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
dissenting and repugnant and some are neither consenting nor dissenting but adiaphora that is indifferent And he addeth These not hauing any foundation in the word may notwithstanding helpe for the furtherance of pietie The like answer is made by Doctor Whittaker Danaeus and who not that euer intreated vpon that question concerning the sufficiencie of Scripture SECT XX. Our fourth proofe is from Reason taken not onely from the nature of Ceremonies according to the common acknowledgement of all Diuines but also from the different practise of Reformed Churches You haue said that our Ceremonies though they be not Against the word yet because they are Besides the word are therefore vnlawfull Whence I first argue thus Nothing can in respect of God be called vnlawfull which is not Against the word because whatsoeuer is vnlawfull is a transgression of some law reuealed in his word But that which is onely Besides the word is not a transgression of the word Therefore your assertion is frustrate 2. Nothing that is Adiaphoron and indifferent can be pronounced simply vnlawfull But some Ceremonies of mans inuention without speciall warrant from the Scriptures are indifferent by the iudgement of Diuines of whatsoeuer sort or faction Ergo some such Ceremonies may be held lawfull 3. This may be prooued from the differences of Ceremonies in most Christian Churches M. Caluin hauing told vs that Christ would not prescribe particular Ceremonies to his Church because it is impossible that the same Ceremonies should be conuenient and agreeable to all so different Nations as are in the world And Oecolampadius will haue vs know that in the Churches of Basil Bearne and Tigurie there is magna concordia c. Great concord notwithstanding the varietie and difference of their Ceremonies So likewise by P. Martyrs allowance Quaeuis Ecclesia c. Euery Church may abound in her owne sence and thereupon he concludeth Non vrgendum c. That no man may vrge the very same Rites and Ceremonies vpon all Churches Lastly your Zepperus holdeth that The free obseruation of diuerse Rites is no hinderance to the Church nay saith he the varietie of Ceremonies in diuerse Churches is so farre from giuing offence that reason it selfe requireth that the libertie thereof should not be restrained From this ground the reason is impregnable that if in the Churches of Christ there may be yea and of necessitie must be difference in humaine Ceremonies then Ceremonies of humaine institution are of themselues indefinite and indifferent and in that regard can haue no speciall prescription from Diuine authoritie SECT XXI Our last proofe is from the confession and practise of the Non-conformists themselues The Lyncolneshire Opposites and euery Non-conformist require in all their bookes and writings to haue their Ceremonies so free that euery Parish may vse such Rites as by the discretion of the choycest Parishioners may be held most expedient by vertue of which their conceipted freedome it cometh to passe that Some Parishes will sit at the receiuing of the Communion and some stand Some will haue Godfathers and Godmothers and witnesses and some will be content onely with the naturall father Some will admit of publike Festiuals and holydaies and some of none And all this varietie they are perswaded may be had in diuers Churches without any variance at all Which Circumstantiall points are so far to be accounted Ceremoniall as they serue for a modification of our actions and gestures in the worship of God Hence I may argue If all these were of diuine authoritie then could they not be so diuerse for the law of Gods word is to all Nations the same But if they be of humaine institution then are they in that respect either vnlawfull or lawfull if vnlawfull then ought you not to vse the Ceremonies of mans ordinance if lawfull then you ought not to impugne them SECT XXII The Assumption of the Non-conformists against our Ceremonies in generall But these Ceremonies haue no warrant from the word of God being but humane Rites ordained by man c. Our first Answer in defence of our Ceremonies In the ordaining of Ceremonies two things come to be considered the first is in Thesi and generall position that it be warranted by the word whether it be by precept or else by permission and so we might say that the ordinance of Ceremonies may be called Diuine The second consideration is in respect of the Hypothesis and specification of the Ceremonies as prescribing of this or that gesture habit place or time and the like points of circumstance agreeable to the seruice of God these we say in respect of the permissiue appointment of Ceremonies are from God but in respect of the specification and determination of some one sort of Ceremonie rather than another they may be called humane Againe that you may better discerne of these termes take into consultation if it please you the aduise of M. Caluine who