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
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
institute or appoint any such signe For whosoeuer shall vndertake to adde a seale vnto the will and couenant of any Testator amongst men is forthwith held Falsarius and thereby made obnoxious to the law and liable to the grieuous iudgements of man How much more damnable an Act were it for any to affixe any signe properly Sacramentall vnto the Testament of our Lord Iesus which whosoeuer shall atttempt to do becometh guilty of sacrilegious deprauation of the blessed Mysteries of Saluation Now then for further clearing of this point we may thus distinguish of Mysticall and spirituall signes in Gods Church some are meerly significant by resembling spirituall things and some are not only significant but also obsignant namely sealing and exhibiting vnto vs the Truth of Gods promise Therefore these Mysticall signes which we call Sacramentall differ from the mysticall signes morall both as the Sacramentall are Significant by speciall representation and as they are obsignant by ratifying and applying of Gods couenant of Grace vnto vs as the Aspersion of the water in Baptisme is a signe of Remission of sinne conferred vpon the person baptized and therefore is it proper to God who onely giueth the thing to ordaine such a signe But the morall signe doth not represent any Collation of grace giuen by God vnto man but onely notifieth a duety of man in some morall vertue which he oweth vnto God Your owne witnesse Zanchius hath something to this purpose saying What are Sacraments but Images wherein is reuealed and represented vnto vs the grace of God in Christ Iesus by the remission of sinne and life euerlasting whereby there is offered to the minds of receiuers Christ with all the benefits of the Eternall couenant made vnto vs in Christ In which respect these Sacraments are rightly called the Signes and Seales of the Couenant of Grace These points thus standing I could not but wonder at the former Thesis as at a strange Paradox that maketh signification to be the chiefe point of a Sacrament which if wee did maintaine then Bellarmine might haue some colour to insult vpon Protestants by this obiection viz. If Sacraments be onely signes then the Crucifix is a better signe to signifie the death of Christ than the SacrameÌ„t This is his consequence Will our Non-conformists now allow him this Assumption by accounting a signe to be a chiefe part of our Sacraments Nay should they not rather inueigh against the impudencie of such Romish Proctors who vsually impute vnto Protestants doctrines of their owne deuising For Caluine whom the Papists in this Answer do especially impugne hath told them I thinke I may say an hundred times that we account not our Sacraments meere signes to represent the graces of God but that they are also seales to present and exhibite the truth of Gods promises of Grace and to applie them to the hearts of faithfull Receiuers Let me adde further for the satisfaction of the more ingenuous the conuiction of such as wil be peruerse who tell vs that Signification is a principall part of a Sacrament that then all the morall signes vsed in the Leuiticall worship as namely Bels Lauars Lights Candlesticks and other Ceremoniall instruments euen vnto the very Snuffers of the Tabernacle should things taking their denomination froÌ„ the principal parts be properly deemed Sacraments And the like I may say of abstinence from Hogges flesh from touching of the corpes of the Dead from Linsey-woolsey apparrell and an hundreth such others whereby diuerse moralities are signifyed but no Sacrament implyed In a word the very soule of a signe to make it a Sacrament is Annexa à Deo promissio gratiae as the Iesuite himselfe doth acknowledge SECT VI. Their second Obiection from Reason If the Ceremonies that God himselfe ordained to teach his Church by their morall signification may not be now vsed much lesse may any of those which man hath deuised Our Answer I answer first that the vse of some I vnderstand this word in a large acception Iewish Rite without any Iewish opinion is not damnable For how many Christians vnder Prester Iohn are circumcised at this day yet not Sacramentally that is in opinion either of the necessity of it or else Typically as signifying that the Messias is to come in the flesh but onely Customarily and as it were Nationally for distinction from other people Or as the Greeke Churches anciently vsed the celebration of Easter according to the time of the Iewish Passeouer although with a difference both of Signe and Signification But more of Iewish Rites hereafter Secondly it is far more safe for Christians to invent new Ceremonies of morall signification that to vse those old which had bene appointed by Gods ordinance not but that the ordinance of God is infinitly to be preferred before mans but both because God who ordained those Iewish Ceremonies for a time ordained also that they should be abolished in time as also lest that their vse might ingender an opinion of the necessity of them eueÌ„ because they had beene once commanded by God and consequently might inthrall the minds of men and constraine them to a necessary obseruation of the whole Leviticall Law for so the Apostle reasoneth against certaine false Apostles who by their superstitious vrging of those Iewish Ceremonies sought to bring in againe the ancient bondage of all Iewish Rites SECT VII Their third Obiection from Reason This will open a gappe vnto Images Oyle Spittle and all Popish Ceremonies all which Bellarmine commendeth as fit to put men in remembrance as when the Priest did sprinkle the people with holy water saying Remember thy Baptisme And thus defend they their Images euen for remembrance Our Answer What is this you say That therefore there will be a gap opened 1. to All others 2. to the Popish 3. and for example to these Ceremonies now specified So many particulars and so many errours For first to argue from the vse of some few to an admittance of all other Ceremonies to like kinde which are in the Church of Rome almost innumerable is a consequence farre more lauish then this viz. Some wise men may be of his Maiesties Priuy Counsell therefore All wise men of the Kingdome ought to haue place in that Honourable Senate Secondly Then all Popâ—sh c. say you This consequence I take to bee both vnreasonable and vnconscionable It is first as vnreasonable as it would be for a Patient who hauing had of his Physitian the Receipts of some Apothecary Drugs should thereupon presume that it is safe and wholesome for him to taste of euery boxe in the Apothecary's shop For it is well knowne that as there are some good customes in the Church of Rome so are there many bad Next the word Popish is here taken of you in the strictest sence not simply for the Ceremonies themselues but for the mixture of abuses that are in them by the superstition of that Church And therefore
reade that the Gileadites which were of the children of Israel did build an Altar on the other side of Iordan in testimony of their ioynt faith and profession with their brethren in the one and onely Religion of God This example is pregnant and hath much exercised and troubled your wits but to what effect we shall best iudge by your Answer SECT XVI The Non-conformists Answer The Altar that stood on Iordans banke was not of Ecclesiasticall but Ciuill vse the tribes themsâ—lues confesse that they had grieuously sinned if that they had determined an Altar vnto the same vse that the Lord God set vp one before It was a memoriall that they were one people with their brethren intituled to and estated in the priuiledges of the Lord with them but it was no mysticall signe of Christ and his Grace Our Replie The point then in question is whether it were not especially for a spirituall vse whereof we cannot better be resolued than by the whole current and maine scope of the Storie which doth apparently euince that it was for a religious mysticall signification albeit not of Christ and his graces yet of spirituall blessings and morall duties So though it were not erected for the same vse whereunto the Altar that God appointed was appropriated yet was it ordained for a representation thereof Let vs consult with the Text it selfe to the end that wee may answer your Maior Proposition euen in terminis Your Dispute is of humane Ceremonies and this was so humane that it was ordained by man without any speciall warrant from God And this is very plaine because these Gileadites when they were to satisfie their brethren who at the first iudged the building of this Altar to be a detestable and an abominable transgrâ—ssion against God did not replie that God had commanded them so to do but answered very ingenuously saying We haue done this c. And againe imputing it to their own proper motion Therefore said we Let vs build vs c. whence it is euidently apparent that this act proceeded meerely from their owne reason without any particular direction from God Secondly your proposition requireth that the Ceremonies be appointed to Gods seruice and so was this Altar although not to sacrifice thereon yet as the Text speaketh for A patterne of the Altar of the Lord vpon which Gods people did sacrifice As wee account the Crosse in Baptisme not to bee the very Crosse of Christ whereupon he offered that great sacrifice of Mans redemption but onely a kind of resemblance thereof Now an Altar of sacrifice being one of the