A DEFENCE Of THE INNOCENCIE OF THE THREE CEREMO­NIES OF THE CHVRCH OF ENGLAND. viz. The Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament.

Diuided into two Parts: In the former whereof the Generall Arguments vrged by the Non-conformists; and, in the second Part, their Particular Accusations, against these III. Ceremonies seuerally, are an­swered, and refuted.

1. COR. 11.16.

If any man seeme to be contentious, we haue no such custome, neither the Churches of God.

Published by Authoritie.

LONDON, Imprinted for William Barret. 1618.

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE, GEORGE MARQVIS OF BVCKINGHAM, Viscount Villiers, Baron of Whaddon, Master of his Maiesties Horse, Knight of the most noble Order of the Garter, Gentleman of his Maiesties Bed­chamber, and of his most honorable priuie Councell.

MY LO.

IT hath bene your happinesse, to haue had that highest Nobili­tie, that can befall vnto the sons of men; I speake not now of Na­sci, but of Renasci, through Baptisme, in this our most Or­thodoxe, and flourishing Church: which alas! now (by the same obligation, arising from the due respect of a child vnto the Mother) may seeme to require your Lordships aide and assistance, especially against two sorts of Aduersaries, by whom she is (although in a different degree) vnworthily and vniustly impug­ned; the one whereof are the Papists, and the other the Non-conformists. The Papists persecute her [Page] with all their engines of hate, as if she were an exe­crable Apostate: notwithstanding they themselues, (to instance but in two points) first, worship with diuine honor, as the person of the Son of God, that, which, in their opinion, may; but, in the iudgement of all other Churches, doth remaine still (according as Theodo­ret, 1200 yeares since, in expresse words determined) in forme, figure, & substāce, Bread. which necessa­rily inferreth an high degree, not only of a possible, but euē of an infallible Idolatry. And secōdly haue they, of late, added twelue new Articles of Beliefe vnto our Christian Creed, with an opinion of equal necessi­ty: which kind of addition vnto the Christian Faith doth proue them notoriously heretical, and liable vnto the Apostles curse,Gal. 1.8. who pronounceth an Anathema vpon either man or Angell, that shall coine any new doctrine of that kind. Concern̄ing the Non-con­formist. He, although he doth owe his spirituall birth vnto the Church, as wel as his natural vnto his Pa­rents; yet neuerthelesse doth he defame his Mothers religious worship; infringe her wholsome libertie; and contemne her iust authoritie: thereby occasioning that horrid Schisme, which is made by Separatists, the dissected Sects, and verie Acephalists of this present age. Against the Papists I haue had many conflicts. Now, in this Treatise, my purpose is [Page] principally to cōtend against the Non-conformists; which being finished, I thought my selfe bound to deuote the same vnto your Honour, in testimonie of my due acknowledgment, for your Lordshi [...]s, sing [...] ­lar fauour, and respect towards me: and so much the rather haue I thus aduentured, because the Treatise it selfe was first occasioned by your Lordship. If therefore (Right Honorable) in that eminence of Fauour, which you haue in the eyes of our most gracious Soueraigne, you shall imitate his Maiesties admirable wisedome and zeale, in the aduancing of This, the true daughter of that primitiue Mother-Church, against whatsoeuer kind of Aduersaries; She shall make you twice-honorable, both in the eies of God and Man; by blessing you with her prayers, wishing vnto you Good lucke with your Honor; Psal. 45.5. and happie prosperitie for preseruing of her Peace: Psal. 12 2.6. whereunto, according to my especiall dutie, I resound an answerable Eccho; beseeching God to prosper your Lordship, and to accomplish you, especially, with all his spirituall blessings, in heauenly things; and to preserue you to the glorie of his sauing Grace.

Your Honours, in all humble acknowledgement, Tho. Cestren.

An Epistle to the Non-conformists, to re [...]ce them from their Superstitions, and Scandals against the Church.

IF you (my brethren) or any others shall maruell, why I impute Superstition vnto you, I may thinke that either they know not you, or that you are not rightly ac­quainted with your selues: because, as there is a Superstition affirmatiue, by an Idolatrous Tou­ching, tasting, and handling of things that are held to be sacred; so is there likewise, which cannot be denied, a Ne­gatiue Superstition (condemned by the Apostle) which, in regard of things that were falsly iudged vnholy and profane, did prohibite, saying, Col. 2.21. Touch not, taste not, han­dle not. Wherein, notwithstanding, not the act of Abstai­ning, but (obserue I pray you) the erroneous opinion, in forbearing, and forbidding such things, was the formall cause of Superstition. Whereunto, how farre you may be thought to symbolize, by your Negatiue opinions, con­cerning these your prohibitiōs, Knele not, crosse not, weare not, &c. this Treatise doth fully discusse and determine.

But you thinke it sufficient to haue produced M. Cal­uin, B. Iewel, M. Bucer, P. Martyr, Beza, Zanchy, Chemni­tius, Danaeus, and other the best accomplished Diuines, as Aduocates to pleade your Cause. It is wel; if you shall be as well contented, that (according as Act. 25. v. 10.12. Festus, knowing S. Paul to haue appealed vnto Caesar, did reasonably resolue, saying, Vnto Caesar shalt thou go) I, likewise vpon your al­legations [Page] of such reuerend and iudicious Authors, may challenge you to stand vnto the Testimonies of your owne Witnesses: by whom you may easily vnderstand, that the most of your Negatiue Opinions are so many Su­perstitions.

We haue receiued from you these Opinions concer­ning Ceremonies. 1. No Ceremonie, without speciall warrant from the word. 2. No appropriation of any humane Ceremo­nie vnto Gods worship. 3. No signification mysticall in any such. 4. No vse of any such Ceremonie, which hath bene once superstitiously abused. 5. No bodily gesture, in token of reue­rence, at the receiuing of the Lords Supper, is lawfull.

Be you likewise pleased to take a view of the Testimo­nies of your owne Witnesses, condemning your former assertions. The first, thus:Danaeus I­sag. de Tradit. cap. 29. The Sadduces did reiect all ma­ner of Traditions, which had not bene deliuered by Moses; like as do the Anabaptists, and Libertines of these dayes: who are, notwithstanding, confuted by the example of Christ, in his obseruing of the feast of Tabernacles, which was ordai­ned by Iudas Machabaeus. But the Papists, like the old Phari­ses, are in another extreame. These other Testimonies ensuing, are cited, and ex­pressed in this Treatise, throughout. Besides, to challenge a speciall prescription for all Ceremonies out of the word, Caluin. Is contrary to the wisedome of Christ: and Zanchy. To Christian li­bertie.

The second, of Not appropriating, &c. thus: It infrin­geth Bucer, Zanc. and others. The libertie of the Church.

The third, against Mysticall signification, thus: To denie Caluin. Symbolicall Ceremonies, is a morositie: in so much that the D. Rainold. Papists are to be reproued for their dumbe, and non-signifi­cant Ceremonies. But these, as Chemnis. Significatiue, are lawful, al­though not as operatiue. yea B. Iewell, Zanchy, Chemnis. Significant are profitable for admonition, and for testification of our duties. Finally, the denying of this power to the Church, is aBucer. Depriuing her [Page] of her Christian libertie.

The fourth, of Abolishing of all Ceremonious vse of things, that haue bene once superstitiously abused, thus: P. Martyr, Beza. The wickednesse of man cannot so farre pollute the good creatures of God. Why? Bucer. The abuse of such things doth not cleaue to the things themselues, but vnto the minds of them that do abuse them. What then? As it is superstition B. Iewel. to place holinesse, so it is to place vnholinesse in them. To conclude. This doctrine is Caluin. Contrary to the intention of Christ, and to the B. Iewell, P. Martyr. Libertie of the Church of Christ.

The last, which is of Not vsing any bodily reuerence at the holy Communion, Thus, Caluin, B. Iewel, Zan­chy, Zepper. P. Martyr. Outward reuerence is re­quisite in Communicants, both for the dignifying of Christs mysteries, and for the increase of our Christian deuotion. In a word, to deny the Church power, to choose her gesture of Reuerence, is Bucer, P. Martyr. Contrary to the libertie allowed her by Christ. All these, with diuerse other authorities and rea­sons, are more expresly mentioned in the Treatise it selfe.

If you desire not to take vp your ware by retaile, you may haue it in a generalitie. For, to instance but in one Ceremonie, (be it the Surplice) the Reformed Churches, although they vsed it not, yet did they so certainly iusti­fie our practise thereof, that (as it is confessed) P. Martry loc. comm. pag. 1086. If we shall condemne these indifferent things, we shall condemne infi­nite Churches, which are honoured of vs, as most commenda­ble. Or thus: Bucer. We shall condemne all Churches of impious boldnesse. Not to returne vpon you the many Parlaments, and Conuocations, which (by the generall consent of the learnedst Diuines, and the most wise and religious Go­uernours in this kingdome) haue established these Rites.

Before I shut vp this Epistle, let me acquaint you with some other of your errors, which may chiefly require your second thoughts. I shal need but only to point at thē.

[...]

[Page]One is, your often alleaging of Scriptures, Fathers, and other Authors; and your open mistaking of their meanings, as will euidently appeare.

The next, is, the many Repugnancies vnto your selues, by such an extreme difference betweene your Swearing, and Praying; your standing, and sitting; your hands, and tongues; your heads, and your knees, &c. as if there were some mile distance betweene you, and your selu [...]s. Not to mention your many obiection [...], which make against your owne conclusions.

The third is, the extreme iniurie that you do vnto the Church. But you pretend peace; because, forsooth, you preach not against Conformitie. As though there were not a Preaching as well in the eare, as on the house-top; or not as well an exemplarie, as there is an oratorie seduce­ment: else could not Saint Paul haue said,Gal. 2.14. concerning onely the Exemplarie; Cogis eos Iudaizare.

And that which herein doth double your offence, is, that your opposition is grounded vpon a sinister conceit, that our Church obserueth these Ceremonies in an opi­nion of Holinesse and Necessitie: which is altogether con­trarie to her owne expresse protestation. Howbeit, if her meaning in this case were but ambiguous, or doubtfull, yet would wel-conditioned children take things from a Parent with their right hands: but your deprauing of her professed and plaine doctrine, what can it else argue in you, then an earnest bent to contention, against the ge­nerall custome of the Church? not vnlike vnto the Acci­pencer, which vsually swimmeth against the streame.

The last, is, your notorious Scandals giuen vnto them that are without, and them that are within the Church; to the weake, and to the strong; yea and to the Church of God it selfe, by breaking the hedge of peace, and ope­ning [Page] a gap for the wilde B [...]re out of the Romish Forrest to enter in, and [...]oote out that goodly vine; which many Pauls, the industrious Bishops, and P [...]stors haue plain­ted; and many Apollo's, the faithfull Martyrs of Christ haue watered with their bloud. And yet more specially that Scandall, which you commit against your owne selues; I meane, so many of you, as acknowledge the In­nocencie of our Ceremonies fully cleared, and your owne consciences sufficiently conuinced, and do notwithstan­ding resolue (I can scarce, for honor, mention so execra­ble a resolution) to continue in opposition, only for feare of discrediting your Ministerie. which this Treatise pro­ueth to be altogether false, presumptuous, partiall, and pernicious.

Diuerse other things might haue bene obserued: but to conclude. Be you exhorted (beloued brethren) if there be in you a due hatred of Superstition; any ioy in the Spi­rit of vnitie; any zeale of the successe of the Gospell; or any conscience of truth, embrace the peace of the Church: and the God of peace replenish your hearts with all spirituall Graces, and preserue vs to the glorie of his Sauing Grace.

TO THE READER.

BE thou aduertised (Christian Reader) that the Obiectors, in this Treatise, are princi­pally the Assembly of the Lincolnshire Mi­nisters, in their booke called the Abridge­ment, &c. printed 1605. The other, in the Margent (who, for the respect I haue vnto them, are but halfe-named) are the Ministers in the Diocesse of Chester: whose Reasons, of their Refusall of Subscription, (so many as they could either borrow of others, or inuent of themselues, I keepe by me in writing; and haue as methodically, as I could, ranged them into order in this Treatise. Good Reader, studie the peace of the Church, and eschue all differences, touching these matters, which are apparently, in their owne nature, In­different.

Pag. 37. lin. 4. Obiect. 1. &c. Dele, the whole line. Pag. 49. lin. 5. after, iudicious Diuines, adde, 4. Reasons. Pag. 61. Sect. 9 after, 5. Their owne practise, adde, 6. Reasons. Pag. 100. lin. 3. for, Their, reade, Our Answer. Pag. 1 [...]8. lin. 26. reade. Maozim. Pag. 1 [...]2. lin. vlt. in marg. dele 1. Pet. 2.8. pag. 294. lin. 30. r [...]ade [...].

THE CONTENTS OF THIS ENSVING TREATISE.

PART. 1.

It consisteth of Two parts:

  • 1. A general De­fence of the Ce­remonies aboue mentioned.
  • 2. A particular Defence of each one seue­rally.

CHAP. 1.

In the first Part the Non con­formists vse sixe Arguments against the foresaid Ceremonies.

  • Their first generall Argument is, because, Euery Ceremonie should haue Special warrant frō Scrip­ture, which (as they say) these haue not.
  • The Propositiō of this Argument they labour to proue by Scriptures.
    • Their I. Text is Heb. 3.2. of Christs faithfulnesse in Gods house. Our Answer Sect. 3. &c.
    • II. Text, 2. Sam. 7.7. God saying to Dauid, Shalt thou build me an house? Our An­swer Sect. 6. &c.
    • III. Text, Ier. 7.22.23. I commanded not your fathers concerning Sacrifices, &c. Our Answer, Sect. 8. &c.
    • IV. Text, Esa. 1.11. Who required these things at your hands? Our Answer, Sect. 11.
    • V. Text, Ier. 7.31. God say­ing. Which I comm [...]nded you not. Our Answer, Sect. 12.
  • Their second proofe, for their Ne­gatiue arguing from Scriptures, is from the iudgement of ancient Fa­thers. Our Answer, Sect. 13. &c.
  • Their third proofe is from the Te­stimonies of Protestant Diuines. Our Answer, Sect. 15.
  • Our generall Confutation of their first Argument, in disputing Nega­tiuely from Scripture, in the que­stion of Ceremonies; by Reasons.
    • Our I. Reason, from that place of 1. Cor. 14. v. 40. Sect. 16.
    • II. Reason, from Fathers. Sect. 17.
    • III. Reason, frō the iudgement of Protestant Diuines. Sect. 18.
    • IV. Reason, from the nature o [...] Ceremonies; according to the Practises of other reformed Churches. Sect. 20.
    • V. Reason, from the Confession, and Practise of the Non-con­formists themselues. Sect. 21.
  • The Assumption of their Argu­ment (namely that these our Cere­monies want due warrant from Scripture) which the Non-confor­mists labour to proue. Our Answer, Sect. 22. to the end of the Chap.

CHAP. 2.

  • Their second generall Argument is, Because Ceremonies are parts of Gods worship; which no man can lawfully ordaine. Ergo, &c.
  • The Proofe first of their Maior.
    • Their I. Proofe from Scrip­tures; Esa. 29.13. Deut. Co­loss. &c. Our Answer, Sect. 3. and confutation of their interpre­tation of such Scriptures. Sec. 4.
    • II. Proofe from the iudgement of ancient Fathers. Our Answer, Sect. 5.
    • III. Proofe from Protestant Authors. Our Answer, Sect. 6.
  • The proofes of their Assumption, to shew that our Ceremonies are held as parts of Gods worship.
    • I. Proofe, because they are impo­ted as parts of Gods worship. Our Answer. Sect. 8. &c.
    • II. Proofe, Because imposed with an opinion of holinesse. Our Answer. Sect. 10.
    • III. Proofe; Because preferred before preaching, and other necessary duties. Our Answer. Sect. 11.
    • IIII. Proofe; Because the peo­ple conceiue them to be ne­cessarie. Our Answer. Sect. 12.
    • V. Proofe, Because the punish­ment is so seuere against the Transgressors of them. Our An­swer. Sect. 13.
    • VI. Proofe; Because the cen­sure against the contrary-min­ded is to terme them Schisma­ticks. Our Answer. Sect. 14.
  • Our generall confutation of this second generall Argument of the Non-conformists, concerning the es­sentiall parts of Gods worship: from the plaine and expresse Profes­sion of our Church. Sect. 15.

CHAP. 3.

  • Their third generall Argument a­gainst these Ceremonies is, be­cause they are made Significant.
  • Their Proofes from
    • 1. Scriptures.
    • 2. Fathers.
    • 3. Protestant diuines.
    • 4. Reasons.
  • I. Proofe from Scriptures of Mar. 7.8. Mat. 15. You haue made the Cōmandements of God of none effect, by the traditions of men Our Answer, Sect. 2.
  • II. Proofe, from Fathers. Our Answer, Sect. 3.
  • III. Proofe, from the testimonies of Protestant Diuines. Our An­swer, Sect. 4.
  • IV. Proofe, from Reasons.
    • I. Reason; Because a Ceremo­nie is a chiefe part of Gods worship. Our Answer, Sect. 5.
    • II. Because Gods owne Ce­remonies of the old law are not to be vsed. Ergo, &c. Our Answer, Sect. 6.
    • III. Because this openeth a gap to other Popish trash. Our Answer, Sect. 7.
  • [Page]The Non-conformists Assumptiō: and our Answer. Sect. 8.
  • Our gene [...]al Confutations of their third generall Argument, concerning a Ceremonie significant.
  • Our I. Confutation by Scriptures: II. Fathers: III. Reasons: IV. The Non-conformists owne Witnesses: V. By the practise of the Non-confor­mists themselues: VI. Reason: to proue the lawfuln [...]sse of Significant Ceremonies.
    • Our I. Example out of Scrip­ture, is of Abraham before the law. Gen. 24.
    • II. Examples vnder the law: first, in the ordination of Festiuall dayes, as the Feast of lots, Est. 9. Sect. 9.10. Second, in the Feast of the Dedication, 1. Machab. 2. Iustified by Christ, Ioh. 10. Sect. 12. & 13. Next instance in the Ceremoniall instruments, both in the Altar of the Gileadites, Ios. 22. Sect. 15.16. and secondly in Salomons Altar. 1. King. 8. Sect. 17.18.19.20.21. and in the Iewish Synagogues, Sect. 22.
    • III. Examples in the time of the Apostles. As first, the Feasts of Charitie. Sect. 23.24.25.26.27. Second, the Holy Kisse. Sect. 26.27. and third, Womans coue­ring of her head. Sect. 28.
  • Our second Confutation, by the v­niuersall custome of all Christian Churches, as well Primitiue as Successiue. Sect. 29.
  • Our third confutation, from the testimonies of the Non-conformists owne Witnesses. Sect. 30.
  • Our fourth confutation is from the confessions and practise of the Non-conformists thēselues: by example in taking an Oath, Sect. 31. And in the obseruation of the Lords day, and other Festiuals. Sect. 32.
  • Our fift confutation is from Rea­son, taken from the nature of a Ce­remonie, that it must not be dumb. Sect. 33.34.

CHAP. 4.

  • The fourth generall Argument of the Non-conformists, against these ceremonies, is, Because they haue bin abused in Popery: and, There­fore ought to be vtterly aboli­shed.
  • For proofe of their Maior, they al­ledge the reproofes vsed against Ce­remonies, either Heathenishly, Iewishly, or Heretically abused: which they endeuour to euince, from
    • 1. Authoritie of Scripture.
    • 2. Of ancient Councels, and Fathers.
  • Their I and II. Scriptures, Leuit. 18. &c. Our Answer, Sect. 2.3.
  • III. Deut. 7. cōmanding the names of Heathenish superstition to be abandoned. Our Answer, Sect. 4.
  • IV. Dan. 1. Daniel would not be defiled with the Kings meate. Our Answer, Sect. 5.
  • V. The example [...]f Hezechias, in demolishing of the Brazen Serpent, [Page] 2. Reg. 18. Our Answer, Sect. 6.
  • Their obiections of the second kind, concerning Heathenish Rites, is from Councels and Fathers.
    • I. Instance in the Councell of Carthage, against Altars in Highwayes, abu [...]ed by Pagans. Our Answer, Sect. 7.
    • II. In the sam [...] Councel, [...]gainst Relickes of idolatrie. Our An­swer. Sect. 8.
    • III. In the Councell of Brac. concerning greene bay- [...]e [...]ues. Our Answer. Sect. 9.
    • IIII. In the Councel of Afro [...]k, ag [...]inst the Birth daze of Mar­terse. Our Answer. Sect. 10.
    • V. In Tertullian, forbidding to borrow any thing of an Idoll. Our Answer. Sect. 11.
    • VI. Againe in Tert. concerning washi [...]g of hands, and laying aside Clokes. Our Answ. Se. 12.
    • VII. in Miltiades, concerning Fasting on Friday, Our Answer. Sect. 13
    • VIII. In Ambrose, about offe­ring Cakes. Our Answer. Se. 14.
    • IX. In August, to leaue the heathenish toyes, &c. Our An­swer. Sect. 15.
  • Their second kind of Obiections, con­cerning Iewish Rites.
    • Their Instance in the Councell of Nice, concerning the Feast of Easter. Our Answer. Sect. 16.
  • Their third kind of Obiections is concerning Heathenish Rites.
    • I. Instance in the Councell of Gangris, about Fasting on the Lords day, abused by the Mani­chees. Our answer. Sect. 17.
    • II. Instance in t [...]e Councell of Brac. about Eating of fl [...]sh a­bused by the Pricilianists. Our Answer. Sect. 18.
    • III. Instance in Gregory, against Thrice dipping in Baptisme. Our Answer. Sect. 19.
    • IIII. Instance in Leo, against the a [...]use in Conference with Hereticks. Our Answer. Sect. 20
  • Their general Assumption, to proue that our Ceremonies haue bene as ill as Heathenishly abused by Papists. Our Answer. Sect. 21.
  • Our general Confutation of their ge­nerall Argument; for the abolish­ing such things as haue bin abused.
    • Our I. Proofe, is from Scriptures. Sect. 23.
    • II. Proofe from Fathers. Sect. 24.
    • III Frō 4. Rea­sons.
      • 1. From Inconueniency. Sect. 25.
      • 2. From the absurdity of the Non-confor­mists Rule. Sect. 26.
      • 3. From other meanes of reforming abuses, thā by abolishing the things Sect. 27.
      • 4. From the difference betweene Pagans & Papists. Sect. 28.
    • IV. From the Testimonies of their principall Witnesses. Sect. 29.
    • [Page]V. From the confessions, and Practises of the Non-confor­mists themselues. Sect. 30.

CHAP. 5.

  • The fift generall Argument of the Non-conformists, against the foresaid Ceremonies, is taken from the Scandall which is pretended to bee occasioned by them.
  • Our An­swer.
    • 1. By exposition, of the word Scandall. Sect. 1.
    • 2 By diuisi­on of it into
      • Actiue.
      • Passiue. Sect. 2.
    • Actiue Scandall subdiuided.
      • 1. In respect of the Parties Agent,
        • Direct.
        • Indirect. Sect. 3.
      • 2. In respect of the parties offended,
        • Weake,
        • Strong. Sect. 4.
      • 3. In respect both of Persons and Cause, either
        • Determined.
        • Vndetermi­ned. Sect. 5.
      • 4. In respect of the effects
        • Lapse into sin, or error.
        • Hinderance frō God. Sect. 6.
    • The Passiue Scan­dall diuided in re­spect of the
      • party offēded matter of of­fence. Sect. 7.
    • 1. Subdiuision, concerning the party offēded, either in respect
      • Of his iudgment Or,
      • of his affection. Sect. 8.
    • II. Subdiuision, in respect of the opini­on of
      • Indifferen­cie.
      • Necessity, Sect. 9.
    • The generall Assumption of the Non-conformists, proouing our Ce­remonies to be Scandalous.
      • I. Against superstitious Papists Our answer. Sect. 10.
      • II. Against Profane persons, Our answer. Sect. 11.
      • III. Against weake brethren, Our answer. Sect. 12.
      • IV. Against vnconformable Congregations. Sect. 13.
      • V. Against vnconformable Mi­nisters. Our answer. Sect. 14.
      • VI. Against all sorts, by appa­rance of euil, Our answ. Sect. 15
    • Our generall Confutation of their former Assumption, concerning Scandall, by prouing the Non-con­formists themselues guilty of the manifest Scandal, as both in Actiue and Passiue. Sect. 16.
      • I. Actiue Scandall, by weake­ning some that remaine in the Church. Sect. 17.
      • II. By driuing some out of the Church as Separatists, Sect. 18.
      • III. Hindering some from the Church, as Papists. Sect. 19.
      • IV. Against the Church it selfe: first Comparatiuely, by rather of­fending their Mother, than their Brother. Sect. 21. By Con­tempt. Sect. 22.

CHAP. VI.

  • The sixt generall Argument of the Non-conformists, against our Cere­monies, is taken from Preiudice a­gainst the Liberty of Christians. Sect. 1.2.3.
  • Our distinction betweene Necessity of doctrine, and Necessitie of o­bedience. Sect. 3.
  • The first Proofe of the Non-confor­mists is from Scriptures.
    • I. Scripture. 1. Cor. 7. forbid [...]ing to Cast a snare vpon Christi­ans. Our answer. Sect. 4.
    • II. Script. Gal. 5. Stand fast in the liberty &c. Our answer. Sect. 5.
  • Their second Proofe from Reason.
    • I. Reason, thus; Else, how shall not the Popish Ceremonies be excusable? Our answer. Sect. 6.
    • II. Reason; They are imposed with an Opinion of binding mens consciences. Sect. 7.
  • Our particular Answeres.
    • I. Distinguishing betweene ma­ner, and measure of binding mens consciences. Sect. 7.
    • II. Confuting the Non-confor­mists from their own Witnesses. Sect. 8.
    • III. She [...]ing that Ecclesi­asticall Lawes haue a kind of force to binde mens consciences. Sect. 10.
    • The Non-conformists Obiection, from Bowling. Our answ. Se. 11.
  • Our Generall Confutation of the foresaid sixt generall Argument of the Non-conformists, concerning the impeaching of Christian Liberty; and Proouing our Church free from this error.
    • I. Reason, from the acknowledg­ment of the Non-conformists themselues. Sect· 12.
    • II. Reason from the profession of our Church. Sect. 13.
    • III. From the contrary: shewing that the Non-conformists opi­nion of Refusall is the very breach of Christian Libertie. Sect. 14.
To the end of the first part.

The second Part of our Defence by particular Answers to the par­ticular Accusations of the Non-conformists, against the III. Cere­monies of our Church, viz. Sur­plice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiuing of the B. Communion.

CHAP. 1.

  • I. Of the Surplice: and our parti­cular defence thereof, against their seuerall Accusations.
    • The I. Accusation of the Non-c [...]nformists, against the Surplice, is in respect of the distinction of Ap­parell. Our Answer. Sect. 1.
    • II. Accusation, in respect of the Office, wherunto the Surplice is applied, which is Ecclesiasticall. Our Answer, Sect. 2.
    • III. Accusation is in respect of [Page] the colour, as not anciently vsed. Our Answer, Sect. 3.
    • IV. Accusation, because it is made Significant. Our Answer, Sect. 4.
    • V. Accusation, because it hath resemblance with the Iewish at­tire. Our Answer, Sect. 5.
    • VI. Accusation, both in respect of the Resemblance, and of the Signification ioyntly together. Our Answer. Sect. 6.
    • VII. Accusation, from the pre­tended Author thereof, as being a Pope. Our Answer, Sect. 7.
    • VIII. Accusation, from the former abuse of it in Poperie. Our answer, Sect. 8.
    • IX. Accusation, that the Peo­ple account it Holy; and others thinke it Scandalous, &c. Our answer, Sect. 9.
  • Our summarie Confutation of the Non-conformists, arguing against the Surplice.

CHAP. 2.

  • Our particular Defence of the second Ceremonie, which is the Crosse after Baptisme; against their seuerall Accusations.
  • Their Accusations.
    • I. That It is contrary to the second Commandement. Our answer, Sect. 1.2.
    • II. That It detracteth from the perfection of Baptisme, in many respects: as,
      • 1. Because it is made a part of Baptisme. Our answer, Sect. 3.
      • 2. It is sometime vsed, whilest the words of Bap­tisme are in pronouncing. Our answer, Sect. 4.
      • 3. It is vsed after Bap­tisme, which is worse. Our answer. Sect. 5.
      • 4. It is called a Token of our profession—. Our an­swer, Sect. 6.
      • 5. It is said, that the child is dedicated thereby, &c. Our answer, Sect. 7.
    • III. Accusation; that it is abu­sed by Papists. Our answ. Sec. 8.
    • IV. That This crossing of the forehead, being allowed, many iustifie the Popish crossing of their brests. Our answer, Sect. 9.
    • V. That The Author of it was the hereticke Valentinus. Our answer, Sect. 10.11.
    • VI. That The Countenancer thereof was Montanus an he­reticke. Our answer, Sect. 12.
    • VII. The superstitious abuse of it by ancient Fathers, whom they grosly imitate. Our answer, Sect. 13.
  • Our summarie Confutation of the Non-conformists; concerning the vse of the Crosse after Baptisme. Sect. 14.

CHAP. 3.

  • Our particular Defence of the [Page] third Ceremonie of Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Cōmunion, against their seuerall Accusations.
  • Their first Accusation is from the Example of Christ. Our answer, Sect. 2.3.
  • Our Confutation of their former Accusation:
    • I. By Reasons,
      • 1. Frō the words of the Euange­lists. Sect. 4.
      • 2. From the like action of Christ. Sect. 5.
    • II. By their owne Witnesses. Sect. 6.
    • III. By the practise of the Non-conformists themselues. Sect. 7.
  • Our Determination of the point, concerning the first Accusation.
  • Their second Accusation, Because Kneeling is contrary to the in­tention of Christ. Their Reasons;
    • I. Because contrary to the nature of a banquet. Our an­swer. Sect. 9.
    • II. Contrary to the nature of a Table-gesture. Our answer, Sect 11.
    • III. Contrary to the due dis­position of the Receiuer, which should be in Thankfulnesse, &c. Our answer, Sect. 12.
    • IV. Because such Reuerence becometh not the meannesse of the Elements. Our answer, Sect. 13.
    • V. Contrary to the example of the Apostles. Our answer, Sect. 14.
  • Our summarie Confutation of the Non-conformists second Accusation:
    • I. From Reason. Sect. 15.
    • II. From their owne Witnes­ses. Sect. 16.
    • III. From the practise of the Non-conformists themselues, Sect. 17.
  • Their third Accusation, from the Exāple of the Primitiue Church, which was Standing, &c. Our an­swer. Sect. 18.
    • Their IIII. Accusation, Because the opinion of the people hol­deth them necessary. And the like is the opinion of the learned. Our Answer. Sect. 19.20.
    • Their V. Accusation, that the first inuention thereof was Anti­christian. Our Answer. Sect. 21.
    • Their VI. Accusation, that it hath bene Idolatrously abused. Our answer. Sect. 22.
    • Their VII. That it is still vsed as a part of Gods worship. Our answer. Sect. 23.
    • Their VIII. Accusation, that This gesture of kneeling is Ido­latrous in it selfe. Prooued by Rea­sons:
      • I. Because before a Creature. Our answer. Sect. 24.
      • II. Because a Relatiue wor­ship. Our answer. Sect. 25.
        • Their 1. Confirmation thereof, [Page] Because this kind of wor­ship was the worke of Ido­latry. Our answer. Sect. 26.
        • Their 2. Else why vse wee not the same in Baptisme? Our answer. Sect. 27.
        • Their 3. Else why cōdemne we Papists in the worship­ping of Images? Our answer. Sect. 28.
  • Our Confutations of the Non-con­formists, and Iustification of our Church concerning Relatiue wor­ship. Sect. 29.
    • I. By Reasons; shewing our diffe­rence from the Relatiue wor­ship of the Papists.
      • 1. Difference, manifesting the Two Romish opinions. Se. 30.31. & 32.
      • 2. The Romish worship (ab­solute) of an Image. Sect. 33. And of the Sacrament, Sect. 34. Our contrary vse, Sect. 35. Illustrated by a similitude. Sect. 36.37.
  • Our second ground of Confutation is taken from the Non-conformists owne Witnesses, concerning the re­uerent receiuing of this Sacrament. Sect. 38.
  • Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists, from the confession of Bellarmine, concerning the Pro­testants opinion of Adoration. sect. 39. & 40.
  • Our fourth Confutation of the Non-conformists, is from the Non-conformists owne Practises.
    • I. From their Intentionall reue­rence. Sect. 40.
    • II. From their Bodily presence, in cōmunicating with vs. sect. 41.
    • IIII. From their bodily reuerence, at the receiuing both of their
      • Corporal foode. Sect. 42.
      • And Sacra­mentall. Sect. 43.

PART. I. A DEFENCE OF THE INNOCENCIE OF THE THREE CEREMONIES of the Church of England; viz. Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiuing of the B. Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

CHAP. I.

The Arguments, or rather Accusat [...]ons, which are brought by the Non-conformists, against our Ceremonies, are ei­ther

  • 1. Generall; which are made ioyntly against them all: Or,
  • 2. Particular, by more speciall exceptions vnto each one of them seuerally.

SECT. I. Our first defence of the Three Ceremonies is against their Generall Arguments.

MY endeauour is, throughout this whole Treatise, to furnish my Reader, not onely with defensiue weapons, by distinct and particular answers to all obiections; but with offensiue also, by generall cōfutations of their Arguments: both which I assume to performe (if God permit) with as iust a combination of breuitie, [Page 2] and perspicuitie, as the nature of the cause shall require. And now we put the matter vnto triall.

SECT. II. The first generall Argument made by the Non-confor­mists, against the three Ceremonies of our Church.

Maior. The Scripture in many places condemneth not onely that which is done against the warrant and direction of the word,Abridg. Linc. part. 1. pag. 44. but also that which is done besides it, specially in the matters of Gods Seruice.

Minor. But these Ceremonies of Surplice, &c. are without all warrant of Scripture,M. Hy: either by expresse sentence, or pregna [...] conse­quence out of Law, or Gospell. Ergo by this our negatiue argument from Scripture, they are to be accompted vnlawfull.

Our Answer.

That we may not seeme to affect any verball skirmage or contention, we do readily accept of your distinction of warrant from Scripture, the one by expresse sentence, the other by pregnant consequence; yet so, that we still obserue the iust latitude of the second member. This doth extend it selfe not onely vnto generall Precepts and Rules; but also vnto permissions, & the law of com­mon Equitie contained in Scripture, for the iustifying of our Ceremonies: as will plainly, yea and confessedly appeare in our Defence. Onely we wish some sufficient warrant from your selues, that you would stand vnto this your owne distinction of a double warrant. But you, in exacting of vs, by this your Negatiue argument, a proofe of our Ceremonies from particular prescript, (which is the same with expresse sentence, or euidence) do so vtterly ouerthrow the second member, which is the [Page 3] warrant by due consequence; as if you had studied to con­fute your selues in your first entrance into this dispute: which will more fully appeare in the proofe of your Ma­ior Proposition.

SECT. III. The Non-conformists con­firmation of the [...]r Nega­tiue Argument from Scripture, is pretended to be iustified by • 1. Texts of Scriptures. , • 2. Iudgment of ancient Fa­thers. , and • 3. Confessions of Protestant Diuines. 

Their first place of Scripture, for proofe of their Ne­gatiue Argument from Scripture.

Heb. 3.2.

Christ is said to be as faithfull in the house of God,M. Pag: as Moses. But Moses prescribed the forme of worship in euery particu­lar Ceremonie. Ergo we may not allow of any religious Ceremonie without commandement from Christ.

Our Answer.

We distinguish. Some points concerning Religion are Doctrinall, and some meerely Ceremoniall. And we say, that all things which doctrinally belong to salua­tion, whether appertaining to faith, or morall conuersa­tion of life, or yet essentiall parts of Gods worship, are sufficiently reuealed in Scripture: but as for points meere­ly Ceremoniall (being not the body, but the garment of Religion) they are left to the libertie of the Church. Know therefore, that this Scripture speaketh of Reals, and not of Rituals. Notwithstanding, if we examine the cause, by due comparison of both, Christ will be found in both of these to be as absolute as Moses for faithful­nesse [Page 4] in Gods house; yea and to exceede him in perfect­nesse, as much as his owne glorious bodie, now ascen­ded into heauen, doth excell that of Moses putrified long since in the earth.

SECT. IIII. I. Comparison betweene Christ and Moses, in reall faithfulnesse.

First, Moses by his bodily Rites did but onely prefi­gure mans redemption: but Christ in his owne bodie performed it in that [Consummatum est,] by his sacrifice on the Crosse.

Secondly, Moses had a veile ouer his face, and deliue­red the Gospell onely in shadowes and mysteries: but Christ reuealed the blessed countenance of our gracious God vnto vs by the light of the new Testament; ex­presly publishing our reconciliation with God, by his owne death.

Thirdly, Moses his office was principally to diuulge the Law deliuered in Thundering, Heb. 12. and earthquakes, and a terrible voyce, which made Moses himselfe to quake for feare. But the Gospell of Christ was deliuered with Hymmes and Songs of Angels, and promises of sauing Ioy to all people: Luc. 2. so that the difference betweene Moses and Christ is no lesse than Timor and Amor; feare, and loue.

Fourthly, Moses notwithstanding he brought to the people the promises of the inheritance of but the earthly Canaan, yet he died in the mount, and was not suffered to passe ouer Iordan: whereby was signified, that the law of Commandements could neuer bring man to possesse the heauenly Canaan. But Christ being dead, to bring [Page 5] life to mankind, raised himselfe from death, ascended, en­tred within the veile, and hath taken possession of the Celestiall Mansions; that, where he is, there his faithfull may be also. And thus, in all these respects, Christ was in the house of God as much, yea and more perfect in faith­fulnesse then Moses.

SECT. V. II. Comparison betweene Christ and Moses, in Rituall and Circumstantiall ordinances.

Come we to the Ceremonials. Moses indeed was faithfull to deliuer all the lawes of Ceremonies expresly and particularly vnto the Israelites, who were therefore schooled, and exercised with a multitude of Rites, lest they might cast their eyes vpon the ey-pleasing Cere­monies of the Gentiles, who compassed them round a­bout; and so be inticed to Idolatrie: Yet all that masse of Ceremonies is called by the Apostle A burthen impor­table. But Christ, Act. 15 10. howsoeuer he would haue Ceremonies in the Church, yet as for number not manie, so (excep­ting the Sacraments, which were of his own institution) for vse not of absolute necessitie; did therefore remoue the law of Iewish Ceremonies, & disburdened all Chri­stians from the necessited vse of them. And thus also was Christ faithfull as Moses. But why do we compare the seruant of the house with the Lord and Sauiour thereof?Heb. 3.

As for your obiection, concerning Christ his fidelity in prescribing of all particular ceremonies, which are not the formall parts of Gods worship, but certaine appur­tenances thereunto; if (as you seeme) you shall be as willing to subscribe to the iudgement of M. Caluine, as you are zealous, from his iudgement, to prescribe vnto [Page 6] others, this question will be easily decided. For that ho­norable witnesse hath iudiciously obserued, that al­though our Lord Christ would haue all things compri­zed in the sacred Oracles of Scripture, which are neces­sary to saluation, whether they belong to the doctrine of faith, or to the formall and essentiall parts of his wor­ship: yet, concerning the externall forme of gouerne­ment,Caluin. Inst. l. 4. c. 10 § 30. and Rites of the Church, Quià in externa discipli­nâ, & ceremonijs non voluit, &c. because Christ (saith he) would not prescribe singularly and especially, concerning ex­ternall discipline and Ceremonies, for that he foresaw these things were to depend on the occasions and opportunities of times; nor did he thinke one forme to accord with all ages: hereupon must we haue recourse (saith M. Caluin) vnto the generall Rules, that all things (whatsoeuer the neces­sitie of the Church shall require) may be tried by them. Fi­nally he deliuered nothing expresly in these points, because these things are not of necessitie to saluation, but ought to be accommodated vnto the edification of the Church, according to the different disposition, and custome of times and coun­tries. So he, very iudiciously and prudently. Now this is a knowne case, that the old Testament was deliuered vn­to one onely people of the world: but the commission of the Gospell was, Go into all Nations, and preach. This nett was to ouerspread the whole world:Matt. 28.19. Mar. 16.15. therefore the Iewes had a prescription of particular Rites, most fitly a­greeing to the politie of their Church and Common­weale; but the whole world of people, which are as dif­ferent almost in nature, as in Nations and languages, were necessarily to haue the most common rules of Ce­remonies, with libertie of applying them according to the conditions of each countrey, and the occasions thereof, as they should best tend to their edification.

SECT. VI. The second place obiected, for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scriptures.

2. Sam. 7.7.

In all the places wherein I haue walked with the children of Israel, spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel,Abridg. Linc. quò supra, & Hy. disp. say­ing, Why build ye not me an house of Cedar? Therefore shalt thou say vnto my seruant Dauid, thus saith the Lord God of hosts, &c. This Scriptur [...] sheweth, that no Ceremonie may be inuented by man for Gods worship, seeing that Dauids intendment and purpose of buil­ding a Temple vnto God is [...]ere reprooued by God as vnlawfull: which was the cause that God did prohibit him by Nathan in these words, verse 5. Go tell my seruant Dauid saying, Shalt thou build an house for me to dwell in, whereas I haue not dwelt in any house? &c.

Our first Answer.

God did not condemne the intent and purpose of Da­uid, to build a Temple to the Lord: for first Dauid had consulted with the Prophet about it, and Nathan gaue him his Fiat, vers. 3. Go (saith he to Dauid) do all that is in thy heart, for the Lord is with thee.

Secondly, the tenor of the prohibition was, vers. 5. Say to my seruant Dauid, Shalt thou build me an house? God neuer gaue any such honorable and gracious Title to a­ny man, as to call him [My seruant] in reproofe of any transgression.

Thirdly, the reason rendred by Salomon, 1. Reg. 5.3.4. why God prohibited Dauid; and commanded Salomon to build him an house, was because Dauid was yet in warres, and Salomon had now rest on euery side. The restraint then was not in respect of any vnlawfulnesse in the Actor, but for the vnseasonablenesse of the Act.

Lastly, what can be more forcible to conuince these men of notable precipitancie, in affirming that God con­demned [Page 8] this holy purpose in Dauid, than that God did commend it himselfe? for so Salomon professed, saying, It was in the heart of Dauid my father to build an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel: 1. Reg. 8.17.18. and the Lord said vnto Dauid my father, Whereas it was in thy heart to build an house to my name, thou didst well that it was in thy heart. And can they require either a better commendation than the Lords, or a plainer tenure thereof than this [thou didst well?]

SECT. VII. Our second Answer.

Our former Answer was (as I may so say) by way of extortion, to draw from the Non-conformists a confessi­on of their error: but this second is by retortion, retur­ning against them the whole force of their owne argu­ment, from the same example which they haue obiected. For if that this Act of Dauid, without speciall warrant, were commended by God, then all institutions of Ce­remonies by man, belonging to Gods Seruice, are not therefore to be condemned because they want that ex­presse warrant which they pretend.

SECT. VIII. The third place obiected by the Non-conformists, for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scripture.

M. Hy: Ier. 7.22.23.31.

For I spake not to your fathers, nor com­mand [...]d them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Ae­gypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices: But this thing com­manded I them, Obey my voice, and I will be your God. Ergo Cere­monies which are besides the speciall warrant of Scripture, are vn­lawfull.

Our Answer.

In this proofe you presume, that the offering of burnt sacrifices was without warrant, and besides Gods Com­mandement, because God said in the first place, [I com­mand them not in the day, &c.] I answer: First, that God indeed did not make any mention of Sacrifices in that very day, wherein he gaue them the law of Commande­ments: yet neuerthelesse he had commanded sacrifices long before the deliuery of the morall law in Sina.

SECT. IX. His Reply:

That cannot appeare.M. Hy.

Our Answer.

Nay it cannot but appeare to them that will open their eyes, and reade the storie of Moses in Exodus.Exod. 3.18. 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,Exod. 8.8. 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.M. Hy.

Our Answer.

It was published before the whole congregation of Israel, and so published, that before the giuing of the tables [Page 10] of Moses, the sacrifice of the Paschall Lambe was prescri­bed vnto all the families of Israel, God commanding thus,Exod. 12.13. 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.

M. Hy. 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 [Page 11] 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, Gen. 4.4.5. 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 thē 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,Abridg. Linc. implyeth, pag. 44. 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 [Page 12] they did no lesse then sacrifice their sonnes and daughters vnto Molech, Vers. 31 and more expres­ly. 1 Kin. 23.10. which was the most execrable Idolatrie that euer was committed vnder the Sunne, and therefore is called in the text, verse 30. Th [...] 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,Leuit. 18.2. 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, Infra cap. sect. 2. & 3.4. [...]. &c. 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.

M. Hy. Bas. lib. de fide.Basil calleth it a defection from faith, to bring in any thing [Page 13] besides Scripture.

Cyprian saith, Whence cometh this tradition?Cy. Epist. 74. ad Pomp. Amb de vo­ca. gen. lib. 2. 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,Aug. Tom. 9. col. 478. [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,Idem Tom. 9. col. 1089. Idem Tom. 7. con. Donat. li 2. ca. 6. col. 365. 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 specia [...]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,Idem Tom. [...]. Epist. 73. Aug. ibid. 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 [Page 14] 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. 1. Cor. 10.20. 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,M. Hy. 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 [Page 15] professe many such Ceremonies, whereof he confesseth saying; Harum & aliarum, Tert. lib. ci­tat. 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,Abridg Linc. pag. 44. M. Hy. 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 omn [...]s inuen­tiones. And in his Appeale lib. 2. cap. 4. sect. 4. By the sam [...] 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 [Page 16] 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.Apol. part. 2. lib. 2. c 42. pag. 139. 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 [Page 17] 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,M. Hy: & Abridg. Linc. pag. 44. &c. 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;Reply. art. 1. Diuis. 29. Defen: Apol. 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, [Page 18] (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.

[Page 19]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, 1. Cor. 14 40. & v. 26. 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,Zanch. Tract. de sacra Script. pag. 279. 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 [Page 20] 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.Bellar. lib. 4. de verbo Dei. c. 3. §. 2. 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.

M. Hy.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,Part. 2. pag. 33. col. 2. 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,Vid. supr [...]. 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,Contr. 1. l. 4. pag. 282. 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 [Page 22] of faith and manners; and the matters of Rites and Cere­monies. So he. But most exactly, where the same Iunius maketh this distinction;Pag. 292. 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:Vid. suprà. 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, De sacra Script. pag. 262. & 263. and in the question of sufficiencie of Scripture, hath this distinction of Ceremonies; Some (saith he) are consenting vnto Scriptures, some are dissenting and repug­nant, and some are neither consenting nor dissenting, but [adiaphora] that is, indifferent. And he addeth; These not hauing any foundation in the word, Pag. 278. may notwithstan­ding helpe for the furtherance of pietie. The like answer is made by Doctor Whittaker, Danaeus, and who not that euer intreated vpon that question, concerning the suffici­encie of Scripture?

SECT. XX. Our fourth proofe is from Reason, taken not onely from the nature of Ceremonies, (according to the common ac­knowledgement of all Diuines:) but also from the different practise of Reformed Churches.

You haue said that our Ceremonies though they be not Against the word, yet because they are Besides the [Page 23] word, are therefore vnlawfull. Whence I first argue thus: Nothing can, in respect of God, be called vnlawfull, which is not Against the word; because whatsoeuer is vnlawfull is a transgression of some law reuealed in his word: But that which is onely Besides the word, is not a transgression of the word. Therefore your assertion is frustrate.

2. Nothing that is [Adiaphoron] and indifferent, can be pronounced simply vnlawfull: But some Ceremonies of mans inuention, without speciall warrant from the Scrip­tures, are indifferent, by the iudgement of Diuines, of whatsoeuer sort, or faction: Ergo, some such Ceremo­nies may be held lawfull.

3. This may be prooued from the differences of Ce­remonies, in most Christian Churches, M. Caluin hauing told vs,Supr [...]. that Christ would not prescribe particular Ceremo­nies to his Church, because it is impossible, that the same Ce­remonies should be conuenient and agreeable to all so diffe­rent Nations, as are in the world. Epist. lib. 4 p. 818. And Oecolampadius will haue vs know, that in the Churches of Basil, Bearne, and Tigurie, there is magna concordia, &c. Great concord, not­withstanding the varietie and difference of their Cere­monies.

So likewise by P. Martyrs allowance, Quaeuis Ecclesia &c. Euery Church may abound in her owne sence: and there­upon he concludeth; Non vrgendum &c. That no man may vrge the very same Rites and Ceremonies vpon all Churches. Lastly, your Zepperus holdeth;Polit. Eccl. pag. 138. & pag. 142.143. that The free ob­seruation of diuerse Rites is no hinderance to the Church; nay (saith he) the varietie of Ceremonies, in diuerse Churches, is so farre from giuing offence, that reason it selfe requireth, that the libertie thereof should not be restrained.

From this ground the reason is impregnable, that if [Page 24] in the Churches of Christ there may be, yea and of ne­cessitie must be difference in humaine Ceremonies, then Ceremonies of humaine institution are of themselues in­definite and indifferent, and in that regard can haue no speciall prescription from Diuine authoritie.

SECT. XXI. Our last proofe is from the confession and practise of the Non-conformists themselues.

The Lyncolneshire Opposites, and euery Non-con­formist require in all their bookes and writings to haue their Ceremonies so free, that euery Parish may vse such Rites, as by the discretion of the choycest Parishioners may be held most expedient: by vertue of which their conceipted freedome, it cometh to passe that Some Parishes will sit at the receiuing of the Communion; and some stand: Some will haue Godfathers and Godmothers, and witnesses; and some will be content onely with the na­turall father: Some will admit of publike Festiuals and holy­daies; and some of none. And all this varietie they are per­swaded may be had in diuers Churches, without any variance at all. Which Circumstantiall points are so far to be accounted Ceremoniall, as they serue for a mo­dification of our actions and gestures in the worship of God. Hence I may argue. If all these were of diuine au­thoritie, then could they not be so diuerse; for the law of Gods word is to all Nations the same. But if they be of humaine institution, then are they in that respect either vnlawfull, or lawfull: if vnlawfull, then ought you not to vse the Ceremonies of mans ordinance; if lawfull, then you ought not to impugne them.

SECT. XXII. The Assumption of the Non-conformists, against our Ceremonies in generall.

But these Ceremonies haue no warrant from the word of God,Abridg. Linc. & M. Hy. su­prà. be­ing but humane Rites, ordained by man, &c.

Our first Answer, in defence of our Ceremonies.

