A DEFENCE Of THE innocency OF THE THREE CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. viz. The Surplice, Cross after Baptism, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Divided into two Parts: In the former whereof the General Arguments urged by the Non-conformists; and, in the second Part, their Particular Accusations, against these III. Ceremonies severally, are answered, and refuted. 1. COR. 11.16. If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. Published by Authority. LONDON, Imprinted for William Barret. 1618. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, GEORGE MARQVIS OF BUCKINGHAM, Viscount Villiers, Baron of Whaddon, Master of his majesties Horse, Knight of the most noble Order of the Garter, Gentleman of his majesties Bedchamber, and of his most honourable privy Council. MY LO. IT hath been your happiness, to have had that highest Nobility, that can befall unto the sons of men; I speak not now of Nasci, but of Renasci, through Baptism, in this our most Orthodox, and flourishing Church: which alas! now (by the same obligation, arising from the due respect of a child unto the Mother) may seem to require your Lordship's aid and assistance, especially against two sorts of Adversaries, by whom she is (although in a different degree) unworthily and unjustly impugned; the one whereof are the Papists, and the other the Non-conformists. The Papists persecute her with all their engines of hate, as if she were an execrable Apostate: notwithstanding they themselves, (to instance but in two points) first, worship with divine honour, as the person of the Son of God, that, which, in their opinion, may; but, in the judgement of all other Churches, doth remain still (according as Theodoret, 1200 years since, in express words determined) in form, figure, & substance, Bread. which necessarily inferreth an high degree, not only of a possible, but even of an infallible Idolatry. And secondly have they, of late, added twelve new Articles of Belief unto our Christian Creed, with an opinion of equal necessity: which kind of addition unto the Christian Faith doth prove them notoriously heretical, and liable unto the Apostles curse, Gal. 1.8. who pronounceth an Anathema upon either man or Angel, that shall coin any new doctrine of that kind. Concerning the Nonconformist. He, although he doth owe his spiritual birth unto the Church, as well as his natural unto his Parents; yet nevertheless doth he defame his Mother's religious worship; infringe her wholesome liberty; and contemn her just authority: thereby occasioning that horrid Schism, which is made by Separatists, the dissected Sects, and very Acephalists of this present age. Against the Papists I have had many conflicts. Now, in this Treatise, my purpose is principally to contend against the Non-conformists; which being finished, I thought myself bound to devote the same unto your Honour, in testimony of my due acknowledgement, for your Lordship's, singular favour, and respect towards me: and so much the rather have I thus adventured, because the Treatise itself was first occasioned by your Lordship. If therefore (Right Honourable) in that eminence of Favour, which you have in the eyes of our most gracious Sovereign, you shall imitate his majesties admirable wisdom and zeal, in the advancing of This, the true daughter of that primitive Mother- Church, against whatsoever kind of Adversaries; She shall make you twice-honorable, both in the eyes of God and Man; by blessing you with her prayers, wishing unto you Good luck with your Honour; Psal. 45.5. and happy prosperity for preserving of her Peace: Psal. 12 2.6. whereunto, according to my especial duty, I resound an answerable Echo; beseeching God to prosper your Lordship, and to accomplish you, especially, with all his spiritual blessings, in heavenly things; and to preserve you to the glory of his saving 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 marvel, why I impute Superstition unto you, I may think that either they know not you, or that you are not rightly acquainted with yourselves: because, as there is a Superstition affirmative, by an Idolatrous Touching, tasting, and handling of things that are held to be sacred; so is there likewise, which cannot be denied, a Negative Superstition (condemned by the Apostle) which, in regard of things that were falsely judged unholy and profane, did prohibit, saying, a Col. 2.21. Touch not, taste not, handle not. Wherein, notwithstanding, not the act of Abstaining, but (observe I pray you) the erroneous opinion, in forbearing, and forbidding such things, was the formal cause of Superstition. Whereunto, how far you may be thought to symbolise, by your Negative opinions, concerning these your prohibitions, kneel not, cross not, wear not, etc. this Treatise doth fully discuss and determine. But you think it sufficient to have produced M. Calvin, B. jewel, M. Bucer, P. Martyr, Beza, Zanchy, Chemnitius, Danaeus, and other the best accomplished Divines, as Advocates to plead your Cause. It is well; if you shall be as well contented, that (according as b Act. 25. v. 10.12. Festus, knowing S. Paul to have appealed unto Caesar, did reasonably resolve, saying, Unto Caesar shalt thou go) I, likewise upon your allegations of such reverend and judicious Authors, may challenge you to stand unto the Testimonies of your own Witnesses: by whom you may easily understand, that the most of your Negative Opinions are so many Superstitions. We have received from you these Opinions concerning Ceremonies. 1. No Ceremony, without special warrant from the word. 2. No appropriation of any human Ceremony unto God's worship. 3. No signification mystical in any such. 4. No use of any such Ceremony, which hath been once superstitiously abused. 5. No bodily gesture, in token of reverence, at the receiving of the Lords Supper, is lawful. Be you likewise pleased to take a view of the Testimonies of your own Witnesses, condemning your former assertions. The first, thus: c Danaeus Isag. de Tradit. cap. 29. The Sadduces did reject all manner of Traditions, which had not been delivered by Moses; like as do the Anabaptists, and Libertines of these days: who are, notwithstanding, confuted by the example of Christ, in his observing of the feast of Tabernacles, which was ordained by judas Machabaeus. But the Papists, like the old pharisees, are in another extreme. * These other Testimonies ensuing, are cited, and expressed in this Treatise, throughout. Besides, to challenge a special prescription for all Ceremonies out of the word, d Calvin. Is contrary to the wisdom of Christ: and e Zanchy. To Christian liberty. The second, of Not appropriating, etc. thus: It infringeth f Bucer, Zanc. and others. The liberty of the Church. The third, against Mystical signification, thus: To deny g Calvin. Symbolical Ceremonies, is a morosity: in so much that the h D. Rainold. Papists are to be reproved for their dumb, and non-significant Ceremonies. But these, as i Chemnis. Significative, are lawful, although not as operative. yea k B. jewel, Zanchy, Chemnis. Significant are profitable for admonition, and for testification of our duties. Finally, the denying of this power to the Church, is a l Bucer. Depriving her of her Christian liberty. The fourth, of Abolishing of all Ceremonious use of things, that have been once superstitiously abused, thus: m P. Martyr, Beza. The wickedness of man cannot so far pollute the good creatures of God. Why? n Bucer. The abuse of such things doth not cleave to the things themselves, but unto the minds of them that do abuse them. What then? As it is superstition o B. jewel. to place holiness, so it is to place unholiness in them. To conclude. This doctrine is p Calvin. Contrary to the intention of Christ, and to the q B. jewel, P. Martyr. Liberty of the Church of Christ. The last, which is of Not using any bodily reverence at the holy Communion, Thus, r Calvin, B. jewel, Zanchy, Zepper. P. Martyr. Outward reverence is requisite in Communicants, both for the dignifying of Christ's mysteries, and for the increase of our Christian devotion. In a word, to deny the Church power, to choose her gesture of Reverence, is s Bucer, P. Martyr. Contrary to the liberty allowed her by Christ. All these, with diverse other authorities and reasons, are more expressly mentioned in the Treatise itself. If you desire not to take up your ware by retail, you may have it in a generality. For, to instance but in one Ceremony, (be it the Surplice) the Reformed Churches, although they used it not, yet did they so certainly justify our practice thereof, that (as it is confessed) t P. Martry loc. comm. pag. 1086. If we shall condemn these indifferent things, we shall condemn infinite Churches, which are honoured of us, as most commendable. Or thus: u Bucer. We shall condemn all Churches of impious boldness. Not to return upon you the many Parliaments, and Convocations, which (by the general consent of the learnedst Divines, and the most wise and religious Governors in this kingdom) have established these Rites. Before I shut up this Epistle, let me acquaint you with some other of your errors, which may chiefly require your second thoughts. I shall need but only to point at them. One is, your often alleging of Scriptures, Fathers, and other Authors; and your open mistaking of their meanings, as will evidently appear. The next, is, the many Repugnancies unto yourselves, by such an extreme difference between your Swearing, and Praying; your standing, and sitting; your hands, and tongues; your heads, and your knees, etc. as if there were some mile distance between you, and your selves. Not to mention your many objections, which make against your own conclusions. The third is, the extreme injury that you do unto the Church. But you pretend peace; because, forsooth, you preach not against Conformity. As though there were not a Preaching as well in the ear, as on the housetop; or not as well an exemplary, as there is an oratory seducement: else could not Saint Paul have said, Gal. 2.14. concerning only the Exemplary; Cogis eos judaizare. And that which herein doth double your offence, is, that your opposition is grounded upon a sinister conceit, that our Church observeth these Ceremonies in an opinion of Holiness and Necessity: which is altogether contrary to her own express protestation. Howbeit, if her meaning in this case were but ambiguous, or doubtful, yet would wel-conditioned children take things from a Parent with their right hands: but your depraving of her professed and plain doctrine, what can it else argue in you, than an earnest bend to contention, against the general custom of the Church? not unlike unto the Accipencer, which usually swimmeth against the stream. The last, is, your notorious Scandals given unto them that are without, and them that are within the Church; to the weak, and to the strong; yea and to the Church of God itself, by breaking the hedge of peace, and opening a gap for the wild B●re out of the Romish Forest to enter in, and ●oote out that goodly vine; which many Paul's, the industrious Bishops, and Pastor's have plainted; and many Apollo's, the faithful Martyrs of Christ have watered with their blood. And yet more specially that Scandal, which you commit against your own selves; I mean, so many of you, as acknowledge the innocency of our Ceremonies fully cleared, and your own consciences sufficiently convinced, and do notwithstanding resolve (I can scarce, for honour, mention so execrable a resolution) to continue in opposition, only for fear of discrediting your ministery. which this Treatise proveth to be altogether false, presumptuous, partial, and pernicious. diverse other things might have been observed: but to conclude. Be you exhorted (beloved brethren) if there be in you a due hatred of Superstition; any joy in the Spirit of unity; any zeal of the success of the Gospel; or any conscience of truth, embrace the peace of the Church: and the God of peace replenish your hearts with all spiritual Graces, and preserve us to the glory of his Saving Grace. TO THE READER. BE thou advertised (Christian Reader) that the Obiectors, in this Treatise, are principally the Assembly of the Lincolnshire Ministers, in their book called the Abridgement, etc. printed 1605. The other, in the Margin (who, for the respect I have unto them, are but halfe-named) are the Ministers in the Diocese of Chester: whose Reasons, of their Refusal of Subscription, (so many as they could either borrow of others, or invent of themselves, I keep by me in writing; and have as methodically, as I could, ranged them into order in this Treatise. Good Reader, study the peace of the Church, and eschew all differences, touching these matters, which are apparently, in their own nature, Indifferent. Pag. 37. lin. 4. object 1. etc. Deal, the whole line. Pag. 49. lin. 5. after, judicious Divines, add, 4. Reasons. Pag. 61. Sect. 9 after, 5. Their own practice, add, 6. Reasons. Pag. 100 lin. 3. for, Their, read, Our Answer. Pag. 1●8. lin. 26. read. Maozim. Pag. 1●2. lin. ult. in marg. deal 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 above mentioned. 2. A particular Defence of each one severally. CHAP. 1. In the first Part the Non conformists use six Arguments against the foresaid Ceremonies. Their first general Argument is, because, Every Ceremony should have Special warrant from Scripture, which (as they say) these have not. The Proposition of this Argument they labour to prove by Scriptures. Their I. Text is Heb. 3.2. of Christ's faithfulness in God's house. Our Answer Sect. 3. etc. II. Text, 2. Sam. 7.7. God saying to David, Shalt thou build me an house? Our Answer Sect. 6. etc. III. Text, jer. 7.22.23. I commanded not your father's concerning Sacrifices, etc. Our Answer, Sect. 8. etc. IV. Text, Esa. 1.11. Who required these things at your hands? Our Answer, Sect. 11. V. Text, jer. 7.31. God saying. Which I comm●nded you not. Our Answer, Sect. 12. Their second proof, for their Negative arguing from Scriptures, is from the judgement of ancient Fathers. Our Answer, Sect. 13. etc. Their third proof is from the Testimonies of Protestant Divines. Our Answer, Sect. 15. Our general Confutation of their first Argument, in disputing Negatively 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, from the judgement of Protestant Divines. Sect. 18. IV. Reason, from the nature o● Ceremonies; according to the Practices of other reformed Churches. Sect. 20. V. Reason, from the Confession, and Practise of the Non-conformists themselves. Sect. 21. The Assumption of their Argument (namely that these our Ceremonies want due warrant from Scripture) which the Non-conformists labour to prove. Our Answer, Sect. 22. to the end of the Chap. CHAP. 2. Their second general Argument is, Because Ceremonies are parts of God's worship; which no man can lawfully ordain. Ergo, etc. The Proof first of their Mayor. Their I. Proof from Scriptures; Esa. 29.13. Deut. Coloss. etc. Our Answer, Sect. 3. and confutation of their interpretation of such Scriptures. Sec. 4. II. Proof from the judgement of ancient Fathers. Our Answer, Sect. 5. III. Proof from Protestant Authors. Our Answer, Sect. 6. The proofs of their Assumption, to show that our Ceremonies are held as parts of God's worship. I. Proof, because they are impoted as parts of God's worship. Our Answer. Sect. 8. etc. II. Proof, Because imposed with an opinion of holiness. Our Answer. Sect. 10. III. Proof; Because preferred before preaching, and other necessary duties. Our Answer. Sect. 11. FOUR Proof; Because the people conceive them to be necessary. Our Answer. Sect. 12. V. Proof, Because the punishment is so severe against the Transgressor's of them. Our Answer. Sect. 13. VI Proof; Because the censure against the contrary-minded is to term them Schismatics. Our Answer. Sect. 14. Our general confutation of this second general Argument of the Non-conformists, concerning the essential parts of God's worship: from the plain and express Profession of our Church. Sect. 15. CHAP. 3. Their third general Argument against these Ceremonies is, because they are made Significant. Their Proofs from 1. Scriptures. 2. Fathers. 3. Protestant divines. 4. Reasons. I. Proof from Scriptures of Mar. 7.8. Mat. 15. You have made the Commandments of God of none effect, by the traditions of men Our Answer, Sect. 2. II. Proof, from Fathers. Our Answer, Sect. 3. III. Proof, from the testimonies of Protestant Divines. Our Answer, Sect. 4. IV. Proof, from Reasons. I. Reason; Because a Ceremony is a chief part of God's worship. Our Answer, Sect. 5. II. Because Gods own Ceremonies of the old law are not to be used. Ergo, etc. Our Answer, Sect. 6. III. Because this openeth a gap to other Popish trash. Our Answer, Sect. 7. The Non-conformists Assumption: and our Answer. Sect. 8. Our general Confutations of their third general Argument, concerning a Ceremony significant. Our I. Confutation by Scriptures: II. Fathers: III. Reasons: IU. The Non-conformists own Witnesses: V. By the practice of the Non-conformists themselves: VI Reason: to prove the lawfulness of Significant Ceremonies. Our I. Example out of Scripture, is of Abraham before the law. Gen. 24. II. Examples under the law: first, in the ordination of Festival days, as the Feast of lots, Est. 9 Sect. 9.10. Second, in the Feast of the Dedication, 1. Machab. 2. justified by Christ, joh. 10. Sect. 12. & 13. Next instance in the Ceremonial instruments, both in the Altar of the Gileadites, jos. 22. Sect. 15.16. and secondly in Salomon's Altar. 1. King. 8. Sect. 17.18.19.20.21. and in the jewish Synagogues, Sect. 22. III. Examples in the time of the Apostles. As first, the Feasts of Charity. Sect. 23.24.25.26.27. Second, the Holy Kiss. Sect. 26.27. and third, Woman's covering of her head. Sect. 28. Our second Confutation, by the universal custom of all Christian Churches, as well Primitive as Successive. Sect. 29. Our third confutation, from the testimonies of the Non-conformists own Witnesses. Sect. 30. Our fourth confutation is from the confessions and practice of the Non-conformists themselves: by example in taking an Oath, Sect. 31. And in the observation of the Lords day, and other Festivals. Sect. 32. Our fifth confutation is from Reason, taken from the nature of a Ceremony, that it must not be dumb. Sect. 33.34. CHAP. 4. The fourth general Argument of the Non-conformists, against these ceremonies, is, Because they have been abused in Popery: and, Therefore aught to be utterly abolished. For proof of their Mayor, they allege the reproofs used against Ceremonies, either Heathenishly, jewishly, or Heretically abused: which they endeavour to evince, from 1. Authority of Scripture. 2. Of ancient Counsels, and Fathers. Their ay and II. Scriptures, Leuit. 18. etc. Our Answer, Sect. 2.3. III. Deut. 7. commanding the names of Heathenish superstition to be abandoned. Our Answer, Sect. 4. IV. Dan. 1. Daniel would not be defiled with the King's meat. Our Answer, Sect. 5. V. The example ●f Hezechias, in demolishing of the Brazen Serpent, 2. Reg. 18. Our Answer, Sect. 6. Their objections of the second kind, concerning Heathenish Rites, is from Counsels and Fathers. I. Instance in the Council of Carthage, against Altars in Highways, abused by Pagans. Our Answer, Sect. 7. II. In the sam● Council, ●gainst Relics of idolatry. Our Answer. Sect. 8. III. In the Council of Brac. concerning green bay-●e●ues. Our Answer. Sect. 9 FOUR In the Council of Afro●k, against the Birth daze of Marterse. Our Answer. Sect. 10. V. In Tertullian, forbidding to borrow any thing of an Idol. Our Answer. Sect. 11. VI Again in Tert. concerning washing of hands, and laying aside Cloaks. 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 leave the heathenish toys, etc. Our Answer. Sect. 15. Their second kind of Objections, concerning jewish Rites. Their Instance in the Council of Nice, concerning the Feast of Easter. Our Answer. Sect. 16. Their third kind of Objections is concerning Heathenish Rites. I. Instance in the Council of Gangris, about Fasting on the Lord's day, abused by the Manichees. Our answer. Sect. 17. II. Instance in t●e Council of Brac. about Eating of fl●sh abused by the Pricilianists. Our Answer. Sect. 18. III. Instance in Gregory, against Thrice dipping in Baptism. Our Answer. Sect. 19 FOUR Instance in Leo, against the a●use in Conference with Heretics. Our Answer. Sect. 20 Their general Assumption, to prove that our Ceremonies have been as ill as Heathenishly abused by Papists. Our Answer. Sect. 21. Our general Confutation of their general Argument; for the abolishing such things as have been abused. Our I. Proof, is from Scriptures. Sect. 23. II. Proof from Fathers. Sect. 24. III Fron 4. Reasons. 1. From Inconueniency. Sect. 25. 2. From the absurdity of the Non-conformists Rule. Sect. 26. 3. From other means of reforming abuses, than by abolishing the things Sect. 27. 4. From the difference between Pagans & Papists. Sect. 28. IV. From the Testimonies of their principal Witnesses. Sect. 29. V. From the confessions, and Practices of the Non-conformists themselves. Sect. 30. CHAP. 5. The fifth general Argument of the Non-conformists, against the foresaid Ceremonies, is taken from the Scandal which is pretended to be occasioned by them. Our Answer. 1. By exposition, of the word Scandal. Sect. 1. 2 By division of it into Active. Passive. Sect. 2. Active Scandal subdivided. 1. In respect of the Parties Agent, Direct. Indirect. Sect. 3. 2. In respect of the parties offended, Weak, Strong. Sect. 4. 3. In respect both of Persons and Cause, either Determined. undetermined. Sect. 5. 4. In respect of the effects Lapse into sin, or error. Hindrance from God. Sect. 6. The Passive Scandal divided in respect of the party offended matter of offence. Sect. 7. 1. Subdivision, concerning the party offended, either in respect Of his judgement Or, of his affection. Sect. 8. II. Subdivision, in respect of the opinion of Indifferency. Necessity, Sect. 9 The general Assumption of the Non-conformists, proving our Ceremonies to be Scandalous. I. Against superstitious Papists Our answer. Sect. 10. II. Against Profane persons, Our answer. Sect. 11. III. Against weak brethren, Our answer. Sect. 12. IV. Against unconformable Congregations. Sect. 13. V. Against unconformable Ministers. Our answer. Sect. 14. VI Against all sorts, by appearance of evil, Our answ. Sect. 15 Our general Confutation of their former Assumption, concerning Scandal, by proving the Non-conformists themselves guilty of the manifest Scandal, as both in Active and Passive. Sect. 16. I. Active Scandal, by weakening some that remain in the Church. Sect. 17. II. By driving some out of the Church as Separatists, Sect. 18. III. Hindering some from the Church, as Papists. Sect. 19 IV. Against the Church itself: first Comparatively, by rather offending their Mother, than their Brother. Sect. 21. By Contempt. Sect. 22. CHAP. VI The sixth general Argument of the Non-conformists, against our Ceremonies, is taken from Prejudice against the Liberty of Christians. Sect. 1.2.3. Our distinction between Necessity of doctrine, and Necessity of obedience. Sect. 3. The first Proof of the Non-conformists is from Scriptures. I. Scripture. 1. Cor. 7. forbidding to Cast a snare upon Christians. Our answer. Sect. 4. II. Script. Gal. 5. Stand fast in the liberty etc. Our answer. Sect. 5. Their second Proof 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 men's consciences. Sect. 7. Our particular Answers. I. Distinguishing between manner, and measure of binding men's consciences. Sect. 7. II. Confuting the Non-conformists from their own Witnesses. Sect. 8. III. She●ing that Ecclesiastical Laws have a kind of force to bind men's consciences. Sect. 10. The Non-conformists Objection, from Bowling. Our answ. Se. 11. Our General Confutation of the foresaid sixth general Argument of the Non-conformists, concerning the impeaching of Christian Liberty; and Proving our Church free from this error. I. Reason, from the acknowledgement of the Non-conformists themselves. Sect· 12. II. Reason from the profession of our Church. Sect. 13. III. From the contrary: showing that the Non-conformists opinion of Refusal is the very breach of Christian Liberty. 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, Cross after Baptism, and Kneeling at the receiving of the B. Communion. CHAP. 1. I. Of the Surplice: and our particular defence thereof, against their several Accusations. The I. Accusation of the Non-conformists', against the Surplice, is in respect of the distinction of Apparel. Our Answer. Sect. 1. II. Accusation, in respect of the Office, whereunto the Surplice is applied, which is Ecclesiastical. Our Answer, Sect. 2. III. Accusation is in respect of the colour, as not anciently used. Our Answer, Sect. 3. IV. Accusation, because it is made Significant. Our Answer, Sect. 4. V. Accusation, because it hath resemblance with the jewish attire. Our Answer, Sect. 5. VI Accusation, both in respect of the Resemblance, and of the Signification jointly 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 Popery. Our answer, Sect. 8. IX. Accusation, that the People account it Holy; and others think it Scandalous, etc. Our answer, Sect. 9 Our summary Confutation of the Non-conformists, arguing against the Surplice. CHAP. 2. Our particular Defence of the second Ceremony, which is the Cross after Baptism; against their several Accusations. Their Accusations. I. That It is contrary to the second Commandment. Our answer, Sect. 1.2. II. That It detracteth from the perfection of Baptism, in many respects: as, 1. Because it is made a part of Baptism. Our answer, Sect. 3. 2. It is sometime used, whilst the words of Baptism are in pronouncing. Our answer, Sect. 4. 3. It is used after Baptism, 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, etc. 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 justify the Popish crossing of their breasts. Our answer, Sect. 9 V. That The Author of it was the heretic Valentinus. Our answer, Sect. 10.11. VI That The Countenancer thereof was Montanus an heretic. Our answer, Sect. 12. VII. The superstitious abuse of it by ancient Fathers, whom they grossly imitate. Our answer, Sect. 13. Our summary Confutation of the Non-conformists; concerning the use of the Cross after Baptism. Sect. 14. CHAP. 3. Our particular Defence of the third Ceremony of Kneeling at the receiving of the holy Communion, against their several 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. Fron the words of the Evangelists. Sect. 4. 2. From the like action of Christ. Sect. 5. II. By their own Witnesses. Sect. 6. III. By the practice of the Non-conformists themselves. 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 Receiver, which should be in Thankfulness, etc. Our answer, Sect. 12. IV. Because such Reverence becometh not the meanness of the Elements. Our answer, Sect. 13. V. Contrary to the example of the Apostles. Our answer, Sect. 14. Our summary Confutation of the Non-conformists second Accusation: I. From Reason. Sect. 15. II. From their own Witnesses. Sect. 16. III. From the practice of the Non-conformists themselves, Sect. 17. Their third Accusation, from the Example of the Primitive Church, which was Standing, etc. Our answer. Sect. 18. Their FOUR 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 invention thereof was Antichristian. Our Answer. Sect. 21. Their VI Accusation, that it hath been Idolatrously abused. Our answer. Sect. 22. Their VII. That it is still used as a part of God's worship. Our answer. Sect. 23. Their VIII. Accusation, that This gesture of kneeling is Idolatrous in itself. Proved by Reasons: I. Because before a Creature. Our answer. Sect. 24. II. Because a Relative worship. Our answer. Sect. 25. Their 1. Confirmation thereof, Because this kind of worship was the work of Idolatry. Our answer. Sect. 26. Their 2. Else why use we not the same in Baptism? Our answer. Sect. 27. Their 3. Else why condemn we Papists in the worshipping of Images? Our answer. Sect. 28. Our Confutations of the Non-conformists, and justification of our Church concerning Relative worship. Sect. 29. I. By Reasons; showing our difference from the Relative 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 use, Sect. 35. Illustrated by a similitude. Sect. 36.37. Our second ground of Confutation is taken from the Non-conformists own Witnesses, concerning the reverent receiving 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 own Practices. I. From their Intentional reverence. Sect. 40. II. From their Bodily presence, in communicating with us. sect. 41. FOUR From their bodily reverence, at the receiving both of their Corporal food. Sect. 42. And Sacramental. Sect. 43. PART. I. A DEFENCE OF THE innocency OF THE THREE CEREMONIES of the Church of England; viz. Surplice, Cross after Baptism, and Kneeling at the receiving 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. General; which are made jointly against them all: Or, 2. Particular, by more special exceptions unto each one of them severally. SECT. I. Our first defence of the Three Ceremonies is against their General Arguments. MY endeavour is, throughout this whole Treatise, to furnish my Reader, not only with defensive weapons, by distinct and particular answers to all objections; but with offensive also, by general confutations of their Arguments: both which I assume to perform (if God permit) with as just a combination of brevity, and perspicuity, as the nature of the cause shall require. And now we put the matter unto trial. SECT. II. The first general Argument made by the Non-conformists, against the three Ceremonies of our Church. Maior. The Scripture in many places condemneth not only 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 God's Service. Minor. But these Ceremonies of Surplice, etc. are without all warrant of Scripture, M. High: either by express sentence, or pregna●● consequence out of Law, or Gospel. Ergo by this our negative argument from Scripture, they are to be accounted unlawful. Our Answer. That we may not seem to affect any verbal skirmage or contention, we do readily accept of your distinction of warrant from Scripture, the one by express sentence, the other by pregnant consequence; yet so, that we still observe the just latitude of the second member. This doth extend itself not only unto general Precepts and Rules; but also unto permissions, & the law of common Equity contained in Scripture, for the justifying of our Ceremonies: as will plainly, yea and confessedly appear in our Defence. Only we wish some sufficient warrant from yourselves, that you would stand unto this your own distinction of a double warrant. But you, in exacting of us, by this your Negative argument, a proof of our Ceremonies from particular prescript, (which is the same with express sentence, or evidence) do so utterly overthrow the second member, which is the warrant by due consequence; as if you had studied to confute yourselves in your first entrance into this dispute: which will more fully appear in the proof of your Mayor Proposition. SECT. III. The Non-conformists confirmation of the●r Negative Argument from Scripture, is pretended to be justified by 1. Texts of Scriptures. 2. judgement of ancient Fathers. 3. Confessions of Protestant Divines. Their first place of Scripture, for proof of their Negative Argument from Scripture. Heb. 3.2. Christ is said to be as faithful in the house of God, M. Pag: as Moses. But Moses prescribed the form of worship in every particular Ceremony. Ergo we may not allow of any religious Ceremony without commandment from Christ. Our Answer. We distinguish. Some points concerning Religion are Doctrinal, and some merely Ceremonial. And we say, that all things which doctrinally belong to salvation, whether appertaining to faith, or moral conversation of life, or yet essential parts of God's worship, are sufficiently revealed in Scripture: but as for points merely Ceremonial (being not the body, but the garment of Religion) they are left to the liberty 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 faithfulness in God's house; yea and to exceed him in perfectness, as much as his own glorious body, now ascended into heaven, doth excel that of Moses putrefied long since in the earth. SECT. FOUR I. Comparison between Christ and Moses, in real faithfulness. First, Moses by his bodily Rites did but only prefigure man's redemption: but Christ in his own body performed it in that [Consummatum est,] by his sacrifice on the Crosse. Secondly, Moses had a veil over his face, and delivered the Gospel only in shadows and mysteries: but Christ revealed the blessed countenance of our gracious God unto us by the light of the new Testament; expressly publishing our reconciliation with God, by his own death. Thirdly, Moses his office was principally to divulge the Law delivered in Thundering, Heb. 12. and earthquakes, and a terrible voice, which made Moses himself to quake for fear. But the Gospel of Christ was delivered with Hymns and Songs of Angels, and promises of saving joy to all people: Luc. 2. so that the difference between Moses and Christ is no less than Timor and Amor; fear, and love. 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 pass over jordan: whereby was signified, that the law of Commandments could never bring man to possess the heavenly Canaan. But Christ being dead, to bring life to mankind, raised himself from death, ascended, entered within the veil, and hath taken possession of the Celestial Mansions; that, where he is, there his faithful may be also. And thus, in all these respects, Christ was in the house of God as much, yea and more perfect in faithfulness than Moses. SECT. V. II. Comparison between Christ and Moses, in Ritual and Circumstantial ordinances. Come we to the Ceremonials. Moses indeed was faithful to deliver all the laws of Ceremonies expressly and particularly unto the Israelites, who were therefore schooled, and exercised with a multitude of Rites, lest they might cast their eyes upon the ey-pleasing Ceremonies of the Gentiles, who compassed them round about; and so be enticed to Idolatry: Yet all that mass of Ceremonies is called by the Apostle A burden importable. But Christ, Act. 15 10. howsoever he would have Ceremonies in the Church, yet as for number not many, so (excepting the Sacraments, which were of his own institution) for use not of absolute necessity; did therefore remove the law of jewish Ceremonies, & disburdened all Christians from the necessited use of them. And thus also was Christ faithful as Moses. But why do we compare the servant of the house with the Lord and Saviour thereof? Heb. 3. As for your objection, concerning Christ his fidelity in prescribing of all particular ceremonies, which are not the formal parts of God's worship, but certain appurtenances thereunto; if (as you seem) you shall be as willing to subscribe to the judgement of M. Caluine, as you are zealous, from his judgement, to prescribe unto others, this question will be easily decided. For that honourable witness hath judiciously observed, that although our Lord Christ would have all things comprised in the sacred Oracles of Scripture, which are necessary to salvation, whether they belong to the doctrine of faith, or to the formal and essential parts of his worship: yet, concerning the external form of government, Calvin. Inst. l. 4. c. 10 § 30. and Rites of the Church, Quià in externa disciplinâ, & ceremonijs non voluit, etc. because Christ (saith he) would not prescribe singularly and especially, concerning external discipline and Ceremonies, for that he foresaw these things were to depend on the occasions and opportunities of times; nor did he think one form to accord with all ages: hereupon must we have recourse (saith M. Calvin) unto the general Rules, that all things (whatsoever the necessity of the Church shall require) may be tried by them. Finally he delivered nothing expressly in these points, because these things are not of necessity to salvation, but aught to be accommodated unto the edification of the Church, according to the different disposition, and custom of times and countries. So he, very judiciously and prudently. Now this is a known case, that the old Testament was delivered unto one only people of the world: but the commission of the Gospel was, Go into all Nations, and preach. This net was to overspread the whole world: Matt. 28.19. Mar. 16.15. therefore the jews had a prescription of particular Rites, most fitly agreeing to the polity of their Church and Commonweal; but the whole world of people, which are as different almost in nature, as in Nations and languages, were necessarily to have the most common rules of Ceremonies, with liberty of applying them according to the conditions of each country, and the occasions thereof, as they should best tend to their edification. SECT. VI The second place objected, for proof of their Negative Argument from Scriptures. 2. Sam. 7.7. In all the places wherein I have walked with the children of Israel, spoke 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 unto my servant David, thus saith the Lord God of hosts, etc. This Scripture showeth, that no Ceremony may be invented by man for God's worship, seeing that David's intendment and purpose of building a Temple unto God is ●ere reproved by God as unlawful: which was the cause that God did prohibit him by Nathan in these words, verse 5. Go tell my servant David saying, Shalt thou build an house for me to dwell in, whereas I have not dwelled in any house? etc. Our first Answer. God did not condemn the intent and purpose of David, to build a Temple to the Lord: for first David had consulted with the Prophet about it, and Nathan gave him his Fiat, vers. 3. Go (saith he to David) 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 servant David, Shalt thou build me an house? God never gave any such honourable and gracious Title to any man, as to call him [My servant] in reproof of any transgression. Thirdly, the reason rendered by Solomon, 1. Reg. 5.3.4. why God prohibited David; and commanded Solomon to build him an house, was because David was yet in wars, and Solomon had now rest on every side. The restraint than was not in respect of any unlawfulness in the Actor, but for the unseasonableness of the Act. Lastly, what can be more forcible to convince these men of notable precipitancy, in affirming that God condemned this holy purpose in David, than that God did commend it himself? for so Solomon professed, saying, It was in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel: 1. Reg. 8.17.18. and the Lord said unto David 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 own argument, from the same example which they have objected. For if that this Act of David, without special warrant, were commended by God, than all institutions of Ceremonies by man, belonging to God's Service, are not therefore to be condemned because they want that express warrant which they pretend. SECT. VIII. The third place objected by the Non-conformists, for proof of their Negative Argument from Scripture. M. High: jer. 7.22.23.31. For I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, Obey my voice, and I will be your God. Ergo Ceremonies which are beside the special warrant of Scripture, are unlawful. Our Answer. In this proof you presume, that the offering of burnt sacrifices was without warrant, and besides God's Commandment, because God said in the first place, [I command them not in the day, etc.] I answer: First, that God indeed did not make any mention of Sacrifices in that very day, wherein he gave them the law of Commandments: yet nevertheless he had commanded sacrifices long before the delivery of the moral law in Sina. SECT. IX. His Reply: That cannot appear. M. Hy. Our Answer. Nay it cannot but appear to them that will open their eyes, and read the story of Moses in Exodus. Exod. 3.18. For there Moses and the Elders of Israel are commanded by God to go unto Pharaoh, and tell him saying; The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us, and now let us go three daze journey into the wilderness, 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 unto 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 moral 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 giving of the tables of Moses, the sacrifice of the Paschall Lamb was prescribed unto all the families of Israel, God commanding thus, Exod. 12.13. Speak unto all the congregation of Israel saying, take every man a Lamb, etc. Can you have a more public 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 himself had commanded: but comparatively only, as preferring obedience before Sacrifices. And the argument of almighty God is very exact and emphatical, to wit, that forasmuch as in the solemn publication of the Moral law of obedience there was no mention made of Sacrifices, or burnt offerings; therefore to Obey the moral commandments is far more acceptable with God than Oblations: Sacrifices being only as the body, but sanctity as the very soul of God's worship. SECT. XI. Their fourth place objected, for proof of their Negative Argument from Scriptures. M. Hy. Esay 1.11. To what purpose is your sacrifice unto 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 godliness? The exception than is not against any defect in the thing is self, which is the Sacrifice; nor against the Act, which is sacrificing: but against the Actors, because they offered their Sacrifices in hypocrisy, continuing in transgression and sin against God. This is plain, for you know that the Levitical law of sacrificing was then in force, insomuch that the people, in not sacrificing, had sinned, by neglect of performing their due homage unto God: so then, their transgression in sacrificing did only arise from their hypocrisy and irrepentance; in consideration whereof it is said the God had respect unto Abel and his offering, Gen. 4.4.5. but unto Cain and his offering he had no regard. The difference than stood not in the things sacrificed, as though Abel his corn were more precious in God's sight then Cain's cattle: nor in the Act, it being the same in them both; (for both did offer sacrifice unto God:) but the whole distance was in respect of the Agents, to wit, in that Cain did offer in envy; and Abel in charity. And to show, that the method of God's respect beginneth at the person, and not at the thing, it is said, God had respect unto Abel and his offering, verse 4. SECT. XII. The fifth place by them objected, for proof of their Negative Argument from Scripture. jer. 7.31. God complaineth saying, Abridg. Linc. implieth, pag. 44. They have built the places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnon, to burn their sons 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 sin here condemned was not against, but only besides the word of God; as if these words [Quae non mandavi illis facere] were not the same in full sense with, Quae mandavi illis non facere: signifying, that God did utterly forbid them to do this. And great reason, for they did no less than sacrifice their sons and daughters unto Molech, Vers. 31 and more expressly. 1 Kin. 23.10. which was the most execrable Idolatry that ever was committed under the Sun, and therefore is called in the text, verse 30. Th● abomination of Tophet. How can you then say that this sin was only not commanded? was it not also expressly forbidden? as it is written, Leuit. 18.2. Thou shalt not offer thy children unto Molech? When I first read this objection, I wondered, to understand that any of your school (by telling us of some things unlawful, as besides the word of God; and of some things unlawful, as against it) could so well symbolise (albeit against your wills) in terms with Bellarmine, and some other Romish spirits, who, to maintain their distinction of mortal and venial sin, tell us that the mortal sin is [contra legem] against the law; but the venial sin is only [praeter legem] besides the law. As though (sin being a transgression of the law, and a contradiction unto God's command) a man could imagine any sin, which is not against the law: which were to conceive sin to be no sin. Be you therefore so discreet, as to leave this art of subtlety unto popish coiners, who have a faculty to stamp all their metals (although never so base) with Caesar's image, intituling their own fancies the Oracles of God. Our answers unto other allegations, which you object, concerning adding to Scriptures, and will-worship, Infra cap. sect. 2. & 3.4. ●. etc. are reserved to their proper places. We proceed now to your proof from Fathers. SECT. XIII. The second proof of the Non-conformists, for their Negative arguing from Scriptures; from the judgement of ancient Fathers. M. Hy. Bas. lib. de fide. Basil calleth it a defection from faith, to bring in any thing besides Scripture. Cyprian saith, Whence cometh this tradition? Cy. Epist. 74. ad Pomp. Amb de voca. gen. lib. 2. Not out of divine Scriptures. Ambrose saith, They that know not the sweetness of these waters (viz. of Scriptures) do drink of the torrents of this world. Augustine I. from that saying of Christ, Aug. Tom. 9 col. 478 [I have many things to say, which you cannot carry, etc.] saith; Who therefore of us can tell what those things are, which he himself would not reveal? Again, II. Away (saith he) with men's 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 ears. III. Let us remove the deceitful weights of men's balances. and admit of God's balances. FOUR Who can deliver unto us any special prohibitions of these execrable superstitions, which are used in the knots of earrings, and serve not to the worship of God, but to the service of devils? v. Is it lawful to sacrifice unto Neptune, Idem Tom. ●. Epist. 73. Aug. ibid. because we read not of any thing directly spoken against Neptune? Thus have the ancient Fathers reasoned Negatively from Scriptures. Our Answer. You undertook to confute only Ceremonies of our Church, and such which were only besides Scripture: yet this you now labour to effect by such Testimonies of Fathers, whereby they condemn not Ceremonies, as being beside Scripture; but only Dostrines of men, flatly contrary to the truth of Scripture. For Basil, in the place alleged, confuteth not any matter of Ceremonies, but condemneth only heresies, and blasphemies against faith. Ambrose reproveth the profaneness of carnal worldlings, that contemned the comforts of holy Scriptures. Cyprian handleth only a doctrinal point, concerning Baptism, in an opinion of the necessity thereof. Augustine in his first place refuteth Heretics, who, in the name of Christ, imposed on Christians certain doctrines as necessary, which Christ never revealed. In his 2. and 3. places the Donatists, in a doctrine against plain Scriptures, concerning the Church. In his fourth, the superstitious opinion of some, concerning a kind of witchcraft, in knots of earrings, which in the judgement of August. is condemned by this Scripture, Have you no fellowship with devils. 