supreme instruments of Gods immediate worship that other which was a resemblance thereof doublesse cannot bee said to haue beene onely of a ciuill vse Thirdly your proposition mentioneth Ceremonies of mysticall signification to teach any spirituall dutie Euen as againe wee say that the Crosse in Baptisme is vsed in the way of protestation of Christian courage in the spirituall conflict against the whole world of Infidels Here also I thinke this very Text doth sufficiently warrant such mysticall signification for seeing all actions borrow their forme and essence from the end whereunto they are intended and that these Gileadites in this act of consent in vnitie of Religion did not so much intend to make knowen their interest in the temporal inheritance as in the spirituall priuiledges of Gods chosen people This doth necessarily argue that this Altar was not set vp so much for any ciuill vse as for a mysticall resemblaÌ„ce which is manifest in the Story where the vse of this Altar is expressed thus The Altar is called Ed that is witnesse for it shall bee a witnesse betweene vs that the Lord is God Therefore the end was that thereby they hauing relation to the other Altar of God might protest and publish their ioynt faith and seruice with all other Israelites to the onely true God And as this end did concerne themselues so there was yet another end that did respect their posterity and in this regard they made the Altar Prolepticall for to preuent an obiection that might afterward arise betweene these Gileadites and their brethren on the other side of Iordan namely to this effect What haue you to do do with the God of Israel You haue no part with the Lord And so might haue made them ceasse from seruing the Lord Therefore say the Gileadites haue we built this Altar You see then that the Altar being a Patterne of the Altar of the Lord was a Religious Instrument and of the Altar of sacrificing a Religious Act and that to testifie both for them and their posteritie a publicke consent in the true Religion and worship of God which was a most religious end And also this to auow the profession of their Religion which maketh it a morall signe of a religious signification How therefore can any be so dimme-sighted as not to discerne any other thing herein except onelie a Ciuill vse The matter standing thus we may guesse with what indignation and displeasure you would haue entertained this answer by inueighing against that their Humane inuention as the daughter of blind Deuotion in themselues and mother of Idolatry to their posterity and by charging them concerning that Altar and crying aloud Downe with it Down with it euen to the ground not departing thence vntill with your out-cries you had seene it demolished before your face But contrarily their brethren the Gouernours of Gods people euen such as were most zealous for God to preserue his Religion in all integrity they were otherwise minded For When Phineas the Priest and the Princes of the Congregation and Heads of thousands of Israel which were with him heard the word which the children of Reuben and children of God and the children of Manasses had spoken it pleased them And furthermore when they returned into the Land of Canaan to the children of Israel and brought them word it is said that they pleased the children of Israel and they blessed God and did not intend to go vp in battell against them Take you therefore I pray you the hearts of Brethren and be like-minded as were these deuout children of God be desirous to enioy the peace of the Church in the truth of Religion and not â—t the sight of euery Ceremonious appurtenance to start aside occasioning hereby not onely dissention amongst them who are your Brethren in all the essentiall parts of Religion but also Contumacie against your Mother the Church which begot you in Christ and brought you to the interest which you haue in the couenant of Grace SECT XVII Our second Instance concerning Ceremonious Instruments belonging to Gods worship may be in Salomon his Altar 1. King 8.64 Salomon built a Brazen Altar and set it beside the Altar of the Lord offering thereon burnt offerings because the Brazen Altar which was before the Lord was not sufficient to receiue the burnt offerings Here we see first onely
end that therby he might alieâ—â—te him from the loue of his owne Country and the Religion of his God Therefore Daniel lest he might bee insnared with these allurements of riot did abstaine from all that dainty fare If you further demand why Daniel called the Kings diet a pollution or abhomination vnto him listen againe for your satisfaction to the said Authour Non fuit quidem c. It was not in it selfe abhominable for it was free for Daniel to eate or drinke but it is called an abhomination for the consequence thereof Thus M. Caluin Where by Consequences he meaneth lest Daniel by such dainties as by the diuels baites might receiue his spirituall bane by forgetting the holy Couenant Religion and the worship of the onely God Nothing can be more plaine to proue that by these words Being polluted with the Kings meates is not meant any pollution Ceremoniall as if the meates had bene Idolatrous but onely Morall or occasionall as being baites and allurements to draw him to an irreligious forgetfulnesse of holy duties Seeing therefore this reason doth not argue ad idem it will become you to take some other Testimonies whereby you may make good your first assertion SECT VI. Their fift Instance from Scripture in the Example of Hezekias 2. King 18. Hezekias his zeale in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent which God himselfe had ordained for a figure of Christ is commended in Scripture for that it being polluted with abhominable Idolatry he brake it in peeces Our Answer This noble fact of that religious King is in indeed commended in Scripture and therfore ought to be honorable among all devout and religious worshippers of God vnto the ends of the world Wee grant that God had wrought by the Serpent a miraculous safety to his people by deliuering them from the stings of fiery Serpents and that for this very cause it was as some thinke long after reserued in some part of the Temple for the remembrance of so great a benefite euen as the Pot of Manna and Aarons Rod were kept in the Arke to the like end But when the Israelites began to defile it by offering Incense vnto it then did Ezekias demolish it and that for foure speciall respects The first was because there was now Flagrans delictum that is that Idolatry was notorious and in the heate Secondly it was generall and publicke Thirdly it was done within the compasse of that place and among that people which were otherwise the professed worshippers of God Fourthly the Act it selfe was offering Incense vnto a creature the most grosse and palpable kinde of Idolatry that can be for whereas bowing and kneeling may carry some shew of pretence in them because the same gestures are vsed sometimes civilly without any iust exception against them yet Sacrificing is an externall act so properly and essentially belonging vnto God that euery eye which beholdeth such Acts must needs iudge them Idolatrous Lastly the case was now desperate and without vtter extirpation thereof past all hope of reducing that figure to the former vse and end which was a coâ—mâ—moration of Gods mercy in their miraculous deliâ—â—rance It is by the way a point very obseruable that Ezekias did not destroy the Idols which Salomon suffeâ—ed to be sâ—t vp in fauour of his strange wiues that were of Heathenish religion placing in one Temple Astaroth which was the god of the Zidonians In an other Molech the Idoll of the Ammonites In a third Chames the god of the Moabites The reason whereof was because in the daies of Ezekias they were neglected no man adoring them yet afterward when they occasioned Idolatry the good King Iosias did breake them downe which Ezekias in his time had spared notwithstanding is the same Ezekias commended by God as walking in the steps of Dauid as well as Iosias Besides Zanchius thought not this act of Ezekias to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an vniversall remedie for all Abuses of Ceremonies when he said of some indifferent Rites that had beene abused Tolli ea prorsus possunt saepe etiam debent They may and sometimes they ought to bee vtterly abolished Sicut Ezekias euen as did Ezekias Intimating that the example of Ezekias is to hold but sometimes onely that is in case of necessity for of some Ceremonies that haue beene abused he said onely Tolli possunt they may be remoued which is a word of indifferencie and signifieth that they may be also not removed But if that proceeding of Ezekias concerning those Israelites against Heathenish Idolatry shall be still vrged vpon our Magistrates in respect of the Popish Ceremonies wherewith they may seeme to symbolize although but in an outward appearance onely then are you to be informed of the manifest disparities in this comparison First that Idolatry of the Iewes being done both publikely and generally and also within the bowels of the same Church for the Serpent was then kept at Hierusalem called for an Ezekias to remoue it But that which is done of Papists is in a Church separated from vs or if you will suppose any to be Idolatrous among vs yet is that neither generall nor publique but so secret that it is done by you know not whom vnlesse you meane certaine men moulded in your owne fancies and onely imagined