In the ordaining of Ceremonies, two things come to be considered; the first is in Thesi, and generall position, that it be warranted by the word, whether it be by pre­cept, or else by permission: and so we might say that the ordinance of Ceremonies may be called Diuine. The se­cond consideration is in respect of the Hypothesis, and specification of the Ceremonies, as prescribing of this, or that gesture, habit, place, or time, and the like points of circumstance agreeable to the seruice of God: these, we say, (in respect of the permissiue appointment of Cere­monies) are from God; but in respect of the specification, and determination of some one sort of Ceremonie, rather than another, they may be called humane.

Againe, that you may better discerne of these termes, take into consultation (if it please you) the aduise of M. Caluine, who calleth those constitutions of the Church,Instit. lib. 4. c. 10. §. 30. which are founded in Scripture, [prorsus diuinae,] Altoge­ther Diuine: and he taketh an example from Kneeling in solemne prayer, which (saith he) is so Humane, that it is also Diuine. It is Diuine; but why? Euen because it is a part of that Decencie, the care and obseruation whereof is commended vnto vs, by the Apostle; Let all things be done decently, and in order: But humane, so farre as they are appropriated by men to some circumstance of per­son, [Page 26] time or place; and so it is in this Scripture rather intimated than expressed. By which rule we are likewise authorized to call some Ceremonies of our Church, in a kind of generality, Diuine, so far as they haue any depen­dance vpon that generall directiō of Scripture, which cō ­mandeth that things be done in order, Decencie, & to edifi­cation: but humane, in respect of the application of such rules, according to the discretion of the Church. Vrsinus, whom you often produce for your choice witnes, telleth you to the same purpose,Catech. Tract. de ho­minis gra [...]i­tud. that Ecclesiasticall Constitutions are good, so farre as they do specially assigne that, which is generally rather intimated, than expressed in the word of God. Can you say then, that all such actes are altogether Besides Scripture?

There is a second Rule of direction, in case of Cere­monies, which is, the Equitie of them, that are contai­ned in Scriptures; according to the example of Solomon, in building his new Altar for Sacrifice, besides that one Altar which God himselfe had ordained; whereof one of your owne fellowship confesseth, saying, that he did it out of the equitie of Moses Law. M. Nic. Notwithstanding, this equity was so void of prescription, that if this be neces­sary, that act of Solomon might be iudged to haue wanted due warrant.

Thus much of the first generall Argument, whereby they haue concluded (against Scripture, Fathers, iudici­ous Diuines, and all probable Reason) that all Ceremo­nies, belonging to Gods seruice, which are inuented of man, Besides the euidence of Scripture, are vnlawfull.

CHAP II.

SECT. I. The second generall Agument, made by the Non-conformists, against the three Ceremonies of our Church, is; That they are held as pro­perly parts of Gods Worship.

The Maior. All humane Ceremonies which are esteemed,Abridg. Linc. pag. 3 [...]. M. Hy. and the rest. im­posed, or obserued, as parts of Diuine worship, are vnlawfull.

The Assumption. But such are these; Surplice, Crosse in B [...]ptisme, and kneeling at the Communion. Therefore these are vnlawfull.

Our Answer.

DIstinction is by the Log [...]cians called a Wedge, because it is the onely meanes, in all Disputes, to dissolue the hardest Elenchs and knots of subtlety: which if you would haue applied in this controuersie, then should you not haue needed our answer, to wit; if you had but discerned the proper and essentiall parts of Gods worship, from the impro­per and accidentall.

By the essentiall parts, we vnderstand such Ceremonies, which are so necessarily required to Gods seruice, as that the contrariety thereof must needs displease him. And the improper and accidentall parts, or rather Appur­tenances are such, which serue onely as accessary com­plements, ordained for the more conuenient discharge of the necessary worship of God.

It was proper to God, as to create the body, and all the natur [...]ll limmes and parts thereof, whereunto man hath no power to add so much as an haire; so to ordaine [Page 28] the perfect forme of his essentiall worship and seruice: but yet for man to apply thereunto accessary Ceremo­nies, for Decorum, and Edification, may no more be ac­counted a Derogation to Gods ordinance, concerning his owne worship, than it can be to his creation, to cloath and apparell the naked bodie of man; which is in­deed rather to be accounted a note of our greater esti­mation thereof.

SECT. II.

The Non-conformists their proofes of the Maior, from

  • 1. Scriptures.
  • 2. Fathers.
  • 3. Witnesses.

These Ceremonies imposed are not onely not commanded as law­full,M. Hy. but prohibited as sinful: For the Scriptures, Fathers, and Or­thodox writers do condemne as sinful, all wit-worship, or will-wor­ship whatsoeuer, proceeding out of the forge of mans fancies.—What­soeuer precepts of men in Gods worship, either for matter, or manner, deliuered and imposed by man, although they seeme neuer so good in their owne sight.

Our Answer.

I doubt that we shall find you to bewray more will than wit; and more fancie than sound reason, in your pretended proofes. Begin with Scriptures.

SECT. III. Their proofes from Scripture.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 44. in marg. and o­thers.Esay 29.13. God saith; In vaine do they worship me, teaching for Precepts Commandements of men. In Deut. 12.32. We are com­manded neither to adde, nor to diminish: And Coloss. 2. The Apo­stle condemneth [...], will-worship.

Our Answer.

All these places of Scripture are meerely Heteroclits, in respect of the point in controuersie. For first by the [Precepts of men] in Esay are signified such humane ordi­nances, as were expresly contrary to the Commande­ment of God, as is plaine both by the description of their sin,Esay 29. v. 9. called a staggering drunkennesse (signifying their I­dolatrous conceits;) and also by the denunciation of Gods iudgements, by fearefull destruction to come vpon Israel, by the hands of a multitude of Nations. Vers. 7. Which kind of menaces were neuer published but for hainous and horrible transgressions.

Secondly, the Adding and diminishing spoken of,Deut. 12.32. doth not meane addition of preseruation, but addition of corruption: like as the fraudulent Coyner of money doth corrupt the Kings Coyne, either by adding baser mettall vnto it, or by clipping any siluer from it, and in both kinds he is a Traitor. How much more high trea­son must we iudge it to be against the Highest himselfe, when man shall aduenture, either to make any Diuine precept, or promise, and set Gods stampe vpon it? to make the speech to be Gods speech, which is but the de­uice of his owne forge? or to diminish the estimation of Gods precept, by accounting it but an inuention of man? And the like may be affirmed of the Sacraments, which are proper to that Diuine person, who is the Te­stator, it being no lesse sacriledge to corrupt the Sacra­ments, which are the seales of Gods promises, than to depraue his will of Commandements.

SECT. IIII. A confutation of the Non-conformists interpretation of the Scriptures, by their owne witnesses.

[Page 30]Your most approued wit [...]esses make altogether a­gainst you.Isag. Tract. de Doctrin. Christ. c. 25. First Danaeus, obiecting against Papisticall Traditions the same places of Esay. saying, In vaine do they worship me, teaching, &c. and Deut. 4.12. Nothing must be added, &c. told you, that Ex superior [...]bus &c. He meant this of the Traditions which he spake of in the former Chapter; and whereof he had said; [Huiusmodi traditiones humanae &c.] Such humane Ceremonies, which are added as necessary appendices, and parts of doctrine belonging to Christian faith; or are deliuered as [norma] the Rule of Gods worship, they do in effect accuse the word of God to be lame and imperfect; which is plaine blasphemie, as Tertul­lian teacheth in his booke of Prescriptions against Here­tikes.

Z [...]nch vpon tho [...]e places.Secondly, Zanchius hath told you, that That place con­cerning will worship, condemned by the Apostle, Col. 2.27. did point at certaine Hypocrites of those times, who did ob­trude vpon Christians Traditions of their owne deuising, in pretence that they proceeded from God. And vpon these words of the same Apostle, Let no man deceiue you in meate or in drinke, &c. he presseth it against the Popes thunder-blasts of paper-shot saying that Seeing althings necessary to saluation haue bene deliuered vnto his Church by Christ, therefore may we contem [...]e the Popes execrations and Anathema's, whereby he pronounceth damnation vpon them, that approue not his Traditions, as not holding them necessarie to saluation.

You see how many arrowes you haue drawne out of Gods quiuer, the holy Scripture; and by this time may perceiue, what kind of mark-men you are; seeing that the marke being to confute Ceremonies, which a [...]e onely Besides, and not Aga [...]nst the word or will of God, you haue chosen such arrowes, as are too heauie for your [Page 31] bow: all of them being such Texts, which condemne heinous and enormous sins, directly reproued by holy Scripture; & therfore musts needs light far short of the Marke. For tell vs (I pray you) in good conscience, are our Ceremonies expresly condemned by Scripture, as was Idolatry in Esay 29, saying thereof, In vaine do they wor­ship me &c. or as the wicked corrupting of the Law of God, Deut. 12. saying, Thou shalt not adde, &c. or as that hereticall doctrine against Christian liberty in meates, Col. 2? I thinke you cannot bee so perswaded, except you your selues can, by your authority, make some new Scripture to proue it.

SECT. V. Their proofes from the Iudgements of the Fathers.

The Fathers do reiect Will worship as Idolatry; Augustine, Ie­rome, Cyprian, Chrysostme, do all speake against new doctrines,M. Hy. and humane Traditions.

Our Answer.

The Fathers do, indeed, reiect Will-worship: wherein, as we do willingly subscribe vnto their iudgement, so may we iustly reprehend you, for your wilfull wresting of the Fathers sentences: Who, as they did condemne all such doctrines, Traditions, yea, and (if you will) also Ceremoniall Constitutions, which are mingled with some false and corrupt opinion; so did they vniuersally iusti­fie, prescribe, and practise Traditions (such as ours are) which were meerly Ceremoniall, as you well know by the Canons of their Councels, which your selues do ob­iect, and your owne hearts can tell you, that you op­pose the Fathers against vs in this case, not as their inge­nuous children, seeking to follow their iudgement; [Page 32] but as men aduersely & sinisterly affected, as if, in confu­ting vs, you meant to condemne them (if you could) by their owne sayings. As might haue easily appeared by their Testimonies, if you would haue insisted vpon particulars.

SECT. VI. Their last proofe, from the Testimonies of Protestant Authors.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 37. M. Hy. M. Lang. and others.That Ceremonies imposed as parts of Gods worship are vnlaw­full, may appeare by the iudgement of the most iudicious Diuines, who haue all by this Reason condemned the Ceremonies of Papists. Caluin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 8. Pet. Martyr, Chemnitius D. Mort: Apol. part. 1. cap. 89. and others.

Our Answer.

The true vnderstanding of the two acceptions of this phrase [Parts of Gods Worship] might easily haue rectifi­ed your iudgements; for it is sometimes taken in Au­thours more strictly and properly for that essentiall forme and manner of worship wherein there is placed an opinion of Iustice, Sanctitie, Efficacie, or Diuine ne­cessity: and so we hold it sacrilegious for any Church to impose, or to admit of any such Ceremonie proceeding from humane institution. Sometimes againe the same phrase is taken more largely, for euery circumstantiall Rite, which serueth for the more consonant and conue­nient discharge of that essentiall worship of God: and thus we hold it a peece of Christian libertie, belonging to the Church, to ordaine Ceremonies, which may tend to Decencie, Order, and Edification, as hath bene already shewen, and acknowledged. Herein therefore doth your inexcusable abuse of your Authors bewray it selfe, that [Page 33] where they condemne onely such Ceremonies, which are invented by men, and brought into the Church by Pa­pists and others, with an opinion of such holinesse, effi­cacie, and necessity, as whereby God is as properly wor­shipped, as with the formes, which he himselfe hath or­dained; thereupon you vrge and inforce them to the confutation of onely Circumstantiall and Accidentall Additaments, vsed without all such superstitious re­spect.

Come we now to the examination of your witnesses.

1. M. Caluin saith indeed, that,Calv. loco ci­tato. nu. 8. All those Constitutions are wicked, in the obseruation whereof men place any wor­ship of God. Where, by [Worship] he meaneth not any circumstance either of time, place, person, or gesture, which are required in the celebration of Gods worship: but the inward vertue of worship, which consisteth in an opinion of holinesse, and iustice, &c. As you might haue learned from M. Caluin himselfe, if you would haue ta­ken out his next lesson, where he condemneth the Pa­pists; but why? Euen because they do conclude,Calv. Ibid. Num. 15. Ip­sissimum Dei cultum in suis ritibus contineri: Gods worship it selfe (meaning the very essentiality of the worship of God) to consist in their Rites. And refuting it by the Scripture of Esay 55. In vaine doe they worship mee, tea­ching, &c. expoundeth what hee meaneth by [worship] saying that The Papists [in ritibus suis iustitiam, quam Deo opponant, & quâ se ante tribunal sustineant, quaerunt] they seeke that righteousnesse in their Ceremonies, which they may oppose vnto God, and wherewith they may vphold themselues, when they shall be called to answer before his Tribunall. Surely there is no Protestant, who will not call euery such figment of mans braine, a very Idoll, wherewith Gods worship is impiously profaned.

[Page 34] Exam. part. 2. pag. 93. col. a & b.2. Chemnitius also, in the place alleaged, speaking of the reseruation of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, sheweth that Antiquity vsed a Reseruation, as-well as the Papists, but yet with a great difference: For, Triden­tini docent, &c. The Doctors of the Councell of Trent teach this Reseruation to bee a custome necessary, and altogether to be retained: but the ancient Fathers, who had great rea­sons, in regard of those times, to obserue that custome, yet did they not hold it necessary. So that hee likewise con­demneth that which is made an essentiall part of wor­ship.

Loc. Com. pag. 770.3. Peter Martyr speaking of Ceremonies (although hee verifieth your phrase of speech, §. 3. saying, that Di­uine worship doth not depend vpon the will of man, but on the counsell and will of God) yet doth he crosse, and as it were controule your meaning of the word [worship] you vnderstanding thereby any Ceremonies, which may serue for a complementall performance of that Diuine worship, although it be not held as necessary hereunto: But he saith expresly,Ibid. Licet Ecclesiae &c. The Church hath power to prescribe and make Constitutions, concerning the place, time, and manner of receiuing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, whether at morning or at night; whether standing or sitting. By this, you see that he condemneth not the institution of the Accessarie and Accidentall parts of Gods worship, but plainely approueth of them.

Your last witnesse answereth for himselfe, that He in that place, confuting the superstition of the Church of Rome, doth not simply condemne all her Ceremonies, but Farraginem, tarbam, onus Ceremoniarum; to wit, the immoderate multitude, and intollerable burthen of her ce­remonies in Feasts, and Fasts, in Gestures, &c. And you (M. H.) I trow, in reprouing a man for a surfer, or [Page 35] drunkennesse, do not thereby meane to depriue him ab­solutely of his meate and drinke.

SECT. VII. Our generall Confutation of their former generall Propo­position; especially from their owne witnesses.

The authority, which the Church doth challenge, or appointing circumstantiall and accidentall parts of Gods worship, is from the liberty which she hath gran­ted vnto her in magna Charta, to wit, the booke of holy Scriptures, which expresly hath giuen vnto her autho­rity to constitute such Rites, as belong to Decency, Order, and Edification, as hath beene already proued. But be­cause the Non-conformists are so frequent in alledging of witnesses, I shall desire, them to consult with two such, whom they haue especially, and namely appropriated vnto themselues in this whole controuersie; who (I make no question) will answer their obiection.

Wee beginne with Vrsinus, who hath catechized them well, where first bringing in the obiection, viz. Quae ad gloriam Dei &c. [...]y those things which are done to the glory of God, God is worshipped: Catech. [...]ract. de ho­minis gratit. pag. 739. B [...]t the Constitutions of the Church are done to the glory of God; ergo, God is wor­s [...]ipped by the ordinances of man: He thus answereth and resolueth, that Those things which are done to the glorie of God, to wit [per se] of themselues, that is, such as are commanded by himselfe, to the end that by them wee may expresse our obedience vnto him, those acts are the worship of God: But not those which accidentally do serue to the glory of God, that is, to the performance of those things which are commanded of God. And a little after to this other obiection, viz. Whatsoeuer is done of faith, and pleaseth [Page 36] God, that is a worship of [...]. Hee answereth, Cultus Dei &c. The worship of God doth please God otherwise than do those [Adiaphora] or things indifferent: For that, which is the worship of God, doth so please God, that the contrary thereof cannot please him; and therefore cannot be done in faith: but things that are indifferent, are so approued of God, that the contrary vnto them are not condemned.

What can be more plaine, to shew, that when those Diuines speake against worship of God deuised by man, they vse the word in a strict acception and sence, as signi­fying the proper worship of God, being therefore proper­ly Diuine, because ordeined of God? And so we con­fesse vnto you, that our Ceremonies are no part of Gods worship. But the word [worship] being vsed in a large sig­nification, as noting all circumstances, which may conferre, and appertaine to the setting out of the fore­said Diuine worship: in this sence onely we say, that Ce­remonies may be held to be parts of Gods worship, yet ac­cessarie and accidentall onely, but not essentiall; and Adherents rather than Inherents.

The second witnesse is Zanchie; who distinguisheth those parts of Gods worship, De Redemp. pag. 421. wherein the substance of Gods worship doth consist, as namely, participation of Sacraments, oblations of Sacrifices &c. from these things which he calleth [Annexa cultui,] that is, Annexed thereunto; such as are vessels, vestiments, time, and the like circumstances. Which is a point of learning so generally disgested of all that are conuersant in the course of diuine studies, that I maruell how such points should seeme to be so raw to some of the Non-conformists in this case, as that they can no way rellish them. Thus much of the Proposition.

SECT. VIII. The Assumption of the Non-conformists, against these Ceremonies in generall.
Obiect. 1. taken from a pretended error of the people.

This our Argument is strong against all these Ceremonies in que­stion, seeing they are all knowne to be esteemed, imposed,Abridg. Lin­coln p. 39. M. Hy. & M. Lang. and obser­ued, as parts of Gods worship.

Our Answer.

If you can proue these our Ceremonies to be imposed or obserued by our Church, as proper, essentiall, and ne­cessarie parts of Gods worship and Religion; we must then necessarily yeeld vnto you the whole cause: and hereaf­ter subscribe vnto your Non-subscriptions.

SECT. IX. The Reasons of the Non-conformists, to proue that our Ceremonies are imposed by our Church, as reall parts of Gods Worship.

Their first Reason.

The vse of these Ceremonies is diuine Worship, because the same with the Iewish, wherewith God was honoured:M. Lang. [...] M. Nic. Because of the same kinde: For whatsoeuer is of the same vse, is of the same kinde, in respect of worship, although it may be diuers in the Adiunct of true and false; according as it is appointed, and not appointed of God. As for example, Leviticall Vestiments will not be denyed but to haue beene parts of the externall worship of God, as well as other Rites among them. For what definition of wors [...]ip can be giuen, which may not be predicated of these Rites? For to bee instituted of God (if any shall so answer) doth not vary the common nature of worship, but distinguisheth it into true or false.

Our Answer.

This is a peece of learning, which (I thinke) neuer saw print, to wit, that the Institution of God doth not alter the common nature of worship; because Gods Institution doth distinguish necessary worship from the indifferent, and the Essentiall from the Accidentall. For, before the Leuiticall Law, the offering of any coloured sheepe, spotted, or vnspotted, was indifferent; but after that the commandement of God had prescribed, that the Lambe, which was to be sacrificed vnto him, should be without spot, then this Ceremony of an vnspotted Lambe, became necessary and essentiall in Gods worship. And so we might say of the rest of the Ceremonies vnder the Leui­ticall Priesthood. Therefore the commandement of God doth not distinguish onely betweene True and False; but sometime betweene Necessary and Indifferent, Essentiall and Accidentall, Diuine and Humane: that, being onely Necessary, Essentiall, and Diuine, without which the worship of God cannot be lawfully per­formed.

SECT. X. Their second Reason.

That which is imposed to breed an opinion of holinesse, is appoin­ted and ordeined part of Gods worship:M. Hy. Thes. 7. and others. But these Ceremonies are therefore imposed; For Eccl. polit. pag. 61. M. Hooker telleth vs out of Ecclus 45. that they could not mention the holy garments, but with effectuall signification of most singular reuerence and loue: giuing vs thereby an ample acknowledgement, that reuerence is to be yeelded, and ho­linesse afforded, to our ministeriall garments.

Secondly, They may challenge this respect of Reuerence and Ho­linesse, being the Constitution of the sacred Synode, which (as is al­ledged) is the Church of Christ representatiue.

Thirdly, seeing that Crosse and Surplesse are set apart from [Page 39] Ciuill vses, and appropriated to the acts of Religion in Gods seruice.

Fourthly, because they may claime a Religious reuerence and ho­nour; which was the cause that Christ rebuked the Pharisees for washing of their hands, Math. 15. because they feigned an holinesse in their owne inuention.

Our Answer.

Although I had not bene acquainted with your dispo­sition, yet might I by this one Reason haue taken a pro­portionable scantling therof, to know, that your obiecti­ons haue not proceeded so much from the precipitance of a misguided zeale, as from a peruerse and sinister pur­pose of Calumniation; else would you not haue dealt, in the first place, so vniustly with M. Hooker, by imputing vnto his testimony alledged such a superstitious opinion of Holinesse, as though he had meant any operatiue Holi­nesse (either by infusion, or inhesion) and not onely that which is significatiue: euen as his owne words do direct­ly import.

Nor secondly would you, with such a salt scurrility, haue twitted our Church in her Conuocation, for assu­ming the Title of Sacred Synode vnto her, as being the Representatiue body thereof; seeing the Apostle S. Paul in all his Superscriptions to the seuerall Churches of Ro­manes, Corinthians, Galathians, and others, doth instile their Congregations, Saincts by calling. Nay, but you your selues are sufficiently bent to call your Brethren in Non conformity, too peculiarly, Holy Professors.

As for the third point, concerning appropriation of any thing to Gods Seruice, you could not haue iudged it to be a necessary argument of essentiall holinesse; especially hauing confessed, that the Pulpit-cloth may, without any superstition, be continually fastned to the Pulpit: and the Communion-cup reserued onely for Sacramentall vse, and [Page 40] not imployed at all in any ciuil or ordinary seruice. Euen as the Church and place of Gods s [...]ruice it selfe is not lesse lawfully a Ceremonie, because it is assigned onely vn­to holy worship.

Lastly your Obiection of the Pharisaicall Tradition of washing of hands before meate, is altogether impertinent; considering that Christ did not reproue their act of wa­shing, but their intention and opinion, in attributing a legall and operatiue Sanctitie and holinesse to that their own inuention, which was indeed a superstition, and the very Leauen of the Pharises: from whence there issued a Religious reuereuerence far exceeding that respect, which we shall hereafter proue to be lawfully attributed vnto our Ceremonies.

SECT. XI. Their third Reason.

These Ceremonies imposed, are, for their vse and practise, prefer­red before necessarie duties,M. Hy. Thes. [...]. and principall parts of Gods worship; as to weare a Surplice, or Preach not; vse the signe of the Crosse, or Bap­tize not; practise other Ceremonies, or els you shall not exercise any other ordinance of God.

Our Answer.

This is but dull sophstry; for who seeth not that this is not a preferring of wearing a Surplice before preaching (as you fondly imagine;) but to preferre an orderly and discreet Preacher, before one that is factious and exor­bitant? If the Lord Chancellour, hauing appointed a commission for his Maiesties seruice, and designing a place most conuenient for that purpose; afterwards vn­derstanding some one or other of the Commissioners to be so peremptorily selfe-willed, as to refuse to sit with [Page 41] the rest of the Commissioners, in the place appointed; shall exempt that party, and put him out of the Com­mission, placing another in his stead: should it not ar­gue want of common reason, to inferre heereupon, that the said Lord Chancellour had hereby preferred the cir­cumstance of a place before his Maiesties seruice?

SECT. XII. Their fourth Reason,

They are knowne to be imposed as parts of Gods worship,Abridg. Lin [...] pag. 39 &c. & M. Hy. Thes. 7. for ma­ny people in all parts of the Land are knowne to be of this mind, that the Sacraments are not rightly and sufficiently administred, or recei­ued without them.

Our Answer.

This your Argument, if it be rightly examined, will not proue so strong, as strange: For to conclude thus; Many people within the state of this Kingdome do hold these Ceremonies to be necessary parts of Gods worship: Er­go, they are imposed and obserued as necessary parts of Gods worship: may by as good, or rather better reason, be retorted vpon your selues, thus: Most people in the Land hold them not to be necessary parts of Gods worship; Ergo, they are not imposed as essentiall and necessary parts thereof.

Secondly, you ought to haue made a difference be­tweene the iudgement of the Gouernours in imposing, and the opinion (if yet there be any such) of some peo­ple in obseruing of them, as necessary: For this your Reason can make no better Logicke, then if one would cōclude that Vsury (the State not punishing the taking of ten in the 100) iustifiable by the Law of God; because some people make the like collection. But to collect [Page 42] what is the minde of Gouernours, from the fancy of some inferiours, is but to tell vs, that if the legge do halt, the lamenesse thereof must be said to be in the braine.

And (because you do commonly obiect the multi­tude of people) tell vs, in good sadnesse, of what sect you suppose this people to be, that hold the necessity of these things? Are they Popish? But these haue not so great a conceit of our Ceremonies, as they are knowne to be administred in our Church. Or are they of your owne disciplining, who by your calumniations are taught to thinke, that the Church hath imposed these Ceremonies in an opinion of necessity, so as to make them Essentiall parts of Gods worship? Then must we tell you, that the seducement of the Scholler, is the sinne of the Maister. Or lastly, are they some of the people, who are otherwise conformable? Then doubtlesse these, if yet there be any such, will not be found to be many, as you suppose; but the same people may be thought to fall into that misconceit, not so much by the imposition of the Church vpon you, as by your vehement opposition against the Church, whereby some such simple people are brought to beleeue that your imputation (although most calumnious) is true; to wit, that these Ceremonies are imposed as necessary parts of Gods worship. But for­beare you this slander, and those people will soone re­linquish their errour.

SECT. XII. Their fift Reason.

The omission of them (euen without the case of scandall and con­tempt) is more sharpely punished,Abridg. Linc. pag. 39. & M. Hy. Thes. 25. then any other sinnes committed against the Law of God, as periury, or adultery.

Our Answer.

What therefore? Ergo (for this is your marke) they are preferred before the precepts of God, and made parts of Gods Worshippe. This consequence is not necessarie; for it falleth out herein, as vsually it doth, in the like case, in all weal-publiks, where we see more exact and grieuous prosecution of Iustice against a pilferer than against a swearer; against a false Coyner of money, than a man-slayer; Not that hereby Christian Common-wealthes do professe that the other Sinnes are, in their owne na­ture, lesse hainous; or that they do not professedly pre­ferre Gods glorie before all other respects: But because stealth of mens goods, and adulterating or corrupting of Coine do more immediatly worke the ruine of the common peace; therefore the commonwealth (as euery sensible thing naturally doth affect) is bent immediatlie to seeke the preseruation of it selfe, that so it may be more able to establish those things which concerne the glory of God, by repressing of more hainous crimes, whether by temporall punishment, or els by the spiritu­all censures of the Church. And so it sometimes falleth out in the proceeding of the Church it selfe, which seeketh by these censures to preserue her owne peace and integritie against those who do vniustly defame her.

Furthermore, suffer me to deale plainely, and to tell you, that your Parenthesis, which complaineth, that you are so grieuously punished, for onely omission of those Ceremonies (euen without the case of scandall and con­tempt) is no better then an open slander against the Church of God: for you cannot instance in any one Minister that hath beene so grieuously punished for the bare omission of a Rite, without his persisting opiniona­tiuely, refractarily, & that publickly, in flat contradiction [Page 44] against the Church. If that the practisioners in the Law should obstinately refuse to weare the ordinary Gowne of a Counsellour, or party-coloured habite of a Ser­geant, would the graue Iudges of the Land passe it slightly ouer, as a bare omission, and not rather iustly punish it as an intollerable contempt?

SECT. XIIII.

The contrary-minded, albeit neuer so peaceable, learned, or godly minded,Abridg. Lin­col. pag. 39. if they shall declare their contrary iudgement, are ac­counted Puritans and Schismatickes, and by Canon, if they shall offend, censured as excommunicate.

Our Answer.

Although perhaps you haue reason to wish the re­lease of some, yet ought you specially to consider your owne deserts, and know that Schisme, which is the diui­ding of affections, taketh beginning from the difference of opinions, albeit in points of lesse moment; and then reckon the multitude of Separatists, who haue had their first principles of opposition against our Church, out of your Schoole of contradiction, by your vile asper­sion of no lesse a crime then Idolatry it selfe: And after iudge, whether there be not some cause to call your opi­nion Schismaticall, as still nourishing the cause of a cur­sed Schisme, although not alwaies effectuating the same.

In the next place, obserue with vs the daily convul­sions increasing in the members of the Church; whilst as some, distracted in their affections, will hold of Paul, and others of Apollos; some heare one kinde of Mini­sters Preach, to the despite of others; some will receiue the Sacrament at the hands onely of conformable, and some, onely of vnconformable Ministers; to the great dishonour of Christ, whose Word and Sacraments they [Page 45] haue, in respect of the persons of men.

Concerning the Censures of the Church, you can­not be ignorant, that it hath beene the common disci­pline, in all Churches ancient, and lately reformed, to impose and challenge of Ecclesiasticall persons a sub­scription to the orders constituted therein; ordeining that in the end such persons should be deposed from their places, that shall factiously oppose thereunto, to the disturbance of the peace of the Church. M. Beza, writing vnto the French and Dutch Churches heere in England, for their direction in point of Discipline, deli­uereth vnto them his 28. Article in these words: Hac ratione perlatis legibus &c. The Constitutions being thus made, whosoeuer shall factiously repugne them, Epist. 24 pag. 149. and will not suffer themselues to be reclaimed; much more they who shall conspire together against Ministers, and Elders, they are worthy to bee handled as the publicke enemies of the Church. I do not speake this, to exasperate the Churches censures against you, but to moderate your conceits and detractions against the Church, who vse to esteeme of her, not as of a naturall Mother, but rather as of a curst Step-dame. But why? Because forsooth, she will haue an vniformity of order amongst her children, and will not suffer her lawfull command to be factiously contemned.

SECT. XV. Our generall Confutation of the Non conformists, against their generall Assumption; wherein they obiected, that our Ceremonies are imposed to be obserued as the proper and essentiall parts of Gods worship.

Against their generall Proposition, we haue proued [Page 46] from their own witnesses, to wit, Caluin, Chemnitius, Pe­ter Martyr, Vrsinus, and Zanchius, that onely those Ce­remonies are properly made parts of Gods worship, where­in the worship of God is said essentially and absolutely to consist. Now we must confute their generall assump­tion, by the expresse profession of our Church, which teacheth, and publisheth to the world, that she doth not either impose, or obserue any Ceremonies, with any opinion of efficacy, holinesse, or necessity, but onely for De­cency, Order, Edification, and Conueniency.

It will become euery childe of the Church to heare his Mothers Apologie for her selfe, in this case: who telleth vs,Constit &c. Can. 75. Can. 30. saying, 1. Our meaning is not to attribute any ho­linesse, or speciall worthinesse to the said Garments. 2. We teach, that the Crosse is not part of the substance of the Sa­crament: this Signe doth neither adde to Baptisme, nor de­tract from it. 3. These Ceremonies which we haue retained vpon iust cause, Common prayer booke before the beginning of Seruice. Ibidem. may be altered and changed; and there­fore may not be esteemed equall with Gods Law. 4. In these our doings we condemne not other Nations, or prescribe any thing, but to our owne people onely: for wee thinke it meete that euery Country should vse such Ceremonies, as they shall thinke best to the setting forth of Gods honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a more perfect and godly liuing, without errour or superstition. Can any Christian require a more Orthodoxe profession concer­ning Ceremonies, than this is? whereby it is made eui­dent, that our Church retaineth these her Ceremonies for Decency, without opinion of Holinesse; for Order, with­out making them of the Substance of Gods seruice; with a Christian liberty, as thinking them Alterable and Changeable, without opinion of Necessity; And lastly, in an Vnitie of Christian Brother-hood, with other re­formed [Page 47] Churches abroad. And therefore may most iustly challenge vniformity within her selfe.

This profession of our Church is so manifest vnto her most earnest Opposites,Abridg. Linc. pag. 53. & p. 55. that the whole Assembly of Non-conformists in Lincolne-shire acknowledge it: who do notwithstanding (to our wonderment at their boldnesse) parallell our Church with the Romish; which neuerthelesse they confesse to be iustly condemned by M. Iewell, and other Diuines, Ibid. pag. 43. for the opinion of Necessity and Holinesse which they put in their Ceremonies. And in­deed very iustly; for although sometimes Bellarmine, and some other Papists seeme to disclaime the Necessity of Ceremonies, and the placing of Holinesse in them, other­wise than as they are Signes of holy things, yet ought we rather yeeld credite vnto their more publicke pra­ctise and profession: Bellarmine telling vs, that their Ce­remonies haue power [ex opere operato] to cure diseases, Bell. lib. 1. de effect Sacr. c. 1. & lib. 2. cap. 30. art. 30. driue away deuils, purge veniall sinnes, &c. All which effects do imply an efficacious and necessary holinesse.

Seeing therefore it is plaine, that wee attribute no other Holinesse vnto our Rites, than that which is com­mon to all such like Ceremonies; namely, to be Signifi­catiue and Alterable (whereas the Papists to ascribe vn­to theirs an holinesse Operatiue and Necessary) with what conscience do men fashion their quils, to impute that guilt of Superstition to our Church, which she hath, and doth, both by her doctrine and practise, condemne in the Romish sect?

Hitherto of their second Argument.

CHAP. III.

The third generall Agument, brought by the Non-conformists, against the three Ceremonies of our Church; onely because they are Significant.

SECT. I.

Abridg. Linc. Maior Prop. All Humane Ceremonies, being appropriated to Gods seruice, if they be ordained to teach any spirituall dutie by their mysticall signification, are vnlawfull.

Assump. But such are these three, namely, the Surplice, Crosse in Baptisme, and kneeling at the receiuing the holy Communion. Ergo, they are vnlawfull.

1. Our Answer to their Maior Proposition.

THIS point of Mysticall signification, yea or onely of signification by Ceremonies, in the opinion of almost all the Non-conformists, pierceth so deepely into the bowels of this cause, that it giueth it a deadly wound, notwithstanding all our meanes and manner of defence: which contra­rily we iudge either to be so dull and blunt, that it cannot make the least impression to hurt our cause; or, whatso­euer sharpenesse is in it, it must needs offend our Oppo­sites, if that either Reason, or examples of Scripture, or the continuall custome of the Church of God; yea or the semblable practise of the Non-conformists them­selues may be thought worthy to be called a iust de­fence. In the interim we attend to heare their proofes.

SECT. II.

Their proofes, pre­tended to be taken from

  • 1. Scriptures.
  • 2. Fathers.
  • 3. Testimonies of iudicious Diuines.

In Marc. 7.8. Our Sauiour doth reproue the Pharises for laying aside the commandements of God,Abridg. Lin­col. & M. Hy. do often re­peate this. and holding the Traditions of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and v. 9. You reiect the com­ma [...]dements of God, that you may keepe your owne Traditions: for v. 10. Moses said, Honour thy father and Mother &c. and v. 11. You say, that if a man shall say to father or mother, Corban, that is to say; it is a gift, &c. And, euery plant that my Father plan­teth not shall be rooted out. And, as Math. 15.15. Thus haue you made the commandements of God of none effect by your Traditions.

Our Answer.

The first Text, Mar. 7.8. mentioning washing of cups, Mar. 7.8. pointeth indeed at a Mystical Ceremony of Humane inuen­tion, which is there condemned: but how? Not because of the signification of a spirituall duety, but for the Phari­saicall leauen of corrupt doctrine taught hereby; for there was in it two ounces of leauen at the least: the first was in attributing a legall purification to such their Wash­ings, thinking thereby to be cleansed from bodily pollu­tions, through the touching of the bodies of the dead, and such like; euen as well as by the washings, which God himselfe had appointed, to the same end. Their second errour was in their imputing of a spirituall ver­tue, and efficacie vnto them, of cleansing their soules from sin, as is manifest by the reproofe which Christ vsed against those Ceremonies, saying; That which is with­out, and entreth into man, cannot defile a man, V. 28. but that which is within and commeth out of the man, that defileth a man. Therefore this their washing was not condemned, [Page 50] as a meere Ceremonie, but for the mixture of a false doctrine, teaching an efficacy and vertue of purification, which it had not.

Concerning the second Text, the case standeth thus. The Pharises by their [...], that is, second Traditions, taught their Disciples a strange peece of Catechisme, cal­led Corban, Mar. 7.11. to wit, The gift that shall be offered by me, shall profite thee: that is, Every voluntary offering, that thou shalt giue to the Temple, or for the benefite of the Priesthood, shall gaine of God a blessing vpon thee, al­beit thou shouldest neglect thy parents, in withdrawing that Gift from their reliefe, in their great necessity. For confutation of this errour, Christ opposeth the com­mandement, saying: Moses said vnto you, that is, (as S. Matthew hath it) God (namely by Moses) said, Marc. 7.10.11. Math. 15.4. Thou shalt honour thy Father, &c. But you say, Corban, &c. So that this Tradition of the Pharisees is a flat contradicti­on vnto the expresse Law of God: And therefore so vtterly vnfit to confute the vse of Ceremonies, which are not as directly condemned by Gods Word, that we may thinke your minds were busied vpon some other obiects, when you made this obiection. We haue heard all your obiections against addition of Ceremonies in the state of the Old Testament, and find that the fur­ther you seeke to depart from the Pharisees, who did adde superfluous Ceremonies, the more you winne fel­lowship with the Sadduces, who abandon all additions of new Ceremonies vnder the same estate.

SECT. III. Their second proofe from S. Augustine.

Abridg. Linc.Augustine de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 15. doth argue against sig­nificant Ceremonies.

Our Answer.

S. Augustine speaketh of Phrases of Scripture, which, when they make for piety and charity, he would not haue expounded figuratiuely: but when any sentences do seeme to command any thing that is Facinerous, hey­nous, and wicked, then (saith he) must wee vnderstand them as being figuratiuely spoken. As for example, that saying of Christ,Ioh. 6.53. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man &c. which for the same cause must needs receiue a figuratiue interpretation. But how shall this concerne the matter of Ceremonies, to proue them vnlawfull, be­cause they are significant? By this inference it shall not be lawfull for vs to vse any phrase of speech, whether figuratiue or proper, because Omnis oratio est oris ratio: euery speech of a reasonable man (except he wil needs be as sounding brasse & a tinkling cymbal) is significant. There is (I confesse) in S Augustine else-where these sayings: Sig­na, quae ad res diuinas pertinent, Sacramenta appellantur. Aug. If heereby you shall collect that S. Augustine will admit of no Signes of holy duties, which are not Sacraments, then shall you bewray your small acquaintance you haue had with the language of S. Augustine, with whom nothing is more frequent or familiar, than to call all Signes of any holy thing Sacraments: And so by your consequence you shall haue as many Sacraments, as there are parts and parcels of parables and similitudes.

To conclude, whosoeuer shall but vnclaspe any one volume of S. Augustine, he shall finde a manifest men­tion and approbation of some one or other Significant Ceremonie, which was not of Diuine Ordinance. This your alleaging one onely Father, who notwithstanding maketh against you, doth openly tell vs that you can [Page 52] conceiue small confidence, that Antiquity did euer pa­tronize your cause.

SECT. IIII. Their third Proofe; from the Testimonies of Pro­testant Diuines.

Abridg. Linc.M. Calvin, in Leuit. 4.22. Zepperus, pol. Eccles. pag. 50. Iewell, Beza, do all condemne Ceremonies inuented by man, which are of mysticall signification.

Our Answer.

You erre, for want of a distinction of termes: for the word [mysticall signification] hath two acceptions; the one Sacramentall, by signification of grace conferred by God: the other is onely Morall, by signification of mans spirituall duty and obedience towards God. The Ceremonies, which we defend, are onely mystical-morall: but the signification of Ceremonies, which M. Caluin re­proueth, is onely that Mysticall, which is properly Sacra­mentall; as is euident in the place alledged, where he speaketh of Sacraments, [Quibus annexa est promissio gra­tiae] Whereunto God hath annexed a promise of grace. And againe; Testantur de gratia Dei.

Zeppperus speaketh not a word of any mysticall signi­fication at all.

B. Iewell insisteth onely in the Sacramentall, and hath not one word touching the morall; nor any Protestant author that I haue read (Beza onely excepted) hath spo­ken absolutely against Signes Symbolicall, and meerly sig­nificant. Yet Beza himselfe, I presume, will be found here­after to allow them in some Cases. This distinction as it is pertinent, so is it also of some importance, and there­fore ought to be diligently obserued; as will better ap­peare in our Answer to their next obiection.

SECT. V. Their fourth proofe from Reason.

Their first Obiection.

Symbolicall signification giueth vnto Ceremonies a chiefe part of Sacraments,Abridg. Lin­coln. when they are appointed to teach vs by their signi­fication.

Our Answer.

Our Ceremonies are onely morall signes, as hath bene said, signifying vnto vs morall duties; to wit, the Surplice to betoken Sanctity of life; the Signing the forehead with the Crosse, Constancy in the faith of Christ; and Knee­ling at the Communion, our Humility in receiuing such pledges of our Redemption by Christ Iesus.

As for the Sacramentall signe. Euery Sacrament hath two significations in in it, the one is, Ad modum signi, to represent some spirituall thing: the second is, Ad mo­dum sigilli, to seale an assurance of some diuine promise of Grace. So that a Sacramentall signe (being, as Sacra­mentall, so likewise [...] a Seale of Gods promises, as the Apostle calleth Circumcision) is alwayes founded vpon the expresse couenant of God:Rom. 4. therefore none but the Author of the couenant may 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.

[Page 54]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,De redempt. pag. 422. 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,Bellar. lib. 1. De. Euch. c. 11 §. secundo o­missa. viz. If Sacraments be onely signes, then the Crucifix is a better signe, to signifie the death of Christ, than the Sacramēt. This is his consequence. Will our Non-conformists now al­low [Page 55] 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 frō 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, Bellar. lib. 1. de matrim. ca. 2. as the Iesuite himselfe doth acknowledge.

SECT. VI. Their second Obiection, from Reason.

If the Ceremonies that God himselfe ordained,Abridg. Lin­col. pag. 33. 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, euē 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,Gal. 1. 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.

Abridg. Lin­col. pag. 34.This will open a gappe vnto Images, Oyle, Spittle, and all Popish Ceremonies; all which Bellarmine commendeth as fit to put [Page 57] 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 Pop [...]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 to conclude from the lawfull vse of Ceremonies in our Church, to an appropriation of the Romish abuse of them, gaue me iust cause to call your Consequence vnconscionable; for as much as your owne hearts can tell you, that our Church is not so earnest to entertaine the vse of any one [Page 58] Ceremony, formerly obserued in the Church of Rome, as it is zealous to abhorre her superstition in all her abuses: some of them being Brutish and Sencelesse, some Chil­dish and ridiculous, some Heathenish and Idolatrous; wherby such their Ceremonies respectiuely are become to be most properly Popish.

Thirdly, you argue, that if these, viz. Surplice, Crosse, Knee­ling at the receiuing of the Communion be iustly vsed, then there is a iust cause that these, to wit, Oyle, Spittle, Images and the Priests sprinkling of water, may likewise be had in vse, because all are equally for Remembrance.

We confesse that Spittle was vsed by our Sauiour Christ, in the healing of the Dumbe; and Oyle, by the Apostles, in curing of many other diseases; yet both miraculously: but to imitate the worke of a Miracle, without the Miraculous power, is but an Apish [...]: for to hold such a miraculous Ceremony, after the vertue be gone, is but to preserue a Carcase, because it had beene once possessed of a soule.

We come to your other Instances in the vse of Ima­ges, and that which they call Holy-water, to the end that you may the better discerne your owne iniurious and odious comparison. For first, the true vse of Images with vs is onely for Historicall commemoration; but in the Popish Church it is for a superstitious adoration, by knee­ling vnto them, praying by them, and by determinating a kinde of religious worship in them; and therefore one­ly in regard of such their superstition, is to bee called Popish.

The second, which is their sprinkling of water vpon the people, for remembrance of their Baptisme, if it were applyed onely for to make them often mindfull and careful to keep their Vow of Christianity, made once vnto [Page 59] God in Baptisme, it might be called a Morall Ceremony, and Christian: But that sprinkling of water, as it is vsed in the Romish Church, not onely as significatiue, but al­so as operatiue, with an opinion that it hath power, both of purging veniall sinnes, and of driuing away deuils, is in that regard also Popish & execrable. For what is this else but to take vpon her to constitute a new Sacrament, seeing that a Sacrament is a signe of representing, and of exhibiting and conferring of a spirituall Grace? Shee therefore, who hath made the profession of the definite number of but Seuen Sacraments, an Article of Faith, hath by this new inuention of Holy-water made vp Eight.

I may not pretermit a Witnesse, who hath made you an answer long since, vnto this Obiection, which not­withstanding you regest againe, as if this Cole-woort had neuer bene sod before. The Authour is Peter Mar­tyr: Ne (que) mihi dixeris &c. Epist. ad Hoop. pag. 1087. Neither may you say vnto mee (saith Peter Martyr, speaking of the vse of the Sur­plice) there shall be now a gap open for all abuses; to water sprinkled by the Priests, Incense, and infinite such other abuses: because your Aduersaries will answer you, that there must a meane be kept, that the Church of God be not burthened with these kind of things, and that no worship or efficacie of Religion be placed in them, as we see there is in that water-sprinkling and Incense &c. So he. And do you not furthermore see, by happy experience, that Open gappe of many Ceremonis, whereof you spake, to be now through the wisedome and prouidence of our Church, quite shut vp, seeing that she is conten­ted to admit of so few, and no more?

Lastly, you can with as little reason diuest a Church Christian of her liberty and power of ordaining of sig­nificant Ceremonies, because it is possible that she may [Page 60] abuse that power, by instituting vnfit, superstitious, and burthensome Rites; as it were to seeke to depriue a Ci­uill Magistrate of all power of Nomotheticall authority, in making of lawes, because there is a possibility he may abuse them. Thus much in answer to your Generall Proposition.

SECT. VIII. The Assumption of the Non-conformists.

But these Ceremonies in question are ordained by the will of men, to teach some spirituall dutie,Abridg. Lincol pag. 35. by their mysticall signification: for thus the booke of Common Prayer speaketh of them, that they are neither dumbe nor darke, but apt to stirre vp the dull mind of man to the remembrance of this duty to God, by some speciall signification.

Our Answer.

Will you still oppugne Ceremonious signes, which are mystically significant, euen because they are significant? is a mans speech lesse reasonable, because it hath sence? or is it therefore ill, for that the signification thereof is good? Yet this is, in effect, your exception against our Ceremonies. Wee therefore remit you to your owne witnesses, with whom you may contend; some whereof will bee found to condemne the Papists, for vsing of Dumbe Ceremonies, without significations; and darke, be­yond mens capacities: some to admit of Symbolicall Ceremo­nies, as incitements to the better performance of spirituall good things: and some also to approoue of signes and re­membrances of spirituall Duties.

But if you would be loath to wrastle with so learned Diuines, then wee send you to expostulate with your owne selues, who confesse in the end that you are not [Page 61] altogether destitute of some such like Symbolicall signi­fications. Finally, I shall not need, in this place, to set be­fore you those Mysticall Ceremonies, which are to be ex­emplified from diuers Instances in Patriarches before the Law; holy men vnder the Law; Apostles in the New Testament; after them in the state of primitiue Antiquity; And lastly, in the whole current of succee­ding times.

SECT. IX. Our generall Confutation of the generall Argument of the Non-conformists; by proouing the law­fulnesse of Ceremonies, which are of morall Signification,

yB

  • 1. Scriptures.
  • 2. Fathers.
  • 3. Reason.
  • 4. Witnesses of the Non-conformists themselues.
  • 5. Their owne practise.

Our proofe by Scriptures.

Of Examples, taken from Scriptures, some are before the Law, some in the time of the Law, and some after the Law, in and about the time of the Apo­stles.

Examples of significant Ceremonies before the Law, in Abraham.

Abraham commanded his seruant (that hee might haue security of his faithfulnesse,Gen. 24. in a businesse of impor­tance, to wit, for the prouiding of a match for his sonne) [Page 62] to lay his hand vnder his thigh; & sweare vnto him, &c. What one point is there, in their generall proposition, which is not fully satisfied by this Example?

Your first point is, that our Ceremonies are hu­mane. So heere, the laying of his hand vnder Abra­hams thigh, was humane; if by [Humane] you vnder­stand that which a godly man deuiseth, by his own reaso­nable Iudgement: For Abraham appointed the fore­said Ceremonie without any speciall reuelation from God, so farre as by Scripture is reuealed vnto vs.

The second point is, that the Ceremony is appointed vnto Diuine seruice. So here likewise; for there is not a more Diuine Seruice, then vpon iust occasion the due and lawfull swearing by God. This is a worship which God doth appropriate to himselfe?Deut. 6.13. Thou shalt [ [...]] worship the Lord thy God; how? and sweare by his name.

The last point is, the Ordaining of the Ceremony, to teach any spirituall duty, by mysticall signification. And what more spirituall duty can you require, than is the confidence in Christ the Messias, who is the foundati­on and life of all Diuine Mysteries? which, by the iudge­ment of all ancient Fathers, and (for ought that euer I could learne) of all their children, the Orthodox Di­uines of the Church after them, is this, viz. That Christ the Messias and Sauiour of mankind was to issue out of the thigh and loynes of Abraham; according as God had promised vnto him, saying,Gen. 22. In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. The Moralitie then of the signe, to the seruant, was this, that as he beleeued to haue any life by Christ, the Author of life, which was to descend from Abraham, by Isaac and his seed; so he would be faithfull vnto him. So that this oath was vnto his ser­uant a signe, as of his faith to God, so of faithfulnesse to­wards Abraham his Master.

SECT. X. Our second proofe, to confirme the lawfulnesse of a signe of morall signification, is from the Examples of the old Testament vnder the Law.

The Obiection of the Non-conformists.

In the time of the Law, when God saw it good to teach his Church by significant Ceremonies, none might be brought or recei­ued into the worship of God, but such onely as the Lord himselfe did institute. This reason is vsed against the Popish Ceremonies by M. Caluin, Iunius, Lubbertus, and others.

Our Answer.

And this Reason is good against the Popish abuse of Ceremonies, which is to bee discerned from our vse of such, in these two points; first in their significations, whereby that Church doth commonly teach some new doctrine, not warranted by Scriptures: secondly in their application, by her superstitious opinion of necessity and holinesse; whereby they are made essentiall parts of Gods worship: as by your witnesses will be manifestly shewen. In the meane time we pursue this point by our seuerall examples.

SECT. XI. Our first kind of Examples is, by instancing in the Ordination of Festiuall dayes.
1. Instance in Mordecai and Ester.