calleth those constitutions of the Church which are founded in Scripture prorsus diuinae Altogether Diuine and he taketh an example from Kneeling in solemne prayer which saith he is so Humane that it is also Diuine It is Diuine but why Euen because it is a part of that Decencie the care and obseruation whereof is commended vnto vs by the Apostle Let all things be done decently and in order But humane so farre as they are appropriated by men to some circumstance of person time or place and so it is in this Scripture rather intimated than expressed By which rule we are likewise authorized to call some Ceremonies of our Church in a kind of generality Diuine so far as they haue any dependance vpon that generall directiō of Scripture which cōmandeth that things be done in order Decencie to edification but humane in respect of the application of such rules according to the discretion of the Church Vrsinus whom you often produce for your choice witnes telleth you to the same purpose that Ecclesiasticall Constitutions are good so farre as they do specially assigne that which is generally rather intimated than expressed in the word of God Can you say then that all such actes are altogether Besides Scripture There is a second Rule of direction in case of Ceremonies which is the Equitie of them that are contained in Scriptures according to the example of Solomon in building his new Altar for Sacrifice besides that one Altar which God himselfe had ordained whereof one of your owne fellowship confesseth saying that he did it out of the equitie of Moses Law Notwithstanding this equity was so void of prescription that if this be necessary that act of Solomon might be iudged to haue wanted due warrant Thus much of the first generall Argument whereby they haue concluded against Scripture Fathers iudicious Diuines and all probable Reason that all Ceremonies belonging to Gods seruice which are inuented of man Besides the euidence of Scripture are vnlawfull CHAP II. SECT I.
and the very Leauen of the Pharises from whence there issued a Religious reuereuerence far exceeding that respect which we shall hereafter proue to be lawfully attributed vnto our Ceremonies SECT XI Their third Reason These Ceremonies imposed are for their vse and practise preferred before necessarie duties and principall parts of Gods worship as to weare a Surplice or Preach not vse the signe of the Crosse or Baptize not practise other Ceremonies or els you shall not exercise any other ordinance of God Our Answer This is but dull sophstry for who seeth not that this is not a preferring of wearing a Surplice before preaching as you fondly imagine but to preferre an orderly and discreet Preacher before one that is factious and exorbitant If the Lord Chancellour hauing appointed a commission for his Maiesties seruice and designing a place most conuenient for that purpose afterwards vnderstanding some one or other of the Commissioners to be so peremptorily selfe-willed as to refuse to sit with the rest of the Commissioners in the place appointed shall exempt that party and put him out of the Commission placing another in his stead should it not argue want of common reason to inferre heereupon that the said Lord Chancellour had hereby preferred the circumstance of a place before his Maiesties seruice SECT XII Their fourth Reason They are knowne to be imposed as parts of Gods worship for many people in all parts of the Land are knowne to be of this mind that the Sacraments are not rightly and sufficiently administred or receiued without them Our Answer This your Argument if it be rightly examined will not proue so strong as strange For to conclude thus Many people within the state of this Kingdome do hold these Ceremonies to be necessary parts of Gods worship Ergo they are imposed and obserued as necessary parts of Gods worship may by as good or rather better reason be retorted vpon your selues thus Most people in the Land hold them not to be necessary parts of Gods worship Ergo they are not imposed as essentiall and necessary parts thereof Secondly you ought to haue made a difference betweene the iudgement of the Gouernours in imposing and the opinion if yet there be any such of some people in obseruing of them as necessary For this your Reason can make no better Logicke then if one would cōclude that Vsury the State not punishing the taking of ten in the 100 iustifiable by the Law of God because some people make the like collection But to collect what is the minde of Gouernours from the fancy of some inferiours is but to tell vs that if the legge do halt the lamenesse thereof must be said to be in the braine And because you do commonly obiect the multitude of people tell vs in good sadnesse of what sect you suppose this people to be that hold the necessity of these things Are they Popish But these haue not so great a conceit of our Ceremonies as they are knowne to be administred in our Church Or are they of your owne