to haue committed such Idolatry The second distance may be this that the case of reformation of the Idolatry committed vnder the gouernment of Ezekias became desperate and therefore required an answerable remedie which as then the case stood could be no other then to abolish the figure without delay But within the Kingdomes of our Ezekias this disease would be found curable without any such extremity especially in this our most truely reformed Church wherein we draw the sweet breath of the pure truth of God If you will allow that to be called a Reformed Church which doth most liuely expresse the face and full body of her primitiue mother-Church I spare to insist vpon the grossenesse of that outward fact which was Offering Incense lest the weakenesse of some Reader may suspect that when I would excuse the Papists à Tanto I would free them à Toto crimine by these comparisons SECT VII The second Obiection for the abolishing of Ceremonies Heathenishly abused from the Testimonies of Councels and Fathers by diuers Instances Their first Instance In the first Councell at Carthage it was decreed that such Altars as wereiâ— the Country and High-waies in memory of the Martyrs should be abolished although they were pretended to bee set vp by reuelations and visions Our Answer He that in causes of weight will looke vpon bookes onely with other mens eyes may peraduenture forfeite his owne by mistaking and mis-reporting the meaning of the Authours Certainely this Councell in the place alleaged doth not forbid absolutely the building of Altars for the memory of Martyrs in the High-waies as you affirme but onely in such wayes and
and vehemently oppugne Consider therefore the Case wherein you now stand namely for it is my charge to lay this matter home to your consciences that you now obiect the feare of discrediting your Ministry if after the publishing of your contrary opinion you should conforme as the Rule of your consciences for persisting in Non-conformity although it be to the disturbance of the peace of the Church And notwithstanding make it no Rule of your conscience for practize of conformitie and continuance of the peace of the Church to feare the discrediting your Ministery by gainsaying your former subscriptions Which doth plainly argue the falsenesse of your pretence as if it were a lesse matter of discredit to contradict the writings of your hands than the words of your mouthes But what talke you of discredit in such a cause as this wherein iudicious men must needs account your reformation to be rather a redemption of a former scandall than an introduction of a new Thus much in shewing your pretence to bee false The same obiection of discrediting your Ministery was likewise called presumptuous because heerby you seeme to arrogate to your selues a prerogatiue proper to the Apostles who because they were the immediate and infallible organs and instruments of the holy Ghost and first Embassadours of Christ for the publishing of the Gospel of saluation thorowout the world might if peraduenture they had erred in any thing say of themselues as one of them did If we be found false witnesses then is your faith in vaine euen because all the fabricke of the Church of the faithfull is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles And accordingly the same Apostle speaking to the same purpose saith of himselfe If I build againe that which I destroyed I make my selfe a preuaricator meaning that he thereby should ruinate whatsoeuer Christian doctrine he had formerly built But we alas poore Battes that we are why should we presume that the credit or discredit of the Ministery of the Gospel should relie or depend vpon vs haue wee seene Christ in the flesh or came the word of the Ministrie froÌ„ vs that we should assume to your selues the Apostolical priuiledges of not erring in any thing Nay but let vs rather propound vnto our selues the example of that ingenuitie which was most visible in Saint Augustine whose Retractations of his owne errours wrought him no small credit throughout the Churches of Christ and accordingly stronger ratification of his more constantly professed truthes And furthermore why may we not in the third place call your former pretence as we haue done irreligious for you must needs know that the persisting in an errour for the preseruation of your owne credit although it be taken at the best can be no lesse a crime than which was condemned by the Apostle The doing of euill that good may come thereof Let vs therefore I pray you leaue this Antichristian piece of pollicy to that Church which in her Councell of Trent as it is to bee seene in the Oration which Gaspar had in the same Councell did maintaine her sacrilegious custome of administring the Eucharist to the people onely in one kind principally by this pretence Ne errasse videretur that is lest that she may seeme to haue erred This we hold to be irreligious Fourthly there is as good reason to iudge your former position partiall because if the credit of the Ministry must preuaile in this case then ought you rather to yeeld vnto Conformitie for the credit of the Church than for your owne credite sake to refuse it seeing that the estimation of some few parties as members must necessarily giue place to the whole body The last Epithet remaineth naming your former obiection Pernitious whereunto I thinke my selfe licenced by that saying of the Apostle Woe is mee if I preach not the Gospel By which words Saint Paul in his owne person denounceth a Woe vnto euery Minister of the Gospel that shall put himselfe vnto silence But you are readie to regest that the cause of silencing is not in your selues but in the Bishops that suspend and depriue you and therefoâ—e that they and not you become liable to that curse Know you well what you say or are you desirous to delude your owne soules for the case standeth thus Titus the Bishop doth depriue Titius a factious and schismaticall Minister that he may place Sempronious a peaceable discreet maÌ„ in his stead In this proceeding the intendment of Titus is not absolutely to depriue Titius as he is a Minister but as he was factious yet so only respectiuely that Titius being depriued he may constitute Sempronius For the charge of a Bishop is not determinate to appoint this Minister but indefinite to ordaine a Minister so that the course of Gods Plough is still preserued and continued But as for Titius who will rather be silenced then conforme it is euident that the cause of his silencing being his owne refractarinesse which is onely personal and proper to himselfe and yet hath no facultie in himselfe to appoint or admit of a Successor why therefore may not he be said to haue as properly caused the suspeÌ„sion from his Ministrie as the Steward in the Gospel by his iniustice did cause the losse of his office or Agar Sarahs made may be saide by her contempt and contumely to haue put her selfe out of seruice It is onely the Iustice of the cause that maketh a Martyr and doubles which is a matter that I earnestly desire you to consider the censure of the Apostles Woe being so dreadfull I ought not to esteeme any thing a iust cause why I should wilfully incurre the censure of Silencing my selfe from preaching for the which I ought not as willingly to aduenture my life Which Doctrine ought to seeme so much the more necessarie vnto you for that your owne Witnesses and such as haue bene the principall Authors of vnconformitie M. Beza and M. Cartwright do notwithstanding in the point of Surplice determine accordingly They laying the waring of the Surplice in one ballance which wee may call non prohiberi and the dutie of Preaching in another ballance of Praecipi whereof the Apostle said that Necessitie is laid vpon me to Preach the Gospel so that the wearing of the Surplice being not to be reckoned in the number of things per se impia wicked in themselues and Preaching being an office imposed as necessarie vpon danger of that fearefull Woe haue both of them wisely resolued that the ballance of the necessitie of the performance of our charge in feeding the flocke of Christ doth farre preponderate and exceede in weight the other ballance of all inconueniences which otherwise may happen in wearing a Surplice To this purpose I would exhort you to cast your eies vpon Saint Peter in whom Christ would haue euery Minister to behold his owne face vnto whom he said againe and againe Simon louest thou me feed my