Although God had assigned diuers solemne Feast-dayes, for his more frequent worship,Ester 9. yet did Mordecai appoint the Feast, called by the Hebrewes the Feast of [Page 64] Pur, that is, of Lottes, for a continuall and thankefull re­membrance of their generall deliuerance from that cru­ell Massacre, whereunto the heathen had then allotted and designed them. And accordingly our State and Church hath ordained a set Feast-day, which wee may likewise, after the Greek, call the feast of Pûr (euen by the same word retained in our English,V. Nouemb. 1605. Fyre) wherein we ce­lebrate the remembrance of Gods mercifull and mira­culous preseruation of vs, from that Fyery and Hellish Powder-plot, machinated by the sonnes of Belial, for the consuming of our most religious and gracious Soue­raigne, together with the whole state of the Kingdome.

SECT. XII. 2. Instance, in the Feast of Dedication, by Iudas Machabaeus, 1. Machab. 2.59.

1. Mach. 2.59.There was appointed an anniuersary Feast of the de­dication of the Altar, ordained by Iudas Machabaeus: And this Feast (as your owne witnesse Danaeus confes­seth) seemes to be approued by our Lord Iesus, Isag. Tract. De doctr. Christ. c. 29. p. 345. Ioh. 10.12. in that he did grace it with his owne blessed presence. Now all solemne Feasts, of this kind, are of a Ceremoniall nature; and, in asmuch as they haue their institution from man, may rightly be called Humane: neuerthelesse, so farre as they serue to magnifie God, for some speciall mercie; as else to excite man vnto a thankefull commemoration of the singular fauours, which he hath receiued at the hands of God; in these respects they are truely called Diuine. Hence therefore (you see) it is good cause, why they ought to be called significant.

So then you haue, by these Examples, as it were, the Anatomy of your proposition through euery ioynt, [Page 65] viz. 1. A Ceremony of humane inuention, by Iudas Ma­chabaeus. 2. Appropriated vnto Gods seruice, in a solemne Feast. 3. Ordained to teach a spirituall Duty of thanke­fulnesse. 4. Significant, for benefits or blessings recei­ued. And all these (as you see) stand iustifiable by A­nalogie, from the example alleged.

SECT. XIII. Their first Replie.

The Church may appoint holy-dayes in certaine cases:Cartwright in the rest of his 2. Reply, pag. 191.192. but it is one thing to restraine part of the day; and another to restraine the whole day.

Our Answer.

If any man shall require of you some euidence, to prooue that Christ hath so cantled out his Churches high Commission for Ecclesiasticall causes, as to affoord it a power to appoint one halfe of an Holy-day, and to de­ny vnto it liberty of ordaining the other halfe; I suppose you would alwayes remaine indebted for an answere. For did not God vse to haue as well his Euening, as his Morning sacrifice? and shall it now be lawfull to serue God onely by halfes? howsoeuer, euen this halfe, which you haue haue granted, doth sufficiently establish the whole matter in question: for if the Church, in this case, haue power to ordaine a Ceremony, which doth implie a signification of the dutie of a thankefull remembrance, how should any Ceremonies be onely therefore held vn­lawfull, because they are significant?

SECT. XIIII. Their second Replie.

Howbeit the example out of Ester 9. of the two dayes,Cartwr. ibid. which the [Page 66] Iewes instituted in the remembrance of their deliuerance, is no suf­ficient warrant for these feasts in question. For first, as in other ca­ses, so in this case of dayes, the estate of Christians vnder the Gospell ought not to be so Ceremonius, as was theirs vnder the Law. Se­condly, that which was done there, was done by a [...]peciall direction of the Church of God, either through the Ministery of the Prophets, which they had, or by some other extraordinary meanes, which is not to be followed of vs.

Our Answer.

Firs [...], vnto the first part of your Replie, we say, that if an institution of a new Ceremonie were lawfull vnder the estate of the Old Testament, when the people of God were so pressed with Rites, that the Apostle called them an importable Yoke, Act. 15.10. then doubl [...]sse the addition of one or two Ceremonies, in the state of the Gospel, may not so ri­gidly be iudged vnlawfull.

Your second Assumption (which we may rather call a Presumption) is; that you imagine some speciall Di­rection, from the spirit of God vnto them, without any cer­tificate reuealed to your selues for proofe thereof. Whereunto I onely say, as Saint Hierom speaketh of the like imagination;Hierom. Eâdem facilitate reijcitur, quâ obijcitur.

SECT. XV. Our second kind of Examples is from the like ordai­ning of Ceremonious Instruments, belonging vnto the worship of God, by 4. Instances.

‘1. Instance is in the Altar, Iosh. 22.

We reade that the Gileadites, which were of the chil­dren of Israel, Iosh. 22. did build an Altar on the other side of Iordan, in testimony of their ioynt faith and profession [Page 67] 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 thems [...]lues confesse,M. Nic. M. Pag. M. Lang. and others. 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 transgr [...]ssion [Page 68] against God) did not replie, that God had commanded them so to do, but answered very ingenuously, saying, We haue done this, &c. Ver. 24. And againe (imputing it to their own proper motion) Therefore said we, Let vs build vs, &c. whence it is euidently apparent,Ver. 26. 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 resemblāce: [Page 69] 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, Ver. vlt. 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; [Page 70] 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:Ver. 30. 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, [...]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, 1. Reg. 8.64. 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 [Page 71] Salomons appointment, for building this Altar; ar­guing an Humane inuention: secondly, a new Altar, ne­uer comm [...]nded by God, is a new Ceremony; thirdly, this Altar, as all others, hauing necessary relation to Sa­crifice, doth concerne that kinde of worship, which most chiefly and properly belongeth vnto God: and fourthly, sacrificing and offering, being the manifestati­on of that homage and thankefulnesse, which is proper­ly due to Diuine Maiestie, cannot but signifie mans spi­rituall duty. So now, this example contradicting your Proposition, from point to point, may giue you, at least, some probable satisfaction.

SECT. XVIII. Their Answer.

This Act of Salomon was by extraordinary inspiration,M. Nic. and there­fore may not be called Humane.

Our Reply.

Heere you pretend (which you can neuer proue) that Salomon did this by extraordinary inspiration; besides, the very Text yeelds the reason which moued Salomon hereunto, to wit, because the first Altar that had beene made by Gods appointment, sufficed not to receiue all offerings: which proueth that this Act may right­ly be called Humane, as being vndertaken by the light of Reason, without any speciall direction from God; as al­so many religious Acts of men may be said to be both Diuine and Humane: Diuine, as proceeding from ge­nerall grounds of Gods reuealed will, and concluding for some religious end: and Humane, as issuing from the discourse of mans reason and iudgement, accommoda­ting generall rules and principles for the inferring of [Page 72] conclusions, and ordering of particular actions. There­fore this Answer wanting weight, you must seeke for a better.

SECT. XIX. Their second Reply.

M. Nic.Salomon did this out of the Equity of Moses law it selfe, as Iunius sheweth. Contr. 3. l. 4. c. 17.

Our Reply.

This second Answer, first, ouerthwarts the former: for if Salomon did collect the lawfulnesse of this Act, by reasoning from the Equity thereof, not particularly ex­pressed, but generally implyed in the Law of God; then came it not by extraordinary inspiration. And secondly, this Answer doth yeeld vnto vs an Answer against all your owne obiections: because hereby you plainely confesse, than an Humane collection, deduced from the equity of Gods Law, (consisting in the application of ge­nerall doctrines and documents, vnto some singular and indiuiduall acts) is lawfull in it selfe: from whence it doth follow, that our Ceremonies, instituted to signifie spirituall duties, haue as good equity by the Word, as this Altar of Salomon could haue. Wherefore the rule of equity, which you mention, will (as it ought) beare a great sway in this case of Ceremonies, if we may borrow our equity, either from the generall Permissions, or particular Examples of the new Testament.

SECT. XX. Their third Answer.

M. Nic.God by his visible descending approued of the worke of the Tem­ple, [Page 73] and did authorize him. Which Dauids words, 1. Chron. 28.19. may seeme to confirme.

Our Reply.

I would you had leasure to looke more directly vpon the Text alledged, where we do not finde that God appro­ued the Temple of Salomon, by any visible appearance, vn­till the Sacrifice was ended; whereas this second Altar was ordained by Salomon, before any sacrifice was begun on the former. Whereupon (if we shall take your An­swer for true) it must needs follow, that God approued of the Altar, before that he did approue of it. Secondly, the words of Dauid, which (you say) do seeme to confirme the point, are these: All this the Lord made me vnderstand in writing by his hand vpon me, Ver. 19. euen all the workes of this Patterne. The Patterne, which God approued, is here called, This Patterne; meaning expresly that Altar, which was mentioned in the former verse, namely, the Altar of Incense, being that first Altar appointed by God himselfe. But this Altar, whereof we dispute, was a second Altar inuented by Salomon, and neuer so much as thought vpon by his father Dauid. Therefore the forme, reuealed purposely for the erecting of one Altar alone, could not be assumed by Salomon, for a direction, and Patterne of a second.

SECT. XXI. Their fourth Answer.

And this was no Addition of a diuerse kinde.M. Nic.

Our Reply.

As though that could not be called an Additament, when the thing added is of the same kinde with the prin­cipall: [Page 74] if this be your meaning, then may you as well say, that a commandement vnto euery Communicant to drinke twice, in receiuing the cup of the holy Sacra­ment, may not be iudged an Addition to the first Insti­tution (which is to drinke thereof but once) because, for­sooth, the second cup is of the same kind.

This your so vnconstant and vnconsonant kinde of Answering doth evidently shew, that this example doth busie you not a little. And no maruaile, for God ha­uing commanded that there should be but one solemne Altar of Sacrifice, amongst his people (signifying there­by, that there is but one God, euen that God of Israel;) yet notwithstanding, Salomon (when he saw that one Altar could not receiue all the sacrifices) did aduenture to build a second Altar. Surely here had bene matter enough for any spirit of contradiction (if then there had bene any such) to haue challenged euen Salomon to his face, and to haue reproued him for daring, without expresse and peculiar dispensation from God, to erect another Altar, besides the Altar of the Lord. Whereas such as are of a more temperate and moderate spirit, would rather interprete, that Salomon, for the furtherance of Gods worship, did adde this Altar, after a most law­full manner: And thereupon would collect, as a neces­sary consequence, that Additions to Gods commande­ment (if they be vsed not as perfections of the ordinan­ces of God, but as expedient meanes, for the better ac­complishment of his publicke seruice) cannot dero­gate or detract any whit from the will or wisedome of God.

SECT. XXII. Our third Instance, concerning Ceremonious Instruments belonging to Gods seruice, is in the Synagogues, which were erected by the Iewes, for Gods publicke worship.

In all the Prouinces of the Iewes, certaine places were appointed, called Synagogues, Sigon Re­pub. Heb. l. 2. pag. 58. & 86. for the Reading and Preaching of Gods word; In which respect it was, that the Iewes came to Christ, and commended vnto his mercy a Romane Centurion, a Proselyte, saying;Luc. 7.5. He is worthy thou shouldst do this thing for him, for he loueth our Nation, and hath built vs a Synagogue. Will you aske to what end this Instance is alleaged? onely that hereby you may vn­derstand your owne errour, in holding that All Ceremo­nious Additions, without speciall warrant from Scripture, are vnlawfull: Whereas, these places of Gods seruice were allowed, albeit there is not throughout all the old Testament so much as any mention, concerning the building of Synagogues.

I might haue insisted vpon that direction which Ie­thro, through his owne iudgement and prudence, gaue vnto Moses himselfe, for the altering of the former frame of Gouernement, in Iudiciall proceedings, by appoin­ting of new orders of Captaines ouer thousands, ouer hundreds, and ouer tens. For albeit this example be in a diuers Sphere, and not belonging to Diuine worship; yet seeing the same God was as exact in his prescription of Statutes, for the Politicall gouernement, as he was of Ordinances, and Ceremonies in the Ecclesiasticall; and that the same authoritie of God was equally predomi­nant in them both: this may induce vs to thinke, that mans inuention, imployed for the better preseruation of [Page 76] Gods will and worship, may not alwaies be censured as a thing vnlawfull in it selfe.

SECT. XXIII. Our Third generall proofe is from the Examples of the Apostles.

It is time for vs to depart from Ierusalem, wherein we haue had ample proofe, for mysticall Ceremonies of Hu­mane Inuention; Now let vs draw neere to the Citie of Antioch, where the faithfull did first receiue their Sur­names of Christians; that we may likewise try, what ground we may finde in Christianitie, for the proofe of our former Conclusion.

The Apostolicall Examples are Three. First the Feasts of Charity.

Iude v. 12.There were certaine Christian Feasts, called Agapae, ordained and vsed by the Apostles, without any prescrip­tion from Christ.

SECT. XXIIII. Their first Answer.

M. Nic.If th [...]y were Apostolicall, then were they of Diuine Institution.

Our Reply.

If you take [Diuine] for Godly, as opposite to pro­phane and wicked, your Position is true: but if you vn­derstand [Diuine] as in opposition vnto all Constituti­ons, which are not commanded of God, then could you not haue vttered a more vnlearned Position, than [Page 77] to say, that all Apostolicall Ordinances were of Diuine in­stitution. For the Diuines of all times haue distingui­shed of Constitutions and Traditions; Diuine, Apostoli­call, and Ecclesiasticall: accounting such Diuine, as were ordained for perpetuall vse in the Church; and estee­ming such Apostolicall, as were appointed by the Apostles, with a liberty to alter and change them vpon iust occa­sions (such as these Agapae were;) and those to be Ecclesi­asticall, which the Church of God, after the Apostles times, in whatsoeuer age or Countries, did, or shall ap­point vpon like occasions; which are likewise subiect to alteration, according to the different condition of times and places. Which distinctions passe so currant, that when we come to the particular Examination of our Ceremonies, you shall then find them to haue the appro­bation of your owne Witnesses.

SECT. XXV. Their second Answer.

These Agapae were abrogated by the Apostles themselues.Idem.

Our Replie.

If they were indeed iustly abrogated afterwards, then may you not say that they were of Diuine Institution. Thus your second Answer confuteth your former; so slipperie is the foundation whereon you stand. Second­ly, they being once instituted of the Apostles, were abroga­ted by the Apostles. Ergo, there is in the Church a pow­er both to institute, and also to abrogate such kind of Ce­remonies, according to the conueniences or disconueni­ces of the Church.

SECT. XXVI. Their third Answer.

Idem.But these were not of mysticall signification, nor yet meerely of Ecclesiasticall vse.

Our Replie.

Should not the Vse be properly called Ecclesiasticall, which was ordained to bee practised in the solemne feasts of Religion; and appropriated to accompany the celebration of the holy Communion; and also of a my­sticall, and spirituall signification; it being instituted both for signification, and preseruation of Christian Loue?

Concerning these Loue-feasts, the ancient Histories doe credibly informe vs, that they were at first vsed in Sacris conuentibus, sometime before, and sometime after the receiuing of the Eucharist. And this the Apostle sheweth. 1. Cor. 11. Where we find so great an abuse of them,1. Cor. 11. that by the profanenesse of some, the Feasts of Loue were turned into Banquets of intollerable pride and dis­pite: whereupon the Apostle, indeed, reprooueth the a­buse, but doth not remoue and abrogate the right vse of them; for we find that these Feasts were continued long after the Apostles, yea, in some places, vntill the time of Chrysostome, and the Councell of Gangris, in which there is an Anathema denounced vpon them,Conc. Gangr. Qui noluerint communicare huiusmodi vacationibus.

SECT. XXVI. Our second Apostolicall Example is, in Osculo pacis.

The Apostles times, together with their Loue-feasts, had their Loue-kisse, Rom. 16.16. 1. Cor. 16.20. called Osculum pacis; that which S. [Page 79] Paul doth so often commend vnto all professed Chri­stians.1. Thess. 5.26 So also 1. Pet. 5.14. &c.

Their Answer.

This was not of mysticall signification, but a naturall indicant signe of Peace and Reconciliation, as is imbracing,M. Nic. or shaking of hands.

Our Answer.

Let vs take with vs the light of Antiquity,Iustin Mar­tyr. Origen. for our bet­ter direction in this point. Iustin Martyr, and Origen say heereof, Precibus finitis, mutuò nos inuicem osculo saluta­mus. Tertullian calleth it, Signaculum orationis, Tert. the seale of Prayer. The words of precation, therein vsed, being, Pax tecum, Peace be vnto thee. Cyrill termeth it,Cyril. Signacu­lum Reconcilationis, quo in sacris vtimur. i. The signe of reconciliation, vsed in Diuine Seruice. And Clemens Alex. saith of it; Quod oportebat esse mysticum, Clemens Alex. id Sanctum vo­cabat Apostolus. i. That which should be mysticall, the A­postle calleth holy. Which saying is vsed by the same Cle­mens, to the reproofe of such as did abuse it; because that which is holy, must be vsed after an holy manner, and not to wantonnesse and lasciuiousnes, as was the fa­shion of some.

Is there now any point, in your generall Proposition, which is not particularized in this Holy Kisse? First, the institution (so farre as it was not commanded by Christ) was humane: Secondly, the property of it, Sig­nificant: Thirdly, the vse was in Sacris, to wit, in the time of holy and publike worship: Fourthly, the end was signification of Christian loue. So that, in this Instance, you haue a full contradiction to your first Proposition.

As for your conceit of Imbracing and shaking hands, whereby ye would shake off all mysticall signification, [Page 80] and make that holy kisse to be nothing else than a natu­rall Ciuill salutation; it is but your proper fancie, seeing the mysticall obiect, in this outward Rite, was immediat­ly that mutuall charity, which Christians possessed; not simply amongst themselues, but grounded primarily vp­pon the relation to the attonement, which we haue by Christ, wherein consisteth all Christian Peace. These pre­mises doe argue that the Author of this Answer was not so spirituall, as Ciuill, or rather vnciuill, in making such an homely interpretation of this Apostolicall Rite, which had so singular an Epithet, as holy; so blessed an obiect, as Peace; which were neuer applyed in Scripture to any action or gesture of onely ciuill vse.

SECT. XXVIII. Our third Example is the Apostles Ceremonie, concerning the couering of the head, at Diuine Seruice. 1. Cor. 11.

1. Cor. 11.Likewise the Apostle is vrgent about an other Cere­monie, of Hauing the man vncouered, and the woman coue­red in the Church; and this also is significant, and that mystically, of Spirituall things and dueties: for the man, being vncouered, signifieth thereby his immediate sub­iection to the ordinance of Christ, who hath constituted him to be head ouer the woman; and the woman being couered, doth thereby expresse subiection to her hus­band.Cent. 3. Col. 14. Ver. 9. and 10. To which purpose Tert. describeth the fashion thereof to haue beene this, viz. Quantum crines soluti capere possint; by hauing their haire loose: Which is further expresly noted by Clemens Alex. say­ing,Clem. Alex. Vt non tantùm mulieres velamine caput tegerent, sed [...]dem in frontem promisso vultum obumbrarent. That the [Page 81] women (saith he) might not onely hide their heads, with a couer, but also shadow their faces, by the hanging downe of their haire. And not onely so, but the Apostle requireth yet another couer besides that of the haire, saying of the vncouered head. (v. 5) It is all one as to be shauen: so then this must needs be a mystical signe of moral duty; which is here specified to be of the Christian subiection that women owe, in Christ, vnto their husbands. Now heere you may not say, that this ordinance of the Apostle, touching co­uering in the Church, was no way of humane, but alto­gether of Diuine Institution; for then might you chal­lenge that women, at this day, in the time of Diuine worship, should haue their haire still hang downe, to couer their faces.

This point is of some moment, and may not sleight­ly be passed ouer. Wherefore, that you may be satisfi­ed, not so much from my collections, as from the con­fession of those witnesses on whom you most relie, I haue thought it fit to produce such as haue more particularly pointed out this Text, as namely, Caluin, Chemnitius, P. Martyr, and Zanchius. From these I would first learne, whether this Ceremony of couering the head of the wo­man, & vncouering of the man, were not mysticall & Sym­bolicall, that is; significant of some good thing, or no? M. Caluin, and some others call them expresly Symbola, or Signes. Secondly, I would aske what thing it is, which is hereby signified; and whether it were not some Chri­stian dutie? And vpon due search it appeareth, that the things, signified by this Ceremony, are two; The first, in respect of the man and woman mutually betweene them­selues; and the next, of man vnto God. Concerning the reciprocall duties betweene man and woman, these wit­nesses affirme that the Couer, on the head of the woman, did [Page 82] betoken her subiection to the man; and the vncouering of the mans head did signifie the Soueraignty that man hath ouer the woman. But this you interpret to hold onely in a Ciuill respect: If so, then would it suffice to iustifie the Ring in marriage; yet look into the second point, which is, the relation it had vnto God, and there you may per­ceiue something more. For, as Caluin; In eminentia vi­ri super vxorem Dei gloria elucet, C [...]l. in 1. Cor. 11. propter dominium, quod habet: That is, In the superiority that man hath ouer the wo­man, the glorie of God is manifested, by the dominion which he hath. Also the Apostle, in respect of this soueraigne­ty, saith;P. Marty [...] on the same place. p. 151. The man is the glory of God. Likewise P. Martyr; Imago dei, vt omnibus praeest, sita est in dominatu. Now what Symbol can be more choice, than that a man by his outward gesture should, in a sort, represent both the au­thoritie that God doth hold ouer his creatures; and also that superiority which he hath giuen him ouer his wife? Againe,Martyr ibid. pag. 149. the Apostle, in this comparison, maketh Christ the head of the man, euen as God (in respect of the humane nature) is the head of Christ. And Chemnitius, treating of such Rites, calleth them Incitamenta, & retinácula pie­tatis. i. The incitements vnto piety and godlinesse: Exam. part 1. pag. 75. [...]. that is (as his allusion to the Apostles rule seemes to import) they make for edification.

Zanchius likewise noteth Two ends of the couer on the womans head;De Sacra. Scrip. p. 273. one is of honestie and decencie, that so the ex­ternall worship of God, in hearing of his word and participa­ting of his Sacraments may be performed in more seemely manner: The second, that by this Ceremony: [Vnusquisque moneatur officij sui,] euery man may be admonished of his owne dutie; the man of his dominion ouer the woman, and the woman of her subiection vnto the man: [Haec sunt vtilia ad cultum internum,] These, saith he, are profitable for [Page 83] inward worship. Than the which I doe not see, what any Diuine could haue spoken more directly for our pur­pose.

Our third demand is, whether these Ceremonies, of couering and vncouering, were not instituted to be obser­ued in Gods publike worship? For howsoeuer this Cu­stome might sometime alter in Ciuill assemblies, and much more in priuate consort betwixt man and wife; yet neuerthelesse the Apostle doth most strictly chal­lenge it, in the publike seruice of God: for,Martyr quo sup p. 50.6. Euery man (saith the Apostle) praying or prophesying, &c. And for better demonstration he doth in a manner call the An­gels to witnesse, exacting that Ceremonie [propter An­gelos,] in regard of the Angels. For as the Angels are appointed to be ministring spirits euery where, for the good of the Elect, euen so are they in very speciall wise attendant at publike Assemblies, for Gods worship. As for the Custome it selfe, Chrysostome vseth this excellent Simile, for the illustration thereof.Chrysost. When (saith he) the King sitteth in his publike Chaire of Estate, and there resort vnto him Dukes, Counts, Tribunes, &c. and none of these present themselues before the King without their robes of honor, according vnto their degrees: so God be­ing present in his royall maiestie, [in sacro coetu] in the holy assembly; men and women coming thither ought to be ador­ned with such ensignes, as may best declare their state & con­dition. Therefore may not that man, who hath receiued from God a diademe of honour & prerogatiue ouer his wife, at that time cast away his ornament, & take vpon him some seruile habit. Wherby you see, that this Symbol was then as well applyed vnto all holy worship, as now our gesture of kneeling is, at the participation of the Lords Supper.

Fourthly, we desire to know, whether this matter [Page 84] were not a thing indifferent; and thereupon (albeit A­postolicall, yet) subiect to alteration, according to the ne­cessitie of occasions? This we may best vnderstand from the first originall thereof. The Apostle (saith Master Caluin) tooke it from the common custome of men in their times;Caluin. which custome in many countreys was otherwise; yea anciently euery where [viri comati erant:] that is, men had long haire. Chem. Ex­am. par. 1. p. 75 Chemnitius saith, to the same purpose, that Christian libertie did moderate the Apostles Rites, to make them in their kind indifferent, &c. —which according to the diuers natures of times, places, and persons might bee ap­pointed, changed, or abrogated. —for in the dayes of the A­postle this custome, of the womens couer, was a signe of sub­iection; and of the man vncouered, a token of dominion and gouernment: but now in our times the fashion is quite con­trary; for in these dayes the vncouering of the head is a note of subiection, and the couering is a testimony of authoritie.

Lastly, it is worthy our Inquiry, to learne, how farre other Churches may be directed by this example of the Apostles Ceremonies, for the authorizing of their Consti­tutions in like cases? Herein P. Martyr is bold, and saith: The Church of God is an Assembly of the faithfull, Loc. Theol. Tract. de Tradit p. 720. gouer­ned by the word of God in all such things, as belong to mans saluation (meaning, things absolutely necessary to the worship of God, as hath beene amply proued:) But tou­ching such things as appertaine vnto Discipline, it is law­full for the Church to make Lawes, Canons, and Constituti­ons; so doth the Apostle teach, that women must pray with their heads couered, and men bare-headed.—So doth the Church ordaine in what place, at what time, & [quomodò] af­ter what manner, whether standing, or sitting, men must communicate. Com. in. 1. Cor. 11. v. 16. 1. Cor. 11. v. 11 And M. Caluin, obseruing the Apostle's reproofe of persons contentious in Ceremoniall points [Page 85] (which is, v. 16. If any man seeme to be contentious, we haue no such Custome, nor yet the Church of God) when he met with some that did, out of the same spirit of contention, resist the Constitutions of that Church of Geneua, he maketh a generall application thereof, against all such turbulent and factious spirits; Qui bonos & vtiles ritus nullâ necessitate convellunt. i. Who vnnecessarily do oppugne the profitable Rites of the Chucch.

Here I need not. make any recapitulation of these seuerall points, the indifferent Reader may easily finde in the confession of the fore-named witnesses; 1. That these are things indifferent. 2. That they were prescribed as fit for those times. 3. That consequently they were to be dutifully obserued. 4. That they were Symbolicall, and had in them significations of morall duties. 5. That they were applyed to Diuine worship. 6. and lastly, That the same authority doth still remaine in the Church, to or­daine the like Significant Ceremonies, whensoeuer there shall be iust occasion thereunto. Thus much of the A­postles time. We descend lower.

SECT. XXIX. Our second Proofe, for Confutation of their last generall Argument, and for our Confirmation of the Morall vse of Ceremonies, is from the vniuersall Custome of the Church of Christ, as well Primi­tiue as Successiue.

Concerning all these times, whosoeuer is conuersant in the Ecclesiasticall Histories, or in the writings of Fathers of former ages, may make good this our Assertion, to wit, That the Church hath liberty to ordaine Rites and Ce­remonies of Mysticall signification, thereby to represent spirituall duties, and that properly, in the publique seruice [Page 86] of God: And also may proue, so farre forth as by light of Story can appeare, that euer since the Apostles daies it hath bene the constant and consonant doctrine of the Church, held by all the most Orthodoxe Fathers, and glorious Martyrs of Christ, who watered the Church with their bloud; whereby it became so blessedly fruit­full, in the procreation of an innumerable off-spring of faithfull Christians in all succeeding ages; amongst whom we, that do now professe the Gospell of saluati­on, haue (by the mercy of God) our interest in the co­uenant of Grace; and consequently in the assured hope of our eternall inheritance: Yea, and (that which, as I think, should astonish the heart of any aduersary, in this point of Church-liberty in making Ceremonies) hath euer bene so vndebatably held for an vncontrollable truth, throughout the whole processe of times, that no one man (as I suppose) either Orthodoxe or Hereticall, hath euer till of late, bene heard either to haue written, or so much as spoken against the Generall of it.

I shall not need to seeke euidence out of Stories, in this behalfe; the Non-conformists themselues are not ignorant hereof, who (besides many other Instances) do, as often as they see occasion, againe, and againe, repeate the custome vniversally vsed in the Churches through­out the world, to wit, of Standing in the time of pub­licke prayers, in all the Lords daies betweene Easter and Pentecost; whereby the primitiue Fathers did signifie their faith of Christ his Resurrection. If this were a Diuine Ce­remony why do you not obserue it? But if it were Hu­mane, and yet had, as you know, a Mysticall significati­on of some spirituall dutie; by representing both the re­membrance of Christs Resurrection, and also the pro­testation of their Christian faith therein (which Signe [Page 87] likewise was appropriated vnto the publicke worship of God in the act of holy prayer) then can you not but ac­knowledge in this one Ceremony, that Antiquity doth pleade for our whole defence; nor can you gaine-say, but that herein the iudgement of our Church [Quoad thesin,] in generall (for we do not heereby iustifie euery Ceremony, which was held either of diuers Fathers, or Churches, in seuerall times, but that which was vniver­sall) must needs convince you of Novelty in this kinde. Lastly, Zanchie doth witnesse, concerning the obseruati­on of our Festiuals of Easter, Pentecost, &c. that they haue since the time of the Apostles continued to this day; this then is another Catholicke Ceremony of Morall significa­tion.

SECT. XXX. Our Third Proofe (for Confutation of their last Generll Ar­gument, and for our Confirmation of the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies, which are of Morall significa­tion) is from the testimonies of their owne Witnesses.

M. Caluin is alwaies worthy of the first place,Calv. opust. pag. 344. among the innumerable company of late Diuines, and he saith; [Nè quis nos calumnietur &c.] Lest any man slander vs, by iudging vs [nimis esse morosos] to be too peeuishly precise, as though we would take away all libertie in externall things, here I do testifie vnto my godly Readers, that I contend not about Ceremonies, which concerne onely Decencie and Order; (or else [Si Symbola sint] if they bee signes and incitements vnto that reuerence, which we should performe vnto God:) for our dispute is against those workes, which some do, as properly belonging vnto God, and wherewith they thinke that God is truely worshipped. Thus M. Caluin (as you see) [Page 88] in the last part of this sentence disalloweth onely such Ceremonies of Humane Inuention, which men make to be essentiall parts of Gods worship. And in the former part thereof, he doth allow of Symbolicall Ceremonies; so far as they may be Signes, and Incitements to the more due performance of Gods worship. Euen as in another place, answering a Question conceiued about Ceremo­nies, he saith,Calv. Instit. li. 4. cap. 10. Ergonè inquies, nihil Ceremoniale rudi [...]ribus dabitur, ad invandam eorum imperitiam? Will you then say (saith he) shall nothing that is Ceremoniall bee per­mitted to the ruder sort, for the helpe of their ignorance? Here a Non-conformist would haue made a perempto­ry answer, they shall haue allowed them to Ceremonie at all,Calv. Ibid. which is of symbolicall signification. But M. Caluin, more iudiciously, and discreetly; Id ego non dico, tantùm contendo, vt modus adhibeatur, qui Christum illustret, non obscuret: I say not so (saith he) onely I contend, that a meane may be kept, which may manifest Christ, and not dar­ken and obscure him. And, for exemplification of this meane, hee propoundeth the institution of Christ for our imitation, whose Sacramentall Ceremonies, are both Pa [...]ce, Few; and minimè laboriosae, very easie.

The same witnesse likewise, else-where, doth allow a priuate vse of Pictures [cum rerum gestarum notatione] which are set forth with the narration of Storie, [quae vsum in docendo, & monendo aliquem habent] which haue (saith he) some vse in teaching and admonishing the Reader. Yet Pictures, you know, haue no other property then signification.Chem. exam. part. 4. Tract. de Imag. pag. 13. Zepper. Le­gum Mosaie l. 4. c. 7. p. 312 And, Luther (saith Chemnitius) held Ima­ges, which did represent the Histories of Acts done, as things indifferent, which might be had both for ornament, and for remembrance without superstition, according to the rule of Scripture. Which kind of Pictures, (as Zepperus hol­deth [Page 89] them, from the decree of the Councell of Franck­ford) may be kept in the Church without impiety, to the same purpose, namely [ad refricandam rerum praeteritarum me­moriam.] which notwithstanding doth no whit aduan­tage the Romish superstition, in their manner of Ado­ration.

Iunius likewise, speaking of the Festiuall daies of Pen­tecost, anciently celebrated in the Christian Churches, Contr. lib. 4. pag. 183. an­swereth, that they did serue, Ad iustam quandam &c. For the due commemoration of that speciall benefite of God, which happened to the Church as vpon that day. And is not this also Symbolicall? And this Symboll of Feasts was formerly witnessed by Danaeus, in the feast day of the De­dication of the Altar.

Furthermore Chemnitius [Apud vetustissimos quidem & puriores Scriptores legimus, &c.] saith,Exam. part. 1. p. 32. col. 2. Wee reade in the most ancient and purer Writers, that their Rites did signi­fie something, and admonished men of the doctrine of the Sacrament, comprehended in the word of God.—But where­soeuer there is in these ancient Writers any mention that by Exorcisme, or Exsufflation the euill spirit is driuen out of the party Baptized; and likewise that by vnction, and imposition of the hands of a Bishop (after Baptisme) the ho­ly Spirit is giuen; These things which the Fathers vnder­stood to be done significatiuely, (That is, by way of signifi­cation) were afterwards peruerted by others, and held as [operatiue] in an opinion of efficacie and power for such effects. In these words Chemnitius approueth of the Fa­thers significant Ceremonies, and condemneth the Popish superstition of more then significant.

Now, although these Testimonies may suffice to con­fute and condemne the generall Argument of the Non-conformists, against Significant Ceremonies, yet when as [Page 90] in our answer to the particular exceptions against our foresaid Ceremonies of white garments, and Crosse in Bap­tisme, we shall proue in these Ceremonies, from the di­rect acknowledgment of P. Martyr, Chemnitius, B. Iewell, and Zanchius, an approbation of their Morall significa­tion of Puritie of life, and constancie in the faith, re­spectiuely; I hope our Opposites will abate something of their Contradictions against our Rites, at least in re­spect of signification: whereof yet more remaineth to be said in our last proofe. In the interim we approach to that which followeth in the next place.

SECT. XXXI. Our fourth Proofe, for the Confutation of the last generall Argument of the Non-conformists, against our Cere­monies, and for the Confirmation of Morall signifi­cation in such Rites; is, as from the confession of witnesses, so especially from the Prac­tise of the Non-conformists themselues.
Our first Instance is in the forme of an Oath.

After much sayling in this Sea of dispute, hauing thus farre passed through the Maine, I now direct my course home-ward, to the Narrow Seas of our Non-conformists, by instancing in such particular Ceremo­nies, wherein either our Opposites are found to be ordi­nary Actors; or else their Witnesses are become Appro­vers of some Symbolicall Ceremonies.

Deut. 6.13.God commanding in his Law, saying, Thou shalt wor­ship the Lord thy God, and sweare by his Name, sheweth [Page 91] sufficiently how sacred a thing an Oath is, which is an immediate Invocation of God; and how it is appropria­ted vnto the honour of God, which God himselfe doth challenge as a part, or, at least, proper cognizance of his supreme worship.

Now, the outward forme of an Oath, as it is enioyned by Law, and assumed and practised by the Non-confor­mists themselues, is this; to lay their hand vpon the book of God, and to kisse it, swearing by the Contents there­of, that is, by the way of stipulation, pledging and pawning all the promises of saluation in Christ (which are recorded in that booke) vpon that truth which they do professe to performe in Swearing. Then, their kissing and handling of that booke is the visible Signe, that the taking of an Oath is the worship of God in it selfe; where­by we adore the Author of that booke of blessednesse. And lastly, the end of all this is a vow, to averre the truth of their own conscience, vnto man. In all which you haue, 1. The handling and kissing of the booke, a Ce­remonie of mans Institution. 2. The end, to expresse our faith toward God, and truth to man, which are of Mo­rall signification. 3. The manner, by an Invocation of God, in calling him to witnesse, and so appropriating it to Gods worship; which is fully as much, as this cause can challenge at our hands.

If any should bee so scrupulous as to doubt of the lawfulnesse of this kinde of Oath, he may take his war­rant from the example of Abraham, in that Ceremoni­all forme of Swearing, See aboue, Sect. 9. which he prescribed vnto his ser­uant, before the Iewish and Leviticall Law of Ceremo­nies was enacted by God.

SECT. XXXII. Our second Instance is in the Obseruation of the Lords day.

You may (if it please you) consider the three Ceremo­niall points of our Saboth, by a three-fold figure. The first was to signifie a Rest from Sin, which is a Spirituall Saboth. The second to note the Resurrectiō of Christ, for which cause the day of the Iewish Saboth was changed into the day of Christ his Resurrection; whence it hath the denomination to be called,Apoc. 1. The Lords Day. The third is the euerlasting Saboth, whereof the Apostle speaketh, saying,H [...]b 4.9. There remaineth, [Sabatismus] a time of Saboth, or Rest, for the people of God. What Christian man is there, religiously affected towards God as he ought, who in the celebration of the Lords Day, doth not call to re­membrance the Resurrection of Christ vpon that day? and also why may lie not in his religious discretion, from the Analogie betweene this our bodily Saboth here on earth, and that Rest in heauen, entertaine a contempla­tion of the euerlasting Saboth, and rest of Blessednesse, thus prefigured in the Temporall; and accordingly make to himselfe, for his better edification, a double Mysti­call vse of the Lords Day?

Zanch. de Redempt. lib. 1. Tract. de Temp. col. 703.To which purpose Zanchius saith of our Churches, the places of Gods worship, Sicut Tabernaculum Tem­plum (que) Salomonis typi fuerunt corporis Christi, sic nostra tē ­pla typi sunt & vmbra coelestis templi, vbi coelestes spiritus animi (que) fidelium collecti laudant Deum, sicut nos hic in ter­renis hisce templis colimus. — Debent (que) haec terrena ad illud coeleste animos nostros subleuare: Vsus hic contemnendus non est, quià vtilia haec sunt. That is, As the Tabernacle and Temple of Salomon were types of the body of Christ, so [Page 93] our Temples are types and shadowes of the celestiall Temple, where the heauenly spirits and soules of the faithfull are as­sembled, for the praysing of God, euen as we, being gathered together in these earthly temples do magnifie him, and ther­fore these our earthly temples ought to raise vp our mindes to the contemplation of the celestiall. Which vse is profitable and not to be contemned. Thus much Zanchius. Wherefore, if you will allow such kind of Ceremoniall significations, you consent with vs; if you reiect them, then you doe dissent from all ancient and primitiue Christians.

Yet many of you are not so farre falne out with Sym­bolicall Ceremonies, and the vniuersall practise of Antiqui­tie, but that you doe willingly obserue the Ceremoniall Festiuals of Ester, & Pentecost, &c. now celebrated in our Churches; as likewise the dayes, not so much fatals, as natals of the Apostles. Now, in the solemnization of these Anniuersaries, you cannot but reflect on the re­membrance of some spirituall things, as these, (to wit,) the power of Christ his Resurrection; the donation of the gifts of the holy Ghost, made in visible signes of fiery tongues; the glorious Ascension of our euer-blessed Saui­our into heauen; together with the admirable constancy of the Apostles, in suffering for the profession of the ho­ly faith; heereby admonishing vs to imitate their Ex­ample of Constancie and faithfulnesse vnto death, that with them we may obtaine the same glorious Crowne of euerlasting life.

SECT. XXXIII. Our fift and last Proofe, for the Confutation of the Generall argument of the Non-confor­mists, by Reason.

We cannot want Reasons to prooue, that our Cere­monies [Page 94] may be significant, which our Common Prayer booke doth signifie so to be; and is therefore condem­ned by the Non-conformists.

Their Opposition to our Communion-Booke.

Abridg. Lincol. M. Nic. M. Lang M. Hy. & o­thers.The Communion Booke saith of these Ceremonies, that they are neither darke, nor dumbe, but significant: which is vnlawfull.

SECT. XXXIIII. Our Confutation of the Non-conformists by Reason, confirming the lawfulnesse of Morall signi­fication, from the Confession of their owne Witnesses.

Because the Non-conformists haue pleaded thus ab­solutely against Significant Ceremonies by the same Reasō (if that may be called Reason, which fighteth against it selfe) we are to shew, that no Ceremonie can be properly so called, if it be altogether destitute of signification: for to require Ceremonies without all signification, is all one as to imagine day without light; or fire without heate. For were it not so, M. Caluin had no reason to inueigh so much against the Papists, because that many of their Ceremonies are non-significant. Furthermore (saith M. Caluin) is not this fault worthy our inueighing against? Cal. Inst. l. 4. c. 10. num. 15. [non intellectas Ceremonias ostentant &c.] They make a pompous shew of Ceremonies that are not vnderstood, as if it were some stage-like dumbe shew, or else some magicall in­catation.—For some Ceremonies in Popery are separated from doctrine; that they may hold the people with signes void of all signification. Thus Caluin.

Loc. Com. [...]lass. 2. c. 4. pag. 198.The same exception doth P. Martyr take against some Romish Ceremonies, euen because Their significations are [Page 95] often vnknowen, not onely to the beholders, but to the Actors themselues: who being asked of the meaning of diuers (of their Rites) either say nothing, or if they answer any thing, they contradict one another; which is a certaine argument that there is no truth in them.

Now, amongst other Rites of this nature, wee may ranke that of their Priests muttering of the words of conse­cration in secret, Confer. p. 499. which Doctor Raynolds doth iustly con­demne, as being Against the practise of Churches, of Fa­thers, Apostles, and of Christ himselfe. But they say (saith Doctor Rainolds) of this dumbe shew, which crept into the Church, that it was ordained by the holy Mother Church, lest those wordes so holy and so sacred should come into con­tempt. And can there be a better Example of a Dumbe Ceremonie; or more iust reason of casting it out, then be­cause it is dumbe?

In briefe; all these Considerations, Proofes, and Ex­amples aboue mentioned, drawne from the religious persons of the old Testament, both before and vnder the Law; from the Apostles in the new; from the vniuersall practise of all Churches, that are within the horizon of Ecclesiasticall Record; from the testimonies of their owne Witnesses; from the practize of the Non-conformists themselues; and lastly from the necessary consequence of Reason, may sufficiently free our Ceremonies from any guilt (as they terme it) of superstition: as though they were therefore superstitious, euen because they are sig­nificant.

CHAP. IIII.

The fourth generall Argument, vrged by the Non-conformists against the foresaid Ceremonies, is taken from a pretence, that they haue been abused to Popish Superstition.

SECT. I. Their Argument.

Maior. No Ceremonies which haue beene notoriously knowne to haue been of old,Partly A­bridg. Linc. pag. 17. M. Hitch. M. Hi. and the rest. and still to be abused to Idolatry and Superstition (especially if there be now no vse of them in Gods Church) can bee lawfull, but must be abolished, whether they haue beene the Ceremo­nies of Pagans, Iewes, or Heretikes.

Assumption. But these Ceremonies haue beene Idolatrously polluted by Papists, namely the Surplice, Crosse in Baptisme, and the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament. Ergo, they ought to bee re­mooued and abolished.

Our Answer.

IF you require that Ceremonies, so abused, be abolished, (as if there were no other Cure for such sores, but onely abcision and cutting off the members by the ioynt) then wee deny your Maior: But if you vnderstand such things, as in their owne nature are not ill, but indifferent; or by excepting things necessary, you meane an absolute, and not a con­uenient necessity, we denie your Assumption. And now that you see your markes, looke to your aime; and first proue (if you can) your Proposition, then afterwards your [Page 97] Assumption: for otherwise you can conclude against our Ceremonies iust nothing at all.

SECT. II. The Proofes, vsed by the Non-conformists against such Ceremonies, which haue beene Super­stitiously abused.

Their Proofes are from Examples of the abolishing of Ceremonies, that haue beene either Heathenishly, Iewishly, or Heretically abused.

Their first Obiection, concerning heathenish Ceremo­nies, by diuers Instances in Scriptures.

This may appeare by God [...] word forbidding all prouocations vnto spirituall fornication:Abridg. Linc p. 17. and commanding vs to separate our selues from Idolaters, a [...]d to [...]e as vnlike them as may be, especially in their religious obseruations, and Ceremonies, and Instruments of Idolatry; that so wee shew our vtmost detestation of them: and to cast out the very memory of them, and to cast away euen such things as had a good originall (if they be not still necessary and com­mand [...]d of God) when once they are knowne to bee defiled by Idola­try, or abused by it: according [...]s for example sake, God commandeth Leuit. [...]8. not to be like the Heathen, &c. And Leuit. 19.28. &c.

Our Answer.

In this place of Scripture are forbid three kinde of things which were in vse among the Heathen: Leu [...]t. 18· &c. the first was the sinne of Incest; the second, the fashion of Roun­ding their heads, and cutting their flesh for the dead; the third, their sowing of their grounds with diuers seeds, and letting their beasts of diuers kindes to ingender toge­ther. Now wee know that Incest was forbidden, as [Page 98] being a sinne against the morall Law of God: and Roun­ding of the head, and cutting of the flesh for the dead, was prohibited as being against the Law of Grace; and for that it did demonstrate inordinate sorrow for the Depar­ted, as of men voide of all hope of the resurrection of bodies, or immortalitie of the soules of men. Lastly the commixtion of diuers kindes of seedes, and of diuers kinds of beasts was forbid, not for any naturall viciousnesse in the things themselues, or in the vse that the heathen had of them; but because, in the prohibiting of these kind of Mixtures, hee propounded vnto his people a Type of abstinence from irreligious Mixtures, as wel corporall, as spirituall: that they should not dare to defile their bo­dies with bestialitie; or yet, by ioyning in marriage with people of diuers religions, and that they should not pol­lute their soules, by consenting vnto the worship of any strange God.

See now your manifold fallacies, by labouring, first, to conclude the vnlawfulnesse of our Ceremonies, which are things in their owne nature indifferent, from the con­demnation of an Heathenish sinne against nature. Se­condly, to oppugne Ceremonies, ordained to a good end, to wit, the representation of Christian virtues, from the example of a wicked custome; that plainly demon­strateth meere Infidelity. Thirdly, by condemning Ce­remonies of godly signification, as namely Purity, constan­cie, humility, from the example of Ceremonies that signifie nothing but either bodily, or else spirituall adultery, which is Idolatry. Which kind of consequences are meerely extrauagants, wandring and gadding from the matter in question.

SECT. III. Their second Instance from Scripture.

Such things as had good originals and beginnings amongst the Heathen, were notwithstanding prohibited by the Iewes,Abridg. Linc. ibid. as for exam­ple the erecting of any titulary Pillars by the way, Leuitie. 26.1. Ergo, &c.

Our Answer.

Had these Titulary pillars of the Heathen, Leuit. 26.1. (which were set vp at limits of their grounds) a good originall and beginning trowe you? It is an ill glosse that corrup­teth the Text; the words are these: Thou shalt not erect a pillar, nor shalt thou set vp any polished stone in your land (which was the fashion of the Heathen,) that you may bow vnto them. Whence Master Caluin collecteth;Caluin vpon that place. Sequi­tur, non aliam statuam hic damnari, nisi quae ad Deum re­praesentandum erigitur. i. No statue was here condemned (saith he) but that which was erected to represent God. It was not therfore the erection of Pillars that was forbid­dē,Gen. 28.18. for then the Patriark Iacob would neuer haue erected (as we reade) a Pillar, for a religious monument: but the thing prohibited was, the Heathenish end & purpose in erecting it. Therefore you might aswell say, that the theeuish taking of a mans goods, as that this Heathenish manner of building those Pillars, had a good originall, and beginning.

SECT. IIII. Their third Instance from Scripture.

Deut. 7. and Exod. 23. God commandeth to destroy the statues and groues of Idolatry, and to extinguish their names.Abridg. Linc. pag. 17. & 18. And that we cannot be thought to haue sincerely repented of the Idolatry or super­stition [Page 100] on, except we cast away with detestation,Abridg ibid. in marg. all the instruments and mo­ [...]uments of it. See Caluin in his Sermons vpon Deut.

Their Answer.

See Caluin, say you: whom I haue seene vpon these places of Scripture, and vpon the full sight thereof am iustly moued to call vpon you, as you haue done vpon your Reader, saying, See Caluin; and then surely you shall see a foule errour in your Collection from Caluin: who is so far frō speaking any thing for your aduantage, that in his Exposition of these places he doth flatly con­fute you. For in these Scriptures, Exo. 23. and Exo. 34. Deu. 7. & 12. Numer: 23. where we reade of nothing but of Destroying of all the Images, Groues, Altars; and rooting out the very names of the Heathenish gods; although in­deed he doth inferre that [omnia insignia Idololatriae] that is, all the monuments or tokens of Idolatry, were to be abo­lished by the Iewes: yet, where the question is, whether Christians be precisely bound to doe the like; he so di­stinguisheth betweene the commandements of the De­calogue, and these Appendices, as he doth betweene the Law Morall, and the Politique or Iudaicall: notifying vnto vs, that the Morall precepts do oblige all men vnto the end of the world (as being enacted against all for­mall Idol [...]trie;) but these politique precepts of Destroy­ing of Altars, Groues, &c. which are materials onely, Dif­fer (saith he) from the other, Ca [...]in Cō ­ment. in [...]. p [...]ae [...]pt Tit. Appendices pol [...]ti [...] [...]ecundi p [...]ae­cepti, e [...] [...]x­od. 23. Deut. 12. &c, p. 286, (namely from the Com­mandements of the two tables,) so, as to bind onely the Iewes during the time of their Paedagogie; but not the Church Christian to the end of the world. And there­fore comming to the point concerning Churches, the places of Gods worship, he resolueth saying; Neque no­bis religio est, templa retinere, quae polluta fuerunt Idolis, & [Page 101] accōmodare in meliorem vsum; quiànos non obstringit, quod propter consequentiam, vt loquu [...]tur, legi additum est. That is; We may lawfully vse the Temples or Churches, which haue bin defiled and abused w [...]th Idols, and apply them to a bet­ter vse; because that doth not bind vs which was added to the (meaning the moral) Law onely by consequence (ther­by meaning the peculiar occasions of those times.) The summe whereof (saith he) doth tend thus farre, namely to shew in what dete [...]ation G [...]d held all manner of Idolatry, and therefore would haue th [...]m to a [...]ol [...]sh the very names of such things as had euer be [...]n [...] dedicated vnto Idols.

But you will say, Shall we then haue no regard of o­ther superstitious circumstances? Caluin seemeth to pre­uent this Obiection, saying▪ Fat [...]or quidem, Calv. Ibid. &c. Indeed I confesse, that all such things are to be remoued, which may seeme to nourish Idolatry, so that (obserue I pray you this moderation) we our selues, in vrging too vehemently things which are in their owne nature indifferent, be not too super­stitious. Meaning, that the vrging a prohibition and an abolishment of them is that negatiue superstition, wherof you haue beene already found guilty, in oppugning our Rites as superstitious, onely because they are Significant: As though any thing could be iudged therefore Supersti­tious, because it carriet [...] with it a true, Orthodoxe, and Christian signification.

