth likewise forbid her people to assemble together with Papists in their superstitious solemnities and not that onely but doth also what would you haue more condemne and punish those that shall partake with them in such fooleries I should furthermore aske you why you skipped ouer that last clause of Saint Augustine Vt si non c. whereby you haue made your selues like to that man Qui toto deuorato boue defecit in cauda Hitherto we haue heard of your Instances in excepting against the Ceremonies of Pagans SECT XVI Their second kind of Obiection for the remouing of Ceremonies that haue beene abused is in obiecting Iewish Rites Their first Instance In the Councell of Nice it was decreed that Christians might not keepe the Feast of Easter at the time nor in the manner as the Iewes did Let vs say they in nothing agree with that detestable roote of the Iewes Our Answer First you cannot be ignorant how that there was a time when it was lawfull for some Christians to keepe the Feast of Easter the very same day wherein it was celebrated of the Iewes For your Authour whom you alleage doth fully relate that All the Churches in Asia according to their old custome did celebrate the Feast of Easter the 14. of the Moone which was the very day wherein the Iewes were commanded to solemnize their Passeouer Then he bringeth in that famous Bishop Polycrates mentioning Polycarpus Thraseus Sagarus all Bishops and holy Martyrs besides Papyrius Melito and seuen other Bishops of his owne kindred who by ancient Tradition did all obserue the Iewes festiuall day of Easter Secondly afterwards it was decreed by the Councell of Nice that Easter should be celebrated as you haue truly alleaged differently from the custome of the Iewes but yet you haue omitted the causes there specified by Eusebius whereof one was the hatred of the Christians against the Iewes who had defiled their hands with the bloud of the Son of God and remained still inthralled in the blindnesse and madnesse of their errour Another reason was because of the insolent insultation that the Iewes then made vpon the Christians as though that Christians could not haue kept any obseruation of that feast sine ipsorum disciplinae subsidio without the helpe of their discipline A third reason there mentioned is that by vniformitie of this one custome they might bring the Christian Churches vnto vnitie which by diuersitie of opinions concerning the time of the obseruation of the same feast had been distracted into contrarie factions These were the principall Reasons which moued the Fathers of that Councell to alter the Iewish Feast of Easter and to translate it vnto our Lords day not absolutely as you pretend for the auoiding of all resemblance that it had with the Iewish custome for then must they haue condemned all the godlie Byshops and holie Martyrs of Asia who obserued the same time of Easter with the Iewes but because of the after-obstinacie and insolencie of the Iewes vpbraiding the Christians for imitating of them vpon an opinion of necessity and also for the reducing of Christian Churches agreeing in one faith vnto an vnity of one affection You see then that the comparing as commonly you haue done the practise of Churches in admitting or reiecting of Iewish or Heathenish customes without their speciall Reasons is no better discretion than if you would argue some men to be wiser than others by comparing their bodies together without any regard of their reasonable soules Otherwise you might haue easily perceiued that neither we can haue like cause of hatred against Papists who are professed Christians as they had against the obstinate Iewes the murtherers of the Lord of glory nor yet the Papists the like cause of insultation against our Church for imitation of them seeing that she holdeth none of their Rites without a professed difference of opinion and with a detestation of their superstition SECT XVII Their third kind of Obiection is by instancing in Ceremonies abolished because of the abuses of Heretikes Their first Instance The Councell of Gangris Can. 18. Anno 324. ordained that none should fast on the Lords day because the Manichees had taken vp that day to fast on Our Answer And they had iust cause so to ordaine but so had not you to conceale the cause which is deliuered by Leo Bishop of Rome in these words The Manichees denying that Christ was borne in the true nature of man obserue the Lords day in pensiue fasting which the Resurrection of Christ hath consecrated vnto vs to be celâ—brated with ioy which custome of fasting they deuote vnto the Sonne that they may altogether dissent from vs in the vnity of faith Thus much being