sheepe charging in that one person euery Preacher of the Gospel that vpon all loues which they owe vnto Christ they would lose no opportunitie of feeding his flocke Which speech of loue ought to make a greater impression in our hearts than that other direfull denunciation of Woe SECT XV. Their last Obiection is from a pretended Apparence of Euill 1. Thess. 5.22 The Apostle among other his exhortations admonisheth the Thessalonians to abstaine from all apparence of euill meaning thereby all such Doctrines which haue in them any colour of errour such as these Ceremonies haue because of their former abuses by Romish Papists Our Answer The Apostle speaketh of the opinions of priuate men which others might haue iust occasion to suspect euen because they were priuate and peraduenture had some aliance with the knowne errours of corrupt Teachers But the doctrine of our Church concerning Ceremonies is publique and manifested to the consciences of all men to be most Orthodoxe and sound purged from all the Leauen of that Romish superstition which attributeth an efficacious sanctity to the characters of mans inuentions So that mindes not possessed with sinister iealousie may easily see that integrity in our Church in respect of the spirituall purity which Caesar wished to finde in his wife in respect of the corporall that is To be voide as of fault so also of suspition of fault Contrarywise your manner of opposition vnto the Church by Non-conformity is not onely a shew and appearance of euill but euen an apparent and publique euill it selfe being a disobedience without ground to that Ordinance which God hath placed ouer you to the distracting of mens mindes by drawing some into Schisme as will appeare in our Confutation following SECT XVI Our generall Confutation of their last generall Assumption by prouing the Non-conformists guilty of many Scandals This point can need no great dispute if you shall but call to minde the first distinction of Actiue and Passiue scandall the Actiue being a giuing of offence by prouoking others vnto euill whether directly by some euill Act or indirectly by an Act indifferent in it selfe In both which the fault is to be imputed to the Agent But the Passiue scandall is a being prouoked to euill onely by taking offence at some Act either good or at least not euill in it selfe and the fault arising from thence is proper to the party offended And now let vs try whether this your withstanding of the Orders and Ordinances of the Church doth not necessarily inferre vpon you a manifold guilt of both these kinde of scandals against others SECT XVII The diuerse Scandals occasioned by the Non-conformists may be reduâ—ed vnto 4. heads 1 By weakning some that remaine in the Church 2 By driuing some out of the Church 3 In hindering others from the Church 4 By an high contempt against the Church it selfe The first Scandall occasioned by the Non conformists is in weakning some that are yet in the Church Your Actiue scandall worketh apparently both against Pusillos the weake and also against Perfectos the stronger sort of Christians We beginne with the weake persons whereof some beholding your vehement opposition against the Church stand amazed thereat as Vulgar men vse to do when looking earnestly vpon the ecclipse of the Moone they presently dreame of some change and alteration of the season but whether it will be for better or for worse they cannot prognosticate So these Weaklings hearing of such differences among the Ministers of the Word although in matters of lesse moment do wonder what may be the euent thereof and thereupon become more remisse in the profession of Religion whilest by your detracting from the Ordinances of the Church many take occasion soone to neglâ—ct the outward worship of God whereupon their inward zeale and deuotion soone cooleth and in the end vanisheth away SECT XVIII Their second kind of scandall is by driuing some out of the Church The parties which are driuen out of the Church are a word full of horrour the Separatists that is true Pharises both in name and pride of selfe-conceite who hauing bene once catechized by you that our Ceremonies are to be refused and abolished as being Idolatrous haue therefore at the sight of your opposition as men that behold an Earth quake waxen giddy in their braines knowing onely from whence but not whither to flie For vpon the reason of your Refusall of our Ceremonies they hold it as reasonable to refuse you thinking it necessâ—ry to haue no communion with them who ioyne theÌ„sâ—lues in a worship which is in any degree polluted with Ceremonies that are Romishly Idolatrous Therefore they flie But whence as Cain did From the presence of God in his Church And whither will they then Euen to Aâ—sterdam to seeke out a Religion they know not what as likewise Cain did into the Land of Nod which signifieth a place of giddinesse and vexation where euen as Cain built new houses they frame new Religions which made to day they as little children vse to do with the Puppet-works of their owne hands cast and breake downe the next day following Now if you shall aske these Deformists why they breake out into Separation may they not call the Non-conformists the first occasion thereof think you Thus of the Weake whom your Example hath driuen out of the Church SECT XIX Their third Scandall is by barring and hindering some from â—â—ming intâ—â—uâ— Câ—uâ—ch How many Papists are they who I wish that daily experience could not speake in this case being exhorted to embrace the Euangelicall truth presentâ—y oppose as a barre your diuisions and oppositions against our Church being vtterly vnperswadâ—ble to enter into a Church where all ancient Rites are professedly reiected And this scandall is not new for Bâ—shop Iewell obserued in his time that Papists were scandalized by such as then could not abide the signe of the Crosse Vnto whom that reuerend Father answered in the name of the most and best Diuines yea and of the Church of England it selfe Thanking God that the Protestants both could abide the signe of the Crosse yea and did also willingly and ioyfully take vp their crosse for the glorious name of Christ. But you oppose SECT XX. Their Reply Wee are not for winning of the Papists to offend our Brethren Our Answer Although I presume you will not denie euery Papist I meane especially such an one which is mis-led by simple ignorance all interest of Brother-hood in Christianity yet because you vnderstand by them whom you may not offend such Professors who ioyne with you in a nearer propriety and that I may speake with Tertullian consanguinity of doctrine giue me but leaue to demand of you who they are whom you in an opposition against Papists do single out for your Brethren Whether such as do conforme themselues to the Ordinances of the Church or onely them that persist in Vnconformitie or both You cannot meane the Conformable for these
are not offended at the vse of our Ceremonies but rather at your refusall of them And you may not appropriate the title of Brethren onely to Vnconformable persons to alienate from your fellowship all the Conformable with whom notwithstanding your different opinion in Ceremonies you do so religiously consent in all sacred acts and essentiall offices of Christian Brotherhood But if lastly the word Brethren must imply both sorts then ought you as it becommeth the children of one Church to forbeare to offend such Brethren which are more obsequious and dutifull to their Mother rather than those that are refractarie and disobedient But will you heare the truth in a few words Vpon due examination it will appeare that you your selues who teach and practise Non-conformity are those Brethren whom you are so loath should bee offended or rather who by your resistance against Ecclesiasticall Orders do occasion an intollerable Scandall and Offence within the Church SECT XXI Their fourth and greatest Scandall is against the Church it selfe especially in two kinds The first is Comparatiue In your Obiections you shewed that your care is to auoyde the offence of persons of your owne disposition whom you call your Brethren and yet do you neglect the obseruance that you owe vnto the Church Can there be a plainer note of a distorted affection in any man than to ward a blow for the defence of a Brother not caring or regarding that the same stroake must needs light vpon the head of his owne Mother I shall desire you that wee may pleade this point according to the strict Law of good conscience for so the inquitie of your practise will more plainely appeare Thus then If my Brother be vniustly offended his Scandall in respect of me is onely Passiue that is taken and not giuen so that the whole fault of Scandall in this case is to be imputed vnto the sinister apprehension of my Brother But if my Mother the Church be offended by me in that wherein I owe obedience vnto her the Scandall on my part is fully Actiue and the whole fault is in my selfe because heereby I as much as lyeth in me do hinder her fruitfulnesse and happie successe in begetting and breeding many children vnto God But you will say that where some few priuate persons are like to be offended there the Church ought in constituting of her Ceremonies to haue respect of those few albeit the same Orders and Ceremonies which are in their owne nature indifferent should bee generally affected and desired of the most part You are herein not a little deceiued as may be obserued in the Councell of the Apostles which imposed vpon the Gentiles an Abstinence from eating of meates from strangled and bloud To the end that they might auoide the Scandall of the greater number of Iewish Proselytes who were like to be offended at their eating of such meates which had bene formerly forbidden by the expresse commandement of God yet the Apostles did not in the same Councell labour to preuent the offence which might haue risen from a conceit of some few Gentiles then Conuerts to the faith who peraduenture might thinke that Christian libertie which is a freedome to eate of any sort of meates was not a little impeached by that Apostolicall Canon of Abstinence Secondly it is necessarie that a different respect be had betweene those weake ones which are such before and those that are weake after the orthodoxe and lawfull meaning of the Church wherein we liue be fully published and made knowne And by this obseruation your common obiection is easily assoyled which is taken from the Apostle his doctrine prohibiting Christians for a time to