SECT. V. Their fourth Instance from Scripture.

Daniel would not defile himselfe, with eating of the Kings meats.Linc. Abridg. quo supr. Dan. 1.18.

Our Answer.

Seire est per causas scire; The onely solide knowledge [Page 102] of any thing is the vnderstanding of the true causes thereof. First therefore, Daniel did not abstaine from these meates of the King, because they were the Kings; for Then (saith M. Caluin vpon this place) should he haue shewne himselfe very inconstant, Caluin in Dan. 1.18. when afterwards he tooke a liberty to himselfe to eate thereof. Why then, will you say, did he abstaine? Reade but M. Caluin his Comment, and it will resolue you, that Daniel was now in an exile from Gods worship, and that the King sent vnto him all his Kingly seruices & delicates, to the end that therby he might alie [...]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,Caluin vpon the same place. 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,Abridg. Linc. and other [...]. 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, [Page 104] 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 co [...]m [...]moration of Gods mercy, in their miraculous deli [...]rance.

It is by the way a point very obseruable, that Ezekias did not destroy the Idols, which Salomon suffe [...]ed to be s [...]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;2 King. 11. & 23. 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,2. King. 23.13. 2 King 18.3. 2 King 22.2. 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;Z [...]nch. de Redemp. in 4. [...]raec [...]p. pa. 678. 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 [Page 105] 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.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 17.In the first Councell at Carthage it was decreed, that such Al­tars as werei [...] 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,Canon 15. 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 pla­ces, In quibus nullum corpus aut reliquiae Martyrum condi­tae probantur; wherein there was neither body, nor relikes of Martyrs knowne to be kept; notwithstanding (say they) [insomnia & inanes reuelationes] the Dreames, and vaine reuelations of some to the contrary. Againe, they that for­bad the setting vp of Altars in High-wayes, where neither the bodies nor reliques of any Martyrs were reserued, did thereby authorize them, where such kinde of Re­liques were extant. Euen as our Church, in forbidding exercises of Religion in priuate Conuenticles, cannot be said thereby to prohibite religious Assemblies in the houses of God.

SECT. VIII. Their second Instance from the former Councell.

And the same Councell decreed,Abridg. Linc. pag. 18. Can. 15. that solemne request should be made to the Emperour, that all Reliques and Monuments of Idolatry might be vtterly destroyed.

Our Answer.

Namely, all such Statues, and Altars, which were immediate Instruments of Idolatry, and then brought into publique abuse; euen as our most godly and gra­cious Ezekias, and other his Maiesties most religious Predecessours haue done.

SECT. IX. Their third Instance, concerning Pagan Cere­monies, from Councels.

In the second Councell of Brac. Can. 73. Christians are for­bidden to decke their houses with Bay leaues, and greene boughes,Abridg. Lin­col. because the Pagans did vse to do so: and that they should not rest from their labours those dayes the Pagans did. and that they should not keepe the first day of euery moneth as they did.

Our Answer.

The Canon forbiddeth Christians to vse the wicked obseruations of the Kalends (namely Festiuall daies dedi­cated to the Heathenish gods) and to rest from labours the dayes wherin the Gentiles vsed to do; to wit, in the daies of the celebration of their Kalends, which they performed in all lasciuiousnesse: and likewise to decke their houses with laurell, and greene boughes, that is, at the same time with the Pagans; as if therein they ioyned together in [Page 108] obseruing and solemnizing their Paganish pastimes and worship. And of this prohibition they gaue this reason in the same Canon; Omnis haec obseruatio Paganismi est: All this kinde of custome doth hold of Paganisme; because the outward practise of Heathenish Rites, performed iointly with the Pagans themselues, could not but im­ply a consent in Paganisme. Obserue, I pray you, what I haue said, [performed ioyntly,] to wit, at the same times, after the same vndistinct manner, and in the same Common-wealth.

The Canon then, altough it were necessarie for them, yet how shall it concerne our Church, whose practise of Ceremonies is sufficiently knowne, euen vnto the Papists themselues, to differ as much from theirs; both in respect of place, persons, time, yea, and of opinion concerning our Ceremonies, as doth the annuall course of the Sun, from the monthly motion of the Moone: as may part­ly appeare from that which hath beene said already; and will bee made more evident in the sequele of this dis­course.

SECT. X. Their fourth Instance, concerning Paganish Cere­monies, from Councels.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 19.The Councell of Affricke, Can. 27. ordained that Christians should not celebrate the Feasts of the birth-daies of Martyrs, be­cause that was the manner of the Heathen.

Our Answer.

Conc. Afric. tempore Bo­nifacij & Ce­lestini, can. 27The words of the Canon are these: We are to make re­quest to the Emperour, that these Feasts, which are held in many places, against the Lawes of God, drawne from the errours of the Gentiles (so that Christians euen now are [Page 109] compelled to celebrate them) may be prohibited, especially seeing that they are not affraid to commit such things, euen vpon the birth-dayes of Martyrs, and that also in sacred places. The very repetition of this Canon may be a suffici­ent Confutation of your Obiection; whereby it is eui­dent, that the fathers of that Councell do no more pro­hibite the Feasts of the Which Tertul. de co­rona militis, doth menti­on. birth-dayes of Martyrs, than they doe the holy places of Christian worship. But the things they condemne are heathenish profanations, contrary to the Law of God, which notwithstanding were at that time frequently vsed aswell in the sacred places of Gods publike seruice, as vpon the Festiuall dayes of holy Marty [...].

SECT. XI. Their fift Instance, concerning Pagan [...]sh Ceremo­nies, from Tertullian.

Tertullian is large and vehement in the point.Abridg. Linc. p. 19. Tert de Co­ro [...]milit. We may giue no­thing, saith he to the seruice of an Idol; neither may we borrow any thing from the seruice of an Idol. If it be against religion to sit at ta­ble in an Idols temple, what is it then to be seene in the habit of an I­dol? And againe, No habit or apparel is esteemed lawfull among vs, that hath beene dedicated and appointed to so vnlawfull an act. Thou that art a Christian must hate these things, the Authors and Inuen­tors of which thou canst not but hate.

Our Answer.

Tertullian indeed is so large and vehement in this point, that there is lesse need either for you to be vehe­ment, in vrging this Obiection, or for vs to be large in re­futation thereof; seeing that his owne words doth af­ford you a plaine answer, where he saith that he speakes [Page 110] of habits, that were then dedicated and appointed vnto the seruice of Idols. But what Gouernour in our Church doth command you to go to the Masse-Pries [...]s, and to take his breaden Idol, and to adde Reuerence vnto it? or who vrgeth you to put on the very same Romish Sur­plice, now vsed at their Masse? Furthermore, (that wee may giue vnto our Opposites their due right,) we shall hereafter shew, that the comparison betweene Papists and Pagans is not altogether so equall, when we come to scanne this very point.

SECT. XII. Their sixt Instance from Fathers, concerning the abolishing of Heathen [...]sh Ceremonies.

Linc. ibid. Tert. li. de orat.In another place Tert. affirmeth, that Christians might not wash their hands, or lay aside [...]heir cloakes before prayer, nor sit vpon their beds after prayer, because the Hea [...]hen vsed so to doe.

Our Answer.

Tertullian doth not condemne any of these Ceremo­nies, meerely for the resemblance sake, which they had with Pagans in such Acts, but for the superstitious opini­on, wherewith they were infected; by attributing both an efficacie of Sanctification, and consequently a neces­sitie of Obseruation vnto them. Let vs aduise with Ter­tullian in these points, for he will shew first, concerning washing, that the Christians (whom hee condemneth, who were the Hemerobaptists; or as some thinke, the Ca­tharists of those dayes) had this opinion in washing, that although their liues were neuer so beastly or bloody, yet they might be cleansed by the onely Ceremonious wash­ing of their hāds: therfore Tert. confuteth them, saying, [Page 111] Quae ratio est &c. Tert. What reason is there for you to thinke that you may speake vnto God with washed hands, hauing had sor­did and filthy minds? — The spirituall cleansings, which are necessary, are from murther, witchchraft, and from Ido­latry; which you haue conceiued in your minds, but finished and executed with your handes. I tell you, although Israel should wash her body in euery member and part thereof, yet verily doe her hands remaine vncleane and polluted with the blood of the Prophets: And therefore this Ceremonie is but vaine. So Tertullian.

We come to the second point, of doffing their cloakes before prayer, which they, according to the rudiments of the Pagans, obserued with an opinion of necessity; as if otherwise their prayer could not preuaile, for the obtai­ning any blessing at the hands of God: For so saith that Father, Positis penulis, &c. Tert. You laying aside your cloakes at the time of praying, as doe the Heathen before the worship­ping of their Idols. Quod si fieri oportet, &c. but if this ought to be done (that is, it were necessary) surely the Apostles, in­structing vs concerning the habit of praying, would haue comprehended this point among the rest.

As for the third Ceremonie of sitting vpon beds as the Gentiles did, you haue no reason to rest vpon it, because Tertullian condemneth not the act, but the heathenish o­pinion of the necessitie thereof; as appeareth by his confu­tation of it, saying, Alioqui nusquàm erit adorādum, Tert. nisi v­bi fuerit lectus: imò contra scripturam fecerit, si quis in Ca­thedra sederit. i. Otherwise (saith he) wee ought not to pray but sitting vpon a bed, and he should bee thought to doe against Scripture, should sit in a Chaire. All which doe euidently argue, their superstitious opinion of necessity.

There followeth one clause of Tertullian, in the same place, concerning setting at prayer, which I may not con­ceale [Page 112] from you, who haue brought vp your schollers to pray sitting: This I will but onely alledge, and leaue the application to your better consideration. Siquidem irre­uerens est assidere sub conspectu, Tert. contráque conspectum eius, quem maximè reuerearis & venereris, quantò magis sub aspectu dei viui, Angelo adhuc orationis astante, factum illud irreligiosissimū est, nisi improbramus Deo, quod nos oratione fatigeuerit? Seeing that it is indeed an vnreuerent thing, to sit downe in the sight of him (meaning a mortall Prince) whom thou dost most honour and reuerence, how much more irreligious a thing is it, to doe the like (namely in prayer) in the presence of the liuing God; the Angel (meaning, as I take it, the Minister) of Prayer standing by, except that we would vpbraid God, that hee hath tyred vs with ouer­much praying?

Account now your gaines, by your testimonies out of Tertullian, and you shall perceiue it will neuer pay your score: for what comparison can there bee made betweene vestments, appointed primarily to Gods seruice, and Habits dedicated to deuils? or betweene Ce­remonies of Heathenish superstition, by opinion of effica­cie and necessitie; and ours, which are ordained and im­posed with an opinion onely, of indifferencie and incon­ueniencie? Vnderstand then that it is no small errour, in confuting of errour, to deuide the soule from the body; that is, an Act, from that opinion which Actors doe at­tribute vnto it. If we shall but ad hereunto the reuerent esteeme, which you know Tertullian had of many Cere­monies, which you will not allowe; it would enforce you to seeke some other Patron for your Cause then Tertul­lian, and so you doe.

SECT. XIII. Their seuenth instance from Fathers, concerning Paganish Ceremonies abused.

Meltiades Bishop of Rome decreed that no Christian should fast on the Lords day, or on the Friday,Abridg. Lin­col. from Caranza. Anno 311. because it was the knowen cu­stome of the Pagans to fast on those dayes.

Our Answer.

The reason that is rendred by the said Meltiades is, because the Pagans did on those dayes Sacrum Ieiunium celebrare &c. celebrate those Fasts, to the honor of their gods and goddesses. And a second reason you may haue from Ignatius, who saith, that if Christians should haue fasted vpon the Lords day,Ign [...]t. (which was the day of Christ his Resurrection) that had beene tanquàm Christum occi­dere, as it were to murder Christ; by mourning still for his death in sad sorrow, whose Resurrection they ought to solemnize with all tokens of Christian ioy. And last­ly, if on Friday they had kept their publike Fast, iointly with the Heathen, among whom they dwelt, then they should not haue beene distinguished from the Pagans in the cause of Fasting, or bin known whether they did it Paganishly, or Christianly, that is; whether vnto the ho­nour of the Idols, or of the Sonne of God, in remem­brance of the bitternesse of his Passion for vs. For if a man should see any Celebritie of worship, performed both by Pagans and Christians iointly together, in one manner of Rites, in the same Countrey, and at the same time, & place; would he not think this to be an vgly con­fusion? Therefore this Case is as different from ours, in respect of Papists, as betweene confusion and separation. You must seeke out some more pertinent matter than this.

SECT. XIIII. Their eight Instance, concerning Paganish Ceremonies.

Abridg. Linc.Ambrose taught Monica the mother of Augustine to leaue bringing in of wine & cakes to the Church, as she was w [...]nt to do, be­cause she might not lawfully giue such a shew of conformitie with the Gentiles.

Our Answer.

Epiphanius recordeth a kind of Sect called Collyridi­ani, which had their names of collyris, a Cake; because they offered such kind of cakes in way of Sacrifice, laying them vpon a table-cloth, and participating thereof themselues, in the name of the blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord. Which custome was first brought in by certaine women of Arabia, in imitation of the Heathenish cu­stome, condemned by the Prophet Ieremy, of such as did offer cakes, Ierem. 7.18. vnto the Moone, as vnto the Queene of Hea­uen. And this maner of worship the same Father doth condemne, as a kind of translated Id [...]latry, as it were from one Queene vnto another.

Now Ambrose in his time remembring this Idola­trous custome, and vnderstanding that men, & especial­ly women did resort vnto the Sepulcher of Martyrs, cary­ing with them bottles of wine, and little baskets of bread, and bunnes to offer vnto the memory of the Saints; hee did, by his Episcopal iurisdiction, forbid that custome, and withdrew from it, together with others, Monica, in that age, the best mother of the best child, Saint Augustine. This is the summe of the Storie, which you obiect a­gainst all religious Ceremonies, which may haue any sem­blance with Popish Rites. But whether this were fitly [Page 115] obiected by you, you (as it seemeth) tooke no great re­gard. For indeed the case is maruellously disproportio­nable, whether we consider the Act, the Actors, or else the office of Acting any such Heathenish Rites.

First, the Act was Sacrifizing and offering vp of cakes, which is an Act so properly belonging vnto the Diuine Maiestie, that whereas Bowing the body, and falling on the knees, (as hath beene partly signified already) are lawfully giuen in dutifull reuerence vnto Parents by chil­dren, and vnto Princes by subiects: yet the very out­ward Act of Sacrifizing cannot be done to any man, Saint, or Angel, without a visible Profession of Idolatrie. Secondly, the A [...]tors, who either among the Heathen sacrificed vnto the Moone; or among Heretiques sacrifi­zed vnto the holy Virgin, were especially women; a Sexe (euen in the state of integrity) most subiect to seduce­ment, when they fall to haue any priuate parle, and com­munication with that subtile Tempter. And (which is the third point) we know that the very office of Prea­ching, much more that of Sacrifizing, is flatly denyed to that Sexe. So that I may iustly call this your Compari­son friuolous; did it not better deserue to be termed ca­lumnious, first, inasmuch as you indeauour to controll the Ceremonies appointed by the deliberate aduice of the religious Gouernours of our Church, and to confute them, by obiecting Ceremonies deuised by priuate per­sons, in their clanculary meetings, according to their rude fancies.

Secondly, to oppose vnto Ceremonies, which are cele­brated by men, (the destinate Ministers of Christ, set a­part, as you your selues are, for such a diuine ministratiō; the practize of women, who are, euen by reason of the frailty of their Sexe, interdicted by Scripture to inter­meddle [Page 116] in such kind of seruice. Thirdly, to compare Ce­remonies of outward gesture, which may be lawfully ap­plyed otherwise than immediately vnto God, with Cere­monies of Sacrifizing, which cannot, euen so much as in the outward Act be performed, but directly to God, without the guilt of Idolatry. And fourthly to con­demne Rites of false and Idolatrous inuentions, by mat­ching them with Ceremonies of godly and Christian sig­nifications; what could you else meane by all this, but as it were to suborne a fellon to condemne an innocent?

SECT. XV. Their ninth instance, concerning Paganish Ceremonies.

Abridg Linc. pag. 19. Aug. tom. 10 Serm. 6. de verbis Dom. pag. 33.Augustine himselfe also, prescribing a direction how to winne the Pagans, hath these words: If you aske how the Pagans may be wonne; how they may be inlightened; how they may be called to saluation? Let vs leaue all their solemnities, and forsake their toyes.

Our Answer.

Wee might easily haue vnderstood the meaning of Saint Augustine, by Saint Augustine himselfe, if you had not broke off his speech at the middest: for his words immediately following,Aug. in the place fore­cited. are these; — Vt si non consentiant veritati nostrae, erubescant paucitati suae. i. That if they consent not to that truth professed by vs, they may bee ashamed (meaning the fewnesse of their followers) of their own paucity. Wherby he instructeth the Christians, not to conuerse together with Pagans in any of their Heathenish Rites. Euen as our Church doth likewise for­bid her people to assemble together with Papists in their superstitious solemnities; and not that onely, but doth [Page 117] also (what would you haue more?) condemne and pu­nish those that shall partake with them in such fooleries.

I should furthermore aske you, why you skipped ouer that last clause of Saint Augustine, Vt si non &c. whereby you haue made your selues like to that man, Qui toto deuorato boue, defecit in cauda. Hitherto we haue heard of your Instances, in excepting against the Cere­monies of Pagans.

SECT. XVI. Their second kind of Obiection, for the remouing of Ceremonies that haue beene abused, is in obiecting Iewish Rites.

Their first Instance.

In the Councell of Nice it was decreed,Abridg. Linc. pag. 18. Euseb. de vita const. l. 3. c 17. that Christians might not keepe the Feast of Easter at the time, nor in the manner as the Iewes did. Let vs (say they) in nothing agree with that detestable roote of the Iewes.

Our Answer.

First, you cannot be ignorant, how that there was a time, when it was lawfull for some Christians to keepe the Feast of Easter the very same day, wherein it was ce­lebrated of the Iewes. For your Authour, whom you alleage,Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 22. doth fully relate that All the Churches in Asia according to their old custome, did celebrate the Feast of Ea­ster the 14. of the Moone, which was the very day, wherein the Iewes were commanded to solemnize their Passeouer. Then he bringeth in that famous Bishop Polycrates; mentioning Polycarpus, Thraseus, Sagarus, all Bishops and holy Martyrs; besides Papyrius, Melito, and seuen other Bishops of his owne kindred, who by ancient Tradition, did all obserue the Iewes festiuall day of Easter.

[Page 118]Secondly, afterwards it was decreed by the Councell of Nice, that Easter should be celebrated (as you haue tru­ly alleaged) differently from the custome of the Iewes, but yet you haue omitted the causes there specified by Eusebius: whereof one was the hatred of the Christians against the Iewes, who had defiled their hands with the bloud of the Son of God, and remained still inthralled in the blindnesse and madnesse of their errour. Another reason was, because of the insolent insultation that the Iewes then made vpon the Christians, as though that Christians could not haue kept any obseruation of that feast [sine ipso­rum disciplinae subsidio:] without the helpe of their disci­pline. A third reason there mentioned, is, that by vnifor­mitie of this one custome, they might bring the Christi­an Churches vnto vnitie, which by diuersitie of opinions, concerning the time of the obseruation of the same feast, had been distracted into contrarie factions.

These were the principall Reasons which moued the Fathers of that Councell, to alter the Iewish Feast of Ea­ster, and to translate it vnto our Lords day; not absolute­ly (as you pretend) for the auoiding of all resemblance that it had with the Iewish custome (for then must they haue condemned all the godlie Byshops, and holie Mar­tyrs of Asia, who obserued the same time of Easter with the Iewes) but because of the after-obstinacie and inso­lencie of the Iewes, vpbraiding the Christians for imita­ting of them vpon an opinion of necessity; and also for the reducing of Christian Churches, agreeing in one faith, vnto an vnity of one affection.

You see then that the comparing (as commonly you haue done) the practise of Churches in admitting, or reiecting of Iewish, or Heathenish customes, without their speciall Reasons, is no better discretion, than if you [Page 119] would argue some men to be wiser than others, by com­paring their bodies together, without any regard of their reasonable soules. Otherwise you might haue ea­sily perceiued, that neither we can haue like cause of hatred against Papists, (who are professed Christians) as they had against the obstinate Iewes, the murtherers of the Lord of glory; nor yet the Papists the like cause of insultation against our Church, for imitation of them; seeing that she holdeth none of their Rites, without a professed difference, of opinion and with a detestation of their superstition.

SECT. XVII. Their third kind of Obiection is by instancing in Ce­remonies abolished, because of the abuses of Heretikes.

Their first Instance.

The Councell of Gangris,Abridg. Lin [...] ▪ pag. 18. Can. 18. Anno 324. ordained that none should fast on the Lords day, because the Manichees had taken vp that day to fast on.

Our Answer.

And they had iust cause so to ordaine; but so had not you to conceale the cause, which is deliuered by Leo Bi­shop of Rome, in these words;Leo Epist. 93. ad Tunbund, The Manichees denying that Christ was borne in the true nature of man, obserue the Lords day in pensiue fasting, which the Resurrection of Christ hath consecrated vnto vs to be cel [...]brated with ioy: which custome of fasting they deuote vnto the Sonne, that they may altogether dissent from vs in the vnity of faith. Thus much being premised, concerning the opinion of the Manichees; let vs now come vnto the decree of the [Page 120] Councell: Conc. Gangr. ca. 18. If any shall fast on the Lords day [propter conti­nentiam, quae putatur, aut contumaciam] for that which is held (namely by the Maniches) a continency, or a contuma­cie, and contempt (to wit, of the Christian profession, in celebrating the faith of the resurrection of Christ) [Anathema sit] let him be accursed.

But can you (that would make this Argument against vs) averre that any of our Ceremonies haue in them any signification of contempt to any one Article of Christi­an profession? Doth not euery one of them rather ma­nifest and demonstrate some speciall duty of Christia­nitie? Those that are right Doctors indeed do imitate good Nurces,Cic. who first chew and masticate the morsels in their owne mouthes, before that they put them into the mouthes of their Infants. But you collect the De­crees of Councels at all peraduenture, without euer exa­mining the reasons thereof, and so deliuer them to your disciples to swallow downe whole. And therefore no maruaile if that many of your flocke, whom you feed with such vnprepared diet, do swell so extremely with the windie crudities of their owne conceits.

SECT. XVIII. Their second Instance, concerning the Ceremoni [...]s of Heretickes.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 19.The Councell of Brac. 1. Can. 32. decreed that none of the Clergie should forbeare to eate flesh, that they might shew themselues to differ from the Priscilianists.

Our Answer.

From a Fast you invite vs to a Feast, but it seemeth you know no cause why: for these Priscilianists were in [Page 121] the heresie of the Maniches, who thought that Flesh had not the beginning and creation thereof from God, but from the Authour of euill;Baron. Anno 5 [...]7. num. 21. out of the Epist. of Pope Vigiliu [...]. Conc. Ancyr. can. 14. and vpon that opinion abstai­ned from it, Execrationis animo potiùs quàm deuotionis; that is, Rather vpon an intent of detestation of flesh, than vpon any true deuotion. As therefore it was ordained in the Councell of Ancyra, that the Clergie-men in abstai­ning sometimes from the eating of flesh, should notwith­standing [nam visum est eas attingere] touch it; thereby to manifest their Orthodoxe iudgements; namely, that they had not this creature of God in any execration: so in the fore-named Councell of Brac. it was decreed, that Ecclesiasticall persons, although sometimes they would refuse to eate flesh, yet should they [Praegustare olera cocta cum carnibus] that is, Tast of herbes sod together with flesh; To what end? [Pro amputanda suspicione Priscilianae hae­reseos] To cut off the suspicion of the Priscilian heresie: As in the same Decree is fully expressed.

If now you can shew vs the like cause of remouing our Ceremonies, then may you challenge of vs the like effect. But tell vs, what thinke you? Do Papists iointly consort with vs in the same Acts; either of wearing Sur­plices; or of ministring of Baptisme; or of communicating with vs, without any opinion of adoring the Sacraments; as in those daies the Priscilianists did ioyne at the same Ordinaries and Banquets with the Catholikes? First there­fore you should haue shewne your iust cause of suspi­cion, and then might you boldly haue framed your In­dightment.

SECT. XIX. Their third Instance, concerning the Abuse of Ceremonies by Heretikes.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 19.Gregorie, as we finde him cited, alleageth and approueth a De­cree of the Councell of Toledo, which forbad the Ceremony of thrice dipping in Baptisme, because it was the custome of the Heretickes.

Our Answer.

If you had taken the paines to haue read Gregorie your selues, and had not beene content to take this vp on trust, and at the second hand, of those who do alleage him, although partly truly, yet but onely in part; he would haue taught you a lesson worth your remem­brance, which is this; In eadem fide nihil officit sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diuersa: That is, The diuersitie of cu­stomes (or Ceremonies) vsed in the vnitie of the same faith, cannot preiudice the holy Church. And therefore you are to know that other reformed Churches, whom you would make aduersaries to our Ceremonies, haue no more cause to condemne vs, then wee haue to con­demne them for diuersity of Rites.

And concerning the Ceremonies obiected, he shew­eth, that it is a thing indifferent in it selfe, whether the Church vse thrice, or but onely once dipping: secondly, concerning the cause of this Indifferencie; Q [...]omodò in tribus mersionibus personarum vnitas, & in vna potest di­vinitatis singularitas designari: He noteth that whe [...]her it be thrice or once, both of them are signes of mysticall signification; the thrice dipping betokning the Trinitie of Persons, and the once, the vnitie of one essentiall Deity: thereby allowing of these kinde of spirituall signifi­cations, in such Ceremonies.

Thirdly, the cause why S. Gregorie would haue Thrice [Page 123] dipping changed into once, was by reason of certaine He­retikes, who made an hereticall construction of the first custome of the Thrice-dipping; Dum mersiones numeran­tes, divinitatem dividentes, &c. That is, vpon the Thrice-dipping (as 1. in the name of the Father, 2. in the name of the Sonne, 3. in the name of the Holy Ghost) they diuided the Deity into three Gods. Yea, and that there was once in Spaine such a necessitie to change the same Rite, the fore-named Councell of Toledo setteth downe in this manner. Proptereà quòd quidam Sacerdotes simplam, Conc. Tol [...]t. qui­dam trinam mersionem faciunt, à nonnullis schisma esse con­spicitur, & fidei vnitas scindi videtur: nam dùm partes di­uersae in baptizandis aliquo contrario modo agunt, alij alios non baptizatos esse contendunt. Certainly, if euer any could haue shewne the like necessitie against any of our Ceremonies, then our most wise and religious Pilots of this Ship of Christ, that abandoned all the heresies in Popedome, would neuer haue entertained these other Rites. But they were well perswaded that these our Ce­remonies could not, by their onely morall significations, ingender or harbour any hereticall opinion.

SECT. XX. Their last Instance from Antiquity, concerning Cere­monies abused by Heretickes.

Leo aduiseth all Christians to shunne the vip [...]rous conferen [...]e of Heretikes, and that in nothing they would be like vnto them,Abridg. Linc, pag. 20. who in name onely are Christians.

Our Answer.

You will still be like your selues, in alleaging senten­ces of Fathers, without due consideration of their sences.Leo Serm. 18. de pass. Dom. The words of Leo stand thus: Take you heed (beloued) [Page 124] of the craft of Satan, who doth not onely seeke to intrap you by ca [...]nall concupiscence, but doth also sow Tares together among the seeds of faith, to the end that whom he cannot corrupt by euill deedes, them he may subuert by wicked er­rours. Flie you therefore the arguments of humane Do­ctrine, and shun the viperous conference of Heretickes; haue you nothing to do with them, who being Adversaries to the faith, are Christians onely in name. Which words [Haue you nothing to do with them] you take, as spoken absolutely against all kinde of Conformitie with such, and thereupon you except against al [...] likenesse in Ceremonies; whereas Leo onely giueth a caution but to eschue do­ctrinall Conference: for the errour, which is the Viper, lay then couched in their doctrine, which was a mix [...]ure of truth and falshood, as it were, of Tares and Wheate to­gether.

Otherwise, if you will haue vs to take it more general­ly, then shall it not be lawfull for you to conferre with Papists, for their conuersion; or to conuerse with them so much as in buying of an horse; yea, or to commune with them at the same table? As for our semblance with Papists in Ceremonies, it is not by ioint conuersation and mixture with them, in the same worship, but accompa­nied with a professed Separation from them, as in wor­ship, so also in intention and opinion. There is not then, in Leo, any thing which may more condemne vs for wea­ring the same coloured Surplice in our Churches, than you, for vsing in your houses and same kind of gowne with them that are Christians onely in name, that is (as I may say) Christians Anti-christians. This therefore is no due manner of commerce, to deliuer your ware at your owne price, without either weight or measure.

Hitherto haue we discussed your Arguments vsed for [Page 125] proofe of your Maior Proposition, and displaied your manifold errours in all your inferences, which haue been grounded onely vpon a calumnious and odious com­parison of our Ceremonies with those that were Iewish Haereticall, or Heathenish: In all which you haue shewen your selues as vnskillfull as the Painter, who sought to proportion an horse by the pourtraict of an Elephant. Thus much in answer to your Maior Proposition.

SECT. XXI. The generall Assumption of the N [...]n confo [...]mists, to prooue our Ceremonies to haue beene as ill as Heathenishly abused by the Papists.

But these Ceremonies of Surplice,Abridg. Linc. and other [...]. &c. haue beene Idolatrous­ly abused by Papists. Ergo, they ought to be abolished.

Our Answer.

These Ceremonies (say you) haue beene Idolatrously a­bused. Where you must vnderstand by the word [These] such Ceremonies which are either generally; or else in­diuidually and numerally the same. If you take take it in the Generality, then cannot you iustifie any one of your owne Ceremonies belonging either to Order, or Decen­cie. For what Act is there of gesture, or any Circum­stance of worship, which hath not beene some-way abu­sed by Pagans, Heretikes, or some other superstitious Worshippers?

Secondly, If by [these Ceremonies abused, &c.] you meane Ceremonies indiuidually the same, then is your Assumption vntrue; because that (which may likewise be saide of the rest) the Surplice, which is at this day [Page 126] worne by any one of our Ministers, is not in number the very same, which had beene dedicated vnto any Ido­latrous seruice, either of Pagans, or Papists.

Notwithstanding, to suppose these our Ceremonies to be the very same, that haue beene formally abused; yet would it trouble your wits, to prooue that therefore they must be necess [...]rily abolished: except you could euince, that they were as well the same in forme, as they are in matter. For learning teacheth vs, that onely forme gi­ueth the being vnto euery thing, as naturall to naturall, whereby a stone is a stone, and not wood; and Artifici­all vnto Artificiall, whereby a Gowne is a Gowne, and not a Cloke; so the Ceremoniall forme doth giue a di­stinct propertie to each Ceremoniall matter. Where, by forme, (as for example in the Surplice,) we vnderstād not the fashion of habit, for it is Artificiall, but the habitude, or application of a Ceremonie, according to the intention and opinion of them, that either impose or practize it. Which opinion, or intent, if it be superstitious, the Cere­monie taketh a denomination from thence, and cannot be denied to be superstitious. This distinction is made sensible in the diuers vse of Churches, the destinate pla­ces of publike worship; which, in Poperie, were applied vnto an Idolatrous seruice, by their Masse: but the same Churches, being by vs sanctified vnto the sincere wor­ship of God, are as truely not the same in the Ceremo­niall forme; as in the Artificiall fabrique and fashion they are the same.

If these kinde of distinctions had illuminated your iudgements, then would you not so vrgently haue gain­said the vse of these our Ceremonies, practized among our selues, because they had beene sometimes abused by [Page 127] others. Thus much in answer to your whole Agument, taken from Abuses.

SECT. XXII. Our generall Confutation of the generall Argument of the Non conformists for the Abolishing of all Ceremonies, that haue beene once superstitiously abused.

Fi [...]st, we will lay d [...]wne the profession of the Church of England in this Case.

Our Church in abolishing of some Romish Ceremonies, and in retaining others, hath been pleased to expresse her owne meaning therein, and telleth vs first, that shee hath abated of the Popish Excesse and mul [...]itude, Com. booke befo [...]e the Calender. the burthen whereof was intollerable. Thus of the number. Second­ly, concerning the kind of our Rites, she addeth, saying. If any thinke much, that any of the old Ceremonies doe re­maine, and would haue all deuised anew; th [...]n such, gran­ting some Ceremon [...]es conuenient to be had, surely (where the old may be well vsed,) there they cannot reasonably reprooue them, onely for their age; whereby they ought rather to haue reuerence to them, if they will declare them­selues to be more studious of vnitie and concord, than of in­nouations and newfanglednesse. For as those bee taken a­way, which were most abused; so those that remaine were re­tained, for discipline and order, which vpon iust causes may be altered and changed.

The summe of all is this; It was the wisedome of the Church to remoue all Rites, the intollerable abuse wher­of could not be auoided, without the vtter remoouing and abolishing of them. As for others, we see that shee hath otherwise determined, & wee now come to iustifie her precept and practise.

SECT. XXIII. Our Proofes, that some Ceremonies, which haue been formerly abused, are not therefore necessarily to be abolished, if they may be reduced to their indifferent vse.

These are taken from

  • 1. Scriptures.
  • 2. Fathers.
  • 3. Reasons.
  • 4. The Non-conformists owne witnesses.
  • 5. The acknowledgements, and practises of the Non-conformists themselues.

Our first Proofe is from Scripture, by the generall Equitie of Gods Law.

Iudg. 6. Gedeon was commanded by God to take out of the high places wood, (which had beene Idolatrously abused in their groues,) and (notwithstanding such Heathenish abuse) to applie it to the worship of the true God, in burning it for the sacrificing of their Holocausts. Here, you will say, that this was not any inuention of man; but euen the expresse commandement of God: It is true; yet seeing that the actions of men receiue their directi­ons from the commandements of God, what reason can any alledge, why this speciall act of God should not (as your selues haue confessed) inferre a Patterne of Equity for all such Ordinances, as men in like case, shall appoint, concerning the seruice of God? euen as well as that of Ioshua, Ios. 6.19. whereby he commanded that the siluer and gold, [Page 129] and vessels of brasse, and of Iron should be brought into the Treasurie of the house of the Lord,

And furthermore, although the commandement of God was perempto [...]y, charging the Gouernors of Israel, to subvert all the places of H [...]athen [...]sh worship, to destroy their altars, breake downe their images, burne their g [...]oues, de­molish their Idols, and to roote out the very name of those places: yet notwithstanding afterwards, in the time of the Iudges was Gedeon permitted to offer of his owne ac­cord a sacrifice vnder an oake. Aug. Whereupon Saint Au­gustine is noted to obserue, That the custome of Gods peo­ple, whereby they offered sacrifice euen without the Taberna­cle, (if onely to the true God, and not vnto strange Gods) was so farre approued by God himselfe, that he was said to be [ex­audiens offerentes;] which I may interpret, to yeeld vnto the prayers of them, who did offer sacrifices. Which exam­ple we haue propounded, although not as euery way imitable, yet to prooue that to doe things in their owne nature not impious, for the furtherance of Gods wor­ship, is not so culpable as some would inforce.

SECT. XXIIII. Our second Proofe is from the iudgement of ancient Fathers.

The Fathers did not alwayes abolish such Ceremonies, as had beene formerly abused, for they (as your selues know) did for a long time continue the Iewish Ceremo­ny of Ester, obserued by the godly Bishops and Martyrs of the Churches of Asia, albeit, not Iewishly, that is, to the same end, whereunto the Iewes did celebrate it. Yea, and the Ceremonie of Circumcision was, for many yeeres, continued in the succession of many Christian Bishops of [Page 130] Ierusalem; although not Sacramentally, after the profes­sion of the Iewes, thereby to signifie that Christ the pro­mised seed was to come in the flesh, (which was a Ceremony Propheticall) but Historically, to shew their descent from the loines of their grand Patriarke Abraham, the first fa­ther of Circumcision.

So likewise, the Testimonies, which your selues haue al­ledged and obiected out of the Fathers, shew, that they did not euermore purge the former Abuses of Ceremo­nies, by priuation, in remoouing the things themselues; but sometimes onely by translation. As for example▪ The Councell of Nice changed the Iewish Easter into the Lords day;Conc. Nicen. And the Councell of Gangris, abolishing the Fasts, Conc. G [...]ng. which some vsed vnchristianlie on the Lords day, Can. 18. did in the 19. denounce an Anathema and curse against them, who should condemne other Fasts appointed by the Church. Many such like changes are found in antiquity, concerning Fasts, Feasts, Habits, and other like adiuncts of holy worship. Which doe alto­gether disable the validity of your Position, that would extinguish all Ceremonies, which haue at any time beene superstitiously vsed, either after any Iewish, Hereticall, or Heathenish opinion.

Lastly, you haue been so frequent, vrgent, and instant in alledging the Testimonies of ancient Doctors, for the abolishing of all things which haue beene formerly a­bused, that a man would thinke you professe your selues to be children of those graue Fathers, and to yeeld your selues to be gouerned by their prudent directions. But it is well knowne to as many as haue seene the faces of the aforesaid Fathers, either in the generall Histories of the Church, or in their owne bookes, that all of them did both maintaine and practize the vse of mysticall Ceremo­nies. [Page 131] Will you therefore admit of their iudgements? why then do you reiect such kind of Ceremonies? will you not allow them? why do you then obiect such witnesses, whose vniuersall consent you can so easily contemne? Nay but to refuse (as you often doe) to be tryed by the Testimonies of such Fathers, whose patronage in the very same cause you haue so peremptorily challen­ged, must needs bewray in you preuarication, rather than confidence, in this maner of proofe.

SECT. XXV. Our third Proofe, for Confutation of their Tenent, is from Reasons: And our first Reason is from an Inconuenience.

There was neuer almost any truth so diuine, or Cere­monie so sacred, which the filthy mouthes, and sordid fingers of some heretikes, haue not wickedly polluted. Thus diuers of them haue not forborne to peruert, to their Hereticall sences, both the Sacraments of our Lord Iesus, being vnto vs the two seales of the Coue­nant of Grace. As first, concerning Baptisme, some He­retikes haue erred in the matter, Baptizing with fier; so did the Seleuci: some in the forme, In nomine igno [...]i Patris, as did the Marcitae; some in the persons baptized, by Baptizing the dead, as did the Cataphryges; some by Re­baptizing, as doe the Anabaptists.

Secondly, concerning the Eucharist likewise, the Ca­thari would not admit, for the matter, Bread, as thinking this Creaturue was from an euill beginning. The A­quarij would not allow of Wine. But, of all other, the Pa­pists haue most prophaned this holy Sacrament, by their manifold Sacriledge, as well thorow their irreligi­ous opinions, as by their Idolatrous Adorations. Wee [Page 132] are not ignorant that you doe except against some things which being abused by man, were not comman­ded by God: notwithstanding these instances may serue to teach vs, that seeing the best things, and of most holy vse haue beene subiect vnto hereticall abuses of godlesse men; it will be almost impossible for vs to find any Ce­remonie which shall be altogether without exception; And to be forbidden to vse any Ceremonie, would bring no small preiudice to our Christian libertie.

SECT. XXVI. Our second Reason is taken from the absurditie of the Non-conformists Rule of reforming Abuses onely by Abro­gation; and of curing Contraries by Contraries.

Whereas the Non-conformists say, that Contraries are to be cured by contraries;M. Cartwr. as if there were no way to purge Superstition, but by the extirpation of all Monu­ments and Remembrances thereof: I would wish them to consider whether to argue (as they haue done) from the abuse of a thing, to the necessarie abolishing of the vse thereof, be not as great an abuse of true Logicke, as a Scholler in any reasoning can possibly commit? Be­cause, according to the right Topique place (concerning Vse and Abuse) the Axiome standeth rather thus? What­soeuer is subiect to abuse, the same may be turned to a right vse. And the reason is good, because Vsus Instrumenti est per se, abusus verò est per accidens. Nothing can bee excepted from this Rule, but onely sinnes and defects, which are not things abused, but meerely Abuses them­selues.

In the causes Levitically-Legal, a Woman polluted and [Page 133] defiled with an vncleannesse, Leuit. 12. might be purged from her issue of bloud: And a man that had a running issue in his flesh, might be cleansed. Leuit. 15. Seeing therefore these Legall pollu­tions had their cleansings; how then is it, that you assume so conclusiuely, that A Ceremonie being once superstitiously defiled cannot afterwards be made cleane?

Secondly, in Morall causes, (for there may be an Ana­logie betweene the Leuiticall pollutions and cleansings, and the Morall abuses, and their reformations) a woman that hath committed folly, although she cannot recouer her Virginitie, yet vpon her repentance, she may repaire her honesty: Againe, the person that is as sacrilegious as Dionysius, may be restitution and almes, become as truely Gods Almoner, as Zacheus. May it bee thus in persons, and cannot the like alteration be had of Abuses in actions, which otherwise in themselues are indifferent?

Thirdly, in naturall and artificiall Obiects, both Art and Nature seeme to exclaime against your Conse­quences: For as the Orator speaketh, Solem è mundo tol­lere videtur, qui vsum propter abusum tollit; He seemes to pull the Sunne out of the firmament, that taketh away the vse of each thing, for the abuse thereof. For we may see, there is a kind of sinne which may be called Daemon meridianus; a deuill that danceth at noone-day; whereby is meant that the glorious light of the Sunne is notably abused by some most impudent Transgressors, for the acting of their sinnes in pompe and iollitie: And is not the vniversalitie of creatures said, [...], to groane and trauell, in birth, as desirous to be deliuered? Rom. 8.22. Surely, from the tyrannie of mens Abuses.

In briefe, to professe to reforme abuses onely by vtter abolishing of the things abused, is as much as to teach the Chirurgion to professe no cure of mens diseased limmes, [Page 134] but onely Abscision: The Barber no Art but shauing to the quicke, and euen flaying away the skinne: The Magistrates no Rule of punishing, but according to Draco his Lawes (Sanguine scriptas) onely by death.

SECT. XXVII. Our third Proofe from Reason, is, by shewing other meanes for reforming the abuses of things, than by abolishing the things themselues.

The meanes which are to be vsed, in reforming of things abused, are three; Abrogation, Translation and Correction: Our Non-conformists allow, and practise onelie the first kinde, vrging and pressing the necessitie of Abrogation, Abolition, and vtter extirpation of Ce­remonies, which haue once beene superstitiously abused.

But our Church, in her singular wisedome, as she hath most religiously dealt with the number of super­fluous and Idolatrous Rites in the Romish Church; which she hath abandoned; so hath she discreetlie orde­red those Ceremonies, which she thought good to retaine, by remouing onelie the abuses and superstitions, and re­forming them, either by Translation or else by Correcti­on. I will giue an Instance in either of them.

First, the Crosse, about the celebration of Baptisme, which was vsed of the Papists before the act of Bapti­zing, in a superstitious opinion, for a kinde of Adiurati­on: for the auoiding whereof, our Church hath transla­ted the signe of the Crosse, to haue place after the Sacra­mentall act, as attending the Sacrament, and making vp the retinue of ornaments about it. As therefore M. Cal­uin, (speaking of the change of the Saboth day of the creation, into the day of Christs Resurrection, and, as I [Page 135] may so say, recreation of mankinde) saith,Calvi [...]. Dies Sabbati non sublatus, sed translatus est: that It is not quite remoued, but translated: So may we deale, in alteration of Ceremo­nies, as hath bene alreadie exemplified in the diuerse cu­stomes of ancient Churches. And iudge, I pray you,Sect. 24. whether our Churches alteration of a Ceremonie, from a false and superstitious, into a true and religious significa­tion, be not an excellent kinde of Translation.

Secondlie, although Translation be a kinde of Cor­rection, yet seeing that euerie Correction is not a Transla­tion, we proceed to speake concerning that kinde of re­formation of Ceremonies, so abused, which is by Correcti­on; whereof Chemnitius hath considered right well, speaking of Ceremonies, which haue degenerated from their truly wholesome vse; [Tales vel corrigendi vel mutandi, Exam. part. 2 pag. 34 col. 1. vel exemplo Aenei serpentis prorsus tollendi sunt] Such Cere­monies (saith he) are either to be corrected, or altered, or else according to the example of the Brazen Serpent, they are to be quite taken away.

To which purpose Zanchius requireth them that re­taine The feast daies which had beene superstitiously pollu­ted [vt ea superstitionibus defaecata sanctificentur] that is,De Redemp. in 4. praecept. pag. [...]78. That they being purged from the lees of superstition, may be sanctified; namely, to an holie vse. So that euen as, where the snuffe of Torches or Candles doth grow so bigge and so blacke that it hindreth the light, we do not therefore take away the light, but rather do cleanse, or cut off the snuffe it selfe: In like manner, such hath bene the wisedome of our Church, and State in this Land, in reforming of the Popish Abuses in our Ceremonies, that she hath purged the superstitious doctrines; which is, their opinion of Efficacious holinesse, and Idolatrous [...]pplication of Diuine honour: but yet hath she preser­ued [Page 136] the light of Morall significations, which are Sanctity in the Minister, Constancy in euerie Christian baptized into the faith of Christ; and Humilitie in all faithfull Communicants, at the receiuing of the sacred Myste­ries of Christs death.

SECT. XXVIII. Our fourth Proofe from Reason, against their last Generall Argument; especially in their Assumption; wherein they argued from the extirpation of the Cere­monies of Pagans, for the abolishing of the Ceremonies of Papists.

Wee owe a right euen vnto our enemies, and there­fore must acknowledge, that it is a like errour to affirme, that there ought to be the same difference of Religion in case of Ceremonies, betweene Protestants and Papists, which should be betweene Papists and Pagans; as it is to require the same distance betweene England and Cale­cute, which is betweene Rome and England: especially considering that the gods of the Gentiles were all deuils. For among the innumerable Altars that were vsed of the Heathen, we reade not of any one that had any truth of Religion in it, but onely that one at Athens, which had this inscription vpon it,Act. 17.23. To the vnknowne God. Which notwithstanding was, alas! but a glympse of true light; for still God was vnto them but as vnknowne. As for the Papist, his Creed is the same with ours, in be­leeuing the Onely omnipotent God Maker of heauen and earth: vnto whom he cōmendeth his prayers, although sometimes Recto, sometimes but Obliquo modo; and toge­ther with vs he professeth the Lord Iesus, and beleeueth [Page 137] to haue propitiation in his Bloud. So that the furniture of Habites and Vestiments, which that Church vsed, being primarily consecrated to that supr [...]eme end, to wit, the worship of God in Iesus Christ, may not be esteemed of equall abhomination with the Habits of Paynims, which were dedicated vnto diuels.

Besides, there are betweene Vs and the Papists, cer­taine other Communia principia, Common Principles of Religion, whereupon we vse to ground our Christian conclusions, to wit, Holy Scriptures, Ecclesiasticall Stories, Writings of ancient Fathers, together with common Axi­omes receiued of all Christian Schooles, by reason whereof we can confute their errours, and more easily reforme the Abuses of their Ceremonies by Correction: But betweene Vs and Pagans, the case is farre different: For in that their Ceremonies are properly and immedi­ately directed to false gods, we haue none, or but very few common axiomes whereby to reduce them from their Heathenish and Idolatrous opinions: whence it is, that the superstition of their Ceremonies is best re­futed, by onely remouing them.

SECT. XXIX. The fourth generall ground of Confutation of their former Argument, is, from the testimonies of their principall witnesses.

You your selues in this question haue obiected M. Caluin, P. Martyr, and Zepperus, as if they had abando­ned all vse of Romish Ceremonies; with as an extreme a detestation, as they do the very Heathenish: whereas, Cal. Opusc. Tract. de vi­tand. superstit. pag. 78. if you would haue consulted with M. Caluin, in a place professedly assigned for the Auoiding of Romish supersti­tion, [Page 138] he would haue taught you that there is a maine difference betweene Turkes and Papists; Because [Mul­ta habemus &c.] There are many points common (saith he) betweene vs and Papists, especially this, that we haue both our Denominations from Christ &c. And after he infer­reth, that Although there be many Ceremonies among the Papists, which we may not obserue, yet (saith he) [Nequis me adeo austerum esse, vel praecisi rigoris &c.] lest any man may thinke me to be so rigorously precise, that I would for­bid a Christian [ne se Papistis vlla in Ceremonia aut obser­uatione accōmodet] that is, to apply himselfe in any Ceremo­ny vnto the Papists; Be it knowne, that it is not my purpose to condemne any thing which is not directly euill in it selfe.

Now who knoweth not, that the thing which is made Euill onely through Abuse, cannot be said any way to be euill in it selfe? And we haue heard already of his allowance of materiall Churches, howsoeuer they were once polluted with Romish superstition:Mosaic. expl. l. 4. c. 7. pag. 318. whereof Zeppe­rus confesseth, saying; The Popish Temples, what were they, but the Receptacles of all Idolatrie, which did bellow out nothing but meere abhominations? yet from hence it doth not follow, that the Churches of Protestants must there­fore be destroyed, and new ones built in their steads: because those Temples were not the immediate instruments of Ido­latry, as the Altars were, which could not but serue im­mediatly vnto their God Mauzim, euen to the execrable sacrifice of the Masse. And although we reade in the Eccle­siasticall Storie of Ruffinus, Ruff. l. 2. c. 4. of the destruction of an Hea­thenish Temple by conuert Christians; and of Constantine his Edict for the demolishing of the Temples of the Gentiles and Heretickes:Euseb. lib. 3. de vita Const. c. 1. & 3. [...]useb. lib. 5. hist. Eccl. c. 16 the like of the Edict of Theodosius the elder; that is no more than we may say of some Churches and Temples, which stand in remote places, instituted by [Page 139] Papists for the vse of Pilgrims and Passengers, whereof there is no conuenient vse. In this Authour, you may ob­serue a distinction betweene things immediatly, (as Al­tars,) and mediatly (as Temples) dedicated to Idolatrie; and that Zepperus excluding the latter, yet alloweth of the first, although the Temples so polluted with Idolatry, be now materially and indiuidually the same, which are vsed by Protestants in the syncere and holy worship of God.