disciplining who by your calumniations are taught to thinke that the Church hath imposed these Ceremonies in an opinion of necessity so as to make them Essentiall parts of Gods worship Then must we tell you that the seducement of the Scholler is the sinne of the Maister Or lastly are they some of the people who are otherwise conformable Then doubtlesse these if yet there be any such will not be found to be many as you suppose but the same people may be thought to fall into that misconceit not so much by the imposition of the Church vpon you as by your vehement opposition against the Church whereby some such simple people are brought to beleeue that your imputation although most calumnious is true to wit that these Ceremonies are imposed as necessary parts of Gods worship But forbeare you this slander and those people will soone relinquish their errour SECT XII Their fift Reason The omission of them euen without the case of scandall and contempt is more sharpely punished then any other sinnes committed against the Law of God as periury or adultery Our Answer What therefore Ergo for this is your marke they are preferred before the precepts of God and made parts of Gods Worshippe This consequence is not necessarie for it falleth out herein as vsually it doth in the like case in all weal-publiks where we see more exact and grieuous prosecution of Iustice against a pilferer than against a swearer against a false Coyner of money than a man-slayer Not that hereby Christian Common-wealthes do professe that the other Sinnes are in their owne nature lesse hainous or that they do not professedly preferre Gods glorie before all other respects But because stealth of mens goods and adulterating or corrupting of Coine do more immediatly worke the ruine of the common peace therefore the commonwealth as euery sensible thing naturally doth affect is bent immediatlie to seeke the preseruation of it selfe that so it may be more able to establish those things which concerne the glory of God by repressing of more hainous crimes whether by temporall punishment or els by the spirituall censures of the Church And so it sometimes falleth out in the proceeding of the Church it selfe which seeketh by these censures to preserue her owne peace and integritie against those who do vniustly defame her Furthermore suffer me to deale plainely and to tell you that your Parenthesis which complaineth that you are so grieuously punished for onely omission of those Ceremonies euen without the case of scandall and contempt is no better then an open slander against the Church of God for you cannot instance in any one Minister that hath beene so grieuously punished for the bare omission of a Rite without his persisting opinionatiuely refractarily that publickly in flat contradiction against the Church If that the practisioners in the Law should obstinately refuse to weare the ordinary Gowne of a Counsellour or party-coloured habite of a Sergeant would the graue Iudges of the Land passe it slightly ouer as a bare omission and not rather iustly punish it as an intollerable contempt SECT XIIII The contrary-minded albeit neuer so peaceable learned or godly minded if they shall declare their contrary iudgement are accounted Puritans and Schismatickes and by Canon if they shall offend censured as excommunicate Our Answer Although perhaps you haue reason to wish the release of some yet ought you specially to consider your owne deserts and know that Schisme which is the diuiding of affections taketh beginning from the difference of opinions albeit in points of lesse moment and then reckon the multitude of Separatists who haue had their first principles of opposition against our Church out of your Schoole of contradiction by your vile aspersion of no lesse a crime then Idolatry it selfe And after iudge whether there be not some cause to call your opinion Schismaticall as still nourishing the cause of a
being a sinne against the morall Law of God and Rounding of the head and cutting of the flesh for the dead was prohibited as being against the Law of Grace and for that it did demonstrate inordinate sorrow for the Departed as of men voide of all hope of the resurrection of bodies or immortalitie of the soules of men Lastly the commixtion of diuers kindes of seedes and of diuers kinds of beasts was forbid not for any naturall viciousnesse in the things themselues or in the vse that the heathen had of them but because in the prohibiting of these kind of Mixtures hee propounded vnto his people a Type of abstinence from irreligious Mixtures as wel corporall as spirituall that they should not dare to defile their bodies with bestialitie or yet by ioyning in marriage with people of diuers religions and that they should not pollute their soules by consenting vnto the worship of any strange God See now your manifold fallacies by labouring first to conclude the vnlawfulnesse of our Ceremonies which are things in their owne