Abstaine from eating of ceâ—taine meates for feare of offence to the Weake For he inioyned that Abstinence in the case of Scandall of priuate men before the doctrine of the Church had bene sufficiently proclaimed concerning the libertie which Christians haue to eate of All meates But after that the same doctrine of Indifferency in eating of meates was made publique by the Church then to haue sought by Abstaining and not eating to auoide the offence of some to the preiudice of Christian libertie and to the Scandall of the Church had bene no lesse an iniquitie than if a man for the preseruation of some sicke members should occasion the destruction of the whole bodie This is no new point of doctrine but that which you might haue learned long since from P. Martyr one of your own principall Witnesses Imò neque semper in ipsis medijs rebus c. Yet we may not alwaies saith he yeeld vnto the weake in things indifferent but onely vntill they be more perfectly taught but whâ—n once they haue vnderstood and yet still stand in doubts Infirmitas eorum non est ferenda wee may not pamper their weakenesse So he What then may we thinke of your weake ones whom notwithstanding the manifestation of the truth of the doctrine of our Church in these things you make strong in nothing so much as in oppugning the doctrine and peace thereof SECT XXII Their second kinde of Scandall against the Church by contempt Your first Scandall was comparatiue in resoluing rather to offend the Church whereby you are constituted Ministers and wherein you haue both your esse and bene esse in Christianity than to offend some few parts and members thereof But the Scandall which we now speake of may seeme to be absolute by a direct contempt of the Church SECT XXIII Their Answer to the Obiection of Contempt Non-conformity proceeding from the feare of not sinning against God is neither Contempt nor Scandall and therefore may be allowed fauour in the eyes of the Law Our Replie The eyes of mortall Iudges can finde no windowes through which they may possibly look into your consciences to discerne of what colour your Feare is whether it be truly for offence against the Law of God seeing that the Law-makers themselues who were no other than the whole State of this Kingdome as well Ciuill as Ecclesiâ—sticall persons then religiously addicted to purge the Church of England from all Popish superstition could discerne no such vnlawfulnesse in those Ceremonies as you fancie to your selues Or else whether it be popular for feare of displeasing of priuate persons especially in Parishes where your maintenance doth arise from the voluntarie contribution of the people who seeke to tye the tongues of their Teachers to their purs-strings which must open and shut according to their quarterly fancies Howsoeuer if euery pretence of Gods feare might challenge fauour for transgressing of mans Law wherevnto God himselfe exacteth obedience euen vnder the obligation of conscience then should such Papists who contemne both the Lawes and Magistracie of this Kingdome put in their Plea for the obtaining of fauour vpon the pretence of conscience as might likewise the Anabaptist who holdeth it a matter of conscience to acknowledge no ciuill obedience And that indeed in your vnconformity
are superstitiously abused by Papists As for our Church she is most iustifiable in her choice by the iudgement of S. Hierome which Zanchius doth approue and which the Non-conformists themselues may no more dislike than they do the obseruation of the Feasts which are Apostolically ancient to wit Easter and Pentecost For Hierom hauing obiected vnto him that Scripture of S. Paul Gal. 4. You obserue timâ—s and dayes answereth Non eádem conscientiâ obseruamus quâ Iudaei We do not obserue such times with the same conscience or opinion wherewith the Iewes did solemnize them And indeed the opinion and confidence of the Ordeinerâ— and Obseruers is the very soule of any Ceremoniall practize As therefore in naturall constitutions the onely vegetatiue facultie and soule giueth the distinct denomination to plants the sensible vnto beasts and Animals and the reasonable soule vnto men to distinguish each one in their seuerall kindes so likewise in such artificiall and arbitrary Institutions as these the different opinions which Iewâ—s Papists and Protestants haue of their Ceremonies may discerne their vses and Appellations in terming them either Iewish Popish or Orthodoxe respectiuely 1. Iewish because of an opinion of the necessity of them by conceiuing them to be of diuine Institution or else of the end whether it be for praefiguration of the Messias to come or otherwise accounting them the essentiall parts of Gods worship without which the worship it selfe cannot please God 2. Popish by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a superstitious affectation to imitate them in Pompe and in multitude euen because they were once Aaronicall and also by placing sanctitie and holinesse in them But 3. Orthodoxe and true by as our Church professeth a conuenient Decencie and Significant resemblance so far forth as they are profitable for Order and Edification In briefe your present obiection was long since answered and satisfied by some of your owne Witnesses one saying that vnder the Priesthood of Aâ—ron there were Sacraments sealing vp the promises of Christ to come all which are abrogated by the comming of Christ and there were other actions which were not to be accounted Sacraments but which made for decencie and order and for some other commodious vse which being agreeable to the light of reason and also profitable I thinke may be recalled and obserued by vs. For who knoweth no that Tithes which now serue for the Ministery were had of the Iewish Priests We our selues haue some things which are borrowed from the Law of Moses euen from the beginning of the Church for we haue certaine feasts Must therefore all things be abolished that haue in them any parts of the Old Law So he Yea and M. Bucer doth fully ratifie the same truth shewing that Garments are not to be called Aaronicall or Antichristian but in respect of an Aaronicall or Antichristian opinion had of them whereof we are to speake in the VII Section following SECT VI. Their sixt Accusation against the Surplice is both in respect of the Resemblance and of the Signification ioyntly Also would not garments of mysticall signification appropriated vnto holy and solemne worship be Iewish in speciall and not in common manner onely if the most high should acknowledge them Our Answer No. The Ceremonies which God should now authorize vnder the New Testament would not be Iewish but Christian because the Ceremonies must bee defined and denominated according to the Couenant and Testament whereof they are Appendixes Adiuncts and Seales As for example the element of Bread was commanded in the Old Testament to be vsed in Iewish worship to wit the Shew-bread in which respect it was properly Iewish the same element of Bread is now after Consecration appropriated to a Sacramentall vse in the Lords Supper and made a Seale of the New Testament and thus it is become properly Christian. That old Rule Distingue tempora ought to haue place in this Question for the Iewish Signes and figures that were of Christ to come were euen in the time when the Law of Moses was in force moritura that is mortall and about to die afterwards at the time of Christ his comming vpon that his consummatum est or complement of mans redemption on the Crosse they were made mortua that is dead But at length after the full publication of the Gospel they became mortifera that is deadly and damnable to all that should vse them after with a Iewish opinion by expecting still the comming of the Messias in the flesh to the ouer-throw of our Christian faith This we speake of Sacramentall Ceremonies as for such as were fundamentally morall and naturall they could not inferre any such preiudice to the profession of Christianitie except onely an opinion of necessitie SECT VII Their seuenth Accusation against the Surplice is from the pretended Author thereof The Surplice was first inuented by Antichrist Ergo we may not allow of it Stephen Pope of Rome Anno 256. did first appropriate the Surplice vnto Gods worship according to Platina in vita Steph. Our Answer In this Obiection we find three Assertions 1. that the Surplice was inuented by Antichrist 2. that Pope Stephen did appropriate it vnto Gods seruice and 3. that by consequence from them both the Surplice can haue no lawfull vse To the first we answer that the Surplice was in old and gray-headed vse long before the Romane Antichrist was borne for the Inuentor whosoeuer he was could not be yonger than Pope Stephen who as you said was the first Appropriator thereof But he liued Anno 256. when-as The Antichrist did not put out so much as either of his hornes for the space of more than 400. yeeres after You may therefore lawfully subscribe to your owne witnesse who saith that The diuersities of apparrell were not first inuented by the Pope Secondly concerning the Appropriation of the Surplice by Pope Stephen vnto Ecclesiasticall vse it is well knowne that this Stephen was no Antichristian Pope but as Platina whom you alledge writeth a godly Bishop who by his life and doctrine conuerted many Gentiles to the faith of Christ and sealed the same faith with his owne bloud by holy Martyrdome being beheaded vnder the Emperour Decian So that the Act of this Pope must rather fortifie our cause for as much as this Stephen was a true follower of the Proto-martyr Stephen and the Religion which he professed was almost as different from the now Romish Superstition as those times of Pope Stephen were distant from these daies wherein now Pope Paul the fift possesseth the Papall seate Lastly concerning your Consequence suppose you if you please that some bad and Antichristian Pope had bene the first Inuentor of this Ceremonie yet is your consequence but lame For I cannot be perswaded saith P. Martyr writing of the vse of the Surplice in our English Church that the impietie of the Pope is so great that whatsoeuer he toucheth must thereupon be so defiled