and Parties SECT VI. Our 4. Subdiuision of Actiue Scandall in respect of consequences and effects in occasioning A lapse into sinne or errour Hinderance from Grace The fourth and last Subdiuision is in respect of the Consequences and the effects of Scandall whether it be an Hinderance of their saluation who are already members of the Church by prouoking them with such Scandalous examples either to vse indifferent things against their consciences and occasion them to relapse from the faith as hath bene said or else if it be an hinderance of them who are yet aliens from the couenant of grace to set a Scandall and blocke against them Which latter point of Scandalizing S. Paul doth condemne saying Giue no offence neither to the Iew nor to the Grecian Whereupon The Apostle saith M. Caluin nameth Iewes and Gentiles teaching vs that we are debters vnto all sorts of men euen to those that are Aliens that we may gaine them to the faith Thus much of Actiue Scandall SECT VII Of the second generall member of Scandall which is called Passiue and the diuision thereof is in respect of the Party offended Matter of offence The second generall member of Scandall is called Passiue when the offence is not giuen by any fault of the Speaker or Doer but rather taken by the sinister apprehension of the Hearer or Interpreter concerning some thing that is either good or at least not euill in it selfe Which Passiue offence is distinguished either in respect of the party offended or else in respect of the nature of that matter wherein the offence doth consist SECT VIII Our 1. Subdiuision of the Passiue Scandall is concerning the fault of the party offended either by defect in Iudgement Affection The fault of the party offended may proceed from a double defect one is the corruption of his iudgement yet through a wilfull and an affected ignorance such as was the Scandall taken by the Capernaites through their carnall construction of that speech of our Sauiour saying Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. Whereat some were so greatly offended that they refused to heare Christ any more for the which some Disciples also did apostatate from him This I may call an affected ignorance because they did not ingenously seeke to be satisfied by any Reason but onely in a meere stupiditie or rather obstinate incredulity asked How shall he giue vs his flesh to eate For notwithstanding they were answered by Christ himselfe that the speech was not to be taken carnally or literally but spiritually yet had they not the patience to endure the speech of Christ For which cause he suffered them wretched men that they were to Depart from him Thus much of the Scandall proceeding from the iudgement of the Party The second defect proceedeth directly from the poison of a carnall affection whether of pride as in such as tooke offence at the pouerty of Christ or in enuy which is called oculus nequam as in him that tooke offence at Christs bounty vnto whom it was said Is thy eye euill because mine is good Or lastly in malice which is called Scandalum Pharisaeorum who tooke offence both at the miracles of Christ imputing them to the Prince of the Deuils and at his doctrine conceâ—ning whom Christ as permitting malicious men if they needs will to fall sinck and perish in their sinnes saith in that place Let them alone they are blind Leaders of the blind and both shall fall into the Ditch And the truth is that whosoeuer they be that are Scandalized through their owne malice or wilfulnesse Non tam pati dici possunt quà m facere Scandalum that is They may be said more properly to do than to suffer scandall Thus much of the Scandall passiue as it respecteth the disposition of the party scandalized SECT IX Our 2. Subdiuision of Scandall Passiue in respect of the opinion of Indifferencie Necessitie The second respect considerable in a Scandall of this kinde doth râ—gard the nature of the cause whereabout it doth arise which is sometimes about a matter indifferent Now in such a case questionlesse much indulgence should be vsed towards weake persons whose infirmity proceedeth onely from simple ignorance Nor should we where the case stands thus prouoke any by our example to vse any thing although otherwise indifferent against their consciences because this is called a Destroying of thy brother Which indulgence notwithstanding is to be allowed onely till such time as the doctrine concerning the indifferencie of vsing or not vsing the thing in question hath bene sufficiently declared after which time if any presumptuously perseuer and will not be instructed the condigne penalty which shall be thenceforth inflicted cannot bee called Scandalum sith that this doth alwaies presuppose a meere weakenesse for want of due meanes of knowledge But if the euent and consequence of the Scandall be not onely an offence of priuate mens consciences but also an ouerthrow of some generall and necessarie doctrine of the Church which tendeth to edification and saluation then ought we to maintaine the Tenet of S. Augustine Praestat vt scandalum admittatur quà m vt veritas amittatur meaning