1. Cor. 10.20. And in his last place the horrible sin of Idolatry, in sacrificing to Neptune: which Scripture every where condemneth in her several execrations against all worshipping of false Gods. All these places of Fathers are taken à scriptura negante, that is, from Scripture forbidding the unlawfulness of such things, which are directly contrary to the will of God, revealed in Scripture; and not à scriptura negatâ, that is, from the silence of Scripture, in matters called in question only beside, & not against Scriptures. Whence no solid argument can be made against things indifferent. There is yet one other Testimony, which maketh a better show for your Negative argument, in the question of Ceremonies. SECT. XIIII. Their Objection out of Tertullian. Tertullian de corona militis, cap. 2. to them that thought it lawful for men to wear 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 reprove our Ceremonies, which are permitted, and therefore not prohibited? And what shall we say to these men who blush not to confute the lawfulness of Ceremonies ordained by man (which are without special warrant of Scriptures) from the judgement of Tertullian? who in the same book doth allege and profess many such Ceremonies, whereof he confesseth saying; Harum & aliarum, Tert. lib. citat. si legem expostules Scripturarum, nullam habemus, etc. i. If you expostulate with us, concerning the lawfulness of these, and such like Disciplines, we confess that we have no Scripture for them. SECT. XV. The third proof of the Non-conformists, for their Negative argument from Scripture, by the pretended testimonies of Protestants. And our best Divines do justify, against the Papists, abridge Linc. pag. 44. M. Hy. the Argument which concludeth negatively from the authority of the Scripture in this Case. This kind of reasoning negatively from Scripture is called indeed ridiculous by Bellarmine, and other Papists, but it is worthily justified by our most Orthodoxal Divines: Amongst others D. Morton Apol. part. 2. cap. 49. pag. 166. proving out of the Fathers that the Scriptures make contra novas omn●s inventiones. And in his Appeal lib. 2. cap. 4. sect. 4. By the sam● Argument he condemneth, from the testimony of Pope julius, the use of milk, in steed of wine, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; as also the wring in of the grapes, and sopping in of the breed; even 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 injury, nor your cause more prejudice, than so notoriously to falsify his direct meaning, in both places. For in his Apol. arguing in defence of the sufficiency of Scriptures, against the Romish Traditions, he proves out of the Fathers, that All things necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture, whether concerning doctrine of faith, or manners of life: But as for matters merely Ceremonious (which in his judgement he holds to be in their own nature indifferent, and not necessary to salvation) he takes a precise exception against them; and excludes all objections 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 down concerning matter of doctrine only: yet for all this our Nonconformist will needs not only level at a wrong mark, but also shoot against me with my own bow, and make me seem to dispute negatively from Scripture, touching points merely Ceremonial. The Appeal doth indeed mention Ceremonies, yet not all, but such only as were invented and appointed to be essential parts of a Sacrament, as namely, milk in stead of wine; sopping in of bread into the cup; and wring in of the grape. Now all these had in them a nature of doctrinals through an opinion of a necessary use: For, sacramentum est verbum visibile; A Sacrament (as Augustine saith) is a visible word. Wherefore, to ordain new material Elements in the Eucharist, as parts thereof, is, in a manner, to invent a new Sacrament; which is a sacrilegious depravation of the will of the Testator jesus: in which case a Ceremony 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 severally, [Do this:] where the use of milk, 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 have no affinity with our Ceremonies, which are only held as circumstantial Rites, and no way essential parts of any Sacrament, or prescribed form of God's worship. Which being so, the Dr. whom you allege, may presume, that the man, who could be so audacious as to wrest this testimony, to upbraid and thwart the Author himself, distorting his words against his expressed and professed meaning, will deal no less injuriously with far more worthy Divines: and so indeed he doth. For he, with others of his opinion, M. High: & Abridg. Linc. pag. 44. etc. hath singled out a principal champion of our Church, (to wit Bishop jewel) for the countenancing of their Negative Argument from Scripture, in this case of Ceremonies; Reply. art. 1. Divis. 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 own judgement were only besides the warrant of Scripture, (as these men pretend,) but of such Romish Ceremonies, which he judged to be flat contrary thereunto; to wit, the Popish reservation of the Sacrament, (beyond the Sacramental use) for their public procession; and their private Mass: which are directly against the Institution of Christ, prescribing the true use of the Sacrament to consist both in [Taking, Eating,] and communicating together; and this use he further bindeth by obligation of that precept, [Do this.] Which that reverend Bishop doth so fully express, as if he had endeavoured, with one breath, to blow away the superstition of Papists; and the opposition of Non-conformists: For thus he addeth (speaking of the negative manner of arguing;) This kind of proof is thought to hold in God's Commandments, (saith he,) because his law is perfect. And therefore he could not understand any abuse, which he thought not to be contrary to God's commandment. The like measure doth D. Whitak. receive at their hands, for his condemning the Popish use of the Chrism, as having no warrant by holy Scripture: not considering, that he, in his controversy about the sufficiency of Scripture, (as all other judicious Divines do) exempteth the question of Ceremonies, so far forth as they are imposed or observed without mixture of a superstitious opinion, annexed by the imposers, as the Papists both profess and ordain in their Chrism, by attributing thereunto a spiritual efficacy and power: which the whole Catholic Church of Christ cannot by any Ecclesiastical ordinance infuse into any natural thing or sign, howsoever religiously consecrated, or decently invented. But you will reply, that all Ceremonies of man's invention are contrary to the Scripture. I answer by a brief distinction. Some Ceremonies are [merae,] merely Ceremonies; & some are [mixtae,] mixed; they, that are merely Ceremonies, need no special warrant from Scripture, because they are sufficiently warranted by the general approbation of God's word; which giveth a permission and liberty to all the Churches, to make their own choice of Ceremonies, according to the rules of Order, and Decency. But the mixed Ceremonies, whereunto the imposers, or the generalty of observers of them annex some superstitious and erroneous opinion, (whether it be of merit, or of inherent holiness; efficacy, or real necessity) do in this case change the nature, and become Doctrinal: and in this respect are condemned, as being not only Besides the warrant, but plainly Against the precept of holy Scriptures. Thus much concerning our answer. SECT. XVI. Our general Confutation of the Non-conformists, showing that they have failed in the main ground of their General proposition, when in the question of Ceremonies they dispute negatively from Scripture. Our proofs arise from 1. Scripture. 2. judgement of Fathers. 3. Consent of Protestants. 4. Reasons. The first proof is from Scriptures. Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 14. Let all things be done decently, 1. Cor. 14 40. & v. 26. and in order. And again; Let all things be done unto edifying. By virtue of which permission, the Apostle doth grant a general licence and authority to all Churches, to ordain any Ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God. This one Scripture (not to trouble you with any other at this present) is universally used by Fathers, and all Divines (although never so diverse in their professions) for one and the same conclusion. SECT. XVII. Our second proof is from Fathers; by the testimony of the Non-conformists own witnesses. Hereunto serveth the confession of Zanchius, saying, Zanch. Tract. de sacra Script. pag. 279. Ecclesiasticarum Ceremoniarum, etc. Some Ecclesiastical Ceremonies were universal, (that is) allowed and admitted always of all Churches, and therefore called Catholic; as for example, the celebration of the feast of Christ his Nativity, of Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and the like. Wherefore the argument, which the Non-conformists take from the testimonies of Fathers, only in colour and pretence, the same may we, in good conscience, and in truth retort upon them. For that practice, which the ancient Churches of Christ did always maintain, may not be deemed to derogate from the authority of holy Writ: but the Ceremonies here specified were universally practised throughout all Christian Churches, even as the Non-conformists themselves do well know, and sometimes also acknowledge. Ergo, some Ceremonies, not particularly warranted by Scripture, may be lawfully used in our Church. Concerning the judgement of ancient Fathers, we shall be occasioned to give more instances throughout every argument. SECT. XVIII. Our third proof is from the general judgement of Protestant Divines. A common Adversary should be held as an indifferent witness between both parties: and who is either more common, or more adverse than Bellarmine? Now he, contending in nothing more earnestly than to prove an Insufficiency of the written word, doth commonly oppose against Protestants the use of such Ceremonies, as were anciently observed, and have passed currant under the name of Apostolical Traditions; that are not once mentioned in Scripture: of which kind is the observation of Easter, Pentecost, etc. Ergo (saith he) the Scriptures are not sufficient. But mark 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 ordain certain Rites and orders, belonging to the Church, which are not set down in Scripture. This he acknowledgeth of Protestant Divines in general. SECT. XIX. The Non conformists answer. M. Hy. I do not believe Bellarmine herein. Our Reply. But you show no reason, why. Will you be content to believe Protestants themselves; either those whom Bellarmine did impugn; or else those, Part. 2. pag. 33. col. 2. who did refute Bellarmine? Chemnitius doth sufficiently clear this point, for his own part, by distinguishing of Rites; and observing some to have been Divine, by the institution of Christ, which he calleth essential and necessary: and some Apostolical, which (he saith) we do observe: and some Ecclesiastical, to wit, Qui non habent Scripturae mandatum, aut testimonium: Which have no commandment or warrant in Scripture; which (saith he) are not altogether to be rejected. You have heard the exact and most accurate judgement of M. Caluine, to wit, Vid. supr●. that Christ would not prescribe particularly concerning Ceremonies, what we ought to follow, but would refer us to the directions of general Rules, etc. junius was a judicious refuter of Bellarmine, unto whose objection, for Traditions out of the Fathers, besides Scriptures, he answereth, Contr. 1. l. 4. pag. 282. and avoideth the force of the argument, saying; Omnia haec ad ritus Ecclesiae pertinent, etc. All these are only such things as belong unto the Rites of the Church. And again (as determining the very cause) The Scriptures (saith he) contain in them all matters of doctrine belonging necessarily unto faith and good life; but do set down only a general 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 conveniencies of the Church: for all men know, that there is [longè dispar ratio,] a great difference between doctrines of faith and manners; and the matters of Rites and Ceremonies. So he. But most exactly, where the same junius maketh this distinction; Pag. 292. Some things are necessary in themselves, and by the authority of the Scripture, such are the substantial doctrines belonging to faith, and godliness of life. Some things are not necessary in themselves, but only by authority of Scripture, such are those, which are recorded in Scriptures for other causes, than for any use absolutely necessary. And some other things are neither necessary in themselves, nor yet by authority of Scripture, such as are matters ritual: 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 sufficiency of Scripture, hath this distinction of Ceremonies; Some (saith he) are consenting unto Scriptures, some are dissenting and repugnant, and some are neither consenting nor dissenting, but [adiaphora] that is, indifferent. And he addeth; These not having any foundation in the word, Pag. 278. may notwithstanding help for the furtherance of piety. The like answer is made by Doctor Whittaker, Danaeus, and who not that ever entreated upon that question, concerning the sufficiency of Scripture? SECT. XX. Our fourth proof is from Reason, taken not only from the nature of Ceremonies, (according to the common acknowledgement of all Divines:) but also from the different practice of Reformed Churches. You have said that our Ceremonies though they be not Against the word, yet because they are Besides the word, are therefore unlawful. Whence I first argue thus: Nothing can, in respect of God, be called unlawful, which is not Against the word; because whatsoever is unlawful is a transgression of some law revealed in his word: But that which is only 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 unlawful: But some Ceremonies of man's invention, without special warrant from the Scriptures, are indifferent, by the judgement of Divines, of whatsoever sort, or faction: Ergo, some such Ceremonies may be held lawful. 3. This may be proved from the differences of Ceremonies, in most Christian Churches, M. Calvin having told us, Supr●. that Christ would not prescribe particular Ceremonies to his Church, because it is impossible, that the same Ceremonies should be convenient and agreeable to all so different Nations, as are in the world. Epist. lib. 4 p. 818. And Oecolampadius will have us know, that in the Churches of Basil, Bearne, and Tigurie, there is magna concordia, etc. Great concord, notwithstanding the variety and difference of their Ceremonies. So likewise by P. Martyr's allowance, Quaevis Ecclesia etc. Every Church may abound in her own sense: and thereupon he concludeth; Non urgendum etc. That no man may urge the very same Rites and Ceremonies upon all Churches. Lastly, your Zepperus holdeth; Polit. Eccl. pag. 138. & pag. 142.143. that The free observation of diverse Rites is no hindrance to the Church; nay (saith he) the variety of Ceremonies, in diverse Churches, is so far from giving offence, that reason itself requireth, that the liberty thereof should not be restrained. From this ground the reason is impregnable, that if in the Churches of Christ there may be, yea and of necessity must be difference in humane Ceremonies, than Ceremonies of humane institution are of themselves indefinite and indifferent, and in that regard can have no special prescription from Divine authority. SECT. XXI. Our last proof is from the confession and practice of the Non-conformists themselves. The Lyncolneshire Opposites, and every Nonconformist require in all their books and writings to have their Ceremonies so free, that every Parish may use such Rites, as by the discretion of the choicest Parishioners may be held most expedient: by virtue of which their conceited freedom, it cometh to pass that Some Parishes will sit at the receiving of the Communion; and some stand: Some will have Godfathers and Godmothers, and witnesses; and some will be content only with the natural father: Some will admit of public Festivals and holidays; and some of none. And all this variety they are persuaded may be had in divers Churches, without any variance at all. Which Circumstantial points are so far to be accounted Ceremonial, as they serve for a modification of our actions and gestures in the worship of God. Hence I may argue. If all these were of divine authority, then could they not be so diverse; for the law of God's word is to all Nations the same. But if they be of humane institution, then are they in that respect either unlawful, or lawful: if unlawful, then ought you not to use the Ceremonies of man's ordinance; if lawful, than you ought not to impugn them. SECT. XXII. The Assumption of the Non-conformists, against our Ceremonies in general. But these Ceremonies have no warrant from the word of God, Abridg. Linc. & M. Hy. suprà. being but human Rites, ordained by man, etc. 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 general 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 Divine. 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 service of God: these, we say, (in respect of the permissive appointment of Ceremonies) are from God; but in respect of the specification, and determination of some one sort of Ceremony, rather than another, they may be called human. Again, that you may better discern of these terms, take into consultation (if it please you) the advise of M. Caluine, who calleth those constitutions of the Church, Instit. lib. 4. c. 10. §. 30. which are founded in Scripture, [prorsus divinae,] Altogether Divine: and he taketh an example from Kneeling in solemn prayer, which (saith he) is so human, that it is also Divine. It is Divine; but why? Even because it is a part of that Decency, the care and observation whereof is commended unto us, by the Apostle; Let all things be done decently, and in order: But human, so far as they are appropriated by men to some circumstance of person, time or place; and so it is in this Scripture rather intimated than expressed. By which rule we are likewise authorized to call some Ceremonies of our Church, in a kind of generality, Divine, so far as they have any dependence upon that general direction of Scripture, which commandeth that things be done in order, Decency, & to edification: but human, in respect of the application of such rules, according to the discretion of the Church. Vrsinus, whom you often produce for your choice witness, telleth you to the same purpose, Catech. Tract. de hominis gratitude. that Ecclesiastical Constitutions are good, so far as they do specially assign that, which is generally rather intimated, than expressed in the word of God. Can you say then, that all such acts are altogether Besides Scripture? There is a second Rule of direction, in case of Ceremonies, which is, the Equity 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 himself had ordained; whereof one of your own fellowship confesseth, saying, that he did it out of the equity of Moses Law. M. Nic. Notwithstanding, this equity was so void of prescription, that if this be necessary, that act of Solomon might be judged to have wanted due warrant. Thus much of the first general Argument, whereby they have concluded (against Scripture, Fathers, judicious Divines, and all probable Reason) that all Ceremonies, belonging to God's service, which are invented of man, Besides the evidence of Scripture, are unlawful. CHAP II. SECT. I. The second general Agument, made by the Non-conformists, against the three Ceremonies of our Church, is; That they are held as properly parts of God's Worship. The Mayor. All human Ceremonies which are esteemed, Abridg. Linc. pag. 3●. M. Hy. and the rest. imposed, or observed, as parts of Divine worship, are unlawful. The Assumption. But such are these; Surplice, Cross in Baptism, and kneeling at the Communion. Therefore these are unlawful. Our Answer. DIstinction is by the Logicians called a Wedge, because it is the only means, in all Disputes, to dissolve the hardest Elenches and knots of subtlety: which if you would have applied in this controversy, then should you not have needed our answer, to wit; if you had but discerned the proper and essential parts of God's worship, from the improper and accidental. By the essential parts, we understand such Ceremonies, which are so necessarily required to God's service, as that the contrariety thereof must needs displease him. And the improper and accidental parts, or rather Appurtenances are such, which serve only as accessary compliments, ordained for the more convenient discharge of the necessary worship of God. It was proper to God, as to create the body, and all the natural limbs and parts thereof, whereunto man hath no power to add so much as an hair; so to ordain the perfect form of his essential worship and service: but yet for man to apply thereunto accessary Ceremonies, for Decorum, and Edification, may no more be accounted a Derogation to God's ordinance, concerning his own worship, than it can be to his creation, to clothe and apparel the naked body of man; which is indeed rather to be accounted a note of our greater estimation thereof. SECT. II. The Non-conformists their proofs of the Mayor, from 1. Scriptures. 2. Fathers. 3. Witnesses. These Ceremonies imposed are not only not commanded as lawful, M. Hy. but prohibited as sinful: For the Scriptures, Fathers, and Orthodox writers do condemn as sinful, all wit-worship, or will-worship whatsoever, proceeding out of the forge of man's fancies.— Whatsoever precepts of men in God's worship, either for matter, or manner, delivered and imposed by man, although they seem never so good in their own sight. Our Answer. I doubt that we shall find you to bewray more will than wit; and more fancy than sound reason, in your pretended proofs. Begin with Scriptures. SECT. III. Their proofs from Scripture. Abridg. Linc. pag. 44. in marg. and others. Esay 29.13. God saith; In vain do they worship me, teaching for Precepts Commandments of men. In Deut. 12.32. We are commanded neither to add, nor to diminish: And Coloss. 2. The Apostle condemneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will-worship. Our Answer. All these places of Scripture are merely Heteroclits, in respect of the point in controversy. For first by the [Precepts of men] in Esay are signified such human ordinances, as were expressly contrary to the Commandment of God, as is plain both by the description of their sin, Esay 29. v. 9 called a staggering drunkenness (signifying their Idolatrous conceits;) and also by the denunciation of God's judgements, by fearful destruction to come upon Israel, by the hands of a multitude of Nations. Vers. 7. Which kind of menaces were never published but for heinous and horrible transgressions. Secondly, the Adding and diminishing spoken of, Deut. 12.32. doth not mean addition of preservation, but addition of corruption: like as the fraudulent coiner of money doth corrupt the King's Coin, either by adding base metal unto it, or by clipping any silver from it, and in both kinds he is a Traitor. How much more high treason must we judge it to be against the Highest himself, when man shall adventure, either to make any Divine precept, or promise, and set God's stamp upon it? to make the speech to be God's speech, which is but the device of his own forge? or to diminish the estimation of God's precept, by accounting it but an invention of man? And the like may be affirmed of the Sacraments, which are proper to that Divine person, who is the Testator, it being no less sacrilege to corrupt the Sacraments, which are the seals of God's promises, than to deprave his will of Commandments. SECT. FOUR A confutation of the Non-conformists interpretation of the Scriptures, by their own witnesses. Your most approved witness make altogether against you. Isag. Tract. de Doctrine. Christ. c. 25. First Danaeus, objecting against Papistical Traditions the same places of Esay. saying, In vain do they worship me, teaching, etc. and Deut. 4.12. Nothing must be added, etc. told you, that Ex superior●bus etc. He meant this of the Traditions which he spoke of in the former Chapter; and whereof he had said; [Huiusmodi traditiones humanae etc.] Such human Ceremonies, which are added as necessary appendices, and parts of doctrine belonging to Christian faith; or are delivered as [norma] the Rule of God's worship, they do in effect accuse the word of God to be lame and imperfect; which is plain blasphemy, as Tertullian teacheth in his book of Prescriptions against Heretics. Z●nch upon tho●e places. Secondly, Zanchius hath told you, that That place concerning will worship, condemned by the Apostle, Col. 2.27. did point at certain Hypocrites of those times, who did obtrude upon Christians Traditions of their own devising, in pretence that they proceeded from God. And upon these words of the same Apostle, Let no man deceive you in meat or in drink, etc. he presseth it against the Pope's thunder-blasts of paper-shot saying that Seeing allthings necessary to salvation have been delivered unto his Church by Christ, therefore may we contemn the Pope's execrations and anathemas, whereby he pronounceth damnation upon them, that approve not his Traditions, as not holding them necessary to salvation. You see how many arrows you have drawn out of God's quiver, the holy Scripture; and by this time may perceive, what kind of mark-men you are; seeing that the mark being to confute Ceremonies, which a●e only Besides, and not Against the word or will of God, you have chosen such arrows, as are too heavy for your bow: all of them being such Texts, which condemn heinous and enormous sins, directly reproved by holy Scripture; & therefore musts needs light far short of the Mark. For tell us (I pray you) in good conscience, are our Ceremonies expressly condemned by Scripture, as was Idolatry in Esay 29, saying thereof, In vain do they worship me etc. or as the wicked corrupting of the Law of God, Deut. 12. saying, Thou shalt not add, etc. or as that heretical doctrine against Christian liberty in meats, Col. 2? I think you cannot be so persuaded, except you yourselves can, by your authority, make some new Scripture to prove it. SECT. V. Their proofs from the judgements of the Fathers. The Fathers do reject Will worship as Idolatry; Augustine, Jerome, Cyprian, Chrysostme, do all speak against new doctrines, M. Hy. and human Traditions. Our Answer. The Fathers do, indeed, reject Will-worship: wherein, as we do willingly subscribe unto their judgement, so may we justly reprehend you, for your wilful wresting of the Father's sentences: Who, as they did condemn all such doctrines, Traditions, yea, and (if you will) also Ceremonial Constitutions, which are mingled with some false and corrupt opinion; so did they universally justify, prescribe, and practise Traditions (such as ours are) which were merely Ceremonial, as you well know by the Canons of their Counsels, which yourselves do object, and your own hearts can tell you, that you oppose the Fathers against us in this case, not as their ingenuous children, seeking to follow their judgement; but as men adversely & sinisterly affected, as if, in confuting us, you meant to condemn them (if you could) by their own sayings. As might have easily appeared by their Testimonies, if you would have insisted upon particulars. SECT. VI Their last proof, from the Testimonies of Protestant Authors. Abridg. Linc. pag. 37. M. Hy. M. Lang. and others. That Ceremonies imposed as parts of God's worship are unlawful, may appear by the judgement of the most judicious Divines, who have all by this Reason condemned the Ceremonies of Papists. Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 8. Pet. Martyr, Chemnitius D. Mort: Apol. part. 1. cap. 89. and others. Our Answer. The true understanding of the two acceptions of this phrase [Parts of God's Worship] might easily have rectified your judgements; for it is sometimes taken in Authors more strictly and properly for that essential form and manner of worship wherein there is placed an opinion of justice, Sanctity, Efficacy, or Divine necessity: and so we hold it sacrilegious for any Church to impose, or to admit of any such Ceremony proceeding from human institution. Sometimes again the same phrase is taken more largely, for every circumstantial Rite, which serveth for the more consonant and convenient discharge of that essential worship of God: and thus we hold it a piece of Christian liberty, belonging to the Church, to ordain Ceremonies, which may tend to Decency, Order, and Edification, as hath been already shown, and acknowledged. Herein therefore doth your inexcusable abuse of your Authors bewray itself, that where they condemn only such Ceremonies, which are invented by men, and brought into the Church by Papists and others, with an opinion of such holiness, efficacy, and necessity, as whereby God is as properly worshipped, as with the forms, which he himself hath ordained; thereupon you urge and enforce them to the confutation of only Circumstantial and Accidental Additaments, used without all such superstitious respect. Come we now to the examination of your witnesses. 1. M. Calvin saith indeed, that, Calv. loco citato. nu. 8. All those Constitutions are wicked, in the observation 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 God's worship: but the inward virtue of worship, which consisteth in an opinion of holiness, and justice, etc. As you might have learned from M. Calvin himself, if you would have taken out his next lesson, where he condemneth the Papists; but why? Even because they do conclude, Calv. Ibid. Num. 15. Ipsissimum Dei cultum in suis ritibus contineri: Gods worship itself (meaning the very essentiality of the worship of God) to consist in their Rites. And refuting it by the Scripture of Esay 55. In vain do they worship me, teaching, etc. expoundeth what he meaneth by [worship] saying that The Papists [in ritibus suis justitiam, quam Deo opponant, & quâ se ante tribunal sustineant, quaerunt] they seek that righteousness in their Ceremonies, which they may oppose unto God, and wherewith they may uphold themselves, when they shall be called to answer before his Tribunal. Surely there is no Protestant, who will not call every such figment of man's brain, a very Idol, wherewith God's worship is impiously profaned. Exam. part. 2. pag. 93. col. a & b. 2. Chemnitius also, in the place alleged, speaking of the reservation of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, showeth that Antiquity used a Reservation, aswell as the Papists, but yet with a great difference: For, Tridentini docent, etc. The Doctors of the Council of Trent teach this Reservation to be a custom necessary, and altogether to be retained: but the ancient Fathers, who had great reasons, in regard of those times, to observe that custom, yet did they not hold it necessary. So that he likewise condemneth that which is made an essential part of worship. Loc. Com. pag. 770. 3. Peter Martyr speaking of Ceremonies (although he verifieth your phrase of speech, §. 3. saying, that Divine worship doth not depend upon the will of man, but on the counsel and will of God) yet doth he cross, and as it were control your meaning of the word [worship] you understanding thereby any Ceremonies, which may serve for a complemental performance of that Divine worship, although it be not held as necessary hereunto: But he saith expressly, Ibid. Licet Ecclesiae etc. The Church hath power to prescribe and make Constitutions, concerning the place, time, and manner of receiving 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 Accessary and Accidental parts of God's worship, but plainly approveth of them. Your last witness answereth for himself, that He in that place, confuting the superstition of the Church of Rome, doth not simply condemn all her Ceremonies, but Farraginem, tarbam, onus Ceremoniarum; to wit, the immoderate multitude, and intolerable burden of her ceremonies in Feasts, and Fasts, in Gestures, etc. And you (M. H.) I trow, in reproving a man for a surfer, or drunkenness, do not thereby mean to deprive him absolutely of his meat and drink. SECT. VII. Our general Confutation of their former general Propoposition; especially from their own witnesses. The authority, which the Church doth challenge, or appointing circumstantial and accidental parts of God's worship, is from the liberty which she hath granted unto her in magna Charta, to wit, the book of holy Scriptures, which expressly hath given unto her authority to constitute such Rites, as belong to Decency, Order, and Edification, as hath been already proved. But because the Non-conformists are so frequent in alleging of witnesses, I shall desire, them to consult with two such, whom they have especially, and namely appropriated unto themselves in this whole controversy; who (I make no question) will answer their objection. We begin with Vrsinus, who hath catechised them well, where first bringing in the objection, viz. Quae ad gloriam Dei etc. ●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 worshipped by the ordinances of man: He thus answereth and resolveth, that Those things which are done to the glory of God, to wit [per se] of themselves, that is, such as are commanded by himself, to the end that by them we may express our obedience unto him, those acts are the worship of God: But not those which accidentally do serve 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 objection, viz. Whatsoever is done of faith, and pleaseth God, that is a worship of 〈◊〉. He answereth, Cultus Dei etc. 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 approved of God, that the contrary unto them are not condemned. What can be more plain, to show, that when those Divines speak against worship of God devised by man, they use the word in a strict acception and sense, as signifying the proper worship of God, being therefore properly Divine, because ordained of God? And so we confess unto you, that our Ceremonies are no part of God's worship. But the word [worship] being used in a large signification, as noting all circumstances, which may confer, and appertain to the setting out of the foresaid Divine worship: in this sense only we say, that Ceremonies may be held to be parts of God's worship, yet accessary and accidental only, but not essential; and Adherents rather than Inherents. The second witness is Zanchie; who distinguisheth those parts of God's worship, De Redemp. pag. 421. wherein the substance of God's worship doth consist, as namely, participation of Sacraments, oblations of Sacrifices etc. from these things which he calleth [Annexa cultui,] that is, Annexed thereunto; such as are vessels, vestments, time, and the like circumstances. Which is a point of learning so generally digested of all that are conversant in the course of divine studies, that I marvel how such points should seem to be so raw to some of the Non-conformists in this case, as that they can no way relish them. Thus much of the Proposition. SECT. VIII. The Assumption of the Non-conformists, against these Ceremonies in general. object 1. taken from a pretended error of the people. This our Argument is strong against all these Ceremonies in question, seeing they are all known to be esteemed, imposed, Abridg. Lincoln p. 39 M. Hy. & M. Lang. and observed, as parts of God's worship. Our Answer. If you can prove these our Ceremonies to be imposed or observed by our Church, as proper, essential, and necessary parts of God's worship and Religion; we must then necessarily yield unto you the whole cause: and hereafter subscribe unto your Non-subscriptions. SECT. IX. The Reasons of the Non-conformists, to prove that our Ceremonies are imposed by our Church, as real parts of God's Worship. Their first Reason. The use of these Ceremonies is divine Worship, because the same with the jewish, wherewith God was honoured: M. Lang. ● M. Nic. Because of the same kind: For whatsoever is of the same use, is of the same kind, in respect of worship, although it may be divers in the Adjunct of true and false; according as it is appointed, and not appointed of God. As for example, levitical Vestments will not be denied but to have been parts of the external worship of God, as well as other Rites among them. For what definition of worship can be given, which may not be predicated of these Rites? For to be 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 piece of learning, which (I think) never saw print, to wit, that the Institution of God doth not alter the common nature of worship; because God's Institution doth distinguish necessary worship from the indifferent, and the Essential from the Accidental. For, before the Levitical Law, the offering of any coloured sheep, spotted, or unspotted, was indifferent; but after that the commandment of God had prescribed, that the Lamb, which was to be sacrificed unto him, should be without spot, than this Ceremony of an unspotted Lamb, became necessary and essential in God's worship. And so we might say of the rest of the Ceremonies under the Levitical Priesthood. Therefore the commandment of God doth not distinguish only between True and False; but sometime between Necessary and Indifferent, Essential and Accidental, Divine and human: that, being only Necessary, Essential, and Divine, without which the worship of God cannot be lawfully performed. SECT. X. Their second Reason. That which is imposed to breed an opinion of holiness, is appointed and ordained part of God's worship: M. Hy. Thes. 7. and others. But these Ceremonies are therefore imposed; For * Eccl. polit. pag. 61. M. Hooker telleth us out of Ecclus 45. that they could not mention the holy garments, but with effectual signification of most singular reverence and love: giving us thereby an ample acknowledgement, that reverence is to be yielded, and holiness afforded, to our ministerial garments. Secondly, They may challenge this respect of Reverence and Holiness, being the Constitution of the sacred Synod, which (as is alleged) is the Church of Christ representative. Thirdly, seeing that Cross and Surplice are set apart from Civil uses, and appropriated to the acts of Religion in God's service. Fourthly, because they may claim a Religious reverence and honour; which was the cause that Christ rebuked the Pharisees for washing of their hands, Math. 15. because they feigned an holiness in their own invention. Our Answer. Although I had not been acquainted with your disposition, yet might I by this one Reason have taken a proportionable scantling thereof, to know, that your objections have not proceeded so much from the precipitance of a misguided zeal, as from a perverse and sinister purpose of Calumniation; else would you not have dealt, in the first place, so unjustly with M. Hooker, by imputing unto his testimony alleged such a superstitious opinion of Holiness, as though he had meant any operative Holiness (either by infusion, or inhesion) and not only that which is significative: even as his own words do directly import. Nor secondly would you, with such a salt scurrility, have twitted our Church in her Convocation, for assuming the Title of Sacred Synod unto her, as being the Representative body thereof; seeing the Apostle S. Paul in all his Superscriptions to the several Churches of Romans, Corinthians, Galathians, and others, doth enstyle their Congregations, Saints by calling. Nay, but you yourselves are sufficiently bend to call your Brethren in Non conformity, too peculiarly, Holy Professors. As for the third point, concerning appropriation of any thing to God's Service, you could not have judged it to be a necessary argument of essential holiness; especially having confessed, that the Pulpit-cloth may, without any superstition, be continually fastened to the Pulpit: and the Communion-cup reserved only for Sacramental use, and not employed at all in any civil or ordinary service. Even as the Church and place of God's service itself is not less lawfully a Ceremony, because it is assigned only unto holy worship. Lastly your Objection of the Pharisaical Tradition of washing of hands before meat, is altogether impertinent; considering that Christ did not reprove their act of washing, but their intention and opinion, in attributing a legal and operative Sanctity and holiness to that their own invention, which was indeed a superstition, and the very Leaven of the pharisees: from whence there issued a Religious revereverence far exceeding that respect, which we shall hereafter prove to be lawfully attributed unto our Ceremonies. SECT. XI. Their third Reason. These Ceremonies imposed, are, for their use and practise, preferred before necessary duties, M. Hy. Thes. ●. and principal parts of God's worship; as to wear a Surplice, or Preach not; use the sign of the Cross, or Baptize not; practise other Ceremonies, or else 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 fond imagine;) but to prefer an orderly and discreet Preacher, before one that is factious and exorbitant? If the Lord Chancellor, having appointed a commission for his majesties service, and designing a place most convenient for that purpose; afterwards understanding some one or other of the Commissioners to be so peremptorily self-willed, as to refuse to sit with the rest of the Commissioners, in the place appointed; shall exempt that party, and put him out of the Commission, placing another in his stead: should it not argue want of common reason, to infer hereupon, that the said Lord Chancellor had hereby preferred the circumstance of a place before his majesties service? SECT. XII. Their fourth Reason, They are known to be imposed as parts of God's worship, Abridg. Lin● pag. 39 etc. & M. Hy. Thes. 7. for many people in all parts of the Land are known to be of this mind, that the Sacraments are not rightly and sufficiently administered, or received without them. Our Answer. This your Argument, if it be rightly examined, will not prove so strong, as strange: For to conclude thus; Many people within the state of this Kingdom do hold these Ceremonies to be necessary parts of God's worship: Ergo, they are imposed and observed as necessary parts of God's worship: may by as good, or rather better reason, be retorted upon yourselves, thus: Most people in the Land hold them not to be necessary parts of God's worship; Ergo, they are not imposed as essential and necessary parts thereof. Secondly, you ought to have made a difference between the judgement of the Governors in imposing, and the opinion (if yet there be any such) of some people in observing of them, as necessary: For this your Reason can make no better Logic, then if one would conclude that Usury (the State not punishing the taking of ten in the 100) justifiable by the Law of God; because some people make the like collection. But to collect what is the mind of Governors, from the fancy of some inferiors, is but to tell us, that if the leg do halt, the lameness thereof must be said to be in the brain. And (because you do commonly object the multitude of people) tell us, in good sadness, of what sect you suppose this people to be, that hold the necessity of these things? Are they Popish? But these have not so great a conceit of our Ceremonies, as they are known to be administered in our Church. Or are they of your own disciplining, who by your calumniations are taught to think, that the Church hath imposed these Ceremonies in an opinion of necessity, so as to make them Essential parts of God's worship? Then must we tell you, that the seducement of the Scholar, is the sin of the Master. Or lastly, are they some of the people, who are otherwise conformable? Then doubtless 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 upon you, as by your vehement opposition against the Church, whereby some such simple people are brought to believe that your imputation (although most calumnious) is true; to wit, that these Ceremonies are imposed as necessary parts of God's worship. But forbear you this slander, and those people will soon relinquish their error. SECT. XII. Their fifth Reason. The omission of them (even without the case of scandal and contempt) is more sharply punished, Abridg. Linc. pag. 39 & M. Hy. Thes. 25. than any other sins committed against the Law of God, as perjury, or adultery. Our Answer. What therefore? Ergo (for this is your mark) they are preferred before the precepts of God, and made parts of God's Worship. This consequence is not necessary; for it falleth out herein, as usually it doth, in the like case, in all weal-publiks, where we see more exact and grievous prosecution of justice against a pilferer than against a swearer; against a false coiner of money, than a manslayer; Not that hereby Christian commonwealths do profess that the other Sins are, in their own nature, less heinous; or that they do not professedly prefer God's glory before all other respects: But because stealth of men's goods, and adulterating or corrupting of Coin do more immediately work the ruin of the common peace; therefore the commonwealth (as every sensible thing naturally doth affect) is bend immediately to seek the preservation of itself, that so it may be more able to establish those things which concern the glory of God, by repressing of more heinous crimes, whether by temporal punishment, or else by the spiritual censures of the Church. And so it sometimes falleth out in the proceeding of the Church itself, which seeketh by these censures to preserve her own peace and integrity against those who do unjustly defame her. Furthermore, suffer me to deal plainly, and to tell you, that your Parenthesis, which complaineth, that you are so grievously punished, for only omission of those Ceremonies (even without the case of scandal and contempt) is no better than an open slander against the Church of God: for you cannot instance in any one Minister that hath been so grievously punished for the bare omission of a Rite, without his persisting opinionatively, refractarily, & that publicly, in flat contradiction against the Church. If that the practitioners in the Law should obstinately refuse to wear the ordinary Gown of a Counsellor, or particoloured habit of a Sergeant, would the grave judges of the Land pass it slightly over, as a bare omission, and not rather justly punish it as an intolerable contempt? SECT. XIIII. The contrary-minded, albeit never so peaceable, learned, or godly minded, Abridg. Lincol. pag. 39 if they shall declare their contrary judgement, are accounted Puritans and schismatics, and by Canon, if they shall offend, censured as excommunicate. Our Answer. Although perhaps you have reason to wish the release of some, yet ought you specially to consider your own deserts, and know that Schism, which is the dividing of affections, taketh beginning from the difference of opinions, albeit in points of less moment; and then reckon the multitude of Separatists, who have had their first principles of opposition against our Church, out of your School of contradiction, by your vile aspersion of no less a crime then Idolatry itself: And after judge, whether there be not some cause to call your opinion Schismatical, as still nourishing the cause of a cursed Schism, although not always effectuating the same. In the next place, observe with us the daily convulsions increasing in the members of the Church; whilst as some, distracted in their affections, will hold of Paul, and others of Apollo's; some hear one kind of Ministers Preach, to the despite of others; some will receive the Sacrament at the hands only of conformable, and some, only of unconformable Ministers; to the great dishonour of Christ, whose Word and Sacraments they have, in respect of the persons of men. Concerning the Censures of the Church, you cannot be ignorant, that it hath been the common discipline, in all Churches ancient, and lately reform, to impose and challenge of Ecclesiastical persons a subscription to the orders constituted therein; ordaining 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 unto the French and Dutch Churches here in England, for their direction in point of Discipline, delivereth unto them his 28. Article in these words: Hac ratione perlatis legibus etc. The Constitutions being thus made, whosoever shall factiously repugn them, Epist. 24 pag. 149. and will not suffer themselves to be reclaimed; much more they who shall conspire together against Ministers, and Elders, they are worthy to be handled as the public enemies of the Church. I do not speak this, to exasperate the Church's censures against you, but to moderate your conceits and detractions against the Church, who use to esteem of her, not as of a natural Mother, but rather as of a cursed Stepdame. But why? Because forsooth, she will have an uniformity of order amongst her children, and will not suffer her lawful command to be factiously contemned. SECT. XV. Our general Confutation of the Non conformists, against their general Assumption; wherein they objected, that our Ceremonies are imposed to be observed as the proper and essential parts of God's worship. Against their general Proposition, we have proved from their own witnesses, to wit, Calvin, Chemnitius, Peter Martyr, Vrsinus, and Zanchius, that only those Ceremonies are properly made parts of God's worship, wherein the worship of God is said essentially and absolutely to consist. Now we must confute their general assumption, by the express profession of our Church, which teacheth, and publisheth to the world, that she doth not either impose, or observe any Ceremonies, with any opinion of efficacy, holiness, or necessity, but only for Decency, Order, Edification, and Conveniency. It will become every child of the Church to hear his Mother's Apology for herself, in this case: who telleth us, Constit etc. Can. 75. Can. 30. saying, 1. Our meaning is not to attribute any holiness, or special worthiness to the said Garments. 