from that place of 1. Cor. 14. v. 40. Sect. 16. II. Reason from Fathers Sect. 17. III. Reason froÌ„ the iudgement of Protestant Diuines Sect. 18. IV. Reason from the nature oâ— Ceremonies according to the Practises of other reformed Churches Sect. 20. V. Reason from the Confession and Practise of the Non-conformists themselues Sect. 21. The Assumption of their Argument namely that these our Ceremonies want due warrant from Scripture which the Non-conformists labour to proue Our Answer Sect. 22. to the end of the Chap. CHAP. 2. Their second generall Argument is Because Ceremonies are parts of Gods worship which no man can lawfully ordaine Ergo c. The Proofe first of their Maior Their I. Proofe from Scriptures Esa. 29.13 Deut. Coloss c. Our Answer Sect. 3. and confutation of their interpretation of such Scriptures Sec. 4. II. Proofe from the iudgement of ancient Fathers Our Answer Sect. 5. III. Proofe from Protestant Authors Our Answer Sect. 6. The proofes of their Assumption to shew that our Ceremonies are held as parts of Gods worship I. Proofe because they are impoted as parts of Gods worship Our Answer Sect. 8. c. II. Proofe Because imposed with an opinion of holinesse Our Answer Sect. 10. III. Proofe Because preferred before preaching and other necessary duties Our Answer Sect. 11. IIII. Proofe Because the people conceiue them to be necessarie Our Answer Sect. 12. V. Proofe Because the punishment is so seuere against the Transgressors of them Our Answer Sect. 13. VI. Proofe Because the censure against the contrary-minded is to terme them Schismaticks Our Answer Sect. 14. Our generall confutation of this second generall Argument of the Non-conformists concerning the essentiall parts of Gods worship from the plaine and expresse Profession of our Church Sect. 15. CHAP. 3. Their third generall Argument against these Ceremonies is because they are made Significant Their Proofes from 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Protestant diuines 4. Reasons I. Proofe from Scriptures of Mar. 7.8 Mat. 15. You haue made the CoÌ„mandements of God of none effect by the traditions of men Our Answer Sect. 2. II. Proofe from Fathers Our Answer Sect. 3. III. Proofe from the testimonies of Protestant Diuines Our Answer Sect. 4. IV. Proofe from Reasons I. Reason Because a Ceremonie is a chiefe part of Gods worship Our Answer Sect. 5. II. Because Gods owne Ceremonies of the old law are not to be vsed Ergo c. Our Answer Sect. 6. III. Because this openeth a gap to other Popish trash Our Answer Sect. 7. The Non-conformists AssumptioÌ„ and our Answer Sect. 8. Our geneâ—al Confutations of their third generall Argument concerning a Ceremonie significant Our I. Confutation by Scriptures II. Fathers III. Reasons IV. The Non-conformists owne Witnesses V. By the practise of the Non-conformists themselues VI. Reason to proue the lawfulnâ—sse of Significant Ceremonies Our I. Example out of Scripture is of Abraham before the law Gen. 24. II. Examples vnder the law first in the ordination of Festiuall dayes as the Feast of lots Est. 9. Sect. 9.10 Second in the Feast of the Dedication 1. Machab. 2. Iustified by Christ Ioh. 10. Sect. 12. 13. Next instance in the Ceremoniall instruments both in the Altar of the Gileadites Ios. 22. Sect. 15.16 and secondly in Salomons Altar 1. King 8. Sect. 17.18.19.20.21 and in the Iewish Synagogues Sect. 22. III. Examples in the time of the Apostles As first the Feasts of Charitie Sect. 23.24.25.26.27 Second the Holy Kisse Sect. 26.27 and third Womans couering of her head Sect. 28. Our second Confutation by the vniuersall custome of all Christian Churches as well Primitiue as Successiue Sect. 29. Our third confutation from the testimonies of the Non-conformists owne Witnesses Sect. 30. Our fourth confutation is from the confessions and practise of the Non-conformists theÌ„selues by example in taking an Oath Sect. 31. And in the obseruation of the Lords day and other Festiuals Sect. 32. Our fift confutation is from Reason taken from the nature of a Ceremonie that it must not be dumb Sect. 33.34 CHAP. 4. The fourth generall Argument of the Non-conformists against these ceremonies is Because they haue bin abused in Popery and Therefore ought to be vtterly abolished For proofe of their Maior they alledge the reproofes vsed against Ceremonies either Heathenishly Iewishly or Heretically abused which they endeuour to euince from 1. Authoritie of Scripture 2. Of ancient Councels and Fathers Their I and II. Scriptures Leuit. 