that it is better the persons of some men should take offence by our Preaching and doctrine then that the truth of God should suffer any preiudice through our regardlesse silence And for our better warrant in so doing S. Paul hath giuen vs manifest documents from his owne examples one in not circumcising of Titus and the other in withstanding of Peter Thus much of the Diuisions and Subdiuisions of Scandall which being duely considered will expedite all difficulties that you can obiect in the question of Scandall for out of these you may collect the true and full sence of the Scriptures which you haue alleaged in your first Obiection from holy Writ as will better appeare in our Answers and Confutations In the meane time leauing your Proposition as granted according to our former limitations we put you to the triall of your Assumption SECT X. The Generall Assumption of the Non-conformists against our Ceremonies because of Scandall Their Pretences of Scandall occasioned by our Ceremonies are manifold to wit in respect of 1 Superstitious Papists 2 Prophane â—â—rsons 3 Weake brethrâ—n 4 Their whole Congregations 5 Their owne vnconformable Ministers 6 All sorts in generall at least by appearance of euill Their first Obiection of Scandall by our Ceremonies is in respect of superstitious Papists The Papists will bee hardened to see vs borrow our Ceremonies from their Religion Our Answer We answer that our Rites which haue beene purged from Popish superstition are no more the Ceremonies of Papists then our Churches are theirs wherein notwithstanding your selues do willing Pray and Preach being now conuerted from the seruice of the Romish Idoll vnto the syncere worship of God And therefore Papists by our reformation of things which they haue abused haue
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
Fathers as namely to driue away Diuels not onely out of the bodies but euen out of the soules of Infants The which power they likewise ascribe to the signe of the Crosse as it is a Sacramentall Ceremonie But our Church to the end that she might remoue this point of Superstition hath wisely ordained that the signe of the Crosse should be vsed after that Baptisme is fully ended yet notwithstanding is she here calumniously traduced by you as worse then the Popish Lingua quò vadis what shall we call this maladie whereby our Church if shee Symbolize with Papists but so much as in a Surplice is accounted Popish and Antichristian and if contrarily she alter that vse of the signe of the Crosse to the end that shee may crosse and controll the Superstition of Papists yet euen then also is she censured to be yea worse then Papisticall How fitly do such Obiectors exemplifie those way ward and vntractable Children mentioned in the Gospel whom neither weeping nor piping could please or still As for your Reason taken from the superstitious opinion of Romists concerning Confirmation it is not worthy the repeating For our Church teacheth not that Confirmation is a perfecting or confirming of Baptisme but onely of the parties baptized by calling them to a personall profession of the faith which their Godfathers and Godmothers as it were their Guardians did in their Infancie promise should be by them performed To conclude our Church placing the vse of the Signe of the Crosse after the end of Baptisme to remoue the superstitious opinion which the Papists had thereof in their abuse of this Signe immediatly before Baptisme you may now if it please you compare this alteration and your obiection concerning Confirmation in as you call it nearenesse of error and then let that man among you dispute whether an errour in Baptisme be not nearer vnto the Corrupting of the Sacrament of Baptisme then to the Corrupting of the doctrine of Confirmation which is out of Baptisme who doubteth whether a wound in the head or in the heele may more nearely endanger the health of the braine SECT â—I Their fourth Reason why the Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme may be said to derogate from the perfection thereof Yea but it is said to be a Token of the profession which the child must make in the spirituall combat Ergo this being a proper end of Baptisme is vsed as a part of Gods worship in Baptisme Our Answer This Argument is as loose and lanke as the former for Baptisme is in it selfe a Token and Signe of a Couenant stipulation betweene man God but this signe of the Crosse appointed by man is onely a Token of protestation betweene particular men the members of the Church of Christ which is the Congregation of Christians then assembled and the Church it selfe Besides Baptisme is a signe of Regeneration that is Gratiae collatae of Grace conferred by the Spirit of God but the Crosse in the fore-head is onely a signe of mans constant profession of Christianity which he ought to haue amongst them that are the enemies of the