2. We teach, that the Cross is not part of the substance of the Sacrament: this Sign doth neither add to Baptism, nor detract from it. 3. These Ceremonies which we have retained upon just cause, Common prayer book before the beginning of Service. Ibidem. may be altered and changed; and therefore may not be esteemed equal with Gods Law. 4. In these our doings we condemn not other Nations, or prescribe any thing, but to our own people only: for we think it meet that every Country should use such Ceremonies, as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a more perfect and godly living, without error or superstition. Can any Christian require a more Orthodox profession concerning Ceremonies, than this is? whereby it is made evident, that our Church retaineth these her Ceremonies for Decency, without opinion of Holiness; for Order, without making them of the Substance of God's service; with a Christian liberty, as thinking them Alterable and Changeable, without opinion of Necessity; And lastly, in an Unity of Christian Brotherhood, with other reformed Churches abroad. And therefore may most justly challenge uniformity within herself. This profession of our Church is so manifest unto 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 boldness) parallel our Church with the Romish; which nevertheless they confess to be justly condemned by M. jewel, and other Divines, Ibid. pag. 43. for the opinion of Necessity and Holiness which they put in their Ceremonies. And indeed very justly; for although sometimes Bellarmine, and some other Papists seem to disclaim the Necessity of Ceremonies, and the placing of Holiness in them, otherwise than as they are Signs of holy things, yet ought we rather yield credit unto their more public practice and profession: Bellarmine telling us, that their Ceremonies have pour [ex opere operato] to cure diseases, Bell. lib. 1. de effect Sacr. c. 1. & lib. 2. cap. 30. art. 30. drive away devils, purge venial sins, etc. All which effects do imply an efficacious and necessary holiness. Seeing therefore it is plain, that we attribute no other Holiness unto our Rites, than that which is common to all such like Ceremonies; namely, to be Significative and Alterable (whereas the Papists to ascribe unto theirs an holiness Operative and Necessary) with what conscience do men fashion their quills, to impute that guilt of Superstition to our Church, which she hath, and doth, both by her doctrine and practice, condemn in the Romish sect? Hitherto of their second Argument. CHAP. III. The third general Agument, brought by the Non-conformists, against the three Ceremonies of our Church; only because they are Significant. SECT. I. Abridg. Linc. Mayor Prop. All human Ceremonies, being appropriated to God's service, if they be ordained to teach any spiritual duty by their mystical signification, are unlawful. Assump. But such are these three, namely, the Surplice, Cross in Baptism, and kneeling at the receiving the holy Communion. Ergo, they are unlawful. 1. Our Answer to their Mayor Proposition. THIS point of Mystical signification, yea or only of signification by Ceremonies, in the opinion of almost all the Non-conformists, pierceth so deeply into the bowels of this cause, that it giveth it a deadly wound, notwithstanding all our means and manner of defence: which contrarily we judge either to be so dull and blunt, that it cannot make the least impression to hurt our cause; or, whatsoever sharpness is in it, it must needs offend our Opposites, if that either Reason, or examples of Scripture, or the continual custom of the Church of God; yea or the semblable practice of the Non-conformists themselves may be thought worthy to be called a just defence. In the interim we attend to hear their proofs. SECT. II. Their proofs, pretended to be taken from 1. Scriptures. 2. Fathers. 3. Testimonies of judicious Divines. In Marc. 7.8. Our Saviour doth reprove the pharisees for laying aside the commandments of God, Abridg. Lincol. & M. Hy. do often repeat this. and holding the Traditions of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and v. 9 You reject the commandments of God, that you may keep your own Traditions: for v. 10. Moses said, Honour thy father and Mother etc. and v. 11. You say, that if a man shall say to father or mother, Corban, that is to say; it is a gift, etc. And, every plant that my Father planteth not shall be rooted out. And, as Math. 15.15. Thus have you made the commandments 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 human invention, which is there condemned: but how? Not because of the signification of a spiritual duty, but for the Pharisaical leaven of corrupt doctrine taught hereby; for there was in it two ounces of leaven at the least: the first was in attributing a legal 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; even as well as by the washings, which God himself had appointed, to the same end. Their second error was in their imputing of a spiritual virtue, and efficacy unto them, of cleansing their souls from sin, as is manifest by the reproof which Christ used against those Ceremonies, saying; That which is without, and entereth into man, cannot defile a man, V. 28. but that which is within and cometh out of the man, that defileth a man. Therefore this their washing was not condemned, as a mere Ceremony, but for the mixture of a false doctrine, teaching an efficacy and virtue of purification, which it had not. Concerning the second Text, the case standeth thus. The pharisees by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, second Traditions, taught their Disciples a strange piece of Catechism, called Corban, Mar. 7.11. to wit, The gift that shall be offered by me, shall profit thee: that is, Every voluntary offering, that thou shalt give to the Temple, or for the benefit of the Priesthood, shall gain of God a blessing upon thee, albeit thou shouldest neglect thy parents, in withdrawing that Gift from their relief, in their great necessity. For confutation of this error, Christ opposeth the commandment, saying: Moses said unto 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, etc. But you say, Corban, etc. So that this Tradition of the Pharisees is a flat contradiction unto the express Law of God: And therefore so utterly unfit to confute the use of Ceremonies, which are not as directly condemned by God's Word, that we may think your minds were busied upon some other objects, when you made this objection. We have heard all your objections against addition of Ceremonies in the state of the Old Testament, and find that the further you seek to depart from the Pharisees, who did add superfluous Ceremonies, the more you win fellowship with the Sadduces, who abandon all additions of new Ceremonies under the same estate. SECT. III. Their second proof 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 have expounded figuratively: but when any sentences do seem to command any thing that is Facinorous, heinous, and wicked, then (saith he) must we understand them as being figuratively spoken. As for example, that saying of Christ, joh. 6.53. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man etc. which for the same cause must needs receive a figurative interpretation. But how shall this concern the matter of Ceremonies, to prove them unlawful, because they are significant? By this inference it shall not be lawful for us to use any phrase of speech, whether figurative or proper, because Omnis oratio est oris ratio: every speech of a reasonable man (except he will needs be as sounding brass & a tinkling cymbal) is significant. There is (I confess) in S Augustine elsewhere these sayings: Signa, quae ad res divinas pertinent, Sacramenta appellantur. Aug. If hereby you shall collect that S. Augustine will admit of no Signs of holy duties, which are not Sacraments, then shall you bewray your small acquaintance you have had with the language of S. Augustine, with whom nothing is more frequent or familiar, than to call all Signs of any holy thing Sacraments: And so by your consequence you shall have as many Sacraments, as there are parts and parcels of parables and similitudes. To conclude, whosoever shall but unclasp any one volume of S. Augustine, he shall find a manifest mention and approbation of some one or other Significant Ceremony, which was not of Divine Ordinance. This your alleging one only Father, who notwithstanding maketh against you, doth openly tell us that you can conceive small confidence, that Antiquity did ever patronize your cause. SECT. FOUR Their third Proof; from the Testimonies of Protestant Divines. Abridg. Linc. M. Calvin, in Levit. 4.22. Zepperus, pol. Eccles. pag. 50. jewel, Beza, do all condemn Ceremonies invented by man, which are of mystical signification. Our Answer. You err, for want of a distinction of terms: for the word [mystical signification] hath two acceptions; the one Sacramental, by signification of grace conferred by God: the other is only Moral, by signification of man's spiritual duty and obedience towards God. The Ceremonies, which we defend, are only mystical-morall: but the signification of Ceremonies, which M. Calvin reproveth, is only that Mystical, which is properly Sacramental; as is evident in the place alleged, where he speaketh of Sacraments, [Quibus annexa est promissio gratiae] Whereunto God hath annexed a promise of grace. And again; Testantur de gratia Dei. Zeppperus speaketh not a word of any mystical signification at all. B. jewel insisteth only in the Sacramental, and hath not one word touching the moral; nor any Protestant author that I have read (Beza only excepted) hath spoken absolutely against Signs Symbolical, and merely significant. Yet Beza himself, 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 aught to be diligently observed; as will better appear in our Answer to their next objection. SECT. V. Their fourth proof from Reason. Their first Objection. Symbolical signification giveth unto Ceremonies a chief part of Sacraments, Abridg. Lincoln. when they are appointed to teach us by their signification. Our Answer. Our Ceremonies are only moral signs, as hath been said, signifying unto us moral duties; to wit, the Surplice to betoken Sanctity of life; the Signing the forehead with the Cross, Constancy in the faith of Christ; and Kneeling at the Communion, our Humility in receiving such pledges of our Redemption by Christ jesus. As for the Sacramental sign. Every Sacrament hath two significations in in it, the one is, Ad modum signi, to represent some spiritual thing: the second is, Ad modum sigilli, to seal an assurance of some divine promise of Grace. So that a Sacramental sign (being, as Sacramental, so likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seal of God's promises, as the Apostle calleth Circumcision) is always founded upon the express covenant of God: Rom. 4. therefore none but the Author of the covenant may institute or appoint any such sign. For whosoever shall undertake to add a seal unto the will and covenant of any Testator amongst men, is forthwith held Falsarius, and thereby made obnoxious to the law, and liable to the grievous judgements of man: How much more damnable an Act were it for any to affix any sign, properly Sacramental, unto the Testament of our Lord jesus? which whosoever shall atttempt to do, becometh guilty of sacrilegious depravation of the blessed Mysteries of Salvation. Now, then for further clearing of this point, we may thus distinguish of Mystical and spiritual signs in God's Church: some are merely significant, by resembling spiritual things; and some are not only significant, but also obsignant, namely sealing and exhibiting unto us the Truth of God's promise. Therefore these Mystical signs, which we call Sacramental, differ from the mystical signs moral, both as the Sacramental are Significant, by special representation; and as they are obsignant by ratifying and applying of God's covenant of Grace unto us: as the Aspersion of the water in Baptism is a sign of Remission of sin conferred upon the person baptised; and therefore is it proper to God, who only giveth the thing, to ordain such a sign. But the moral sign doth not represent any Collation of grace given by God unto man, but only notifieth a duty of man in some moral virtue which he oweth unto God. Your own witness Zanchius hath something to this purpose, De redempt. pag. 422. saying; What are Sacraments but Images, wherein is revealed and represented unto us the grace of God in Christ jesus, by the remission of sin, and life everlasting; whereby there is offered to the minds of receivers Christ with all the benefits of the Eternal covenant made unto us in Christ? In which respect these Sacraments are rightly called the Signs and Seals of the Covenant 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 chief point of a Sacrament: which if we did maintain, than Bellarmine might have some colour to insult upon Protestants by this objection, Bellar. lib. 1. De. Euch. c. 11 §. secundo omissa. viz. If Sacraments be only signs, than the Crucifix is a better sign, to signify the death of Christ, than the Sacrament. This is his consequence. Will our Non-conformists now allow him this Assumption, by accounting a sign to be a chief part of our Sacraments? Nay, should they not rather inveigh against the impudency of such Romish Proctors, who usually impute unto Protestants doctrines of their own devising? For Caluine, whom the Papists in this Answer do especially impugn, hath told them (I think I may say an hundred times,) that we account not our Sacraments mere signs, to represent the graces of God; but that they are also seals, to present and exhibit the truth of God's promises of Grace, and to apply them to the hearts of faithful Receivers. Let me add further, for the satisfaction of the more ingenuous, & the conviction of such as will be perverse, (who tell us that Signification is a principal part of a Sacrament) that then all the moral signs used in the Levitical worship, as namely Bells, Lavars', Lights, Candlesticks, and other Ceremonial instruments even unto the very Snuffers of the Tabernacle, should (things taking their denomination from the principal parts) be properly deemed Sacraments. And the like I may say of abstinence from Hogs flesh; from touching of the corpses of the Dead; from Linsey-woolsey apparel; and an hundredth such others, whereby diverse moralities are signified; but no Sacrament implied. In a word, the very soul of a sign, to make it a Sacrament, is Annexa à Deo promissio gratiae, Bellar. lib. 1. de matrim. ca 2. as the jesuit himself doth acknowledge. SECT. VI Their second Objection, from Reason. If the Ceremonies that God himself ordained, Abridg. Lincol. pag. 33. to teach his Church by their moral signification, may not be now used; much less may any of those, which man hath devised. Our Answer. I answer first, that the use of some (I understand this word in a large acception) jewish Rite without any jewish opinion, is not damnable: For how many Christians under Prester john, 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 only Customarily; and, as it were Nationally, for distinction from other people: Or as the Greek Churches anciently used the celebration of Easter, according to the time of the jewish Passeover, although with a difference both of Sign and Signification. But more of jewish Rites hereafter. Secondly, it is far more safe for Christians to invent new Ceremonies of moral signification, that to use those old, which had been appointed by God's ordinance: not but that the ordinance of God is infinitely to be preferred before man's; but both because God, who ordained those jewish Ceremonies for a time, ordained also that they should be abolished in time; as also lest that their use might engender an opinion of the necessity of them, even because they had been once commanded by God; and consequently might enthrall the minds of men, and constrain them to a necessary observation of the whole levitical Law: for so the Apostle reasoneth against certain false Apostles, Gal. 1. who by their superstitious urging of those jewish Ceremonies sought to bring in again the ancient bondage of all jewish Rites. SECT. VII. Their third Objection from Reason. Abridg. Lincol. pag. 34. This will open a gap unto Images, Oil, spital, and all Popish Ceremonies; all which Bellarmine commendeth as fit to put men in remembrance; as when the Priest did sprinkle the people with holy water, saying, Remember thy Baptism. And thus defend they their Images, even 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 errors. For first, to argue from the use of some few, to an admittance of all other Ceremonies to like kind, which are in the Church of Rome almost innumerable; is a consequence far more lavish than this: viz. Some wise men may be of his majesties Privy Counsel, therefore All wise men of the Kingdom ought to have place in that Honourable Senate. Secondly, Then all Popish etc. say you. This consequence I take to be both unreasonable and unconscionable. It is first as unreasonable, as it would be for a Patient, who, having had of his Physician the Receipts of some Apothecary Drugs, should thereupon presume that it is safe and wholesome for him, to taste of every box in the Apothecary's shop. For it is well known, that as there are some good customs in the Church of Rome, so are there many bad. Next, the word Popish is here taken of you in the strictest sense, not simply for the Ceremonies themselves, but for the mixture of abuses that are in them, by the superstition of that Church. And therefore to conclude from the lawful use of Ceremonies in our Church, to an appropriation of the Romish abuse of them, gave me just cause to call your Consequence unconscionable; for as much as your own hearts can tell you, that our Church is not so earnest to entertain the use of any one Ceremony, formerly observed in the Church of Rome, as it is zealous to abhor her superstition in all her abuses: some of them being Brutish and Senseless, some Childish and ridiculous, some Heathenish and Idolatrous; whereby such their Ceremonies respectively are become to be most properly Popish. Thirdly, you argue, that if these, viz. Surplice, Cross, Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion be justly used, then there is a just cause that these, to wit, Oil, spital, Images and the Priests sprinkling of water, may likewise be had in use, because all are equally for Remembrance. We confess that spital was used by our Saviour Christ, in the healing of the Dumb; and Oil, by the Apostles, in curing of many other diseases; yet both miraculously: but to imitate the work of a Miracle, without the Miraculous power, is but an Apish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for to hold such a miraculous Ceremony, after the virtue be gone, is but to preserve a Carcase, because it had been once possessed of a soul. We come to your other Instances in the use of Images, and that which they call Holy-water, to the end that you may the better discern your own injurious and odious comparison. For first, the true use of Images with us is only for Historical commemoration; but in the Popish Church it is for a superstitious adoration, by kneeling unto them, praying by them, and by determinating a kind of religious worship in them; and therefore only in regard of such their superstition, is to be called Popish. The second, which is their sprinkling of water upon the people, for remembrance of their Baptism, if it were applied only for to make them often mindful and careful to keep their Vow of Christianity, made once unto God in Baptism, it might be called a Moral Ceremony, and Christian: But that sprinkling of water, as it is used in the Romish Church, not only as significative, but also as operative, with an opinion that it hath power, both of purging venial sins, and of driving away devils, is in that regard also Popish & execrable. For what is this else but to take upon her to constitute a new Sacrament, seeing that a Sacrament is a sign of representing, and of exhibiting and conferring of a spiritual Grace? She therefore, who hath made the profession of the definite number of but Seven Sacraments, an Article of Faith, hath by this new invention of Holy-water made up Eight. I may not pretermit a Witness, who hath made you an answer long since, unto this Objection, which notwithstanding you regest again, as if this Cole-woort had never been sod before. The Author is Peter Martyr: Neque mihi dixeris etc. Epist. ad Hoop. pag. 1087. Neither may you say unto me (saith Peter Martyr, speaking of the use 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 Adversaries will answer you, that there must a mean be kept, that the Church of God be not burdened with these kind of things, and that no worship or efficacy of Religion be placed in them, as we see there is in that water-sprinkling and Incense etc. So he. And do you not furthermore see, by happy experience, that Open gap of many Ceremonis, whereof you spoke, to be now through the wisdom and providence of our Church, quite shut up, seeing that she is contented to admit of so few, and no more? Lastly, you can with as little reason divest a Church Christian of her liberty and power of ordaining of significant Ceremonies, because it is possible that she may abuse that power, by instituting unfit, superstitious, and burdensome Rites; as it were to seek to deprive a Civil Magistrate of all power of nomothetical authority, in making of laws, because there is a possibility he may abuse them. Thus much in answer to your General Proposition. SECT. VIII. The Assumption of the Non-conformists. But these Ceremonies in question are ordained by the will of men, to teach some spiritual duty, Abridg. Lincol pag. 35. by their mystical signification: for thus the book of Common Prayer speaketh of them, that they are neither dumb nor dark, but apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of this duty to God, by some special signification. Our Answer. Will you still oppugn Ceremonious signs, which are mystically significant, even because they are significant? is a man's speech less reasonable, because it hath sense? or is it therefore ill, for that the signification thereof is good? Yet this is, in effect, your exception against our Ceremonies. We therefore remit you to your own witnesses, with whom you may contend; some whereof will be found to condemn the Papists, for using of Dumb Ceremonies, without significations; and dark, beyond men's capacities: some to admit of Symbolical Ceremonies, as incitements to the better performance of spiritual good things: and some also to approve of signs and remembrances of spiritual Duties. But if you would be loath to wrestle with so learned Divines, than we send you to expostulate with your own selves, who confess in the end that you are not altogether destitute of some such like Symbolical significations. Finally, I shall not need, in this place, to set before you those Mystical Ceremonies, which are to be exemplified from divers Instances in patriarchs before the Law; holy men under the Law; Apostles in the New Testament; after them in the state of primitive Antiquity; And lastly, in the whole current of succeeding times. SECT. IX. Our general Confutation of the general Argument of the Non-conformists; by proving the lawfulness of Ceremonies, which are of moral Signification, yB 1. Scriptures. 2. Fathers. 3. Reason. 4. Witnesses of the Non-conformists themselves. 5. Their own practice. Our proof 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 servant (that he might have security of his faithfulness, Gen. 24. in a business of importance, to wit, for the providing of a match for his son) to lay his hand under his thigh; & swear unto him, etc. What one point is there, in their general proposition, which is not fully satisfied by this Example? Your first point is, that our Ceremonies are human. So here, the laying of his hand under Abraham's thigh, was human; if by [human] you understand that which a godly man deviseth, by his own reasonable judgement: For Abraham appointed the foresaid Ceremony without any special revelation from God, so far as by Scripture is revealed unto us. The second point is, that the Ceremony is appointed unto Divine service. So here likewise; for there is not a more Divine Service, then upon just occasion the due and lawful swearing by God. This is a worship which God doth appropriate to himself? Deut. 6.13. Thou shalt [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] worship the Lord thy God; how? and swear by his name. The last point is, the Ordaining of the Ceremony, to teach any spiritual duty, by mystical signification. And what more spiritual duty can you require, than is the confidence in Christ the Messias, who is the foundation and life of all Divine Mysteries? which, by the judgement of all ancient Fathers, and (for aught that ever I could learn) of all their children, the Orthodox Divines of the Church after them, is this, viz. That Christ the Messias and Saviour of mankind was to issue out of the thigh and loins of Abraham; according as God had promised unto him, saying, Gen. 22. In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. The Morality then of the sign, to the servant, was this, that as he believed to have any life by Christ, the Author of life, which was to descend from Abraham, by Isaac and his seed; so he would be faithful unto him. So that this oath was unto his servant a sign, as of his faith to God, so of faithfulness towards Abraham his Master. SECT. X. Our second proof, to confirm the lawfulness of a sign of moral signification, is from the Examples of the old Testament under the Law. The Objection 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 received into the worship of God, but such only as the Lord himself did institute. This reason is used against the Popish Ceremonies by M. Calvin, junius, Lubbertus, and others. Our Answer. And this Reason is good against the Popish abuse of Ceremonies, which is to be discerned from our use 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 holiness; whereby they are made essential parts of God's worship: as by your witnesses will be manifestly shown. In the mean time we pursue this point by our several examples. SECT. XI. Our first kind of Examples is, by instancing in the Ordination of Festival days. 1. Instance in Mordecai and Ester. Although God had assigned divers solemn feast-days, for his more frequent worship, Ester 9 yet did Mordecai appoint the Feast, called by the Hebrews the Feast of Pur, that is, of Lots, for a continual and thankful remembrance of their general deliverance from that cruel Massacre, whereunto the heathen had then allotted and designed them. And accordingly our State and Church hath ordained a set Feast-day, which we may likewise, after the Greek, call the feast of Pûr (even by the same word retained in our English, V. Novemb. 1605. Fire) wherein we celebrate the remembrance of God's merciful and miraculous preservation of us, from that Fiery and Hellish Powder-plot, machinated by the sons of Belial, for the consuming of our most religious and gracious Sovereign, together with the whole state of the Kingdom. SECT. XII. 2. Instance, in the Feast of Dedication, by judas Machabaeus, 1. Machab. 2.59. 1. Mach. 2.59. There was appointed an anniversary Feast of the dedication of the Altar, ordained by judas Machabaeus: And this Feast (as your own witness Danaeus confesseth) seems to be approved by our Lord jesus, Isag. Tract. De doctr. Christ. c. 29. p. 345. joh. 10.12. in that he did grace it with his own blessed presence. Now all solemn Feasts, of this kind, are of a Ceremonial nature; and, in as much as they have their institution from man, may rightly be called human: nevertheless, so far as they serve to magnify God, for some special mercy; as else to excite man unto a thankful commemoration of the singular favours, which he hath received at the hands of God; in these respects they are truly called Divine. Hence therefore (you see) it is good cause, why they ought to be called significant. So than you have, by these Examples, as it were, the Anatomy of your proposition through every joint, viz. 1. A Ceremony of human invention, by judas Machabaeus. 2. Appropriated unto God's service, in a solemn Feast. 3. Ordained to teach a spiritual Duty of thankfulness. 4. Significant, for benefits or blessings received. And all these (as you see) stand justifiable by Analogy, from the example alleged. SECT. XIII. Their first Reply. The Church may appoint holidays in certain cases: Cartwright in the rest of his 2. Reply, pag. 191.192. but it is one thing to restrain part of the day; and another to restrain the whole day. Our Answer. If any man shall require of you some evidence, to prove that Christ hath so cantled out his Churches high Commission for Ecclesiastical causes, as to afford it a power to appoint one half of an Holiday, and to deny unto it liberty of ordaining the other half; I suppose you would always remain indebted for an answer. For did not God use to have as well his Evening, as his Morning sacrifice? and shall it now be lawful to serve God only by halves? howsoever, even this half, which you have have granted, doth sufficiently establish the whole matter in question: for if the Church, in this case, have power to ordain a Ceremony, which doth imply a signification of the duty of a thankful remembrance, how should any Ceremonies be only therefore held unlawful, because they are significant? SECT. XIIII. Their second Reply. Howbeit the example out of Ester 9 of the two days, Cartwr. ibid. which the jews instituted in the remembrance of their deliverance, is no sufficient warrant for these feasts in question. For first, as in other cases, so in this case of days, the estate of Christians under the Gospel ought not to be so Ceremonious, as was theirs under the Law. Secondly, that which was done there, was done by a special direction of the Church of God, either through the Ministry of the Prophets, which they had, or by some other extraordinary means, which is not to be followed of us. Our Answer. Firs●, unto the first part of your Reply, we say, that if an institution of a new Ceremony were lawful under 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 doubtless the addition of one or two Ceremonies, in the state of the Gospel, may not so rigidly be judged unlawful. Your second Assumption (which we may rather call a Presumption) is; that you imagine some special Direction, from the spirit of God unto them, without any certificate revealed to yourselves for proof thereof. Whereunto I only 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 unto the worship of God, by 4. Instances. 1. Instance is in the Altar, josh. 22. We read that the Gileadites, which were of the children of Israel, josh. 22. did build an Altar on the other side of jordan, in testimony of their joint faith and profession with their brethren, in the one and only Religion of God. This example is pregnant, and hath much exercised and troubled your wits, but to what effect, we shall best judge by your Answer. SECT. XVI. The Non-conformists Answer. The Altar that stood on Iordans bank was not of Ecclesiastical, but Civil use: the tribes themselves confess, M. Nic. M. Pag. M. Lang. and others. that they had grievously sinned if that they had determined an Altar unto the same use that the Lord God set up one before. It was a memorial, that they were one people with their brethren, entitled to, and estated in the privileges of the Lord with them: but it was no mystical sign of Christ and his Grace. Our Reply. The point then in question is, whether it were not especially for a spiritual use, whereof we cannot better be resolved than by the whole current and main scope of the Story; which doth apparently evince, that it was for a religious mystical signification, albeit not of Christ and his graces, yet of spiritual blessings and moral duties: So though it were not erected for the same use, whereunto the Altar, that God appointed, was appropriated, yet was it ordained for a representation thereof. Let us consult with the Text itself, to the end that we may answer your Mayor Proposition, even in terminis. Your Dispute is of human Ceremonies; and this was so human, that it was ordained by man, without any special warrant from God. And this is very plain, because these Gileadites, when they were to satisfy their brethren (who at the first judged the building of this Altar to be a detestable, and an abominable transgression against God) did not reply, that God had commanded them so to do, but answered very ingenuously, saying, We have done this, etc. Ver. 24. And again (imputing it to their own proper motion) Therefore said we, Let us build us, etc. whence it is evidently apparent, Ver. 26. that this act proceeded merely from their own reason, without any particular direction from God. Secondly, your proposition requireth, that the Ceremonies be appointed to God's service: and so was this Altar, although not to sacrifice thereon; yet (as the Text speaketh) for A pattern of the Altar of the Lord, upon which Gods people did sacrifice. As we account the Cross in Baptism not to be the very Cross of Christ, (whereupon he offered that great sacrifice of Man's redemption) but only 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, doubtless, cannot be said to have been only of a civil use. Thirdly, your proposition mentioneth Ceremonies of mystical signification, to teach any spiritual duty; Even as again we say, that the Cross in Baptism is used in the way of protestation of Christian courage, in the spiritual conflict against the whole world of Infidels. Here also, I think, this very Text doth sufficiently warrant such mystical signification: for seeing all actions borrow their form and essence from the end, whereunto they are intended, and that these Gileadites, in this act of consent in unity of Religion, did not so much intend to make known their interest in the temporal inheritance, as in the spiritual privileges of Gods chosen people: This doth necessarily argue, that this Altar was not set up so much for any civil use, as for a mystical resemblance: which is manifest in the Story, where the use of this Altar is expressed thus; The Altar is called Ed (that is, witness) for it shall be a witness between us, Ver. ult. that the Lord is God. Therefore the end was, that thereby they having relation to the other Altar of God, might protest and publish their joint faith and service, with all other Israelites, to the only true God. And as this end did concern themselves, so there was yet another end that did respect their posterity; and in this regard they made the Altar proleptical, for to prevent an objection, that might afterward arise between these Gileadites, and their brethren on the other side of jordan, namely, to this effect: What have you to do do with the God of Israel? You have no part with the Lord: And so might have made them cease from serving the Lord; Therefore (say the Gileadites) have we built this Altar. You see then, that the Altar being a Pattern of the Altar of the Lord, was a Religious Instrument; and of the Altar of sacrificing, a Religious Act; and that to testify both for them and their posterity a public consent in the true Religion and worship of God, which was a most religious end; And also this, to avow the profession of their Religion, which maketh it a moral sign, of a religious signification. How therefore can any be so dim-sighted, as not to discern any other thing herein, except only a Civil use? The matter standing thus, we may guess with what indignation and displeasure you would have entertained this answer, by inveighing against that their human invention, as the daughter of blind Devotion, in themselves, and mother of Idolatry to their posterity; and by charging them, concerning that Altar, and crying aloud, Down with it, Down with it even to the ground; not departing thence, until with your outcries you had seen it demolished before your face. But contrarily their brethren, the Governors of God's people, even such as were most zealous for God, to preserve 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 up in battle against them. Take you therefore, I pray you, the hearts of Brethren, and be likeminded, as were these devout children of God; be desirous to enjoy the peace of the Church, in the truth of Religion, and not, ●t the sight of every Ceremonious appurtenance, to start aside; occasioning hereby not only dissension amongst them, who are your Brethren, in all the essential parts of Religion; but also Contumacy against your Mother the Church, which begot you in Christ, and brought you to the interest which you have in the covenant of Grace. SECT. XVII. Our second Instance, concerning Ceremonious Instruments belonging to God's worship, may be in Solomon his Altar, 1. King. 8.64. Solomon 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 receive the burnt offerings. Here we see first, only Salomon's appointment, for building this Altar; arguing an human invention: secondly, a new Altar, never comm●nded by God, is a new Ceremony; thirdly, this Altar, as all others, having necessary relation to Sacrifice, doth concern that kind of worship, which most chiefly and properly belongeth unto God: and fourthly, sacrificing and offering, being the manifestation of that homage and thankfulness, which is properly due to Divine Majesty, cannot but signify man's spiritual duty. So now, this example contradicting your Proposition, from point to point, may give you, at least, some probable satisfaction. SECT. XVIII. Their Answer. This Act of Solomon was by extraordinary inspiration, M. Nic. and therefore may not be called human. Our Reply. here you pretend (which you can never prove) that Solomon did this by extraordinary inspiration; beside, the very Text yields the reason which moved Solomon hereunto, to wit, because the first Altar that had been made by God's appointment, sufficed not to receive all offerings: which proveth that this Act may rightly be called human, as being undertaken by the light of Reason, without any special direction from God; as also many religious Acts of men may be said to be both Divine and human: Divine, as proceeding from general grounds of Gods revealed will, and concluding for some religious end: and human, as issuing from the discourse of man's reason and judgement, accommodating general rules and principles for the inferring of conclusions, and ordering of particular actions. Therefore this Answer wanting weight, you must seek for a better. SECT. XIX. Their second Reply. M. Nic. Solomon did this out of the Equity of Moses law itself, as junius showeth. Contr. 3. l. 4. c. 17. Our Reply. This second Answer, first, overthwarts the former: for if Solomon did collect the lawfulness of this Act, by reasoning from the Equity thereof, not particularly expressed, but generally implied in the Law of God; then came it not by extraordinary inspiration. And secondly, this Answer doth yield unto us an Answer against all your own objections: because hereby you plainly confess, than an human collection, deduced from the equity of God's Law, (consisting in the application of general doctrines and documents, unto some singular and individual acts) is lawful in itself: from whence it doth follow, that our Ceremonies, instituted to signify spiritual duties, have as good equity by the Word, as this Altar of Solomon could have. Wherefore the rule of equity, which you mention, will (as it ought) bear a great sway in this case of Ceremonies, if we may borrow our equity, either from the general Permissions, or particular Examples of the new Testament. SECT. XX. Their third Answer. M. Nic. God by his visible descending approved of the work of the Temple, and did authorize him. Which David's words, 1. Chron. 28.19. may seem to confirm. Our Reply. I would you had leisure to look more directly upon the Text alleged, where we do not find that God approved the Temple of Solomon, by any visible appearance, until the Sacrifice was ended; whereas this second Altar was ordained by Solomon, before any sacrifice was begun on the former. Whereupon (if we shall take your Answer for true) it must needs follow, that God approved of the Altar, before that he did approve of it. Secondly, the words of David, which (you say) do seem to confirm the point, are these: All this the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, Ver. 19 even all the works of this Pattern. The Pattern, which God approved, is here called, This Pattern; meaning expressly that Altar, which was mentioned in the former verse, namely, the Altar of Incense, being that first Altar appointed by God himself. But this Altar, whereof we dispute, was a second Altar invented by Solomon, and never so much as thought upon by his father David. Therefore the form, revealed purposely for the erecting of one Altar alone, could not be assumed by Solomon, for a direction, and Pattern of a second. SECT. XXI. Their fourth Answer. And this was no Addition of a diverse kind. M. Nic. Our Reply. As though that could not be called an Additament, when the thing added is of the same kind with the principal: if this be your meaning, then may you as well say, that a commandment unto every Communicant to drink twice, in receiving the cup of the holy Sacrament, may not be judged an Addition to the first Institution (which is to drink thereof but once) because, forsooth, the second cup is of the same kind. This your so unconstant and unconsonant kind of Answering doth evidently show, that this example doth busy you not a little. And no marvel, for God having commanded that there should be but one solemn Altar of Sacrifice, amongst his people (signifying thereby, that there is but one God, even that God of Israel;) yet notwithstanding, Solomon (when he saw that one Altar could not receive all the sacrifices) did adventure to build a second Altar. Surely here had been matter enough for any spirit of contradiction (if then there had been any such) to have challenged even Solomon to his face, and to have reproved him for daring, without express 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 interpret, that Solomon, for the furtherance of God's worship, did add this Altar, after a most lawful manner: And thereupon would collect, as a necessary consequence, that Additions to God's commandment (if they be used not as perfections of the ordinances of God, but as expedient means, for the better accomplishment of his public service) cannot derogate or detract any whit from the will or wisdom of God. SECT. XXII. Our third Instance, concerning Ceremonious Instruments belonging to God's service, is in the Synagogues, which were erected by the jews, for God's public worship. In all the Provinces of the jews, certain places were appointed, called Synagogues, Sigon Repub. Heb. l. 2. pag. 58. & 86. for the Reading and Preaching of God's word; In which respect it was, that the jews came to Christ, and commended unto his mercy a Roman Centurion, a Proselyte, saying; Luc. 7.5. He is worthy thou shouldst do this thing for him, for he loveth our Nation, and hath built us a Synagogue. Will you ask to what end this Instance is alleged? only that hereby you may understand your own error, in holding that All Ceremonious Additions, without special warrant from Scripture, are unlawful: Whereas, these places of God's service were allowed, albeit there is not throughout all the old Testament so much as any mention, concerning the building of Synagogues. I might have insisted upon that direction which jethro, through his own judgement and prudence, gave unto Moses himself, for the altering of the former frame of Government, in judicial proceedings, by appointing of new orders of Captains over thousands, over hundreds, and over ten. For albeit this example be in a divers Sphere, and not belonging to Divine worship; yet seeing the same God was as exact in his prescription of Statutes, for the Political government, as he was of Ordinances, and Ceremonies in the Ecclesiastical; and that the same authority of God was equally predominant in them both: this may induce us to think, that man's invention, employed for the better preservation of Gods will and worship, may not always be censured as a thing unlawful in itself. SECT. XXIII. Our Third general proof is from the Examples of the Apostles. It is time for us to depart from jerusalem, wherein we have had ample proof, for mystical Ceremonies of human Invention; Now let us draw near to the City of Antioch, where the faithful did first receive their Surnames of Christians; that we may likewise try, what ground we may find in Christianity, for the proof of our former Conclusion. The Apostolical Examples are Three. First the Feasts of Charity. Jude v. 12. There were certain Christian Feasts, called Agapae, ordained and used by the Apostles, without any prescription from Christ. SECT. XXIIII. Their first Answer. M. Nic. If th●y were Apostolical, then were they of Divine Institution. Our Reply. If you take [Divine] for Godly, as opposite to profane and wicked, your Position is true: but if you understand [Divine] as in opposition unto all Constitutions, which are not commanded of God, then could you not have uttered a more unlearned Position, than to say, that all Apostolical Ordinances were of Divine institution. For the Divines of all times have distinguished of Constitutions and Traditions; Divine, Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical: accounting such Divine, as were ordained for perpetual use in the Church; and esteeming such Apostolical, as were appointed by the Apostles, with a liberty to alter and change them upon just occasions (such as these Agapae were;) and those to be Ecclesiastical, which the Church of God, after the Apostles times, in whatsoever age or Countries, did, or shall appoint upon like occasions; which are likewise subject to alteration, according to the different condition of times and places. Which distinctions pass so currant, that when we come to the particular Examination of our Ceremonies, you shall then find them to have the approbation of your own Witnesses. SECT. XXV. Their second Answer. These Agapae were abrogated by the Apostles themselves. Idem. Our Reply. If they were indeed justly abrogated afterwards, then may you not say that they were of Divine Institution. Thus your second Answer confuteth your former; so slippery 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 conveniences or disconuenices of the Church. SECT. XXVI. Their third Answer. Idem. But these were not of mystical signification, nor yet merely of Ecclesiastical use. Our Reply. Should not the Use be properly called Ecclesiastical, which was ordained to be practised in the solemn feasts of Religion; and appropriated to accompany the celebration of the holy Communion; and also of a mystical, and spiritual signification; it being instituted both for signification, and preservation of Christian Love? Concerning these Love-feasts, the ancient Histories do credibly inform us, that they were at first used in Sacris conventibus, sometime before, and sometime after the receiving of the Eucharist. And this the Apostle showeth. 1. Cor. 11. Where we find so great an abuse of them, 1. Cor. 11. that by the profaneness of some, the Feasts of Love were turned into Banquets of intolerable pride and despite: whereupon the Apostle, indeed, reproveth the abuse, but doth not remove and abrogate the right use of them; for we find that these Feasts were continued long after the Apostles, yea, in some places, until the time of Chrysostome, and the Council of Gangris, in which there is an Anathema denounced upon them, Conc. Gangr. Qui noluerint communicare huiusmodi vacationibus. SECT. XXVI. Our second Apostolical Example is, in Osculo pacis. The Apostles times, together with their Love-feasts, had their Love-kiss, Rom. 16.16. 1. Cor. 16.20. called Osculum pacis; that which S. Paul doth so often commend unto all professed Christians. 1. Thess. 5.26 So also 1. Pet. 5.14. etc. Their Answer. This was not of mystical signification, but a natural indicant sign of Peace and Reconciliation, as is embracing, M. Nic. or shaking of hands. Our Answer. Let us take with us the light of Antiquity, justin Martyr. Origen. for our better direction in this point. justin Martyr, and Origen say hereof, Precibus finitis, mutuò nos invicem osculo salutamus. Tertullian calleth it, Signaculum orationis, Tert. the seal of Prayer. The words of precation, therein used, being, Pax tecum, Peace be unto thee. Cyrill termeth it, Cyril. Signaculum Reconcilationis, quo in sacris utimur. i. The sign of reconciliation, used in Divine Service. And Clemens Alex. saith of it; Quod oportebat esse mysticum, Clemens Alex. id Sanctum vocabat Apostolus. i. That which should be mystical, the Apostle calleth holy. Which saying is used by the same Clemens, to the reproof of such as did abuse it; because that which is holy, must be used after an holy manner, and not to wantonness and lasciviousness, as was the fashion of some. Is there now any point, in your general Proposition, which is not particularized in this Holy Kiss? First, the institution (so far as it was not commanded by Christ) was human: Secondly, the property of it, Significant: Thirdly, the use was in Sacris, to wit, in the time of holy and public worship: Fourthly, the end was signification of Christian love. So that, in this Instance, you have a full contradiction to your first Proposition. As for your conceit of Embracing and shaking hands, whereby ye would shake off all mystical signification, and make that holy kiss to be nothing else than a natural Civil salutation; it is but your proper fancy, seeing the mystical object, in this outward Rite, was immediately that mutual charity, which Christians possessed; not simply amongst themselves, but grounded primarily upon the relation to the atonement, which we have by Christ, wherein consisteth all Christian Peace. These premises do argue that the Author of this Answer was not so spiritual, as Civil, or rather uncivil, in making such an homely interpretation of this Apostolical Rite, which had so singular an Epithet, as holy; so blessed an object, as Peace; which were never applied in Scripture to any action or gesture of only civil use. SECT. XXVIII. Our third Example is the Apostles Ceremony, concerning the covering of the head, at Divine Service. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 11. Likewise the Apostle is urgent about an other Ceremony, of Having the man uncovered, and the woman covered in the Church; and this also is significant, and that mystically, of Spiritual things and duties: for the man, being uncovered, signifieth thereby his immediate subjection to the ordinance of Christ, who hath constituted him to be head over the woman; and the woman being covered, doth thereby express subjection to her husband. Cent. 3. Col. 14. Ver. 9 and 10. To which purpose Tert. describeth the fashion thereof to have been this, viz. Quantum crines soluti capere possint; by having their hair lose: Which is further expressly noted by Clemens Alex. saying, Clem. Alex. Vt non tantùm mulieres velamine caput tegerent, sed ●●dem in frontem promisso vultum obumbrarent. That the women (saith he) might not only hide their heads, with a cover, but also shadow their faces, by the hanging down of their hair. And not only so, but the Apostle requireth yet another cover besides that of the hair, saying of the uncovered head. (v. 5) It is all one as to be shaven: so than this must needs be a mystical sign of moral duty; which is here specified to be of the Christian subjection that women owe, in Christ, unto their husbands. Now here you may not say, that this ordinance of the Apostle, touching covering in the Church, was no way of human, but altogether of Divine Institution; for than might you challenge that women, at this day, in the time of Divine worship, should have their hair still hang down, to cover their faces. This point is of some moment, and may not slightly be passed over. Wherefore, that you may be satisfied, not so much from my collections, as from the confession of those witnesses on whom you most rely, I have thought it fit to produce such as have more particularly pointed out this Text, as namely, Calvin, Chemnitius, P. Martyr, and Zanchius. From these I would first learn, whether this Ceremony of covering the head of the woman, & uncovering of the man, were not mystical & Symbolical, that is; significant of some good thing, or no? M. Calvin, and some others call them expressly Symbola, or Signs. Secondly, I would ask what thing it is, which is hereby signified; and whether it were not some Christian duty? And upon due search it appeareth, that the things, signified by this Ceremony, are two; The first, in respect of the man and woman mutually between themselves; and the next, of man unto God. Concerning the reciprocal duties between man and woman, these witnesses affirm that the Cover, on the head of the woman, did betoken her subjection to the man; and the uncovering of the man's head did signify the Sovereignty that man hath over the woman. But this you interpret to hold only in a Civil respect: If so, then would it suffice to justify the Ring in marriage; yet look into the second point, which is, the relation it had unto God, and there you may perceive something more. For, as Calvin; In eminentia viri super uxorem Dei gloria elucet, C●l. in 1. Cor. 11. propter dominium, quod habet: That is, In the superiority that man hath over the woman, the glory of God is manifested, by the dominion which he hath. Also the Apostle, in respect of this sovereignty, saith; P. Marty● on the same place. p. 151. The man is the glory of God. Likewise P. Martyr; Imago dei, ut 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 authority that God doth hold over his creatures; and also that superiority which he hath given him over his wife? Again, Martyr ibid. pag. 149. the Apostle, in this comparison, maketh Christ the head of the man, even as God (in respect of the human nature) is the head of Christ. And Chemnitius, treating of such Rites, calleth them Incitamenta, & retinácula pietatis. i. The incitements unto piety and godliness: Exam. part 1. pag. 75. ●. that is (as his allusion to the Apostles rule seems to import) they make for edification. Zanchius likewise noteth Two ends of the cover on the woman's head; De Sacra. Scrip. p. 273. one is of honesty and decency, that so the external worship of God, in hearing of his word and participating of his Sacraments may be performed in more seemly manner: The second, that by this Ceremony: [unusquisque moneatur officij sui,] every man may be admonished of his own duty; the man of his dominion over the woman, and the woman of her subjection unto the man: [Haec sunt utilia ad cultum internum,] These, saith he, are profitable for inward worship. Than the which I do not see, what any Divine could have spoken more directly for our purpose. Our third demand is, whether these Ceremonies, of covering and uncovering, were not instituted to be observed in God's public worship? For howsoever this Custom might sometime alter in Civil assemblies, and much more in private consort betwixt man and wife; yet nevertheless the Apostle doth most strictly challenge it, in the public service of God: for, Martyr quo sup p. 50.6. Every man (saith the Apostle) praying or prophesying, etc. And for better demonstration he doth in a manner call the Angels to witness, exacting that Ceremony [propter Angelos,] in regard of the Angels. For as the Angels are appointed to be ministering spirits every where, for the good of the Elect, even so are they in very special wise attendant at public Assemblies, for God's worship. As for the Custom itself, Chrysostome useth this excellent Simile, for the illustration thereof. Chrysost. When (saith he) the King sitteth in his public Chair of Estate, and there resort unto him Dukes, Counts, Tribunes, etc. and none of these present themselves before the King without their robes of honour, according unto their degrees: so God being present in his royal majesty, [in sacro coetu] in the holy assembly; men and women coming thither aught to be adorned with such ensigns, as may best declare their state & condition. Therefore may not that man, who hath received from God a diadem of honour & prerogative over his wife, at that time cast away his ornament, & take upon him some servile habit. Whereby you see, that this Symbol was then as well applied unto 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 were not a thing indifferent; and thereupon (albeit Apostolical, yet) subject to alteration, according to the necessity of occasions? This we may best understand from the first original thereof. The Apostle (saith Master Calvin) took it from the common custom of men in their times; Calvin. which custom in many countries was otherwise; yea anciently every where [viri comati erant:] that is, men had long hair. Chem. Exam. par. 1. p. 75 Chemnitius saith, to the same purpose, that Christian liberty did moderate the Apostles Rites, to make them in their kind indifferent, etc.— which according to the divers natures of times, places, and persons might be appointed, changed, or abrogated.— for in the days of the Apostle this custom, of the women's cover, was a sign of subjection; and of the man uncovered, a token of dominion and government: but now in our times the fashion is quite contrary; for in these days the uncovering of the head is a note of subjection, and the covering is a testimony of authority. Lastly, it is worthy our Inquiry, to learn, how far 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 faithful, Loc. Theol. Tract. de Tradit p. 720. governed by the word of God in all such things, as belong to man's salvation (meaning, things absolutely necessary to the worship of God, as hath been amply proved:) But touching such things as appertain unto Discipline, it is lawful for the Church to make Laws, Canons, and Constitutions; so doth the Apostle teach, that women must pray with their heads covered, and men bareheaded.— So doth the Church ordain 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. Calvin, observing the Apostle's reproof of persons contentious in Ceremonial points (which is, v. 16. If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such Custom, 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 Geneva, he maketh a general application thereof, against all such turbulent and factious spirits; Qui bonos & utiles ritus nullâ necessitate convellunt. i. Who unnecessarily do oppugn the profitable Rites of the Chucch. Here I need not. make any recapitulation of these several points, the indifferent Reader may easily find in the confession of the forenamed 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 observed. 4. That they were Symbolical, and had in them significations of moral duties. 5. That they were applied to Divine worship. 6. and lastly, That the same authority doth still remain in the Church, to ordain the like Significant Ceremonies, whensoever there shall be just occasion thereunto. Thus much of the Apostles time. We descend lower. SECT. XXIX. Our second Proof, for Confutation of their last general Argument, and for our Confirmation of the Moral use of Ceremonies, is from the universal Custom of the Church of Christ, as well Primitive as Successive. Concerning all these times, whosoever is conversant in the Ecclesiastical Histories, or in the writings of Fathers of former ages, may make good this our Assertion, to wit, That the Church hath liberty to ordain Rites and Ceremonies of Mystical signification, thereby to represent spiritual duties, and that properly, in the public service of God: And also may prove, so far forth as by light of Story can appear, that ever since the Apostles days it hath been the constant and consonant doctrine of the Church, held by all the most Orthodox Fathers, and glorious Martyrs of Christ, who watered the Church with their blood; whereby it became so blessedly fruitful, in the procreation of an innumerable offspring of faithful Christians in all succeeding ages; amongst whom we, that do now profess the Gospel of salvation, have (by the mercy of God) our interest in the covenant of Grace; and consequently in the assured hope of our eternal inheritance: Yea, and (that which, as I think, should astonish the heart of any adversary, in this point of Church-liberty in making Ceremonies) hath ever been so undebatably held for an uncontrollable truth, throughout the whole process of times, that no one man (as I suppose) either Orthodox or Heretical, hath ever till of late, been heard either to have written, or so much as spoken against the General of it. I shall not need to seek evidence out of Stories, in this behalf; the Non-conformists themselves are not ignorant hereof, who (besides many other Instances) do, as often as they see occasion, again, and again, repeat the custom universally used in the Churches throughout the world, to wit, of Standing in the time of public prayers, in all the Lords days between Easter and Pentecost; whereby the primitive Fathers did signify their faith of Christ his Resurrection. If this were a Divine Ceremony why do you not observe it? But if it were human, and yet had, as you know, a Mystical signification of some spiritual duty; by representing both the remembrance of Christ's Resurrection, and also the protestation of their Christian faith therein (which Sign likewise was appropriated unto the public worship of God in the act of holy prayer) then can you not but acknowledge in this one Ceremony, that Antiquity doth plead for our whole defence; nor can you gainsay, but that herein the judgement of our Church [Quoad thesin,] in general (for we do not hereby justify every Ceremony, which was held either of divers Fathers, or Churches, in several times, but that which was universal) must needs convince you of Novelty in this kind. Lastly, Zanchie doth witness, concerning the observation of our Festivals of Easter, Pentecost, etc. that they have since the time of the Apostles continued to this day; this than is another Catholic Ceremony of Moral signification. SECT. XXX. Our Third Proof (for Confutation of their last Generll Argument, and for our Confirmation of the lawfulness of Ceremonies, which are of Moral signification) is from the testimonies of their own Witnesses. M. Calvin is always worthy of the first place, Calv. opust. pag. 344. among the innumerable company of late Divines, and he saith; [Nè quis nos calumnietur etc.] Lest any man slander us, by judging us [nimis esse morosos] to be too peevishly precise, as though we would take away all liberty in external things, here I do testify unto my godly Readers, that I contend not about Ceremonies, which concern only Decency and Order; (or else [Si Symbola sint] if they be signs and incitements unto that reverence, which we should perform unto God:) for our dispute is against those works, which some do, as properly belonging unto God, and wherewith they think that God is truly worshipped. Thus M. Calvin (as you see) in the last part of this sentence disalloweth only such Ceremonies of human Invention, which men make to be essential parts of God's worship. And in the former part thereof, he doth allow of Symbolical Ceremonies; so far as they may be Signs, and Incitements to the more due performance of God's worship. Even as in another place, answering a Question conceived 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 Ceremonial be permitted to the ruder sort, for the help of their ignorance? Here a Nonconformist would have made a peremptory answer, they shall have allowed them to Ceremony at all, Calv. Ibid. which is of symbolical signification. But M. Calvin, more judiciously, and discreetly; Id ego non dico, tantùm contendo, ut modus adhibeatur, qui Christum illustret, non obscuret: I say not so (saith he) only I contend, that a mean may be kept, which may manifest Christ, and not darken and obscure him. And, for exemplification of this mean, he propoundeth the institution of Christ for our imitation, whose Sacramental Ceremonies, are both Pa●ce, Few; and minimè laboriosae, very easy. The same witness likewise, elsewhere, doth allow a private use of Pictures [cum rerum gestarum notatione] which are set forth with the narration of Story, [quae usum in docendo, & monendo aliquem habent] which have (saith he) some use in teaching and admonishing the Reader. Yet Pictures, you know, have no other property than 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 them, from the decree of the Council of Frankford) may be kept in the Church without impiety, to the same purpose, namely [ad refricandam rerum praeteritarum memoriam.] which notwithstanding doth no whit advantage the Romish superstition, in their manner of Adoration. junius likewise, speaking of the Festival days of Pentecost, anciently celebrated in the Christian Churches, Contr. lib. 4. pag. 183. answereth, that they did serve, Ad iustam quandam etc. For the due commemoration of that special benefit of God, which happened to the Church as upon that day. And is not this also Symbolical? And this Symbol 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, etc.] saith, Exam. part. 1. p. 32. col. 2. We read in the most ancient and purer Writers, that their Rites did signify something, and admonished men of the doctrine of the Sacrament, comprehended in the word of God.— But wheresoever there is in these ancient Writers any mention that by Exorcism, or Exsufflation the evil spirit is driven out of the party baptized; and likewise that by unction, and imposition of the hands of a Bishop (after Baptism) the holy Spirit is given; These things which the Fathers understood to be done significatively, (That is, by way of signification) were afterwards perverted by others, and held as [operative] in an opinion of efficacy and power for such effects. In these words Chemnitius approveth of the Father's significant Ceremonies, and condemneth the Popish superstition of more than significant. Now, although these Testimonies may suffice to confute and condemn the general Argument of the Non-conformists, against Significant Ceremonies, yet when as in our answer to the particular exceptions against our foresaid Ceremonies of white garments, and Cross in Baptism, we shall prove in these Ceremonies, from the direct acknowledgement of P. Martyr, Chemnitius, B. jewel, and Zanchius, an approbation of their Moral signification of Purity of life, and constancy in the faith, respectively; 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 proof. In the interim we approach to that which followeth in the next place. SECT. XXXI. Our fourth Proof, for the Confutation of the last general Argument of the Non-conformists, against our Ceremonies, and for the Confirmation of Moral signification in such Rites; is, as from the confession of witnesses, so especially from the Practice of the Non-conformists themselves. Our first Instance is in the form of an Oath. After much sailing in this Sea of dispute, having thus far passed through the Main, I now direct my course homeward, 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 Symbolical Ceremonies. Deut. 6.13. God commanding in his Law, saying, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and swear by his Name, showeth sufficiently how sacred a thing an Oath is, which is an immediate Invocation of God; and how it is appropriated unto the honour of God, which God himself doth challenge as a part, or, at least, proper cognizance of his supreme worship. Now, the outward form of an Oath, as it is enjoined by Law, and assumed and practised by the Non-conformists themselves, is this; to lay their hand upon the book of God, and to kiss it, swearing by the Contents thereof, that is, by the way of stipulation, pledging and pawning all the promises of salvation in Christ (which are recorded in that book) upon that truth which they do profess to perform in Swearing. Then, their kissing and handling of that book is the visible Sign, that the taking of an Oath is the worship of God in itself; whereby we adore the Author of that book of blessedness. And lastly, the end of all this is a vow, to aver the truth of their own conscience, unto man. In all which you have, 1. The handling and kissing of the book, a Ceremony of man's Institution. 2. The end, to express our faith toward God, and truth to man, which are of Moral signification. 3. The manner, by an Invocation of God, in calling him to witness, and so appropriating it to God's worship; which is fully as much, as this cause can challenge at our hands. If any should be so scrupulous as to doubt of the lawfulness of this kind of Oath, he may take his warrant from the example of Abraham, in that Ceremonial form of Swearing, See above, Sect. 9 which he prescribed unto his servant, before the jewish and levitical Law of Ceremonies was enacted by God. SECT. XXXII. Our second Instance is in the Observation of the Lords day. You may (if it please you) consider the three Ceremonial points of our Saboth, by a threefold figure. The first was to signify a Rest from Sin, which is a Spiritual Saboth. The second to note the Resurrection of Christ, for which cause the day of the jewish Saboth was changed into the day of Christ his Resurrection; whence it hath the denomination to be called, Apoc. 1. The Lord's Day. The third is the everlasting 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 upon that day? and also why may lie not in his religious discretion, from the Analogy between this our bodily Saboth here on earth, and that Rest in heaven, entertain a contemplation of the everlasting Saboth, and rest of Blessedness, thus prefigured in the Temporal; and accordingly make to himself, for his better edification, a double Mystical use 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 God's worship, Sicut Tabernaculum Templumque Salomonis typi fuerunt corporis Christi, sic nostra templa typi sunt & umbra coelestis templi, ubi coelestes spiritus animique fidelium collecti laudant Deum, sicut nos hic in terrenis hisce templis colimus.— Debentque haec terrena ad illud coeleste animos nostros sublevare: Vsus hic contemnendus non est, quià utilia haec sunt. That is, As the Tabernacle and Temple of Solomon were types of the body of Christ, so our Temples are types and shadows of the celestial Temple, where the heavenly spirits and souls of the faithful are assembled, for the praising of God, even as we, being gathered together in these earthly temples do magnify him, and therefore these our earthly temples ought to raise up our minds to the contemplation of the celestial. Which use is profitable and not to be contemned. Thus much Zanchius. Wherefore, if you will allow such kind of Ceremonial significations, you consent with us; if you reject them, than you do dissent from all ancient and primitive Christians. Yet many of you are not so far fallen out with Symbolical Ceremonies, and the universal practice of Antiquity, but that you do willingly observe the Ceremonial Festivals of Ester, & Pentecost, etc. now celebrated in our Churches; as likewise the days, not so much fatals, as natals of the Apostles. Now, in the solemnisation of these Anniverssaries, you cannot but reflect on the remembrance of some spiritual things, as these, (to wit,) the power of Christ his Resurrection; the donation of the gifts of the holy Ghost, made in visible signs of fiery tongues; the glorious Ascension of our ever-blessed Saviour into heaven; together with the admirable constancy of the Apostles, in suffering for the profession of the holy faith; hereby admonishing us to imitate their Example of Constancy and faithfulness unto death, that with them we may obtain the same glorious Crown of everlasting life. SECT. XXXIII. Our fifth and last Proof, for the Confutation of the General argument of the Non-conformists, by Reason. We cannot want Reasons to prove, that our Ceremonies may be significant, which our Common Prayer book doth signify 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 Book saith of these Ceremonies, that they are neither dark, nor dumb, but significant: which is unlawful. SECT. XXXIIII. Our Confutation of the Non-conformists by Reason, confirming the lawfulness of Moral signification, from the Confession of their own Witnesses. Because the Non-conformists have pleaded thus absolutely against Significant Ceremonies by the same Reason (if that may be called Reason, which fighteth against itself) we are to show, that no Ceremony 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 heat. For were it not so, M. Calvin had no reason to inveigh so much against the Papists, because that many of their Ceremonies are non-significant. Furthermore (saith M. Calvin) is not this fault worthy our inveighing against? Cal. Inst. l. 4. c. 10. num. 15. [non intellectas Ceremonias ostentant etc.] They make a pompous show of Ceremonies that are not understood, as if it were some stagelike dumb show, or else some magical incatation.— For some Ceremonies in Popery are separated from doctrine; that they may hold the people with signs void of all signification. Thus Calvin. Loc. Com. ●lass. 2. c. 4. pag. 198. The same exception doth P. Martyr take against some Romish Ceremonies, even because Their significations are often unknown, not only to the beholders, but to the Actors themselves: who being asked of the meaning of divers (of their Rites) either say nothing, or if they answer any thing, they contradict one another; which is a certain argument that there is no truth in them. Now, amongst other Rites of this nature, we may rank that of their Priests muttering of the words of consecration in secret, Confer. p. 499. which Doctor Raynolds doth justly condemn, as being Against the practice of Churches, of Fathers, Apostles, and of Christ himself. But they say (saith Doctor Rainolds) of this dumb show, which crept into the Church, that it was ordained by the holy Mother Church, lest those words so holy and so sacred should come into contempt. And can there be a better Example of a Dumb Ceremony; or more just reason of casting it out, then because it is dumb? In brief; all these Considerations, Proofs, and Examples above mentioned, drawn from the religious persons of the old Testament, both before and under the Law; from the Apostles in the new; from the universal practice of all Churches, that are within the horizon of Ecclesiastical Record; from the testimonies of their own Witnesses; from the practise of the Non-conformists themselves; and lastly from the necessary consequence of Reason, may sufficiently free our Ceremonies from any guilt (as they term it) of superstition: as though they were therefore superstitious, even because they are significant. CHAP. FOUR The fourth general Argument, urged by the Non-conformists against the foresaid Ceremonies, is taken from a pretence, that they have been abused to Popish Superstition. SECT. I. Their Argument. Maior. No Ceremonies which have been notoriously known to have been of old, Partly abridge. 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 use of them in God's Church) can be lawful, but must be abolished, whether they have been the Ceremonies of Pagans, jews, or Heretics. Assumption. But these Ceremonies have been Idolatrously polluted by Papists, namely the Surplice, Cross in Baptism, and the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament. Ergo, they ought to be removed and abolished. Our Answer. IF you require that Ceremonies, so abused, be abolished, (as if there were no other Cure for such sores, but only abcision and cutting off the members by the joint) than we deny your Mayor: But if you understand such things, as in their own nature are not ill, but indifferent; or by excepting things necessary, you mean an absolute, and not a convenient necessity, we deny your Assumption. And now that you see your marks, look to your aim; and first prove (if you can) your Proposition, than afterwards your Assumption: for otherwise you can conclude against our Ceremonies just nothing at all. SECT. II. The Proofs, used by the Non-conformists against such Ceremonies, which have been Superstitiously abused. Their Proofs are from Examples of the abolishing of Ceremonies, that have been either Heathenishly, jewishly, or Heretically abused. Their first Objection, concerning heathenish Ceremonies, by divers Instances in Scriptures. This may appear by God● word forbidding all provocations unto spiritual fornication: Abridg. Linc p. 17. and commanding us to separate ourselves from Idolaters, a●d to ●e as unlike them as may be, especially in their religious observations, and Ceremonies, and Instruments of Idolatry; that so we show our utmost detestation of them: and to cast out the very memory of them, and to cast away even such things as had a good original (if they be not still necessary and commanded of God) when once they are known to be defiled by Idolatry, or abused by it: according ●s for example sake, God commandeth Leuit. ●8. not to be like the Heathen, etc. And Leuit. 19.28. etc. Our Answer. In this place of Scripture are forbid three kind of things which were in use among the Heathen: Leu●t. 18· etc. the first was the sin 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 divers seeds, and letting their beasts of divers kinds to engender together. Now we know that Incest was forbidden, as being a sin against the moral 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 void of all hope of the resurrection of bodies, or immortality of the souls of men. Lastly the commixtion of divers kinds of seeds, and of divers kinds of beasts was forbid, not for any natural viciousness in the things themselves, or in the use that the heathen had of them; but because, in the prohibiting of these kind of Mixtures, he propounded unto his people a Type of abstinence from irreligious Mixtures, as well corporal, as spiritual: that they should not dare to defile their bodies with bestiality; or yet, by joining in marriage with people of divers religions, and that they should not pollute their souls, by consenting unto the worship of any strange God. See now your manifold fallacies, by labouring, first, to conclude the unlawfulness of our Ceremonies, which are things in their own nature indifferent, from the condemnation of an Heathenish sin against nature. Secondly, to oppugn Ceremonies, ordained to a good end, to wit, the representation of Christian virtues, from the example of a wicked custom; that plainly demonstrateth mere Infidelity. Thirdly, by condemning Ceremonies of godly signification, as namely Purity, constancy, humility, from the example of Ceremonies that signify nothing but either bodily, or else spiritual adultery, which is Idolatry. Which kind of consequences are merely extravagants, wandering 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 jews, Abridg. Linc. ibid. as for example the erecting of any titulary Pillars by the way, Levity. 26.1. Ergo, etc. Our Answer. Had these Titulary pillars of the Heathen, Leuit. 26.1. (which were set up at limits of their grounds) a good original and beginning trow you? It is an ill gloss that corrupteth the Text; the words are these: Thou shalt not erect a pillar, nor shalt thou set up any polished stone in your land (which was the fashion of the Heathen,) that you may bow unto them. Whence Master Calvin collecteth; Calvin upon 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 therefore the erection of Pillars that was forbidden, Gen. 28.18. for then the Patriarch jacob would never have erected (as we read) 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 thievish taking of a man's goods, as that this Heathenish manner of building those Pillars, had a good original, and beginning. SECT. FOUR Their third Instance from Scripture. Deut. 7. and Exod. 23. God commandeth to destroy the statues and groves of Idolatry, and to extinguish their names. Abridg. Linc. pag. 17. & 18. And that we cannot be thought to have sincerely repent of the Idolatry or superstition on, except we cast away with detestation, abridge ibid. in marg. all the instruments and monuments of it. See Calvin in his Sermons upon Deut. Their Answer. See Calvin, say you: whom I have seen upon these places of Scripture, and upon the full sight thereof am justly moved to call upon you, as you have done upon your Reader, saying, See Calvin; and then surely you shall see a foul error in your Collection from Calvin: who is so far from speaking any thing for your advantage, 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 read of nothing but of Destroying of all the Images, Groves, Altars; and rooting out the very names of the Heathenish gods; although indeed he doth infer that [omnia insignia Idololatriae] that is, all the monuments or tokens of Idolatry, were to be abolished by the jews: yet, where the question is, whether Christians be precisely bound to do the like; he so distinguisheth between the commandments of the Decalogue, and these Appendices, as he doth between the Law Moral, and the Politic or judaical: notifying unto us, that the Moral precepts do oblige all men unto the end of the world (as being enacted against all formal Idolatry;) but these politic precepts of Destroying of Altars, Groves, etc. which are materials only, Differ (saith he) from the other, Ca●●in Comment. in ●. precept Tit. Appendices pol●ti●●●ecundi p●aecepti, e●●xod. 23. Deut. 12. etc., p. 286, (namely from the Commandments of the two tables,) so, as to bind only the jews during the time of their pedagogy; but not the Church Christian to the end of the world. And therefore coming to the point concerning Churches, the places of God's worship, he resolveth saying; Neque nobis religio est, templa retinere, quae polluta fuerunt Idolis, & accommodare in meliorem usum; quiànos non obstringit, quod propter consequentiam, ut loquu●tur, legi additum est. That is; We may lawfully use the Temples or Churches, which have been defiled and abused w●th Idols, and apply them to a better use; because that doth not bind us which was added to the (meaning the moral) Law only by consequence (thereby meaning the peculiar occasions of those times.) The sum whereof (saith he) doth tend thus far, namely to show in what dete●●ation G●d held all manner of Idolatry, and therefore would have th●m to a●ol●sh the very names of such things as had ever be●n● dedicated unto Idols. But you will say, Shall we then have no regard of other superstitious circumstances? Calvin seemeth to prevent this Objection, saying▪ Fat●or quidem, Calv. Ibid. etc. Indeed I confess, that all such things are to be removed, which may seem to nourish Idolatry, so that (observe I pray you this moderation) we ourselves, in urging too vehemently things which are in their own nature indifferent, be not too superstitious. Meaning, that the urging a prohibition and an abolishment of them is that negative superstition, whereof you have been already found guilty, in oppugning our Rites as superstitious, only because they are Significant: As though any thing could be judged therefore Superstitious, because it carrieth with it a true, Orthodox, and Christian signification. SECT. V. Their fourth Instance from Scripture. Daniel would not defile himself, with eating of the King's meats. Linc. Abridg. quo supr. Dan. 1.18. Our Answer. Seire est per causas scire; The only solid knowledge of any thing is the understanding of the true causes thereof. First therefore, Daniel did not abstain from these meats of the King, because they were the Kings; for Then (saith M. Calvin upon this place) should he have shown himself very inconstant, Calvin in Dan. 1.18. when afterwards he took a liberty to himself to eat thereof. Why then, will you say, did he abstain? Read but M. Calvin his Comment, and it will resolve you, that Daniel was now in an exile from God's worship, and that the King sent unto him all his Kingly services & delicates, to the end that thereby he might alienate him from the love of his own Country, and the Religion of his God: Therefore Daniel, lest he might be ensnared with these allurements of riot, did abstain from all that dainty fare. If you further demand; why Daniel called the King's diet a pollution, or abomination unto him, listen again, for your satisfaction, Calvin upon the same place. to the said Author. Non fuit quidem etc. It was not in itself abominable, for it was free for Daniel to eat or drink; but it is called an abomination for the consequence thereof. Thus M. Calvin. Where, by Consequences, he meaneth; lest Daniel, by such dainties, as by the devils baits, might receive his spiritual bane, by forgetting the holy Covenant, Religion, and the worship of the only God. Nothing can be more plain, to prove, that by these words [Being polluted with the King's meats] is not meant any pollution Ceremonial, as if the meats had been Idolatrous; but only Moral, or occasional, as being baits and allurements to draw him to an irreligious forgetfulness 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 fifth Instance from Scripture, in the Example of Hezekias. 2. King. 18. Hezekias his zeal, in breaking down the Brazen Serpent, which God himself had ordained for a figure of Christ, Abridg. Linc. and other●. is commended in Scripture; for that it being polluted with abominable Idolatry he broke it in pieces. Our Answer. This noble fact of that religious King is in indeed commended in Scripture; and therefore aught to be honourable among all devout and religious worshippers of God unto the ends of the world. We grant that God had wrought by the Serpent a miraculous safety to his people, by delivering them from the stings of fiery Serpents; and that for this very cause it was, as some think, long after reserved in some part of the Temple, for the remembrance of so great a benefit; even as the Pot of Manna, and Aaron's Rod were kept in the Ark, to the like end. But when the Israelites began to defile it, by offering Incense unto it, than did Ezekias demolish it; and that for four special respects. The first was, because there was now Flagrans delictum, that is, that Idolatry was notorious, and in the heat. Secondly, it was general and public. Thirdly, it was done within the compass of that place, and among that people; which were otherwise the professed worshippers of God. Fourthly, the Act itself was offering Incense unto a creature; the most gross and palpable kind of Idolatry that can be: for whereas bowing, and kneeling may carry some show of pretence in them, because the same gestures are used sometimes civilly, without any just exception against them: yet Sacrificing is an external act, so properly and essentially belonging unto God, that every eye which beholdeth such Acts, must needs judge them Idolatrous. Lastly, the case was now desperate, and (without utter extirpation thereof) past all hope of reducing that figure to the former use and end, which was a commemoration of God's mercy, in their miraculous deliverance. It is by the way a point very observable, that Ezekias did not destroy the Idols, which Solomon suffered to be s●t up, in favour of his strange wives that were of Heathenish religion; placing in one Temple Astaroth, which was the god of the Zidonians; In an other Molech, the Idol of the Ammonites; 2 King. 11. & 23. In a third Chames, the god of the Moabites: The reason whereof was, because in the days of Ezekias they were neglected, no man adoring them: yet afterward, when they occasioned Idolatry, the good King josias did break them down, 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 David, as well as josias. Besides, Zanchius thought not this act of Ezekias to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or an universal remedy for all Abuses of Ceremonies, when he said of some indifferent Rites that had been 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 be utterly abolished [Sicut Ezekias,] even as did Ezekias. Intimating, that the example of Ezekias is to hold but sometimes only, that is, in case of necessity; for of some Ceremonies that have been abused, he said only [Tolli possunt] they may be removed: which is a word of indifferency, and signifieth that they may be also not removed. But if that proceeding of Ezekias, concerning those Israelites, against Heathenish Idolatry, shall be still urged upon our Magistrates, in respect of the Popish Ceremonies, wherewith they may seem to symbolise, although but in an outward appearance only; then are you to be informed of the manifest disparities in this comparison. First, that Idolatry of the jews being done both publicly and generally, and also within the bowels of the same Church (for the Serpent was then kept at Jerusalem) called for an Ezekias to remove it. But that which is done of Papists, is in a Church separated from us; or if you will suppose any to be Idolatrous among us, yet is that neither general nor public, but so secret, that it is done by you know not whom; unless you mean certain men moulded in your own fancies, and only imagined to have committed such Idolatry. The second distance may be this; that the case of reformation of the Idolatry committed under the government of Ezekias, became desperate, and therefore required an answerable remedy; which, as then the case stood, could be no other, then to abolish the figure without delay. But within the Kingdoms of our Ezekias this disease would be found curable, without any such extremity, especially in this our most truly reform 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 lively express the face and full body of her primitive mother-Church. I spare to insist upon the grossness of that outward fact, which was, Offering Incense; lest the weakness 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 Objection, for the abolishing of Ceremonies Heathenishly abused, from the Testimonies of Counsels, and Fathers; by divers Instances. Their first Instance. Abridg. Linc. pag. 17. In the first Council at Carthage it was decreed, that such Altars as wereit the Country and Highways, in memory of the Martyrs, should be abolished, although they were pretended to be set up by revelations and visions. Our Answer. He that in causes of weight will look upon books only with other men's eyes, may peradventure forfeit his own, by mistaking and misreporting the meaning of the Authors. Certainly, this Council, in the place alleged, Canon 15. doth not forbid absolutely the building of Altars, for the memory of Martyrs, in the Highways, as you affirm: but only in such ways, and places, In quibus nullum corpus aut reliquiae Martyrum conditae probantur; wherein there was neither body, nor relics of Martyrs known to be kept; notwithstanding (say they) [insomnia & inanes revelationes] the Dreams, and vain revelations of some to the contrary. Again, they that forbade the setting up of Altars in Highways, where neither the bodies nor relics of any Martyrs were reserved, did thereby authorize them, where such kind of Relics were extant. Even as our Church, in forbidding exercises of Religion in private Conventicles, cannot be said thereby to prohibit religious Assemblies in the houses of God. SECT. VIII. Their second Instance from the former Council. And the same Council decreed, Abridg. Linc. pag. 18. Can. 15. that solemn request should be made to the Emperor, that all Relics and Monuments of Idolatry might be utterly destroyed. Our Answer. Namely, all such Statues, and Altars, which were immediate Instruments of Idolatry, and then brought into public abuse; even as our most godly and gracious Ezekias, and other his majesties most religious Predecessors have done. SECT. IX. Their third Instance, concerning Pagan Ceremonies, from Counsels. In the second Council of Brac. Can. 73. Christians are forbidden to deck their houses with bay leaves, and green boughs, Abridg. Lincol. because the Pagans did use to do so: and that they should not rest from their labours those days the Pagans did. and that they should not keep the first day of every month as they did. Our Answer. The Canon forbiddeth Christians to use the wicked observations of the Kalends (namely Festival days dedicated to the Heathenish gods) and to rest from labours the days wherein the Gentiles used to do; to wit, in the days of the celebration of their Kalends, which they performed in all lasciviousness: and likewise to deck their houses with laurel, and green boughs, that is, at the same time with the Pagans; as if therein they joined together in observing and solemnizing their Paganish pastimes and worship. And of this prohibition they gave this reason in the same Canon; Omnis haec obseruatio Paganismi est: All this kind of custom doth hold of Paganism; because the outward practice of Heathenish Rites, performed jointly with the Pagan's themselves, could not but imply a consent in Paganism. Observe, I pray you, what I have said, [performed jointly,] to wit, at the same times, after the same undistinct manner, and in the same Commonwealth. The Canon then, altough it were necessary for them, yet how shall it concern our Church, whose practice of Ceremonies is sufficiently known, even unto the Papists themselves, to differ as much from theirs; both in respect of place, persons, time, yea, and of opinion concerning our Ceremonies, as doth the annual course of the Sun, from the monthly motion of the Moon: as may partly appear from that which hath been said already; and will be made more evident in the sequel of this discourse. SECT. X. Their fourth Instance, concerning Paganish Ceremonies, from Counsels. Abridg. Linc. pag. 19 The Council of Africa, Can. 27. ordained that Christians should not celebrate the Feasts of the birth-days of Martyrs, because that was the manner of the Heathen. Our Answer. Conc. Afric. tempore Bonifacij & Celestini, can. 27 The words of the Canon are these: We are to make request to the Emperor, that these Feasts, which are held in many places, against the Laws of God, drawn from the errors of the Gentiles (so that Christians even now are compelled to celebrate them) may be prohibited, especially seeing that they are not afraid to commit such things, even upon the birthdays of Martyrs, and that also in sacred places. The very repetition of this Canon may be a sufficient Confutation of your Objection; whereby it is evident, that the fathers of that Council do no more prohibit the Feasts of the * Which Tertul. de corona militis, doth mention. birthdays of Martyrs, than they do the holy places of Christian worship. But the things they condemn are heathenish profanations, contrary to the Law of God, which notwithstanding were at that time frequently used aswell in the sacred places of God's public service, as upon the Festival days of holy Marty●. SECT. XI. Their fifth Instance, concerning Paganish Ceremonies, from Tertullian. Tertullian is large and vehement in the point. Abridg. Linc. p. 19 Tert de Coro●milit. We may give nothing, saith he to the service of an Idol; neither may we borrow any thing from the service of an Idol. If it be against religion to sit at table in an Idols temple, what is it then to be seen in the habit of an Idol? And again, No habit or apparel is esteemed lawful among us, that hath been dedicated and appointed to so unlawful an act. Thou that art a Christian must hate these things, the Authors and Inventors of which thou canst not but hate. Our Answer. Tertullian indeed is so large and vehement in this point, that there is less need either for you to be vehement, in urging this Objection, or for us to be large in refutation thereof; seeing that his own words doth afford you a plain answer, where he saith that he speaks of habits, that were then dedicated and appointed unto the service of Idols. But what Governor in our Church doth command you to go to the Masspriests, and to take his breaden Idol, and to add Reverence unto it? or who urgeth you to put on the very same Romish Surplice, now used at their Mass? Furthermore, (that we may give unto our Opposites their due right,) we shall hereafter show, that the comparison between Papists and Pagans is not altogether so equal, when we come to scan this very point. SECT. XII. Their sixth Instance from Fathers, concerning the abolishing of Heathenish Ceremonies. Linc. ibid. Tert. li. de orat. In another place Tert. affirmeth, that Christians might not wash their hands, or lay aside ●heir cloaks before prayer, nor sit upon their beds after prayer, because the Heathen used so to do. Our Answer. Tertullian doth not condemn any of these Ceremonies, merely 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 efficacy of Sanctification, and consequently a necessity of Observation unto them. Let us advise with Tertullian in these points, for he will show first, concerning washing, that the Christians (whom he condemneth, who were the Hemerobaptists; or as some think, the Catharists of those days) had this opinion in washing, that although their lives were never so beastly or bloody, yet they might be cleansed by the only Ceremonious washing of their hands: therefore Tert. confuteth them, saying, Quae ratio est etc. Tert. What reason is there for you to think that you may speak unto God with washed hands, having had sordid and filthy minds?