P. Martyr is plentifull in this point; P. Martyr Ep. ad Hoope [...] p. 1087. first putting in a Caueat, which will be for the direction of your consci­ences, if you will hearken vnto him; & if you will not, yet then also will it make for your correction. Cauendum est profectò &c. Wee must in any case take heed (saith he) lest that we do presse the Church with too much seruitude, as to thinke that we may vse nothing which hath bene Popish. Surely, the ancient Fathers tooke the Temples of Idols and conuerted them into holy houses of God, wherein Christ our Sauiour should be worshipped; and the Reuenewes which had bene consecrated vnto the gods of the Gentiles, for the maintenance of their Vestall Virgins, that they tooke for the support of the Ministers of the Church; albeit such things had serued not onely to the honour of Antichrist, bu [...] of the diuels themselues. Yea, and also the very verses of the Poets, which were dedicated vnto the Muses, and diuerse gods, or for the vse of Comedies, or seruing in the Theater, for pacifying of their gods; such did Ecclesiasticall Writers (the holy Fathers) vse, so farre as they found them fit, good, and true; and were thereunto directed by the example of the Apostle, who did not disdaine to cite Menander, Ara­tus, and Epimenides, and to set downe the same words, which were otherwise prophane, and to apply them to Gods worship: Except perhaps you shall deeme that the [Page 140] words in holy Writ do serue so much vnto Gods worship, as do the visible words of the holy Sacraments. Furthermore, who doth not know, that wine was consecrated vnto Bac­chus; Bread to Ceres; Water to Neptune; Oliues to Mi­nerua; Letters to Mercurie; Songs to the Muses, or to A­pollo? All which, notwithstanding we doubt not to apply as well in Sacred, as in Ciuill vses, albeit they had beene de­dicated vnto the very Diuels. So he. Whereby, as we see, he putteth in a caueat against all fierce and calumnious Disputers, who inferre from euerie former abuse of Sur­plice, a necessarie abolishing of all vse thereof.

SECT. XXX. Our fift and last ground of Confutation of their generall Argument, against our Ceremonies, in respect of their former Abuses, is taken from the Confes­sion and Practse of the Non-confor­mists themselues.

The first, and fairest obiects which offer themselues vnto our eyes, among the Ceremonies in Romish worship, and their Churches, Chalices, Vestiments, Bels, and if you will, also their round Wafer-cake; all which haue bene Ido­latrously abused by Papists. Their Churches were most superstitiously dedicated after the manner of charming; their Chalices, and Table-clothes, were no lesse immediate Instruments of their Idolatrous Masse, than were their Altars; their Bels were baptized, with an opinion of in­fused Holinesse and vertue to driue away Diuels. Duran­dus, and Durantus, Durand. in Rational. Dura [...]t. de Ritibus. two Maisters of the Ceremonies in the Romish Church, do deriue many superstitious Sig­nifications from these, & almost all other Instruments of Romish seruice, even vnto the verie Knots of the Bel-ropes.

The Case thus standing, must we now by the Con­clusion [Page 141] of our Non-conformists, stand chargeable to turne our Temples into Barnes or Hay-lofts (which I wish were not practised by some that will seeme to make most cōscience against a Ceremony,) Siluer Chalices into wooden cuppes; Bels into Gunnes, and Bel-ropes into halters, &c? Nay, euen your selues are not so farre fallen out with Popish Ceremonies, but that you can be conten­ted to except out of your Position such as may bee of ne­cessary vse. Yea, and one who is held as a principall,Linc. gene­rall Rule. and (as it were) Super-intendent among you, doth more ful­ly expresse your opinion than others, thus: Many of our Churches were builded by Papists, and dedicated to the ho­nour of Saints, and seruice of some Idol, yet these being in the first foundation, M Hy. p. 22. (which I take to h [...]ue beene in Constan­tines time) intended for the true worship of God, and ha­uing both then and now a needfull vse among vs, may be re­tained. I thinke that Gregory did well, who said vnto Au­gustine the Monke being then in England, that for the Pa­gan and Idol Churches, he should onely purge them, and not pull them downe — yea, and Popish vestments may serue, for substance of the stuffe, to make window Cushions, or a Pulpit-Cloth; Prouided alwayes, that there be no Crosse nor Cruci­fix vpō it. The like may be said of Bels, Fonts, Tables, Flagōs, Pulpits, all which hauing some profitable vse in the Church of God, may by the warr [...]nt of Gods word be retained, al­though in Poperie they haue beene abused. Thus farre this Non conformist.

Marke now, I pray you, from whence, and whither you are come. Your first Conclusions were for the ex­tirpation of all Ceremonies formerly abused to Idolatry, (whether Iewish, Heathenish or Popish;) and that (as you affirme) necessarily and absolutely to the quite aboli­shing not onely of the things themselues, but euen [Page 142] the Monuments and names, yea, and the very shadowes and resemblances of them, that at length all memorie of them may be swallowed vp of obliuion: and these your assertions you pretended to be grounded vpō Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, and Testimonies of Protestant Diuines. Thus in your former Conclusions.

But contrarily now, in your Confessions and practi­ses, you yeeld vnto vs the vse of Shadowes, of names, and of things themselues, which haue bene once defiled by Idolatrous pollutiō. 1. Shadowes, for you forbeare not to decke your houses with Bay-leaues, notwithstanding you held this an execrable Ceremonie among the Pagans. Nor do you alter the situation of your Churches, and Chancels towards the East, albeit that Ceremonie hath bene Heathenishly abused to the adoration of the Sun. And do you not ordinarily as well in your vulgar Eng­lish, as in Latin, call some of the dayes of the weeke by names anciently appropriated vnto the seuen Planets; or to the Heathen So, accor­ding to the Saxon lan­guage, Wee­don, sig. Mer­curie, Thor. Iupiter, F [...]ya, Venus. gods? viz. Dies Saturni, &c. Satur­day, Sun-day, Moon-day? Besides, you do religiously and Christianly celebrate monthly Communions, to the re­membrance of Christ; notwithstanding that the Pagans had their monthly festiuals in the beginning of their Ca­lends. And finally, if you will needs stand vpon names, you may not lawfully so much [...]s name the word Cere­monie, (if as some hold) the same word [Ceremonie] haue bene borrowed by the Romish Pagans from their god­desse Ceres. Nor can you be said to abstaine from all appearance of Iew [...]sh obseruations, whilest with vs you Christianly celebrate the feast of Pentecost, which the Israelites did obserue Iewishly: or else by hauing the ta­bles of the commandements, written vpon the pillars of the Churches, which the Iewes did write vpon the Posts of their houses.

[Page 143]But what do we talking of names, and shadowes? you are furthermore contented in some things to retaine their materials, and to change onely the fashions: for you allow that Popish vestment [...] be changed into Cushi­ons for the Churches vs, and Copes into Pulpit-clothes. And you agree that some other things, as Bels, Fonts, Tables, a [...]d Churches themselues (although neuer so filthily polluted) may both in forme and in matter contiue the same. Is there not then an huge [...] be­tweene your former Conclusions, and these after Con­fessions?

We come now to examine your Reason of allowing any of the former Ceremonies, although they haue bene Idolatrously abused. You alledge that you onely allow them, because they are profitable and necessary. But what? absolutely necessary? This you cannot affirme, because the primitiue Church (as you well know) of a long time kept not their worship in Temples, but in Cryptis, e­uen in priuate houses and deserts. Nor vsed they seats or Cushions, for in the time of persecution they were con­tented to vse their Stations, which sheweth that their common gesture was standing. Againe, there was a time, when the Ministers were golden, and their Chalices but wooden; and indeed the Church vnder persecution did forbeare to put on any ornaments of vestures: and then Baptisme was not in Fonts, but in Riuers and Foun­taines. Nor were people assembled to the publike Ser­uice of God by the sound of Bels, but of mens voices. All which accidentall supplies do plainly shew, that the Profit of these things, which you your selues thinke worthy to be continued, is of no absolute necessitie.

Lastly, you may enquire of the Church of Geneua, why she imposeth the Wafer-cake to be obserued of her [Page 144] Ministers and people, albeit shee is not ignorant, that the round Wafer among the Papists had the signifi­cation of the pence, for which Christ was sold by Iudas? and became (after their Romish consecration) not one­ly Idolatrous, but the very Idol it selfe?

Vpon these Premises, I make bold to argue thus, If your imagined necessitie, which is in truth but a conueni­encie, be of power to take away the Idolatrous pollution of Temples, Bels, Tables, Chalices, euen (as it is said) By the warrant of the word of God, which requireth Decency, Order, and Edification in his seruice: then doubtl [...]sse the Decency, Order, and Edification it selfe, which are to be discerned in our Ceremonies, may be thought much more able to purge and purifie the Ceremonies, which haue bene changed from their Popish vse.

But of the Profit and conueniencie of our Ceremonies we shall haue occasion to speake more particularly, when we shall come to the confutation of your particu­lar Accusations. I haue no delight to wade any longer in this lake of Abuses, and therefore leauing these our Confutations to the consideration of our ingenuous Reader, I passe from this fourth generall Argument of the Non-conformists against our Ceremonies, vnto the Argument following.

CHAP. V.

SECT. I. The fift generall Argument of the Non-conformists, against the aforesaid Ceremonies, taken from the Scandall, which they impute vnto them.

Maior. Then especially doth a Ceremony become in vse vn­lawfull,Linc. pag. 45. when it cannot be vsed without scandall and offence: for the holy Ghost speaking of indifferent things, strictly chargeth to take heed, that we neither put an occasion to fall, or lay a stumbling blocke before a brother. Rom. 14.13. nor make him weake, ver. 21. nor giue him cause to speake or thinke ill of vs, ver. 16. nor grieue him thereby, ver. 15. — The Reason is giuen, because it tendeth to the destruction of him, ver. 20. And that all Ceremonies become vn­lawfull, in the case of scandall, is the iudgement of Diuines.

Assumption. But these Ceremonies of Surplice, Crosse in Bap­tisme, Kneeling at the receiuing of the Communion are Scandalous. Ergo they ought to he remooued.

Our first Answer to their Maior, by exposition of the word, Scandall.

SOme vnderstand by the word [Scandall] euery kind of grieuing or angring of any Brother: but if this were true, then might Christ be said to haue Scandalized Peter, whom he did much perplexe and grieue, when after Peters third denyall of him,Ioh. 15.16. he asked him, say­ing, Simon, louest thou me? But this grieuance being not ad ruinam, but ad correctionem, for instruction, not for de­struction, cannot be properly called a Scandall.

Againe, the Apostle is exact in forbidding euery Chri­stian to do that,Rom. 14. wherewith any Brother may be offended, [Page 146] scandalized or weakened: from which diuersitie of words, some do extract different sences, as that [offendiculum] Offence must signifie that act of one man, whereby ano­ther is hindred in the course of faith and godlinesse, so that he goe backe-ward from his profession. And se­condly, by [scandalum] scandall] they vnderstand such an hinderance, which maketh a man fall either into dan­gerous errours in doctrine, or else some sinfull act of con­uersation. Thirdly, by [weakenesse] they interpret such an hinderance, whereby a Christian is made onely more slow, and remisse in the profession and course of Christi­anity. Which three phrases are notwithstanding ex­pounded more pertinently by others, to be set downe thus seuerally, not by way of distinction, but for exag­geration of the sinne of wilfull offence against Christi­ans, in prouoking of them vnto any damnable errour or sinne, by any sensible externall meanes. And in this last sence do we proceed to discusse this Argument concer­ning scandall.

SECT. II. Our second Answer is by distinction of the kindes of scandall.
I. Diuision.

That distinction of scandall will best fit our purpose, whereby it is vsually diuided into these two members, the one is called Actiue, the other Passiue.

SECT. III. Our I. Subdiuision of Actiue Scandall, is in respect of the partie Agent • direct. , and • indirect. 

The Actiue is in respect of the partie Agent, who by an Act which he doth, shall willingly prouoke ano­ther to any euill. And this kind admitteth many Subdi­uisions: First, than an Actiue Scandall is either directly euill, or onely indirectly. The direct manner of scandall is, when the Act is euill in it selfe. Thus the Act of Da­uids murther was scandalous. 2. Sam. 12.24 And this kind of scandall is no way excusable, being euill ratione obiecti, which is properly sinne.

The Indirect scandall, is seene in Acts which are in their owne nature good, or at least not euill: but yet be­cause either in respect of time, or place, or of some other Circumstance, the act doth occasionally fall out to be scandalous, as did the eating of things offered vnto Idols, Act. 15. which was therfore forbidden: being a sin either more or lesse, according to the diuerse affections of the Offen­der. For this indirect scandall may happen to be after two sorts, sometime without the intention of the Agent, who hath no meaning to giue any such offence: of which kind we may reckon the fact of Saint Peter, when he did so partially apply himselfe vnto the Iewes, to the scandall of the Gentiles. And this we call the lesse sinne. The other maner of indirect scandall, is that which some­times proceedeth from the wicked intent in the Scanda­lizer; and such was the sinne of many Heretikes, Gal. 2.11. who [Page 148] would vse Fasts, and other Ceremonies of deuotion and austerity, to draw disciples after them, and to seduce men from the truth of Christ. Thus much in respect of the partie Agent.

SECT. IIII. Our 2. Subdiuision of Actiue scandall, in respect of persons offended, either • weake. , and • strong. 

The second Subdiuision hereof is in respect of the persons that are offended; for it is either perfectorum hominum, of men throughly grounded; or pusillorum, of weake, and more simple. Concerning the Perfect, the Stumbling blocke is on their part that gaue scandall, albe­it the parties that are offended, are not thereby scanda­lized, that is, not so offended, as to stumble and fall. And thus it may be said,Mar [...]. 16. that Peter did scandalize Christ him­selfe, when wishing Christ to fauour himselfe, and not to die, he receiued that answer from Christ, — Satan thou art a scandall vnto me. For albeit this motion proceeded from a good and most friendly intent in Saint Peter, who was the speaker (for it was onely that Christ should fauour himselfe, for the preseruation of his life,) yet did Christ discerne therein a wicked purpose of the sugge­ster the diuell: for the which cause Christ called Peter, Satan: because in Peters seeking to hinder the death of Christ, Satan sought to hinder mans redemption. But Christ preferring mans saluation before his owne life, taught vs by his owne example to deale with all such scandals or blockes, which are temptations to hinder vs in our course of Christianitie, euen as a man would do with a blocke that lyeth in his way, [Page 149] that is, to Cast it behind him: for so said Christ in his an­swer; Get thee behind me Satan. As for the [Pusilli] & weake ones, our Sauiour speaketh in their behalfe, saying; He that offendeth one of these little ones that beleeueth in me, Math. 18. it were better &c. Thus much in respect of the Parties.

SECT. V. Our 3. Subsidiuision of Actiue Scandall, in respect both of persons and cause, either • Determined, , and • Vndetermined. 

A third subdiuision is both in respect of the cause, and of the persons in cases of indifferencie: For sometime this case is determined by the Church, and sometimes it happeneth not to be publiquely defined. When such a matter is once fully concluded by the Church, whether in part, or in whole, so that it doth not euidently appeare to be against the Word of God, so far forth it greatly cō ­cerneth all such persons to conforme themselues there­unto, according to the doctrine of S. Paul, in a questi­on of Ceremony; If any seeme to be contentious, 1. Cor. 11.16. we haue no such custome, nor the Church of God. For indeed, all men are bound in conscience to preserue aboue all things the regard of the generall peace of Gods Church, before the grieuance of any sort or sect of men. Which the Apostle also doth expresly teach, saying; Giue offence to no man, neither to the Iew, nor to the Gentle, 1▪ Cor. 10.13. nor (which the Apostle addeth in a further speciality) to the Church of God: Because such a Scandall is so much the more hei­nous than others, by how much more pernicious a thing it is to the endangering of the health of the whole body, than to weaken or lame any one limb or member thereof.

[Page 150]But if the case be either not at all, or but onely in part determined by the Church, then is there a charita­ble consideration to be had of other mens consciences, who are not perswaded of the lawfull vse of indifferent things. Then the generall rule is, that so farre as a man may vse indifferent things (without offence of others) he need not to forbeare them. Eate (saith the Apostle) ma­king no question for conscience sake. 1. Cor. 10.25. Why? Because God hath giuen man a liberty to vse such things, or not to vse them. And the Apostles reason is this, — For the earth is the Lords. But in case of offence against others, the Rule is, [Not to eate] namely in the behalfe of another mans conscience.

This was the cause that the Councell of the Apostles, giuing libertie to vse such meates, as had bene formerly accounted vncleane, did notwithstanding make a re­straint from eating of Strangled and Bloud, and things offered vnto Idols:Act. 15. lest thereby they might giue offence to the Iewish Proselites newly called to the faith. And for the same cause, the Apostle in great circumspection did circumcise Timothie, to auoyde the Scandall of the Iewish new Conuerts, and lately called to the faith of Christ: but at another time would not circumcise Ti­tus, Gal. 2.3. lest he might giue way to false Apostles, who defen­ded an absolute necessity of Circumcision; to the preiu­dice of the liberty of the Gospell. Thus much in respect of both Cause and Parties.

SECT. VI. Our 4. Subdiuision of Actiue Scandall, in respect of con­sequences, and effects, in occasioning • A lapse into sinne, or errour. , and • Hinderance from Grace. 

The fourth and last Subdiuision is in respect of the Consequences, and the effects of Scandall, whether it be an Hinderance of their saluation, who are already members of the Church, by prouoking them with such Scandalous examples, either to vse indifferent things against their consciences; and occasion them to relapse from the faith, as hath bene said: or else if it be an hin­derance of them who are yet aliens from the couenant of grace, to set a Scandall and blocke against them. Which latter point of Scandalizing, S. Paul doth con­demne, saying, Giue no offence neither to the Iew, 1. Cor. 10.32. nor to the Grecian. Whereupon,Calv. Ibid. The Apostle (saith M. Caluin) nameth Iewes and Gentiles, teaching vs, that we are deb­ters vnto all sorts of men, euen to those that are Aliens, that we may gaine them to the faith. Thus much of Actiue Scandall.

SECT. VII. Of the second generall member of Scandall, which is called Passiue: and the diui­sion thereof is in respect of the • Party offended. , and • Matter of offence. 

The second generall member of Scandall is called Passiue, when the offence is not giuen by any fault of the Speaker, or Doer, but rather taken by the sinister appre­hension of the Hearer, or Interpreter, concerning some thing that is either good, or at least not euill in it [Page 152] selfe. Which Passiue offence is distinguished, either in respect of the party offended, or else in respect of the na­ture of that matter, wherein the offence doth consist.

SECT. VIII. Our 1. Subdiuision of the Passiue Scandall, is, concerning the fault of the party offended, either by defect in • Iudgement. , and • Affection. 

The fault of the party offended may proceed from a double defect: one is the corruption of his iudgement, yet through a wilfull and an affected ignorance: such as was the Scandall taken by the Capernaites, through their carnall construction of that speech of our Sauiour, say­ing;Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man &c. Whereat some were so greatly offended, that they refu­sed to heare Christ any more: & for the which some Dis­ciples also did apostatate from him. This I may call an affected ignorance, because they did not ingenously seeke to be satisfied by any Reason; but onely in a meere stupiditie,Verse 52. or rather obstinate incredulity asked, How shall he giue vs his flesh to eate? For notwithstanding they were answered by Christ himselfe, that the speech was not to be taken carnally or literally, but spiritually; yet had they not the patience to endure the speech of Christ: For which cause he suffered them (wretched men that they were!) to Depart from him. Thus much of the Scan­dall proceeding from the iudgement of the Party.

The second defect proceedeth directly from the poi­son of a carnall affection; whether of pride (as in such as tooke offence at the pouerty of Christ:) or in enuy, which is called oculus nequam: 1. Pet. 2.8. as in him that tooke [Page 153] offence at Christs bounty, vnto whom it was said:Math. 20.15. Is thy eye euill because mine is good? Or lastly in malice; which is called, Scandalum Pharisaeorum, who tooke offence both at the miracles of Christ, imputing them to the Prince of the Deuils: and at his doctrine, conce [...]ning whom Christ, (as permitting malicious men, if they needs will, to fall, sinck, and perish in their sinnes) saith in that place; Let them alone, they are blind Leaders of the blind, Mat. 15.14: and both shall fall into the Ditch. And the truth is, that whosoeuer they be that are Scandalized, through their owne malice or wilfulnesse, Non tam pati dici possunt, quàm facere Scan­dalum, that is, They may be said more properly to do, than to suffer scandall. Thus much of the Scandall pas­siue, as it respecteth the disposition of the party scanda­lized.

SECT. IX. Our 2. Subdiuision of Scandall Passiue, in respect of the opinion of • Indifferencie. , and • Necessitie, 

The second respect, considerable in a Scandall of this kinde, doth r [...]gard the nature of the cause, where­about it doth arise; which is sometimes about a matter indifferent. Now in such a case, questionlesse, much in­dulgence should be vsed towards weake persons, whose infirmity proceedeth onely from simple ignorance: Nor should we, (where the case stands thus) prouoke any by our example to vse any thing (although otherwise in­different) against their consciences; because this is called a Destroying of thy brother. 1. Cor. 14.20. Which indulgence notwith­standing is to be allowed onely till such time, as the do­ctrine, concerning the indifferencie of vsing or not vsing [Page 154] the thing in question hath bene sufficiently declared: after which time, if any presumptuously perseuer, and will not be instructed, the condigne penalty which shall be thenceforth inflicted, cannot bee called Scandalum, sith that this doth alwaies presuppose a meere weakenesse, for want of due meanes of knowledge.

But if the euent and consequence of the Scandall be not onely an offence of priuate mens consciences, but also an ouerthrow of some generall and necessarie do­ctrine of the Church, which tendeth to edification and saluation, then ought we to maintaine the Tenet of S. Augustine;Aug. Praestat vt scandalum admittatur quàm vt veri­tas amittatur: meaning, that it is better the persons of some men should take offence by our Preaching and doctrine, then that the truth of God should suffer any preiudice through our regardlesse silence. And for our better warrant in so doing, S. Paul hath giuen vs mani­fest documents from his owne examples, one, in not cir­cumcising of Titus, Gal. 2. and the other, in withstanding of Peter.

Thus much of the Diuisions and Subdiuisions of Scan­dall; which being duely considered, will expedite all dif­ficulties that you can obiect in the question of Scandall: for out of these you may collect the true and full sence of the Scriptures, which you haue alleaged in your first Obiection from holy Writ; as will better appeare in our Answers and Confutations. In the meane time, leauing your Proposition as granted, according to our former limitations, we put you to the triall of your Assump­tion.

SECT. X. The Generall Assumption of the Non-conformists, against our Ceremonies, because of Scandall. Their Pretences of Scandall, occasioned by our Ce­remonies, are manifold, to wit; in respect of • 1 Superstitious Papists. , • 2 Prophane [...]rsons. , • 3 Weake brethr [...]n. , • 4 Their whole Congregations. , • 5 Their owne vnconformable Ministers. , and • 6 All sorts in generall; at least by appearance of euill. 

Their first Obiection of Scandall, by our Ceremonies, is in respect of superstitious Papists.

The Papists will bee hardened,Abridg. Linc. pag. 49. to see vs borrow our Ceremo­nies from their Religion.

Our Answer.

We answer that our Rites, which haue beene purged from Popish superstition, are no more the Ceremonies of Papists, then our Churches are theirs (wherein notwith­standing your selues do willing Pray, and Preach) be­ing now conuerted from the seruice of the Romish Idoll vnto the syncere worship of God. And therefore Papists, by our reformation of things which they haue abused, haue as little cause to insult and boast to see our Ceremonies now purged from their former supersti­tion, as they should do to see some of their Brothellers conuerted by vs vnto honesty and holinesse of life.

SCET. XI. Their second Obiection of Scandall by our Ceremonies, is in respect of profane persons.

Abridg Linc. Ibid.The profane will draw Arguments from hence, to contemne all Religions.

Our Answer.

From whence, I beseech you? From the seemely ap­parrelling of Religion; or rather from the stripping her naked of her lawfull and accustomed attire? Nay, and you may easily coniecture whether the profane are more likely to draw arguments, for their neglect, or con­tempt of Religion and Pietie, rather from a decent vni­formity in lawfull Rites; than from an horride disparity in them, through your daily dissentions. He that doub­teth hereof, may as well question, whether the Saw, or the Citharen maketh the better Musick.

SECT. XII. Their third Obiection of Scandall, by our Ceremonies, is in respect of the weake Brethren.

These cannot but be a scandall to the weake brethren, and to the wicked:Abridg. Linc. pag. 49. to the weake brethren, by being drawn thereunto against their conscience, or else doubtingly.

Our Answer.

You haue heard our answer touching the wicked; now heare a little concerning the weake. These whom Christ would not haue to be scandalized, hee doth point them out to be pusilli, Math. 18. little ones: meaning such as are newly wained from the world, and called to feed on the Manna of the word. And such babes in Christ were [Page 157] those Proselites, whom Saint Paul did so much tender in matter of Scandall, vntill they should become more ripe and strong in the knowledge of the mysteries of faith.

Now would we faine vnderstand, who be these weak­lings, whom you so much respect in this Case. Are they not for the most part such, whom you haue most dili­gently catechized, and whom you therefore iudge to haue more vnderstanding in the mysteries of Christ, and knowledge in the reuealed will of God, than others? If then these, whom you thinke to be more exactly seene in all essentiall parts of Christian learning, must, concer­ning points of things indifferent, be counted weake, then do you greatly wrong your owne iudgements, by whose examples they are made weake. Nay euen you selues (my brethren) are become these weake-ones, in not be­ing able to disgest these Ceremonies, which, by the confes­sion of all Diuines, are in their owne nature indifferent; though you would hardly take it well, that any should ranke you in the number of weake ones. Yet if you be not such, why do you make this a Reason, to mooue the Church to respect, and free you from all scandall occasi­oned by Ceremonies? or if you be indeed weake persons, why exercise you your strength in nothing more, than in opposing the wisdome of the whole Church, by your most scandalous contradictions? We are perswaded, that strength of knowledge could not take any offence at matters of Indifferencie: And therefore, that the guilt of your weaknesse should cause you to seeke direction from them, vnto whom you owe your obedience.

SECT. XIII. Their fourth Obiection of scandall, by our Ceremonies, is in respect of their vnconformable Congrega­tions, and Parish [...]s.

But especially are these Ceremonies d [...]ngerous, when they shall be brought in vpon Congregations,Abridg. Linc. pag. 84. which haue once refused them; then by no reason can they be called indiffere [...]t.

Our Answer.

Your meaning is knowne, to wit, that by Congrega­tions refusing them, you vnderstand particular Parishes, whereof your selues are Rectors, or Lecturers; neuer conside [...]ing, that the great Congregation, which is the whole Church of England in her representatiue body of Synod, haue all (by that authoritie whereunto you are o­therwise bound to obey) prescribed vnto particular Pa­rishes and Congregations, the vse of these Ceremonies: he therfore that shall ascribe more power to particular Con­gregations for the refusing, than to the great assembly of the whole kingdome in imposing a determinate vse of things indifferent, may by the same with iustifie any by-lawes deuised by honest men in particular Parishes, with refusall and contradiction of Parliament Lawes and Sta­tutes, enacted by the whole kingdome, and ratified by his Maiesties Royall assent.

But seeing you are more in loue with the Lawes of a Parochiall assembly, than of a Nationall Synod, I would know (for it is materiall) by whose Suffrages and voyces you would haue Ceremonies approued or con­demned in your Congregations, whether by men, or by women? If by men, of what condition must they be? [Page 159] whether of Gentrie, or Yeomanrie, or, &c. Thinke not that I am idle in these Interrogatories, seeing that they tend to bring you to the sight of your error: which is, in­deed, intollerable; for what is this else but to preferre sheepe before their Pastors? that is, ignorance before knowledge, in the policie of gouernment of the Church: not to speake of the vnreasonablenesse of your manner of reasonning, which is à minore ad magis affirmatiue; whereby you giue vs occasion to inuert your owne Ar­gument against you, thus; If a small Congregation may haue power to determine of the indifferencie, & cōueni­encie of Ceremonies, then the constitution and ordi­nance of a greater Congregation, and that also by lawfull authoritie predominant (such as euery Nationall Synod is) ought much more to haue power to the same effect. Howsoeuer, when the refusall of your Congregation is rightly examined, it will be found, that before any voice, or Suffrage is propounded for receiuing or reiecting a­ny of your Lawes, the Minister in the Parish will first in the Pulpit giue the definitiue sentence: Whence it will consequently follow, that each of your Congregations must, in effect, conclude from but one voice. Thus farre of the weake.

SECT. XIIII. Their first Obiection of scandall, against our Ceremo­nies, in respect of the vnconformable Mini­ste [...]s themselues.

And as there is danger in the vse of these Ceremonies in all Congregations,Abridg. Linc pag. 50. so especially if they shall be brought backe againe into those, where they haue bene long out of vse; and receiued by such Ministers, as are knowne to haue refused them heretofore. For where he should prouide by all good meanes, that his Ministrie be not [Page 160] desspised, by this meanes he shall giue euident occasion vnto his people to blame his Ministrie, and to call into question the truth of all his Doctrine.

Our Answer.

If you shall as duely discerne, as I shall truly discouer the manifold crimes, which you seeme to bewray in this one supposition, I suppose that you will be ashamed to haue published such (I shall say no more then I meane to prooue) a false, presumptuous, irreligious, partiall, and pernicious a pretence as this is.

First, I haue aduentured to call it false, and I thinke vpon good ground, because most of you haue once at your Ordination into the Priesthood, and many of you also the second time at your Institution into your Bene­fices, subscribed vnto the lawfulnesse of these Ceremonies here in question; which now vpon a pretence of strict­nesse of conscience, you do so vrgently 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 [Page 161] 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, 1. Cor. 15. 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,Gal. 2.18. 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 frō 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.

[Page 162]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. Rom. 3. 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,Orat. i [...] Conc. Tri­dent. 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,1. Cor. 9.16. 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 therefo [...]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 [Page 163] Titius, a factious and schismaticall Minister, that he may place Sempronious, a peaceable & discreet mā 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 suspēsion 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, Beza. do notwithstanding in the point of Surplice, determine accordingly:Rest of hi [...] Replic. p. 266 They laying the waring of the Surplice in one ballance, (which wee may call, non prohiberi;) and the dutie of [Page 164] Preaching in another ballance of Praecipi, whereof the A­postle said,1. Cor 9.16. 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,Ioh. vlt. 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.

Abridg. Linc. ibid.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, [Page 165] 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 [Page 166] 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 re­du [...]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 [Page 167] Religion; whilest, by your detracting from the Ordinan­ces of the Church, many take occasion soone to negl [...]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 necess [...]ry to haue no communion with them, who ioyne thēs [...]lues in a worship which is in any degree polluted with Ceremonies that are Romishly Idolatrous. Therefore they flie; But whence? as Cain did;Gen. 4. From the presence of God in his Church. And whither will they then? Euen to A [...]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 [Page 168] 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 [...]ming int [...] [...]u [...] C [...]u [...]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, present [...]y oppose as a barre, your diuisions and oppositions against our Church; being vtterly vnperswad [...]ble to enter into a Church, where all ancient Rites are professedly reiected? And this scandall is not new, for B [...]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, B. Iewell. See beneath, part, 2. chap. 2 sect. 14. 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.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 48.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 [Page 169] nearer propriety,Tert. 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 [Page 170] 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, Act. 15. 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 [Page 171] 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 ce [...]taine meates, Rom. 14. 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;Loc com. class. 2. c. 4. p. 201. Imò ne (que) 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 wh [...]n once they haue vnder­stood, [Page 172] 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,M. Nic. 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 [Page 173] as Ecclesi [...]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 purs­strings: 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 there is a ful an apparence of cōtempt 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 d [...]priueth m [...]n of Christian libertie is vn­lawfull.M. Hy.

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.

M. Hy.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 [Page 175] 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 Christi [...]n libertie to vse Ceremonies appointed by man,Ibid. as things indifferent: but these Ceremonies are imposed as nec [...]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. 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. Act. 15. 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 [Page 176] 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 h [...]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. Rom. 13. 1. P [...]t. 2 13. Ephes. 6.1.7. 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 shalbe 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.

[Page 177]This Doctrine Saint Peter learned,Act. 10.11.12· 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. ver. 15. 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, Colos. [...].21. 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. , and • 2. Reasons. 

Their first Obiection from Scriptures.
The first place.

The Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 7.35. This I speak to your profit,Abridg. Linc. pag. 34. 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,1, Cor. 7.8. ver, 32.33. that It is good for man not to marrie; and againe, The vnmarried careth for things [Page 178] belonging to the Lord, 1. Cor. 7 8. Ver. 32.33. 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,Ver. 35. 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,Abridg. Li [...]c. pag. 34. Gal. 5.1. & Cor. 2.20. 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;Gal. 5.1. 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,Ver. 2. 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 [Page 180] 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,Gal. 4. 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, Ca [...]u. Com­ment. vpon this place. 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.

[Page 181]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,Abridg. Lin [...]. pag. 34. 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, Cal. Inst l. 4. ca. 10. num. 1. 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, Calu. ibid. Num. 9. vt ità loquar, in ipsis contineri:] the summe of [Page 183] all Religion and piety (meaning the essentiall worship of God,) and subiect the true worship of God to their owne comments and deuices, vnto the obseruation whereof they do binde the consciences of men [praecisâ necessitate] by a strict necessity. So he.

Wherein there is nothing spoken, which the exam­ples of Romish doctrine doth not confirme; whereby they Pharisaically make voyde the precepts of God, by the Traditions of men, which was condemned by Christ; and that so expresly, that M. Caluin durst againe assume, saying; Vicerint sanè, si quouis modo ab hac Christi accu­satione purgare se poterant, that is,Ibid. num. 10. We are ready to yeeld them the victorie, if by any meanes they shall be able to free themselues from this accusation of Christ: but what excuse can they make, seeing that first it is held with them a wic­kednesse, infinitely more heynous, to omit their auricular con­fession, once within the yeare; than to haue liued impiously all the yeare long: secondly, to infect their tongues with the least taste of any flesh vpon one Friday; than to haue de­filed their bodies with filthie and fleshly fornications from day to day: thirdly, to put their hands to worke on any day, that is dedicated to their owne deuised Saints; than to haue exercised their whole bodies in all facinorous and mischie­uous acts: fourthly, for a Priest to match himselfe in marri­age with one wife; than to wallow in a thousand adulteries: fiftly, to breake their vow of pilgrimage; than to falsifie their faith in their promises: sixtly, not to be somewhat super­fluous in bestowing excessiue costs, for the prodigious and vn­profitable gawdines of their Churches; than to be wanting in contribution to the reliefe of the poore in their extreme ne­cessities: seuenthly, to passe by an Image, without reuerence to it; than to reuile all sorts of men with all contumely and reproach: eightly, to omit the muttering with themselues in [Page 184] their Mattens some certaine houres, many words without vnderstanding; than neuer to conceiue a lawfull prayer with their vnderstanding. So M. Caluin. And what is it, if this be not to preferre the Traditions of men, before the com­mandements of God?

Furthermore, concerning the matter of Popish Cere­monies, he addeth as followeth; As very many of their Ceremonies cannot easily, Calu. ibid. Num. 2. so all of them, if they be congested together, cannot possibly be obserued, so huge is the heape of them: how therefore shall not the minds of men be extrem­ly scortched with anxietie and terrour by this difficultie; yea, impossibilitie of keeping such ordinances, wherewith their consciences are by them so fettered? Ibid. [...]um. 11. & 13. He proceedeth, Such and so infinite is the multitude of these Ceremonies, that we may truely say, that they haue brought a Iudaisme into the Church of God. For if Augustine could complaine in his daies, that the Church of God was so pressed with the burthen of Ceremonies, that the state of the Iewes might seeme to be more tollerable; What complaints would that holy man haue made, if he had liued in our times, to see the seruitude which we behold at this day, seeing that the Cere­monies are now ten-fold more for number, and euery iot of them is more strictly and rigourously exacted by an hundred-fold?

Here, here is matter for your pens to worke vpon, and to inueigh against this so outragious a tyrannie of An­tichrist, by your many Vae's: and not to take part with Pharises, in complaining against the true Disciples of Christ, for the vse of Three guiltlesse Ceremonies (as it were, for onely plucking of the Eares of Corne) and cou­pling together things, which are as different in nature, as in number from the Romish Rites: For as there is no great multitude in the number of Three, so in these our [Page 185] Three, none of vs did euer place any essentiall worship of God; or power of Iustification; or religious pietie and sanctification; or do, in our estimation, preferre them before; yea, or do so much as equall them with any Ordinance of God; or finally yeeld vnto them any other vse than a religious Decorum, and godly significa­tion. Now then, for any to complain (as one of you haue done) that The burdens laid vpon you by our Church are more grieuous than your fore-fathers were able to beare;M. Hy. Thes. 19. is but an argumēt that he can hardly point out his Father, that doth not know his owne Mother: for if he acknow­ledged himselfe a true childe of our Church, he would not cast such a slander of oppressing Gods worship­pers with Burthens, which I am sure his Fathers haue, and now the most learned and discreete among his Bre­thren do beare with better consciences, than he can for­beare them. Thus much of their first Reason.

SECT. VII. Their second Reason, why these Ceremonies preiudice our Christian liberty, is taken from a pretence, that they are imposed with an opinion of binding mens consciences.

We haue nothing, as yet, to settle our doubtfull consciences vpon, but these two points, which are also in some doubt,M. Nic. that Magistrates authority binds conscience; and that the Rites imposed are indiffe­rent. But our Diuines teach vs, that Humane Lawes do not bind mens consciences; and that men do not incurre the guilt of eternall damnation, but onely by violating the Lawes of God.

Our Answer.

If you had vnderstood those your Diuines aright, you would haue distinguished betweene the manner, and [Page 186] measure of binding of conscience; where, by [manner] is meant the authoritie of Binding; and by [measure] the limits of this obligation of conscience. Let vs begin with the Manner, which is the authoritie of immediatly binding the conscience of man, so; as to make his trans­gression damnable before God: which authority pro­ceedeth onely from him, who can first prohibite the in­ternall acts of mans minde, as being able to discerne the thoughts of mans heart,1. Cor. 4.5. as it is written, It is the Lord that shall manifest the secrets of the hearts of men. And who, knowing mans thoughts, can secondly iudge ac­cording to mans conscience? To wit, God onely, con­cerning whom Saint Paul saith,Rom. 2.2. Their conscience bearing them witnesse, and their thoughts accusing or excusing in that day, when God shall iudge secrets of men. And thirdly who, iudging mens thoughts, can accordingly render punishment, or reward euerlastingly; an act like­wise proper to God,Iac. 4.12. as S. Iames teacheth: There is one Lawgiuer, who is able to destroy and saue. But the Lawes of men are said to bind mens consciences, not immedi­atly, but as it were reflectiuely, by way of consequence, that is, by vertue of the Supremacie of God, that com­mandeth obedience to the iust lawes of men.

All this seemeth to be grounded vpon that Aposto­licall doctrine that saith;Rom. 13.1. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers, for the powers that are, are ordained of God. Where we first obserue, that Magistracie is Gods Ordinance, ver. 5. whereof he further saith, It is necessarie that you be subiect; whereby there is imposed vpon subiects that necessitie of obedience, whereof we spake; which not­withstanding no way derogateth from the libertie of doctrine. Thirdly, the same Apostle maketh this ne­cessitie fast by a bond of conscience, saying, that We must [Page 187] be obedient for conscience sake. How? as if the obliga­tion of conscience, in obeying man, were immediatly ty­ed vnto man? No, but vnto God: and therefore that obedience vnto Magistrates is there expressed, because that Magistracie is [...], the Ordinance of God. And lastly, concerning Gods punishment, he addeth, They that resist shall receiue condemnation;ver. 2. thereby impu­ting a guilt of damnation vpon all wilfull and contemp­tuous disobedience.

We may not therfore confound the distinct Courts & Iurisdictions, one whereof is Gods, and the other is Mans; The first being spirituall and inuisible; the second one­ly ciuill and sensible: But rather ought we to acknow­ledge the Act of binding mens consciences, which is spiri­tuall and inuisible, to be properly belonging vnto Fo­rum coeli, God iudging according to the inward trans­gression of mans heart; but not vnto forum soli, where­in man hath power, as to punish, so to iudge directly onely the outward Acts of men. It is God therefore, and not man, that properly and directly bindeth the consci­ence of Man.

SECT. VIII. Our second Answer, is by confuting the Non-confor­mists owne Obiection, from their owne Witnesses.

Our Diuines (say you) teach, that Humane Lawes binde not the consciences of men. Where by [Our Diuines] you vnderstand such Doctors of our Church, who con­demne your Non-conformity: as though all other Di­uines, whom you vsually produce in fauour of your cause, were contrarily-minded: Among whom, one [Page 188] catechising you in the duty of obedience vnto the Po­liticall lawes of men, telleth you, that Such politicke precepts of Magistrates, and other Gouernours (meaning of Parents,Vrsinus Cat. Tract. de Tradit. p. 735. and Masters) do bind the consciences of men; that is, (saith he) we must necessarily performe them, neither can they be neglected without offence vnto God: we are bound to obserue them, euen without the cause of scandall, as for example; To carry Armes is not a worship of God in it selfe, but it is made a worship of God accidentally, when the Ma­gistrate shall command vs to carrie Armes, because that obedience due to the Magistrate is the worship of God.

Another to the same purpose instructeth you, that The conscience of a Christian, Musculus loc. com. Tract. de Magistra. pag. 618. knowing that Magistracie is the Ordinance of God, doth willingly yeeld obedience. This cause (saith he) moueth godly men to obey the Lawes of Ma­gistrates, euen then, when they haue power to deceiue them, and to transgresse without punishment: and this is the dif­ference betweene the godly and wicked; the one obeyeth for feare of punishment, the other doth it in conscience. A third will reueale his iudgement, in the Section following.

SECT. IX. Our third point, in answering, is to shew that Eccle­siasticall Lawes haue no lesse force in the case of Conscience, than haue the Politique.

Your former Witnesses, although they attribute to the Politique Lawes a power of binding mens conscien­ces, yet do they deny the same to the Ordinances which are of Ecclesiasticall cognizance:Loc. Com. Tract. de Tradit. pag. 771. Among others, P. Martyr affirmeth; Ecclesiastica non obstringunt consci­entias, si remoueatur contemptus & scandalum, nè aut tu­more [Page 189] animi, & de industriâ constituta rescindamus, aut tur­bemus communem pacem Ecclesiae. — At praeceptis ciui­libus iubemur parere, non tantùm propter tram, sed etiam propter conscientiam, nec alienam, sed nostram. So hee. whereof Vrsinus indeuoureth to giue vs a reason, saying;Vrsinus in the place a­boue cited. Nam violatione legum Ecclesiasticarum sine scandalo non violatur prima tabula decalogi, cui seruire debent; at vio­latione legum politicarum etiam extra scandalum violatur secunda tabula, quià vel reipub. aliquid detrahitur, & soci­etas politica laeditur, vel aliqua laedendi occasio praebetur.

But can this reason satisfie any reasonable man, thinke you? as though that diuine authoritie, which, in the behalfe of obedience vnto politique Magistrats, saith vnto subiects, Let euery soule be subiect to the higher pow­ers; and to seruants,Rom. 13. Obey them that are your bodily ma­sters; and to children, Obey your parents in the Lord: Eph. 6. the same doth not likewise charge and command people, concerning their spirituall parents and Gouernors, say­ing, Obey them that are set ouer you, for they watch, as those who must giue account for your soules. Now,Heb. 13.13. the com­mandement of obeying, proceeding equally, in both, from the same diuine authoritie; it must needs follow, that the obligation and bonds of Obeying, in both, is of equall necessitie, to charge vs as well to preserue the peace of the Church, as of the common-wealth.

For is there not in the Church a Societie? and is not also a breach of the vniforme concord and peace of the same Societie, an vnsufferable iniurie and mischiefe; as wherby Aliquid Reip. Christianae detrahitur, & ipsa Socie­tas Ecclesiastica laeditur? &c. And therefore how shall not this be a violation of the second table, as well as the like transgression against lawes politique? But I need not vse much arguing, to confute the former opinion. 1. be­cause [Page 190] the opinion it selfe is not common: 2. because it can haue no place in our Church, wherein our gracious Soueraigne Lord and King hath set his Royall stampe vpon our Constitutions and Ceremonies, by his Maiesties politique authoritie. And lastly, because the light of Scripture is euidently against it; especially in diuers A­pos [...]olicall Constitutions, whereof some were Ceremoni­all, and yet challenged obedience in their times. Thus much of the manner of obliging mans conscience. We proceed to the measure.

SECT. X. Our fourth point, in answering, is to expresse how farre humane Lawes do bind mens consciences; and whether all iust Lawes do not bind them against Scandall and contempt of au­thoritie, as the measure of Obedience.

It is not onely the vniforme iudgement of the Au­thors aboue mentioned, but also the vniuersal consent of all diuines that write of this argument, that al persons are bound in conscience to performe obedience as wel to Go­uernors Ecclesiastical, as vnto Ciuill, so farre as to auoid all Scandall and co [...]tempt against their lawfull precepts and Ordinances: so that to suppose an Aduersary in this case, were but to fight with a shadow. This therefore being but a measure of the bond of Conscience, I proceed to inquire wherein the transgression of conscience, by Scandall and contempt, concerning matters indifferent, doth principally consist.

SECT. XI. The Obiection of the Non-conformists.

If a bare omission of a Rite were a contempt, then all that vse bow­ling, which the Lawe disalloweth, and do not weare Caps,M. Nic. and such habi [...]s, as the Statutes inioyne, should be contemners.

Our Answers.

This point, concerning the measure of that obligation of conscience, in the question of due obedience, requireth a more exact and accurate discussion, because this Case is variously disputed off in the Schooles.

Some take their measure from the will of the Law­giuer: conceiuing, that the conscience of the Subiect is then bound to obedience, whensoeuer the lawfull Go­uernour doth impose any Law, with an intention, that men should make conscience of his command.

Some fetch the measure of Obligation from the weight and necessitie of the matter that is imposed; which although sometimes it be light in it selfe, yet by reason of some circumstance may become weightie and necessary enough, to challenge performance.

Other-some take their line and measure both from the ponderousnesse of the matter, and also from the will and intention of the Law-giuer and Commander, whensoe­uer he purposeth to prescribe any thing vnder that bond of conscience, which God exacteth, in charging men to obey those that are in authoritie. Which purpose of the Law-giuer some vse to discerne by the tenure of the Law and Statute; if it be deliuered in such termes, which may seeme deepely to charge men to performe their o­bedience.

[Page 192]But some collect the same intention of the Law-gi­uer from the punishment, which by the same Law shall be inflicted vpon persons offending: which if it bee but pecuniarie, and of smaller value, then they iudge mens conscience, in such a case, bound only to the payment of that mulct whensoeuer it is exacted.

By this last consideration, you may perceiue that your former obiection from Bowles, wanteth a Byas to bring it to the marke. For the Statute Lawes, which prescribe pecuniarie punishments against Bowling, lest it should hinder more warlike exercises, (as shooting) ap­pointeth wearing of Caps, for the maintenance of some priuate Trades-men, &c. they, holding the mulct of mo­ney to be a compensation for the offences, are satisfied thereby; and do not account these commissions, or o­missions, to be contempts, which can little aduantage you, but doth rather strongly condemne you. For the omissions of a professed Non-conformist proceed from an opinion, that he ought to disobey in this case; and therefore is, in the censure of the Church, a professed contemner: vpon whom the Lawes of the land haue therefore imposed not a pecuniarie mulct, but a flat de­priuation of his Benefice, and Ministeriall function. In case that the punishment inioyned be very grieuous: as for example; imprisonment, banishment, losse of office and estate, depriuation, degradation, or such like extre­mities, these are held to be sufficient tokens, that the in­tention of the Magistrate, in giuing of his Law, was to exact of his subiects obedience, by vertue of that Law of God, and to charge them with dutifull subiection in all lawfull commands.

And thus you your selues appeare guiltie of a kind of Contempt, not for some few omissions of these Ceremo­nies, [Page 193] which are not liable to so great censures, but for your continuall refusall, whereupon no lesse than de­priuation doth ensue. For although the greatest con­tempt be, Nolle obedire Superiori; yet are there other properties of disobedience, which do necessarily inferre an high degree of contempt, as namely, when any see­keth, by many acts, to expresse in himselfe, and to ingen­der in others a viler estimation, either of the person that doth lawfully command, or of the thing that is accor­dingly commanded, than they do deserue: in which case we may reckon any outward Act, whereby it shall be knowne, that the doer must needs either incurre the dis­pleasure of his Gouernour; or else, so much as in him lyeth, disturbe the peace of the Church.

In all this, that hath bene deliuered, I take not vpon me to speake so definitiuely, as to preiudice the iudgement of Others, but to shew what seemeth vnto me most pro­bable: much lesse, to confute the opinion of them, that thinke, that the transgression of some penall Statutes of lesse moment doth not make the conscience of the Actor guilty of sinne; but that (if it be without Scandall, or Contempt) it may haue compensation, by the penal­ty which shalbe imposed.

Which doctrine, the Romish Schoole it selfe will acknowledge, first in Lawes, which are purè poenales, whereof the Iesuit Vasquez confesseth: That they, by the tenure of writing, neither forbid, nor command;Vasquez Ies. Io 2.1. Thō. Tom. 2. disp. 159. cap. 2. pag 100. but onely set downe a punishment, either against them that shall do, or else against them that shall omit to do according to this forme. He that shall commit this, or that, let him haue this or that punishment: and therefore these kind of Lawes bind men (not vnto guilt of sinne, but) onely vnto the penalty: — as for example, in that Law against him that shall breake prison, he is chargeable onely to vndergoe the punish­ment. [Page 194] This holdeth in other acts, which are not expresly for­bid in other Lawes. N [...]uarr. Manuale. c. 23. pag. 655. So he. Secondly Nauarre, Felinus, and some others, go further, holding that Penall Lawes do not bind beyond the intention of the Law-maker.

All which notwithstanding, there is no place of re­fuge or defence, for your manner of opposition, seeing that the intention of the Law-maker, in ordaining of our Ceremonies, proceeded from the zeale of Conformitie; the punishment imposed is, in the end, depriuation, or de­gradation; and your owne guilt, by your continuall re­fusall, can be, in the eyes of the Gouernours, no better than contempt. Which most of your selues might more easily discerne, if you would but acknowledge (which the pens, and tongues of all men do confesse) that there is the same obligation of conscience, by the Law of God, concerning your obedience to the lawfull orders of the Church, established by the King & whole Estate; as there can be of your owne wiues, children, or seruants vnto your selues. In all which kind of relations a bare omission may proceed frō men of awfull affections, such as, if they knew that their Superiours should vnderstand of their errours, and be greatly displeased thereat, would readily recall themselues: whereas the other omission, which is done by wilfull opposition, must necessarily ar­gue a contemner of the Commander, and inferre a de­struction of the Law and Command.

SECT. XII. Our generall confutation of the Non-conformists for­mer generall Argument, which was taken from the pretence of Christian Libertie.

Our Reasons, to prooue our Church free from impairing Christian Libertie, by her pre­scriptions, are taken frō

  • 1. The acknowledgement of the Non-conformists owne Wit­nesses.
  • 2. The publike profession of the Church, in this behalfe.
  • 3. The contrary practise of the Non-conformists; whereby Christian Libertie is indeed superstitiously infringed.