doctrine of the Crosse of Christ which are two distinct and farre different ends Thirdly I could not but maruaile that you should therefore exclaime against this Signe because it is vsed as a Token of Christian profession especially if you were acquainted with your owne learned Witnesses who taught their Readers both to obserue and approue First that the vse of the Crosse in the primitiue Church was thus Chemnitius a profession and commone faction of beleefe in Christ crucified Secondly that this kind of Testification thus M. Iewel is not to be disallowed Thirdly that it was vsed to the end that Thereby the persons Baptized thus P. Martyr might testifie their faith All which and much more will appeare for the iustification of this Token when we come to answer your seuenth Accusation where you shall heare Zanchie affirme that this vse of the Signe of the Crosse to testifie that we are not ashamed of Christ crucified is not to be disliked SECT VII Their fift and last Reason why the Signe of the Crosse may seeme to be made an essentiall part of the Sacrament and consequently a derogation from the perfection thereof But vnderstand that the last Canons do adde that by the Signe of the Crosse the childe is dedicated to the seruice of Christ now some of these are the proper ends of Baptisme Ergo not to be ascribed vnto mans additions Our Answer Although the word Dedication might be drawne by the generality of the signification to an other sence than the Church did intend because of the doubtfull ambiguity which is in it yet you ought to consider that some mens Wits are giuen to iudge of words by the sound and not by the sence But if you will be in the number of those cleane creatures which do diuide the hoofe and chew the cud you will easily distinguish and discerne that there is a two-fold we speake onely of the Humane Dedication one Declaratiua which is by way of Protestation the other Consecratiua by Consecration This distinction may be inlightned by example If a man who is piously deuoted doth build an Oratory or Chappell for Gods worship which he doth sequester by Vow and Promise from the common vse and lastly assigneth it vnto the seruice of God this is called a Dedication by Protestation Afterwards for a more solemne appropriation thereof to the worship of God the Episcopall Consecration is required to the end that by prayers and other religious Rites that place may be publiquely Dedicated to the same seruice this is Dedication by Consecration And how much more may this distinction take place in the case now in question For by the formall words of the institution of Christ the childe is Dedicated vnto God by Consecration in Baptisme which is a Sacrament of Grace but the Dedication which is signified by the Signe of the Crosse is not by any proper Consecration vnto God or Token of grace receiued from God by such a Signe made but onely of a declaratiue Token of duety which afterwards the person baptized ought to performe concerning his constant and visible profession of the Christian faith The summe of all is that the difference betweene the Dedication by Baptisme and by this Signe is no lesse than a Sacramentall Stipulation with God and a Morall representation and protestation vnto man SECT VIII Their third Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse is from the Popish abuse thereof The Signe of the Crosse is notoriously knowne to be abused to superstition and Idolatrie by Papists for both Stapleton and Bellarmine make it the speciall Badge of their Idolatrous religion ascribing to it the miraculous effects of driuing away diuels expelling diseases sanctifying the persons that are marked with it and that which they worship cultu latriae which is the very same kind of worship
superstition which is to be seene in the Church of Rome at this day M. Perkins although he acknowledgeth not any further Antiquity of the vse of the Crosse in either Sacramēt beyond the 400 yeere after Christ yet doth he confesse first that Crux transiens apud puriorem ecclesiā communiter in vsu fuit non Crux permanens The transient signe of the Crosse was in common vse in the purer Church meaning the signe done suddenly with the finger but the signe of the Crosse in any mettall not till 400. yeares after Christ. Secondly that for the first 300. yeares after Christ which he calleth the purer Church it was vsed as a signe of the externall profession of Christian faith Thirdly that miracles were done of God at the signe of the Crosse that had ioyned vnto it a manifest or at least a secret inuocation of the name of Christ crucified so that the vertue was not to be imputed vnto the signe of the Crosse but vnto the faith of the worker and inuocation of Christ. Much time would not suffice to reckon vp the Testimonies of Authors who haue iustified the anciēt Churches in the vse of the Crosse. Therefore because Bishop Iewell