nature indifferent from the condemnation of an Heathenish sinne against nature Secondly to oppugne Ceremonies ordained to a good end to wit the representation of Christian virtues from the example of a wicked custome that plainly demonstrateth meere Infidelity Thirdly by condemning Ceremonies of godly signification as namely Purity constancie humility from the example of Ceremonies that signifie nothing but either bodily or else spirituall adultery which is Idolatry Which kind of consequences are meerely extrauagants wandring and gadding from the matter in question SECT III. Their second Instance from Scripture Such things as had good originals and beginnings amongst the Heathen were notwithstanding prohibited by the Iewes as for example the erecting of any titulary Pillars by the way Leuitie 26.1 Ergo c. Our Answer Had these Titulary pillars of the Heathen which were set vp at limits of their grounds a good originall and beginning trowe you It is an ill glosse that corrupteth the Text the words are these Thou shalt not erect a pillar nor shalt thou set vp any polished stone in your land which was the fashion of the Heathen that you may bow vnto them Whence Master Caluin collecteth Sequitur non aliam statuam hic damnari nisi quae ad Deum repraesentandum erigitur i. No statue was here condemned saith he but that which was erected to represent God It was not therfore the erection of Pillars that was forbiddeÌ„ for then the Patriark Iacob would neuer haue erected as we reade a Pillar for a religious monument but the thing prohibited was the Heathenish end purpose in erecting it Therefore you might aswell say that the theeuish taking of a mans goods as that this Heathenish manner of building those Pillars had a good originall and beginning SECT IIII. Their third Instance from Scripture Deut. 7. and Exod. 23. God commandeth to destroy the statues and groues of Idolatry and to extinguish their names And that we cannot be thought to haue sincerely repented of the Idolatry or superstition on except we cast away with detestation all the instruments and moâ—uments of it See Caluin in his Sermons vpon Deut. Their Answer See Caluin say you whom I haue seene vpon these places of Scripture and vpon the full sight thereof am iustly moued to call vpon you as you haue done vpon your Reader saying See Caluin and then surely you shall see a foule errour in your Collection from Caluin who is so far froÌ„ speaking any thing for your aduantage that in his Exposition of these places he doth flatly confute you For in these Scriptures Exo. 23. and Exo. 34. Deu. 7. 12. Numer 23. where we reade of nothing but of Destroying of all the Images Groues Altars and rooting out the very names of the Heathenish gods although indeed he doth inferre that omnia insignia Idololatriae that is all the monuments or tokens of Idolatry were to be abolished by the Iewes yet where the question is whether Christians be precisely bound to doe the like he so distinguisheth betweene the commandements of the Decalogue and these Appendices as he doth betweene the Law Morall and the Politique or Iudaicall notifying vnto vs that the Morall precepts do oblige all men vnto the end of the world as being enacted against all formall Idolâ—trie but these politique precepts of Destroying of Altars Groues c. which are materials onely Differ saith he from the other namely from the Commandements of the two tables so as to bind onely the Iewes during the time of their Paedagogie but not the Church Christian to the end of the world And therefore comming to the point concerning Churches the places of Gods worship he resolueth saying Neque nobis religio est templa retinere quae polluta fuerunt Idolis accoÌ„modare in meliorem vsum quià nos non obstringit quod propter consequentiam vt loquuâ—tur legi additum est That is We may lawfully vse the Temples or Churches which haue bin defiled and abused wâ—th Idols and apply them to a better vse because that doth not bind vs which was added to the meaning the moral Law onely by consequence therby meaning the peculiar occasions of those times The summe whereof saith he doth tend thus farre namely to shew in what deteâ—â—ation Gâ—d held all manner of Idolatry and therefore would haue thâ—m to aâ—olâ—sh the very names of such things as had euer beâ—nâ— dedicated vnto Idols But you will say Shall we then haue no regard of other superstitious circumstances Caluin seemeth to preuent this Obiection saying Fatâ—or quidem c. Indeed I confesse that all such things are to be remoued which may seeme to nourish Idolatry so that obserue I pray you this moderation we our selues in vrging too vehemently things which are in their owne nature indifferent be not too superstitious Meaning that the vrging a prohibition and an abolishment of them is that negatiue superstition wherof you haue beene already found guilty in oppugning our Rites as superstitious onely because they are Significant As though any thing