Our first Confutation, from the acknowledgement of their owne Witnesses.

That the Doctrinall opinion, concerning Ceremonies, is the onely proper cause of depriuing Christians of that Libertie in question, which Christ commended to his Church, in respect of things indifferent, is a point of lear­ning commonly professed by your owne Witnesses: a­mongst whom Danaeus, expressing the diuers properties of the opinion of necessitie, whereby Christian Libertie is dissolued, reduceth them into these foure. 1. opinion of placing in humane Ceremonies a Law of necessitie to sal­uation: 2. a necessitie of sanctity: 3. of merit: Isag. Tract. de Doctr. Eccle. Exam. part 2. pag. 43. 4. to make them necessarie parts of Gods worship. Chemnisius compri­seth all in two words; Opinio necessitatis tollit libertatem: The opinion of n [...]cessity doth depriue the Church of Liberty. Master Caluin explaineth the point to the full, shewing [Page 196] that it is not the necessitie of obedience to mans commande­ment; but an opinion of the necessitie of the commandement of man, Inst. l. 4. c 10.5.4 especial­ly num. 1. that annulleth our libertie. A man (saith Caluin) is commanded to abstaine from meates, 1. Cor. 10.28. where albeit God commandeth him to abstaine in things indiffe­rent, in respect of Scandall; yet doth not man thereby lose the libertie of conscience, because his own conscience hath re­spect vnto God, (viz. by beleeuing that the meat is in na­ture indifferent, and may in due time be lawfully eaten) but his abstinence hath respect vnto the Conscience of ano­ther, that he be not offended, who thinketh such eating vn­lawfull. And throughout the whole Treatise he sheweth, that To make such Traditions necessary to eternall life, and to place in them the iustice of remission of sinnes, and the summe of all religion and pietie, is to inuade the Kingdome of Christ, by whom we haue libertie of conscience, in things indifferent.

All which doth euidently shew, that Christian libertie doth not cōsist in the vse, or dis-use of things indifferent; but in an opinion of the necessitie of vsing, or not vsing them. Which point may be yet furthermore most plain­ly demonstrated, thus. In the case of Scandall, where, by the doctrine of the Apostle, I am bound in conscience to abstaine from eating certaine meates, for feare of of­fending a weake Christian; my conscience notwithstan­ding is free, in regard of my opinion, to beleeue that the meate, which I abstaine from, may be eaten, or not eaten in due time, and place.

SECT. XIII. Our second Reason of Confutation, from the profession of our Church.

Hearken, I pray you, vnto the publique profession of our Church, whereby, albeit shee challenge [Page 197] a necessarie obedience to her command, yet doth she not command or teach any vse of these Cereremonies, in any opinion of necessitie thereof, but saith plainly; These Ceremonies are retained for Discipline and Order, Comm [...]nion book before the Seruice. which vpon iust causes may be altered and changed; and are not to be esteemed equall with Gods Law. What then needeth this lowd clamour, or rather lewd slander, which some blush not to cast vpon her, imputing vnto her no lesse a crime, than the bereauing them of their Christian Libertie? by whom notwithstanding they themselues do at this day enioy all the spirituall freedome, and hap­py interest that they haue in Christ.

SECT. XIIII. Our last Proofe, (or rather Reproofe) against the Non-conformists, shewing that they by their manner of re­fusing these Ceremonies, haue superstitiously with­stood that Christian liberty, which they would seeme to defend.

Christian libertie (as hath bene alreadie proued and acknowledged) is properly impeached by a Doctrinall ne­cessitie; namely, by teaching men to beleeue some thing to be necessarie in it selfe, which Christ by the power of his new Testament hath left to his Church, as free and indifferent. Which kind of doctrine our Church con­demneth, as false and superstitious. And this Superstition is two-fold; the one is affirmatiue, the other negatiue. Affirmatiue superstitiō is to affirme the vse of any thing, that is indifferent, to be of absolute necessitie; as with­out which the faith of Christianitie, or the true worship of God, cannot possibly consist.See aboue sect. 4. Of which kinde we haue had many examples in Poperie.

[Page 198]The negatiue superstition is to deny the lawfull vse of any thing, which Christ hath left free: with wh [...]ch kind of superstition, not onely Papists, but also many ancient Heretikes haue bene dangerously infected; the Marci­onites teaching that it is not lawfull for any man to mar­rie; the Discalceati, to weare shoes; the Tatiani, to eate flesh; the Seueriani, to drinke wine. And that there is a Negatiue Superstition, it is euident, by an heresie that had taken roote in the verie infancie of the Church, teaching concerning meats, and other indifferent things, and saying,Col. 2.21. Eate not, touch not, handle not.

Now your Negatiue superstition, in opposing against those Ceremonies, doth bewray it selfe by your doctri­nall opinion, saying (for example) Weare not a linnen Surplice; and that by two degrees. The first is an opi­nion of the vnholinesse and pollution in it, because (as you say) it hath bene abused by the Papists in their Idolatrous Masse. See aboue chap. 4. See after, part. 2. ch. 1. sect. 8. This opinion I iudge to be notoriously super­stitious; and so it seemeth to be acknowledged by M. Iewel, who (speaking of the Surplice) doth iudicially account it to be an equall errour,Iewel Defen. Apol. part. 3. pag. 325. To commend any appa­rell as holy; and to condemne it, as vnholy: the Papists are in the first extremitie, and you in the other. Which Negatiue superstition is flatly condemned by that saying of Saint Paul;1. Cor. 8.4. Beza vpon this place. An Idoll is nothing, that is, (as M. Beza confesseth) It hath no power to vnhallow any thing that was offered vnto it; Which is apparent by the con­clusion of the same Apostle, where (excepting the case of Scandall, as it then stood) he did teach, that men might eate of the Idolothytes, or meates sacrificed to Idols, making no question, for conscience sak [...].

The second degree of your Negatiue Superstition, is seene in your other opinion, which you alleage for re­fusing [Page 199] of it; euen because it is prescribed vnto you, in Gods worship, in a necessitie of obedience. Which is a plaine ouerthrow of Christian libertie, by taking away from the Church that authoritie of ordaining Ceremo­nies, and prescribing obedience thereunto; which, by the practise of the Vniuersall Church of Christ, from the daies of the Apostles, vnto these latter times, was neuer questioned by any Orthodoxe; yea, or Hereticke, excepting onely the Acephalists: and is, at this day, condemned by M. Caluin, and all other Diuines of sound iudgement.

But we were to proue this kinde of Negatiue oppo­sition vnto Ceremonies to be superstitious, and to bring in with it a doctrine of seruitude vpon the Church, by the confession of their owne Witnesses. If this were not a Superstition, M. Caluin could not haue warned Christian Churches, as he hath done, to take heed, lest in opposing of Ceremonies, they be not too superstitious. See aboue, cap. 4. sect. 29. Nor could P. Martyr haue concluded, that To thinke that that (speaking of the Surplice) which hath bene vsed in Poperie, may not be vsed of vs, is to oppresse the Church with too much seruitude. This, I thought fit in this place onely to point at, that my Reader may discerne, that our Church is not so Superstitious, in her prescribing of Ce­remonies, as the Non-conformists are superstitious, in op­posing against them; as will furthermore appeare in full view, by our Answer to your particular Accusa­tions against the Surplice, and the rest, whereunto we instantly descend.

PART. II. A PARTICVLAR DE­FENCE OF THE INNOCENCIE of the Three Ceremonies, viz. Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion: in opposition to All the Particular Accusations made by the Non-conformists against them.

CHAP. I. I. Of the Surplice.

SECT. I. The first Accusation of the Non conformists, is in respect of the distinction of Habite.

Cartw. in the rest of his 2. Reply p. 249. & Abridg. Linc. p. 54.In appointing any seuerall apparell vnto Ministers, there is some iniury done vnto them: For Bucer professeth, that in all the Chur­ches where he had bene Teacher, he tooke order that no speciall ap­parell might be prescribed for the Ministers to weare.

Our Answer.

ALTHOVGH, as in Women, the best orna­ment is (as S. Peter teacheth) their holy conuersation of life, and meeknesse of spirit, 1. Pet. 3. in the hidden man of their hearts; yet the fashion of a long gowne is to be thought [Page 201] requisite for the distinction of sexe: So albeit the Mi­nisters ought to be chiefly discerned from others by the excellencie of the outward vertues of Grauitie, Sobernesse, Tit. 1. Charitie, Patience &c. (which S. Paul commendeth as the best characters of their conuersation) notwithstanding the difference of outward garments cannot but be held conuenient, for the distinguishing of them from Laicks, in the discharge of their function, especially in the daies of peace, and (which the primitiue times of the Church did not enioy) full libertie of their Ministerie, euen by that Rule of Decencie: which seeing M. Beza himselfe allowed, for distinguishing of the orders of Citizens, Epist. 12. pag. 106. and of (meaning the Ministeriall) functions in a Ciuill course; we may with as good reason require in the office of Preaching, administring the Sacraments, and other Ec­clesiasticall duties.

For if it be conuenient to distinguish Ministers of the Word and Sacraments from Trades-men and Mecha­nicall persons, in respect of their spirituall functions: then doubtlesse ought they especially to be distinguished at that time, when they are to discharge and execute their functions. To defend the contrarie, would make no bet­ter congruitie, than if one should affirme, that a Iudge ought to be discerned from others, by his Scarlet, or Purple Robes, whilest he is walking in the Streete and Market, but not when he is sitting on the Bench. But remember (I pray you) that in the daies of Antiquitie,Tert. de pallio. Christian Proselytes did distinguish themselues from Romane Pagans, by casting away their Gownes, and wearing of Cloakes, albeit they were twitted by the profane Heathen for so doing, with the taunt of [...]. You therefore do not a little iniurie to our Church, by exclaiming against her, and terming this [Page 202] to be an iniurie vnto Ministers, to be distinguished in outward habite from persons of different callings. But it is no strange thing to heare froward children crying out against their Mothers, onely because, forsooth, they may not haue their wils, especially for wearing of what fashion of apparell, and when they list.

As for your terming it, A taking of order, that no Mi­nister should weare distinct apparell;God is t [...]e God of order. we answer, that Or­der (as Gods cognizance) is made discernable and visi­ble by Distinction, and not by confusion. But you obiect against vs the testimonie of M. Bucer. I cannot well perceiue with what confidence you could beginne with this Authour, with whom (I am sure) you would be loath to conclude and make an end. For that reuerend Diuine, although he would not admit the distinction of apparell, in the Germaine Churches, for causes best knowne vnto himselfe; and wished them also remoued out of our English: yet was that rather in a desire, to procure quiet vnto some scrupulous persons, than that he held either Distinction of Ministeriall apparell, or this kinde of distinction, by the vse of a Surplice, to be vnlaw­full in it selfe. Velimus, nolimus &c. For, Whether we will or no (saith M. Bucer) we must confesse, M. Bucer. tract. de [...]acris vestibus, pag. 709. that distinction of apparell is, among men that are well conditioned, a cause of giuing vnto Magistrates singular reuerence. [Quid iam obstet?] And what may hinder, that there be not the like distinction in the Ministerie of Religion? How do you now like the iudgement of Bucer, who, the more iudici­ous he is, the more powerfull he ought to be in satisfying of the most Obiections that you vse against the Surplice, which he hath done verie exactly, as we shall haue often occasion to demonstrate. But concerning the point now in question, it would be expence of time to vse more [Page 203] words, in answering an Obiection, whereof the custome, almost of all Christendome; the ordinarie practise euen of you the Non-conformists; yea, and (Distinction being the mother of Decencie) common sense it selfe, may be an ampl [...] confutation? Thus much of the lawfulness [...] of Distinct apparell, in respect of the person.

SECT. II. Their second Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the Office, whereunto it is applyed.

The Ministeri [...]ll habite ought to be free,M. Hy. and others. and not appropriated v [...]to Gods worship, but such as may be well vsed in Ciuill and common vse.

Our Answer.

May it be held a Decorum (as I haue said) in Iudges, to be discerned from others, whilst they are in the place of Iudicature, by both the colour, and fashion of their At­tire, and must it now be accounted a matter of mocke­rie in Ministers, to haue apparell appropriated vnto their Administrations? Shall we heare, concerning married parties, of wedding garments; and yet shall we not en­dure to see any worshipping apparell on the persons that attend vpon Gods seruice? But I need not to in­struct you, in this point, who are able to teach others by your own examples, as namely, in Holy-daies, Churches, Communion-cups, Table-couering [...], Pulpit-cloathes, and other like Ornaments and Instruments belonging to holy worship: which you your selues do apply particu­larly vnto the solemne seruice of God.

Now if the Appropriation of Vestments vnto Tables, and Pulpits &c. which are but inanimata instrumenta, [Page 204] be iustifiable in Churches; doubtlesse the proper and pe­culiar application of a Vesture vnto the Minister, a li­uing Organ in Gods seruice, and a person diuinely cal­led to that sacred function, consecrated to the same wor­ship, cannot be iustly condemned. Thus much of Ve­sture in generall; which will be further confirmed in the Sections following.See aboue sect. 2. I will onely put you in remem­brance of the last saying of M. Bucer, If distinct apparell may be vsed of Magistrates, Why not of Ministers?

SECT. III. Their third Accusation, against the Surplice, is in re­spect of the colour, and matter.

M. Hy.White linnen, for Ministeriall apparell, was not anciently vsed in the Primitiue Church. M. Hooker will not maintaine out of Hie­rome, and Chrysostome (which were about 400. yeares after the birth of Christ) that any such Attire was seuerall to this purpose, that is, for sacred vse, and diuine seruice.

Our Answer.

Yet M. Hooker holdeth the distinct vse of Ministeriall Apparell, mentioned by Chrysostome and Ierome, to be probable. And what maruell though he would not stand vpon it, especially against you, who vse as easily to reiect the Testimonies of Fathers, as you can hardly obiect them? For it must be confessed, in the matter that we haue in hand, concerning White Vestments, that they did anciently belong vnto Ministers, in the time of their Functions,Zepper. de polit. Ecl. l. 1. cap. 14. quo­ting Chry [...]o. Hom. 83. in Mat. & Hier. [...]. con. Pelag. euen by the Testimonies of Hierome and Chrysostome: except you will take exceptions against your owne Witnesses; amongst whom Zepperus hath these words. Chrysostome, speaking of the Ministers, saith; This is your dignitie, your stay, your Crowne, not [Page 205] that you walke through the Church in white vestments, &c. And Hierome speaking of the Ecclesiasticall order, which in the administration of the sacrifices, went in white vestures, &c. P. Martyr also,P. Martyr. Epist. p. [...]0 [...]7. Zanch. de Redempt. p. 486. and Zanchie do accordingly vnder­stand these Fathers.

Yea, and if M. Cartwright had not apprehended the same sence, he would neuer haue made so silly, and in­deed sencelesse an answer vnto this point, as he doth, saying of this white Attire, Cartwr. quo sup [...]a. that it was indeed their Holy-dayes apparell; which they vsed indifferently the same dayes, as well without, as within the place and time of Diuine Seruice. Which exception I take to be no bet­ter than a betraying of his whole cause. For if it be law­full for a Minister to vse a distinct habit, in respect of an Holy-day, then may he as lawfully distinguish himselfe from others, in respect of an Holy Act, such as is his sa­cred ministration & function, according to the practize (for the iudement of Antiquitie is hereby cleerely dis­cerned) of ancient Christians, who not long after the dayes of the Apostles were wont (as it is acknowledged by your owne Witnesses) at the time of their Baptisme,Martyr [...]pist. pag. 1087. Za [...]ch. in [...] ­phe 5. Idem de Redemp. pag 489. to attire themselues in white: whence came our Domini­ca in albis; wherein [veteres Episcopi] the ancient Bi­shops, when they went about to administer the Holy Supper, did put on white apparell. Why then may we not con­clude with the same Zanchie, [de veste super pellicea] that is, concerning the wearing of the Surplice, Ibid. pag. 486. at the time of the celebration of the Lords Supper? To wit; As we reade not (saith he) th [...]t either Christ, or his Apostles ordained any thing concerning the vse of any peculiar apparell, in the administration of this Sacrament; so do we not reade that they did forbid any such vestments: therefore it is free for vs to vse, or not to vse them.

[Page 206]You are willing to heare M. Bucer, when he shewth his dislike of the Surplices then vsed, as inconuenient, but passe him ouer, when he excuseth them, as not to be ne­cessarily abolished. And, concerning the fashion and colour of the Surplice in the Ministery, he denyeth that there is any such cause of exception, Either in the matter, colour, or fashion thereof: And further addeth; Quodsi Ec­clesia aliqua, Bucer. Tract. de Sacri [...] vestibus. &c. If any Church, with the pure consent of her members, had this custome, so to come to the Lords Supper, (according to the ancient manner of children at their Bap­tisme) as to vse a white garment; should any man affirme, that there is no libertie permitted to the Church, to ordaine such a Ceremony? Surely we must say, that then shall it not be lawfull for the Church to appoint any thing without ex­presse warrant from Scripture; and so shall we condemne all Churches [Impiae audaciae] of wicked sawcinesse: for all Churches vse, in the celebration of the Lords Supper, to ob­serue time, and place, and gesture of body; or else denie that Christ hath freed vs from the abuse of his good Creatures.

SECT. IIII. Their fourth Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the Signification.

Abridg Linc. pag. 35.The Defenders of the Surplice, do make it a Ceremony signi­ficant.

Our Answer.

Vide, supra, part 1. cap. 3. throughout.We haue already prooued, [in thesi,] that Ceremo­nies may be vsed, which are Significant; and that so much the rather, because Significant, For the present, we are to deale onely [in Hypothesi,] to shew, that the Surplice is not therefore vnlawfull, because it is vsed as a Signe of [Page 207] some morall signification. Wherein you may be abun­dantly satisfied by the exact iudgement of your owne Witnesses; amongst others, P. Martyr, in his Epistle vnto Bishop Hooper, concerning this very point, resolueth as followeth. Besides, the defenders of this Ceremonie, P. Martyr Epist. pag. 1088. (saith he) may pretend some iust and honest signification; for the Ministers of God are called Angels, and Angels (as once Mal. 3.2.) appeared alwayes in white Vestments: and how shall we depriue the Church of the libertie, that shee may not signifie some thing by her actions and Rites; so that she do not place (meaning, any essentiall and necessary parts of Gods worship) the worship of God therein? But you will say, that the Ministers should rather be Angels, than signifie themselues to be such. I say, (saith the same Mar­tyr) you might haue made the like answer vnto Saint Paul, when he ordained, that the woman should haue her head co­uered in the Church; vrging, to that purpose, onely the sig­nification of subiection: because any of the Church of Co­rinth might haue readily replyed, saying, The woman should indeed be subiect vnto her husband, and not signifie her selfe so to be. But the Apostle saw that this is profitable for vs, that we doe not onely liue iustly, but that also wee be put in mind of our duties. Thus farre P. Martyr.

Yea, and your Zepperus, concerning the point of sig­nification, by white vesture, doth excuse the ancient Church, in the dayes of Chrysostome and Ierome, to wit;Zepper. polit. lib 1 ca 14. pag. 159. We reade nothing (saith he) of the Histrionicall and super­stitious habits (meaning of Papists) in the monuments of purer antiquitie; except onely of the white vesture, whereof Chrysostome and Ierome make mention, [quâ vsi sunt, sine superstitione, in signum & commonefactionem honestatis vitae;] which they vsed (saith he) without any superstiti­on, in a signe, and for an admonishment vnto them of an ho­nest life.

[Page 208] Zanchius quo supra. Zanchius is of the same iudgement, touching a mo­rall signification by the Surplice, comparing vestments [de lino, & lana;] and granting, that whether the vesture be made of white linnen, or of woollen, both are indifferent, determineth saying, that white will better become the Mi­nister of the Sacraments [propter significationem] for sig­nification, because it is [Symbolum] a signe of innocencie and sanctitie: whereupon it is, that in the Apocalyps white robes are said to be giuen vnto the Saints. Apoc. 7.9. So he.

I may not pretermit M. Bucer, who alloweth of di­stinct Apparrell in the Ministeriall function;Bucer. de sa­cris vestib. pag. 707. Et eò ma­gis, &c. And so much the more (saith he) if that these At­tires be deputed vnto some holy signification and admoniti­on: which we may perceiue in the signification of the womans veile, 1. Cor. 11. And to this end the Holy Ghost did make speciall mention of the white. Attyre of Angels.

SECT. V. Their fift Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the resemblance it hath to the Iewish Vestment.

M. Nic. & M. Hy.Our Diuines condemne the Massing garments, because they are Iewish and Aaronicall.

Our Answer.

It is true; they doe indeed condemne the vse of those Iewish garments, as they are some what Iewishly vsed by the Papists, who make themselues therein little better than Iewes Apes, through their imitation of the Aaroni­call pompe, almost, as well in the number, as in the fashi­on of their Ministeriall garments; and that also from a Iewish ground, euen because they were once ordained by [Page 209] God in the Leuiticall Law: adding furthermore there­unto an opinion (I say not of Legall, which was Iewish, but) of a spirituall sanctitie, which is now meerely Po­pish; and was anciently a Pharisaicall superstition, con­dēned by Christ. Mat. 7. In which respect D. Raynolds did iustly re­prooue the Popish Ceremonies, Rainold. Confer. but yet no otherwise than he doth linnen clothes, and couerings of Altars, and Festi­u [...]ll d [...]yes, (namely) as they are superstitiously abused by Papists.

As for our Church, she is most iustifiable in her choice, by the iudgement of S. Hierome, Zanch. de R [...]d [...]mpt. p. 699. 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.Gal. 4. Hier. [You obserue tim [...]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 Ordeiner [...] 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 Iew [...]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, [Page 210] 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.

P. Martyr Epist to B. Hooper. pag. 1083.In briefe, your present obiection was long since an­swered and satisfied by some of your owne Witnesses, one saying, that vnder the Priesthood of A [...]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,B [...]cer. quo supra. 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,M. Nic. 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,L [...]uit. 2.6. (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 [Page 212] 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.

M Hi. & M. Hy.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,P. Martyr. Epist. p. 1087. 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 [Page 213] (as Platina, whom you alledge, writeth) a godly Bishop, Platina in vita Steph. 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,P. Martyr vbi supr [...]. 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, that afterwards it may not be of any vse, to them that are good and godly. M. Bucer is somewhat large in this point, but yet so pregnant and pertinent, that we may not omit him.Bucer. tract. de sacris ves [...]. I dare not say (saith he) that these Vestments (spea­king of the Surplice) are so polluted by Antichrist, that they are not to be permitted vnto any Church, that hath knowledge of the libertie of all things; For the Scripture doth euery where proclaime, that euery creature of God is good, vnto those that are good; that is, vnto the true belee­uers in Christ. —I say good, not onely in respect of the natu­rall effects, as bread is good to feede; but in respect of the diuerse significations; and admonitions by them. The pro­pertie of a Rite, or Ceremonie (as it is Aaronicall, or Anti­christian) doth not inhere vnto any creature of God, or Vest­ment, or shape, or colour; but in the minde and profession [Page 214] of men, that abuse those good creatures of God vnto impi­ous and godlesse significations: for it cannot be called an Antichristian Ceremonie, except some Antichristian Re­ligion and communion be professed thereby &c.

I returne to the point of Appropriation, to let you vnderstand, that if your exception be not so much against the Appropriator, although a Pope, as against the Appropriation it selfe, whereby such Ceremonies are de­puted particularly vnto holy vse, then are you to con­sider, whether it may be thought agreeable to the law of good Decorum, to see the Pulpit-cloth vsed in the stead of a flag, in a May-game; or the Communion-cup carried abroad, for common vse to serue at an Ale-house; or to behold so much as a Ministers gowne hanging on the backe of a Tinkar, or Car-man. Now if that you per­ceiue a deformitie in the common vse of such things, that haue bene so exercised in Gods Seruice, then t [...]e Appropriation of such things to publicke worship is not therefore a iust matter of Indecencie.

SECT. VIII. Their eight Accusation, against the Surplice, is from the former Abuse thereof.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 28.The Surplice is notoriously knowne to haue beene abused by Pa­pists to superstition and Idolatrie. Durand calleth it the Armour of God, wherewith the Priest is harnessed. Their Missals say, that thereby the Priest is defended from the temptatiòns of the wicked spirits; without which, neither water, nor bels, nor ought else can be hallowed. This is also vsed in their abominable Masse; which they make so peculiar to their Religion, as that they pull it off them, whom they do degrade. Ergo, it ought be remoued.

Our Answer.

We haue already discouered your great Abuse of Logicke, in this Consequence; whereby,See aboue part. 1. ch. 4. from the Abu­ses of things, you inferre the necessarie extirpation of the things themselues. For the present, we are onely to re­pell this your particular exception against the Surplice. To this purpose, we must first enquire, wherein you will haue the pretended Abuse to consist. Surely, this cannot be imputed to the matter of the Surplice, for that is na­turall; nor to the fashion, for that is onely artificiall; nor to the colour, for that is meerely accidentall. We must therefore seek out the pretended Popish abuse in the Surplice, as it is Ceremoniall.

In the Ceremoniall obseruation of the Surplice, by the Romish Church, we can conceiue but two points, that may be considerable: the first is their Dedication of it; the second is the opinion that they conceiue there­of. The consideration of the Romish practise is con­cerning the Dedication of the Surplice vnto an Idola­trous seruice. This cannot be a sufficient cause of an vt­ter abolishing of all the vse thereof:1. Cor. 8. for the Apostle tea­cheth, concerning the Idolothyta, that is, meates sacrifi­ced vnto Idols, (which notwithstanding he commendeth to the vse of Christians) that they are so to be vsed, be­ing first sanctified by their prayers and thankesgiuing, albeit they were indiuidually the same things, that had bene Idolatrously polluted.

It will not auaile you to reply; that this alteration and change of Idolatrous meates was for a Ciuill, and not for any Religious vse: Because the Apostle,1. Cor. 8.4. Beza. See aboue part. 1. chap. 6. sect. 14. in the same place, saying, Idolum nihil est, An Idoll is nothing in the world, signifyeth (as M. Beza hath well com­mented) that The Idoll had no power, or vertue either to [Page 216] pollute or sanctifie that which was offered vnto it. How then can that, being but a [nihil] haue force to pollute the religious vse thereof? Which were to make some­thing of nothing. But if we shall admit of your owne assertion, to thinke that the same things, which haue bene Idolatrously abused, may not afterwards be applyed vnto any religious purpose: yet what can this inferre against the Surplices, now worne in our Church, which are not indiuidually, or numerally the same, that haue bene Dedicated to Romish worship?

The next point remaineth, concerning the opinion and intention of the Papists, in the vse of their Surplices, wherein onely consisteth the formall cause of Abuse; which if it may be found in the vse of our Surplices, then must we necessarily confesse our Surplices to be as truly the same, in their superstitious abuse; as, in respect of matter and substance, we are sure they cannot be iud­ged the same.

The conceit and opinion, that Papists haue in this Ceremonie, is to iudge it partly significatiue, as a signe of a morall dutie; partly operatiue, as hauing in it an efficacie of holinesse to defend vs from temptations; or else to hallow certain other things, as hath bene shewne. If you meane to impugne the Significatiue propertie, then we say that the Papists opinion is herein iustifia­ble, as we haue already proued, not onely in our gene­rall confutation of your iudgement in that behalfe;See aboue part. 1. ch. 3. &c. but in our particular Answer, concerning the Surplice, euen by the Testimonies of your owne Witnesses. But if you condemne the opinion of operatiue power in the Surplice, then our Answer is, that our Surplices are not Popish, seeing that we ascribe no such efficacie vnto them.

[Page 217]To conclude therefore, for as much as the opinion and intent of the worshippers, is the onely character and forme, to discerne and distinguish a religious worship, from that which is superstitious; the doctrine of our Church, concerning all such Ceremonies, being so syn­cere, and iustifiable, and the opinion of the Church of Rome in consecrating of her Rites so idolatrous: it must needs be an iniurie, and indeed an impiety, to call their Popish, and our English Surplices, so precisely the same.

We appeale againe vnto M. Bucer, for the decision of this point: he supposing our Vestments to be the same, that were abused in Poperie, doth notwithstanding re­solue thereof, saying; Quicquid de abusu harum vestium di­citur, id non in vestibus, sed impuris haerere animis. Bu [...]er. Tract. de sacris vest. in fine. See him mo [...]e copiously sect. 7. That is, Whatsoeuer can be obiected, concerning the Abuse of these vestures, that cannot be said to cleaue vnto the vestures themselues, but to the vncleane minds of those that do abuse them.

SECT. IX. Their ninth Accusation, against the Surplice, is from the effects thereof; both by begetting an opi­nion of holinesse; and also by working a Scandall in the Church.

First,Abridg. Linc. pag. 40. the Surplice is esteemed of many people within the Land as an holy thing, so that they receiue not the Sacrament from them that vse it not: and vnto others it is scandalous.

Our Answer.

Our Reader, I suppose, will not easily disgest Cole­worts twice sod, nor require a repetition of an Answer vnto Obiections already obi [...]cted.See aboue, Part. 1. chap. 2. sect. 12. Therefore referring him to our generall Confutation of this Argument, ta­ken [Page 218] from these effects; I say, touching this your sup­posed (if not fayned opinion of, I know not what) peo­ple, that no particular errour, ought to preuaile against a common truth, especially where the sinne of the peo­ples ignorance must condemne the negligence of the Teachers, by whom they might, and ought to haue bene better instructed.

And if this Answer seeme vnto you to want weight, yet hearken vnto the Testimonies of such grand Di­uines, whom you vse to produce for your Witnesses, in the question of Ceremonies. P. Martyr counselleth you, in this very case,P. Martyr. Epist. to Bish. Hooper, pag. 1088. saying; If they that are weake haue occa­sion of offence hereby, let them be admonished, that these things are ind [...]fferent; and let them be taught in your Ser­mons, not to thinke that the worship of God consisteth in these things. This was the resolution of that learned man, concerning the Surplice, iudging the vse thereof indifferent; notwithstanding all the imputations of Iewish, of Popish, of Idolatrous, and of the Scandalous Abu­ses thereof.

I may not let passe the iudgement of M. Caluin, who hearing into what trouble Bishop Hooper was fallen, for refusing to weare such Ecclesiasticall Vestments, which had bene formerly polluted with Popish superstition, saith as followeth. Sicut eius, in recusanda vnctione, con­stantiam laudo, Calu Epist, 120, p, 245, ita de pileo, & veste linea maluissem (vt illa etiam non probem) non vs (que) adeó ipsum pugnare, id (que) nuper suadebam. In which words M. Caluin, howsoeuer he doth not simply approue of the Ceremonies, which had bene abused to Idolatrie; yet maketh he a difference betweene the Popish abuse in vnction, and the Surplice; commending the Bishops constancie, in reiecting the vnction, and condemning his contentiousnesse against [Page 219] the Surplice: which M. Caluin could not haue done, except he had accompted both the English vse of the Surplice, a matter indifferent; and also Bishop Hoopers refusall of it more scandalous, that his conformity to the vse thereof could haue bene. Whereunto P. Mar­tyr likewise laboured to perswad t [...]at same holy Bishop, by many Arguments,See [...]boue. wh [...]reof some haue bene for­merly alleaged.

For how should it not be a matter of scandall, to impugne these kinde of habites with such vehemencie, as if it were an impietie to vse them? whereby the liber­ty of Christians is not a little impeached, if you will be­leeue your owne Witnesse. For M. Bucer saith, Non du­bito qu [...]n illa &c. I do not doubt but that, Bucer. Tract. de sacris vest. pag. 708. concerning Ce­remonies of place, time, apparell, and other things, belonging vnto the outward decencie, Christ hath left a liberty vnto his Church, to appoint, and ordaine such things, which eue­ry Church shall iudge to be most behoouefull, for the vphol­ding and increasing of reuerence towards holy things, among the people of God. And againe,Bucer. Ibid. that Christ hath deliuered his Churches from all abuse of the creatures, that had bene formerly defiled. From Answers, we proceed to Confu­tations.

SECT. X. Our summarie Confutation of the Non-confo [...]mists Assumptions, and Accusations against the vse of the Surplice, by the Confessions of their owne Witnesses.

We haue seriously and exactly examined all the Ac­cusations, whereby the Wits of the Non-conformists could in any colour of probability impugne this Eccle­siasticall garment, viz. vpon pretence of Indecencie, vn­lawfull [Page 220] Appropriation, Mysticall Signification, Noueltie, Antichristian Inuention, Iewish Imitation, Popish Supersti­tion, and the like: and making vp our accounts, by the light of sound iudgement, in our seuerall proofes; and more especially by the confessions of the best Wit­nesses, that the Non-conformists can require, haue found, (notwithstanding all their former exceptions) 1. that there is a Decencie in this kinde of Apparell, for the distinguishing of the Ministeriall Function, from other Callings; 2. a Conueniencie, in appropriating it vn­to an Ecclesiasticall office in Gods worship, according to the ancient custome both of Bishops, and inferiour Ministers, in the administration of the Sacraments; and also of persons baptized, when by Baptisme they be­come holy votaries vnto Christ; 3. A commendable re­presentation of Sanctitie, by the colour of White, agree­able both to the example of Scripture, and practise of Antiquitie in the same kinde; 4. A profitable vse there­of, and without superstition, to put Ministers in minde of their Morall duety; 5. and lastly, That the fierce and factious opposition, to the vse of the Surplice, doth worke nothing but Schisme, Scandall, and a great preiu­dice against the liberty of Christian Churches. We, vpon these considerations, stand confident, that euerie Minister, who is not peruersly carried with the impetu­ousnesse of a peeuish affection, may hereafter be per­swaded to leaue this Vesture out of his needlesse con­trouersies, and contentions; and in his Ministeriall Of­fice and Function to put it on.

CHAP. II. Our defence of the second Ceremonie, which is the Signe of the Crosse, vsed after Baptisme.

The Accusations, which vse to be made against this Ceremonie, by the Non-conformists, are; that it is

  • 1. Contrary to the second Commandement.
  • 2. Derogatory to the holy Sacrament of Baptisme, in diuers respects.
  • 3. Popishly abused.
  • 4. As ill, as Crossing of the brest, &c.
  • 5. A Relique of superstition.
  • 6. An inuentiō of hereticks.
  • 7. Superstitious, euen accor­ding to the intention, wherein our Church pro­fesseth to vse it.

SECT. I. Their first Accusation, is, that the vse of the Crosse is contrary to Gods Commandement.

Euery making of an Image or similitude in religious vse, which is not commanded by God, is forbidden by the second Commandement.M. Gos. M. Nic. and M. Lang. But the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme is such a similitude. The Maior prooued; because that the Commandement is expresly thus: Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image, or any similitude.

Our Answer.

WE say, that the Image or Similitude, forbidden in this Commandement, is an Image or Simi­litude [Page 222] representatiue, that is to say, vsed for an outward resemblance and description of the Godhead; wherewith the signe of the Crosse at Baptisme hath no affinitie or similitude.

Their Reply.

The command [...]ment is with an absolute prohibition of man his making of any Image,M. Gos. or similitude in the seruice of God.

Our Answer.

In this you teach vs a new piece of Cathechisme, neuer heard of before.

SECT. II. Their Replie.

M. Gos. Caluin. in Exo. 20.8.So doth M. Caluin interpret it: [I am tenendum est, duas esse mandati huius partes; priore ve [...]at erigisculptile, aut vllam Simili­tudinem:] We must obserue that their are two parts of this coman­dement, in the first God forbiddeth the erection of any carued thing, or any similitude.

Our Answer.

So you say, M. Caluin doth interpret this Comman­dement; but if you will giue any other man leaue to in­terpret M. Caluin, he will readily tell you, that he, by this part of the Commandement, excludeth those Images & similitudes onely, which men erect for a kind of repre­sentation of the God-head. This appeareth by his owne phrases, first; Negat igitur (hoc praeceptum) in toto mundo reperiri veram Imaginem Dei. Caluin in the place allead­ged. This Commandement (saith he) denyeth, that there is to be found in all the world any proper Image of God. Secondly, shewing, that this pre­cept was giuen for the condemning of the worships, v­sed among the Gentiles: Qui in forma Creaturarum pu­tabant [Page 223] Deum repraesentari: Who thought (saith he) that God was to be represented in the forme of Creatures, Thirdly, hee saith; Affingere Deo Imaginem per se impium est, quia hâc coruptelâ adulteratur eius maiestas, & fingitur sibis dissimi­lis. That is; It is an impietie to faigne an Image of God. And yet againe; Et sanè nimis indigna est deformitas, Deum facere similem Ligno vel lapidi: It is a vile deformitie to make God like vnto wood, or stone.

All which sentences condemne onely the represen­tatiue Similitude of God; and not without good reason: for if the words of the Commandement should be ta­ken absolutely, as you inforce it, then away with all Art of Caruing, and painting of any figures or similitudes: which opinion, in the iudgement of M. Caluin, is at the least foolish; for thus he saith.Calui [...] ibid. Quod quidam stultè putâ­runt hîc damnari sculpturas, & picturas quaslibet, refuta­tione non indiget, &c. It seemeth therfore that this Obie­ctor, in so expounding of M. Caluin, had his eyes so fix­ed vpon these words of the Commandement onely (to wit) Images and Similitudes, that he could not see the works of God Commandement, that is, the Similitudes and Images themselues; namely, of Cherubins, Lyons, and other Creatures,Exod. 37, &c. which God himselfe commanded to be represented in his Tabernacle (as afterwards he or­dained the Brazen serpent to be erected in the wilder­nesse;) all which were appointed by God himselfe,Num. 21.8. for Ornament, Decencie, and Signification, respectiuely; but not either for any personall representation of God, or else diuine worship.

For there are two things, which are forbid by this Commandement, 1. Representation of God by an Image, 2. Adoration of any Image. The first, by the first part of this Commandement, [Non facies, &c.] Thou shalt not [Page 224] make to thy selfe grauen Image, Zanch. de Redem p. exp. of this commande­ment. &c. The second, by the words following, [Thou shalt not bow downe to it nor worship, &c.] which point Zanchius, another of your Witnesscs, doth expresse at large.

SECT. III. Their second Accusation, against the Signe of the Crosse, about the administration of Baptisme, is, that it detracteth from the perfe­ction of the Sacrament of Bap­tisme; and that in di­uers respects.
1. Respect is, because it is vsed as an Addition vnto Baptisme.

M. Gos.The signe of the Crosse is imposed as an addition to Baptisme, and in the very act of Baptisme, the Minister saith, [Wee receiue this child into the Congregation of Christ his Flocke, &c.] which shew­eth it to be vsed as a substantiall part of Gods worship.

Our Answer.

It is no tollerable disposition in a child, that will ad­mit a suspition against his mother, contrary to both the manifest protestation of her meaning, yea and also her expresse Construction of the very words that are here obiected. First she professeth and protesteth, saying; ‘The Church of England,Constit. Can 30. since the abol [...]shing of Poperie, hath euer held and taught, and teacheth still, that the signe of the Crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament: for when the Minister, dipping the in­fant in water, or laying water vpon the face of it, (as the manner also is) hath pronounced these words [I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and [Page 225] of the Holy Ghost] The Infant is fully Baptized; so as the signe of the Crosse, being afterwards vsed, doth nei­ther adde any thing to the vertue or perfection of Baptis­me; nor, being omitted, doth detract any thing from the effect and substance of it.’

And, indeed, the Tenure of the words themselues can admit no other in­terpretatiō, which the Minister, in preparing to make the signe of the Crosse, vttereth in this maner; [We receiue this child into Christ his Flock;]’ euidently signifying, that the child, now baptized, is by Baptisme already incorporated into the mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church; & therefore is pronounced by the Priest, not in fieri, but in facto esse, (as the Schoole speaketh) to be publikely Re­ceiued into it; and to be acknowledged as a visible mem­ber thereof: for this whole clause is fully distinct from the words following, [And do signe him with the signe of the Crosse, in token that hereafter he shal not be ashamed to fight manfully, &c.’]

Marke here, I pray you, that the signe is called a [To­ken that hereafter he shall not be ashamed.] Consider with your selues, whether any could interpret that, which is called a Token of a duty to be practised afterward, to be a signe of Baptisme it selfe, which was already actually per­formed; except either his mind had bene preoccupated with notable preiudice, or else his affection peruerted with some extreme lust of Contradiction.

SECT. IIII. Their second Reason, to make the signe of the Crosse derogatorie from Baptisme.

It is vsually made, whilest that the words of Institution, are in pronouncing.Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. Ergo, &c.

Our Answer.

This is no more, in effect, than for vs to say; Some ignorant ones (if yet there are any such) haue trans­gressed the Ordinances of the Church, by vsing the Signe (as you imagine) contrary to our acknowledged dire­ction, and profession thereof: and the Non-confor­mists do as willingly transgresse the same Ordinances, by not vsing them at all. If therefore the former sort of Mi­nisters (as indeed they must needes be) are reproouea­ble; the Non-conformists cannot be altogether ex­cusable.

But yet, that we may suppose that some such prepo­sterous Ministers may be found, it would be, notwith­standing, your parts, either to reforme them, if they be tractable; or, if refractary, then to informe the Church against them: so might both you haue lesse cause to be offended by them, and we by you.

SECT. V. Their third Reason, to make the signe of the Crosse, de­rogatorie to Baptisme.

The same may excuse the Papists who vse it before Baptizing, as we do after;Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. nay it is worse after Baptisme then before, because it is nearer the errour of them, that held Episcopall Confirmation to be a perfection of Baptisme.

Our Answer.

The Fathers indeed vsed the Crosse, immediatly be­fore Baptisme, as the Centurists haue proued out of Ori­gen, Cyprian, and Tertullian:Cent. 3. pag. 125 num. 10. Basil. lib. de Spirit. ca. 27. Arnob. in Psa. 85. Aug. in Psa. 68. wherof we reade also in Ba­sil; where he placeth this amongst the Apostolical Tradi­tions. They might haue added Arnobius, and Augustine. Accordingly there was brought in Exorcisme, and Insuf­flation, now practised by the Papists (yet in a farre diffe­rent straine from the Custome of these holy Fathers, as namely) to driue away Diuels, not onely out of the bo­dies, but euen out of the soules of Infants. Bellar. l. 2. de effectu Sa­cra. ca. 30. §. Nota 3. & ca 31. §. 2. Proposit. The which power they likewise ascribe to the signe of the Crosse, as it is a Sacramentall Ceremonie. But our Church, to the end that she might remoue this point of Superstition, hath wisely ordained, that the signe of the Crosse should be vsed after that Baptisme is fully ended: yet notwithstan­ding is she here calumniously traduced by you, as worse then the Popish. Lingua quò vadis? what shall we call this maladie, whereby our Church, if shee Symbo­lize with Papists but so much as in a Surplice, is accoun­ted Popish, and Antichristian? and if contrarily she al­ter that vse of the signe of the Crosse, to the end that shee may crosse and controll the Superstition of Papists, yet euen then also is she censured to be, yea, worse then Papisticall? How fitly do such Obiectors exemplifie those way ward and vntractable Children, mentioned in the Gospel, whom neither weeping nor piping could please, or still?

As for your Reason, taken from the superstitious opi­nion of Romists, concerning Confirmation, it is not wor­thy the repeating. For our Church teacheth not that Confirmation is a perfecting, or confirming of Baptis­me, [Page 228] but onely of the parties baptized; by calling them to a personall profession of the faith, which their Godfa­thers and Godmothers (as it were their Guardians) did in their Infancie promise should be by them perfor­med.

To conclude; our Church, placing the vse of the Signe of the Crosse after the end of Baptisme, to remoue the superstitious opinion, which the Papists had thereof, in their abuse of this Signe immediatly before Baptisme; you may now (if it please you) compare this alteration and your obiection, concerning Confirmation, in (as you call it) nearenesse of error: and then let that man among you dispute, whether an errour in Baptisme, be not nea­rer vnto the Corrupting of the Sacrament of Baptisme, then to the Corrupting of the doctrine of Confirmation, which is out of Baptisme, who doubteth whether a wound, in the head, or in the heele, may more nearely endanger the health of the braine.

SECT. [...]I. Their fourth Reason, why the Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme may be said to derogate from the perfection thereof.

Yea but it is said to be a Token of the profession, which the child must make in the spirituall combat,Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. M. Gos. Ergo; (this being a proper end of Baptisme) is vsed as a part of Gods worship in Baptisme.

Our Answer.

This Argument is as loose and lanke, as the former; for Baptisme is in it selfe a Token and Signe of a Couenant & stipulation betweene man & God: but this signe of the [Page 229] Crosse, appointed by man, is onely a Token of protesta­tion betweene particular men, the members of the Church of Christ (which is the Congregation of Chri­stians then assembled) and the Church it selfe.

Besides, Baptisme is a signe of Regeneration, that is, Gratiae collatae, of Grace conferred by the Spirit of God: but the Crosse in the fore-head is onely a signe of mans constant profession of Christianity, which he ought to haue amongst them that are the enemies of the doctrine of the Crosse of Christ; which are two distinct and farre different ends.

Thirdly, I could not but maruaile, that you should therefore exclaime against this Signe, because it is vsed as a Token of Christian profession, especially if you were acquainted with your owne learned Witnesses, who taught their Readers, both to obserue and approue: First, that the vse of the Crosse, in the primitiue Church, was (thus Chemnitius) a profession, Chemnitius vide infra sect. 13. B. Iewel Ibid. and commone faction of beleefe in Christ crucified: Secondly, that this kind of Testification (thus M. Iewel) is not to be disallowed: Third­ly, that it was vsed to the end, that Thereby the persons Baptized (thus P. Martyr) might testifie their faith. P. Mart. Ibid. All which, and much more will appeare, for the iustificati­on of this Token, when we come to answer your seuenth Accusation, where you shall heare Zanchie affirme,Zanch. Ibid. that this vse of the Signe of the Crosse, to testifie that we are not ashamed of Christ crucified, is not to be disliked.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

SECT. VII. Their fift and last Reason, why the Signe of the Crosse may seeme to be made an essentiall part of the Sa­crament; and consequently a derogation from the perfection thereof.

Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. M. Gos. M. Hy.But vnderstand, that the last Canons do adde, that by the Signe of the Crosse, the childe is dedicated to the seruice of Christ; now some of these are the proper ends of Baptisme: Ergo, not to be as­cribed vnto mans additions.

Our Answer.

Although the word Dedication might be drawne by the generality of the signification to an other sence than the Church did intend, because of the doubtfull ambi­guity which is in it: yet you ought to consider, that some mens Wits are giuen to iudge of words by the sound, and not by the sence. But if you will be in the number of those cleane creatures, which do diuide the hoofe, and chew the cud, you will easily distinguish, and discerne, that there is a two-fold (we speake onely of the Humane) Dedication; one Declaratiua, which is by way of Protestation; the other Consecratiua, by Conse­cration.

This distinction may be inlightned by example. If a man, who is piously deuoted, doth build an Oratory or Chappell for Gods worship, which he doth sequester by Vow and Promise, from the common vse, and lastly as­signeth it vnto the seruice of God; this is called a Dedi­cation, by Protestation. Afterwards, for a more solemne appropriation thereof to the worship of God, the Epis­copall Consecration is required, to the end that, by pray­ers and other religious Rites, that place may be pub­liquely [Page 231] Dedicated to the same seruice; this is Dedication by Consecration.

And how much more may this distinction take place in the case now in question? For, by the formall words of the institution of Christ, the childe is Dedicated vn­to God, by Consecration in Baptisme, which is a Sacra­ment of Grace; but the Dedication, which is signified by the Signe of the Crosse, is not by any proper Consecration vnto God, or Token of grace receiued from God, by such a Signe made: but onely of a declaratiue Token of duety, which afterwards the person baptized ought to performe, concerning his constant and visible professi­on of the Christian faith. The summe of all is, that the difference betweene the Dedication by Baptisme, and by this Signe, is no lesse than a Sacramentall Stipulation with God, and a Morall representation and protestation vnto man.

SECT. VIII. Their third Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse, is from the Popish abuse thereof.

The Signe of the Crosse is notoriously knowne to be abused to su­perstition and Idolatrie by Papists;Abridg. Linc. pag. 29. for both Stapleton and Bellar­mine make it the speciall Badge of their Idolatrous religion, as­cribing to it the miraculous effects of driuing away diuels, expelling diseases, sanctifying the persons that are marked with it;Coster. Ench. c. 13. fol. 42.6. and that which they worship (cultu latriae,) which is the very same kind of worship, which they giue vnto God.

Our Answer.

But our Church, vsing that Signe of the Crosse with no such superstition, either by vsing it as a speciall Badge of any Idolatrous Religion; or by ascribing vnto it any [Page 232] miraculous power of driuing out diuels; or of curing Di­seases; or by sanctifying persons, that are marked there­with; or yet by offering the worship of Latria, yea or so much as Dulia vnto it: And contrariwise professing, that she hath purged this Signe from all Popish supersti­tion and errour;Constit. can. 30. and to vse it onely as primitiuely it was vsed, that is, onely as a Token, whereby there is protestation made of a future constancie in the professi­on of Christianity. You your selues could not but dis­cerne hereby as great a difference betweene the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, as betweene re­ligous deuotion, and blind superstition; light and darke­nesse; God and Belial.

I passe ouer the maine Argument, taken from the former Abuses and Scandall, which are said to be occa­sioned by this Signe; because I will not trouble my Reader with needlesse repetitions of that Answer,See aboue, Part. 1. chap. 6. which hath more then once bene giuen to this kind of Ob­iection.

SECT. IX. Their fourth Accusation, against the vse of the Signe of the Crosse about the time of Baptisme, is from the consequent Licence of ordinary Cros­sings of the body in other parts, and vpon other occasions.

M. Row. and others. Abridg. Linc. pag. 27.If crossing vpon the fore-head be lawfull, then that which is lesse ill is lawfull, viz. the crossing vpon the breasts &c. which is the manner of the Papists.

Our Answer.

I perceiue, that if we had no other Aduocates to pleade our cause against the Papists, than such Ob­iectors, [Page 233] then might the Papists presume of a victorie; not so much by their owne strength, as by your imbecil­lity. For it had bene an easie matter for you to haue an­swered the Papists, by telling them that there is a great difference betweene the manner of Protestants crossing the foreheads of Infants, and the Papists crossing their Breasts &c. because euen (if there were no other oddes) the practise of the Protestants is ioyned with an interpre­tation of their meaning, shewi [...]g to what end the Crosse is vsed; namely in a Morall Token of Christian courage, that the child shall not be ashamed of the Crosse of Christ &c. which declaration, of the godly vse and end thereof, may be a sufficient instruction vnto the peo­ple, to free them from that superstition.