hath discussed this matter at large I haue reserued his Testimony for the next Section Hitherto of our seuerall Answers vnto your particular Accusations SECT XIIII Our Confutation of the Non-conformists Detractions against the vse of the Signe of the Crosse by their owne Witnesses I wish that this whole cause may be determined by him vnto whose iudgment you do often appeale in the whole question of Ceremonies and whose name we acknowledge to be most worthily honourable in the Church of Christ. Bishop Iewel therefore doth expresse his iudgement as followeth The signe of the Crosse I grant was had in great regard and that the rather both for the publique reproach shame that by the common iudgement of all the world was cōceiued against it also for the most worthy price of our redēption that was offered vpon it which he speaketh of the practise of Christians before the dayes of Constantine then after the application of the example of the Emperour Constantine concerning other Princes he addeth Euen so Christian Princes at this day vse the same Crosse in their Armes and Banners both in peace and in war in token that they fight vnder the Banner of Christ. Last of all whereas M. Harding saith that the Professors of the Gospell cannot abide the signe of the Crosse Let him vnderstand that it is not the Crosse of Christ or the signe thereof that we find fault withall but the superstitious abuse of the Crosse. God be thanked that they whom M. Harding cōdemneth haue bene able not only to abide the signe but also to take vp their crosse and to follow Christ and to reioyce and triumph in the same Do you not now perceiue what a large sound lecture this admirable Doctor in Gods Church hath read vnto you and in how many points your gainsaying of the vse of this signe is confuted First Bishop Iewell approueth of the signe of the Crosse as it is made a significant Token of Christian Constancie in Banners which you will not abide to haue place in the Appendice vnto the ministration of Baptisme Secondly he alloweth the ancient vse of the same signe at the time of Celebration of Baptisme notwithstanding the execrable abuse thereof in the Romish Church which you vrge as a necessarie Cause to haue it vtterly abolished Thirdly you commonly alledge and that not without some ostentation a multitude of Diuines as albeit in Titles rather then in truth Aduersaries to these and all such kind of Ceremonies Notwithstanding he bringeth in the Consent of holy men and Martyrs that is Witnesses of the faith of Christ who vndergoing the morall Crosse which is persecution euen vnto Martyrdome it selfe were also witnesses of the lawfulnesse of this Ceremoniall signe of the Crosse so that you can haue small Cause to account your suffering for Contradicting this Ceremoniall Crosse the morall Crosse of Christ. Fourthly the same godly Bishop noteth these Martyrs to haue admitted of this signe of the Crosse that I may so say iam flagrante delicto euen when the abuse of Popish superstition and Idolatrie was at the height and when in detestation thereof they yeelded vp their dearest liues vnto Christ which notwithstanding in your Conceits cannot be vsed without superstition euen now when superstition is banished Wherefore the Argument wherewith I will conclude this part of Confutation standeth strongly against you thus Seeing that the vse of the Crosse was as hath bene confessed by your best witnesses void of superstition in purer Antiquitie the same notwithstanding the former abuse by Papists may be practized in our Orthodoxe Churches with like sincerity The reason is euident because there is the same possibilitie of reforming of an abuse that there is of correcting an error As therefore our Church hath by the mercie and grace of God purged her selfe from the erronious opinion of Poperie and now defendeth the Primitiue Catholique truth concerning the signe of the Crosse so may shee as well be thought to haue abandoned the superstitious practise of Poperie and to haue reduced this signe vnto her primitiuely lawfull vse whereof M. Bucer said euen in the first time of the reformation of religion when as yet the signe of the Crosse was Idolatrously abused by Papists that it might haue among the truely-professed a Christian vse Hoc signum c. This signe saith he not onely because it is most ancient but also for that it is plaine for a presēt admonishing vs of the Crosse of Christ is neither vndecent nor vnprofitable Whereunto might be added the consonant iudgements of Chemnisius P. Martyr Zanchy and others but I hasten to the third Ceremonie CHAP. III. Our particular defence of the Innocencie of the Third Ceremony which is the gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion SECT I. THE Non-conformists inlarge themselues in this Argument seeking to oppugne it by all the vehemency and violence of affection that they can but when