could be iudged therefore Superstitious because it carrietâ— with it a true Orthodoxe and Christian signification SECT V. Their fourth Instance from Scripture Daniel would not defile himselfe with eating of the Kings meats Dan. 1.18 Our Answer Seire est per causas scire The onely solide knowledge of any thing is the vnderstanding of the true causes thereof First therefore Daniel did not abstaine from these meates of the King because they were the Kings for Then saith M. Caluin vpon this place should he haue shewne himselfe very inconstant when afterwards he tooke a liberty to himselfe to eate thereof Why then will you say did he abstaine Reade but M. Caluin his Comment and it will resolue you that Daniel was now in an exile from Gods worship and that the King sent vnto him all his Kingly seruices delicates to the
weight and necessitie of the matter that is imposed which although sometimes it be light in it selfe yet by reason of some circumstance may become weightie and necessary enough to challenge performance Other-some take their line and measure both from the ponderousnesse of the matter and also from the will and intention of the Law-giuer and Commander whensoeuer he purposeth to prescribe any thing vnder that bond of conscience which God exacteth in charging men to obey those that are in authoritie Which purpose of the Law-giuer some vse to discerne by the tenure of the Law and Statute if it be deliuered in such termes which may seeme deepely to charge men to performe their obedience But some collect the same intention of the Law-giuer from the punishment which by the same Law shall be inflicted vpon persons offending which if it bee but pecuniarie and of smaller value then they iudge mens conscience in such a case bound only to the payment of that mulct whensoeuer it is exacted By this last consideration you may perceiue that your former obiection from Bowles wanteth a Byas to bring it to the marke For the Statute Lawes which prescribe pecuniarie punishments against Bowling lest it should hinder more warlike exercises as shooting appointeth wearing of Caps for the maintenance of some priuate Trades-men c. they holding the mulct of money to be a compensation for the offences are satisfied thereby and do not account these commissions or omissions to be contempts which can little aduantage you but doth rather strongly condemne you For the omissions of a professed Non-conformist proceed from an opinion that he ought to disobey in this case and therefore is in the censure of the Church a professed contemner vpon whom the Lawes of the land haue therefore imposed not a pecuniarie mulct but a flat depriuation of his Benefice and Ministeriall function In case that the punishment inioyned be very grieuous as for example imprisonment banishment losse of office and estate depriuation degradation or such like extremities these are held to be sufficient tokens that the intention of the Magistrate in giuing of his Law was to exact of his subiects obedience by vertue of that Law of God and to charge them with dutifull subiection in all lawfull commands And thus you your selues appeare guiltie of a kind of Contempt not for some few omissions of these Ceremonies which are not liable to so great censures but for your continuall refusall whereupon no lesse than depriuation doth ensue For although the greatest contempt be Nolle obedire Superiori yet are there other properties of disobedience which do necessarily inferre an high degree of contempt as namely when any seeketh by many acts to expresse in himselfe and to ingender in others a viler estimation either of the person that doth lawfully command or of the thing that is accordingly commanded than they do deserue in which case we may reckon any outward Act whereby it shall be knowne that the doer must needs either incurre the displeasure of his Gouernour or else so much as in him lyeth disturbe the peace of the Church In all this that hath bene deliuered I take not vpon me to speake so definitiuely as to preiudice the iudgement of Others but to shew what seemeth vnto me most probable much lesse to confute the opinion of them that thinke that the transgression of some penall Statutes of lesse moment doth not make the conscience of the Actor guilty of sinne but that if it be without Scandall or Contempt it may haue compensation by the penalty which shal be imposed Which doctrine the Romish Schoole it selfe will acknowledge first in Lawes which are purè poenales whereof the Iesuit Vasquez confesseth That they by the tenure of writing neither forbid nor command but onely set downe a punishment either against them that shall do or else against them that shall omit to do according to this forme He that shall commit this or that let him haue this or that punishment and therefore these kind of Lawes bind men not vnto guilt of sinne but onely vnto the penalty as for example in that Law against him that shall breake prison he is