18. c. Our Answer Sect. 2.3 III. Deut. 7. coÌ„manding the names of Heathenish superstition to be abandoned Our Answer Sect. 4. IV. Dan. 1. Daniel would not be defiled with the Kings meate Our Answer Sect. 5. V. The example â—f Hezechias in demolishing of the Brazen Serpent 2. Reg. 18. Our Answer Sect. 6. Their obiections of the second kind concerning Heathenish Rites is from Councels and Fathers I. Instance in the Councell of Carthage against Altars in Highwayes abuâ—ed by Pagans Our Answer Sect. 7. II. In the samâ— Councel â—gainst Relickes of idolatrie Our Answer Sect. 8. III. In the Councell of Brac. concerning greene bay-â—eâ—ues Our Answer Sect. 9. IIII. In the Councel of Afroâ—k agâ—inst the Birth daze of Marterse Our Answer Sect. 10. V. In Tertullian forbidding to borrow any thing of an Idoll Our Answer Sect. 11. VI. Againe in Tert. concerning washiâ—g of hands and laying aside Clokes Our Answ. Se. 12. VII in Miltiades concerning Fasting on Friday Our Answer Sect. 13 VIII In Ambrose about offering Cakes Our Answer Se. 14. IX In August to leaue the heathenish toyes c. Our Answer Sect. 15. Their second kind of Obiections concerning Iewish Rites Their Instance in the Councell of Nice concerning the Feast of Easter Our Answer Sect. 16. Their third kind of Obiections is concerning Heathenish Rites I. Instance in the Councell of Gangris about Fasting on the Lords day abused by the Manichees Our answer Sect. 17. II. Instance in tâ—e Councell of Brac. about Eating of flâ—sh abused by the Pricilianists Our Answer Sect. 18. III. Instance in Gregory against Thrice dipping in Baptisme Our Answer Sect. 19. IIII. Instance in Leo against the aâ—use in Conference with Hereticks Our Answer Sect. 20 Their general Assumption to proue that our Ceremonies haue bene as ill as Heathenishly abused by Papists Our Answer Sect. 21. Our general Confutation of their generall Argument for the abolishing such things as haue bin abused Our I. Proofe is from Scriptures Sect. 23. II. Proofe from Fathers Sect. 24. III FroÌ„ 4. Reasons 1. From Inconueniency Sect. 25. 2. From the absurdity of the Non-conformists Rule Sect. 26. 3. From other meanes of reforming abuses thaÌ„ by abolishing the things Sect. 27. 4. From the difference betweene Pagans Papists Sect. 28. IV. From the Testimonies of their principall Witnesses Sect. 29. V. From the confessions and Practises of the Non-conformists themselues Sect. 30. CHAP. 5. The fift generall Argument of the Non-conformists against the foresaid Ceremonies is taken from the Scandall
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
you will also Ceremoniall Constitutions which are mingled with some false and corrupt opinion so did they vniuersally iustifie prescribe and practise Traditions such as ours are which were meerly Ceremoniall as you well know by the Canons of their Councels which your selues do obiect and your owne hearts can tell you that you oppose the Fathers against vs in this case not as their ingenuous children seeking to follow their iudgement but as men aduersely sinisterly affected as if in confuting vs you meant to condemne them if you could by their owne sayings As might haue easily appeared by their Testimonies if you would haue insisted vpon particulars SECT VI. Their last proofe from the Testimonies of Protestant Authors That Ceremonies imposed as parts of Gods worship are vnlawfull may appeare by the iudgement of the most iudicious Diuines who haue all by this Reason condemned the Ceremonies of Papists Caluin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 8. Pet. Martyr Chemnitius D. Mort Apol. part 1. cap. 89. and others Our Answer The true vnderstanding of the two acceptions of this phrase Parts of Gods Worship might easily haue rectified your iudgements for it is sometimes taken in Authours more strictly and properly for that essentiall forme and manner of worship wherein there is placed an opinion of Iustice Sanctitie Efficacie or Diuine necessity and so we hold it sacrilegious for any Church to impose or to admit of any such Ceremonie proceeding from humane institution Sometimes againe the same phrase is taken more largely for euery circumstantiall Rite which serueth for the more consonant and conuenient discharge of that essentiall worship of God and thus we hold it a peece of Christian libertie belonging to the Church to ordaine Ceremonies which may tend to Decencie Order and Edification as hath bene already shewen and acknowledged Herein therefore doth your inexcusable abuse of your Authors bewray it selfe that where they condemne onely such Ceremonies which are invented by men and brought into the Church by Papists and others with an opinion of such holinesse efficacie and necessity as whereby God is as properly worshipped as with the formes which he himselfe hath ordained