their Exceptions and Accusations shall be throughly discussed they will perceiue I hope that they haue not bene more hot in their Zeale then cold in their Reasons whereunto I now proceed according to my former methode both Answering and Confuting their Accusations against this Gesture of Kneeling SECT II. The first Accusation vsed by the Non-conformists against the Gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the B. Sacrament is from the example of Christ and his Apostles That which is contrary both to the example of Christ in the first Institution and also to the example of the Apostles and primitiue Church successiuely and that which is against the intention of Christ being in it selfe Idolatrous must needs be abolished as vnlawfull But such is the Gesture of Kneeling in the receiuing of the Eucharist Ergo
imitation of the gesture of Sitting at the Celebration of this Communion then it doth to other circumstances of time places persons sexes and the like SECT XVII Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists concerning the intention of Christ is taken from the Non-conformists themselues by their owne confession of the libertie of Sitting You your selues multiply many Testimonies telling vs that M. Bullinger maketh it an indifferent thing whether the Church receiue it sitting or comming to the Table but the most agreeable to the Institution saith he is Sitting And M. Fox speaking of the Primitiue Church saith that the Communion was administred either sitting at Supper or else standing after Supper and in Eusebius Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Anno 157. writeth of the manner of one that stood at the Communion-Table also Doctor Fulke affirmeth out of Gregory Nazianzen Anno 380. who saith of the Communion Table that it was set that men might come round about Lastly M. Iewell writeth that in Basil in his time euery man was bound to take the Communion standing This which you vse in your bookes as an Obiection against vs we make bold to returne as an euident Conuiction against your selues because now you cannot but see your feet in that stocks which is called a Dilemma For if that we as you haue said are bound to the gesture of Sitting by the example of Christ how commeth it to passe that you now allow of a bond of the Primitiue Church for the gesture of standing Can you so easily suffer standing to shoulder sitting out of his due place But if that you can so willingly admit of standing why were you already so instant in pressing vpon vs the necessitie of sitting or are you now so vehement in excluding all indifferency of kneeling Consider I pray you whether there be not the like Analogie betweene kneeling and sitting as there can be betweene sitting and standing This Argument we haue drawne as was said from your owne Obiection and so are you out-shot in your owne Bowe SECT XVIII Their third Accusation against the gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion from the example of the Primitiue Church The Primitiue Churches for sundry hundred yeeres vsed to receiue it standing for Tert. who liued Anno 180 reporteth thus as the Custome of his time and Tradition receiued from the Apostles that it was vnlawfull to Kneele vpon the Lords day or vpon any other day betweene Easter and Pentecost and Anno 127. it was decreed in the Councell of Nice that none might pray kneeling vpon the Lords day the reason is commended out of the Canon Law because on this day is celebrated the ioyfull remembrance of the Lords resurrection Our Answer This Custome of the Primitiue Church in standing at the time of publike prayer for the testifying of their faith in the Article of the Resurrection was then held most requisite when as yet that Fundamentall Article of Christian faith was generally impugned and gain sayed by some Iewes by diuers Heretiâ—ks by all Pagans which occasioned the Primitiue Fathers in those ages to ordaine that all Christians for the better manifesting of euery mans professioÌ„ herein should vse that publike gesture of standing But afterwards when the faith of the resurrection had generally taken root in the hearts of men theÌ„ this Ceremony of standing in prayer did by little little vanish in some places together with the cause therof First then in this example of the Primitiue Church we see a gesture of standing as a Ceremony Ecclesiasticall Secondly the end thereof for a ioyfull remembrance of the Lords Resurrection which maketh the Ceremonie to be significant Thirdly that this was applyed to Gods publicke worship These considerations may serue for an ample Confutation of your former generall Positions wherby you condemned our Three Ceremonies to wit Surplice Crosse and Kneeling because forsooth they are Ceremonies of humaine inuention of mysticall signification and appropriated to the seruice of God Now therefore if you allow of the foresaid