— The spiritual cleansings, which are necessary, are from murder, witchcraft, and from Idolatry; which you have conceived in your minds, but finished and executed with your hands. I tell you, although Israel should wash her body in every member and part thereof, yet verily do her hands remain unclean and polluted with the blood of the Prophets: And therefore this Ceremony is but vain. So Tertullian. We come to the second point, of doffing their cloaks before prayer, which they, according to the rudiments of the Pagans, observed with an opinion of necessity; as if otherwise their prayer could not prevail, for the obtaining any blessing at the hands of God: For so saith that Father, Positis penulis, etc. Tert. You laying aside your cloaks at the time of praying, as do the Heathen before the worshipping of their Idols. Quod si fieri oportet, etc. but if this aught to be done (that is, it were necessary) surely the Apostles, instructing us concerning the habit of praying, would have comprehended this point among the rest. As for the third Ceremony of sitting upon beds as the Gentiles did, you have no reason to rest upon it, because Tertullian condemneth not the act, but the heathenish opinion of the necessity thereof; as appeareth by his confutation of it, saying, Alioqui nusquàm erit adorandum, Tert. nisi ubi fuerit lectus: imò contra scripturam fecerit, si quis in Cathedra sederit. i. Otherwise (saith he) we ought not to pray but sitting upon a bed, and he should be thought to do against Scripture, should sit in a Chair. All which do evidently argue, their superstitious opinion of necessity. There followeth one clause of Tertullian, in the same place, concerning setting at prayer, which I may not conceal from you, who have brought up your scholars to pray sitting: This I will but only allege, and leave the application to your better consideration. Siquidem irreverens est assidere sub conspectu, Tert. contráque conspectum eius, quem maximè reverearis & venereris, quantò magis sub aspectu dei vivi, Angelo adhuc orationis astante, factum illud irreligiosissimun est, nisi improbramus Deo, quod nos oratione fatigeverit? Seeing that it is indeed an unreverent thing, to sit down in the sight of him (meaning a mortal Prince) whom thou dost most honour and reverence, how much more irreligious a thing is it, to do the like (namely in prayer) in the presence of the living God; the Angel (meaning, as I take it, the Minister) of Prayer standing by, except that we would upbraid God, that he hath tired us with overmuch praying? Account now your gains, by your testimonies out of Tertullian, and you shall perceive it will never pay your score: for what comparison can there be made between vestments, appointed primarily to God's service, and Habits dedicated to devils? or between Ceremonies of Heathenish superstition, by opinion of efficacy and necessity; and ours, which are ordained and imposed with an opinion only, of indifferency and inconveniency? Understand then that it is no small error, in confuting of error, to divide the soul from the body; that is, an Act, from that opinion which Actors do attribute unto it. If we shall but add hereunto the reverent esteem, which you know Tertullian had of many Ceremonies, which you will not allow; it would enforce you to seek some other Patron for your Cause then Tertullian, and so you do. SECT. XIII. Their seventh instance from Fathers, concerning Paganish Ceremonies abused. Meltiades Bishop of Rome decreed that no Christian should fast on the Lord's day, or on the Friday, Abridg. Lincol. from Caranza. Anno 311. because it was the known custom of the Pagans to fast on those days. Our Answer. The reason that is rendered by the said Meltiades is, because the Pagans did on those days Sacrum jeiunium celebrare etc. celebrate those Fasts, to the honour of their gods and goddesses. And a second reason you may have from Ignatius, who saith, that if Christians should have fasted upon the Lord's day, Ign●t. (which was the day of Christ his Resurrection) that had been 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 joy. And lastly, if on Friday they had kept their public Fast, jointly with the Heathen, among whom they dwelled, than they should not have been distinguished from the Pagans in the cause of Fasting, or been known whether they did it Paganishly, or Christianly, that is; whether unto the honour of the Idols, or of the Son of God, in remembrance of the bitterness of his Passion for us. For if a man should see any Celebrity of worship, performed both by Pagans and Christians jointly together, in one manner of Rites, in the same Country, and at the same time, & place; would he not think this to be an ugly confusion? Therefore this Case is as different from ours, in respect of Papists, as between confusion and separation. You must seek 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 leave bringing in of wine & cakes to the Church, as she was w●nt to do, because she might not lawfully give such a show of conformity with the Gentiles. Our Answer. Epiphanius recordeth a kind of Sect called Collyridianis, which had their names of collyris, a Cake; because they offered such kind of cakes in way of Sacrifice, laying them upon a tablecloth, and participating thereof themselves, in the name of the blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord. Which custom was first brought in by certain women of Arabia, in imitation of the Heathenish custom, condemned by the Prophet jeremy, of such as did offer cakes, jerem. 7.18. unto the Moon, as unto the Queen of Heaven. And this manner of worship the same Father doth condemn, as a kind of translated Idolatry, as it were from one Queen unto another. Now Ambrose in his time remembering this Idolatrous custom, and understanding that men, & especially women did resort unto the Sepulchre of Martyrs, carrying with them bottles of wine, and little baskets of bread, and bunnes to offer unto the memory of the Saints; he did, by his Episcopal jurisdiction, forbid that custom, and withdrew from it, together with others, Monica, in that age, the best mother of the best child, Saint Augustine. This is the sum of the Story, which you object against all religious Ceremonies, which may have any semblance with Popish Rites. But whether this were fitly objected by you, you (as it seemeth) took no great regard. For indeed the case is marvelously disproportionable, whether we consider the Act, the Actors, or else the office of Acting any such Heathenish Rites. First, the Act was Sacrificing and offering up of cakes, which is an Act so properly belonging unto the Divine Majesty, that whereas Bowing the body, and falling on the knees, (as hath been partly signified already) are lawfully given in dutiful reverence unto Parents by children, and unto Princes by subjects: yet the very outward Act of Sacrificing cannot be done to any man, Saint, or Angel, without a visible Profession of Idolatry. Secondly, the Actor's, who either among the Heathen sacrificed unto the Moon; or among Heretics sacrificed unto the holy Virgin, were especially women; a Sex (even in the state of integrity) most subject to seducement, when they fall to have any private parley, and communication with that subtle Tempter. And (which is the third point) we know that the very office of Preaching, much more that of Sacrificing, is flatly denied to that Sex. So that I may justly call this your Comparison frivolous; did it not better deserve to be termed calumnious, first, inasmuch as you endeavour to control the Ceremonies appointed by the deliberate advice of the religious Governors of our Church, and to confute them, by objecting Ceremonies devised by private persons, in their clanculary meetings, according to their rude fancies. Secondly, to oppose unto Ceremonies, which are celebrated by men, (the destinate Ministers of Christ, set apart, as you yourselves are, for such a divine ministration; the practise of women, who are, even by reason of the frailty of their Sex, interdicted by Scripture to intermeddle in such kind of service. Thirdly, to compare Ceremonies of outward gesture, which may be lawfully applied otherwise than immediately unto God, with Ceremonies of Sacrificing, which cannot, even so much as in the outward Act be performed, but directly to God, without the guilt of Idolatry. And fourthly to condemn Rites of false and Idolatrous inventions, by matching them with Ceremonies of godly and Christian significations; what could you else mean by all this, but as it were to suborn a felon to condemn an innocent? SECT. XV. Their ninth instance, concerning Paganish Ceremonies. abridge Linc. pag. 19 Aug. tom. 10 Serm. 6. de verbis Dom. pag. 33. Augustine himself also, prescribing a direction how to win the Pagans, hath these words: If you ask how the Pagans may be won; how they may be enlightened; how they may be called to salvation? Let us leave all their solemnities, and forsake their toys. Our Answer. We might easily have understood the meaning of Saint Augustine, by Saint Augustine himself, if you had not broke off his speech at the midst: 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 us, they may be ashamed (meaning the fewness of their followers) of their own paucity. Whereby he instructeth the Christians, not to converse together with Pagans in any of their Heathenish Rites. Even as our Church doth likewise forbid her people to assemble together with Papists in their superstitious solemnities; and not that only, but doth also (what would you have more?) condemn and punish those that shall partake with them in such fooleries. I should furthermore ask you, why you skipped over that last clause of Saint Augustine, Vt si non etc. whereby you have made yourselves like to that man, Qui toto deuorato 'bove, defecit in cauda. Hitherto we have heard of your Instances, in excepting against the Ceremonies of Pagans. SECT. XVI. Their second kind of Objection, for the removing of Ceremonies that have been abused, is in objecting jewish Rites. Their first Instance. In the Council of Nice it was decreed, Abridg. Linc. pag. 18. Euseb. de vita const. l. 3. c 17. that Christians might not keep the Feast of Easter at the time, nor in the manner as the jews did. Let us (say they) in nothing agree with that detestable root of the jews. Our Answer. First, you cannot be ignorant, how that there was a time, when it was lawful for some Christians to keep the Feast of Easter the very same day, wherein it was celebrated of the jews. For your Author, whom you allege, Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 22. doth fully relate that All the Churches in Asia according to their old custom, did celebrate the Feast of Easter the 14. of the Moon, which was the very day, wherein the jews were commanded to solemnize their Passeover. Then he bringeth in that famous Bishop Polycrates; mentioning Polycarpus, Thraseus, Sagarus, all Bishops and holy Martyrs; besides Papyrius, Melito, and seven other Bishops of his own kindred, who by ancient Tradition, did all observe the jews festival day of Easter. Secondly, afterwards it was decreed by the Council of Nice, that Easter should be celebrated (as you have truly alleged) differently from the custom of the jews, but yet you have omitted the causes there specified by Eusebius: whereof one was the hatred of the Christians against the jews, who had defiled their hands with the blood of the Son of God, and remained still enthralled in the blindness and madness of their error. Another reason was, because of the insolent insultation that the jews then made upon the Christians, as though that Christians could not have kept any observation of that feast [sine ipsorum disciplinae subsidio:] without the help of their discipline. A third reason there mentioned, is, that by uniformity of this one custom, they might bring the Christian Churches unto unity, which by diversity of opinions, concerning the time of the observation of the same feast, had been distracted into contrary factions. These were the principal Reasons which moved the Fathers of that Council, to alter the jewish Feast of Easter, and to translate it unto our Lord's day; not absolutely (as you pretend) for the avoiding of all resemblance that it had with the jewish custom (for then must they have condemned all the godly Bishops, and holy Martyrs of Asia, who observed the same time of Easter with the jews) but because of the after-obstinacie and insolency of the jews, upbraiding the Christians for imitating of them upon an opinion of necessity; and also for the reducing of Christian Churches, agreeing in one faith, unto an unity of one affection. You see then that the comparing (as commonly you have done) the practice of Churches in admitting, or rejecting of jewish, or Heathenish customs, without their special Reasons, is no better discretion, than if you would argue some men to be wiser than others, by comparing their bodies together, without any regard of their reasonable souls. Otherwise you might have easily perceived, that neither we can have like cause of hatred against Papists, (who are professed Christians) as they had against the obstinate jews, the murderers 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 Objection is by instancing in Ceremonies abolished, because of the abuses of Heretics. Their first Instance. The Council of Gangris, Abridg. Lin●▪ pag. 18. Can. 18. Anno 324. ordained that none should fast on the Lord's day, because the Manichees had taken up that day to fast on. Our Answer. And they had just cause so to ordain; but so had not you to conceal the cause, which is delivered by Leo Bishop of Rome, in these words; Leo Epist. 93. add Tunbund, The Manichees denying that Christ was borne in the true nature of man, observe the Lords day in pensive fasting, which the Resurrection of Christ hath consecrated unto us to be celebrated with joy: which custom of fasting they devote unto the Son, that they may altogether dissent from us in the unity of faith. Thus much being premised, concerning the opinion of the Manichees; let us now come unto the decree of the Council: Conc. Gangr. ca 18. If any shall fast on the Lord's day [propter continentiam, quae putatur, aut contumaciam] for that which is held (namely by the Manichees) a continency, or a contumacy, 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 us) aver that any of our Ceremonies have in them any signification of contempt to any one Article of Christian profession? Doth not every one of them rather manifest and demonstrate some special duty of Christianity? Those that are right Doctors indeed do imitate good Nurses, Cic. who first chew and masticate the morsels in their own mouths, before that they put them into the mouths of their Infants. But you collect the Decrees of Counsels at all peradventure, without ever examining the reasons thereof, and so deliver them to your disciples to swallow down whole. And therefore no marvel if that many of your flock, whom you feed with such unprepared diet, do swell so extremely with the windy crudities of their own conceits. SECT. XVIII. Their second Instance, concerning the Ceremonies of Heretics. Abridg. Linc. pag. 19 The Council of Brac. 1. Can. 32. decreed that none of the Clergy should forbear to eat flesh, that they might show themselves to differ from the Priscilianists. Our Answer. From a Fast you invite us to a Feast, but it seemeth you know no cause why: for these Priscilianists were in the heresy of the Manichees, who thought that Flesh had not the beginning and creation thereof from God, but from the Author of evil; Baron. Anno 5●7. num. 21. out of the Epist. of Pope Vigiliu●. Conc. Ancyr. can. 14. and upon that opinion abstained from it, Execrationis animo potius quam devotionis; that is, Rather upon an intent of detestation of flesh, than upon any true devotion. As therefore it was ordained in the Council of Ancyra, that the Clergymen in abstaining sometimes from the eating of flesh, should notwithstanding [nam visum est eas attingere] touch it; thereby to manifest their Orthodox judgements; namely, that they had not this creature of God in any execration: so in the forenamed Council of Brac. it was decreed, that Ecclesiastical persons, although sometimes they would refuse to eat flesh, yet should they [Praegustare olera cocta cum carnibus] that is, Taste of herbs sod together with flesh; To what end? [Pro amputanda suspicion Priscilianae haereseos] To cut off the suspicion of the Priscilian heresy: As in the same Decree is fully expressed. If now you can show us the like cause of removing our Ceremonies, then may you challenge of us the like effect. But tell us, what think you? Do Papists jointly consort with us in the same Acts; either of wearing Surplices; or of ministering of Baptism; or of communicating with us, without any opinion of adoring the Sacraments; as in those days the Priscilianists did join at the same Ordinaries and Banquets with the Catholics? First therefore you should have shown your just cause of suspicion, and then might you boldly have framed your Indightment. SECT. XIX. Their third Instance, concerning the Abuse of Ceremonies by Heretics. Abridg. Linc. pag. 19 Gregory, as we find him cited, allegeth and approveth a Decree of the Council of Toledo, which forbade the Ceremony of thrice dipping in Baptism, because it was the custom of the Heretics. Our Answer. If you had taken the pains to have read Gregory yourselves, and had not been content to take this up on trust, and at the second hand, of those who do allege him, although partly truly, yet but only in part; he would have taught you a lesson worth your remembrance, which is this; In eadem fide nihil officit sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa: That is, The diversity of customs (or Ceremonies) used in the unity of the same faith, cannot prejudice the holy Church. And therefore you are to know that other reformed Churches, whom you would make adversaries to our Ceremonies, have no more cause to condemn us, than we have to condemn them for diversity of Rites. And concerning the Ceremonies objected, he showeth, that it is a thing indifferent in itself, whether the Church use thrice, or but only once dipping: secondly, concerning the cause of this Indifferency; Q●omodò in tribus mersionibus personarum unitas, & in una potest divinitatis singularitas designari: He noteth that whether it be thrice or once, both of them are signs of mystical signification; the thrice dipping betokning the Trinity of Persons, and the once, the unity of one essential Deity: thereby allowing of these kind of spiritual significations, in such Ceremonies. Thirdly, the cause why S. Gregory would have Thrice dipping changed into once, was by reason of certain Heretics, who made an heretical construction of the first custom of the Thrice-dipping; Dum mersiones numerantes, divinitatem dividentes, etc. That is, upon the Thrice-dipping (as 1. in the name of the Father, 2. in the name of the Son, 3. in the name of the Holy Ghost) they divided the Deity into three Gods. Yea, and that there was once in Spain such a necessity to change the same Rite, the forenamed Council of Toledo setteth down in this manner. Proptereà quòd quidam Sacerdotes simplam, Conc. Tolat. quidam trinam mersionem faciunt, à nonnullis schisma esse conspicitur, & fidei unitas scindi videtur: nam dùm partes diversae in baptizandis aliquo contrario modo agunt, alij alios non baptizatos esse contendunt. Certainly, if ever any could have shown the like necessity against any of our Ceremonies, than our most wise and religious Pilots of this Ship of Christ, that abandoned all the heresies in Popedom, would never have entertained these other Rites. But they were well persuaded that these our Ceremonies could not, by their only moral significations, engender or harbour any heretical opinion. SECT. XX. Their last Instance from Antiquity, concerning Ceremonies abused by Heretics. Leo adviseth all Christians to shun the viperous conference of Heretics, and that in nothing they would be like unto them, Abridg. Linc, pag. 20. who in name only are Christians. Our Answer. You will still be like yourselves, in alleging sentences of Fathers, without due consideration of their senses. Leo Serm. 18. de pass. Dom. The words of Leo stand thus: Take you heed (beloved) of the craft of Satan, who doth not only seek to entrap you by carnal concupiscence, but doth also sow tars together among the seeds of faith, to the end that whom he cannot corrupt by evil deeds, them he may subvert by wicked errors. Fly you therefore the arguments of human Doctrine, and shun the viperous conference of Heretics; have you nothing to do with them, who being Adversaries to the faith, are Christians only in name. Which words [Have you nothing to do with them] you take, as spoken absolutely against all kind of Conformity with such, and thereupon you except against al● likeness in Ceremonies; whereas Leo only giveth a caution but to eschew doctrinal Conference: for the error, which is the Viper, lay then couched in their doctrine, which was a mixture of truth and falsehood, as it were, of tars and Wheat together. Otherwise, if you will have us to take it more generally, then shall it not be lawful for you to confer with Papists, for their conversion; or to converse 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 joint conversation 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 condemn us for wearing the same coloured Surplice in our Churches, than you, for using in your houses and same kind of gown with them that are Christians only in name, that is (as I may say) Christians Antichristians. This therefore is no due manner of commerce, to deliver your ware at your own price, without either weight or measure. Hitherto have we discussed your Arguments used for proof of your Mayor Proposition, and displayed your manifold errors in all your inferences, which have been grounded only upon a calumnious and odious comparison of our Ceremonies with those that were jewish heretical, or Heathenish: In all which you have shown yourselves as unskilful as the Painter, who sought to proportion an horse by the portrait of an Elephant. Thus much in answer to your Mayor Proposition. SECT. XXI. The general Assumption of the N●n confo●mists, to prove our Ceremonies to have been as ill as Heathenishly abused by the Papists. But these Ceremonies of Surplice, Abridg. Linc. and other●. etc. have been Idolatrously abused by Papists. Ergo, they ought to be abolished. Our Answer. These Ceremonies (say you) have been Idolatrously abused. Where you must understand by the word [These] such Ceremonies which are either generally; or else individually and numerally the same. If you take take it in the Generality, then cannot you justify any one of your own Ceremonies belonging either to Order, or Decency. For what Act is there of gesture, or any Circumstance of worship, which hath not been someway abused by Pagans, Heretics, or some other superstitious Worshippers? Secondly, If by [these Ceremonies abused, etc.] you mean Ceremonies individually the same, then is your Assumption untrue; because that (which may likewise be said of the rest) the Surplice, which is at this day worn by any one of our Ministers, is not in number the very same, which had been dedicated unto any Idolatrous service, either of Pagans, or Papists. Notwithstanding, to suppose these our Ceremonies to be the very same, that have been formally abused; yet would it trouble your wits, to prove that therefore they must be necessarily abolished: except you could evince, that they were as well the same in form, as they are in matter. For learning teacheth us, that only form giveth the being unto every thing, as natural to natural, whereby a stone is a stone, and not wood; and Artificial unto Artificial, whereby a Gown is a Gown, and not a Cloak; so the Ceremonial form doth give a distinct property to each Ceremonial matter. Where, by form, (as for example in the Surplice,) we understand not the fashion of habit, for it is Artificial, but the habitude, or application of a Ceremony, according to the intention and opinion of them, that either impose or practise it. Which opinion, or intent, if it be superstitious, the Ceremony taketh a denomination from thence, and cannot be denied to be superstitious. This distinction is made sensible in the divers use of Churches, the destinate places of public worship; which, in Popery, were applied unto an Idolatrous service, by their Mass: but the same Churches, being by us sanctified unto the sincere worship of God, are as truly not the same in the Ceremonial form; as in the Artificial fabric and fashion they are the same. If these kind of distinctions had illuminated your judgements, than would you not so urgently have gainsaid the use of these our Ceremonies, practised among ourselves, because they had been sometimes abused by others. Thus much in answer to your whole Agument, taken from Abuses. SECT. XXII. Our general Confutation of the general Argument of the Non conformists for the Abolishing of all Ceremonies, that have been 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 express her own meaning therein, and telleth us first, that she hath abated of the Popish Excess and multitude, Com. book before the Calendar. the burden whereof was intolerable. Thus of the number. Secondly, concerning the kind of our Rites, she addeth, saying. If any think much, that any of the old Ceremonies do remain, and would have all devised anew; th●n such, granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had, surely (where the old may be well used,) there they cannot reasonably reprove them, only for their age; whereby they ought rather to have reverence to them, if they will declare themselves to be more studious of unity and concord, than of innovations and newfangledness. For as those be taken away, which were most abused; so those that remain were retained, for discipline and order, which upon just causes may be altered and changed. The sum of all is this; It was the wisdom of the Church to remove all Rites, the intolerable abuse whereof could not be avoided, without the utter removing and abolishing of them. As for others, we see that she hath otherwise determined, & we now come to justify her precept and practice. SECT. XXIII. Our Proofs, that some Ceremonies, which have been formerly abused, are not therefore necessarily to be abolished, if they may be reduced to their indifferent use. These are taken from 1. Scriptures. 2. Fathers. 3. Reasons. 4. The Non-conformists own witnesses. 5. The acknowledgements, and practices of the Non-conformists themselves. Our first Proof is from Scripture, by the general Equity of Gods Law. judg. 6. Gedeon was commanded by God to take out of the high places wood, (which had been Idolatrously abused in their groves,) and (notwithstanding such Heathenish abuse) to apply 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 invention of man; but even the express commandment of God: It is true; yet seeing that the actions of men receive their directions from the commandments of God, what reason can any allege, why this special act of God should not (as yourselves have confessed) infer a Pattern of Equity for all such Ordinances, as men in like case, shall appoint, concerning the service of God? even as well as that of joshua, jos. 6.19. whereby he commanded that the silver and gold, and vessels of brass, and of Iron should be brought into the Treasury of the house of the Lord, And furthermore, although the commandment of God was peremptory, charging the Governors of Israel, to subvert all the places of Heathenish worship, to destroy their altars, break down their images, burn their g●oues, demolish their Idols, and to root out the very name of those places: yet notwithstanding afterwards, in the time of the judges was Gedeon permitted to offer of his own accord a sacrifice under an oak. Aug. Whereupon Saint Augustine is noted to observe, That the custom of God's people, whereby they offered sacrifice even without the Tabernacle, (if only to the true God, and not unto strange Gods) was so far approved by God himself, that he was said to be [exaudiens offerentes;] which I may interpret, to yield unto the prayers of them, who did offer sacrifices. Which example we have propounded, although not as every way imitable, yet to prove that to do things in their own nature not impious, for the furtherance of God's worship, is not so culpable as some would enforce. SECT. XXIIII. Our second Proof is from the judgement of ancient Fathers. The Fathers did not always abolish such Ceremonies, as had been formerly abused, for they (as yourselves know) did for a long time continue the jewish Ceremony of Ester, observed by the godly Bishops and Martyrs of the Churches of Asia, albeit, not jewishly, that is, to the same end, whereunto the jews did celebrate it. Yea, and the Ceremony of Circumcision was, for many years, continued in the succession of many Christian Bishops of jerusalem; although not Sacramentally, after the profession of the jews, thereby to signify that Christ the promised seed was to come in the flesh, (which was a Ceremony Prophetical) but Historically, to show their descent from the loins of their grand Patriarch Abraham, the first father of Circumcision. So likewise, the Testimonies, which yourselves have alleged and objected out of the Fathers, show, that they did not evermore purge the former Abuses of Ceremonies, by privation, in removing the things themselves; but sometimes only by translation. As for example▪ The Council of Nice changed the jewish Easter into the Lord's day; Conc. Nicen. And the Council of Gangris, abolishing the Fasts, Conc. G●ng. which some used unchristian on the Lord's day, Can. 18. did in the 19 denounce an Anathema and curse against them, who should condemn other Fasts appointed by the Church. Many such like changes are found in antiquity, concerning Fasts, Feasts, Habits, and other like adjuncts of holy worship. Which do altogether disable the validity of your Position, that would extinguish all Ceremonies, which have at any time been superstitiously used, either after any jewish, Heretical, or Heathenish opinion. Lastly, you have been so frequent, urgent, and instant in alleging the Testimonies of ancient Doctors, for the abolishing of all things which have been formerly abused, that a man would think you profess yourselves to be children of those grave Fathers, and to yield yourselves to be governed by their prudent directions. But it is well known to as many as have seen the faces of the aforesaid Fathers, either in the general Histories of the Church, or in their own books, that all of them did both maintain and practise the use of mystical Ceremonies. Will you therefore admit of their judgements? why then do you reject such kind of Ceremonies? will you not allow them? why do you then object such witnesses, whose universal consent you can so easily contemn? Nay but to refuse (as you often do) to be tried by the Testimonies of such Fathers, whose patronage in the very same cause you have so peremptorily challenged, must needs bewray in you prevarication, rather than confidence, in this manner of proof. SECT. XXV. Our third Proof, for Confutation of their Tenent, is from Reasons: And our first Reason is from an Inconvenience. There was never almost any truth so divine, or Ceremony so sacred, which the filthy mouths, and sordid fingers of some heretics, have not wickedly polluted. Thus divers of them have not forborn to pervert, to their Heretical senses, both the Sacraments of our Lord jesus, being unto us the two seals of the Covenant of Grace. As first, concerning Baptism, some Heretics have erred in the matter, Baptizing with fire; so did the Seleuci: some in the form, In nomine igno●i Patris, as did the Marcitae; some in the persons baptised, by Baptizing the dead, as did the Cataphryges; some by Rebaptizing, as do the Anabaptists. Secondly, concerning the Eucharist likewise, the Cathari would not admit, for the matter, Bread, as thinking this Creaturue was from an evil beginning. The Aquarij would not allow of Wine. But, of all other, the Papists have most profaned this holy Sacrament, by their manifold Sacrilege, as well thorough their irreligious opinions, as by their Idolatrous Adorations. We are not ignorant that you do except against some things which being abused by man, were not commanded by God: notwithstanding these instances may serve to teach us, that seeing the best things, and of most holy use have been subject unto heretical abuses of godless men; it will be almost impossible for us to find any Ceremony which shall be altogether without exception; And to be forbidden to use any Ceremony, would bring no small prejudice to our Christian liberty. SECT. XXVI. Our second Reason is taken from the absurdity of the Non-conformists Rule of reforming Abuses only 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 have done) from the abuse of a thing, to the necessary abolishing of the use thereof, be not as great an abuse of true Logic, as a Scholar in any reasoning can possibly commit? Because, according to the right Topique place (concerning Use and Abuse) the Axiom standeth rather thus? Whatsoever is subject to abuse, the same may be turned to a right use. And the reason is good, because Vsus Instrumenti est per se, abusus verò est per accidens. Nothing can be excepted from this Rule, but only sins and defects, which are not things abused, but merely Abuses themselves. In the causes Levitically-Legal, a Woman polluted and defiled with an uncleanness, Leuit. 12. might be purged from her issue of blood: And a man that had a running issue in his flesh, might be cleansed. Leuit. 15. Seeing therefore these Legal pollutions had their cleansings; how then is it, that you assume so conclusively, that A Ceremony being once superstitiously defiled cannot afterwards be made clean? Secondly, in Moral causes, (for there may be an Analogy between the Levitical pollutions and cleansings, and the Moral abuses, and their reformations) a woman that hath committed folly, although she cannot recover her Virginity, yet upon her repentance, she may repair her honesty: Again, the person that is as sacrilegious as Dionysius, may be restitution and alms, become as truly God's Almoner, as Zacheus. May it be thus in persons, and cannot the like alteration be had of Abuses in actions, which otherwise in themselves are indifferent? Thirdly, in natural and artificial Objects, both Art and Nature seem to exclaim against your Consequences: For as the Orator speaketh, solemn è mundo tollere videtur, qui usum propter abusum tollit; He seems to pull the Sun out of the firmament, that taketh away the use of each thing, for the abuse thereof. For we may see, there is a kind of sin which may be called Daemon meridianus; a devil that danceth at noonday; whereby is meant that the glorious light of the Sun is notably abused by some most impudent Transgressor's, for the acting of their sins in pomp and jollity: And is not the universality of creatures said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to groan and travel, in birth, as desirous to be delivered? Rom. 8.22. Surely, from the tyranny of men's Abuses. In brief, to profess to reform abuses only by utter abolishing of the things abused, is as much as to teach the Chirurgeon to profess no cure of men's diseased limbs, but only Abscision: The Barber no Art but shaving to the quick, and even flaying away the skin: The Magistrates no Rule of punishing, but according to Draco his Laws (Sanguine scriptas) only by death. SECT. XXVII. Our third Proof from Reason, is, by showing other means for reforming the abuses of things, than by abolishing the things themselves. The means which are to be used, in reforming of things abused, are three; Abrogation, Translation and Correction: Our Non-conformists allow, and practise only the first kind, urging and pressing the necessity of Abrogation, Abolition, and utter extirpation of Ceremonies, which have once been superstitiously abused. But our Church, in her singular wisdom, 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 discreetly ordered those Ceremonies, which she thought good to retain, by removing only the abuses and superstitions, and reforming them, either by Translation or else by Correction. I will give an Instance in either of them. First, the Cross, about the celebration of Baptism, which was used of the Papists before the act of Baptizing, in a superstitious opinion, for a kind of Adjuration: for the avoiding whereof, our Church hath translated the sign of the Cross, to have place after the Sacramental act, as attending the Sacrament, and making up the retinue of ornaments about it. As therefore M. Calvin, (speaking of the change of the Saboth day of the creation, into the day of Christ's Resurrection, and, as I may so say, recreation of mankind) saith, Calvi●. Dies Sabbati non sublatus, sed translatus est: that It is not quite removed, but translated: So may we deal, in alteration of Ceremonies, as hath been already exemplified in the diverse customs of ancient Churches. And judge, I pray you, Sect. 24. whether our Church's alteration of a Ceremony, from a false and superstitious, into a true and religious signification, be not an excellent kind of Translation. secondly, although Translation be a kind of Correction, yet seeing that every Correction is not a Translation, we proceed to speak concerning that kind of reformation of Ceremonies, so abused, which is by Correction; whereof Chemnitius hath considered right well, speaking of Ceremonies, which have degenerated from their truly wholesome use; [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 retain The feast days which had been superstitiously polluted [ut ea superstitionibus defaecata sanctificentur] that is, De Redemp. in 4. precept. pag. ●78. That they being purged from the lees of superstition, may be sanctified; namely, to an holy use. So that even as, where the snuff of Torches or Candles doth grow so big and so black that it hindereth the light, we do not therefore take away the light, but rather do cleanse, or cut off the snuff itself: In like manner, such hath been the wisdom 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 holiness, and Idolatrous application of Divine honour: but yet hath she preserved the light of Moral significations, which are Sanctity in the Minister, Constancy in every Christian baptised into the faith of Christ; and Humility in all faithful Communicants, at the receiving of the sacred Mysteries of Christ's death. SECT. XXVIII. Our fourth Proof from Reason, against their last General Argument; especially in their Assumption; wherein they argued from the extirpation of the Ceremonies of Pagans, for the abolishing of the Ceremonies of Papists. We owe a right even unto our enemies, and therefore must acknowledge, that it is a like error to affirm, that there ought to be the same difference of Religion in case of Ceremonies, between Protestants and Papists, which should be between Papists and Pagans; as it is to require the same distance between England and Calecute, which is between Rome and England: especially considering that the gods of the Gentiles were all devils. For among the innumerable Altars that were used of the Heathen, we read not of any one that had any truth of Religion in it, but only that one at Athens, which had this inscription upon it, Act. 17.23. To the unknown God. Which notwithstanding was, alas! but a glimpse of true light; for still God was unto them but as unknown. As for the Papist, his Creed is the same with ours, in believing the Only omnipotent God Maker of heaven and earth: unto whom he commendeth his prayers, although sometimes Recto, sometimes but Obliquo modo; and together with us he professeth the Lord jesus, and believeth to have propitiation in his Blood. So that the furniture of Habits and Vestments, which that Church used, being primarily consecrated to that supr●eme end, to wit, the worship of God in jesus Christ, may not be esteemed of equal abomination with the Habits of Paynims, which were dedicated unto devils. Besides, there are between Us and the Papists, certain other Communia principia, Common Principles of Religion, whereupon we use to ground our Christian conclusions, to wit, Holy Scriptures, Ecclesiastical Stories, Writings of ancient Fathers, together with common Axioms received of all Christian Schools, by reason whereof we can confute their errors, and more easily reform the Abuses of their Ceremonies by Correction: But between Us and Pagans, the case is far different: For in that their Ceremonies are properly and immediately directed to false gods, we have none, or but very few common axioms whereby to reduce them from their Heathenish and Idolatrous opinions: whence it is, that the superstition of their Ceremonies is best refuted, by only removing them. SECT. XXIX. The fourth general ground of Confutation of their former Argument, is, from the testimonies of their principal witnesses. You yourselves in this question have objected M. Calvin, P. Martyr, and Zepperus, as if they had abandoned all use 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 have consulted with M. Calvin, in a place professedly assigned for the Avoiding of Romish superstition, he would have taught you that there is a main difference between Turks and Papists; Because [Multa habemus etc.] There are many points common (saith he) between us and Papists, especially this, that we have both our Denominations from Christ etc. And after he inferreth, that Although there be many Ceremonies among the Papists, which we may not observe, yet (saith he) [Nequis me adeo austerum esse, vel praecisi rigoris etc.] jest any man may think me to be so rigorously precise, that I would forbid a Christian [ne se Papistis ulla in Ceremonia aut observatione accommodet] that is, to apply himself in any Ceremony unto the Papists; Be it known, that it is not my purpose to condemn any thing which is not directly evil in itself. Now who knoweth not, that the thing which is made Evil only through Abuse, cannot be said any way to be evil in itself? And we have heard already of his allowance of material Churches, howsoever 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 Idolatry, which did bellow out nothing but mere abominations? 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 serve immediately unto their God Mauzim, even to the execrable sacrifice of the Mass. And although we read in the Ecclesiastical Story of Ruffinus, Ruff. l. 2. c. 4. of the destruction of an Heathenish Temple by convert Christians; and of Constantine his Edict for the demolishing of the Temples of the Gentiles and Heretics: 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 Papists for the use of Pilgrims and Passengers, whereof there is no convenient use. In this Author, you may observe a distinction between things immediately, (as Altars,) and mediately (as Temples) dedicated to Idolatry; and that Zepperus excluding the latter, yet alloweth of the first, although the Temples so polluted with Idolatry, be now materially and individually the same, which are used by Protestants in the sincere and holy worship of God. P. Martyr is plentiful in this point; P. Martyr Ep. ad Hoope●● p. 1087. first putting in a Caveat, which will be for the direction of your consciences, if you will hearken unto him; & if you will not, yet then also will it make for your correction. Cavendum est profectò etc. We must in any case take heed (saith he) lest that we do press the Church with too much servitude, as to think that we may use nothing which hath been Popish. Surely, the ancient Fathers took the Temples of Idols and converted them into holy houses of God, wherein Christ our Saviour should be worshipped; and the Revenues which had been consecrated unto the gods of the Gentiles, for the maintenance of their Vestal Virgins, that they took for the support of the Ministers of the Church; albeit such things had served not only to the honour of Antichrist, bu● of the devils themselves. Yea, and also the very verses of the Poets, which were dedicated unto the Muses, and diverse gods, or for the use of Comedies, or serving in the Theatre, for pacifying of their gods; such did Ecclesiastical Writers (the holy Fathers) use, so far as they found them fit, good, and true; and were thereunto directed by the example of the Apostle, who did not disdain to cite Menander, Aratus, and Epimenides, and to set down the same words, which were otherwise profane, and to apply them to God's worship: Except perhaps you shall deem that the words in holy Writ do serve so much unto God's worship, as do the visible words of the holy Sacraments. Furthermore, who doth not know, that wine was consecrated unto Bacchus; Bread to Ceres; Water to Neptune; Olives to Minerva; Letters to Mercury; Songs to the Muses, or to Apollo? All which, notwithstanding we doubt not to apply as well in Sacred, as in Civil uses, albeit they had been dedicated unto the very Devils. So he. Whereby, as we see, he putteth in a caveat against all fierce and calumnious Disputers, who infer from every former abuse of Surplice, a necessary abolishing of all use thereof. SECT. XXX. Our fifth and last ground of Confutation of their general Argument, against our Ceremonies, in respect of their former Abuses, is taken from the Confession and Practses of the Non-conformists themselves. The first, and fairest objects which offer themselves unto our eyes, among the Ceremonies in Romish worship, and their Churches, Chalices, Vestments, Bells, and if you will, also their round Wafer-cake; all which have been Idolatrously abused by Papists. Their Churches were most superstitiously dedicated after the manner of charming; their Chalices, and tablecloths, were no less immediate Instruments of their Idolatrous Mass, than were their Altars; their Bells were baptised, with an opinion of infused Holiness and virtue to drive away Devils. Durandus, and Durantus, Durand. in Rational. Dura●t. de Ritibus. two Masters of the Ceremonies in the Romish Church, do derive many superstitious Significations from these, & almost all other Instruments of Romish service, even unto the very Knots of the Bell-ropes. The Case thus standing, must we now by the Conclusion of our Non-conformists, stand chargeable to turn our Temples into Barnes or haylofts (which I wish were not practised by some that will seem to make most conscience against a Ceremony,) Silver Chalices into wooden cups; Bells into Guns, and Bell-ropes into halters, & c? Nay, even yourselves are not so far fallen out with Popish Ceremonies, but that you can be contented to except out of your Position such as may be of necessary use. Yea, and one who is held as a principal, Linc. general Rule. and (as it were) Superintendent among you, doth more fully express your opinion than others, thus: Many of our Churches were builded by Papists, and dedicated to the honour of Saints, and service of some Idol, yet these being in the first foundation, M Hy. p. 22. (which I take to h●ue been in Constantine's time) intended for the true worship of God, and having both then and now a needful use among us, may be retained. I think that Gregory did well, who said unto Augustine the Monk being then in England, that for the Pagan and Idol Churches, he should only purge them, and not pull them down— yea, and Popish vestments may serve, for substance of the stuff, to make window Cushions, or a Pulpit-Cloth; Provided always, that there be no Cross nor Crucifix upon it. The like may be said of Bells, Fonts, Tables, Flagons, Pulpits, all which having some profitable use in the Church of God, may by the warrant of God's word be retained, although in Popery they have been abused. Thus far this Non conformist. Mark 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 jewish, Heathenish or Popish;) and that (as you affirm) necessarily and absolutely to the quite abolishing not only of the things themselves, but even the Monuments and names, yea, and the very shadows and resemblances of them, that at length all memory of them may be swallowed up of oblivion: and these your assertions you pretended to be grounded upon Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, and Testimonies of Protestant Divines. Thus in your former Conclusions. But contrarily now, in your Confessions and practices, you yield unto us the use of Shadows, of names, and of things themselves, which have been once defiled by Idolatrous pollution. 