chargeable onely to vndergoe the punishment This holdeth in other acts which are not expresly forbid in other Lawes So he Secondly Nauarre Felinus and some others go further holding that Penall Lawes do not bind beyond the intention of the Law-maker All which notwithstanding there is no place of refuge or defence for your manner of opposition seeing that the intention of the Law-maker in ordaining of our Ceremonies proceeded from the zeale of Conformitie the punishment imposed is in the end depriuation or degradation and your owne guilt by your continuall refusall can be in the eyes of the Gouernours no better than contempt Which most of your selues might more easily discerne if you would but acknowledge which the pens and tongues of all men do confesse that there is the same obligation of conscience by the Law of God concerning your obedience to the lawfull orders of the Church established by the King whole Estate as there can be of your owne wiues children or seruants vnto your selues In all which kind of relations a bare omission may proceed froÌ„ men of awfull affections such as if they knew that their Superiours should vnderstand of their errours and be greatly displeased thereat would readily recall themselues whereas the other omission which is done by wilfull opposition must necessarily argue a contemner of the Commander and inferre a destruction of the Law and Command SECT XII Our generall confutation of the Non-conformists former generall Argument which was taken from the pretence of Christian Libertie Our Reasons to prooue our Church free from impairing Christian Libertie by her prescriptions are taken froÌ„ 1. The acknowledgement of the Non-conformists owne Witnesses 2. The publike profession of the Church in this behalfe 3. The contrary practise of the Non-conformists whereby Christian Libertie is indeed superstitiously infringed Our first Confutation from the acknowledgement of their owne Witnesses That the Doctrinall opinion concerning Ceremonies is the onely proper cause of depriuing Christians of that Libertie in question which Christ commended to his Church in respect of things indifferent is a point of learning commonly professed by your owne Witnesses amongst whom Danaeus expressing the diuers properties of the opinion of necessitie whereby Christian Libertie is dissolued reduceth them into these foure 1. opinion of placing in humane Ceremonies a Law of necessitie to saluation 2. a necessitie of sanctity 3. of merit 4. to make them necessarie parts of Gods worship Chemnisius compriseth all in two words Opinio necessitatis tollit libertatem The opinion of nâ—cessity doth depriue the Church of Liberty Master Caluin explaineth the point to the full shewing that it is not the necessitie of obedience to mans commandement but an opinion of the necessitie of the commandement of man that annulleth our libertie A man
euen as we being gathered together in these earthly temples do magnifie him and therfore these our earthly temples ought to raise vp our mindes to the contemplation of the celestiall Which vse is profitable and not to be contemned Thus much Zanchius Wherefore if you will allow such kind of Ceremoniall significations you consent with vs if you reiect them then you doe dissent from all ancient and primitiue Christians Yet many of you are not so farre falne out with Symbolicall Ceremonies and the vniuersall practise of Antiquitie but that you doe willingly obserue the Ceremoniall Festiuals of Ester Pentecost c. now celebrated in our Churches as likewise the dayes not so much fatals as natals of the Apostles Now in the solemnization of these Anniuersaries you cannot but reflect on the remembrance of some spirituall things as these to wit the power of Christ his Resurrection the donation of the gifts of the holy Ghost made in visible signes of fiery tongues the glorious Ascension of our euer-blessed Sauiour into heauen together with the admirable constancy of the Apostles in suffering for the profession of the holy faith heereby admonishing vs to imitate their Example of Constancie and faithfulnesse vnto death that with them we may obtaine the same glorious Crowne of euerlasting life SECT XXXIII Our fift and last Proofe for the Confutation of the Generall argument of the Non-conformists by Reason We cannot want Reasons to prooue that our Ceremonies may be significant which our Common Prayer booke doth signifie so to be and is therefore condemned by the Non-conformists Their Opposition to our Communion-Booke The Communion Booke saith of these Ceremonies that they are neither darke nor dumbe but significant which is vnlawfull SECT XXXIIII Our Confutation of the Non-conformists by Reason confirming the lawfulnesse of Morall signification from the Confession of their owne Witnesses Because the Non-conformists haue pleaded thus absolutely against Significant Ceremonies by the same ReasoÌ„ if that may be called Reason which fighteth against it selfe we