practise of the Primitiue Church why haue you formerly impugned it If you do not approue thereof why do you now obiect it But more of this hereafter Our second Inference needeth no dilatation which is briefly this that the example of the Primitiue Church in changing the gesture of Sitting into Standing doth demonstrate the liberty that the Church hath in altering and changing all such kind of Rytes SECT XIX Their fourth Accusation against the Gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the Sacrament is from the opinion of the necessity thereof as well by the learned as by the vnlearned 1. Of the vnlearned Many people in the Land thinke that this gesture of Kneeling is necessarie Our Answer The errour of the people if there be any such is to be imputed vnto two sorts of Ministers the one kinde are too idle or too ignorant that they either cannot or else care not to instruct their people in these points the other sort are too busie who falsly impose vpon the Church an erronious opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies which she in their owne knowledge hath alwaies abhorred in the Romish Professors and disclaimed and renounced among her owne But it may be the principall errour is the iealousie of the Accusers who vse to suspect an errour in many in stead of a few or for ought that I know of any that holdeth this gestures as essentiall vnto the Communion SECT XX. Their taxation of the Learned Yea and the learned as it is in the Communion booke of King Edward the sixt say that the vse of kneeling is to auoide profanation Our Answer Are you then of opinion either that Sacraments cannot be prophaned or that the Church had not reason to preuent or auoide the prophanation of this Sacrament of the Eucharist If that the Sacraments were not subiect to profanation then should they not be Sacraments For Gods most glorious Name is subiect to mans blasphemy Mans holy life to infamy Godlines to scorne Truth to slander and all sacred things vnto the prophanenesse of godlesse men otherwise neither things could be said to be Sacred nor godlesse men profane As for the wisedome of our Church in this case she perceiuing the blasphemous mouthes of the Papists to vilifie the Sacrament of our Lord Iesus administred in our Church with the ignominious names of Bakers Bread Vintners Wine prophane Elements Ale-cakes and such like reproachfull termes did hold it fit that we by our outward reuerence in the manner of receiuing of the Eucharist might testifie our due estimation of such holy Rytes which are consecrated to so blessed an vse as is communion of the body and bloud of Christ and that thereby we might repell the staine and ignominie which such virulent and vnhallowed tongues did cast vpon them Be you contented by the way to be put in mind of your owne ignorance by confounding an Accidentall and an Eâ—sentiall
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
lifteth vp pure hands in prayer vnto heauen in confidence of Gods promises If holy Faith moued the womans hand to pull Christ by the hemme of his garment in beleefe to be healed by some vertue from him If Charitie stretched out the Samaritans hand to Bynd vp the wounds of the distressed man that lay halfe dead by the way If Deuotion towards God in Lydia charged her eares to giue Attention to Gods word If Contrition for sin powred out of Peters eyes bitter teares of repentance shall not the vertue of Humilitie haue some power to make demonstration of it selfe in an acknowledgement of so vndeserued mercy as is to be partaker by faith of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus by some significant gesture of bowing the body at the receiuing thereof answerable to the religious affection of your mindes Thus much of the Intentionall Reuerence SECT XLI The second Practise of the Non-conformists for our iustification is Bodily And this is either Accidentall in respect of the Communicants or Proper in the manner of communicating The Accidentall is their Bodily presence communicating with vs in this Sacrament notwithstanding our manner of Reuerence This shall be my Reason Idolatry is set downe in the booke of God as a necessary cause of Separation from all Idolatrous worshippers for what affinity is there betweene God and Belial Which one cause although it were onely might iustifie our departure out of the Romish Babylon To this purpose your Witnesse Zanchie giueth this Thesis Idololatriae crimine inuoluuntur qui cum Idololatris ipsorum Idololatrijs communicant Contrarywise the materiall breaking of bread that is the communicating in the blessed Sacâ—ament is a principall note of Vnion in one Faith and Religion seeing that this Sacrament it selfe is a mysticall signe of the vnion of the faithfull among themselues from which it hath receiued the Appellation to be called the Communion Notwithstanding you haue the grace to abide in