thereupon you vrge and inforce them to the confutation of onely Circumstantiall and Accidentall Additaments vsed without all such superstitious respect Come we now to the examination of your witnesses 1. M. Caluin saith indeed that All those Constitutions are wicked in the obseruation whereof men place any worship of God Where by Worship he meaneth not any circumstance either of time place person or gesture which are required in the celebration of Gods worship but the inward vertue of worship which consisteth in an opinion of holinesse and iustice c. As you might haue learned from M. Caluin himselfe if you would haue taken out his next lesson where he condemneth the Papists but why Euen because they do conclude Ipsissimum Dei cultum in suis ritibus contineri Gods worship it selfe meaning the very essentiality of the worship of God to consist in their Rites And refuting it by the Scripture of Esay 55. In vaine doe they worship mee teaching c. expoundeth what hee meaneth by worship saying that The Papists in ritibus suis iustitiam quam Deo opponant quâ se ante tribunal sustineant quaerunt they seeke that righteousnesse in their Ceremonies which they may oppose vnto God and wherewith they may vphold themselues when they shall be called to answer before his Tribunall Surely there is no Protestant who will not call euery such figment of mans braine a very Idoll wherewith Gods worship is impiously profaned 2. Chemnitius also in the place alleaged speaking of the reseruation of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper sheweth that Antiquity vsed a Reseruation as-well as the Papists but yet with a great difference For Tridentini docent c. The Doctors of the Councell of Trent teach this Reseruation to bee a custome necessary and altogether to be retained but the ancient Fathers who had great reasons in regard of those times to obserue that custome yet did they not hold it necessary So that hee likewise condemneth that which is made an essentiall part of worship 3. Peter Martyr speaking of Ceremonies although hee verifieth your phrase of speech § 3. saying that Diuine worship doth not depend vpon the will of man but on the counsell and will of God yet doth he crosse and as it were controule your meaning of the word worship you vnderstanding thereby any Ceremonies which may serue for a complementall performance of that Diuine worship although it be not held as necessary hereunto But he saith expresly Licet Ecclesiae c. The Church hath power to prescribe and make Constitutions concerning the place time and manner of receiuing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper whether at morning or at night whether standing or sitting By this you see that he condemneth not the institution of the Accessarie and Accidentall parts of Gods worship but plainely approueth of them Your last witnesse answereth for himselfe that He in that place confuting the superstition of the Church of Rome doth not simply condemne all her Ceremonies but Farraginem tarbam onus Ceremoniarum to wit the immoderate multitude and intollerable burthen of her ceremonies in Feasts and Fasts in Gestures c. And you M. H. I trow in reprouing a man for a surfer or drunkennesse do not thereby meane to depriue him absolutely of his meate and drinke SECT VII Our generall Confutation of their former generall Propoposition especially from their owne witnesses The authority which the Church doth challenge or appointing circumstantiall and accidentall parts of Gods worship is from the liberty which she hath granted vnto her in magna Charta to wit the booke of holy Scriptures which expresly hath giuen vnto her authority to constitute such Rites as belong to Decency Order and Edification as hath beene already proued But because the Non-conformists are so frequent in alledging of witnesses I shall desire them to consult with two such whom they haue especially and namely appropriated vnto themselues in this whole controuersie who I make no question will answer their obiection Wee beginne with Vrsinus who hath catechized them well where first bringing in the obiection viz. Quae ad gloriam Dei c. â—y those things which are done to the glory of God God is worshipped Bâ—t the Constitutions of the Church are done to the glory of God ergo God is worsâ—ipped by the ordinances of man He thus answereth and resolueth that Those things which are done to the glorie of God to wit per se of themselues that is such as are commanded by himselfe to the end that by them wee may expresse our obedience vnto him those acts are the worship of God But not those which accidentally do serue to the glory of God that is to the performance of those things which are commanded of God And a little after to this