1. Shadows, for you forbear not to deck your houses with Bayleaves, notwithstanding you held this an execrable Ceremony among the Pagans. Nor do you alter the situation of your Churches, and Chancels towards the East, albeit that Ceremony hath been 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 days of the week by names anciently appropriated unto the seven Planets; or to the Heathen * So, according to the Saxon language, Weedon, sig. Mercury, Thor. jupiter, F●ya, Venus. gods? viz. Dies Saturni, etc. Saturday, Sunday, Moon-day? Besides, you do religiously and Christianly celebrate monthly Communions, to the remembrance of Christ; notwithstanding that the Pagans had their monthly festivals in the beginning of their Calends. And finally, if you will needs stand upon names, you may not lawfully so much ●s name the word Ceremony, (if as some hold) the same word [Ceremony] have been borrowed by the Romish Pagans from their goddess Ceres. Nor can you be said to abstain from all appearance of jewish observations, whilst with us you Christianly celebrate the feast of Pentecost, which the Israelites did observe jewishly: or else by having the tables of the commandments, written upon the pillars of the Churches, which the jews did write upon the Posts of their houses. But what do we talking of names, and shadows? you are furthermore contented in some things to retain their materials, and to change only the fashions: for you allow that Popish vestments be changed into Cushions for the Churches us, and Copes into Pulpit-clothes. And you agree that some other things, as Bells, Fonts, Tables, a●d Churches themselves (although never so filthily polluted) may both in form and in matter contive the same. Is there not then an huge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between your former Conclusions, and these after Confessions? We come now to examine your Reason of allowing any of the former Ceremonies, although they have been Idolatrously abused. You allege that you only allow them, because they are profitable and necessary. But what? absolutely necessary? This you cannot affirm, because the primitive Church (as you well know) of a long time kept not their worship in Temples, but in Cryptis, even in private houses and deserts. Nor used they seats or Cushions, for in the time of persecution they were contented to use their Stations, which showeth that their common gesture was standing. Again, there was a time, when the Ministers were golden, and their Chalices but wooden; and indeed the Church under persecution did forbear to put on any ornaments of vestures: and then Baptism was not in Fonts, but in Rivers and Fountains. Nor were people assembled to the public Service of God by the sound of Bells, but of men's voices. All which accidental supplies do plainly show, that the Profit of these things, which you yourselves think worthy to be continued, is of no absolute necessity. Lastly, you may inquire of the Church of Geneva, why she imposeth the Wafer-cake to be observed of her Ministers and people, albeit she is not ignorant, that the round Wafer among the Papists had the signification of the pence, for which Christ was sold by judas? and became (after their Romish consecration) not only Idolatrous, but the very Idol itself? Upon these Premises, I make bold to argue thus, If your imagined necessity, which is in truth but a conveniency, be of power to take away the Idolatrous pollution of Temples, Bells, Tables, Chalices, even (as it is said) By the warrant of the word of God, which requireth Decency, Order, and Edification in his service: then doubtless the Decency, Order, and Edification itself, which are to be discerned in our Ceremonies, may be thought much more able to purge and purify the Ceremonies, which have been changed from their Popish use. But of the Profit and conveniency of our Ceremonies we shall have occasion to speak more particularly, when we shall come to the confutation of your particular Accusations. I have no delight to wade any longer in this lake of Abuses, and therefore leaving these our Confutations to the consideration of our ingenuous Reader, I pass from this fourth general Argument of the Non-conformists against our Ceremonies, unto the Argument following. CHAP. V. SECT. I. The fifth general Argument of the Non-conformists, against the aforesaid Ceremonies, taken from the Scandal, which they impute unto them. Maior. Then especially doth a Ceremony become in use unlawful, Linc. pag. 45. when it cannot be used without scandal 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 block before a brother. Rom. 14.13. nor make him weak, ver. 21. nor give him cause to speak or think ill of us, ver. 16. nor grieve him thereby, ver. 15.— The Reason is given, because it tendeth to the destruction of him, ver. 20. And that all Ceremonies become unlawful, in the case of scandal, is the judgement of Divines. Assumption. But these Ceremonies of Surplice, Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion are Scandalous. Ergo they ought to he removed. Our first Answer to their Mayor, by exposition of the word, Scandal. SOme understand by the word [Scandal] every kind of grieving or angering of any Brother: but if this were true, then might Christ be said to have Scandalised Peter, whom he did much perplex and grieve, when after Peter's third denial of him, joh. 15.16. he asked him, saying, Simon, lovest thou me? But this grievance being not ad ruinam, but ad correctionem, for instruction, not for destruction, cannot be properly called a Scandal. Again, the Apostle is exact in forbidding every Christian to do that, Rom. 14. wherewith any Brother may be offended, scandalized or weakened: from which diversity of words, some do extract different senses, as that [offendiculum] Offence must signify that act of one man, whereby another is hindered in the course of faith and godliness, so that he go backward from his profession. And secondly, by [scandalum] scandal] they understand such an hindrance, which maketh a man fall either into dangerous errors in doctrine, or else some sinful act of conversation. Thirdly, by [weakness] they interpret such an hindrance, whereby a Christian is made only more slow, and remiss in the profession and course of Christianity. Which three phrases are notwithstanding expounded more pertinently by others, to be set down thus severally, not by way of distinction, but for exaggeration of the sin of wilful offence against Christians, in provoking of them unto any damnable error or sin, by any sensible external means. And in this last sense do we proceed to discuss this Argument concerning scandal. SECT. II. Our second Answer is by distinction of the kinds of scandal. I. Division. That distinction of scandal will best fit our purpose, whereby it is usually divided into these two members, the one is called Active, the other Passive. SECT. III. Our I. Subdivision of Active Scandal, is in respect of the party Agent direct. indirect. The Active is in respect of the party Agent, who by an Act which he doth, shall willingly provoke another to any evil. And this kind admitteth many Subdivisions: First, than an Active Scandal is either directly evil, or only indirectly. The direct manner of scandal is, when the Act is evil in itself. Thus the Act of David's murder was scandalous. 2. Sam. 12.24 And this kind of scandal is no way excusable, being evil ratione obiecti, which is properly sin. The Indirect scandal, is seen in Acts which are in their own nature good, or at least not evil: 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 unto Idols, Act. 15. which was therefore forbidden: being a sin either more or less, according to the diverse affections of the Offender. For this indirect scandal may happen to be after two sorts, sometime without the intention of the Agent, who hath no meaning to give any such offence: of which kind we may reckon the fact of Saint Peter, when he did so partially apply himself unto the jews, to the scandal of the Gentiles. And this we call the less sin. The other manner of indirect scandal, is that which sometimes proceedeth from the wicked intent in the Scandalizer; and such was the sin of many Heretics, Gal. 2.11. who would use Fasts, and other Ceremonies of devotion and austerity, to draw disciples after them, and to seduce men from the truth of Christ. Thus much in respect of the party Agent. SECT. FOUR Our 2. Subdivision of Active scandal, in respect of persons offended, either weak. strong. The second Subdivision hereof is in respect of the persons that are offended; for it is either perfectorum hominum, of men thoroughly grounded; or pusillorum, of weak, and more simple. Concerning the Perfect, the Stumbling block is on their part that gave scandal, albeit the parties that are offended, are not thereby scandalised, that is, not so offended, as to stumble and fall. And thus it may be said, Mar●. 16. that Peter did scandalise Christ himself, when wishing Christ to favour himself, and not to die, he received that answer from Christ,— Satan thou art a scandal unto me. For albeit this motion proceeded from a good and most friendly intent in Saint Peter, who was the speaker (for it was only that Christ should favour himself, for the preservation of his life,) yet did Christ discern therein a wicked purpose of the suggester the devil: for the which cause Christ called Peter, Satan: because in Peter's seeking to hinder the death of Christ, Satan sought to hinder man's redemption. But Christ preferring man's salvation before his own life, taught us by his own example to deal with all such scandals or blocks, which are temptations to hinder us in our course of Christianity, even as a man would do with a block that lieth in his way, that is, to Cast it behind him: for so said Christ in his answer; Get thee behind me Satan. As for the [Pusilli] & weak ones, our Saviour speaketh in their behalf, saying; He that offendeth one of these little ones that believeth in me, Math. 18. it were better etc. Thus much in respect of the Parties. SECT. V. Our 3. Subsidivision of Active Scandal, in respect both of persons and cause, either Determined, undetermined. A third subdivision is both in respect of the cause, and of the persons in cases of indifferency: For sometime this case is determined by the Church, and sometimes it happeneth not to be publicly defined. When such a matter is once fully concluded by the Church, whether in part, or in whole, so that it doth not evidently appear to be against the Word of God, so far forth it greatly concerneth all such persons to conform themselves thereunto, according to the doctrine of S. Paul, in a question of Ceremony; If any seem to be contentious, 1. Cor. 11.16. we have no such custom, nor the Church of God. For indeed, all men are bound in conscience to preserve above all things the regard of the general peace of God's Church, before the grievance of any sort or sect of men. Which the Apostle also doth expressly teach, saying; Give offence to no man, neither to the jew, 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 Scandal 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. But if the case be either not at all, or but only in part determined by the Church, then is there a charitable consideration to be had of other men's consciences, who are not persuaded of the lawful use of indifferent things. Then the general rule is, that so far as a man may use indifferent things (without offence of others) he need not to forbear them. Eat (saith the Apostle) making no question for conscience sake. 1. Cor. 10.25. Why? Because God hath given man a liberty to use such things, or not to use 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 eat] namely in the behalf of another man's conscience. This was the cause that the Council of the Apostles, giving liberty to use such meats, as had been formerly accounted unclean, did notwithstanding make a restraint from eating of Strangled and Blood, and things offered unto Idols: Act. 15. lest thereby they might give offence to the jewish Proselytes newly called to the faith. And for the same cause, the Apostle in great circumspection did circumcise Timothy, to avoid the Scandal of the jewish new Converts, and lately called to the faith of Christ: but at another time would not circumcise Titus, Gal. 2.3. lest he might give way to false Apostles, who defended an absolute necessity of Circumcision; to the prejudice of the liberty of the Gospel. Thus much in respect of both Cause and Parties. SECT. VI Our 4. Subdivision of Active Scandal, in respect of consequences, and effects, in occasioning A lapse into sin, or error. Hindrance from Grace. The fourth and last Subdivision is in respect of the Consequences, and the effects of Scandal, whether it be an Hindrance of their salvation, who are already members of the Church, by provoking them with such Scandalous examples, either to use indifferent things against their consciences; and occasion them to relapse from the faith, as hath been said: or else if it be an hindrance of them who are yet aliens from the covenant of grace, to set a Scandal and block against them. Which latter point of Scandalising, S. Paul doth condemn, saying, Give no offence neither to the jew, 1. Cor. 10.32. nor to the Grecian. Whereupon, Calv. Ibid. The Apostle (saith M. Calvin) nameth Iewes and Gentiles, teaching us, that we are debtor unto all sorts of men, even to those that are Aliens, that we may gain them to the faith. Thus much of Active Scandal. SECT. VII. Of the second general member of Scandal, which is called Passive: and the division thereof is in respect of the Party offended. Matter of offence. The second general member of Scandal is called Passive, when the offence is not given 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 evil in it self. Which Passive 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. Subdivision of the Passive Scandal, is, concerning the fault of the party offended, either by defect in judgement. Affection. The fault of the party offended may proceed from a double defect: one is the corruption of his judgement, yet through a wilful and an affected ignorance: such as was the Scandal taken by the Capernaites, through their carnal construction of that speech of our Saviour, saying; joh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man etc. Whereat some were so greatly offended, that they refused to hear 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 seek to be satisfied by any Reason; but only in a mere stupidity, Verse 52. or rather obstinate incredulity asked, How shall he give us his flesh to eat? For notwithstanding they were answered by Christ himself, 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 Scandal proceeding from the judgement of the Party. The second defect proceedeth directly from the poison of a carnal affection; whether of pride (as in such as took offence at the poverty of Christ:) or in envy, which is called oculus nequam: 1. Pet. 2.8. as in him that took offence at Christ's bounty, unto whom it was said: Math. 20.15. Is thy eye evil because mine is good? Or lastly in malice; which is called, Scandalum Pharisaeorum, who took offence both at the miracles of Christ, imputing them to the Prince of the Devils: and at his doctrine, concerning whom Christ, (as permitting malicious men, if they needs will, to fall, sink, and perish in their sins) 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 whosoever they be that are Scandalised, through their own malice or wilfulness, Non tam pati dici possunt, quam facere Scandalum, that is, They may be said more properly to do, than to suffer scandal. Thus much of the Scandal passive, as it respecteth the disposition of the party scandalised. SECT. IX. Our 2. Subdivision of Scandal Passive, in respect of the opinion of Indifferency. Necessity, The second respect, considerable in a Scandal of this kind, doth regard the nature of the cause, whereabout it doth arise; which is sometimes about a matter indifferent. Now in such a case, questionless, much indulgence should be used towards weak persons, whose infirmity proceedeth only from simple ignorance: Nor should we, (where the case stands thus) provoke any by our example to use 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 only till such time, as the doctrine, concerning the indifferency of using or not using the thing in question hath been sufficiently declared: after which time, if any presumptuously persever, and will not be instructed, the condign penalty which shall be thenceforth inflicted, cannot be called Scandalum, sith that this doth always presuppose a mere weakness, for want of due means of knowledge. But if the event and consequence of the Scandal be not only an offence of private men's consciences, but also an overthrow of some general and necessary doctrine of the Church, which tendeth to edification and salvation, then ought we to maintain the Tenet of S. Augustine; Aug. Praestat ut scandalum admittatur quam ut 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 prejudice through our regardless silence. And for our better warrant in so doing, S. Paul hath given us manifest documents from his own examples, one, in not circumcising of Titus, Gal. 2. and the other, in withstanding of Peter. Thus much of the Divisions and Subdivisions of Scandal; which being duly considered, will expedite all difficulties that you can object in the question of Scandal: for out of these you may collect the true and full sense of the Scriptures, which you have alleged in your first Objection from holy Writ; as will better appear in our Answers and Confutations. In the mean time, leaving your Proposition as granted, according to our former limitations, we put you to the trial of your Assumption. SECT. X. The General Assumption of the Non-conformists, against our Ceremonies, because of Scandal. Their Pretences of Scandal, occasioned by our Ceremonies, are manifold, to wit; in respect of 1 Superstitious Papists. 2 Profane ●●rsons. 3 Weak brothers. 4 Their whole Congregations. 5 Their own unconformable Ministers. 6 All sorts in general; at least by appearance of evil. Their first Objection of Scandal, by our Ceremonies, is in respect of superstitious Papists. The Papists will be hardened, Abridg. Linc. pag. 49. to see us borrow our Ceremonies from their Religion. Our Answer. We answer that our Rites, which have been purged from Popish superstition, are no more the Ceremonies of Papists, than our Churches are theirs (wherein notwithstanding yourselves do willing Pray, and Preach) being now converted from the service of the Romish Idol unto the sincere worship of God. And therefore Papists, by our reformation of things which they have abused, have 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 converted by us unto honesty and holiness of life. SCET. XI. Their second Objection of Scandal by our Ceremonies, is in respect of profane persons. abridge Linc. Ibid. The profane will draw Arguments from hence, to contemn all Religions. Our Answer. From whence, I beseech you? From the seemly appareling of Religion; or rather from the stripping her naked of her lawful and accustomed attire? Nay, and you may easily conjecture whether the profane are more likely to draw arguments, for their neglect, or contempt of Religion and Piety, rather from a decent uniformity in lawful Rites; than from an horrid disparity in them, through your daily dissensions. He that doubteth hereof, may as well question, whether the Saw, or the Citharen maketh the better Music. SECT. XII. Their third Objection of Scandal, by our Ceremonies, is in respect of the weak Brethren. These cannot but be a scandal to the weak brethren, and to the wicked: Abridg. Linc. pag. 49. to the weak brethren, by being drawn thereunto against their conscience, or else doubtingly. Our Answer. You have heard our answer touching the wicked; now hear a little concerning the weak. These whom Christ would not have to be scandalised, he doth point them out to be pusilli, Math. 18. little ones: meaning such as are newly waned from the world, and called to feed on the Manna of the word. And such babes in Christ were those Proselytes, whom Saint Paul did so much tender in matter of Scandal, until they should become more ripe and strong in the knowledge of the mysteries of faith. Now would we feign understand, who be these weaklings, whom you so much respect in this Case. Are they not for the most part such, whom you have most diligently catechised, and whom you therefore judge to have more understanding in the mysteries of Christ, and knowledge in the revealed will of God, than others? If then these, whom you think to be more exactly seen in all essential parts of Christian learning, must, concerning points of things indifferent, be counted weak, then do you greatly wrong your own judgements, by whose examples they are made weak. Nay even you selves (my brethren) are become these weake-ones, in not being able to digest these Ceremonies, which, by the confession of all Divines, are in their own nature indifferent; though you would hardly take it well, that any should rank you in the number of weak ones. Yet if you be not such, why do you make this a Reason, to move the Church to respect, and free you from all scandal occasioned by Ceremonies? or if you be indeed weak persons, why exercise you your strength in nothing more, than in opposing the wisdom of the whole Church, by your most scandalous contradictions? We are persuaded, that strength of knowledge could not take any offence at matters of Indifferency: And therefore, that the guilt of your weakness should cause you to seek direction from them, unto whom you owe your obedience. SECT. XIII. Their fourth Objection of scandal, by our Ceremonies, is in respect of their unconformable Congregations, and Parish●s. But especially are these Ceremonies d●ngerous, when they shall be brought in upon Congregations, Abridg. Linc. pag. 84. which have once refused them; then by no reason can they be called indifferent. Our Answer. Your meaning is known, to wit, that by Congregations refusing them, you understand particular Parishes, whereof yourselves are Rectors, or Lecturers; never considering, that the great Congregation, which is the whole Church of England in her representative body of Synod, have all (by that authority whereunto you are otherwise bound to obey) prescribed unto particular Parishes and Congregations, the use of these Ceremonies: he therefore that shall ascribe more power to particular Congregations for the refusing, than to the great assembly of the whole kingdom in imposing a determinate use of things indifferent, may by the same with justify any by-lawes devised by honest men in particular Parishes, with refusal and contradiction of Parliament Laws and Statutes, enacted by the whole kingdom, and ratified by his majesties Royal assent. But seeing you are more in love with the Laws of a Parochial assembly, than of a national Synod, I would know (for it is material) by whose Suffrages and voices you would have Ceremonies approved or condemned in your Congregations, whether by men, or by women? If by men, of what condition must they be? whether of Gentry, or Yeomanrie, or, etc. Think not that I am idle in these Interrogatories, seeing that they tend to bring you to the sight of your error: which is, indeed, intolerable; for what is this else but to prefer sheep before their Pastors? that is, ignorance before knowledge, in the policy of government of the Church: not to speak of the unreasonableness of your manner of reasonning, which is à minore ad magis affirmative; whereby you give us occasion to invert your own Argument against you, thus; If a small Congregation may have power to determine of the indifferency, & conveniency of Ceremonies, than the constitution and ordinance of a greater Congregation, and that also by lawful authority predominant (such as every national Synod is) ought much more to have power to the same effect. Howsoever, when the refusal of your Congregation is rightly examined, it will be found, that before any voice, or Suffrage is propounded for receiving or rejecting any of your Laws, the Minister in the Parish will first in the Pulpit give the definitive sentence: Whence it will consequently follow, that each of your Congregations must, in effect, conclude from but one voice. Thus far of the weak. SECT. XIIII. Their first Objection of scandal, against our Ceremonies, in respect of the unconformable Minister's themselves. And as there is danger in the use of these Ceremonies in all Congregations, Abridg. Linc pag. 50. so especially if they shall be brought back again into those, where they have been long out of use; and received by such Ministers, as are known to have refused them heretofore. For where he should provide by all good means, that his Ministry be not desspised, by this means he shall give evident occasion unto his people to blame his Ministry, and to call into question the truth of all his Doctrine. Our Answer. If you shall as duly discern, as I shall truly discover the manifold crimes, which you seem to bewray in this one supposition, I suppose that you will be ashamed to have published such (I shall say no more than I mean to prove) a false, presumptuous, irreligious, partial, and pernicious a pretence as this is. First, I have adventured to call it false, and I think upon good ground, because most of you have once at your Ordination into the Priesthood, and many of you also the second time at your Institution into your Benefices, subscribed unto the lawfulness of these Ceremonies here in question; which now upon a pretence of strictness of conscience, you do so urgently and vehemently oppugn. 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 object the fear of discrediting your Ministry, (if after the publishing of your contrary opinion you should conform) as the Rule of your consciences, for persisting in Nonconformity, although it be to the disturbance of the peace of the Church: And notwithstanding make it no Rule of your conscience, for practise of conformity and continuance of the peace of the Church, to fear the discrediting your Ministry, by gainsaying your former subscriptions. Which doth plainly argue the falseness of your pretence, as if it were a less matter of discredit to contradict the writings of your hands, than the words of your mouths. But what talk you of discredit in such a cause as this, wherein judicious men must needs account your reformation to be rather a redemption of a former scandal, than an introduction of a new? Thus much in showing your pretence to be false. The same objection of discrediting your Ministry, was likewise called presumptuous, because hereby you seem to arrogate to yourselves a prerogative proper to the Apostles; who, because they were the immediate and infallible organs and instruments of the holy Ghost, and first Ambassadors of Christ, for the publishing of the Gospel of salvation throughout the world, might (if peradventure they had erred in any thing) say of themselves, as one of them did; If we be found false witnesses, 1. Cor. 15. then is your faith in vain: even because all the fabric of the Church of the faithful is built upon the foundation of the Apostles, And accordingly the same Apostle, speaking to the same purpose, saith of himself, If I build again that which I destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator: meaning, Gal. 2.18. that he thereby should ruinate whatsoever Christian doctrine he had formerly built. But we alas, poor Bats that we are, why should we presume that the credit or discredit of the Ministry of the Gospel should rely or depend upon us? have we seen Christ in the flesh? or came the word of the Ministry from us, that we should assume to yourselves the Apostolical privileges of not erring in any thing? Nay, but let us rather propound unto ourselves the example of that ingenuity, which was most visible in Saint Augustine, whose Retractations of his own errors wrought him no small credit throughout the Churches of Christ, and accordingly stronger ratification of his more constantly professed truths. And furthermore, why may we not, in the third place, call your former pretence (as we have done) irreligious? for you must needs know, that the persisting in an error, for the preservation of your own credit, although it be taken at the best, can be no less a crime than (which was condemned by the Apostle) The doing of evil that good may come thereof. Rom. 3. Let us therefore (I pray you) leave this Antichristian piece of policy to that Church, which in her Council of Trent (as it is to be seen in the Oration, Orat. i● Conc. Trident. which Gaspar had in the same Council) did maintain her sacrilegious custom of administering the Eucharist to the people only in one kind; principally by this pretence, Ne errasse videretur, that is, lest that she may seem to have erred. This we hold to be irreligious. Fourthly, there is as good reason to judge your former position partial, because if the credit of the Ministry must prevail in this case, than ought you rather to yield unto Conformity, for the credit of the Church; than, for your own credit sake, to refuse it: seeing that the estimation of some few parties, as members, must necessarily give place to the whole body. The last Epithet remaineth, naming your former objection Pernicious; whereunto I think myself licensed by that saying of the Apostle; Woe is me, if I preach not the Gospel. By which words, Saint Paul in his own person denounceth a Woe unto every Minister of the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9.16. that shall put himself unto silence. But you are ready too regest, that the cause of silencing is not in yourselves, but in the Bishops that suspend and deprive you; and therefore that they, and not you, become liable to that curse. Know you well what you say; or are you desirous to delude your own souls? for the case standeth thus: Titus the Bishop doth deprive Titius, a factious and schismatical Minister, that he may place Sempronious, a peaceable & discreet man in his stead. In this proceeding, the intendment of Titus is not absolutely to deprive Titius, as he is a Minister, but as he was factious, yet so only respectively; that Titius being deprived, he may constitute Sempronius: For the charge of a Bishop is not determinate, to appoint this Minister; but indefinite, to ordain a Minister: so that the course of God's Plough is still preserved and continued. But as for Titius, who will rather be silenced then conform, it is evident, that the cause of his silencing being his own refractariness, which is only personal and proper to himself, and yet hath no faculty in himself to appoint or admit of a Successor: why therefore may not he be said to have as properly caused the suspension from his Ministry, as the Steward in the Gospel, by his injustice did cause the loss of his office, or Agar, Sarahs' made, may be said by her contempt and contumely, to have put herself out of service. It is only the justice 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 dreadful: I ought not to esteem any thing a just cause, why I should wilfully incur the censure of Silencing myself from preaching, for the which I ought not as willingly to adventure my life. Which Doctrine ought to seem so much the more necessary unto you, for that your own Witnesses, and such as have been the principal Authors of unconformitie, 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 balance, (which we may call, non prohiberi;) and the duty of Preaching in another balance of Praecipi, whereof the Apostle said, 1. Cor 9.16. that, Necessity is laid upon 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 themselves; and Preaching being an office imposed as necessary, upon danger of that fearful Woe, have both of them wisely resolved, that the balance of the necessity of the performance of our charge, in feeding the flock of Christ, doth far preponderate and exceed in weight the other balance of all inconveniences, which otherwise may happen in wearing a Surplice. To this purpose I would exhort you, to cast your eyes upon Saint Peter, in whom Christ would have every Minister to behold his own face; unto whom he said again, joh. ult. and again, Simon, lovest thou me? feed my sheep: charging, in that one person, every Preacher of the Gospel, that upon all loves, which they owe unto Christ, they would lose no opportunity of feeding his flock. Which speech of love ought to make a greater impression in our hearts, than that other direful denunciation of Woe. SECT. XV. Their last Objection, is from a pretended Appearance of Evil. Abridg. Linc. ibid. 1. Thess. 5.22. The Apostle among other his exhortations, admonisheth the Thessalonians to abstain from all appearance of evil: meaning thereby all such Doctrines, which have in them any colour of error; such as these Ceremonies have because of their former abuses by Romish Papists. Our Answer. The Apostle speaketh of the opinions of private men, which others might have just occasion to suspect, even because they were private, and peradventure had some alliance with the known errors of corrupt Teachers. But the doctrine of our Church, concerning Ceremonies, is public, and manifested to the consciences of all men, to be most Orthodox and sound; purged from all the Leaven of that Romish superstition, which attributeth an efficacious sanctity to the characters of man's inventions: So that minds not possessed with sinister jealousy, may easily see that integrity in our Church, in respect of the spiritual purity, which Caesar wished to find in his wife, in respect of the corporal, that is, To be void, as of fault, so also of suspicion of fault. Contrariwise, your manner of opposition unto the Church, by Nonconformity, is not only a show and appearance of evil; but even an apparent and public evil itself, being a disobedience without ground, to that Ordinance which God hath placed over you; to the distracting of men's minds, by drawing some into Schism; as will appear in our Confutation following. SECT. XVI. Our general Confutation of their last general Assumption, by proving the Non-conformists guilty of many Scandals. This point can need no great dispute, if you shall but call to mind the first distinction of Active, and Passive scandal; the Active being a giving of offence, by provoking others unto evil; whether directly, by some evil Act; or indirectly, by an Act indifferent in itself: In both which the fault is to be imputed to the Agent. But the Passive scandal is a being provoked to evil, only by taking offence at some Act, either good, or at least not evil in itself: and the fault arising from thence is proper to the party offended. And now let us try, whether this your withstanding of the Orders and Ordinances of the Church, doth not necessarily infer upon you a manifold guilt of both these kind of scandals against others? SECT. XVII. The diverse Scandals, occasioned by the Non-conformists, may be reduced unto 4. heads: 1 By weakening some that remain in the Church. 2 By driving some out of the Church. 3 In hindering others from the Church. 4 By an high contempt against the Church itself. The first Scandal, occasioned by the Non conformists, is in weakening some that are yet in the Church. Your Active scandal worketh apparently both against [Pusillos] the weak; and also against [Perfectos] the stronger sort of Christians. We begin with the weak persons; whereof some beholding your vehement opposition against the Church, stand amazed thereat, as Vulgar men use to do, when, looking earnestly upon the eclipse of the Moon, they presently dream 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 less moment) do wonder what may be the event thereof, and thereupon become more remiss in the profession of Religion; whilst, by your detracting from the Ordinances of the Church, many take occasion soon to neglect the outward worship of God; whereupon their inward zeal and devotion soon cooleth, and in the end vanisheth away. SECT. XVIII. Their second kind of scandal is by driving some out of the Church. The parties, which are driven out of the Church are (a word full of horror!) the Separatists, (that is, true pharisees, both in name, and pride of self-conceit) who having been once catechised by you, that our Ceremonies are to be refused and abolished, as being Idolatrous; have therefore, at the sight of your opposition, as men that behold an Earth quake, waxen giddy in their brains, knowing only from whence, but not whither to fly. For, upon the reason of your Refusal of our Ceremonies, they hold it as reasonable to refuse you; thinking it necessary to have no communion with them, who join themselves in a worship which is in any degree polluted with Ceremonies that are Romishly Idolatrous. Therefore they fly; But whence? as Cain did; Gen. 4. From the presence of God in his Church. And whither will they then? Even to A●sterdam to seek out a Religion they know not what; as likewise Cain did, into the Land of Nod, (which signifieth a place of giddiness and vexation,) where, even as Cain built new houses, they frame new Religions, which made to day, they (as little children use to do with the Puppet-works of their own hands) cast, and break down the next day following. Now if you shall ask these Deformists, why they break out into Separation? may they not call the Non-conformists the first occasion thereof, think you? Thus of the Weak, whom your Example hath driven out of the Church. SECT. XIX. Their third Scandal 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 speak in this case) being exhorted to embrace the evangelical truth, presently oppose as a bar, your divisions and oppositions against our Church; being utterly vnperswad●ble to enter into a Church, where all ancient Rites are professedly rejected? And this scandal is not new, for B●shop jewel observed in his time, that Papists were scandalised by such as then could not abide the sign of the Cross: Unto whom, that reverend Father answered, in the name of the most and best Divines; yea, and of the Church of England itself; Thanking God, B. jewel. See beneath, part, 2. chap. 2 sect. 14. that the Protestants both could abide the sign of the Cross, yea, and did also willingly and joyfully take up their cross, for the glorious name of Christ. But you oppose. SECT. XX. Their Reply. Abridg. Linc. pag. 48. We are not, for winning of the Papists to offend our Brethren. Our Answer. Although I presume you will not deny every Papist (ay mean especially such an one, which is misled by simple ignorance) all interest of Brotherhood in Christianity; yet because you understand by them, whom you may not offend, such Professors who join with you in a nearer propriety, Tert. and (that I may speak with Tertullian) consanguinity of doctrine; give me but leave to demand of you who they are, whom you, in an opposition against Papists, do single out for your Brethren? Whether such as do conform themselves to the Ordinances of the Church; or only them that persist in Vnconformitie; or both? You cannot mean the Conformable; for these are not offended at the use of our Ceremonies, but rather at your refusal of them. And you may not appropriate the title of Brethren only 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 essential offices of Christian Brotherhood. But if lastly, the word, Brethren, must imply both sorts, than ought you, as it becometh the children of one Church, to forbear to offend such Brethren, which are more obsequious and dutiful to their Mother; rather than those, that are refractory and disobedient. But will you hear the truth in a few words? Upon due examination it will appear, that you yourselves (who teach and practise Nonconformity) are those Brethren, whom you are so loath should be offended: or rather who, by your resistance against Ecclesiastical Orders, do occasion an intolerable Scandal and Offence within the Church. SECT. XXI. Their fourth and greatest Scandal, is against the Church itself, especially in two kinds. The first is Comparative. In your Objections you showed that your care is to avoid the offence of persons of your own disposition, whom you call your Brethren; and yet do you neglect the observance that you owe unto 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 stroke must needs light upon the head of his own Mother? I shall desire you that we may plead this point according to the strict Law of good conscience; for so the iniquity of your practice will more plainly appear. Thus then. If my Brother be unjustly offended, his Scandal, in respect of me, is only Passive, that is, taken and not given: so that the whole fault of Scandal, in this case, is to be imputed unto the sinister apprehension of my Brother. But if my Mother the Church be offended by me, in that wherein I owe obedience unto her, the Scandal on my part is fully Active, and the whole fault is in myself; because hereby I, as much as lieth in me, do hinder her fruitfulness and happy success, in begetting and breeding many children unto God. But you will say, that where some few private persons are like to be offended, there the Church ought, in constituting of her Ceremonies, to have respect of those few; albeit the same Orders and Ceremonies, which are in their own nature indifferent, should be generally affected and desired of the most part. You are herein not a little deceived, as may be observed in the Council of the Apostles, which imposed upon the Gentiles an Abstinence from eating of meats, Act. 15. from strangled, and blood: To the end that they might avoid the Scandal of the greater number of jewish Proselytes, who were like to be offended at their eating of such meats, which had been formerly forbidden by the express commandment of God: yet the Apostles did not in the same Council labour to prevent the offence, which might have risen from a conceit of some few Gentiles, then Converts to the faith; who peradventure might think that Christian liberty (which is a freedom, to eat of any sort of meats) was not a little impeached by that Apostolical Canon of Abstinence. Secondly, it is necessary that a different respect be had between those weak ones, which are such before, and those that are weak after the orthodox and lawful meaning of the Church, wherein we live, be fully published, and made known. And by this observation your common objection is easily assoiled, which is taken from the Apostle his doctrine, prohibiting Christians for a time to Abstain from eating of centaine meats, Rom. 14. for fear of offence to the Weak. For he enjoined that Abstinence, in the case of Scandal of private men, before the doctrine of the Church had been sufficiently proclaimed, concerning the liberty which Christians have to eat of All meats: But after that the same doctrine of Indifferency, in eating of meats, was made public by the Church, then to have sought by Abstaining; and not eating, to avoid the offence of some, to the prejudice of Christian liberty, and to the Scandal of the Church, had been no less an iniquity, than if a man, for the preservation of some sick members, should occasion the destruction of the whole body. This is no new point of doctrine, but that which you might have learned long since from P. Martyr, one of your own principal Witnesses; Loc come. class. 2. c. 4. p. 201. Imò neque semper in ipsis medijs rebus etc. Yet we may not always (saith he) yield unto the weak in things indifferent, but only until they be more perfectly taught: but wh●n once they have understood, and yet still stand in doubts [Infirmitas eorum non est ferenda,] we may not pamper their weakness. So he. What then may we think of your weak 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 kind of Scandal against the Church, by contempt. Your first Scandal was comparative, in resolving rather to offend the Church, whereby you are constituted Ministers, and wherein you have both your esse, and bene esse, in Christianity, than to offend some few parts and members thereof. But the Scandal, which we now speak of, may seem to be absolute, by a direct contempt of the Church. SECT. XXIII. Their Answer to the Objection of Contempt. Nonconformity proceeding from the fear of not sinning against God, M. Nic. is neither Contempt nor Scandal: and therefore may be allowed favour in the eyes of the Law. Our Reply. The eyes of mortal judges can find no windows, through which they may possibly look into your consciences, to discern of what colour your Fear is; whether it be truly for offence against the Law of God, seeing that the Lawmakers themselves, who were no other than the whole State of this Kingdom, as well Civil as Ecclesiastical persons, then religiously addicted to purge the Church of England from all Popish superstition, could discern no such unlawfulness in those Ceremonies, as you fancy to yourselves: Or else whether it be popular, for fear of displeasing of private persons; especially in Parishes where your maintenance doth arise from the voluntary contribution of the people, who seek to tie the tongues of their Teachers to their purs-strings: which must open and shut according to their quarterly fancies. Howsoever; if every pretence of Gods fear might challenge favour, for transgressing of man's Law, whereunto God himself exacteth obedience, even under the obligation of conscience; then should such Papists, who contemn both the Laws, and Magistracy of this Kingdom, put in their Plea for the obtaining of favour upon the pretence of conscience: as might likewise the Anabaptist, who holdeth it a matter of conscience to acknowledge no civil obedience. And that indeed in your unconformity there is a full an appearance of contempt of lawful Authority, as may justly deny unto you that favour, which you so earnestly contend for, we shall make evident in our answer to your next Argument, concerning Christian liberty; whereunto we proceed. CHAP. VI SECT. I. The sixth general Argument, made by the Non-conformists, against the three Ceremonies aforesaid; upon pretence that they are against the Liberty of the Church. Maior. That which depriveth m●n of Christian liberty is unlawful. M. Hy. Assumption. But the imposition of these Ceremonies of Surplice, etc. doth deprive us of Christian liberty. Ergo, they are unlawful. Our Answer. WE do so willingly grant your Mayor, that we account it a kind of spiritual felony to deprive the subjects of Christ his Kingdom of that liberty, which our Lord Christ hath purchased unto all the faithful professors of the Gospel. But we deny your Assumption. SECT. II. The Non-conformists general Assumption, concerning our Ceremonies. M. Hy. But the imposition of these three Ceremonies, viz. Surplice, Cross in the administration of Baptism, and Kneeling at the receiving of the Eucharist, do deprive us of Christian liberty. Our Answer. The sin of impeaching the liberty of Christians, being so heinous a crime, you stand either chargeable to prove this Assumption, or else compellable to confess it to be no better than a false and impious Slander against the Church. Proceed therefore to your Proofs. SECT. III. Their Proofs. It is our Christi●n liberty to use Ceremonies appointed by man, Ibid. as things indifferent: but these Ceremonies are imposed as necessary. Therefore do they deprive us of our Christian liberty, Our Answer, by distinction; showing the state of the Question. The Non-conformists themselves will acknowledge, that our question, in this dispute, is not concerning that Christian liberty, which the Apostle mentioneth, Rom. 6. Rom. 6. whereby we are freed from the rigour of the moral Law, pronouncing a curse upon all them that persist not in all the Commandments of God, to do them: nor of the liberty from the jewish bondage of the Levitical Law, which the Apostles call an importable Yoke. Act. 15. But the subject matter of this our Controversy is a liberty from the necessary observation of such things, which are in their own nature indifferent, as is implied by the Obiector himself. 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 deprive a Christian of that liberty, which Christ by his Testament hath bequeathed unto his Church: both which he may easily learn, by distinguishing between two kinds of necessities, which are incident unto human precepts and ordinances, in the case of indifferency. The one is the necessity of obedience to the commandment: the other is the necessity of Doctrine. The first necessity of obedience unto human precepts, in things lawful and indifferent, are so far from prejudicing our Christian liberty, that Christ himself hath established this necessity in his Church, charging Christian Subjects to obey their Rulers: Children their Parents: servants their Masters. Rom. 13. 1. P●t. 2 13. Ephes. 6.1.7. Therefore necessity of obedience cannot properly contradict our Christian liberty. I have said, properly, and in itself; albeit accidentally, (in respect of the multitude of impositions, which may be impossible to be kept) our Christian liberty may be extremely wronged: but this being only accidentally, ought rather to be called a depravation of Christian liberty, than a deprivation thereof. Thus much of the necessity of obedience. We return to the Doctrinal necessity, which is as often as a man shall attribute unto an human constitution any of those properties which are essential unto Divine Ordinances. These properties are principally three; 1. immediately to bind the consciences of men: 2. to be a necessary means to salvation: and 3. to hold it altogether unalterable by any authority of man: all which points do infer a Doctrine of Divine necessity; and therefore are not these (that I may so say) the Images or superscriptions of Caesar; but Characters of an authority properly belonging unto God: and consequently all such kind of Prescriptions, which contain in them any opinion of Doctrinal necessity, whensoever they shallbe ordained by men, although they concern only the outward Ceremonies of God's worship, yet must we judge them no better than mere presumptions and prevarications against the Sovereignty of God himself. This Doctrine Saint Peter learned, Act. 10. 11.12· in the case of indifferency of meats, by that heavenly vision of the great sheet, wherein were all manner of beasts, and birds: which was interpreted by the Divine oracle that said unto Peter, the things which God hath purified, pollute thou not. ver. 15. If therefore, when God hath signed any doctrine with a mark of Indifferency, to use, or not to use; man shall come and stamp upon it his own mark of necessity, teaching it to be unclean, that it may not in any case be used by man, this is a plain heresy; whereinto notwithstanding divers false & fantastical spirits plunged themselves, who taught, concerning such meats as were represented in that sheet, (albeit, that heavenly voice had said to Peter, Kill and eat) Touch not, taste not, Colos. ●. 21. handle not. This explication thus premised, you may proceed, and show (if you can) that any of the foresaid properties of necessity are imposed by our Church, as you have pretended. SECT. FOUR The pretended proofs of the Non-conformists are taken from 1. Scriptures. 