the womb of our Church and to liue in one Brotherhood with vs in a publique profession of one doctrine and worship of God in Prayers and Psalmes and in the Communion it selfe And now deliberate with your selues I beseech you whether you by this your manner of calumniating and traducing of the Churches practise to call it Idolatrous haue not bene the Authours of Schisme to the Separatists and Apostates of these times vnto whom you haue giuen their first bane euen this suspicion of Superstitious worship in our Church whereby their hearts are so poysoned and their braynes intoxicated that now no Antidote of your making can be able to cure them Take therefore vnto you the mindes of discreete and Christian hearts either to be that you seeme or to seeme to be that you are as glorifiers of God with vs in our Church so for our Church that therefore you do not dishonour her that is your Glory and your Crowne seeking as she hath done many worthy Martyrs of Christ and holy Saints to breed and bring you vp in the syncere faith of Christ vnto your assured hope of eternall glory Thus much of our iustification by your Accidentall practise of consent in Communion with vs in this Sacrament SECT XLII The third Practise of the Non-conformists is from their Bodily Reuerence at the receiuing of their food both Corporall and Sacramentall First of their Corporall You your selues are knowne to be so reuerent in praying vnto God as that in saying grace before meate you vse to vncouer your heads and you do well but look now to the act is it not an act of Reuerence Why else are you vncouered And is it not an act of Spirituall worship wherefore else do you pray And is not the outward obiect whereupon you look meate euen the creature of God how else can you desire God to blesse These his creatures And is not this your Adoration of God relatiue and respectiue arising betweene the Gift and the Giuer otherwise why should you haue reference in prayer vnto God for his blessing vpon your meates And lastly will you say for this Interrogatiue must needs conuince your consciences that this your Adoration is according to the Popish opinion by a personall representation in giuing any part thereof to the creature by adoring either It or In it or By it How then should you iustly condemne that Romish Church of Superstition Nay do you not acknowledge that the respect which you haue from the meate to God is as from the gift vnto the Giuer and that Gods gift is an obiect propter quod for which you pray and render praise vnto him And why then do you infame our Church as if she were Idolatrous which teacheth you in these and all other points of Adoration how to auoide all Idolatry Surely he that cannot distinguish betweene these two to wit Reuerence to God at the receiuing of his Sacrament and reuerence to God in the Sacrament receiued may when he would warme him at the fire burne himselfe in the fire Thus much of your practise in Reuerence at receiuing your corporall food SECT XLIII Our fift Confutation of the Non-conformists and iustification of our selues is from the proper practise of the Non-conformists in their outward Reuerence at the receiuing of this Sacrament You may remember the whole passages and very paces we haue gone that we might perswade you to allow and imbrace our outward gesture of reuerence in receiuing of the blessed Sacrament some taken from Reasons from Confessions of your owne Witnesses from your owne Practises not onely Intentionall but also Reall and this both Accidentall and Proper and this as in an outward and visible reuerence in receiuing as well Corporall as Sacramentall food All these foure hauing bene manifested it remaineth onely that we proue the last concerning the bodily Reuerence perfoâ—med by your selues at the receiuing of the Sacrament it selfe I need not vse many words you receiue this Sacrament with your heads vncouered and would I thinke hold it a prophanenes not to giue some outward semblance of vncouering your heads at the receiuing thereof This being your generall practise I do not see how you may iustifie your owne heads and condemne your knees by whatsoeuer pretence you can make Will you say that kneeling vncouering being both practised about the same act the one gesture can be more subiect to Idolatry then the other I appeale to your owne Witnesse who coÌ„demning the peoples adoration of Images doth ioyntly abandon these three gestures Genuflectionem Capitis apertionem Corporis inclinationem Kneeling on the knee vncouering of the head and bowing of the body where and whensoeuer they are applyed vnto a false adoration as being contrarie to the second commandement Thou shalt not worship c. Or will you hold it reasonable to say as some are thought to answer that you in the celebration of this Sacrament beginning with prayer and thankes-giuing were vncouered and that now it is but continuata