superstition which is to be seene in the Church of Rome at this day M. Perkins although he acknowledgeth not any further Antiquity of the vse of the Crosse in either Sacramēt beyond the 400 yeere after Christ yet doth he confesse first that Crux transiens apud puriorem ecclesiā communiter in vsu fuit non Crux permanens The transient signe of the Crosse was in common vse in the purer Church meaning the signe done suddenly with the finger but the signe of the Crosse in any mettall not till 400. yeares after Christ. Secondly that for the first 300. yeares after Christ which he calleth the purer Church it was vsed as a signe of the externall profession of Christian faith Thirdly that miracles were done of God at the signe of the Crosse that had ioyned vnto it a manifest or at least a secret inuocation of the name of Christ crucified so that the vertue was not to be imputed vnto the signe of the Crosse but vnto the faith of the worker and inuocation of Christ. Much time would not suffice to reckon vp the Testimonies of Authors who haue iustified the anciēt Churches in the vse of the Crosse. Therefore because Bishop Iewell hath discussed this matter at large I haue reserued his Testimony for the next Section Hitherto of our seuerall Answers vnto your particular Accusations SECT XIIII Our Confutation of the Non-conformists Detractions against the vse of the Signe of the Crosse by their owne Witnesses I wish that this whole cause may be determined by him vnto whose iudgment you do often appeale in the whole question of Ceremonies and whose name we acknowledge to be most worthily honourable in the Church of Christ. Bishop Iewel therefore doth expresse his iudgement as followeth The signe of the Crosse I grant was had in great regard and that the rather both for the publique reproach shame that by the common iudgement of all the world was cōceiued against it also for the most worthy price of our redēption that was offered vpon it which he speaketh of the practise of Christians before the dayes of Constantine then after the application of the example of the Emperour Constantine concerning other Princes he addeth Euen so Christian Princes at this day vse the same Crosse in their Armes and Banners both in peace and in war in token that they fight vnder the Banner of Christ. Last of all whereas M. Harding saith that the Professors of the Gospell cannot abide the signe of the Crosse Let him vnderstand that it is not the Crosse of Christ or the signe thereof that we find fault withall but the superstitious abuse of the Crosse. God be thanked that they whom M. Harding cōdemneth haue bene able not only to abide the signe but also to take vp their crosse and to follow Christ and to reioyce and triumph in the same Do you not now perceiue what a large sound lecture this admirable Doctor in Gods Church hath read vnto you and in how many points your gainsaying of the vse of this signe is confuted First Bishop Iewell approueth of the signe of the Crosse as it is made a significant Token of Christian Constancie in Banners which you will not abide to haue place in the Appendice vnto the ministration of Baptisme Secondly he alloweth the ancient vse of the same signe at the time of Celebration of Baptisme notwithstanding the execrable abuse thereof in the Romish Church which you vrge as a necessarie Cause to haue it vtterly abolished Thirdly you commonly alledge and that not without some ostentation a multitude of Diuines as albeit in Titles rather then in truth Aduersaries to these and all such kind of Ceremonies Notwithstanding he bringeth in the Consent of holy men and Martyrs that is Witnesses of the faith of Christ who vndergoing the morall Crosse which is persecution euen vnto Martyrdome it selfe were also witnesses of the lawfulnesse of this Ceremoniall signe of the Crosse so that you can haue small Cause to account your suffering for Contradicting this Ceremoniall Crosse the morall Crosse of Christ. Fourthly the same godly Bishop noteth these Martyrs to haue admitted of this signe of the Crosse that I may so say iam flagrante delicto euen when the abuse of Popish superstition and Idolatrie was at the height and when in detestation thereof they yeelded vp their dearest liues vnto Christ which notwithstanding in your Conceits cannot be vsed without superstition euen now when superstition is banished Wherefore the Argument wherewith I will conclude this part of Confutation standeth strongly against you thus Seeing that the vse of the Crosse was as hath bene confessed by your best witnesses void of superstition in purer Antiquitie the same notwithstanding the former abuse by Papists may be practized in our Orthodoxe Churches with like sincerity The reason is euident because there is the same possibilitie of reforming of an abuse that there is of correcting an error As therefore our Church hath by the mercie and grace of God purged her selfe from the erronious opinion of Poperie and now defendeth the Primitiue Catholique truth concerning the signe of the Crosse so may shee as well be thought to haue abandoned the superstitious practise of Poperie and to haue reduced this signe vnto her primitiuely lawfull vse whereof M. Bucer said euen in the first time of the reformation of religion when as yet the signe of the Crosse was Idolatrously abused by Papists that it might haue among the truely-professed a Christian vse Hoc signum c. This signe saith he not onely because it is most ancient but also for that it is plaine for a presēt admonishing vs of the Crosse of Christ is neither vndecent nor vnprofitable Whereunto might be added the consonant iudgements of Chemnisius P. Martyr Zanchy and others but I hasten to the third Ceremonie CHAP. III. Our particular defence of the Innocencie of the Third Ceremony which is the gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion SECT I. THE Non-conformists inlarge themselues in this Argument seeking to oppugne it by all the vehemency and violence of affection that they can but when their Exceptions and Accusations shall be throughly discussed they will perceiue I hope that they haue not bene more hot in their Zeale then cold in their Reasons whereunto I now proceed according to my former methode both Answering and Confuting their Accusations against this Gesture of Kneeling SECT II. The first Accusation vsed by the Non-conformists against the Gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the B. Sacrament is from the example of Christ and his Apostles That which is contrary both to the example of Christ in the first Institution and also to the example of the Apostles and primitiue Church successiuely and that which is against the intention of Christ being in it selfe Idolatrous must needs be abolished as vnlawfull But such is the Gesture of Kneeling in the receiuing of the Eucharist Ergo
imitation of the gesture of Sitting at the Celebration of this Communion then it doth to other circumstances of time places persons sexes and the like SECT XVII Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists concerning the intention of Christ is taken from the Non-conformists themselues by their owne confession of the libertie of Sitting You your selues multiply many Testimonies telling vs that M. Bullinger maketh it an indifferent thing whether the Church receiue it sitting or comming to the Table but the most agreeable to the Institution saith he is Sitting And M. Fox speaking of the Primitiue Church saith that the Communion was administred either sitting at Supper or else standing after Supper and in Eusebius Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Anno 157. writeth of the manner of one that stood at the Communion-Table also Doctor Fulke affirmeth out of Gregory Nazianzen Anno 380. who saith of the Communion Table that it was set that men might come round about Lastly M. Iewell writeth that in Basil in his time euery man was bound to take the Communion standing This which you vse in your bookes as an Obiection against vs we make bold to returne as an euident Conuiction against your selues because now you cannot but see your feet in that stocks which is called a Dilemma For if that we as you haue said are bound to the gesture of Sitting by the example of Christ how commeth it to passe that you now allow of a bond of the Primitiue Church for the gesture of standing Can you so easily suffer standing to shoulder sitting out of his due place But if that you can so willingly admit of standing why were you already so instant in pressing vpon vs the necessitie of sitting or are you now so vehement in excluding all indifferency of kneeling Consider I pray you whether there be not the like Analogie betweene kneeling and sitting as there can be betweene sitting and standing This Argument we haue drawne as was said