conscience saying that We must be obedient for conscience sake How as if the obligation of conscience in obeying man were immediatly tyed vnto man No but vnto God and therefore that obedience vnto Magistrates is there expressed because that Magistracie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinance of God And lastly concerning Gods punishment he addeth They that resist shall receiue condemnation thereby imputing a guilt of damnation vpon all wilfull and contemptuous disobedience We may not therfore confound the distinct Courts Iurisdictions one whereof is Gods and the other is Mans The first being spirituall and inuisible the second onely ciuill and sensible But rather ought we to acknowledge the Act of binding mens consciences which is spirituall and inuisible to be properly belonging vnto Forum coeli God iudging according to the inward transgression of mans heart but not vnto forum soli wherein man hath power as to punish so to iudge directly onely the outward Acts of men It is God therefore and not man that properly and directly bindeth the conscience of Man SECT VIII Our second Answer is by confuting the Non-conformists owne Obiection from their owne Witnesses Our Diuines say you teach that Humane Lawes binde not the consciences of men Where by Our Diuines you vnderstand such Doctors of our Church who condemne your Non-conformity as though all other Diuines whom you vsually produce in fauour of your cause were contrarily-minded Among whom one catechising you in the duty of obedience vnto the Politicall lawes of men telleth you that Such politicke precepts of Magistrates and other Gouernours meaning of Parents and Masters do bind the consciences of men that is saith he we must necessarily performe them neither can they be neglected without offence vnto God we are bound to obserue them euen without the cause of scandall as for example To carry Armes is not a worship of God in it selfe but it is made a worship of God accidentally when the Magistrate shall command vs to carrie Armes because that obedience due to the Magistrate is the worship of God Another to the same purpose instructeth you that The conscience of a Christian knowing that Magistracie is the Ordinance of God doth willingly yeeld obedience This cause saith he moueth godly men to obey the Lawes of Magistrates euen then when they haue power to deceiue them and to transgresse without punishment and this is the difference betweene the godly and wicked the one obeyeth for feare of punishment the other doth it in conscience A third will reueale his iudgement in the Section following SECT IX Our third point in answering is to shew that Ecclesiasticall Lawes haue no lesse force in the case of Conscience than haue the Politique Your former Witnesses although they attribute to the Politique Lawes a power of binding mens consciences yet do they deny the same to the Ordinances which are of Ecclesiasticall cognizance Among others P. Martyr affirmeth Ecclesiastica non obstringunt conscientias si remoueatur contemptus scandalum nè aut tumore animi de industriâ constituta rescindamus aut turbemus communem pacem Ecclesiae At praeceptis ciuilibus iubemur parere non tantùm propter tram sed etiam propter conscientiam nec alienam sed nostram So hee whereof Vrsinus indeuoureth to giue vs a reason saying Nam violatione legum Ecclesiasticarum sine scandalo non violatur prima tabula decalogi cui seruire debent at violatione legum politicarum etiam extra scandalum violatur secunda tabula quià vel reipub aliquid detrahitur societas politica laeditur vel aliqua laedendi occasio praebetur But can this reason satisfie any reasonable man thinke you as though that diuine authoritie which in the behalfe of obedience vnto politique Magistrats saith vnto subiects Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and to seruants Obey them that are your bodily masters and to children Obey your parents in the Lord the same doth not likewise charge and command people concerning their spirituall parents and Gouernors saying Obey them that are set ouer you for they watch as those who must giue account for your soules Now the commandement of obeying proceeding equally in both from the same diuine authoritie it must needs follow that the obligation and bonds of Obeying in both is of equall necessitie to charge vs as well to preserue the peace of the Church as of the common-wealth For is there not in the Church a Societie and is not also a breach of the vniforme concord and peace of the same Societie an vnsufferable iniurie and mischiefe as wherby Aliquid Reip. Christianae detrahitur