are to shew that no Ceremonie can be properly so called if it be altogether destitute of signification for to require Ceremonies without all signification is all one as to imagine day without light or fire without heate For were it not so M. Caluin had no reason to inueigh so much against the Papists because that many of their Ceremonies are non-significant Furthermore saith M. Caluin is not this fault worthy our inueighing against non intellectas Ceremonias ostentant c. They make a pompous shew of Ceremonies that are not vnderstood as if it were some stage-like dumbe shew or else some magicall incatation For some Ceremonies in Popery are separated from doctrine that they may hold the people with signes void of all signification Thus Caluin The same exception doth P. Martyr take against some Romish Ceremonies euen because Their significations are often vnknowen not onely to the beholders but to the Actors themselues who being asked of the meaning of diuers of their Rites either say nothing or if they answer any thing they contradict one another which is a certaine argument that there is no truth in them Now amongst other Rites of this nature wee may ranke that of their Priests muttering of the words of consecration in secret which Doctor Raynolds doth iustly condemne as being Against the practise of Churches of Fathers Apostles and of Christ himselfe But they say saith Doctor Rainolds of this dumbe shew which crept into the Church that it was ordained by the holy Mother Church lest those wordes so holy and so sacred should come into contempt And can there be a better Example of a Dumbe Ceremonie or more iust reason of casting it out then because it is dumbe In briefe all these Considerations Proofes and Examples aboue mentioned drawne from the religious persons of the old Testament both before and vnder the Law from the Apostles in the new from the vniuersall practise of all Churches that are within the horizon of Ecclesiasticall Record from the testimonies of their owne Witnesses from the practize of the Non-conformists themselues and lastly from the necessary consequence of Reason may sufficiently free our Ceremonies from any guilt as they terme it of superstition as though they were therefore superstitious euen because they are significant CHAP. IIII. The fourth generall Argument vrged by the Non-conformists against the foresaid Ceremonies is taken from a pretence that they haue been abused to Popish Superstition SECT I. Their Argument Maior No Ceremonies which haue beene notoriously knowne to haue been of old and still to be abused to Idolatry and Superstition especially if there be now no vse of them in Gods Church can bee lawfull but must be abolished whether they haue beene the Ceremonies of Pagans Iewes or Heretikes Assumption But these Ceremonies haue beene Idolatrously polluted by Papists namely the Surplice Crosse in Baptisme and the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament Ergo they ought to bee remooued and abolished Our Answer IF you require that Ceremonies so abused be abolished as if there were no other Cure for such sores but onely abcision and cutting off the members by the ioynt then wee deny your Maior But if you vnderstand such things as in their owne nature are not ill but indifferent or by excepting things necessary you meane an absolute and not a conuenient necessity we denie your Assumption And now that you see your markes looke to your aime and first proue if you can your Proposition then afterwards your Assumption for otherwise you can conclude against our Ceremonies iust nothing at all SECT II. The Proofes vsed by the Non-conformists against such Ceremonies which haue beene Superstitiously abused Their Proofes are from Examples of the abolishing of Ceremonies that haue beene either Heathenishly Iewishly or Heretically abused Their first Obiection concerning heathenish Ceremonies by diuers Instances in Scriptures This may appeare by Godâ— word forbidding all prouocations vnto spirituall fornication and commanding vs to separate our selues from Idolaters aâ—d to â—e as vnlike them as may be especially in their religious obseruations and Ceremonies and Instruments of Idolatry that so wee shew our vtmost detestation of them and to cast out the very memory of them and to cast away euen such things as had a good originall if they be not still necessary and commandâ—d of God when once they are knowne to bee defiled by Idolatry or abused by it according â—s for example sake God commandeth Leuit. â—8 not to be like the Heathen c. And Leuit. 19.28 c. Our Answer In this place of Scripture are forbid three kinde of things which were in vse among the Heathen the first was the sinne of Incest the second the fashion of Rounding their heads and cutting their flesh for the dead the third their sowing of their grounds with diuers seeds and letting their beasts of diuers kindes to ingender together Now wee know that Incest was forbidden as