from your owne Obiection and so are you out-shot in your owne Bowe SECT XVIII Their third Accusation against the gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion from the example of the Primitiue Church The Primitiue Churches for sundry hundred yeeres vsed to receiue it standing for Tert. who liued Anno 180 reporteth thus as the Custome of his time and Tradition receiued from the Apostles that it was vnlawfull to Kneele vpon the Lords day or vpon any other day betweene Easter and Pentecost and Anno 127. it was decreed in the Councell of Nice that none might pray kneeling vpon the Lords day the reason is commended out of the Canon Law because on this day is celebrated the ioyfull remembrance of the Lords resurrection Our Answer This Custome of the Primitiue Church in standing at the time of publike prayer for the testifying of their faith in the Article of the Resurrection was then held most requisite when as yet that Fundamentall Article of Christian faith was generally impugned and gain sayed by some Iewes by diuers Heretiâ—ks by all Pagans which occasioned the Primitiue Fathers in those ages to ordaine that all Christians for the better manifesting of euery mans professioÌ„ herein should vse that publike gesture of standing But afterwards when the faith of the resurrection had generally taken root in the hearts of men theÌ„ this Ceremony of standing in prayer did by little little vanish in some places together with the cause therof First then in this example of the Primitiue Church we see a gesture of standing as a Ceremony Ecclesiasticall Secondly the end thereof for a ioyfull remembrance of the Lords Resurrection which maketh the Ceremonie to be significant Thirdly that this was applyed to Gods publicke worship These considerations may serue for an ample Confutation of your former generall Positions wherby you condemned our Three Ceremonies to wit Surplice Crosse and Kneeling because forsooth they are Ceremonies of humaine inuention of mysticall signification and appropriated to the seruice of God Now therefore if you allow of the foresaid practise of the Primitiue Church why haue you formerly impugned it If you do not approue thereof why do you now obiect it But more of this hereafter Our second Inference needeth no dilatation which is briefly this that the example of the Primitiue Church in changing the gesture of Sitting into Standing doth demonstrate the liberty that the Church hath in altering and changing all such kind of Rytes SECT XIX Their fourth Accusation against the Gesture of Kneeling at the receiuing of the Sacrament is from the opinion of the necessity thereof as well by the learned as by the vnlearned 1. Of the vnlearned Many people in the Land thinke that this gesture of Kneeling is necessarie Our Answer The errour of the people if there be any such is to be imputed vnto two sorts of Ministers the one kinde are too idle or too ignorant that they either cannot or else care not to instruct their people in these points the other sort are too busie who falsly impose vpon the Church an erronious opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies which she in their owne knowledge hath alwaies abhorred in the Romish Professors and disclaimed and renounced among her owne But it may be the principall errour is the iealousie of the Accusers who vse to suspect an errour in many in stead of a few or for ought that I know of any that holdeth this gestures as essentiall vnto the Communion SECT XX. Their taxation of the Learned Yea and the learned as it is in the Communion booke of King Edward the sixt say that the vse of kneeling is to auoide profanation Our Answer Are you then of opinion either that Sacraments cannot be prophaned or that the Church had not reason to preuent or auoide the prophanation of this Sacrament of the Eucharist If that the Sacraments were not subiect to profanation then should they not be Sacraments For Gods most glorious Name is subiect to mans blasphemy Mans holy life to infamy Godlines to scorne Truth to slander and all sacred things vnto the prophanenesse of godlesse men otherwise neither things could be said to be Sacred nor godlesse men profane As for the wisedome of our Church in this case she perceiuing the blasphemous mouthes of the Papists to vilifie the Sacrament of our Lord Iesus administred in our Church with the ignominious names of Bakers Bread Vintners Wine prophane Elements Ale-cakes and such like reproachfull termes did hold it fit that we by our outward reuerence in the manner of receiuing of the Eucharist might testifie our due estimation of such holy Rytes which are consecrated to so blessed an vse as is communion of the body and bloud of Christ and that thereby we might repell the staine and ignominie which such virulent and vnhallowed tongues did cast vpon them Be you contented by the way to be put in mind of your owne ignorance by confounding an Accidentall and an Eâ—sentiall
there is a ful an apparence of coÌ„tempt of lawfull Authoritie as may iustly deny vnto you that fauour which you so earnestly contend for we shall make euident in our answer to your next Argument concerning Christian libertie whereunto we proceed CHAP. VI. SECT I. The Sixt generall Argument made by the Non-conformists against the three Ceremonies aforesaid vpon pretence that they are against the Libertie of the Church Maior That which dâ—priueth mâ—n of Christian libertie is vnlawfull Assumption But the imposition of these Ceremonies of Surplice c. doth depriue vs of Christian libertie Ergo they are vnlawfull Our Answer WE do so willingly grant your Maior that we account it a kind of spirituall fellonie to depriue the subiects of Christ his Kingdome of that libertie which our Lord Christ hath purchased vnto all the faithfull professors of the Gospel But we denie your Assumption SECT II. The Non-conformists generall Assumption concerning our Ceremonies But the imposition of these three Ceremonies viz. Surplice Crosse in the administration of Baptisme and Kneeling at the receiuing of the Eucharist do depriue vs of Christian libertie Our Answer The sinne of impeaching the libertie of Christians being so hainous a crime you stand either chargeable to prooue this Assumption or else compellable to confesse it to be no better than a false and impious Slander against the Church Proceed therefore to your Proofes SECT III. Their Proofes It is our Christiâ—n libertie to vse Ceremonies appointed by man as things indifferent but these Ceremonies are imposed as necâ—ssarie Therefore do they depriue vs of our Christian libertie Our Answer by distinction shewing the state of the Question The Non-conformists themselues will acknowledge that our question in this dispute is not concerning that Christian libertie which the Apostle mentioneth Rom. 6. whereby we are freed from the rigour of the morall Law pronouncing a curse vpon all them that persist not in all the Commandements of God to do them nor of the libertie from the Iewish bondage of the Leuiticall Law which the Apostles call an importable Yoake But the subiect matter of this our Controuersie is a libertie from the necessary obseruation of such things which are in their owne nature indifferent as is implyed by the Obiector himselfe This being the state of our Question our Reader shall need no more for the resolution thereof than to know first what it is not secondly what it is that may be said to depriue a Christian of that libertie which Christ by his Testament hath bequeathed vnto his Church both which he may easily learne by distinguishing betweene two kinds of necessities which are incident vnto humane precepts and ordinances in the case of indifferencie The one is the necessitie of obedience to the commandement the other is the necessitie of Doctrine The first necessity of obedience vnto hâ—mane precepts in things lawfull and indifferent are so farre from preiudicing our Christian libertie that Christ himselfe hath established this necessitie in his Church charging Christian Subiects to obey their Rulers Children their Parents seruants their Masters Therefore necessitie of obedience cannot properly contradict our Christian libertie I haue said properly and in it selfe albeit accidentally in respect of the multitude of impositions which may be impossible to be kept our Christian liberty may be extremly wronged but this being onely accidentally ought rather to be called a deprauation of Christian liberty than a depriuation thereof Thus much of the necessitie of obedience We returne to the Doctrinall necessitie which is as often as a man shall attribute vnto an humane constitution any of those properties which are essentiall vnto Diuine Ordinances These properties are principally three 1. immediatly to bind the consciences of men 2. to be a necessary meanes to saluation and 3. to hold it altogether vnalterable by any authoritie of man all which points do inferre a Doctrine of Diuine necessitie and therefore are not these that I may so say the Images or superscriptions of Caesar but Characters of an authoritie properly belonging vnto God and consequently all such kind of Prescriptions which containe in them any opinion of Doctrinall necessitie whensoeuer they shal be ordained by men although they concerne onely the outward Ceremonies of Gods worship yet must wee iudge them no better than meere presumptions and preuarications against the Soueraignty of God himselfe This Doctrine Saint Peter learned in the case of indifferencie