2. Reasons. Their first Objection 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 upon you. Showing, that the imposition of necessity upon things indifferent is a very snare of men's Consciences. Our Answer. When the Apostle had said, 1, Cor. 7.8. ver, 32.33. that It is good for man not to marry; and again, The unmarried careth for things belonging to the Lord, 1. Cor. 7 8. Ver. 32.33. but the married for the things of this world: lest that he might seem thereby to infer a general necessity of not marrying, he preoccupateth, saying; This I speak not to ensnare you, meaning, that his intent was not to entangle men's consciences in an opinion of necessity of single life, Ver. 35. because God himself gave a liberty of marrying. For in such a case, to enjoin a necessity, is indeed man's snare, whereby the Papists (by their Laws of vows unto men burning in lusts) Stringunt, imò strangulant, do even stifle many thousand souls. The case of necessity standing thus, I marvel how you could apply the snare, mentioned by the Apostle, unto our Doctrine of Ceremonies, without some twitch of your own consciences; seeing that you never heard this point of necessity taught in our Church. Examine her Articles, review her Rubrics, search her Canons, and Constitutions, and try whether (I mean in Churches, wherein there are the like prescriptions,) either the want of a Surplice, or forbearing the use of the Sign of the Cross, or the not kneeling at the receiving of the holy Communion, do make men transgressors of God's Law; or deprave the truth of God's worship; or deprive the worshippers of grace and salvation. Nay, but (which doth make your Calumniation most apparent) she hath plainly professed the contrary, both in judging her own Ceremonies Alterable, and in not condemning the different Ceremonies of other reformed Churches, as hereafter will plainly appear. SECT. V. Their second place of Scripture. This is a special part of the liberty, which Christ hath purchased for us 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) unto the liberty, unto which Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled with the yoke of bondage. Showing, that the service, which we are now to do unto God, is not mystical, Ceremonial, and carnal, as it was then; but plain, and spiritual. Our Answer. The Assembly of Non-conformists, who made this Objection from that Text of the Apostle, Gal. 5.1, did, as it may seem, never consult with the Context; Gal. 5.1. both because they expound this Scripture, as spoken of all mystical Ceremonies, which the Apostle delivereth only of jewish Rites: as also for that they understand those words to be spoken merely of Ceremonies, (as if they had been unlawful in themselves) which the Apostle speaketh mixedly, as implying thereby that doctrine of necessity, which false Apostles had attributed unto them; namely, an opinion of necessity, whereby the whole Gospel of Christ, concerning justification by remission of sins, was consequently overthrown; according as the Apostle concludeth, saying; Stand in the Liberty, wherewith Christ hath made you free, etc. And again, Ver. 2. Behold, I Paul say, that if you be circumcised, Christ can profit you nothing. Why? but only because Circumcision, being the Seal of the Covenant of the Moral Law, doth exact of every one, that holdeth Circumcision necessary to salvation, an absolute performance of every minim and jot of the same Law: therefore it followeth, whosoever will be justified by the Law, becometh a Debtor to the whole Law; and consequently Christ is become of none effect unto you. Next concerning justification by the Law of the old Testament (whereof Circumcision was the Seal,) the Apostle teacheth that the difference of the Old and the New Testament, in respect of justification, is as much as between Agar the servant, Gal. 4. engendering unto bondage; and Sarah the Mistress and freewoman, that bringeth forth the heir of promise: so that whosoever will be heir of salvation, must first become a noble Saracen, and not remain a base Agaren, that is, he must be such an one as seeketh perfect justification by the Gospel, which worketh obedience in love, and not by the exact and strict Righteousness of the Law, which driveth men into a slavish obedience through an hellish fear. This your own Witnesses could not but understand, and know, that that [Yoke] condemned in this Scripture doth not signify the use, or yet so much as the mystical signification of Circumcision, because the Apostle Saint Paul himself did circumcise Timothy: but by it, is understood that opinion of the necessity of this Ceremony to salvation, which the false apostles had taught among the Galatians; which is so undoubtedly there condemned, that M. Calvin sticketh not to call them Insulsos Interpretes, Ca●u. Comment. upon this place. Absurd, or unsavoury Interpreters, who teach that the Apostle in this Epistle contendeth only for the Liberty of Circumcision, in regard of the use; and not rather against the necessity of that use, for the obtaining of justification and salvation thereby. Which necessity howsoever it may be found in Popish doctrine of Mystical Rites, yet shall you as soon prove Rome to be England, as find the Popish superstition in our English profession, concerning the use of Ceremonies. Thirdly, in your objection, you unsoundly and unsavorily confound these two terms, Mystical and Carnal, as though every Mystical Ceremony, were consequently Carnal. Know you not that the Sacraments of the new Testament are the most Mystical Ceremonies of all others? nevertheless, none, but an unchristian, or rather Antichristian spirit would call them Carnal: For albeit the jewish Ceremonies deserved that name, because they signified first and primarily, outward and carnal promises, (as the cleansings of the flesh, and the enjoyments of earthly blessings; but remission of sins, and heavenly blessedness they shadowed only remotely, and under a second veil) yet the Sacraments of the Gospel are immediate Signs and Seals of the spiritual things themselves, such as are remission of sins, redemption from death, devil, and hell, and a full interest in the promises of an eternal inheritance. So likewise it savoureth of the flesh, and not of the Spirit, to call our Ceremonies, to wit, Surplice, Sign of the Cross, and Kneeling, Carnal; except you can find any Carnality in Sanctity, Constancy in the faith of Christ, or in religious Humility, which are the immediate, and Moral significations that these three Ceremonies do represent. SECT. VI Their second Objection 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 behalf? Our Answer, from their own 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 read that which our Church hath set down in capital letters, wherein she avoucheth her own integrity, professing to use but a few Ceremonies, and those also without opinion of Necessity: and not this only, but furthermore doth often condemn the Church of Rome, for infringing of Christian liberty, by her Ceremonial constitutions, both in respect of the nature, and number of her Rites. First, I say, in regard of their Nature, by attributing unto them such an opinion of Necessity, which taketh away all Indifferency, which is done as well by holding and exercising them as necessary means of attaining unto eternal life; as also by placing in them the chiefest and most essential part of God's worship. Secondly, in respect of their number and multitude, which is become importable. These two exceptions against the Church of Rome, which we have only pointed at, are particularly and largely acknowledged and set down by that golden quill of M. Calvin, throughout his fourth book of Institutions, Cal. Inst l. 4. ca 10. num. 1. cap. 10. where he inveigheth against (as he calleth it) [Barbarum imperium] the Barbarous Thraldom of Popish Ceremonies: But why? Even because (if we respect the nature of them) they affirm (saith he) their Laws to be spiritual, and properly belonging unto the soul, and necessary for eternal life, whereby the Kingdom of Christ is invaded, and Christian liberty of men's consciences is altogether overthrown: seeing that they seek justification and salvation in their own observations, wherein they place [Ipsis simum Dei cultum, Calu. ibid. Num. 9 ut ità loquar, in ipsis contineri:] the sum of all Religion and piety (meaning the essential worship of God,) and subject the true worship of God to their own comments and devices, unto the observation whereof they do bind 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 confirm; whereby they Pharisaically make void the precepts of God, by the Traditions of men, which was condemned by Christ; and that so expressly, that M. Calvin durst again assume, saying; Vicerint sanè, si quovis modo ab hac Christi accusatione purgare se poterant, that is, Ibid. num. 10. We are ready to yield them the victory, if by any means they shall be able to free themselves from this accusation of Christ: but what excuse can they make, seeing that first it is held with them a wickedness, infinitely more heinous, to omit their auricular confession, once within the year; than to have lived impiously all the year long: secondly, to infect their tongues with the least taste of any flesh upon one Friday; than to have defiled their bodies with filthy and fleshly fornications from day to day: thirdly, to put their hands to work on any day, that is dedicated to their own devised Saints; than to have exercised their whole bodies in all facinorous and mischievous acts: fourthly, for a Priest to match himself in marriage with one wife; than to wallow in a thousand adulteries: five, to break their vow of pilgrimage; than to falsify their faith in their promises: sixtly, not to be somewhat superfluous in bestowing excessive costs, for the prodigious and unprofitable gawdines of their Churches; than to be wanting in contribution to the relief of the poor in their extreme necessities: seventhly, to pass by an Image, without reverence to it; than to revile all sorts of men with all contumely and reproach: eightly, to omit the muttering with themselves in their Matins some certain hours, many words without understanding; than never to conceive a lawful prayer with their understanding. So M. Calvin. And what is it, if this be not to prefer the Traditions of men, before the commandments 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 observed, so huge is the heap of them: how therefore shall not the minds of men be extremely scorched with anxiety and terror by this difficulty; yea, impossibility 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 truly say, that they have brought a judaism into the Church of God. For if Augustine could complain in his days, that the Church of God was so pressed with the burden of Ceremonies, that the state of the jews might seem to be more tolerable; What complaints would that holy man have made, if he had lived in our times, to see the servitude which we behold at this day, seeing that the Ceremonies are now tenfold more for number, and every jot of them is more strictly and rigorously exacted by an hundredfold? Here, here is matter for your pens to work upon, and to inveigh against this so outrageous a tyranny of Antichrist, by your many Vae's: and not to take part with pharisees, in complaining against the true Disciples of Christ, for the use of Three guiltless Ceremonies (as it were, for only plucking of the Ears of Corn) 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 Three, none of us did ever place any essential worship of God; or power of justification; or religious piety and sanctification; or do, in our estimation, prefer them before; yea, or do so much as equal them with any Ordinance of God; or finally yield unto them any other use than a religious Decorum, and godly signification. Now then, for any to complain (as one of you have done) that The burdens laid upon you by our Church are more grievous than your forefathers were able to bear; M. Hy. Thes. 19 is but an argument that he can hardly point out his Father, that doth not know his own Mother: for if he acknowledged himself a true child of our Church, he would not cast such a slander of oppressing Gods worshippers with Burdens, which I am sure his Fathers have, and now the most learned and discreet among his Brethren do bear with better consciences, than he can forbear them. Thus much of their first Reason. SECT. VII. Their second Reason, why these Ceremonies prejudice our Christian liberty, is taken from a pretence, that they are imposed with an opinion of binding men's consciences. We have nothing, as yet, to settle our doubtful consciences upon, 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 Divines teach us, that human Laws do not bind men's consciences; and that men do not incur the guilt of eternal damnation, but only by violating the Laws of God. Our Answer. If you had understood those your Divines aright, you would have distinguished between the manner, and measure of binding of conscience; where, by [manner] is meant the authority of Binding; and by [measure] the limits of this obligation of conscience. Let us begin with the Manner, which is the authority of immediately binding the conscience of man, so; as to make his transgression damnable before God: which authority proceedeth only from him, who can first prohibit the internal acts of man's mind, as being able to discern the thoughts of man's 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 man's thoughts, can secondly judge according to man's conscience? To wit, God only, concerning whom Saint Paul saith, Rom. 2.2. Their conscience bearing them witness, and their thoughts accusing or excusing in that day, when God shall judge secrets of men. And thirdly who, judging men's thoughts, can accordingly render punishment, or reward everlastingly; an act likewise proper to God, jac. 4.12. as S. james teacheth: There is one Lawgiver, who is able to destroy and save. But the Laws of men are said to bind men's consciences, not immediately, but as it were reflectively, by way of consequence, that is, by virtue of the Supremacy of God, that commandeth obedience to the just laws of men. All this seemeth to be grounded upon that Apostolical doctrine that saith; Rom. 13.1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for the powers that are, are ordained of God. Where we first observe, that Magistracy is God's Ordinance, ver. 5. whereof he further saith, It is necessary that you be subject; whereby there is imposed upon subjects that necessity of obedience, whereof we spoke; which notwithstanding no way derogateth from the liberty of doctrine. Thirdly, the same Apostle maketh this necessity fast by a bond of conscience, saying, that We must be obedient for conscience sake. How? as if the obligation of conscience, in obeying man, were immediately tied unto man? No, but unto God: and therefore that obedience unto Magistrates is there expressed, because that Magistracy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ordinance of God. And lastly, concerning God's punishment, he addeth, They that resist shall receive condemnation; ver. 2. thereby imputing a guilt of damnation upon all wilful and contemptuous disobedience. We may not therefore confound the distinct Courts & jurisdictions, one whereof is Gods, and the other is Man's; The first being spiritual and invisible; the second only civil and sensible: But rather ought we to acknowledge the Act of binding men's consciences, which is spiritual and invisible, to be properly belonging unto Forum coeli, God judging according to the inward transgression of man's heart; but not unto forum soli, wherein man hath power, as to punish, so to judge directly only 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 own Objection, from their own Witnesses. Our Divines (say you) teach, that human Laws bind not the consciences of men. Where by [Our Divines] you understand such Doctors of our Church, who condemn your Nonconformity: as though all other Divines, whom you usually produce in favour of your cause, were contrarily-minded: Among whom, one catechizing you in the duty of obedience unto the Political laws of men, telleth you, that Such politic precepts of Magistrates, and other Governors (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 perform them, neither can they be neglected without offence unto God: we are bound to observe them, even without the cause of scandal, as for example; To carry Arms is not a worship of God in itself, but it is made a worship of God accidentally, when the Magistrate shall command us to carry Arms, 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. come. Tract. de Magistra. pag. 618. knowing that Magistracy is the Ordinance of God, doth willingly yield obedience. This cause (saith he) moveth godly men to obey the Laws of Magistrates, even then, when they have power to deceive them, and to transgress without punishment: and this is the difference between the godly and wicked; the one obeyeth for fear of punishment, the other doth it in conscience. A third will reveal his judgement, in the Section following. SECT. IX. Our third point, in answering, is to show that Ecclesiastical Laws have no less force in the case of Conscience, than have the Politic. Your former Witnesses, although they attribute to the Politic Laws a power of binding men's consciences, yet do they deny the same to the Ordinances which are of Ecclesiastical cognizance: Loc. Com. Tract. de Tradit. pag. 771. Among others, P. Martyr affirmeth; Ecclesiastica non obstringunt conscientias, si removeatur contemptus & scandalum, nè aut tumore animi, & de industriâ constituta rescindamus, aut turbemus communem pacem Ecclesiae.— At praeceptis civilibus iubemur parere, non tantùm propter tram, sed etiam propter conscientiam, nec alienam, sed nostram. So he. whereof Vrsinus endeavoureth to give us a reason, saying; Vrsinus in the place above cited. Name violatione legum Ecclesiasticarum sine scandalo non violatur prima tabula decalogi, cui servire 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 satisfy any reasonable man, think you? as though that divine authority, which, in the behalf of obedience unto politic Magistrates, saith unto subjects, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; and to servants, 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 spiritual parents and Governors, saying, Obey them that are set over you, for they watch, as those who must give account for your souls. Now, Heb. 13.13. the commandment of obeying, proceeding equally, in both, from the same divine authority; it must needs follow, that the obligation and bonds of Obeying, in both, is of equal necessity, to charge us as well to preserve the peace of the Church, as of the commonwealth. For is there not in the Church a Society? and is not also a breach of the uniform concord and peace of the same Society, an unsufferable injury and mischief; as whereby Aliquid Reip. Christianae detrahitur, & ipsa Societas Ecclesiastica laeditur? etc. And therefore how shall not this be a violation of the second table, as well as the like transgression against laws politic? But I need not use much arguing, to confute the former opinion. 1. because the opinion itself is not common: 2. because it can have no place in our Church, wherein our gracious Sovereign Lord and King hath set his Royal stamp upon our Constitutions and Ceremonies, by his majesties politic authority. And lastly, because the light of Scripture is evidently against it; especially in divers Apostolical Constitutions, whereof some were Ceremonial, and yet challenged obedience in their times. Thus much of the manner of obliging man's conscience. We proceed to the measure. SECT. X. Our fourth point, in answering, is to express how far human Laws do bind men's consciences; and whether all just Laws do not bind them against Scandal and contempt of authority, as the measure of Obedience. It is not only the uniform judgement of the Authors above mentioned, but also the universal consent of all divines that write of this argument, that all persons are bound in conscience to perform obedience as well to governors Ecclesiastical, as unto Civil, so far as to avoid all Scandal and contempt against their lawful precepts and Ordinances: so that to suppose an Adversary 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 Scandal and contempt, concerning matters indifferent, doth principally consist. SECT. XI. The Objection of the Non-conformists. If a bare omission of a Rite were a contempt, than all that use bowling, which the Law disalloweth, and do not wear Caps, M. Nic. and such habits, as the Statutes enjoin, 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 Schools. Some take their measure from the will of the Lawgiver: conceiving, that the conscience of the Subject is then bound to obedience, whensoever the lawful Governor 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 necessity of the matter that is imposed; which although sometimes it be light in itself, yet by reason of some circumstance may become weighty and necessary enough, to challenge performance. Othersome take their line and measure both from the ponderousness of the matter, and also from the will and intention of the Lawgiver and Commander, whensoever he purposeth to prescribe any thing under that bond of conscience, which God exacteth, in charging men to obey those that are in authority. Which purpose of the Lawgiver some use to discern by the tenure of the Law and Statute; if it be delivered in such terms, which may seem deeply to charge men to perform their obedience. But some collect the same intention of the Lawgiver from the punishment, which by the same Law shall be inflicted upon persons offending: which if it be but pecuniary, and of smaller value, than they judge men's conscience, in such a case, bound only to the payment of that mulct whensoever it is exacted. By this last consideration, you may perceive that your former objection from Bowls, wanteth a Bias to bring it to the mark. For the Statute Laws, which prescribe pecuniary punishments against Bowling, lest it should hinder more warlike exercises, (as shooting) appointeth wearing of Caps, for the maintenance of some private Tradesmen, etc. 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 advantage you, but doth rather strongly condemn you. For the omissions of a professed Nonconformist proceed from an opinion, that he ought to disobey in this case; and therefore is, in the censure of the Church, a professed contemner: upon whom the Laws of the land have therefore imposed not a pecuniary mulct, but a flat deprivation of his Benefice, and Ministerial function. In case that the punishment enjoined be very grievous: as for example; imprisonment, banishment, loss of office and estate, deprivation, degradation, or such like extremities, these are held to be sufficient tokens, that the intention of the Magistrate, in giving of his Law, was to exact of his subjects obedience, by virtue of that Law of God, and to charge them with dutiful subjection in all lawful commands. And thus you yourselves appear guilty of a kind of Contempt, not for some few omissions of these Ceremonies, which are not liable to so great censures, but for your continual refusal, whereupon no less than deprivation doth ensue. For although the greatest contempt be, Nolle obedire Superiori; yet are there other properties of disobedience, which do necessarily infer an high degree of contempt, as namely, when any seeketh, by many acts, to express in himself, and to engender in others a viler estimation, either of the person that doth lawfully command, or of the thing that is accordingly commanded, than they do deserve: in which case we may reckon any outward Act, whereby it shall be known, that the doer must needs either incur the displeasure of his Governor; or else, so much as in him lieth, disturb the peace of the Church. In all this, that hath been delivered, I take not upon me to speak so definitively, as to prejudice the judgement of Others, but to show what seemeth unto me most probable: much less, to confute the opinion of them, that think, that the transgression of some penal Statutes of less moment doth not make the conscience of the Actor guilty of sin; but that (if it be without Scandal, or Contempt) it may have compensation, by the penalty which shallbe imposed. Which doctrine, the Romish School itself will acknowledge, first in Laws, which are purè poenales, whereof the jesuit Vasquez confesseth: That they, by the tenure of writing, neither forbid, nor command; Vasquez jes. Io 2.1. Thom. Tom. 2. disp. 159. cap. 2. pag 100 but only set down a punishment, either against them that shall do, or else against them that shall omit to do according to this form. He that shall commit this, or that, let him have this or that punishment: and therefore these kind of Laws bind men (not unto guilt of sin, but) only unto the penalty:— as for example, in that Law against him that shall break prison, he is chargeable only to undergo the punishment. This holdeth in other acts, which are not expressly forbid in other Laws. N●uarr. Manuale. c. 23. pag. 655. So he. Secondly Navarre, Felinus, and some others, go further, holding that Penal Laws do not bind beyond the intention of the Lawmaker. All which notwithstanding, there is no place of refuge or defence, for your manner of opposition, seeing that the intention of the Lawmaker, in ordaining of our Ceremonies, proceeded from the zeal of Conformity; the punishment imposed is, in the end, deprivation, or degradation; and your own guilt, by your continual refusal, can be, in the eyes of the Governors, no better than contempt. Which most of yourselves might more easily discern, if you would but acknowledge (which the pens, and tongues of all men do confess) that there is the same obligation of conscience, by the Law of God, concerning your obedience to the lawful orders of the Church, established by the King & whole Estate; as there can be of your own wives, children, or servants unto yourselves. In all which kind of relations a bare omission may proceed from men of awful affections, such as, if they knew that their Superiors should understand of their errors, and be greatly displeased thereat, would readily recall themselves: whereas the other omission, which is done by wilful opposition, must necessarily argue a contemner of the Commander, and infer a destruction of the Law and Command. SECT. XII. Our general confutation of the Non-conformists former general Argument, which was taken from the pretence of Christian Liberty. Our Reasons, to prove our Church free from impairing Christian Liberty, by her prescriptions, are taken from 1. The acknowledgement of the Non-conformists own Witnesses. 2. The public profession of the Church, in this behalf. 3. The contrary practice of the Non-conformists; whereby Christian Liberty is indeed superstitiously infringed. Our first Confutation, from the acknowledgement of their own Witnesses. That the Doctrinal opinion, concerning Ceremonies, is the only proper cause of depriving Christians of that Liberty in question, which Christ commended to his Church, in respect of things indifferent, is a point of learning commonly professed by your own Witnesses: amongst whom Danaeus, expressing the divers properties of the opinion of necessity, whereby Christian Liberty is dissolved, reduceth them into these four. 1. opinion of placing in human Ceremonies a Law of necessity to salvation: 2. a necessity of sanctity: 3. of merit: Isag. Tract. de Doctr. Eccle. Exam. part 2. pag. 43. 4. to make them necessary parts of God's worship. Chemnisius compriseth all in two words; Opinio necessitatis tollit libertatem: The opinion of necessity doth deprive the Church of Liberty. Master Calvin explaineth the point to the full, showing that it is not the necessity of obedience to man's commandment; but an opinion of the necessity of the commandment of man, Inst. l. 4. c 10.5.4 especially num. 1. that annuleth our liberty. A man (saith Calvin) is commanded to abstain from meats, 1. Cor. 10.28. where albeit God commandeth him to abstain in things indifferent, in respect of Scandal; yet doth not man thereby lose the liberty of conscience, because his own conscience hath respect unto God, (viz. by believing that the meat is in nature indifferent, and may in due time be lawfully eaten) but his abstinence hath respect unto the Conscience of another, that he be not offended, who thinketh such eating unlawful. And throughout the whole Treatise he showeth, that To make such Traditions necessary to eternal life, and to place in them the justice of remission of sins, and the sum of all religion and piety, is to invade the Kingdom of Christ, by whom we have liberty of conscience, in things indifferent. All which doth evidently show, that Christian liberty doth not consist in the use, or disuse of things indifferent; but in an opinion of the necessity of using, or not using them. Which point may be yet furthermore most plainly demonstrated, thus. In the case of Scandal, where, by the doctrine of the Apostle, I am bound in conscience to abstain from eating certain meats, for fear of offending a weak Christian; my conscience notwithstanding is free, in regard of my opinion, to believe that the meat, which I abstain 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, unto the public profession of our Church, whereby, albeit she challenge a necessary obedience to her command, yet doth she not command or teach any use of these Cereremonies, in any opinion of necessity thereof, but saith plainly; These Ceremonies are retained for Discipline and Order, Communion book before the Service. which upon just causes may be altered and changed; and are not to be esteemed equal with Gods Law. What then needeth this loud clamour, or rather lewd slander, which some blush not to cast upon her, imputing unto her no less a crime, than the bereaving them of their Christian Liberty? by whom notwithstanding they themselves do at this day enjoy all the spiritual freedom, and happy interest that they have in Christ. SECT. XIIII. Our last Proof, (or rather Reproof) against the Non-conformists, showing that they by their manner of refusing these Ceremonies, have superstitiously withstood that Christian liberty, which they would seem to defend. Christian liberty (as hath been already proved and acknowledged) is properly impeached by a Doctrinal necessity; namely, by teaching men to believe some thing to be necessary in itself, 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 twofold; the one is affirmative, the other negative. Affirmative superstition is to affirm the use of any thing, that is indifferent, to be of absolute necessity; as without which the faith of Christianity, or the true worship of God, cannot possibly consist. See above sect. 4. Of which kind we have had many examples in Popery. The negative superstition is to deny the lawful use of any thing, which Christ hath left free: with wh●ch kind of superstition, not only Papists, but also many ancient Heretics have been dangerously infected; the Marcionites teaching that it is not lawful for any man to marry; the Discalceati, to wear shoes; the Tatiani, to eat flesh; the Severiani, to drink wine. And that there is a Negative Superstition, it is evident, by an heresy that had taken root in the very infancy of the Church, teaching concerning meats, and other indifferent things, and saying, Col. 2.21. Eat not, touch not, handle not. Now your Negative superstition, in opposing against those Ceremonies, doth bewray itself by your doctrinal opinion, saying (for example) Wear not a linen Surplice; and that by two degrees. The first is an opinion of the unholiness and pollution in it, because (as you say) it hath been abused by the Papists in their Idolatrous Mass. See above chap. 4. See after, part. 2. ch. 1. sect. 8. This opinion I judge to be notoriously superstitious; and so it seemeth to be acknowledged by M. jewel, who (speaking of the Surplice) doth judicially account it to be an equal error, jewel Defen. Apol. part. 3. pag. 325. To commend any apparel as holy; and to condemn it, as unholy: the Papists are in the first extremity, and you in the other. Which Negative superstition is flatly condemned by that saying of Saint Paul; 1. Cor. 8.4. Beza upon this place. An Idol is nothing, that is, (as M. Beza confesseth) It hath no power to vnhallow any thing that was offered unto it; Which is apparent by the conclusion of the same Apostle, where (excepting the case of Scandal, as it then stood) he did teach, that men might eat of the Idolothytes, or meats sacrificed to Idols, making no question, for conscience sak●. The second degree of your Negative Superstition, is seen in your other opinion, which you allege for refusing of it; even because it is prescribed unto you, in God's worship, in a necessity of obedience. Which is a plain overthrow of Christian liberty, by taking away from the Church that authority of ordaining Ceremonies, and prescribing obedience thereunto; which, by the practice of the Universal Church of Christ, from the days of the Apostles, unto these latter times, was never questioned by any Orthodox; yea, or Heretic, excepting only the Acephalists: and is, at this day, condemned by M. Calvin, and all other Divines of sound judgement. But we were to prove this kind of Negative opposition unto Ceremonies to be superstitious, and to bring in with it a doctrine of servitude upon the Church, by the confession of their own Witnesses. If this were not a Superstition, M. Calvin could not have warned Christian Churches, as he hath done, to take heed, lest in opposing of Ceremonies, they be not too superstitious. See above, cap. 4. sect. 29. Nor could P. Martyr have concluded, that To think that that (speaking of the Surplice) which hath been used in Popery, may not be used of us, is to oppress the Church with too much servitude. This, I thought fit in this place only to point at, that my Reader may discern, 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 appear in full view, by our Answer to your particular Accusations against the Surplice, and the rest, whereunto we instantly descend. PART. II. A PARTICULAR DEFENCE OF THE innocency of the Three Ceremonies, viz. Surplice, Cross after Baptism, and Kneeling at the receiving 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 Habit. Cartw. in the rest of his 2. Reply p. 249. & Abridg. Linc. p. 54. In appointing any several apparel unto Ministers, there is some injury done unto them: For Bucer professeth, that in all the Churches where he had been Teacher, he took order that no special apparel might be prescribed for the Ministers to wear. Our Answer. ALTHOUGH, as in Women, the best ornament is (as S. Peter teacheth) their holy conversation of life, and meekness of spirit, 1. Pet. 3. in the hidden man of their hearts; yet the fashion of a long gown is to be thought requisite for the distinction of sex: So albeit the Ministers ought to be chiefly discerned from others by the excellency of the outward virtues of Gravity, Soberness, Tit. 1. Charity, Patience &c. (which S. Paul commendeth as the best characters of their conversation) notwithstanding the difference of outward garments cannot but be held convenient, for the distinguishing of them from Laics, in the discharge of their function, especially in the days of peace, and (which the primitive times of the Church did not enjoy) full liberty of their ministery, even by that Rule of Decency: which seeing M. Beza himself allowed, for distinguishing of the orders of Citizens, Epist. 12. pag. 106. and of (meaning the Ministerial) functions in a Civil course; we may with as good reason require in the office of Preaching, administering the Sacraments, and other Ecclesiastical duties. For if it be convenient to distinguish Ministers of the Word and Sacraments from Tradesmen and Mechanical persons, in respect of their spiritual functions: then doubtless ought they especially to be distinguished at that time, when they are to discharge and execute their functions. To defend the contrary, would make no better congruity, than if one should affirm, that a judge ought to be discerned from others, by his Scarlet, or Purple Robes, whilst he is walking in the Street and Market, but not when he is sitting on the Bench. But remember (I pray you) that in the days of Antiquity, Tert. de pallio. Christian Proselytes did distinguish themselves from Roman Pagans, by casting away their Gowns, and wearing of Cloaks, albeit they were twitted by the profane Heathen for so doing, with the taunt of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You therefore do not a little injury to our Church, by exclaiming against her, and terming this to be an injury unto Ministers, to be distinguished in outward habit from persons of different callings. But it is no strange thing to hear froward children crying out against their Mothers, only because, forsooth, they may not have their wills, especially for wearing of what fashion of apparel, and when they list. As for your terming it, A taking of order, that no Minister should wear distinct apparel; God is t●e God of order. we answer, that Order (as God's cognizance) is made discernible and visible by Distinction, and not by confusion. But you object against us the testimony of M. Bucer. I cannot well perceive with what confidence you could begin with this Author, with whom (I am sure) you would be loath to conclude and make an end. For that reverend Divine, although he would not admit the distinction of apparel, in the German Churches, for causes best known unto himself; and wished them also removed out of our English: yet was that rather in a desire, to procure quiet unto some scrupulous persons, than that he held either Distinction of Ministerial apparel, or this kind of distinction, by the use of a Surplice, to be unlawful in itself. Velimus, nolimus etc. For, Whether we will or no (saith M. Bucer) we must confess, M. Bucer. tract. de ●acris vestibus, pag. 709. that distinction of apparel is, among men that are well conditioned, a cause of giving unto Magistrates singular reverence. [Quid iam obstet?] And what may hinder, that there be not the like distinction in the ministery of Religion? How do you now like the judgement of Bucer, who, the more judicious he is, the more powerful he ought to be in satisfying of the most Objections that you use against the Surplice, which he hath done very exactly, as we shall have often occasion to demonstrate. But concerning the point now in question, it would be expense of time to use more words, in answering an Objection, whereof the custom, almost of all Christendom; the ordinary practice even of you the Non-conformists; yea, and (Distinction being the mother of Decency) common sense itself, may be an ampl● confutation? Thus much of the lawfulness of Distinct apparel, in respect of the person. SECT. II. Their second Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the Office, whereunto it is applied. The Ministerial habit ought to be free, M. Hy. and others. and not appropriated v●to God's worship, but such as may be well used in Civil and common use. Our Answer. May it be held a Decorum (as I have said) in judges, to be discerned from others, whilst they are in the place of judicature, by both the colour, and fashion of their Attire, and must it now be accounted a matter of mockery in Ministers, to have apparel appropriated unto their Administrations? Shall we hear, concerning married parties, of wedding garments; and yet shall we not endure to see any worshipping apparel on the persons that attend upon God's service? But I need not to instruct you, in this point, who are able to teach others by your own examples, as namely, in Holidays, Churches, Communion-cups, Table-couering●, Pulpit-cloathes, and other like Ornaments and Instruments belonging to holy worship: which you yourselves do apply particularly unto the solemn service of God. Now if the Appropriation of Vestments unto Tables, and Pulpits etc. which are but inanimata instrumenta, be justifiable in Churches; doubtless the proper and peculiar application of a Vesture unto the Minister, a living Organ in God's service, and a person divinely called to that sacred function, consecrated to the same worship, cannot be justly condemned. Thus much of Vesture in general; which will be further confirmed in the Sections following. See above sect. 2. I will only put you in remembrance of the last saying of M. Bucer, If distinct apparel may be used 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 linen, for Ministerial apparel, was not anciently used in the Primitive Church. M. Hooker will not maintain out of Hierome, and Chrysostome (which were about 400. years after the birth of Christ) that any such Attire was several to this purpose, that is, for sacred use, and divine service. Our Answer. Yet M. Hooker holdeth the distinct use of Ministerial Apparel, mentioned by Chrysostome and Jerome, to be probable. And what marvel though he would not stand upon it, especially against you, who use as easily to reject the Testimonies of Fathers, as you can hardly object them? For it must be confessed, in the matter that we have in hand, concerning White Vestments, that they did anciently belong unto 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. even by the Testimonies of Hierome and Chrysostome: except you will take exceptions against your own Witnesses; amongst whom Zepperus hath these words. Chrysostome, speaking of the Ministers, saith; This is your dignity, your stay, your Crown, not that you walk through the Church in white vestments, etc. And Hierome speaking of the Ecclesiastical order, which in the administration of the sacrifices, went in white vestures, etc. P. Martyr also, P. Martyr. Epist. p. ●0●7. Zanch. de Redempt. p. 486. and Zanchie do accordingly understand these Fathers. Yea, and if M. Cartwright had not apprehended the same sense, he would never have made so silly, and indeed senseless an answer unto this point, as he doth, saying of this white Attire, Cartwr. quo sup●a. that it was indeed their holidays apparel; which they used indifferently the same days, as well without, as within the place and time of Divine Service. Which exception I take to be no better than a betraying of his whole cause. For if it be lawful for a Minister to use a distinct habit, in respect of an Holiday, then may he as lawfully distinguish himself from others, in respect of an Holy Act, such as is his sacred ministration & function, according to the practise (for the iudement of Antiquity is hereby clearly discerned) of ancient Christians, who not long after the days of the Apostles were wont (as it is acknowledged by your own Witnesses) at the time of their Baptism, Martyr ●pist. pag. 1087. Za●ch. in ●phe 5. Idem de Redemp. pag 489. to attire themselves 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 apparel. Why then may we not conclude with the same Zanchie, [de vest 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 read not (saith he) th●t either Christ, or his Apostles ordained any thing concerning the use of any peculiar apparel, in the administration of this Sacrament; so do we not read that they did forbid any such vestments: therefore it is free for us to use, or not to use them. You are willing to hear M. Bucer, when he showeth his dislike of the Surplices then used, as inconvenient, but pass him over, when he excuseth them, as not to be necessarily abolished. And, concerning the fashion and colour of the Surplice in the Ministry, he denieth 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 Sacred vestibus. etc. If any Church, with the pure consent of her members, had this custom, so to come to the Lords Supper, (according to the ancient manner of children at their Baptism) as to use a white garment; should any man affirm, that there is no liberty permitted to the Church, to ordain such a Ceremony? Surely we must say, that then shall it not be lawful for the Church to appoint any thing without express warrant from Scripture; and so shall we condemn all Churches [Impiae audaciae] of wicked sauciness: for all Church's use, in the celebration of the Lords Supper, to observe time, and place, and gesture of body; or else deny that Christ hath freed us from the abuse of his good Creatures. SECT. FOUR Their fourth Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the Signification. abridge Linc. pag. 35. The Defenders of the Surplice, do make it a Ceremony significant. Our Answer. Vide, supra, part 1. cap. 3. throughout. We have already proved, [in thesi,] that Ceremonies may be used, which are Significant; and that so much the rather, because Significant, For the present, we are to deal only [in Hypothesi,] to show, that the Surplice is not therefore unlawful, because it is used as a Sign of some moral signification. Wherein you may be abundantly satisfied by the exact judgement of your own Witnesses; amongst others, P. Martyr, in his Epistle unto Bishop Hooper, concerning this very point, resolveth as followeth. Besides, the defenders of this Ceremony, P. Martyr Epist. pag. 1088. (saith he) may pretend some just and honest signification; for the Ministers of God are called Angels, and Angels (as once Mal. 3.2.) appeared always in white Vestments: and how shall we deprive the Church of the liberty, that she may not signify some thing by her actions and Rites; so that she do not place (meaning, any essential and necessary parts of God's worship) the worship of God therein? But you will say, that the Ministers should rather be Angels, than signify themselves to be such. I say, (saith the same Martyr) you might have made the like answer unto Saint Paul, when he ordained, that the woman should have her head covered in the Church; urging, to that purpose, only the signification of subjection: because any of the Church of Corinth might have readily replied, saying, The woman should indeed be subject unto her husband, and not signify herself so to be. But the Apostle saw that this is profitable for us, that we do not only live justly, but that also we be put in mind of our duties. Thus far P. Martyr. Yea, and your Zepperus, concerning the point of signification, by white vesture, doth excuse the ancient Church, in the days of Chrysostome and Jerome, to wit; Zepper. polit. lib 1 ca 14. pag. 159. We read nothing (saith he) of the Histrionical and superstitious habits (meaning of Papists) in the monuments of purer antiquity; except only of the white vesture, whereof Chrysostome and Jerome make mention, [quâ usi sunt, sine superstitione, in signum & commonefactionem honestatis vitae;] which they used (saith he) without any superstition, in a sign, and for an admonishment unto them of an honest life. Zanchius quo supra. Zanchius is of the same judgement, touching a moral signification by the Surplice, comparing vestments [de lino, & lana;] and granting, that whether the vesture be made of white linen, 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 sign of innocency and sanctity: whereupon it is, that in the Apocalyps white robes are said to be given unto the Saints. Apoc. 7.9. So he. I may not pretermit M. Bucer, who alloweth of distinct Apparel in the Ministerial function; Bucer. de sacris vestib. pag. 707. Et eò magis, etc. And so much the more (saith he) if that these Attires be deputed unto some holy signification and admonition: which we may perceive in the signification of the woman's veil, 1. Cor. 11. And to this end the Holy Ghost did make special mention of the white. Attire of Angels. SECT. V. Their fifth Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the resemblance it hath to the jewish Vestment. M. Nic. & M. Hy. Our Divines condemn the Massing garments, because they are jewish and aaronical. Our Answer. It is true; they do indeed condemn the use of those jewish garments, as they are some what jewishly used by the Papists, who make themselves therein little better than jews Apes, through their imitation of the aaronical pomp, almost, as well in the number, as in the fashion of their Ministerial garments; and that also from a jewish ground, even because they were once ordained by God in the Levitical Law: adding furthermore thereunto an opinion (I say not of Legal, which was jewish, but) of a spiritual sanctity, which is now merely Popish; and was anciently a Pharisaical superstition, condemned by Christ. Mat. 7. In which respect D. Raynolds did justly reprove the Popish Ceremonies, Rainold. Confer. but yet no otherwise than he doth linen clothes, and coverings of Altars, and Festival d●yes, (namely) as they are superstitiously abused by Papists. As for our Church, she is most justifiable in her choice, by the judgement of S. Hierome, Zanch. de R●d●mpt. p. 699. which Zanchius doth approve; and which the Non-conformists themselves may no more dislike, than they do the observation of the Feasts (which are Apostolically ancient,) to wit, Easter, and Pentecost. For Hierom having objected unto him that Scripture of S. Paul, Gal. 4. Gal. 4. Hier. [You observe tim●s and days,] answereth; Non eádem conscientiâ obseruamus, quâ judaei: We do not observe such times with the same conscience (or opinion) wherewith the jews did solemnize them. And, indeed, the opinion and confidence of the Ordeiner● and Observers is the very soul of any Ceremonial practise. As therefore, in natural constitutions, the only vegetative faculty and soul giveth the distinct denomination to plants; the sensible unto beasts, and Animals; and the reasonable soul unto men, to distinguish each one in their several kinds: so likewise, in such artificial and arbitrary Institutions as these, the different opinions which Iew●s, Papists, and Protestants have of their Ceremonies, may discern their uses and Appellations, in terming them either jewish, Popish, or Orthodox, respectively. 