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
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
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
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
cursed Schisme although not alwaies effectuating the same In the next place obserue with vs the daily convulsions increasing in the members of the Church whilst as some distracted in their affections will hold of Paul and others of Apollos some heare one kinde of Ministers Preach to the despite of others some will receiue the Sacrament at the hands onely of conformable and some onely of vnconformable Ministers to the great dishonour of Christ whose Word and Sacraments they haue in respect of the persons of men Concerning the Censures of the Church you cannot be ignorant that it hath beene the common discipline in all Churches ancient and lately reformed to impose and challenge of Ecclesiasticall persons a subscription to the orders constituted therein ordeining that in the end such persons should be deposed from their places that shall factiously oppose thereunto to the disturbance of the peace of the Church M. Beza writing vnto the French and Dutch Churches heere in England for their direction in point of Discipline deliuereth vnto them his 28. Article in these words Hac ratione perlatis legibus c. The Constitutions being thus made whosoeuer shall factiously repugne them and will not suffer themselues to be reclaimed much more they who shall conspire together against Ministers and Elders they are worthy to bee handled as the publicke enemies of the Church I do not speake this to exasperate the Churches censures against you but to moderate your conceits and detractions against the Church who vse to esteeme of her not as of a naturall Mother but rather as of a curst Step-dame But why Because forsooth she will haue an vniformity of order amongst her children and will not suffer her lawfull command to be factiously contemned SECT XV. Our generall Confutation of the Non conformists against their generall Assumption wherein they obiected that our Ceremonies are imposed to be obserued as the proper and essentiall parts of Gods worship Against their generall Proposition we haue proued from their own witnesses to wit Caluin Chemnitius Peter Martyr Vrsinus and Zanchius that onely those Ceremonies are properly made parts of Gods worship wherein the worship of God is said essentially and absolutely to consist Now we must confute their generall assumption by the expresse profession of our Church which teacheth and publisheth to the world that she doth not either impose or obserue any Ceremonies with any opinion of efficacy holinesse or necessity but onely for Decency Order Edification and Conueniency It will become euery childe of the Church to heare his Mothers Apologie for her selfe in this case who telleth vs saying 1. Our meaning is not to attribute any holinesse or speciall worthinesse to the said Garments 2. We teach that the Crosse is not part of the substance of the Sacrament this Signe doth neither adde to Baptisme nor detract from it 3. These Ceremonies which we haue retained vpon iust cause may be altered and changed and therefore may not be esteemed equall with Gods Law 4. In these our doings we condemne not other Nations or prescribe any thing but to our owne people onely for wee thinke it meete that euery Country should vse such Ceremonies as they shall thinke best to the setting forth of Gods honour and glory and to the reducing of the people to a more perfect and godly liuing without errour or superstition Can any Christian require a more Orthodoxe profession concerning Ceremonies than this is whereby it is made euident that our Church retaineth these her Ceremonies for Decency without opinion of Holinesse for Order without making them of the Substance of Gods seruice with a Christian liberty as thinking them Alterable and Changeable without opinion of Necessity And lastly in an Vnitie of Christian Brother-hood with other reformed Churches abroad And therefore may most iustly challenge vniformity within her selfe This profession of our Church is so manifest vnto her most earnest Opposites that the whole Assembly of Non-conformists in Lincolne-shire acknowledge it who do notwithstanding to our wonderment at their boldnesse parallell our Church with the Romish which neuerthelesse they confesse to be iustly condemned by M. Iewell and other Diuines for the opinion of Necessity and Holinesse which they put in their Ceremonies And indeed very iustly for although sometimes Bellarmine and some other Papists seeme to disclaime the Necessity of Ceremonies and the placing of Holinesse in them otherwise than as they are Signes of holy things yet ought we rather yeeld credite vnto their more publicke practise and profession Bellarmine telling vs that their Ceremonies haue power ex opere operato to cure diseases driue away deuils purge veniall sinnes c. All which effects do imply an efficacious and necessary holinesse Seeing therefore it is plaine that wee attribute no other Holinesse vnto our Rites than that which is common to all such like Ceremonies namely to be Significatiue and Alterable whereas the Papists to ascribe vnto theirs an holinesse Operatiue and Necessary with what conscience do men fashion their quils to impute that guilt of Superstition to our Church which she hath and doth both by her doctrine and practise condemne in the Romish sect Hitherto of their second Argument CHAP. III. The third generall Agument brought by the Non-conformists against the three Ceremonies of our Church onely because they are Significant SECT I. Maior Prop. All Humane Ceremonies being appropriated to Gods seruice if they be ordained to teach any spirituall dutie by their mysticall signification are vnlawfull Assump But such are these three namely the Surplice Crosse in Baptisme and kneeling at the receiuing the holy Communion Ergo they are vnlawfull 1. Our Answer to their Maior Proposition THIS point of Mysticall signification yea or onely of signification by Ceremonies in the opinion of almost all the Non-conformists pierceth so deepely into the bowels of this cause that it giueth it a deadly wound notwithstanding all our meanes and manner of defence which contrarily we iudge either to be so dull and blunt that it cannot make the least impression to hurt our cause or whatsoeuer sharpenesse is in it it must needs offend our Opposites if that either Reason or examples of Scripture or the continuall custome of the Church of God yea or the semblable practise of the Non-conformists themselues may be thought worthy to be called a iust defence In the interim we attend to heare their proofes SECT II. Their proofes pretended to be taken from 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Testimonies of iudicious Diuines In Marc. 7.8 Our Sauiour doth reproue the Pharises for laying aside the commandements of God and holding the Traditions of men as the washing of pots and cups and v. 9. You reiect the commaâ—dements of God that you may keepe your owne Traditions for v. 10. Moses said Honour thy father and Mother c. and v. 11. You say that if a man shall say to father or mother Corban that is to say it is a gift