of meates by that heauenly vision of the great sheete wherein were all manner of beasts and birds which was interpreted by the Diuine oracle that said vnto Peter the things which God hath purified pollute thou not If therefore when God hath signed any doctrine with a marke of Indifferency to vse or not to vse man shall come and stampe vpon it his owne marke of necessitie teaching it to be vncleane that it may not in any case be vsed by man this is a plaine heresie whereinto notwithstanding diuers false fantasticall spirits plunged themselues who taught concerning such meates as were represented in that sheete albeit that heauenly voyce had said to Peter Kill and eate Touch not taste not handle not This explication thus premised you may proceed and shew if you can that any of the foresaid properties of necessitie are imposed by our Church as you haue pretended SECT IIII. The pretended proofes of the Non-conformists are taken from 1. Scriptures 2. Reasons Their first Obiection from Scriptures The first place The Apostle saith 1. Cor. 7.35 This I speak to your profit not that I might cast a snare vpon you Shewing that the imposition of necessitie vpon things indifferent is a very snare of mens Consciences Our Answer When the Apostle had said that It is good for man not to marrie and againe The vnmarried careth for things belonging to the Lord but the married for the things of this world lest that he might seeme thereby to inferre a generall necessitie of not marrying he preoccupateth saying This I speake not to insnare you meaning that his intent was not to intangle mens consciences in an opinion of necessitie of single life because God himselfe gaue a libertie of marrying For in such a case to inioyne a necessitie is indeed mans snare whereby the Papists by their Lawes of vowes vnto men burning in lusts Stringunt imò strangulant do euen stifle many thousand soules The case of necessitie standing thus I maruaile how you could apply the snare mentioned by the Apostle vnto our Doctrine of Ceremonies without some twitch of your owne consciences seeing that you neuer heard this point of necessitie taught in our Church Examine her Articles reuiew her Rubricks search her Canons and Constitutions and trie whether I meane in Churches wherein there are the like prescriptions either the want of a Surplice or forbearing the vse of the Signe of the Crosse or the not kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion
do make men transgressors of Gods Law or depraue the truth of Gods worship or depriue the worshippers of grace and saluation Nay but which doth make your Calumniation most apparent shee hath plainly professed the contrary both in iudging her owne Ceremonies Alterable and in not condemning the different Ceremonies of other reformed Churches as hereafter will plainly appeare SECT V. Their second place of Scripture This is a speciall part of the libertie which Christ hath purchased for vs by his death and which all Christians are bound to stand for Gal. 5.1 Stand fast saith the Apostle vnto the liberty vnto which Christ hath made vs free and be not intangled with the yoake of bondage Shewing that the seruice which we are now to do vnto God is not mysticall Ceremoniall and carnall as it was then but plaine and spirituall Our Answer The Assembly of Non-conformists who made this Obiection from that Text of the Apostle Gal. 5.1 did as it may seeme neuer consult with the Context both because they expound this Scripture as spoken of all mysticall Ceremonies which the Apostle deliuereth onely of Iewish Rites as also for that they vnderstand those words to be spoken meerely of Ceremonies as if they had beene vnlawfull in themselues which the Apostle speaketh mixtly as implying thereby that doctrine of necessitie which false Apostles had attributed vnto them namely an opinion of necessitie whereby the whole Gospel of Christ concerning iustification by remission of sinnes was consequently ouerthrowne according as the Apostle concludeth saying Stand in the Libertie wherewith Christ hath made you free c. And againe Behold I Paul say that if you be circumcised Christ can profit you nothing Why but onely because Circumcision being the Seale of the Couenant of the Morall Law doth exact of euery one that holdeth Circumcision necessary to saluation an absolute performance of euery minim and iot of the same Law therfore it followeth whosoeuer wil be iustified by the Law becometh a Debter to the whole Law and consequently Christ is become of none effect vnto you Next concerning Iustification by the Law of the old Testament whereof Circumcision was the Seale the Apostle teacheth that the difference of the Old and the New Testament in respect of Iustification is as much as betweene Agar the seruant ingendring vnto bondage and Sarah the Mistris and free-woman that bringeth foorth the heire of promise so that whosoeuer will be heire of saluation must first become a noble Sarasin and not remaine a base Agaren that is he must be such an one as seeketh perfect iustification by the Gospel which worketh obedience in loue and not by the exact and strict Righteousnesse of the Law which driueth men into a slauish obedience through an hellish feare This your owne Witnesses could not but vnderstand and know that that Yoake condemned in this Scripture doth not signifie the vse or yet so much as the mysticall signification of Circumcision because the Apostle Saint Paul himselfe did circumcise Timothy but by it is vnderstood that opinion of the necessitie of this Ceremonie to saluation which the false apostles had taught among the Galatians which is so vndoubtedly there condemned that M. Caluin sticketh not to call them Insulsos Interpretes Absurd or vnsauory Interpreters who teach that the Apostle in this Epistle contendeth onely for the Libertie of Circumcision in regard of the vse and not rather against the necessitie of that vse for the obtaining of Iustification and saluation thereby Which necessitie howsoeuer it may be found in Popish doctrine of Mysticall Rites yet shall you as soone prooue Rome to be England as find the Popish superstition in our English profession concerning the vse of Ceremonies Thirdly in your obiection you vnsoundly and vnsauorily confound these two termes Mysticall and Carnall as though euery Mysticall Ceremonie were consequently Carnall Know you not that the Sacraments of the new Testament are the most Mysticall Ceremonies of all others neuerthelesse none but an vnchristian or rather Antichristian spirit would call them Carnall For albeit the Iewish Ceremonies deserued that name because they signified first and primarily outward and carnall promises as the cleansings of the flesh and the enioyments of earthly blessings but remission of sins and heauenly blessednesse they shadowed onely remotely and vnder a second veile yet the Sacraments of the Gospell are immediate Signes and Seales of the spirituall things themselues such as are remission of sins redemption from death diuell and hell and a full interest in the promises of an eternall inheritance So likewise it sauoreth of the flesh and not of the Spirit to call our Ceremonies to wit Surplice Signe of the Crosse and Kneeling Carnall except you can finde any Carnality in Sanctity Constancie in the faith of Christ or in religious Humility which are the immediate and Morall significations that these three Ceremonies do represent SECT VI. Their second Obiection is taken from Reason Their first Reason If these Ceremonies do not take away our Christian liberty and insuare the consciences of men by their imposition how shall not the Popish Ceremonies be excusable and free from accusation in this behalfe Our Answer from their owne Witnesses To question How in this case must needs be a note of inexcusable ignorance for what more impardonable ignorance can there be than not to reade that which our Church hath set downe in capitall letters wherein she auoucheth her owne integritie professing to vse but a few Ceremonies and those also without opinion of Necessity and not this onely but furthermore doth often condemne the Church of Rome for infringing of Christian liberty by her Ceremoniall constitutions both in respect of the nature and number of her Rites First I say in regard of their Nature by attributing vnto them such an opinion of Necessity which taketh away all Indifferencie which is done as well by holding and exercising them as necessarie meanes of attaining vnto eternall life as also by placing in them the chiefest and most essentiall part of Gods worship Secondly in respect of their number and multitude which is become importable These two exceptions against the Church of Rome which we haue onely pointed at are particularly and largely acknowledged and set downe by that golden quill of M. Caluin throughout his fourth booke of Institutions cap. 10. where he inueigheth against as he calleth it Barbarum imperium the Barbarous Thraldome of Popish Ceremonies But why Euen because if we respect the nature of them they affirme saith he their Lawes to be spirituall and properly belonging vnto the soule and necessarie for eternall life whereby the Kingdome of Christ is inuaded and Christian liberty of mens consciences is altogether ouerthrowne seeing that they seeke iustification and saluation in their owne obseruations wherein they place Ipsis simum Dei cultum vt ità loquar in ipsis contineri the summe of all Religion and piety meaning the essentiall worship of