ipsa Societas Ecclesiastica laeditur c. And therefore how shall not this be a violation of the second table as well as the like transgression against lawes politique But I need not vse much arguing to confute the former opinion 1. because the opinion it selfe is not common 2. because it can haue no place in our Church wherein our gracious Soueraigne Lord and King hath set his Royall stampe vpon our Constitutions and Ceremonies by his Maiesties politique authoritie And lastly because the light of Scripture is euidently against it especially in diuers Aposâ—olicall Constitutions whereof some were Ceremoniall and yet challenged obedience in their times Thus much of the manner of obliging mans conscience We proceed to the measure SECT X. Our fourth point in answering is to expresse how farre humane Lawes do bind mens consciences and whether all iust Lawes do not bind them against Scandall and contempt of authoritie as the measure of Obedience It is not onely the vniforme iudgement of the Authors aboue mentioned but also the vniuersal consent of all diuines that write of this argument that al persons are bound in conscience to performe obedience as wel to Gouernors Ecclesiastical as vnto Ciuill so farre as to auoid all Scandall and coâ—tempt against their lawfull precepts and Ordinances so that to suppose an Aduersary in this case were but to fight with a shadow This therefore being but a measure of the bond of Conscience I proceed to inquire wherein the transgression of conscience by Scandall and contempt concerning matters indifferent doth principally consist SECT XI The Obiection of the Non-conformists If a bare omission of a Rite were a contempt then all that vse bowling which the Lawe disalloweth and do not weare Caps and such habiâ—s as the Statutes inioyne should be contemners Our Answers This point concerning the measure of that obligation of conscience in the question of due obedience requireth a more exact and accurate discussion because this Case is variously disputed off in the Schooles Some take their measure from the will of the Law-giuer conceiuing that the conscience of the Subiect is then bound to obedience whensoeuer the lawfull Gouernour doth impose any Law with an intention that men should make conscience of his command Some fetch the measure of Obligation from the
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
The second generall Agument made by the Non-conformists against the three Ceremonies of our Church is That they are held as properly parts of Gods Worship The Maior All humane Ceremonies which are esteemed imposed or obserued as parts of Diuine worship are vnlawfull The Assumption But such are these Surplice Crosse in Bâ—ptisme and kneeling at the Communion Therefore these are vnlawfull Our Answer DIstinction is by the Logâ—cians called a Wedge because it is the onely meanes in all Disputes to dissolue the hardest Elenchs and knots of subtlety which if you would haue applied in this controuersie then should you not haue needed our answer to wit if you had but discerned the proper and essentiall parts of Gods worship from the improper and accidentall By the essentiall parts we vnderstand such Ceremonies which are so necessarily required to Gods seruice as that the contrariety thereof must needs displease him And the improper and accidentall parts or rather Appurtenances are such which serue onely as accessary complements ordained for the more conuenient discharge of the necessary worship of God It was proper to God as to create the body and all the naturâ—ll limmes and parts thereof whereunto man hath no power to add so much as an haire so to ordaine the perfect forme of his essentiall worship and seruice but yet for man to apply thereunto accessary Ceremonies for Decorum and Edification may no more be accounted a Derogation to Gods ordinance concerning his owne worship than it can be to his creation to cloath and apparell the naked bodie of man which is indeed rather to be accounted a note of our greater estimation thereof SECT II. The Non-conformists their proofes of the Maior from 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Witnesses These Ceremonies imposed are not onely not commanded as lawfull but prohibited as sinful For the Scriptures Fathers and Orthodox writers do condemne as sinful all wit-worship or will-worship whatsoeuer proceeding out of the forge of mans fancies Whatsoeuer precepts of men in Gods worship either for matter or manner deliuered and imposed by man although they seeme neuer so good in their owne sight Our Answer I doubt that we shall find you to bewray more will than wit and more fancie than sound reason in your pretended proofes Begin with Scriptures SECT III. Their proofes from Scripture Esay 29.13 God saith In vaine do they worship me teaching for Precepts Commandements of men In Deut. 12.32 We are commanded neither to adde nor to diminish And Coloss. 