But the other kinde of crossing the breast, practised by Papists, without any words of Interpretation to mani­fest their meaning (except it be to nourish their super­stitious confidence therein) may easily draw ignorant men into some Idolatrous conceits. As it is a farre greater safety and security for a Trauellour, passing through any Desart, to reade written on Statuae Mer­curiales. Marble Stones, or Pillars in a High-way (according to the cu­stome of some Countries) the direct path from Citie to Citie, than if he shall be left wholy vnto his owne imagination, voyde and destitute of any direction. Otherwise, if that the people were fully instructed in the right vse of Crossing their breasts, according to the pri­mitiue vnderstanding thereof, to keep themselues in a Christian moderation; this also could not be iustly ex­cepted against: whereof we are to speake in the 13. Section.

SECT. X. Their fift Accusation against the Crosse, vsed in the time of Baptisme, is from the pretended Au­thour thereof; whom they name to haue bene Valentinus.

M. Hy. & M. Hi. Iren. li. 1. c. 1.Irenaeus saith, that the Heretique Valentinus was the man that first aduanced the Crosse to any religious vse.

Our Answer.

Sooner shall you be able to extract Lead out of a Marble-stone, than to draw any such saying, yea or sence, out of Irenaeus. This Father, discouering the here­ticall speculations of this grand Heretique Valentinus, among others, reckoneth his opinion concerning that Crosse, whereof he speaketh; which some times he cal­led Stauros, Crux; and sometimes Horos, terminus, attri­buting thereunto a double vertue, one Confirmatiua, that is, of confirming and strengthning a Christian in his profession; the other Diuisiua, that is, of diuiding and se­parating him from the world. The first vertue Valentinus gathered out of the words of Christ, He that taketh not vp his Crosse and followeth me, Math. 10.38. is not worthy of me: signifying, that the Crosse doth establish a Christian, and ioyne him vnto Christ, in following him: The other diuisiue vertue he collected out of that speech of Christ, He hath his fanne in his hand, and will purge his floore, and gather his Wheate into his Garner, Math. 3.12. but the Chaffe will he con­sume in vnquenchable fire; noting, what the nature of persecution is, namely, to separate and distinguish the faithfull Professor, from the Hypocrite. In all this, here is not any mention, or meaning at all, Vel ligni, vel sig­ni Crucis; either of the Wood, or of the Signe of the Crosse; [Page 235] but onely of the persecution of Christians, for the name of Christ; which Christ himselfe called a Crosse. This is most euident by the verie place of Irenaeus: For first, Christs words, alledged by Valentinus, concerne eue­ry Christian man, to take vp a Crosse; but not that whereupon Christ did suffer, for then the words of Christ should haue stood thus; Except a man take vp [crucem meam] my Crosse &c. Which were to make eue­ry true Christian a Simon of Cyrene, who was compel­led to take vp Christ his Materiall Crosse. Math. 27. [...]2. But the words are these; Qui non tollit crucem suam: He that tak [...]th not vp his Crosse; that is, his owne Crosse of suffering perse­cution for the name of Christ, (whensoeuer occasion shall require) cannot be accompted the disciple of Christ.

This meaning of Valentinus is yet more manifest by the second vertue of that same Crosse, which he calleth diuisiua, that is, a power of diuiding; in which respect Christ did call persecution [Ventilabrum] a fanne to win­now, and seuer the chaffe from the wheate. Now Valenti­nus (saith Irenaeus) Ventilabrum illud crucem interpreta­tur; Doth interprete that Fanne to be the Crosse, whereof he spake. Who then can be so silly, or senselesse, as not to discerne, at the first sight, that this Fanne doth signifie no other Crosse than persecution?

SECT. XI. Their Reply.

There was some cause,M. Hy. why Irenaeus did reprehend the Heretique Valentinus, whom he reproued, saying (Talia enim &c. Such things the Valentinians speake, seeking to apply the good speeches of Christ vnto their owne wicked Inuentions.) Therefore the words of Valentinus had some euill meaning concerning the Crosse.

Our Answer.

The reproofe, which Irenaeus vseth against Valenti­nus, doth more fully conuince you of an egregious abuse of your Authour, because Iraeneus doth plainly iustifie the former sayings of Valentius, concerning the Crosse of persecution, calling them Benè dicta, Good say­ings, (and how shall they be otherwise, being the very words of Christ himselfe?) but he condemneth onely the application of those sentences, saying of the Valen­tinians, lib. 2. cap. 1. [Bene dicta adaptare cupiunt hijs, quae malè sunt ab ipsis inuenta] That they did apply those good sayings vn­to their owne wicked inuentions, namely, to that Plero­ma, that is, (according to their owne Interpretation) vnto God, but yet such a God, as those Heretikes had moulded in their owne phantasticall braines; farre diffe­ring from the infinite, and absolute nature of God. Wherefore, vpon due examination of the testimony out of Irenaeus, grounded vpon the words of Christ, you may, by your Obiection, as well make Christ as Valenti­nus, the first Inuentor of the Signe of the Crosse.

SECT. XII. Their sixt Accusation, against the Signe of the Crosse, is, because (as is pretended) the Hereticke Mon­tanus was the first Countenancer there­of among Christians.

That Montanus gaue it first credite amongst Christians, the Centurists seeme to affirme,M. Hy. Cent. 3. cap. 10 nu. 57. Tert. de coro. milit. saying: Et quidē Ceremonias mutuatas a Montanistis induxit Tertullianus, & auxit, vt vnctionem exter­nam, signum crucis, [...]blationes pro defunctis, quas consuetudines fa­tetur non esse institutas in sacra Scriptura.

Our Answer.

Not, that Montanus may be said to haue bene a more countenancer of the Crosse, than of threefold dipping in Baptisme, which Tertullian (being then a Montanist) did there mention, following Montanus in the obserua­tion of such Rytes,Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. c. 1. which had bene vsed of Orthodoxe Fathers, before euer Montanus was borne, who liued a­bout the yere 173. But some of the Ceremonies, which together with the Crosse, are related in that place of Ter­tullian, were long before that mentioned by Irenaeus, Iu­stin Martyr, and Ignatius. There is nothing more easie than defamation, by calling any child a Bastard; especi­ally when it doth not certainly appeare, who was the right Father thereof: yet what need such iealousie in this Case, concerning the Father of this Signe? may it not be sufficient for vs to know infallibly, that the mother was an honest woman? for such was that ancient Church of Christ, wherein the Signe of the Crosse was first vsed and practised; as we are bound to prooue, in the Section following.

SECT. XIII. Their seuenth and last Accusation, against the Signe of the Crosse, is, because of the super­stitiousnesse, which ancient Fathers are pretended to haue had therein.

The Canons professe to vse and esteeme of it as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did; but sundry of them put holinesse in it,Abridg Linc. p. 41. M. Hy. and wrote of it very superstitiously. Some telling vs that it was a terror a­gainst Diuels, attributed a power thereunto of working miracles: af­terwards it was vsed in Italy (in signum salutaris expeditionis) whence it tooke then the name of (Cruciata expeditio) such as some record that Constantine, and Theodosius had taken vp before. What [Page 238] shall we say, but that the Crosse hath beene as superstitiously abused by the Fathers, as by the ranckest Papists, sauing that Papists haue rancked it with Diuine worship, and so bestowed more honour vpon it then euer the Fathers did afford it? but the Church of England, Can. 30. doth professe to maintaine it in the same vse which it had with the ancient Fathers; therefore it must needes follow, that the Signe of the Crosse is superstitiously vsed.

Our Answer.

If I should note any man to be as rancke a Traitor, as euer was Rebell in Ireland, SAVING THAT he doth acknowledge his due obedience vnto the King, would not any thinke, that I bewrayed thereby both malignan­cie, and folly? And how doth this differ (I pray you) from your censure of the Fathers, noting them to haue as much abused the Signe of the Crosse; as the ranckest Pa­pists, Sauing that they did not bestow diuine worship on it? Howsoeuer the matter go, we must iudge the Fathers, by your Censure, to haue bene superstitious. But it would haue became the children of those ancient Fathers to haue acknowledged that Orthodoxe sence in their wri­tings which Protestant Diuines, of principall note, and your owne Witnesses haue obserued.

There was indeed often mention made among the ancient Fathers of the Signe of the Crosse, but Chemnitius willeth you to marke what kind of Signe it was. Exam. part. 4. Tract. de Imag. pag. 28. col· 1. In the Primitiue times (saith he) there was not any Image or fi­gurature of the face of man, hauing his armes spred out, and nayled to the Crosse, but in the dayes of Tertullian, and after­wards the Christians did fashion a Transuerse figure, as it were a Crosse, and did Signe themselues: but this was not a signe for worship or Adoration, [non enim tunc aliquid subsistens erat] for there was not any thing really subsis­tent [Page 239] in that signe, but it was onely [professio & commone­factio,] a profession and remembrance that they should be­leeue in Christ Crucified, and put all their hope and confidence in him; Thus farre Chemnitius, to let vs vnderstand the integritie of Antiquitie, in this point, because there can­not be the like superstition in the Crosse, as it is a signe Transient, which there may be in it, as it is permanent.

Secondly, Zanchie, De Redemp. l. 1. de Imag. pag. 400. distinguishing of the Histories concerning Images, some he calleth true, and some fa­bulous: and in the true, obserueth, that Things (Speaking of the Signe of the Crosse) were not then turned into su­perstition, which were tollerable (saith he) in those times, when as there was no such danger of Idolatry. After he confesseth that At the signe of the Crosse, the Diuell was repelled, yet not by power or vertue of the Crosse, but by faith in Christ crucified, euen as grace is conferred vpon vs by the Sacraments, not through the power of the Sacraments, but by our faith in Christ crucified, whereby we receiue those Sa­craments; but Papists attribute an efficacie vnto it [ex o­pere operato] euen by the power of the signe. And lastly, speaking of the principall cause of the Signe of the Crosse in the forehead, addeth, saying; [praecipua causa, & ea non reprobanda] the chiefe reason (which we may not disal­low) was to testifie that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified. So he: whereby you see, he freeth the ancient Fathers from the imputatiō of Superstition, & approueth the reason of their Vse of the Crosse in Token that they should not be ashamed, &c. Which reason our Church hath expresly specified, as the onely and sufficient cause, why she hath retained the Vse of this Ceremonie.

P. Martyr, Loc. com. pag. 222. So also Iew­ [...]ll pag. 372. dissenteth not from the former Witnesses so much almost as in Syllables; and afterwards iustifieth the placing of the Crosse in Banners, Coynes, and Crownes [Page 240] of Kings and Emperours, which (saith he) was done with­out any Superstition, to testifie that they defended the Chri­stian faith.

Zepperus, reckoneth many Ceremonies which had bene anciently vsed in Baptisme, Pol. eccl l. 1. ca. 12. p. 119. & 223. and among others the Signe of the Crosse, and exorcisme, which he calleth superstitious; but yet confesseth that they were vsed in those ancient Churches [nulla cum superstitione] without all superstiti­on, being voyde of opinion of worship, merit, or necessitie, but in a good intent, thereby to gaine more reuerence and admi­ration vnto this diuine Sacrament, and to exercise the deuo­tion of mens minds in the celebration thereof: vntill at the length they grew to that height of impietie and superstition which is to be seene in the Church of Rome at this day.

Probl. p. 176. 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 [Page 241] 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, Iewel art. 4. pag. 371. of the last Ad­dition. 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 cō ­ceiued 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, Iewel Ib. pag. 372. 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 [Page 242] 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 [Page 243] 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,Bucer. in Censur. ordi­nat. Eccles. cap. 12. 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.

M. Hy. M. Hi.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, it is to be changed.

Our Answer.

Here are, almost, tot media, quot verba: and there­fore you are to be intreated to resolue your confused Prosyllogisme into seuerall parts, for our more plaine and expedite course, in this our dispute. Beginne at the first point, by examples.

SECT. III. Their first Instance in the Example of Christ.

We are to imitate Christ and his Apostles;Abridg. Linc. p. 56. & p. 57. but Christ did mini­ster it sitting at Table. And is it not wicked (saith one) not to imi­tate his doings, of whom it is said, that he did all things well?

Our Answer.

Christ, doubtlesse, did all things well: but you do not well, by abusing the example of Christ, to proue a ne­cessity of the imitation thereof. This I make bold to af­firme, and I hope not without good grounds. First, by Reason.

SECT. IIII. Our first Reason; for Confutation of the Non-conformists former Assertion.

When we come to enquire the strict manner of Christ his Gesture; out of the Euangelists,Math 26.20. we heare S. Mat­thew saying, [...]; and S. Marke, [...]; that is, (as Caluin and Beza render it) discumbentibus illis:Mark. 14.18. It is notof [...], or, [...]. [...], or [...], that is, Sitting; but [...], which may be as well, Lying downe: and the E­uangelist S. Iohn, concerning Christ saith, [...],Ioh. 13.12. that is; He fell downe, or (if you will) laid himselfe [Page 246] downe, as the same Euangelist (vsing the first word, saith concerning S. Iohn himselfe) [...],Ioh. 13.23. Bar. Tom. 1. pag. 198. & pag. 200. he bringeth for the most part things cited out of a booke called, Liber Ritua­alis. [recumbens in sinu] lying vpon Christ his breast. Baronius by these phrases is induced to thinke, verisimile esse, Chri­stum, & Apostolos lectis discubuisse; which phrases of speech Interpreters haue diuersly rendered, not accor­ding to the very propriety of words of the Euangelists, but according to their different conceits, about his Ge­sture, which we may not deny to haue bene a kind of Sitting. But yet when we shall aske more precisely the continued manner of the Sitting, whether vpright, or rather somewhat leaning; or what the expresse forme of his Gesture was, it is left by the holy Euangelists in such an vncertainety, that we may iustly collect from thence, that Christ intended not to make his gesture to be an exact patterne of necessary imitation to be conti­nued in his Church.

SECT. V. Our second Reason of confuting the Non-conformists.

This may be taken à paribus, that is, from diuerse other like circumstances of Christ his practise, wherein the Non-conformists neither do, nor can challenge any right of imitation. This case will be euident, if we shall consult with the Euangelicall Storie, concerning Christ his first institution of the Sacrament: where we obserue related vnto vs both the Example and Precept of Christ; the Example is shewne in his preparation for this Com­munion; his Precept is specified in the act of Admini­stration. Concerning his Example of preparation, these diuerse circumstances appeare, the first is of the Persons, [Page 247] who were Twelue; or, if you will, but Eleuen disciples: the second, in respect of the Sexe, onely Men: the third is of Place, in a priuate House: the fourth of Time, it was in the Night: the fift of Gesture, which we acknowledge to haue bene a kinde of Sitting: Not to insist vpon the nature of the Bread, nor the mixture of water with Wine, or the like.

Now if the example of the first Institution, in these circumstantiall points, be for perpetuall, and necessary imitation; then farewell, from this Communion, all women, by reason of their sexe; and also men, aboue eleuen or twelue, because of their number; and let vs vse it rather in priuate houses, than in publique Temples, because of the circumstance of place, which was a chamber; and concerning the time, not in the morning, but onely in the night. Is not this then a sin­gular aduersenesse, in these men, so to impugne the or­dinance of our Church, by exacting sitting, which is but one onely circumstance of the first institution of this Sacrament, that they do consequently condemne them­selues, as Preuaricators in almost all the rest?

SECT. VI. Our second grand Confutation, of the Non-conformists, is by their owne Witnesses.

Your owne Witnesses, to wit, M. Beza and Zanchius do willingly confesse,Beza. Zanch. the one touching vnleauened bread; the other concerning the mixture of water with wine; that we are not bound to an imitation of Christ: And this they conclude, but not without as iust pre­misses, and good reasons, as can be required;See below, sect. 16. which will appeare in Answer to your second accusation.

SECT. VII. Our third grand Confutation of their first Exception, is from the practise of the Non-conformists themselues.

It is true; Christ did administer this Sacrament in a kind of Sitting-gesture, and in the same Gesture did the Apostles of Christ receiue it. The maine question is, whether the Church be bound to the strict imitation of all such circumstances of the first administration? You challenge a precise obseruation thereof; and we desire you to be satisfied from your owne practise: for Christ is found Sitting at one Table with his Disciples, vnto whom he still Sitting distributed the blessed Sacrament, as vnto his Communicants; but you, in the Admini­stration of this Sacrament, departing from the Table of the Lord, walke from person to person, and deliuer these holy Rites vnto them.

Say now (I pray you) is there any iust resemblance betweene Sitting and Walking; or is not the example of Christ as good a prescription, for Gesture, vnto Ministers how to distribute the Eucharist, as the example of the Apostles can be vnto Laicks, how to receiue it? Where­fore, the pressing of your first exception was but the shooting an Arrow vp directly into the Sky, without all regard, that, in falling down, it must necessarily light vp­on your owne heads.

SECT. VIII. Our determination of this first point, concerning the first Accusation, from the Example of Christ.

That we may more accurately determine this whole [Page 249] doubt, consider, we pray you, that the Acts of Christ, concerning the institution of this Sacrament, were of two different sorts; some were onely occasionall, and accidentall; and some were truely Sacramentall and Essentiall. I call them Occasionall, which accidentally fell out, by occasion of Christ his celebration of the Passeouer; which, being the Sacrament of the Iewes, was at the same time to expire and die; at what time the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the new Testament, was to take life and breath. Now then, the circumstances of the Passeouer occasioned Christ to institute this Sacra­ment of the Lords Supper, onely with his owne family; onely with men; onely in a priuate house; onely in the night; as hath bene said: Whereunto some do referre also the circumstances of the bread, that it was Azyme and vnleauened, as then, necessarily required in the cele­bration of the Passeouer; and of the Cup, that it had a mixture of water in it, to allay the spirit of the wine; ac­cording to the ordinarie custome of that Country.

But the Acts, that were essentiall, and necessarily to be performed, in this Sacrament, are all vnder that ex­presse commandement of Christ, saying,Math. 26. [Do this &c.] beginning first at these words, Christ tooke bread, and when he had blessed it, he brake &c. All which circum­stances, deliuered by Precept, the Church is tyed to ob­serue.

Vpon this occasion, it were no great difficulty, to shew how the Church of Rome, at this day, hath dege­nerated from ancient Rome, by transgressing the com­mandement of Christ, who said, Do this &c. and by doing contrarily, in diuers weighty & obseruable points, and circumstances, there commanded by Christ: as namely, first, Christ tooke bread, gaue thankes, and blessed [Page 250] it; Ergo, the consecration that Christ vsed was in pray­er, and not in these foure words, This is my body. Second­ly, Christ taking bread, brake it, and (as is confessed) took diuerse parts out of one loafe; and set not before them (as it were so many breads) diuers wafers. Thirdly, Christ gaue it vnto them, saying, &c. Ergo, they heard what he said; and his words were not vttered, or rather mutte­red in an vnaudible voice. Fourthly, Christ commanded them, saying, [Take] Ergo, he spake vnto them in a knowne tongue, and not in a language they could not vnderstand. Fiftly, Christ gaue, saying, Take: Ergo, doubtlesse (for the point is confessed from the light of Antiquity) so they tooke it, as he gaue it, namely, with their hands, and had it not put into their mouthes. Sixt­ly, Christ, that said to them all present [Take] said also [Eate] Ergo, the vse of the Sacrament, was propounded to be eaten, and not to be onely gazed vpon; and per­sons present were Actors, and not Spectators onely. Seuenthly, Christ likewise tooke the Cup, giuing it vnto them saying, Drinke you all of this: Ergo, the Commu­nicants did equally participate of both the Elements, as being the pledges of both the Body and bloud of Christ; not dismembring the Seale of the Couenant, nor de­frauding the faithfull of their complementall right. Last­ly, Christ expressed the speciall end of the Eucharist, Do it in remembrance of me; which is, as S. Paul doth in­terprete it, Shewing the Lords death: Ergo, it is vnproper­ly called a Sacrifice Propitiatory, 1. Cor. 11.26. seeing that the death of Christ is thereby onely Commemoratiuely shewne, and not operatiuely, and corporally executed herein.

Thus we finde, that how many actions haue bene mentioned, concerning the Institution of Christ, so many preuarications and transgressions haue bene com­mitted [Page 251] by the now Church of Rome, which the ancient mother Romane Church would haue condemned as sa­crilegious, if they had bene practised by any Church in her time. But you call vpon vs to consider your next Exception.

SECT. XI. The second Accusation, vsed by the Non-conformists, against Kneeling, is from the Intention of Christ; by foure pretences.
Their first pretence is from the nature of a Banquet.

Christ ordained this for a banquet, whereat we are to act the part of the Guests of Christ:Abridg. Linc. p. 61. & Dispute. M. L [...]rg. in imitation to resemble our Coheir­ship with him in his Kingdome: now it suteth not with a Coheire, or Guest, with Christ, to kneele at the Table; and it is contrarie to the Law of Nature, to Kneele at a Banque, twhich is a Gesture of infe­riority, and abasement: and we may not lose our fellowship with Christ to sit thereat, whereby Christ would represent vnto vs our Banquet in heauen.

Our Answer.

We acknowledge this Sacrament to be the most gra­tious Banquet, that euer was ordained for the sonnes of men: But how? As a bodily Banquet, trow yee? No, for if our Sauiour had meant to haue furnished out a bodily Banquet, he would haue bene more plentifull in other varieties, than in Bread and Wine. But it is a mysti­call Banquet, for the replenishing of our soules spiritu­ally with the body and bloud of Christ; which we feed vp­on, Non dente sed mente; non per fauces, sed per fidem: that is, Rather with the minde, than with the mouth; as the Fathers speake. And therefore you are not to re­quire, [Page 252] or expect therin the very forme and fashion of an ordinary banquet, where it will become men to talke, eat, and drinke, to inuite, and pledge one another; and how then can you exact of vs the manner of Sitting?

And for any of you so to speake of familiaritie, and holding it vndecent for adopted Coheires with Christ to kneele, as the receiuing of this Sacrament; I thinke it can hardly be heard, euen of some of your owne fellow­ship, without some horror of mind. For seeing that the Right of our adoption is the same in vs, without the Sa­crament, which it is in the receiuing thereof; then, by your Argumēt, it must be held an Indecorum in any Chri­stian to be seene praying any where vnto Christ, the Son of God, vpon his knees.

SECT. X. Their Reply.

It is one thing to be a Coheire, and another thing to act the per­son of a Coheire;The Dispu­ter. at other times when we present our selues in suppli­cation, then take we vpō vs the persons of suters, & so we humble our soules in prayer: but at this Banquet we represent the persons of Co­heires, as we shall be at the great Supper in heauen, and now it is our office to giue resemblance hereof.

Our Answer.

We haue indeed such kind of Similitudes in Scrip­ture, to shadow out vnto vs the happie fellowship of the Communion of Saints in heauen; as the calling it a great Supper, Luke 14.16. wherein All things are prepared: namely, that either the infinit loue of God would, or the omni­potencie of the same loue could prouide for the eternall [Page 253] enioyment of the faithfull in Christ Iesus; who talketh furthermore of Sitting, eating, and drinking, Luke 22.30. in his Kingdome. But to tell vs that this Supper of the Eucha­rist was propounded, to be an expresse and proper Type and Similitude of the heauenly, is more than, I thinke, a­ny Ancient learning euer taught.

For the immediate mysticall obiect of this Supper, is the body and blood of Christ; the words of Christ pointing it out, This is my body, and This is the new Testament in my blood: But how? Of his bodie and blood, as glorified in heauen? No, but as Crucified and shed on the Crosse: which is expressed sufficiently by Christ; calling it blood shed for you. And the end of this Sacrament is set downe thus; In remembrance of me. Now Remembrance is not of things to come, but only of things past, to wit, the worke of Redemption by his Passion, in his body and blood; whereof Saint Paul hath made a plaine Comment:1. Cor. 11.26. As often as you eate of this bread, and drinke of this Cup, you shew the Lords death till he come. Which Comment was taken from the Analogie of the Sacrament with the thing signified thereby; for the bread broken betoke­neth his bodie Crucified for vs; the wine powred out, re­sembleth his blood shed, and separated from his bodie. Can you find in all these any one Type of the Celestiall ioy, which is signified else-where, by the promise of ea­ting and drinking in the Kingdome of heauen?

Neither can it be to any purpose, to say that in giuing vs his body & blood, in this Sacrament, we haue bequea­thed vnto vs all the benefits of his death, and passion, and Consequently all the ioyes of immortalitie, which may be prefigured by our eating and drinking at this Table: [Page 254] for Signes and Types are resemblances of immediate ob­iects, and not of obiects remote, and consectarie: as for example;Tit. 3.5. Baptisme is the Lauer of Regeneration, a Sa­crament and Signe of our new Birth, whereby we haue entrance into the Kingdome of grace; and so conse­quently we haue interest in the Kingdome of glory, as Christ teacheth;Ioh. 3.5. Except a man be borne againe by water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of hea­uen; signifying, contrarily, that the new borne, shall en­ter into heauen: yet is not Baptisme a Type of the celesti­all and triumphant estate of Gods children, but of our new birth, by sanctification, in the Church militant.

This will appeare as clearely in the Sacrament, which we haue in hand; for the benefite of our redemption, by the body and bloud of Christ, hath many dimensions, and euery one of infinite extent. Look downe into the pro­fundity of the bottomlesse pit, we are redeemed from death, diuell, and the eternall torments of hell: Second­ly, looke vpon the Latitude, besides, and about vs, in which respect we are redeemed from the thraldome of sin; and both from the morall world of wicked Reprobates, and the materiall world of this earth; the one reserued for the fire of hell, neuer to be consumed; and the other to be consumed with the fire of the last day. Lastly, look vp to the altitude, and height of our Redemption, and it reacheth vnto the euerlasting ioy and glory of Gods Kingdome. All these, in euery degree infinite, be­nefites are merited for vs, by the royall purchase of Christ, through his passion; yet the bread and wine, are onely the symbols and signes, representing vnto vs his body and bloud; but not those other consequents there­of: Except you will say, that we haue likewise herein Types of our deliuerance from hell; and separation [Page 255] from the world of earth, earthly and carnall men, and so forth. By all which, this your so glosing and specious an Argument of a Type of Coheirship, proueth to be but an Image and Type of a selfe-pleasing conceit.

SECT. XI. Their second Pretence, to proue the inten­tion of Christ.

That whereupon the Supper is placed is called a Table, 1. Cor. 10.The Dispute. You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord and the ta­ble of deuils: The Communion booke commandeth vs to prepare our selues for the Lords Table; and Christ noteth this Table to be a resemblance of our heauenly societie, telling his disciples, saying; You shall eate and drinke with me at my Table in my Kingdome. Therefore must we still retaine our prerogatiue of our Coheir­ship of Sitting, because this is a Table-gesture, according to the Country wherein we liue.

Our Answer.

Your former fancy hath taken that impression in your braynes, that now whatsoeuer you look vpon, doth seeme vnto you to be of the same colour, and to make for the manifestation of your former pretence. And ther­fore now the Table of Christ must needs inferre the like Table, wheresoeuer the Sacrament is administred; and this Table must inforce a Table-gesture of Sitting; and this Table-gesture must resemble the Coheirship of the faithfull with Christ, in the Kingdome of heauen: and all these you hold to be essentiall points of this Supper. But if I might be suffered to pose you from point to point, according to this our methode, I thinke that you would not be so farre in loue with your owne conceit.

First [A Table.] Christ had an artificiall one; for [Page 252] [...] [Page 253] [...] [Page 254] [...] [Page 255] [...] [Page 256] so the Passeouer required, and the place afforded: but let vs suppose the woman driuen into the Desert (as it is in the Apocalyps) that is,Apoc. 12. the Church, or any part thereof to be in distresse, in a Wildernesse, where no Table can be had; do you thinke that the Grasse, or ground (as it did in the miraculous Banquet of the feeding of fiue thou­sand with fiue loaues and two fishes) may not serue the turne?Math. 14.

Secondly, you exact that there be vsed at this one Ta­ble a sitting gesture for all the Communicants: as though, without sitting, they could not be Partakers of the Ta­ble of the Lord: But suppose (which happeneth yearely in many parishes within this Kingdome) that a thou­sand, and sometimes two thousand Communicants are assembled,Ioh. 6.9. may not I (as Andrew said of the fiue loaues and two fishes, for the satisfying of fiue thousand people) say of one Table, What is this for so many? Can you pre­pare one Table, to containe thousands to sit one with another; for resemblance of our ioynt communion in heauen? Or if not, will you haue vs thinke that Christ doth exact of his faithfull a circumstance of Impossibi­lity? Be you rather perswaded, that if the bread and wine, being set on one Table, shall be distributed to some thousands of people, although placed in Seats, se­parated from the Table; yet is each one of them Par­taker of the same Table of the Lord. And this is not in­fringed, but established rather by the Text, which you haue alleaged:1. Cor. 10. You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the table of diuels. For by the Table of diuels, is meant euery Altar, whereupon there was offered any sacrifice vnto Idols; where the Heathen people were made partakers of those sacrifices, not by sitting at the Altars; but by receiuing part of those sacrifices, [Page 257] and Libamina, which were immolated, and offered vpon such Altars.

As for your resemblance of Coheirship, and fellow­ship with Christ, in his Kingdome, by thus sitting at one T [...]ble, in receiuing of the holy Communion; I haue proued that it is but your priuate and pe [...]tinacious fig­ment: And for further euidence, we are to enter into consideration, what person it was that Christ did sustaine, at the celebration of his owne Supper; was it of a Lord, or else of a Seruant? The Tenure of the first Institution runneth thus: He tooke bread, brake it, [...]uk. 22.19. Math 26. and gaue it vnto them.— Likewise he tooke the cup, and gaue it vnto them. These are Acts of Ministration, which he put vpon his Apostles, and all other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, saying, [Do this &c.] If any could possibly doubt hereof, Christ himselfe would resolue them, who saith a little after,Luk. 22.28. I am among you as him that serueth. And I trust that you dare not affirme, that CHRIST, in his ministra­tion of this Supper of Grace, was a Type and Fi­gure of himselfe, in the estate of his Coheirship, which is in his Kingdome; for so shall you confound things infinitely distant, Ministration, and Dominion; estate Militant, and Triumphant; Lord, and Seruant; Earth and Heauen.

Let vs therefore compose our minds vnto a Chri­stian moderation, and thinke, that we are at this Feast, both Suters in prayer, for remission of sinnes; and Congratulators, by thanksgiuing, for remis­sion of our sinnes, and all the Royall Benefites of his Death and Passion: And not to presume too much of such familiaritie with CHRIST, [Page 258] which seemeth to thrust out Humility from this Banquet, and Type of Christ his humiliation: But be it sufficient contentment, that we might be but as Ostiarij, Doore­keepers, in that Celestiall Temple; and not presume that, by vertue of our Coheirship, we must needs set our selues vpon the same Tribunall with Christ, Who is set at the right hand of God in the heauenly places, Eph. 1.20.21. farre aboue all Principalitie, and Power, and Might, and Domination, and euery name that is named, not onely in this world, but also in that which is to come.

SECT. XII. Their third Pretence, to proue the Intention of Christ, is from the due disposition of the Receiuer.

Abridg. Linc. p. 61.The Disposition of heart, which is required of vs, in our very Act of receiuing, is not so much humility, as assurance of faith and cheerefulnesse; which is much better express [...]d and shewed by the gesture of Sitting, than of Kneeling.

Our Answer.

You will not thinke, I hope, that Humility doth hin­der the assurance of faith; or that the difference of out­ward Gesture must needs set Christian vertues at variāce; but you suppose that faith is more welcome to this Banquet than Humility: and that therefore Faith must be attended with the gesture called Sitting; but Humi­lity must not be suffered to haue her handmaid, called Kneeling, to waite vpon her. I maruaile who made you Vsher at this feast. But let you these two Vertues alone, and they will walke hand in hand, as louing Sisters, and both haue their seruants attending vpon them, in the [Page 259] same actions. To this end I propound vnto you two Theologicall concords.

The first concord is betweene Faith and Humility, in that myrrour, which is set forth by our Sauiour in the Gospell, concerning the great man that said vnto Christ; Lord, Math. 8.8. I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vn­der my Roofe: Thus doth Humility vnueile her selfe: but what said his Faith? Speake thou (to wit, Christ) the word onely, and my seruant shall be whole. This was such an admirable assurance of faith, in the estimation of Christ himselfe, that he said: Verily, I haue not s [...]und such faith, no not in Israel: and yet this Faith and Humility, in this one act, kissed each other.

The second concord is to be seene betweene Humili­at [...]on and Thankfulnesse, euen in the Gesture of Knee­ling, as it is often and plainely recorded in holy Writ: for the Prophet Dauid, in a Psalme of Thankfulnesse, doth exhort the true Worshippers thus:Psal. 95.2. Let vs come before his presence with giuing of thankes: How? By Sit­ting or Standing? (So peraduenture the presumption of some would say:) but the Prophet, as it were by way of preuention, saith: And worship, Ver. 6. and fall downe before the Lord our Maker. Will you see this acted? One man of ten persons, that were cured of the Leprosie, Luk. 17.15.16. returning and glorifying God, fell downe at Christ his feete, giuing him thankes.

And if you shall say, that this Thankfulnesse was not so well expressed, by this gesture of Humility, which is Kneeling; then may you as well impute a peece of Inde­corum vnto the twenty foure Elders, more then was meet,Apoc. 11.7. when, in their act of yeelding glory and praise, they are said to vse the same gesture of kneeling: and accordingly, you might spy out a lesse seemelinesse in the Angels, who [Page 260] are d [...]scribed by a kind of Analogie, and resemblance, to vse their Humiliation by Kneeling, Apoc. 7.11. in worshipping and giuing God thankes. You must seeke out, for your owne reputation sake, some more tollerable reason than this, to proue your pretended Intenti [...]n of Christ; or else confesse that you intended nothing, but to wrangle with the Church.

SECT. XIII. Their fourth pretence to proue the Intention of Christ, is from a pretended meannesse of the Element.

Abridg. Linc. p. 67.If our Sauiour had intended that the outward Elements should h [...]ue beene thus reuerenced, he would not haue made choice of bread and wine, which are so common and base.

Our Answer.

It seemeth then, by this Obiection, that you fancie Ambrosia, Nectar, Manna, or some such other Element of a more perfect nature, which may in your opinion, deserue such a Reuerence: Whereas the Sacraments of bread and wine are by you esteemed but base. I cannot, for my part, but blush in your behalfe, to heare such Turkish and He [...]thenish language, proceed from any Professour of Christianitie. Haue you not yet taken out S. Peters lesson,Act. 10.15. That which God hath sanctified, let no man call common? If he could speake thus much of ordinarie meates, what an impiety must it be, to abase these Ele­ments, which are consecrated vnto a Sacramentall vse, to be Seales of the Couenant of grace; and are most fit, of all other creatures, to expresse our vnion with Christ, and communion with all faithfull Christians?

This I vrge not, as perswaded that you can be so irreli­giously minded, as your words may import; but to let [Page 261] you vnderstand that you haue bin so far transported with preiudice, as that when you spake against due reuerence, in receiuing this blessed Sacrament, you could not but speake irreuerently.

SECT. XIIII. Their fift Pret [...]nce, to prooue the Intention of Christ, a­gainst Kneeling, is from the example of the Apostles.

It were great Hypocrisie in vs to pretend greater Reuerence and Deuotion in r [...]c [...]iuing of it, then was in the Apostles;Abri [...] Linc. p. 5 [...]. nay if it were fit for vs, to vse Kneeling, it was much more fit for the Apostles, in [...]e­gard of Christ his corporall pres [...]nce among them.

Our Answer.

This Consequence is a non sequitur, and that in di­uers respects; first, in respect of the purpose of Christ, who then made himselfe familiar with his disciples, that he might the better instruct them, whilest he was yet in the forme of an ordinary man; in so much that at the time of the institution of this Sacrament, he rose from Table, and would needs wash his disciples feet: to what end?Ioh. 13. I haue giuen you an example (saith Christ) that as I your Lord and master haue washed your feet, you also ought to wash one anothers feet: And further professeth himselfe to haue bene amongst them, not so much as one that sat at Table, as one that was seruant vnto them. Luk. 22.27. But after his Ascention and glorification, the precept was laid vp­on All, that All Knees should bow vnto him:Phil. 2 10. which ge­sture, if it ought to haue bene performed at the sight of his presence in the flesh, then must they haue bene al­wayes Kneeling.

[Page 262]Secondly, in respect of the Apostles themselues, who were the first choice and immediate Emba [...]sadours for Christ, and instruments of reconciliation of the world, by meanes of that most Royall Embassage, which they receiued from Christ, the King of glory; and not so only, but also who were indued with all kind of graces of Gods Spirit, as well of gifts called gratū facientia, as grae­tis data. But we, who are exceedingly inferiour vnto those golden vessels, that were so excellently indued and sanctified, ought to thinke it our dutie, that the lesse wee are in our selues, for gifts and graces, the more we should contend to excell them (and true humilitie is voyde of hypocrisie) in humiliation.

Thirdly, the Consequence of this your owne Con­sequence, may teach you to recant and reuoke your Conclusion; seeing that it must follow, that forasmuch as we haue no example (as I remember) of any A­postle, that did, vpon any occasion, vse the precise gesture of kneeling vnto Christ; it must therefore follow, by your learning, that we ought not to kneele in our ordi­nary prayers, which we make vnto Christ. [...]! For it is no lesse.

Finally, you may not impute this to ignorance, or arro­gancy in our Church; as though she either knew not the Institution of Christ, as well as other Churches; or that, knowing it, she thought her selfe wiser than the Apostles in the alteration of their gesture: for things indifferent haue their alterations and Changes, as Ships haue their diuers motions and turnings, according as their Pilots, in their discretion, shall by varietie of accidents, as it were diuersitie of winds, be occasioned to turne or returne them.

S [...]CT. XV. Our generall Confutations of all the Non-conformists pretences, shewing; That it was not the Intenti­on of Christ to bind his Church to the Ge­sture of Sitting, in receiuing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

Our first Confutation.

Our former distinction betweene the Ceremonies, v­sed by Christ, at the time of the Institution of this Sacra­ment, whereof some were onely accidentall, (which fell out by occasion of the Celebration of the Passeouer, and other Circumstances of that time;) and some essentiall, which were such as were comprised within the Lists of Christ his Precept of, Doe this, &c. doth fully discharge as well vs, in respect of the Ceremonie of ge­sture, in [...]itting; as it doth our Opposites, in respect of the Circumstances of time, place, number of Persons, and of the Non-conformists manner of Administration, in the Celebration of this Sacrament; as hath bene al­ready euinced from such speciall Euidence,See aboue Sect. 5. and Sect. 11. which it will be sufficient in this place onely to haue pointed at.

SECT. XVI. Our second Confutation, concerning the Intention of Christ, from their owne Witnesses, acknowled­ging, that the Intention of Christ was not to bind men vnto an imitation, in the Circumstantiall points of the Sacrament.

Two Witnesses may be as good as two-score, for the [Page 264] Clearing of this point, especially beeing in the iudge­ment of the Non-conformists so iudicious and Ortho­doxe.Zanch de Redempt: l. 1. de Cul [...] De [...] [...]x [...]e p. 4 [...]. Zanchie. These things onely (saith he) that Christ commanded at his last Supper, b [...]long to the substance th [...]rof: for he gaue two precepts, the one in these words [hoc facite] D [...] this: in saying [this] he comm [...]ndeth two things; [pr [...] ­mum vt totum; secundum, [...]t tant [...]m faciamus, quod ips [...] f [...]cit:] so that noth [...]ng must b [...] added or diminish [...]d. The next pr [...]cept is in those words of doing [In remembrance of me] saith Christ, which, in respect of vs that reciue it, be­longeth to the essence of the sacrament. But if we shall alter any thing, which is not cōmanded of God, or adde that which is not essentiall, but onely accidentall; and that not as neces­sarie, but as indifferent, or decent, or for order, or edification; it followeth not that the worship instituted by Christ, is any whit changed. As for example, Christ instituted this Sa­crament in the night; but the Apostles ex [...]rcised it after­wards in the morning, shall this be accounted a detracting from the institution of Christ? No, for Christ commanded not that it should be celebrated in the night, but onely that we should Do [Quod, non quo tempore] What, and not in what time, he did it. The same may we say of [Vinum dilu­tum] the mixture of wine with water, vsed in the Church in the dayes of Iustin Martyr, according as Christ (which is probable) did. Adde vnto this, that the ancient Bishops, in the Administration of the Supper, changed their vestures; which did not appertaine to the altering of the Supper: but that, which is either taken away from the institution, or ad­ded thereunto, as necessary, that doth corrupt the Lords Insti­tution. Zanch. Ibid. pag. 49 [...]. The Apostles did not imitate Christ, in putting off their garments, and washing of others feet, as Christ did, be­cause this belonged not vnto the essence of the Sacrament. The essentialls are comprehended vnder those words of [Page 265] Christ, [hoc facite, Do this] which he spake concerning wa­shing of feete.

Our second Witnesse is M. Beza, Beza. Epist. [...]. p. 25. who writing his resolution, concerning another question, viz. whether the people might receiue the Sacramentall bread, from the hands of the Priest, with their mouthes onely, and not with their hands? doth determine as followeth; Christ com­mandeth vs to take it, and the receiuing with the mouth, is a kind of taking; not but that it were better to receiue it ac­cording to the first example, both with hand and mouth: but that which is better, is not alwayes absolutely necessary. You will say that Christ commanded the other, in saying, [Take] I grant it, but so, as to vnderstand that [primaria intentio Christ [...]] his primarie intendment was to preserue the forme of the Sacrament, and not to stand too strictly vpon that, which is not absolutely necessarie. Christ commanded vs to Baptize, signifying immersion; shall we therefore say that Aspersion is no right Baptisme? so then, [ipsa sumptio, non sumendi modus praecisè praescribitur,] but you will say,Ibid. pag. 7 [...].we are commanded neither to adde, nor detract any thing from the institution of Christ; I grant it, but the question is who are to be said to adde, or detract, &c.

I cannot forget, that this aberration of Popery hath bene condemned by me, as a transgression of the pre­cept and practise of Christ, who, as he gaue the Sacra­ment into the hands of his Disciples, so did hee also or­daine, that it should bee obserued; that being one of the Circumstances, whereof he commanded, saying, [Do this:] so that the contrary Doing of the Papists, in putting the Sacrament into the mouthes of the peo­ple, by iudging them too profane, to touch such Ho­ly Mysteries with their hands; (as if a Christian mans lippes were more hallowed than his fingers) [Page 266] this I must still hold to be a notable peece of Superstiti­on. And although, with M. Beza, I acknowledge that it doth not detract from the substance of the Sacrament it selfe, yet doth it derogate from the precept of Christ his Institution thereof.

M. Beza doth else-where discusse the nature of Cir­cumstantiall and accidentall points in another instance. We may not contend (saith he) about the bread, whether it be vnleauened or leauened, Be [...]a Epist. 11. p. 109. albeit we thinke that common bread is more conuenient vnto the ordinance of Christ; for why did Christ vse Azymes, but onely beca [...]se at that time there was no other bread, to be had? How could these wit­nesses haue spoken more pertinently, or fully, to prooue that it was not the Intention of Christ to bind vs more necessarily to an 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.

Abridg. Linc. p. 57. quoting Bullinger.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. Fox Act. Mon. p, 19. Euseb. Hist. Eccle. l. 7. c. 8. 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, [Page 267] Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, Anno 157. writeth of the manner of one, that stood at the Communion-Table: also, Fulk. against the Rhem. Test. fol. 286. 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,Iewel Defen. Apol. p. 237. 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,Abridg. Linc. p. 58. 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, [Page 268] 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 Hereti [...]ks; & by all Pagans: which occasioned the Primitiue Fathers, in those ages, to ordaine, that all Christians, for the better manifesting of euery mans professiō 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, thē 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.

[Page 269]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.Abridg. Linc. pag. 42.

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.

Abridg. Linc. in the [...]ame place.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, [Page 271] and an E [...]sentiall necessity together; whereas you ought to haue distinguished them, and acknowledged, that as it is necessary for the Pati [...]nt to take some receipts of physicke, not as essentiall, as his daily food; but acciden­tall, because of his present infirmitie: So may we say, that the Gesture of Kneeling is not prescribed, as a ne­cessarie forme of receiuing the Communion; for then should we condemne not onely the present, but also the primitiue Churches; but yet as necessarie for the refor­ming of the prophane, and irreligious behauiour of ma­ny, in these wr [...]tched dayes wherein we liue.

SECT. XXI. Their fift Accusation, against the Gesture of Knee­l [...]ng, at the receiuing of the Sacrament, is from the fi [...]st Inuention thereof; as being Antichristian.

The vse of Kneeling in receiuing the Sacrament,Abridg. Linc. pag. 30.31. grew first from the perswasion of the reall presence, and Transubstantiation; being neuer inioyned to any Church till Antichrist grew to the full height, there being no action in all his seruice so Idolatrous as this. It was appointed by Honorius the third, anno 1220.

Our Answer.

There are three things considerable, in our custome; the first is a gesture of outward Adoration; the second is this kind of gesture, which is Kneeling; the third is to know, whereunto the Adoration is directed. First there­fore, that, in the daies of ancient Fathers, there was vsed an outward Adoration, at the receiuing of holy Sa­craments, by bowing of the body, is so knowne a truth, that the Non-conformists themselues will acknowledge it: otherwise I should haue alleaged, to this purpose, [Page 272] Cyril of Ierusalem Catech. mystagog. 5. ad recens baptiza­t [...]s, Cyril. Hieros. Ambrose. Greg. Naz. Aug. Chrys. pag. 546. Ambrose lib. 3. desp. S. c. 12. Greg. Naz. de obit. Greg. August. in Psalm. 98. Nemo carnem illam man­ducat, priusquam adorauerit; & Chrysost. ad Pop. Antioch. hom 61. Adora, & Communica.

Which Testimonies, although they do not all iustifie the Popish manner of Adoration, whereby the Papists adore (in an opinion of Transubstantiation) the Element of bread, as the very person of the Son of God; yet do they euince an outward Humiliation of the body to God, and vnto Christ, at the receiuing of these pledges, as from the hands of Christ: which the words of Cyril, in the place aboue cited, do explaine, who speaking of ta­king the Cup, saith; [...]. Bowing thy selfe, after a manner of Adoration, Cyril Hier. Catech. my­stagog. 5. and worship saying, Amen. Here you haue a gesture of Adoration, I say not to the Cup; but, at the re­ceiuing of the Cup, vnto Christ, by relation of a gift, from a Giuer: I say againe vnto Christ; for that Adora­tion was directed vnto him, vnto whom the oration and prayer was due, in saying, Amen.

In the next place, after we haue learned that there was a gesture of Adoration vsed, we are to enquire con­cerning this gesture of Kneeling. Is not this a gesture of Adoration, which is often both commended and com­manded in holy Scripture? If then the Adoration of Christ, in receiuing of this gift be lawfull; Shall the more humble gesture make the act of Adoration lesse lawfull?

The third point remaineth, which is to vnderstand aright, whereunto, or to whom this Adoration is to be directed, without danger of Idolatry. This is taught vs by our Liturgie; according herein, with the most [Page 273] ancient Liturgies of the Primitiue Church: Sursum corda, Lift vp your hearts, to wit, vnto the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, that gaue his Sonne; and vnto Christ himselfe, the Lambe of God, that sitteth vpon the Throne, that gaue himselfe for our redemption, by his body and bloud.

Now, to come to the point, and, for the present, to grant that some wicked Pope had inuented Adoration, by Kneeling; yet are wee notwithstanding discreetly to distinguish of colours, lest that, for want of due cir­cumspection, we call Blacke white, and white blacke.

To this purpose, I shall expedite this doubt, by cer­taine demands. I aske then, first, whether euery Inuen­ti [...]n is to be condemned, because the Authour thereof was some euill Pope? He that should affirme this, must cons [...]quently deny the vse of a Gunne; because the In­uentor thereof was a Fryar: or the wearing of a Coate, because the Taylor happily was a Theefe.

Secondly, I aske, shall we condemne the gesture it selfe, because it is Kneeling? To affirme this, were con­sequently to condemne, not so much the Inuention of man, as the Ordinance of God; who often requireth in his worship the act of Kneeling.

Thirdly, I aske, must we therefore refuse this gesture because it is for Adoration? To affirme this, were con­sequently to disallow the ancient custome of bowing the body, for that was a gesture of Adoration.

Fourthly, I aske, ought we to abhorre this gesture of Kneeling, onely as it was applyed by the Pope, for a Di­uine Adoration of the Hoast it selfe? This we confesse to be indeed, a Popish Inuention, and as execrable an Idola­try as Christendome hath euer seene; and to condemne this onely, is fully to iustifie our Church, which doth as [Page 274] much detest that abhomination, as any Aduersarie of that Romish Synagogue.

As for Honorius, whom you fancy to haue bene the first Inuentor of the foresaid manner of Adoration by Kneeling, it is more then my bookes do teach me; sure I am, that you will witnesse Zepperus saith: Honorius de­creuit, Zepper. pol [...]. l. [...]. c. 1 [...]. pag. 137. vt cum eleu [...]tur h [...]tia s [...]lutaris, qu [...]sque se reueren­ter inclinet: Which words [to incline reuerenth] do no­tifie vnto vs rather the bowing of the body, that the ben­ding of the knee: albeit I will not contend about the fi [...]st Authour of this Adoration, whether Honorius, or In­nocentius; for it is not materiall.

SECT. XXII. Their sixt Accusation, against the gesture of Knee­ling, is taken from the Popish Abuse thereof.

The gesture of kneeling in the act of receiuing, is notorio [...]s [...]y knowne to haue bene of old,Abridg. Linc. p. 30. and to be still abused to Idolatry by Papists, by whom it is d [...]il [...]y vsed in the wor [...]ip of their breaden god: a [...]d that vpon an I [...]latrous intent, that the bread is become God: yea and one of their strongest Arguments, to iustifie that their Ido­latrous, conceit of Transubstantiation, is, because else the Church [...]ould commit Idolatry, in kneeling before the Elements.

Our Answer.

And it is as well knowne, that Protestants, in Kneeling at the receiuing of the consecrated Elements, do not [...]buse them to Idolatry; but do as much hate the Romish Moloch, to wit, that their breaden god, as doth any Non-conformist: knowing and professing that truth, which Theodoret a thousand two hundred yeares since, pub­lished in expresse termes, saying; that Bread, after the [Page 275] words of Consecration, doth remaine still bread, Dial. l. 2. c. 24. both in forme, in figure, and in substance. Whereby the infatua­tion of the Romanists appeareth to be palpably grosse; the rather because they can haue no colour of euasion, as I haue shewed else-where.

SECT. XXIII. The seuenth and last Accusation, vsed by the Non-conformists, against the gesture of Knee­ling, is a pretence of Idolatry.

This gesture is used as a part of Gods worship,Abridg Linc. pag. 4 [...]. bec [...]use it is hel [...] [...] a reli [...]ious A [...]ration by all men.

Our Answer.