2. The Apostle condemneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will-worship Our Answer All these places of Scripture are meerely Heteroclits in respect of the point in controuersie For first by the Precepts of men in Esay are signified such humane ordinances as were expresly contrary to the Commandement of God as is plaine both by the description of their sin called a staggering drunkennesse signifying their Idolatrous conceits and also by the denunciation of Gods iudgements by fearefull destruction to come vpon Israel by the hands of a multitude of Nations Which kind of menaces were neuer published but for hainous and horrible transgressions Secondly the Adding and diminishing spoken of doth not meane addition of preseruation but addition of corruption like as the fraudulent Coyner of money doth corrupt the Kings Coyne either by adding baser mettall vnto it or by clipping any siluer from it and in both kinds he is a Traitor How much more high treason must we iudge it to be against the Highest himselfe when man shall aduenture either to make any Diuine precept or promise and set Gods stampe vpon it to make the speech to be Gods speech which is but the deuice of his owne forge or to diminish the estimation of Gods precept by accounting it but an inuention of man And the like may be affirmed of the Sacraments which are proper to that Diuine person who is the Testator it being no lesse sacriledge to corrupt the Sacraments which are the seales of Gods promises than to depraue his will of Commandements SECT IIII. A confutation of the Non-conformists interpretation of the Scriptures by their owne witnesses Your most approued witâ—esses make altogether against you First Danaeus obiecting against Papisticall Traditions the same places of Esay saying In vaine do they worship me teaching c. and Deut. 4.12 Nothing must be added c. told you that Ex superiorâ—bus c. He meant this of the Traditions which he spake of in the former Chapter and whereof he had said Huiusmodi traditiones humanae c. Such humane Ceremonies which are added as necessary appendices and parts of doctrine belonging to Christian faith or are deliuered as norma the Rule of Gods worship they do in effect accuse the word of God to be lame and imperfect which is plaine blasphemie as Tertullian teacheth in his booke of Prescriptions against Heretikes Secondly Zanchius hath told you that That place concerning will worship condemned by the Apostle Col. 2.27 did point at certaine Hypocrites of those times who did obtrude vpon Christians Traditions of their owne deuising in pretence that they proceeded from God And vpon these words of the same Apostle Let no man deceiue you in meate or in drinke c. he presseth it against the Popes thunder-blasts of paper-shot saying that Seeing althings necessary to saluation haue bene deliuered vnto his Church by Christ therefore may we contemâ—e the Popes execrations and Anathema's whereby he pronounceth damnation vpon them that approue not his Traditions as not holding them necessarie to saluation You see how many arrowes you haue drawne out of Gods quiuer the holy Scripture and by this time may perceiue what kind of mark-men you are seeing that the marke being to confute Ceremonies which aâ—e onely Besides and not Agaâ—nst the word or will of God you haue chosen such arrowes as are too heauie for your bow all of them being such Texts which condemne heinous and enormous sins directly reproued by holy Scripture therfore musts needs light far short of the Marke For tell vs I pray you in good conscience are our Ceremonies expresly condemned by Scripture as was Idolatry in Esay 29 saying thereof In vaine do they worship me c. or as the wicked corrupting of the Law of God Deut. 12. saying Thou shalt not adde c. or as that hereticall doctrine against Christian liberty in meates Col. 2 I thinke you cannot bee so perswaded except you your selues can by your authority make some new Scripture to proue it SECT V. Their proofes from the Iudgements of the Fathers The Fathers do reiect Will worship as Idolatry Augustine Ierome Cyprian Chrysostme do all speake against new doctrines and humane Traditions Our Answer The Fathers do indeed reiect Will-worship wherein as we do willingly subscribe vnto their iudgement so may we iustly reprehend you for your wilfull wresting of the Fathers sentences Who as they did condemne all such doctrines Traditions yea and if