If you could demonstrate, that this gesture is either vsed as a proper part of Gods worship, or else that it re­ceiueth from vs that Popish Adoration, which you pre­tend; then might you with one breath iustifie your op­position against the Church, and condemne her im­position of such Rytes vpon you: but that, in proofe, this, as likewise the rest of our Ceremonies, are not maintained or obserued in our Church, as essentiall parts of worship, but onely as circumstantiall, and conue­nient adiuncts, and appendices; we haue already be­stowed an whole Chapter.see aboue part 1. cha. 1. And as for our manner of Kneeling, heere questioned, we make no doubt to vin­dicate it from all crime of Idolatry; yea, or the least sus­pition thereof.

SECT. XXIIII. The first Reason of the Non-conformists to proue our manner of Kneeling Idolatrous, because, before a Creature.

Abridg. Linc. p. 56.To adore God in, or before any creature, without warrant of the word of God, is Idolatry.

Our Answer.

This Position may not run current, without all ex­ception; for to exclude, from the act of the Adoration of God, or of Christ, all these Prepositions of by, in, be­fore, onely in respect of the creatures; were consequent­ly to forbid vs to pray by, or, with our tongues, the In­struments of Adoration: or, In the Temple, the house of God, and the place of the solemne Adoration; or yet either directly against vs, Before the Table of this sa­cred Banquet, and Supper, called the Lords Table; or else vpwards Before the heauens aboue, towards the Ce­lestiall seate and Sanctuary of God. Therefore except you will compell vs to Adore God, with our lippes and eyes shut, you must admit of some limitation; and, by some distinction, shew, when, or how a man may adore, by, in or before a creature, without Idolatry: where­of we are to say more in the Sections following.

SECT. XXV. Their second Reason, to proue our fore-said Gesture of Kneeling Idolatrous, because there is in it a Relatiue worship.

M. Nic.Because all relatiue Adoration of God, before a creature, with respect vnto it, is Idolatry. But the reuerence vsed in the re­ceiuing [Page 277] of the Sacrament, is a relatiue adoration of Christ, with re­spect vnto the Sacrament; for they say, they do reuerence to the Sa­crament, which is Idolatrous.

Our Answer.

We expected that you would at least haue endeuored to proue, in our manner of Kneeling, a Popish kind of rela­tiue worship, which is (as in their C [...]ucifixe) to fast [...]n our diuine Adorat [...]on vpon the Creature, that it may so, by a representatiue relat [...]on, be conueied vnto the Creator; whereof we are to speake in the Section following. But, in stead of worship, by representatiue relation to Christ, you speake onely of a Relation from God vnto the Cr [...]a­ture, telling vs of a relatiue Adoration of Christ, with res­pect vnto the Sacrament, which is extremely different, as you may iudge by your owne Actions.

For do not you your selues allow a relatiue Reuerence (and that iustly) in reading the word of God; a Reue­rence in praying vnto God; a Reuerence in religious hal­lowing of the Lords day; a Reuerence in entring into the solemne place of Gods worship, which is the house of God? and haue not all these a relatiue respect betweene God and his Creatures? for the Scriptures, which are but lines of Incke, are Creatures, yet such as are called holy Scriptures; and are Signes expr [...]ssing vnto vs the Truth of God. The words of mans voice are such Creatures, which by ancient learning are called [...]; that is, the Signes of things signified thereby; and being v­sed in prayer vnto God, do present our Humilitie, thanke­fulnesse, and Adoration vnto him. The Sabbaoth day is, as all other dayes, a Creature of God, and yet is set apart, and appropriated by GOD vnto his Adoration; and [Page 278] commanded, in that regard, to be hallowed of vs, which is in a respect that we haue from God vnto it. The so­lemne place of Gods worship, where-soeuer it bee, is a Creature of God, and hath reference vnto God, as an house to the owner thereof. Now shall these be vsed with a Religious Reuerence, and with a relatiue respect, and shall onely the blessed Sacrament of our Lord Iesus Christ bee Celebrated without any such Reuerence? Procul hinc, pro­cul este—.

But I know you cannot be so profanely-minded to­ward this Sacrament, because you are not ignorant, that this is the whole Argument of th [...]t Chapter of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. telling them of the visible Iudgements of God vpon many of the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 11. thus, Many of you are sicke, and many are asleepe, Ver 30. (that is dead,) but why? [ob hanc causam,] for this cause, saith the Apostle, to wit, because they came so profanely vnto it, as if they had come to the heathenish Bacchanals, or to their owne Domesticall Tables. For thus he saith; Haue you not houses to eate and drinke in?Ver. 22. Ver. 19. but you come hither, not discerning the Lords bo­die? As if he had said, do you come so homely vnto this spirituall Banquet, ordained for the refreshing and reple­nishing of your soules, which you are to partake of, with hope of remission of your sinnes, in this life; and of a blessednesse both of your bodies and soules, in the Re­surrection of the iust, through the vertue and price of your redemption, by the death of Christ, in his body Crucified, and blood shed for you?

SECT. XXVI. Their first Confirmation of the aforesaid pretended I­dolatry, by relatiue worship, in Kneeling.

Yea there hat [...] bene f [...]un [...] in a [...] age [...], the roote of Idolatry (if not grosse Idolatry it selfe) to [...]iue to the signe that shew of outward Re­uerence and A [...]oration, which is du [...] to the thing signified,Ab [...]idg Linc. p. 6 [...]. and to the giuer hims [...]lfe.

Our Answer.

What a sinister supposition is this? as though that the Reuerence, due to Ch [...]ist, were giuen vnto the Sacra­ment of Christ? this, we confesse, were true Idolatry.

You may not thinke much, if our Church do now sharpen her Censures and Co [...]rections against you, who thus multiply your Calu [...]niations against her, es­pecially in this branding her with no lesse heynous a Crime than Idolatry, which is (as being the most vile of all other) called in holy writ, not onely abominable, but also abomination it selfe. It will therefore concerne you to make good your godlesse aspersion, by some manner of reason; for this, which you deliuered in the last place, is rather a reproofe of your supposed guiltines, than any proofe thereof.

S [...]CT. XXVII. Their s [...]cond Confirmation of the pretended rela­tiue Idolatrous worsh [...]p.

Else why is it not vs [...]d in Baptisme, as well as at this Sacrament,Abridg. Linc. p. 68. exc [...]pt that, with the Idolatrous Papists, we wi [...]l say that it is of grea­ter dignitie th [...]n the Sacrament of Baptisme?

Our Answer.

Nay rather seeing that you know the doctrine of the Church to esteeme both the Sacraments of equall digni­tie (for as much as they proceede from the same autho­ritie of our Sauiour, and are ordained for the same end, euen to be seales of faith, concerning the promises of saluation vnto vs) Why do you make such an odious obiection; and not rather thinke that this Reuerence is inioyned, without any Papisticall intent? Cannot this sa­tisfie you, but you will stil exclaime and say, Why is this reuerence done at the receiuing of the Eucharist, except it be with the Idolatrous Papists? I tell you, this is done, not to consent with the Idolatrous Papists, but absolutely to confute them, who cannot but acknowledge, that our Sacrament of Baptisme is a very perfect Baptisme, accor­ding both to the essentiall matter, and manner, which Christ himselfe ordained. But as for our Sacrament of the Eucharist, See aboue. they do (as hath bene shewen) vilifie it as common and ordinarie bread and wine. The difference then, as you see, is, not in an opinion, that the Eucharist is of greater dignitie than Baptisme with vs; but because it is of lesse esteeme among the Papists.

Notwithstanding be not offended with me, if that I cannot thinke any of you so irreligious, as not to be wil­ling to kneele reuerently in holy prayer vnto God, in the time of the Celebration of Baptisme; especially when prayer is vsed to God, to blesse his owne ordinance in the behalfe of the child. Which manner of worship, is so farre from Idolatrie, that the very Infant baptized, if it could speake, would say, that the Adoration, there, is not directed vnto the Element of the water, but vnto God, for his grace vpon the child.

S [...]CT. XXVIII. Their third Confutation of the pretended Idolatry, by Relatiue wo [...]ship.

Or why do we not condemne t [...]e Papists,Abridg Linc. p. 66. for Kneeling and praying before a Crucifixe? This Bellarmine doth inferre vpon the opinion of them that hold, that Christ, although he be not corporally present, may be adored in the Sacrament; then, saith he, it is not Idolatry to Kneele b [...]fore an Image. And indeed thus the Papists answer: Wee (say they) do not worship vnto the Image, but vnto God that is re­presented thereby.

Our Answer.

There is, in the place alledged,Bell. l 2. de Euch c. 18. obiected against Prote­stants a Testimony out of Nazianzen; in the same place P. Martyrs Answer to that Testimony is fully related; then followeth the Reply of Bellarmine, vpon that An­swer of P. Martyr; and now our Non-conformists bring in their reference from Bellarmines Reply. So that this play consisteth necessarily of foure parts; Nazianzen the speaker, P. Martyr, the expounder, Bellarmine the Re­plyer, and the Non-conformist, the Applyers of Bellarmins conceit. It will not displease our Reader, to see each par­tie Act his owne part.

First, Nazianzens Testimony is this; Super Altare coli Christum: Christ is Adored vpon the Altar. Whence the Papists collect, that men must adore, with diuine wor­ship, the Sacrament that is vpon the Altar. Secondly, P. Martyr Answereth; Coli quidem Christum, sed coli in Symbolo, sicut in symbolo significatur: That is, Christ is worshipped in the signe, is he is signified therby.

Thirdly, B [...]llarmine replyeth; Then (saith he) may it be lawfull to fall downe before the signe, and to Adore Christ there, although absent frō thence; & consequenly is it lawfull [Page 282] to fall downe, and worship the Eucharist, and Images of Christ; neither is this Idolatry, as Protestants exclaime.

Fourthly, hence our Non-conformists follow Bellar­mine, and borrow of that good fellow his staffe, to knock their fellow brethren: but leaue P. Martyr, now defen­ding the common Cause of all Protestants; as if they had conspired, to betray their owne Adoration into the hands of a common Aduersarie.

But we must in part excuse them; because they dealt not thus in malice, against his person; but in ignorance of his iudgement: for P. Martyr, discussing the same Ar­gument else-where, doth fully expresse his owne mea­ning.P. Mar. Loc Com. Class. 4. c. 10. p. 863. Adoration (saith he) consisteth in Inuocation, con­fession, and giuing of thankes, all which are due vnto God, and vnto Christ, wheresoeuer they do manifest themselues vnto vs; which is done three manner of wayes; First, by the inward thought of the heart moued by the Spirit of God, in our earnest apprehension of God, and of Christ: then fol­loweth our Adoration of them, by inuocating, Confession, and giuing of thankes. Secondly, they declare themselues some­times by externall words, as by holy Scriptures, & godly Ser­mons. And thirdly, by outward signes, as in the Arke of the Couenant, and in our Sacraments; yet so, that Adorati­on be not fixed vpon the symbols, or signes, but, in Spirit and in Truth, vpon Christ sitting on the right hand of God in Heauen. Notwithstanding, because the simple people, by reason of the errour of Transubstantiation, rooted in them, cannot so easily vnderstand this, I should thinke, that men should abstaine from outward prostrating themselues in kneeling, vntill they bee better instructed. I confesse that many do godlily kneele, and Adore at the hearing of these words, [Et verbum caro factum est,] where notwithstanding not the words, but the things are adored: euen so the signes [Page 283] in the Sacrament are not adored.

Wherein P. Martyr could haue no other meaning, than, by a significatiue relation, from the signe, to the thing signified. For a man, in Kneeling at the Sacrament, should vpon the sight thereof abstract his thoughts from the sensible obiect, and lifting vp both his eyes and his heart vnto heauen, should Adore, that is (as he saith) inuocate, confesse, and giue thankes vnto God, and vnto Christ.

But how shall this Answer iustifie the Popish manner of worship; Kneeling before, and to an Image; sometimes inuocating the Image it selfe, and fixing their thoughts vpon it; or at least vsing to Adore Christ, with it? as we shall proue. Whereas, contrariwise, this our Adoration of Christ, arising from the sight of the Sacrament, is no more, in the iudgement of P. Martyr, than when at the hearing of the sensible words of the Scripture, or of a godly Sermon, our thoughts are not fixed vpon the E­lements of words and syllables, but by them are eleua­ted and drawne vnto Inuocation, and thanksgiuing vnto God. According to this meaning, P. Martyr (you see) alloweth Kneeling, at the receiuing of the Sacrament, to a peple instructed. Now if, after three-score yeeres prea­ching, our people haue not bene sufficiently instructed, the cause must be imputed either to the ignorance, or negligence of their Teachers; except you will haue vs thinke, that they are past instruction. Hitherto of our particular Answer.

SECT. XXIX. Our more generall Confutation of the Non-conformists, prouing both that a Reuerence is due, at the recei­uing of the blessed Sacrament; and that the Reuerence, by Kneeling, hath not Affinity with Romish Idolatry, first, by Rea­son, and the grounds thereof.

As differences of Colours are best discerned, when they are compared together; so may we most easily di­stinguish the diuers opinions, both of our Protestants from Papists, and of Papists, among themselues, concer­ning Relatiue, or Respectiue worship, by onely relating of their different obiects; especially in these termes, con­cerning Reuerence. We shall therefore first discouer the errour of Poperie herein: and so will the truth of our Re­uerence be better discerned.

SECT. XXX. Our first ground of Confutation is, by discouering of the Romish superstition, in her maner of worship, whether Relatiue, or Absolute, or ioyntly both.

The Relatiue maner of Worship, (as it is professed in the Church of Rome) appeareth to be of two sorts, according to the two different opinions of her professors.

SECT. XXXI. The first opinion of Romish Relatiue worship, and our difference from it.

Some Romanists are produced, by Bell. to hold only this [Page 285] respect in their worship, by an Image; namely,Bellar. l. 2 de Imag. Sanct. c. 20. to fall downe Before it, and By it, and In it, to honour the person that is represented thereby: which opinion he attributeth vnto Alexander, Durand, and A [...]pho [...]sus de Castro: vnto whom Suarez the Iesuit adioyneth Hel [...]t, Su [...]r. Tom. 1. in Thom. q [...]ae [...]t. 2 [...] di­s [...]u. 54. [...]ect. 3. and Picus Mi­randula. Amongst these, Durand may speake for the rest. This kind of wo [...]ship of an Image (saith [...]e) is but improper­ly and abusiuely so called, because, by the image, we haue a re­membrance of the person; wh [...]ch is worsh [...]pped as well in the presence of the Im [...]ge, [...]s if he w [...]re real [...]y present.

This opinion, among many other intollerable con­ceits of the Papists, about their relatiue worship, seemeth most tollerable; and yet I may aske any ingenuous man, whether he euer heard (I do not say our Church, but) any [...]pproued Doctor therin, teach, that we do, or ought to Kneele before the Sacrament; that By it, or In it, we may personally worship Christ, as if he were re [...]lly present.

But you peraduenture will aske me, what is then the respect, that we haue to Christ in this receiuing? Haue patience a while, vntill we shall come to this point; & be not too hasty to vrge vs, to deliuer all at once. It is a dan­gerous thing for men to gallop in rough & rocky waies.B [...]ll [...]rm. Ce­remoniae [...]on­sunt re [...] in­differentes, sed sunt [...]es vtiles, merito­riae, & pars quaed [...]m cul [...] ­ [...]us diuini. lib. 2. de effect­ [...]ac [...]am c. 31. [...]ct. Quint [...] [...]rop.

For the present, be content to know, that whereas the Papist doth directly prostrate himselfe to the Crucifix or Image, with an opinion of holines and efficacy in that ob­iect, to make his prayers more acceptable; and therefore hath some cōfidence In-it, & by-it, to be more easily heard of God: this cannot but be exceedingly superstitious. But our Kneeling is not so directed, that either In h [...]c ob­iecto, vel per illud, we may be more acceptable, but we vse it, tanquàm obiectum à quo, that vpon sight of this Sa­crament, as a visible Word, (euen as at the hearing of the audible words of Gods booke) our hearts may be [Page 286] moued to a spirituall contemplation of God, and of Christ, vnto whom we pray. The Papists adoration is somewhat Inhaesiuè in obiecto, or adhaesiuè per obiectum; but ours is, abstractiuè, ab obiecto. Thus much of the first manner of Relatiue Worship.

SECT. XXXII. The second Romish Opinion of Relatiue worship, and our difference from it.

You haue obiected, against vs, the Papists in generall; and by name haue called in Bellarmine for your Proctor: We are desirous to heare him speake, and deliuer vnto vs that opinion, which he himselfe holdeth, and defen­deth, as the generall doctrine of the Romish Church. And it standeth thus. Images are to be worshipped with the same honour, Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag sanc. cap. 22. wherewith the person represented is honoured, although improperly, and accidentally. How like you this peece of learning? I know, you abhorre it, and our Church (you know) doth as much detest it, as your selues.

Yet is this the man, forsooth, from whom you lear­ned to compare the Romish worship of a Crucifixe, with our worshipping of Christ, in receiuing of the Lords Sacrament. That therefore you may be confuted (as the Schoole speaketh) euen Interminis, I shall entreate your Proctor to expresse the meaning of his former proposition, in their manner of worship of the Crucifixe; Euen as (saith he) when the Preacher saith vn­to the Crucifixe, [Tu redemisti nos] this is spoken to the Cru­cifix, not as it is an Image, or as it is wood; but as it is taken in stead of Christ himselfe: that is, they are spoken to Christ himselfe, whom it doth represent.

[Page 287]I returne to the proposition, as it is deliuered by Sua­rez, a principall Iesuit.Suarez quo supra sect. 4. The Image is and ought to be ado­red with the same worship, wherewith the person signified is honoured. Which he laboureth to proue by the Coun­cell of Trent; where it is thus decreed:Conc. Trid. [...]ess. 25. By Images which we kisse, and before which we fall downe [Christum ado­ramus, — & Sanctos veneramur] that is, We adore Christ, and reuerence the Saints. Whereupon the Iesuit maketh this Comment: Per [adoramus] latria; & per [venera­mur] dulia significatur. By [adore] is signified [latria:] meaning the worship, which, they say, is proper vnto God (so they professe to adore Christ in worshipping an Image:) and by [reuerence] is signified Dulia, which is that worship wherewith they say, in worshipping of the Ima­ges of Saints, they honour the Saints.

And consult both with Bellarmine and Suarez, and the whole Schoole of Iesuites, reporting vnto vs the doctrine of the Church of Rome at this day; and they all conclude, that the Image of Christ or of God, is ho­noured Eodem actu latriae; with the same act of Latria, which they call Diuine worship; Quamuis modo quodam inferiori. Are not these excellent Chimists, who can extract a Degree of worship Inferiour to that which is Diuine, from an Act of worship which is properly Diuine? Which if they could; yet how shall they make their peo­ple so metaphysicall?

But what will you say to all this? do not your con­sciences tell you, that the Religion of our Church hath catechised you, from your infancy, to execrate and condemne all such sacrilegious Relation of the Worship of signes, as this is; wherein they professe in the very same act of Adoration (which they call Latria, that is, a worship proper to the Diuine Maiestie) to adore both the crea­ture, [Page 288] and the Creator; yet (as they will make vs beleeue) to the one modo quodam inferiori, which is a Metaphysi­call conceit, apprehending a difference of manner in the Identitie of action, whereof their people (in whom Ignorance is the Mother of Deuotion) are no doubt very capable. For how can they, in an act of Latria to an (according to the ancient acceptation of the word) Idoll, free themselues of all Idolatrie? Thus much of the Romish manner of Relatiue worship.

SECT. XXXIII. The Romish Decree and absolute manner of worship both of an Image, and of the Sacrament. First concerning an Image.

Their profession heerein is to worship the Image (tan­quam obiectum quod colitur,) euen that which they see, and kneele before; this Bellarmine discouereth in two proposi­tions. The first; The Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped not onely improperly, Bellar. quo supra cap. 21. by themselues, and not as they do represent any person, so that the Images them­selues terminate (I may render it, possesse) that worship, as they are considered in themselues, and not as they represent any person. And he addeth saying; If that Images were not to be worshipped, but onely improperly; as signes, before which; or, by which; or, in which the person represented is honoured: thē may we deny (saith he) that any are to be worshipped at al.

Now that you haue heard your Proctor speak, & tell you that the Romish Church alloweth a worship of Ima­ges without relation vnto any person, whose Images they be: You are chargeable to shew that this superstition may be iustly imputed vnto vs. It is manifest that you cannot: for the worship, which you call into question, is onely relatiue; and this of Bellarmine is professedly giuen to Images, and to signes, without any relation at all.

SECT. XXXIIII. The second absolute, and direct Romish worship of the Sacrament, Idolatrously.

It is the Romish profession, to adore the Sacrament (name­ly the corporall substance contained therein) as the very person of the Son of God, in the proper substance of his bodily presence; which we iudge Idolatrous, not onely by an Accidentall possibility, but by an absolute infallibility.

For first, that the worshippers do adore the bread with diuine honour, in stead of Christ himselfe (which possi­bility the Doctors of the Romish Church do cōfesse) may happen to their Adoration of the Eucharist, by reason of many possible accidents: as if he that consecrateth haue not had a true Ordination; or,See the Pro­testants Ap­peale lib. 2. c. 2. sect. 23. in consecrating of the Sa­crament, haue not a right Intention; or, in vttering the words of Consecration, faile in his syllabicall pronuncia­tion; or, if the formes of the Sacraments themselues, by vnfit admixtion, or putrifaction, lose their perfection. In all these (for euerie one of them is possible) possibilities it may fall out that the Romish worshippers do adore with Diuine honour the element of bread, in stead of the Son of God: which what is it but, at least, an Accidentall Ido­latry; but yet true Idolatry?

They haue, in this case, no other colour of euasion, than to tell vs, that when they kneele downe to adore this Sacrament, they do it with an implicite and inward con­ceit of the minde, saying; If Christ be present, then I adore thee &c. But this is a most miserable shift, to make Adora­tion (which is the highest honour, & homage, which man oweth properly to God) vnto an Hypothetical beleefe [if Christ be there.] The truth of God telleth vs, that who­soeuer cōmeth to God, He must beleeue that God is, that is, [Page 290] honour him with a Diuine faith, that he is wheresoeuer he is adored: But in Ifs and Ands, that is, in fallibilities, there can be no Diuine faith. Ergo, this Suppositiue faith is meerely supposititious; because it is impossible, that the Ielousie of God should admit of a doctrine, or Religion, whereby it must necessarily happen sometime, that the creature should be worshipped with honour, properly due vnto the Creator himselfe. This be spoken of the possibility.

How much more Idolatrous must they appeare to be, when as, by necessary consequences from Scripture, iudgement of ancient Fathers, and the aduocation of the perfectest Senses of man, it may be infallibly proued, that that which they adore, as Christ himselfe, remaineth still in figure, forme, and substance, the same Bread, that it was before Consecration? This inferreth such an infal­libilitie of their Idolatry, that it is impossible, but the Po­pish Adoration of this Sacrament must be Idolatrous. From which kind of Idolatry, whether possible, or infal­lible, you will free vs, before we conclude this cause.

Hitherto haue we shewne what kinde of worship, in receiuing the Sacrament, ours is not; namely, not Po­pish; whether you consider the Relatiue kinde of wor­ship, by making the Sacrament an obiect of Adoration, In quo, or per quod: or else the absolute manner of Ado­ration, by worshipping the Sacrament, tanquam obie­ctum, quod adoratur. We are now to shew, what is the obiect of our Reuerence, in receiuing the Sacrament.

SECT. XXXV. The Relatiue Reuerence, which is vsed in our Church, in respect of the Sacrament, is without note of Idolatry.

First, if our Relation be made from the Signe to Christ, the thing signified; then, is the Sacrament, ob­iectum à quo significatiuè: the Signe mouing vs to that [Sursum corda] to lift vp our mindes, from the earthly obiect of Sense, Bread &c. to the body of Christ, the spirituall obiect of faith, vpon his Tribunall Seate in Heauen.See aboue. Wherein (as hath bene proued out of your owne Witnesse) there can be no shadow of any Idola­trous Adoration.

Or secondly, our relation may be taken from Christ, to the Sacrament, as betweene a giuer and his gift; and so, in Kneeling downe, we take this holy Sacrament, as the mysticall pledge and seale of the body and bloud of Christ, the price of our Redemption, apprehended by faith. Whereas therefore the deuout Communicant is vpon his Knees, praying to the blessed Trinitie, to be made a welcome partaker of so heauenly a Feast; and praysing the supreme Deity for these Royall tokens of his grace; this respect and relation, being a reuerent ta­king of this so inestimable a gift, as from the hands of Christ, according to his owne Ordinance, cannot come within the least suspicion of Idolatry.

SECT. XXXVI. This our former relation of Reuerence, betweene a Giuer and his Gift, is illustrated by a Similitude.

We were ready to illustrate our former Reuerence, [Page 292] by the comparison of receiuing a gift, from the hand of earthly Maiestie; but we perceiue that the Non-confor­mists are ready to preoccupate.

SECT. XXXVII. The Non-conformists preuention, vnto our Comparison.

Abridg. Linc. p. 67.There is no proportion betweene the Ciuill reuerence, giuen to a King, or to the gift which we r [...]ceiue from him, and this religious reuerence to these bodily things; for there is far more danger of Ido­latry here, then there.

Our Answer.

This obiection noteth onely a danger of Idolatry: but this is to feare where no feare is; for although there be not a Proportion of equality, betweene a Ciuill and Religious reuerence; yet is there a proportion of similitude, and the one doth singularly illustrate the other, in this case. For as a Ciuill gift ought to be taken with a Ciuil reue­rence, from the hand of an earthly Soueraigne: so must a Spirituall gift, and the Instruments thereof, be receiued with a Spirituall and Religious Reuerence; as from the Maiestie of Christ, who instituted, and ordained it for vs. And as the Ciuill reuerence, vsed in receiuing the gift of the King, doth not derogate from the dignity of the King, but rather establish it; because the whole reuerence redoundeth to the King: so this our religious receiuing of holy Rytes, doth magnifie the Author, but no way deifie the gift. And doubtlesse, none can be so simple, as seeing any Subiect, reuerently taking any grant, or es­pecially gift, from the hand of an earthly King, by the token of a Ring, or, if you will be a rush; as to imagine that worship to be derogatiue to the Royaltie, or Maie­sty of the King.

SECT. XXXVIII. Our second ground of Confutation is taken from the Testimonies of their owne Witnesses, requiring of Communicants Reuerence, in receiuing any such Ordinances of God.

We are not ignorant, that many Protestant Authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiuing of the holy Communion; but how? as it is vsed Idolatrously of Papists, in a sacriligious opinion, that the Element of bread, which they adore, is the very person of Christ: but not as it may be vsed religiously, by Orthodoxe and godly professors. For better demonstra­tion whereof, it will be our office to produce their owne choicest Witnesses; all of thē exacting of Cōmunicants an outward reuerence; and some allowing also of this kind of Reuerence, which is by Kneeling.

First, M. Caluin, chalking out, as it were, the right line of true Decencie, saith; Sed operaepretium est, &c. Instit. l. 4. c. 1 [...] ▪ p. 429. It will be worth our labour, to define what is to be vnderstood by that decorum and Decencie, which Paul commendeth. In­deed, the end of Decencie is, partly that whilest such Rites, which are vsed, may gaine veneration or reuerence vnto sa­cred things, we may be thereby holpen and exercised vnto Deuotion; partly that also modestie and grauitie (which ought in all actions to be especially regarded) may most shine in them. But that must we account to be decency, which shalbe so fit for the reuerence of holy mysteries; as is meet for the ex­ercise of godlines, or els cōuenient for ornament; nor can this be without profit, but will serue for the admonishing of men, with what modestie, religiousnesse, and reuerence they ought to handle holy things.

[Page 294] To this end we are forbid, by the Apostle, to mingle our profane drinkings with the holy Supper of the Lord; that women come not without the couers of their heads; and ma­ny other things we vse, as namely, our praying vpon our Kn [...]es, with our heads bare; and we administer the Sacra­ments of the Lord not sordidly, [sed cum aliqua dignitate,] but with a kind of Dignitie. You that haue excepted a­gainst vs, for Kneeling to auoide profanation, do you see how instantly and vrgently M. Caluin requireth an out­ward Reuerence, in the handling of such sacred Rites.

B. Iewel art. B. of Adoration p. 2 [...]2. of the last edition.Secondly, B [...]shop Iewell, falling vpon the same subiect, saith; Neither do we onely adore Christ, as very God, but also reuerence the Sacrament, and holy mystery of Christ his bo­dy and blood, and, as Saint Ambrose teacheth [Baptismum Christ vbicunque est veneramur,] That is, we worship Bap­tisme wheresoeuer it is had; and according to the Councell of Athanasius, [Dominica verba attentè audiant, & fideli­ter adorent,] Let men diligently heare, and faithfully reue­rence the words of God. Briefly, we worship all other like things in such religious wise vnto Christ belonging; but these things we reuerence as holy, and as appointed, and com­mended by Christ: but we adore them not with any diuine honour, as Christ himselfe. Doe you not now see a Reue­rence due vnto the Sacrament, without Adoration; that is to say, a Religion void of Idolatrous superstition? name­ly, by Relation from the giuer to the receiuing of the gift.

Zanch. de Redemp. l 1. c 17. p 497.Thirdly Zanchie, labouring likewise to remoue two contrary Vices; as the deadly enemies of Gods wor­ship, the one is [...], that is, Contempt or neglect of due worship; the second is [...], false and supersti­tious worship; to the end he might establish that golden meane, called [...], which is the true sincere worship of [Page 295] God: He, against the former Monster of Contempt of holy worship (out of the Apostles doctrine, 1. Cor. 11. whereby were condemned the vnreuerent commers to the Eucha [...]ist) collecteth, saying, The Sacrame [...]ts are to be vsed with outward Signes & Tokens of honor & reuerence, Zanch. ibid. not in reg [...]rd of themselues, but in respect of Christ, by whom they are instituted: for God himselfe, when he forbad in his Law, the worship of any Images of mens making, yet taught he that his owne Images, to wit, his Sacraments, the signes of heauenly things should not be handled without some honour and reuerence. For as the word of God, Ibid. p. 531. c 17. Thes. 10. although it must not be adored, yet ought it to be handled, and hearkened vnto with Reuerence: so are the Sacraments worthy of Reuerence; which the Apostle perswadeth vnto, when he teacheth that men must eate the Sacrament of the Lords Supper [Dignè] worthily. For although this worthinesse consisteth in the mind of a man, which is indewed with faith and Charitie, yet may it be also referred to an externall Reuerence, seeing that they among the Corinthians, that came irreuerently vn­to the holy Supper, were grieuously chastned of the Lord, as the Apostle teacheth in the same place.

Fourthly, M. Beza is alledged,Abridg. Linc. p 64. as although commen­ding both inward & outward adoration, when these feare­full Ceremonies are celebrated: yet that, for the auoiding of danger or else suspition of Idolatrie, he held it dangerous to vse the Gest [...]re of Kneeling in the Act of receiuing. It is true, and so it may be very requisite in those places and times, whereof he spake: and his exception is onely that it might be dangerous by some Consequence. But M. Beza saith not that the gesture of Kneeling, in the act of the receiuing the Sacrament, is Idolatrous in it selfe; No, but the flat contrary. Gen [...]culatio denique cum Symbola accipiuntur, Speciem quidem habet piae & Christianae ve­nerations, Beza Epist. 11. p. 109. [Page 299] ac proinde olim potuit cum fructu vsurpari. Do you not obserue that he condemneth not the gesture in it selfe, which (saith he) might haue bene profitably vsed in former times; namely, before that it was Idolatrously abused in the Popish Chuch? Which Testimonie as it cannot preiudice our Church which is now so seuered from Poperie, euen in this point of Adoration, that Papists themselues do know and confesse it; so doth it iustly condemne your condemnation of the act of Kneeling, by iudging it to be in it selfe directly Idolatrous. If you shall persist to tell vs, that Beza was of your Iudgement, then must you grant, that with the same breath, he de­fended a commendable Idolatry; seeing that he iudgeth the act of Kneeling to be in it selfe a profitable gesture, euen in the receiuing of the Sacrament.

Fiftly, to the same purpose, and somewhat more ex­presly P. Martyr, P. Mart. Loc. Com. Class 2. c 4. p. 203. I do not contend (saith he) that Cere­monies should be euery where the same, but yet we ought to prouide, that they be not against the word of God; yea they should as much as may be, be reduced vnto edification and decencie. Therefore it is no matter of difference, whether we receiue the Sacraments sitting, or standing, or Kneeling, so that the Institution of Christ it selfe be preferred, and occa­sion of superstition remoued.

This his Position conteineth in it, these two suppositi­ons, the first is, that Kneeling at the receiuing of the Communion is not an act of superstition it selfe: Second­ly, that it may possibly be vsed now without danger of Superstition. And is not this also a plaine contradiction vnto your former assertions? I make no quetion but all other the Authors, who haue spoken absolutely for out­ward Reuerence, in the vse of sacred Mysteries, would not haue bene more vehement in condemning the Idolatry, [Page 297] and sacrilegious manner of Kneeling of the Papists, then they would haue bene (at the least) equall and indiffe­rent, to admit of our custome of Kneeling, if that they had beheld the decent integritie that is vsed therein. All this while we haue kept aloofe off; we come at last to parly with the Non-conformists themselues.

SECT. XXXIX. Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists, and iustifica­tion of Our selues, is from the confession of Bellarmine, excu­sing Protestants from the suspition of Adorati­on; euen because they hold the matter of the Sacrament to remaine Bread.

This our Iustification, I confesse, is against their will, for it issueth out of an obiection, which the Non-con­formists haue made to accuse, and condemne our Church.

The Non-conformists Obiection.

And Bellarmine hauing said that we,Abridg. Linc. p. 31. quoting Bellar. l. 4. d [...] Euch. c. 29. art. 2. (whom he calleth Cal­uinists, and Sacramentaries) do not adore the Sacrament; neither, saith he, should any man maruell at that, seeing they do not beleeue that Christ is really present, but that the b [...]ead in the Eucharist is indeed nothing else but the bread that came out of the Ouen.

Our Answer.

Do you not remember Iosephs Cloke, which his Mi­stresse caught hold of, to draw him to her lustfull bed? who notwithstanding afterwards, in a complaint vnto her husband, turned the same Cloke as a witnesse a­gainst [Page 298] Ioseph, to conuince him of folly; notwithstanding it was, indeed, and in truth, a full demonstration of her owne filthinesse, and dishonesty. And see you not how wittily you do imitate that fact of Iosephs Mistris, by ob­iecting to the Church of England the speech of Bellar­mine, which in true construction may be a sound and e­uident Argument for her iustification: Seeing, that Bel­larmine, so great an Aduersary, confessing that Prote­stants do not adore the bread, euen because they beleeue it to be bread; doth consequently acknowledge, that they, by their receiuing of this Sacrament, cannot possibly be guilty of the Romish maner of Adoration of the out­ward Elements. What needeth therefore so great an outcry in the eares of simple people, to the slander of the true Church of Christ, by associating her, as afterwards ye do, with the Synagogue of Antichrist, in an Idola­trous reuerence?

I alwayes expected, that, as often as you take from the mouth of Bellarmine such kind of speeches as this, obiecting that we thinke the Sacrament to bee nothing else but bread, that came out of the Ouen; you should haue shewne your selues zealous Aduocats for the common cause, by controlling the Iesuits impudencie: according as M. Iewell might haue instructed you, in his Answer a­gainst the like scoffe of M. Harding, in vilifying of our Sacrament.Iewell art. 4. of Adoration. p. 282. Whereas M. Harding (saith he) vniustly de­fameth vs as reckoning the Sacraments of Christ nothing else but Tokens, let him vnderstand that we both thinke and speake reuerently of Christ his Sacraments, as knowing them to be the Testimonies of Gods promises, and instruments of the holy Ghost: and as we make not the Sacrament of Baptis­me bare water, notwithstanding the nature and substance of water remaineth the same still; so we make not the Sacra­ment [Page 299] of Christ his body and blood, bare bread and wine: for, as Saint Augustine saith, [Videndum est, non quid sint, sed quid significent] We must not regard so much what they are, (namely in substance) as what they signifie, to wit, ac­cording to the new nature that they haue of a Diuine Sa­crament.

SECT. XL. Our fourth Confutation of the Non-conformists, and Iustification of our selues, issueth from the Non-conformists owne Practise.
First, by their Intentionall Reuerence.

You would account it an extreme iniurie, to be cen­sured as contemners, or profaners of these holy myste­ries; or not to celebrate and receiue them reuerently, with the truely religious affections of your hearts and mindes: which you professe will be the dutie of euery worthy Communicant, that shall rightly discerne in this Sacrament the Lords body. 1. Cor. 11.29. This being granted (which without impietie cannot be denyed) it ministreth vnto vs an Argument, whereby you may bee confuted (as I suppose) without all contradiction.

Fist, I may reason thus: That manner of Reue­rence, which it is lawfull for a Christian to conceiue in his mind, the same is as lawfull for him (the case of Scan­dall excepted) to expresse in his outward gesture of bodie. But it is lawfull for a Christian to conceiue such a Relatiue Reuerence; as from the sight of the Sacrament (being Obiectum àquo) to raise his thoughts to a con­templation of the mysticall and spirituall obiect of faith, signified thereby: and vpon the vnderstanding of the mysticall, euen the body and blood of Christ really (al­beit [Page 300] not corporally) exhibited vnto vs in this Sacra­ment, to receiue these visible pledges of our redemption, by the death of Christ, (as the Obiectum propter quod) with all holy and reuerent deuotion of heart and mind. Therefore, it is lawfull to performe a sensible and bo­dily reuerence at our outward receiuing thereof.

The infallibilitie of this Consequence ariseth frō the difference which is betweene the inward, and outward Reuerence: for the inward reuerence is the formall part and very soule of reuerence, and farre exceedeth the bo­dily, which is but onely the materiall. Where therefore the materiall and bodily forme of Reuerence is acoun­ted Idolatrous, there the Intentionall and formall much more; because the worship is in it selfe and Act indiffe­rent, and so may become either religious, or superstiti­ous, by the vse, or abuse thereof, according to the inten­tion and mind of the Agent: euen as we may discerne in this one word, Aue, vsed in salutation; for many came to Christ, and said Aue; O haile Master, and did honour him; the Iewes also bowed to him, & said Aue; & dishono­ed him. The difference of these two consisted not in the out ward gesture, which was the same (both sorts Salu­ters) but from the diuerse Intentions, the one kinde per­forming their salutations in ciuilitie, but the other in mockery. Euen so the gesture of Kneeling is an act in­different in it selfe, being vsed as wel of Children to their Parents, as of either religious persons to God; or sacri­legious vnto Idols: but the formall distinction of each one proceedeth from the mind and affection of the Ac­tor; for that, which is in childrē pietie, & in subiects loy­altie, the same is in the truely religious deuotion, and in the superstitious and sacrilegious Idolatrie.

Vpon these Premises wee inferre this conclusi­on; [Page 301] that if there bee in you an inward, relatiue reuerence of soule, in the receiuing of this blessed Sacra­ment, from a respect had betwixt the Doner, God, and this holy Sacrament, being so precious a pledge of our saluation: then can it not be vnlawfull, to giue some expression of this your religious intention, by the same visible reuerence, in one, or other outward gesture of the body; especially being to participate of the Sacra­ment, the seale of mans redemption, both body and soule. And indeed the bodily parts of man are nothing else but the Organs and Instruments of the affections of his soule. If therefore that godly Indignation, which the Publican had against his sinnes,Luk. 18. be shrewing (as it were) his owne heart, commanded his hands to Knock on his breast: 1. Tim. 2. If Hope lifteth vp pure hands in prayer vnto hea­uen, in confidence of Gods promises: If holy Faith moued the womans hand to pull Christ by the hemme of his garment, Math. 9. in beleefe to be healed by some vertue from him: If Charitie stretched out the Samaritans hand,Luk. 10. to Bynd vp the wounds of the distressed man, that lay halfe dead by the way: If Deuotion towards God in Lydia, Act. 16. charged her eares to giue Attention to Gods word: If Contrition for sin powred out of Peters eyes bitter teares of repentance; shall not the vertue of Humilitie, Math. 26. haue some power to make demonstration of it selfe, in an ac­knowledgement of so vndeserued mercy, as is to be partaker, by faith, of the body and bloud of our Lord Ie­sus, by some significant gesture of bowing the body at the receiuing thereof, answerable to the religious affe­ction of your mindes? Thus much of the Intentionall Reuerence.

SECT. XLI. The second Practise of the Non-conformists, for our iustification, is Bodily: And this is either Ac­cidentall, in respect of the Communicants; or Proper, in the manner of com­municating.
The Accidentall is their Bodily presence, communi­cating with vs in this Sacrament, notwith­standing our manner of Reuerence.

This shall be my Reason: Idolatry is set downe, in the booke of God, as a necessary cause of Separation from all Idolatrous worshippers: for what affinity is there betweene God and Belial? Which one cause, although it were onely, might iustifie our departure out of the Romish Babylon. To this purpose, your Witnesse Zanchie giueth this Thesis. Zanch. de re­demp. p. 533. Idololatriae crimine inuoluuntur, qui cum Idololatris, ipsorum Idololatrijs communicant. Contrary­wise; the materiall breaking of bread, that is, the com­municating in the blessed Sac [...]ament, is a principall note of Vnion in one Faith and Religion, seeing that this Sacrament it selfe is a mysticall signe of the vnion of the faithfull among themselues; from which it hath recei­ued the Appellation to be called the Communion. Not­withstanding, you haue the grace to abide in the womb of our Church, and to liue in one Brotherhood with vs, in a publique profession of one doctrine and wor­ship of God, in Prayers and Psalmes, and in the Com­munion it selfe. And now deliberate with your selues (I beseech you) whether you, by this your manner of calumniating, and traducing of the Churches practise, to call it Idolatrous, haue not bene the Authours of Schisme [Page 303] to the Separatists, and Apostates of these times; vnto whom you haue giuen their first bane (euen this suspi­cion of Superstitious worship in our Church) whereby their hearts are so poysoned, and their braynes intoxica­ted, that now no Antidote of your making, can be able to cure them.

Take therefore vnto you the mindes of discreete and Christian hearts, either to be that you seeme, or to seeme to be that you are; as glorifiers of God with vs in our Church, so for our Church; that therefore you do not dishonour her that is your Glory and your Crowne, seeking (as she hath done many worthy Martyrs of Christ, and holy Saints) to breed and bring you vp, in the syncere faith of Christ, vnto your assured hope of eternall glory. Thus much of our iustification, by your Accidentall practise of consent, in Communion with vs, in this Sacrament.

SECT. XLII. The third Practise of the Non-conformists, is from their Bodily Reuerence, at the receiuing of their food, both Corporall and Sacramentall.
First of their Corporall.

You your selues are knowne to be so reuerent in pray­ing vnto God, as that, in saying grace before meate, you vse to vncouer your heads, and you do well: but look now to the act, is it not an act of Reuerence? Why else are you vncouered? And is it not an act of Spirituall worship; wherefore else do you pray? And is not the out­ward obiect, whereupon you look, meate, euen the crea­ture of God? how else can you desire God to blesse These [Page 304] his creatures? And is not this your Adoration of God, re­latiue and respectiue, arising betweene the Gift, and the Giuer? otherwise why should you haue reference in prayer vnto God, for his blessing vpon your meates? And lastly, will you say (for this Interrogatiue must needs conuince your consciences) that this your Adoration is according to the Popish opinion, by a personall represen­tation, in giuing any part thereof to the creature; by ado­ring either It, or In it, or By it? How then should you iustly condemne that Romish Church of Superstition? Nay do you not acknowledge, that the respect, which you haue from the meate to God, is as from the gift vnto the Giuer; and that Gods gift is an obiect, propter quod; for which you pray, and render praise vnto him? And why then do you infame our Church, as if she were Idolatrous, which teacheth you, in these, and all other points of Adoration, how to auoide all Idola­try? Surely he that cannot distinguish betweene these two, to wit, Reuerence to God, at the receiuing of his Sa­crament; and reuerence to God, in the Sacrament receiued, may, when he would warme him at the fire, burne him­selfe in the fire. Thus much of your practise in Reuerence, at receiuing your corporall food.

SECT. XLIII. Our fift Confutation of the Non-conformists, and iustifica­tion of our selues, is from the proper practise of the Non-conformists, in their outward Re­uerence, at the receiuing of this Sacrament.

You may remember the whole passages, and very paces, we haue gone, that we might perswade you to [Page 305] allow, and imbrace our outward gesture of reuerence, in receiuing of the blessed Sacrament: some taken from Reasons; from Confessions of your owne Witnesses; from your owne Practises not onely Intentionall, but also Reall; and this both Accidentall and Proper: and this, as in an outward and visible reuerence, in receiuing as well Corpo­rall, as Sacramentall food. All these foure hauing bene manifested; it remaineth onely that we proue the last, concerning the bodily Reuerence perfo [...]med by your selues, at the receiuing of the Sacrament it selfe.

I need not vse many words; you receiue this Sacrament with your heads vncouered, and would (I thinke) hold it a prophanenes, not to giue some outward semblance of vncouering your heads at the receiuing thereof. This be­ing your generall practise, I do not see how you may iustifie your owne heads, and condemne your knees; by whatsoeuer pretence you can make. Will you say that (kneeling, & vncouering being both practised about the same act) the one gesture can be more subiect to Idolatry then the other? I appeale to your owne Witnesse, who cōdemning the peoples adoration of Images, doth ioynt­ly abandon these three gestures; Genuflectionem, Zanch. de re­demp. lib. 1. pag. 401. Capitis apertionem & Corporis inclinationem: Kneeling on the knee, vncouering of the head, and bowing of the body; where and whensoeuer they are applyed vnto a false adoration: as being contrarie to the second commandement, [Thou shalt not worship &c.]

Or will you hold it reasonable to say, as some are thought to answer, that you, in the celebration of this Sacrament, beginning with prayer and thankes-giuing, were vncouered; and that now it is but continuata actio, a continuing of the same gesture, at the administration and participation thereof; either because of the publique Psalmes, then vsed in the Church, or for that you are ex­ [...]rcised [Page 306] in a diuine meditation, about the Analogie be­tween the elements of bread and wine, and the body and bloud of Christ, signified thereby; by as reall an applying of the same body and bloud of Christ to your soules, for the nourishment thereof, as you haue a reall and substan­tiall incorporation of the bread and wine into your bo­dies; & that you are presently ready to proceed in other prayers: so that, being vncouered, you cannot be said, so much to put off, as to keep off your hats; nor to be made kneele, but to be found kneeling, at the receiuing of this Sacrament.

He that condemneth, in his own conscience, an other mans direct vncouering of the head, at the receiuing of the holy Sacrament, as superstitious, being himselfe vnco­uered; and shall notwithstanding excuse his owne gesture, because of the former pretence of a continued action, or spirituall meditation: This man shall be but (as S. Iames calleth him) a Paralogizer, Iam 1. and deluder of his owne soule: because no act is called goo [...], nisi ex integra causa, that is, wh [...]n it is good in euery part; but it is euill, ex quouis de­fectu, that is, vpon any one defect. Therefore the conti­nuance of the same gesture cānot ma [...]e that action good, wherein any part thereof, in respect of the obiect, is con­demnable in it selfe; because if the reuerence at the recei­uing be vnlawfull, I ought, in my behauiour, as well to haue declined that which ought not; as to haue practised that which ought to haue beene performed; especially where (for God is a iealous God) there could be the least iealousie of Idolatry.

The nature of due reuerence will more clearely appeare, by a sight of the contrary. If any Tenants, seeing their Lord riding, with his seruants, some before, and some behind, yet but meanely furnished for their attendance, should be disposed to laugh and iest at them; & exercise [Page 307] the same scoffe vpon their Lord approaching; would it be any tollerable satisfaction, to say (when they should be called in question) that they did but onely continue their laughing and iesting?

Or will you hereupon suspect, that you haue erred, in being vncouered, and hereafter make amends with coue­ring your heads? This would be but an hiddie, and giddie retractation, by which you must needs contradict the cu­stome (as I suppose) of all the reformed Churches in Christendom: whereof one of your own choicest Wit­nesses testifieth, saying;Z [...]nch. de Redemp. lib. 1. pag 531. Thes. 10. De h [...]c membro inter omnes pios constat, reipsa enim h [...]c comprobant, cùm ad Sacramentorum participationem reuerentèr, apertó (que) Capite accedunt; hàc ra­tione protestantes, aquam illam Baptismi, panem & vinum Coenae non amplius esse res profanas, sed sacras, per quas Chri­stus seipsum, suam (que) gratiam cōmunicat; eó (que) esse reuerentia dignas &c. It is a thing granted (saith he) of all godly men, and indeed testified and approued of them, by their comming to the participation of the Sacraments, Reuerently, with their heads vncouered, protesting thereby that the water of Bap­tisme, and the bread and wine in the Lords Supper are no cō ­mon, but sacred things; whereby Christ doth communicate himselfe and his graces vnto vs, and that therefore they are worthy of this reuerence. Euen as (saith he) the word prea­ched, although it is not to be adored, yet must it be reuerent­ly handled, is the word not of men, but of God: and so like­wise the Sacraments, in the administration of them, a [...]e worthy of reuerence, whereunto appertaineth the saying of the Apostle, commanding vs to eat and drink that cup [...], worthily; which worthinesse and dignity, although it doth properly consist in the minde indued with faith an [...] loue, yet may we not without cause referre it vnto the externall reue­rence, whereupon it was that they, that came to the Lords Supper irreuerently, were seuerely chastned by the hand of [Page] God. 1. Cor. 11. You see how exactly this your choice and venerable Witnesse hath pleaded for an externall gesture of reuerence, by vncouering the head, at the receiuing of such holy Rytes; which he maketh to be the same, in the case of worship, with the bowing of the knee.

You will peraduenture reply; if the case standeth so, concerning vncouering our heads, why are we then con­demned for irreuerence, and why is Kneeling required? Shall I tell you? I can conceiue but three reasons here­of: the first is, because diuers of you are thought to be vncouered, not with any intention to expresse your reue­rence, at the receiuing of this Sacrament, because you condemne those that performe any reuerence by knee­ling; therefore yee are vrged to kneele, that thereby you may manifest your vnanimity of one iudgement with our Church. Secondly, the order of kneeling hauing bene established by the Church, and being (as hath bene proued) a Ceremony indifferent, it is lawfully exacted, and ought to be performed by you, for expression of vnifor­mitie. Lastly, because that women also (who because of their sex may not be vncouered) might shew the deuoti­on of their soules, by their bodily representation of knee­ling; this gesture is required for an vniuersality of Con­formitie.

To conclude, be you exhorted but to permit your in­ternall reuerence, to become visible, by bodily gesture; or suffer your knees to be answerable to your heads, in out­ward reuerence: and then may we all ioyne the hands of true fellowship and godly vnion, in the participation of this holy Communion; and a more acceptable Thankes­giuing in the Eucharist vnto the Trinity, in one indiuisi­ble Vnitie, whereunto be ascribed all glory and prayse for euer. Amen.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.