1. jewish, because of an opinion of the necessity of them, by conceiving them to be of divine Institution, or else of the end, whether it be for praefiguration of the Messias to come, or otherwise accounting them the essential parts of God's worship, without which the worship itself cannot please God. 2. Popish, by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a superstitious affectation, to imitate them in Pomp, and in multitude, even because they were once aaronical; and also by placing sanctity and holiness in them. But 3. Orthodox and true, by (as our Church professeth) a convenient Decency, and Significant resemblance, so far forth as they are profitable for Order and Edification. P. Martyr Epist to B. Hooper. pag. 1083. In brief, your present objection was long since answered and satisfied by some of your own Witnesses, one saying, that under the Priesthood of A●ron there were Sacraments, sealing up the promises of Christ to come, all which are abrogated by the coming of Christ: and there were other actions, which were not to be accounted Sacraments, but which made for decency and order, and for some other commodious use; which being agreeable to the light of reason, and also profitable (I think) may be recalled, and observed by us. For who knoweth no that Tithes, which now serve for the Ministry, were had of the jewish Priests? We ourselves have some things, which are borrowed from the Law of Moses, even from the beginning of the Church: for we have certain feasts. Must therefore all things be abolished, that have in them any parts of the Old Law? So he. Yea, B●cer. quo supra. and M. Bucer doth fully ratify the same truth, showing that Garments are not to be called aaronical, or Antichristian, but in respect of an aaronical or Antichristian opinion had of them, whereof we are to speak in the VII. Section following. SECT. VI Their sixth Accusation, against the Surplice, is both in respect of the Resemblance, and of the Signification, jointly. Also would not garments of mystical signification, M. Nic. appropriated unto holy, and solemn worship, be jewish in special, and not in common manner only, if the most high should acknowledge them? Our Answer. No. The Ceremonies, which God should now authorize under the New Testament, would not be jewish, but Christian, because the Ceremonies must be defined, and denominated, according to the Covenant and Testament, whereof they are Appendices, Adjuncts, and Seals. As for example, the element of Bread was commanded in the Old Testament to be used in jewish worship, L●uit. 2.6. (to wit, the showbread,) in which respect it was properly jewish: the same element of Bread is now after Consecration appropriated to a Sacramental use, in the Lord's Supper; and made a Seal of the New Testament; and thus it is become properly Christian. That old Rule, Distingue tempora, aught to have place in this Question: for the jewish Signs and figures, that were of Christ to come, were, even in the time, when the Law of Moses was in force, moritura, that is, mortal, and about to die: afterwards, at the time of Christ his coming, upon that his [consummatum est,] or complement of man's redemption on the Cross, 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 use them after, with a jewish opinion, by expecting still the coming of the Messias in the flesh, to the overthrow of our Christian faith. This we speak of Sacramental Ceremonies: as for such as were fundamentally moral and natural, they could not infer any such prejudice to the profession of Christianity, except only an opinion of necessity. SECT. VII. Their seventh Accusation, against the Surplice, is from the pretended Author thereof. M Hi. & M. Hy. The Surplice was first invented by Antichrist. Ergo, we may not allow of it. Stephen, Pope of Rome, (Anno 256.) did first appropriate the Surplice unto God's worship, according to Platina, in vita Steph. Our Answer. In this Objection, we find three Assertions; 1. that the Surplice was invented by Antichrist: 2. that Pope Stephen did appropriate it unto God's service: and 3. that (by consequence from them both) the Surplice can have no lawful use. To the first we answer, that the Surplice was in old and gray-headed use long before the Roman Antichrist was borne: for the Inventor, whosoever he was, could not be younger than Pope Stephen, who (as you said) was the first Appropriator thereof. But he lived Anno 256. whenas The Antichrist did not put out so much as either of his horns, for the space of more than 400. years after. You may therefore lawfully subscribe to your own witness, P. Martyr. Epist. p. 1087. who saith that The diversities of apparel were not first invented by the Pope. Secondly, concerning the Appropriation of the Surplice by Pope Stephen, unto Ecclesiastical use; it is well known, that this Stephen was no Antichristian Pope, but (as Platina, whom you allege, writeth) a godly Bishop, Platina in vita Steph. who, by his life and doctrine, converted many Gentiles to the faith of Christ, and sealed the same faith with his own blood, by holy Martyrdom, being beheaded under the Emperor Decian. So that the Act of this Pope must rather fortify 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 days, wherein now Pope Paul the fifth possesseth the Papal seat. Lastly, concerning your Consequence, suppose you (if you please) that some bad and Antichristian Pope had been the first Inventor of this Ceremony; yet is your consequence but lame. For, P. Martyr ubi supr●. I cannot be persuaded (saith P. Martyr, writing of the use of the Surplice in our English Church) that the impiety of the Pope is so great, that whatsoever he toucheth must thereupon be so defiled, that afterwards it may not be of any use, 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 unto any Church, that hath knowledge of the liberty of all things; For the Scripture doth every where proclaim, that every creature of God is good, unto those that are good; that is, unto the true believers in Chris.— I say good, not only in respect of the natural effects, as bread is good to feed; but in respect of the diverse significations; and admonitions by them. The property of a Rite, or Ceremony (as it is aaronical, or Antichristian) doth not inhere unto any creature of God, or Vestment, or shape, or colour; but in the mind and profession of men, that abuse those good creatures of God unto impious and godless significations: for it cannot be called an Antichristian Ceremony, except some Antichristian Religion and communion be professed thereby etc. I return to the point of Appropriation, to let you understand, that if your exception be not so much against the Appropriator, although a Pope, as against the Appropriation itself, whereby such Ceremonies are deputed particularly unto holy use, then are you to consider, whether it may be thought agreeable to the law of good Decorum, to see the Pulpit-cloth used in the stead of a flag, in a May-game; or the Communion-cup carried abroad, for common use to serve at an Alehouse; or to behold so much as a Minister's gown hanging on the back of a Tinkar, or Car-man. Now if that you perceive a deformity in the common use of such things, that have been so exercised in God's Service, then t●e Appropriation of such things to public worship is not therefore a just matter of indecency. SECT. VIII. Their eight Accusation, against the Surplice, is from the former Abuse thereof. Abridg. Linc. pag. 28. The Surplice is notoriously known to have been abused by Papists to superstition and Idolatry. 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 bells, nor ought else can be hallowed. This is also used in their abominable Mass; which they make so peculiar to their Religion, as that they pull it off them, whom they do degrade. Ergo, it ought be removed. Our Answer. We have already discovered your great Abuse of Logic, in this Consequence; whereby, See above part. 1. ch. 4. from the Abuses of things, you infer the necessary extirpation of the things themselves. For the present, we are only to repel this your particular exception against the Surplice. To this purpose, we must first inquire, wherein you will have the pretended Abuse to consist. Surely, this cannot be imputed to the matter of the Surplice, for that is natural; nor to the fashion, for that is only artificial; nor to the colour, for that is merely accidental. We must therefore seek out the pretended Popish abuse in the Surplice, as it is Ceremonial. In the Ceremonial observation of the Surplice, by the Romish Church, we can conceive but two points, that may be considerable: the first is their Dedication of it; the second is the opinion that they conceive thereof. The consideration of the Romish practice is concerning the Dedication of the Surplice unto an Idolatrous service. This cannot be a sufficient cause of an utter abolishing of all the use thereof: 1. Cor. 8. for the Apostle teacheth, concerning the Idolothyta, that is, meats sacrificed unto Idols, (which notwithstanding he commendeth to the use of Christians) that they are so to be used, being first sanctified by their prayers and thanksgiving, albeit they were individually the same things, that had been Idolatrously polluted. It will not avail you to reply; that this alteration and change of Idolatrous meats was for a Civil, and not for any Religious use: Because the Apostle, 1. Cor. 8.4. Beza. See above part. 1. chap. 6. sect. 14. in the same place, saying, Idolum nihil est, An Idol is nothing in the world, signifieth (as M. Beza hath well commented) that The Idol had no power, or virtue either to pollute or sanctify that which was offered unto it. How then can that, being but a [nihil] have force to pollute the religious use thereof? Which were to make something of nothing. But if we shall admit of your own assertion, to think that the same things, which have been Idolatrously abused, may not afterwards be applied unto any religious purpose: yet what can this infer against the Surplices, now worn in our Church, which are not individually, or numerally the same, that have been Dedicated to Romish worship? The next point remaineth, concerning the opinion and intention of the Papists, in the use of their Surplices, wherein only consisteth the formal cause of Abuse; which if it may be found in the use of our Surplices, then must we necessarily confess 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 judged the same. The conceit and opinion, that Papists have in this Ceremony, is to judge it partly significative, as a sign of a moral duty; partly operative, as having in it an efficacy of holiness to defend us from temptations; or else to hollow certain other things, as hath been shown. If you mean to impugn the Significative property, than we say that the Papists opinion is herein justifiable, as we have already proved, not only in our general confutation of your judgement in that behalf; See above part. 1. ch. 3. etc. but in our particular Answer, concerning the Surplice, even by the Testimonies of your own Witnesses. But if you condemn the opinion of operative power in the Surplice, than our Answer is, that our Surplices are not Popish, seeing that we ascribe no such efficacy unto them. To conclude therefore, for as much as the opinion and intent of the worshippers, is the only character and form, to discern and distinguish a religious worship, from that which is superstitious; the doctrine of our Church, concerning all such Ceremonies, being so sincere, and justifiable, and the opinion of the Church of Rome in consecrating of her Rites so idolatrous: it must needs be an injury, and indeed an impiety, to call their Popish, and our English Surplices, so precisely the same. We appeal again unto M. Bucer, for the decision of this point: he supposing our Vestments to be the same, that were abused in Popery, doth notwithstanding resolve 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, Whatsoever can be objected, concerning the Abuse of these vestures, that cannot be said to cleave unto the vestures themselves, but to the unclean 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 holiness; and also by working a Scandal 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 receive not the Sacrament from them that use it not: and unto others it is scandalous. Our Answer. Our Reader, I suppose, will not easily digest Coleworts twice sod, nor require a repetition of an Answer unto Objections already objected. See above, Part. 1. chap. 2. sect. 12. Therefore referring him to our general Confutation of this Argument, taken from these effects; I say, touching this your supposed (if not feigned opinion of, I know not what) people, that no particular error, aught to prevail against a common truth, especially where the sin of the people's ignorance must condemn the negligence of the Teachers, by whom they might, and aught to have been better instructed. And if this Answer seem unto you to want weight, yet hearken unto the Testimonies of such grand Divines, whom you use to produce for your Witnesses, in the question of Ceremonies. P. Martyr counseleth you, in this very case, P. Martyr. Epist. to Bish. Hooper, pag. 1088. saying; If they that are weak have occasion of offence hereby, let them be admonished, that these things are indifferent; and let them be taught in your Sermons, not to think that the worship of God consisteth in these things. This was the resolution of that learned man, concerning the Surplice, judging the use thereof indifferent; notwithstanding all the imputations of jewish, of Popish, of Idolatrous, and of the Scandalous Abuses thereof. I may not let pass the judgement of M. Calvin, who hearing into what trouble Bishop Hooper was fallen, for refusing to wear such Ecclesiastical Vestments, which had been formerly polluted with Popish superstition, saith as followeth. Sicut eius, in recusanda unctione, constantiam laudo, Calu Epist, 120, p, 245, ita de pileo, & vest linea maluissem (ut illa etiam non probem) non usque adeó ipsum pugnare, idque nuper suadebam. In which words M. Calvin, howsoever he doth not simply approve of the Ceremonies, which had been abused to Idolatry; yet maketh he a difference between the Popish abuse in unction, and the Surplice; commending the Bishop's constancy, in rejecting the unction, and condemning his contentiousness against the Surplice: which M. Calvin could not have done, except he had accounted both the English use of the Surplice, a matter indifferent; and also Bishop Hoopers' refusal of it more scandalous, that his conformity to the use thereof could have been. Whereunto P. Martyr likewise laboured to persuade t●at same holy Bishop, by many Arguments, See above. whereof some have been formerly alleged. For how should it not be a matter of scandal, to impugn these kind of habits with such vehemency, as if it were an impiety to use them? whereby the liberty of Christians is not a little impeached, if you will believe your own Witness. For M. Bucer saith, Non dubito qu●n illa etc. I do not doubt but that, Bucer. Tract. de sacris vest. pag. 708. concerning Ceremonies of place, time, apparel, and other things, belonging unto the outward decency, Christ hath left a liberty unto his Church, to appoint, and ordain such things, which every Church shall judge to be most behoveful, for the upholding and increasing of reverence towards holy things, among the people of God. And again, Bucer. Ibid. that Christ hath delivered his Churches from all abuse of the creatures, that had been formerly defiled. From Answers, we proceed to Confutations. SECT. X. Our summary Confutation of the Non-conformists' Assumptions, and Accusations against the use of the Surplice, by the Confessions of their own Witnesses. We have seriously and exactly examined all the Accusations, whereby the Wits of the Non-conformists could in any colour of probability impugn this Ecclesiastical garment, viz. upon pretence of indecency, unlawful Appropriation, Mystical Signification, Novelty, Antichristian Invention, jewish Imitation, Popish Superstition, and the like: and making up our accounts, by the light of sound judgement, in our several proofs; and more especially by the confessions of the best Witnesses, that the Non-conformists can require, have found, (notwithstanding all their former exceptions) 1. that there is a Decency in this kind of Apparel, for the distinguishing of the Ministerial Function, from other Callings; 2. a Conveniency, in appropriating it unto an Ecclesiastical office in God's worship, according to the ancient custom both of Bishops, and inferior Ministers, in the administration of the Sacraments; and also of persons baptised, when by Baptism they become holy votaries unto Christ; 3. A commendable representation of Sanctity, by the colour of White, agreeable both to the example of Scripture, and practise of Antiquity in the same kind; 4. A profitable use thereof, and without superstition, to put Ministers in mind of their Moral duty; 5. and lastly, That the fierce and factious opposition, to the use of the Surplice, doth work nothing but Schism, Scandal, and a great prejudice against the liberty of Christian Churches. We, upon these considerations, stand confident, that every Minister, who is not perversely carried with the impetuousness of a peevish affection, may hereafter be persuaded to leave this Vesture out of his needless controversies, and contentions; and in his Ministerial Office and Function to put it on. CHAP. II. Our defence of the second Ceremony, which is the Sign of the Cross, used after Baptism. The Accusations, which use to be made against this Ceremony, by the Non-conformists, are; that it is 1. Contrary to the second Commandment. 2. Derogatory to the holy Sacrament of Baptism, in divers respects. 3. Popishly abused. 4. As ill, as Crossing of the breast, etc. 5. A Relic of superstition. 6. An invention of heretics. 7. Superstitious, even according to the intention, wherein our Church professeth to use it. SECT. I. Their first Accusation, is, that the use of the Cross is contrary to God's Commandment. Every making of an Image or similitude in religious use, which is not commanded by God, is forbidden by the second Commandment. M. Gos. M. Nic. and M. Lang. But the sign of the Cross in Baptism is such a similitude. The Mayor proved; because that the Commandment is expressly thus: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, or any similitude. Our Answer. WE say, that the Image or Similitude, forbidden in this Commandment, is an Image or Similitude representative, that is to say, used for an outward resemblance and description of the Godhead; wherewith the sign of the Cross at Baptism hath no affinity 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 service of God. Our Answer. In this you teach us a new piece of catechism, never heard of before. SECT. II. Their Reply. M. Gos. Calvin. in Exo. 20.8. So doth M. Calvin interpret it: [I am tenendum est, duas esse mandati huius parts; priore ve●at erigisculptile, aut ullam Similitudinem:] We must observe that their be two parts of this commandment, in the first God forbiddeth the erection of any carved thing, or any similitude. Our Answer. So you say, M. Calvin doth interpret this Commandment; but if you will give any other man leave to interpret M. Calvin, he will readily tell you, that he, by this part of the Commandment, excludeth those Images & similitudes only, which men erect for a kind of representation of the Godhead. This appeareth by his own phrases, first; Negat igitur (hoc praeceptum) in toto mundo reperiri veram Imaginem Dei. Calvin in the place alleged. This Commandment (saith he) denieth, that there is to be found in all the world any proper Image of God. Secondly, showing, that this precept was given for the condemning of the worships, used among the Gentiles: Qui in forma Creaturarum putabant Deum repraesentari: Who thought (saith he) that God was to be represented in the form of Creatures, Thirdly, he saith; Affingere Deo Imaginem per se impium est, quia hâc coruptelâ adulteratur eius maiestas, & fingitur sibis dissimilis. That is; It is an impiety to feign an Image of God. And yet again; Et sanè nimis indigna est deformitas, Deum facere similem Ligno vel lapidi: It is a vile deformity to make God like unto wood, or stone. All which sentences condemn only the representative Similitude of God; and not without good reason: for if the words of the Commandment should be taken absolutely, as you enforce it, than away with all Art of Carving, and painting of any figures or similitudes: which opinion, in the judgement of M. Calvin, is at the least foolish; for thus he saith. Calui● ibid. Quod quidam stultè putârunt hîc damnari sculpturas, & picturas quaslibet, refutatione non indiget, etc. It seemeth therefore that this Obiector, in so expounding of M. Calvin, had his eyes so fixed upon these words of the Commandment only (to wit) Images and Similitudes, that he could not see the works of God Commandment, that is, the Similitudes and Images themselves; namely, of Cherubins, Lions, and other Creatures, Exod. 37, etc. which God himself commanded to be represented in his Tabernacle (as afterwards he ordained the Brazen serpent to be erected in the wilderness;) all which were appointed by God himself, Num. 21.8. for Ornament, Decency, and Signification, respectively; but not either for any personal representation of God, or else divine worship. For there are two things, which are forbid by this Commandment, 1. Representation of God by an Image, 2. Adoration of any Image. The first, by the first part of this Commandment, [Non facies, etc.] Thou shalt not make to thyself graven Image, Zanch. de Redem p. exp. of this commandment. etc. The second, by the words following, [Thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship, etc.] which point Zanchius, another of your Witnesscs, doth express at large. SECT. III. Their second Accusation, against the Sign of the Cross, about the administration of Baptism, is, that it detracteth from the perfection of the Sacrament of Baptism; and that in divers respects. 1. Respect is, because it is used as an Addition unto Baptism. M. Gos. The sign of the Cross is imposed as an addition to Baptism, and in the very act of Baptism, the Minister saith, [We receive this child into the Congregation of Christ his Flock, etc.] which showeth it to be used as a substantial part of God's worship. Our Answer. It is no tolerable disposition in a child, that will admit a suspicion against his mother, contrary to both the manifest protestation of her meaning, yea and also her express Construction of the very words that are here objected. First she professeth and protesteth, saying; The Church of England, Constit. Can 30. since the abolishing of Popery, hath ever held and taught, and teacheth still, that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism is no part of the substance of that Sacrament: for when the Minister, dipping the infant in water, or laying water upon the face of it, (as the manner also is) hath pronounced these words [I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost] The Infant is fully baptized; so as the sign of the Cross, being afterwards used, doth neither add any thing to the virtue or perfection of Baptism; nor, being omitted, doth detract any thing from the effect and substance of it. And, indeed, the Tenure of the words themselves can admit no other interpretation, which the Minister, in preparing to make the sign of the Cross, uttereth in this manner; [We receive this child into Christ his Flock;] evidently signifying, that the child, now baptised, is by Baptism already incorporated into the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church; & therefore is pronounced by the Priest, not in fieri, but in facto esse, (as the School speaketh) to be publicly Received into it; and to be acknowledged as a visible member thereof: for this whole clause is fully distinct from the words following, [And do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to fight manfully, etc.] Mark here, I pray you, that the sign is called a [Token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed.] Consider with yourselves, whether any could interpret that, which is called a Token of a duty to be practised afterward, to be a sign of Baptism itself, which was already actually performed; except either his mind had been preoccupated with notable prejudice, or else his affection perverted with some extreme lust of Contradiction. SECT. FOUR Their second Reason, to make the sign of the Cross derogatory from Baptism. It is usually made, whilst that the words of Institution, are in pronouncing. Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. Ergo, etc. Our Answer. This is no more, in effect, than for us to say; Some ignorant ones (if yet there are any such) have transgressed the Ordinances of the Church, by using the Sign (as you imagine) contrary to our acknowledged direction, and profession thereof: and the Non-conformists do as willingly transgress the same Ordinances, by not using them at all. If therefore the former sort of Ministers (as indeed they must needs be) are reprooveable; 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 reform them, if they be tractable; or, if refractory, then to inform the Church against them: so might both you have less cause to be offended by them, and we by you. SECT. V. Their third Reason, to make the sign of the Cross, derogatory to Baptism. The same may excuse the Papists who use it before Baptizing, as we do after; Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. nay it is worse after Baptism then before, because it is nearer the error of them, that held Episcopal Confirmation to be a perfection of Baptism. Our Answer. The Fathers indeed used the Cross, immediately before Baptism, as the Centurists have proved 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 whereof we read also in Basil; where he placeth this amongst the Apostolical Traditions. They might have added Arnobius, and Augustine. Accordingly there was brought in Exorcism, and Insufflation, now practised by the Papists (yet in a far different strain from the Custom of these holy Fathers, as namely) to drive away Devils, not only out of the bodies, but even out of the souls of Infants. Bellar. l. 2. de effectu Sacra. ca 30. §. Nota 3. & ca 31. §. 2. Proposit. The which power they likewise ascribe to the sign of the Cross, as it is a Sacramental Ceremony. But our Church, to the end that she might remove this point of Superstition, hath wisely ordained, that the sign of the Cross should be used after that Baptism is fully ended: yet notwithstanding is she here calumniously traduced by you, as worse than the Popish. Lingua quò vadis? what shall we call this malady, whereby our Church, if she Symbolise with Papists but so much as in a Surplice, is accounted Popish, and Antichristian? and if contrarily she alter that use of the sign of the Cross, to the end that she may cross and control the Superstition of Papists, yet even then also is she censured to be, yea, worse than Papistical? How fitly do such Obiectors exemplify those way ward and untractable 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 Baptism, but only of the parties baptised; by calling them to a personal profession of the faith, which their Godfathers and Godmothers (as it were their Guardians) did in their Infancy promise should be by them performed. To conclude; our Church, placing the use of the Sign of the Cross after the end of Baptism, to remove the superstitious opinion, which the Papists had thereof, in their abuse of this Sign immediately before Baptism; you may now (if it please you) compare this alteration and your objection, concerning Confirmation, in (as you call it) dearness of error: and then let that man among you dispute, whether an error in Baptism, be not nearer unto the Corrupting of the Sacrament of Baptism, then to the Corrupting of the doctrine of Confirmation, which is out of Baptism, who doubteth whether a wound, in the head, or in the heel, may more nearly endanger the health of the brain. SECT. ●I. Their fourth Reason, why the Sign of the Cross in Baptism 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 spiritual combat, Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. M. Gos. Ergo; (this being a proper end of Baptism) is used as a part of God's worship in Baptism. Our Answer. This Argument is as lose and lank, as the former; for Baptism is in itself a Token and Sign of a Covenant & stipulation between man & God: but this sign of the Cross, appointed by man, is only a Token of protestation between particular men, the members of the Church of Christ (which is the Congregation of Christians then assembled) and the Church itself. Besides, Baptism is a sign of Regeneration, that is, Gratiae collatae, of Grace conferred by the Spirit of God: but the Cross in the forehead is only a sign of man's constant profession of Christianity, which he ought to have amongst them that are the enemies of the doctrine of the Cross of Christ; which are two distinct and far different ends. Thirdly, I could not but marvel, that you should therefore exclaim against this Sign, because it is used as a Token of Christian profession, especially if you were acquainted with your own learned Witnesses, who taught their Readers, both to observe and approve: First, that the use of the Cross, in the primitive Church, was (thus Chemnitius) a profession, Chemnitius vide infra sect. 13. B. jewel Ibid. and common faction of belief in Christ crucified: Secondly, that this kind of Testification (thus M. jewel) is not to be disallowed: Thirdly, that it was used to the end, that Thereby the persons baptized (thus P. Martyr) might testify their faith. P. Mart. Ibid. All which, and much more will appear, for the justification of this Token, when we come to answer your seventh Accusation, where you shall hear Zanchie affirm, Zanch. Ibid. that this use of the Sign of the Cross, to testify that we are not ashamed of Christ crucified, is not to be disliked. SECT. VII. Their fifth and last Reason, why the Sign of the Cross may seem to be made an essential part of the Sacrament; and consequently a derogation from the perfection thereof. Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. M. Gos. M. Hy. But understand, that the last Canons do add, that by the Sign of the Cross, the child is dedicated to the service of Christ; now some of these are the proper ends of Baptism: Ergo, not to be ascribed unto man's additions. Our Answer. Although the word Dedication might be drawn by the generality of the signification to an other sense than the Church did intend, because of the doubtful ambiguity which is in it: yet you ought to consider, that some men's Wits are given to judge of words by the sound, and not by the sense. But if you will be in the number of those clean creatures, which do divide the hoof, and chew the cud, you will easily distinguish, and discern, that there is a twofold (we speak only of the human) Dedication; one Declarativa, which is by way of Protestation; the other Consecrativa, by Consecration. This distinction may be enlightened by example. If a man, who is piously devoted, doth build an Oratory or Chapel for God's worship, which he doth sequester by Vow and Promise, from the common use, and lastly assigneth it unto the service of God; this is called a Dedication, by Protestation. Afterwards, for a more solemn appropriation thereof to the worship of God, the Episcopal Consecration is required, to the end that, by prayers and other religious Rites, that place may be publicly Dedicated to the same service; this is Dedication by Consecration. And how much more may this distinction take place in the case now in question? For, by the formal words of the institution of Christ, the child is Dedicated unto God, by Consecration in Baptism, which is a Sacrament of Grace; but the Dedication, which is signified by the Sign of the Cross, is not by any proper Consecration unto God, or Token of grace received from God, by such a Sign made: but only of a declarative Token of duty, which afterwards the person baptised aught to perform, concerning his constant and visible profession of the Christian faith. The sum of all is, that the difference between the Dedication by Baptism, and by this Sign, is no less than a Sacramental Stipulation with God, and a Moral representation and protestation unto man. SECT. VIII. Their third Accusation against the Sign of the Cross, is from the Popish abuse thereof. The Sign of the Cross is notoriously known to be abused to superstition and Idolatry by Papists; Abridg. Linc. pag. 29. for both Stapleton and Bellarmine make it the special Badge of their Idolatrous religion, ascribing to it the miraculous effects of driving away devils, 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 give unto God. Our Answer. But our Church, using that Sign of the Cross with no such superstition, either by using it as a special Badge of any Idolatrous Religion; or by ascribing unto it any miraculous power of driving out devils; 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 unto it: And chose professing, that she hath purged this Sign from all Popish superstition and error; Constit. can. 30. and to use it only as primitively it was used, that is, only as a Token, whereby there is protestation made of a future constancy in the profession of Christianity. You yourselves could not but discern hereby as great a difference between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, as between religious devotion, and blind superstition; light and darkness; God and Belial. I pass over the main Argument, taken from the former Abuses and Scandal, which are said to be occasioned by this Sign; because I will not trouble my Reader with needless repetitions of that Answer, See above, Part. 1. chap. 6. which hath more than once been given to this kind of Objection. SECT. IX. Their fourth Accusation, against the use of the Sign of the Cross about the time of Baptism, is from the consequent Licence of ordinary Cross of the body in other parts, and upon other occasions. M. Row. and others. Abridg. Linc. pag. 27. If crossing upon the forehead be lawful, then that which is less ill is lawful, viz. the crossing upon the breasts etc. which is the manner of the Papists. Our Answer. I perceive, that if we had no other Advocates to plead our cause against the Papists, than such Obiectors, than might the Papists presume of a victory; not so much by their own strength, as by your imbecility. For it had been an easy matter for you to have answered the Papists, by telling them that there is a great difference between the manner of Protestants crossing the foreheads of Infants, and the Papists crossing their Breasts etc. because even (if there were no other odds) the practice of the Protestants is joined with an interpretation of their meaning, showing to what end the Cross is used; namely in a Moral Token of Christian courage, that the child shall not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ etc. which declaration, of the godly use and end thereof, may be a sufficient instruction unto the people, to free them from that superstition. But the other kind 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 far greater safety and security for a Traveller, passing through any Desert, to read written on Statuae Mercuriales. Marble Stones, or Pillars in a Highway (according to the custom of some Countries) the direct path from City to City, than if he shall be left wholly unto his own imagination, void and destitute of any direction. Otherwise, if that the people were fully instructed in the right use of Crossing their breasts, according to the primitive understanding thereof, to keep themselves in a Christian moderation; this also could not be justly excepted against: whereof we are to speak in the 13. Section. SECT. X. Their fifth Accusation against the Cross, used in the time of Baptism, is from the pretended Author thereof; whom they name to have been Valentinus. M. Hy. & M. Hi. Iren. li. 1. c. 1. Irenaeus saith, that the Heretic Valentinus was the man that first advanced the Cross to any religious use. Our Answer. Sooner shall you be able to extract Led out of a Marblestone, than to draw any such saying, yea or sense, out of Irenaeus. This Father, discovering the heretical speculations of this grand Heretic Valentinus, among others, reckoneth his opinion concerning that Cross, whereof he speaketh; which some times he called Stauros, Crux; and sometimes Horos, terminus, attributing thereunto a double virtue, one Confirmativa, that is, of confirming and strengthening a Christian in his profession; the other Diuisiua, that is, of dividing and separating him from the world. The first virtue Valentinus gathered out of the words of Christ, He that taketh not up his Cross and followeth me, Math. 10.38. is not worthy of me: signifying, that the Cross doth establish a Christian, and join him unto Christ, in following him: The other divisive virtue he collected out of that speech of Christ, He hath his fan in his hand, and will purge his floor, and gather his Wheat into his Garner, Math. 3.12. but the Chaff will he consume in unquenchable fire; noting, what the nature of persecution is, namely, to separate and distinguish the faithful 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 Sign of the Cross; but only of the persecution of Christians, for the name of Christ; which Christ himself called a Crosse. This is most evident by the very place of Irenaeus: For first, Christ's words, alleged by Valentinus, concern every Christian man, to take up a Cross; but not that whereupon Christ did suffer, for then the words of Christ should have stood thus; Except a man take up [crucem meam] my Cross etc. Which were to make every true Christian a Simon of Cyrene, who was compelled to take up Christ his Material Crosse. Math. 27. ●2. But the words are these; Qui non tollit crucem suam: He that takes not up his Cross; that is, his own Cross of suffering persecution for the name of Christ, (whensoever occasion shall require) cannot be accounted the disciple of Christ. This meaning of Valentinus is yet more manifest by the second virtue of that same Cross, which he calleth divisiva, that is, a power of dividing; in which respect Christ did call persecution [Ventilabrum] a fan to winnow, and sever the chaff from the wheat. Now Valentinus (saith Irenaeus) Ventilabrum illud crucem interpretatur; Doth interpret that Fan to be the Cross, whereof he spoke. Who then can be so silly, or senseless, as not to discern, at the first sight, that this Fan doth signify no other Cross than persecution? SECT. XI. Their Reply. There was some cause, M. Hy. why Irenaeus did reprehend the Heretic Valentinus, whom he reproved, saying (Talia enim etc. Such things the Valentinians speak, seeking to apply the good speeches of Christ unto their own wicked Inventions.) Therefore the words of Valentinus had some evil meaning concerning the Crosse. Our Answer. The reproof, which Irenaeus useth against Valentinus, doth more fully convince you of an egregious abuse of your Author, because Iraeneus doth plainly justify the former sayings of Valentius, concerning the Cross of persecution, calling them Benè dicta, Good sayings, (and how shall they be otherwise, being the very words of Christ himself?) but he condemneth only the application of those sentences, saying of the Valentinians, lib. 2. cap. 1. [Bene dicta adaptare cupiunt hijs, quae malè sunt ab ipsis inventa] That they did apply those good sayings unto their own wicked inventions, namely, to that Pleroma, that is, (according to their own Interpretation) unto God, but yet such a God, as those Heretics had moulded in their own fantastical brains; far differing from the infinite, and absolute nature of God. Wherefore, upon due examination of the testimony out of Irenaeus, grounded upon the words of Christ, you may, by your Objection, as well make Christ as Valentinus, the first Inventor of the Sign of the Crosse. SECT. XII. Their sixth Accusation, against the Sign of the Cross, is, because (as is pretended) the Heretic Montanus was the first Countenancer thereof among Christians. That Montanus gave it first credit amongst Christians, the Centurists seem to affirm, M. Hy. Cent. 3. cap. 10 nu. 57 Tert. de coro. milit. saying: Et quidem Ceremonias mutuatas a Montanistis induxit Tertullianus, & auxit, ut unctionem externam, signum crucis, ●blationes pro defunctis, quas consuetudines fatetur non esse institutas in sacra Scriptura. Our Answer. Not, that Montanus may be said to have been a more countenancer of the Cross, than of threefold dipping in Baptism, which Tertullian (being then a Montanist) did there mention, following Montanus in the observation of such Rites, Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. c. 1. which had been used of Orthodox Fathers, before ever Montanus was borne, who lived about the year 173. But some of the Ceremonies, which together with the Cross, are related in that place of Tertullian, were long before that mentioned by Irenaeus, justin Martyr, and Ignatius. There is nothing more easy than defamation, by calling any child a Bastard; especially when it doth not certainly appear, who was the right Father thereof: yet what need such jealousy in this Case, concerning the Father of this Sign? may it not be sufficient for us to know infallibly, that the mother was an honest woman? for such was that ancient Church of Christ, wherein the Sign of the Cross was first used and practised; as we are bound to prove, in the Section following. SECT. XIII. Their seventh and last Accusation, against the Sign of the Cross, is, because of the superstitiousness, which ancient Fathers are pretended to have had therein. The Canons profess to use and esteem of it as the Fathers of the Primitive Church did; but sundry of them put holiness in it, abridge Linc. p. 41. M. Hy. and wrote of it very superstitiously. Some telling us that it was a terror against Devils, attributed a power thereunto of working miracles: afterwards it was used in Italy (in signum salutaris expeditionis) whence it took then the name of (Cruciata expeditio) such as some record that Constantine, and Theodosius had taken up before. What shall we say, but that the Cross hath been as superstitiously abused by the Fathers, as by the rankest Papists, saving that Papists have ranked it with Divine worship, and so bestowed more honour upon it then ever the Fathers did afford it? but the Church of England, Can. 30. doth profess to maintain it in the same use which it had with the ancient Fathers; therefore it must needs follow, that the Sign of the Cross is superstitiously used. Our Answer. If I should note any man to be as rank a Traitor, as ever was Rebel in Ireland, SAVING THAT he doth acknowledge his due obedience unto the King, would not any think, that I bewrayed thereby both malignancy, and folly? And how doth this differ (I pray you) from your censure of the Fathers, noting them to have as much abused the Sign of the Cross; as the rankest Papists, Saving that they did not bestow divine worship on it? Howsoever the matter go, we must judge the Fathers, by your Censure, to have been superstitious. But it would have became the children of those ancient Fathers to have acknowledged that Orthodox sense in their writings which Protestant Divines, of principal note, and your own Witnesses have observed. There was indeed often mention made among the ancient Fathers of the Sign of the Cross, but Chemnitius willeth you to mark what kind of Sign it was. Exam. part. 4. Tract. de Imag. pag. 28. col· 1. In the Primitive times (saith he) there was not any Image or figurature of the face of man, having his arms spread out, and nailed to the Cross, but in the days of Tertullian, and afterwards the Christians did fashion a Transuerse figure, as it were a Cross, and did Sign themselves: but this was not a sign for worship or Adoration, [non enim tunc aliquid subsistens erat] for there was not any thing really subsistent in that sign, but it was only [professio & commonefactio,] a profession and remembrance that they should believe in Christ Crucified, and put all their hope and confidence in him; Thus far Chemnitius, to let us understand the integrity of Antiquity, in this point, because there cannot be the like superstition in the Cross, as it is a sign 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, observeth, that Things (Speaking of the Sign of the Cross) were not then turned into superstition, which were tolerable (saith he) in those times, when as there was no such danger of Idolatry. After he confesseth that At the sign of the Cross, the Devil was repelled, yet not by power or virtue of the Cross, but by faith in Christ crucified, even as grace is conferred upon us by the Sacraments, not through the power of the Sacraments, but by our faith in Christ crucified, whereby we receive those Sacraments; but Papists attribute an efficacy unto it [ex opere operato] even by the power of the sign. And lastly, speaking of the principal cause of the Sign of the Cross in the forehead, addeth, saying; [praecipua causa, & ea non reprobanda] the chief reason (which we may not disallow) was to testify that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified. So he: whereby you see, he freeth the ancient Fathers from the imputation of Superstition, & approveth the reason of their Use of the Cross in Token that they should not be ashamed, etc. Which reason our Church hath expressly specified, as the only and sufficient cause, why she hath retained the Use of this Ceremony. P. Martyr, Loc. come. pag. 222. So also jewel pag. 372. dissenteth not from the former Witnesses so much almost as in Syllables; and afterwards justifieth the placing of the Cross in Banners, Coins, and Crowns of Kings and Emperors, which (saith he) was done without any Superstition, to testify that they defended the Christian faith. Zepperus, reckoneth many Ceremonies which had been anciently used in Baptism, Pol. eccls l. 1. ca 12. p. 119. & 223. and among others the Sign of the Cross, and exorcism, which he calleth superstitious; but yet confesseth that they were used in those ancient Churches [nulla cum superstitione] without all superstition, being void of opinion of worship, merit, or necessity, but in a good intent, thereby to gain more reverence and admiration unto this divine Sacrament, and to exercise the devotion of men's minds in the celebration thereof: until at the length they grew to that height of impiety and superstition which is to be seen in the Church of Rome at this day. Probl. p. 176. M. Perkins, although he acknowledgeth not any further Antiquity of the use of the Cross in either Sacrament, beyond the 400, year after Christ yet doth he confess; first, that Crux transiens apud puriorem ecclesiam communiter in usu fuit; non Crux permanens: The transient sign of the Cross was in common use in the purer Church (meaning the sign done suddenly with the finger) but the sign of the Cross in any metal not till 400. years after Christ. Secondly, that for the first 300. years after Christ (which he calleth the purer Church) it was used as a sign of the external profession of Christian faith. Thirdly, that miracles were done of God at the sign of the Cross, that had joined unto it a manifest or at least a secret invocation of the name of Christ crucified: so that the virtue was not to be imputed unto the sign of the Cross but unto the faith of the worker and invocation of Christ. Much time would not suffice to reckon up the Testimonies of Authors who have justified the ancient Churches in the use of the Crosse. Therefore because Bishop jewel hath discussed this matter at large, I have reserved his Testimony for the next Section. Hitherto of our several Answers unto your particular Accusations. SECT. XIIII. Our Confutation of the Non-conformists Detractions, against the use of the Sign of the Cross, by their own Witnesses. I wish that this whole cause may be determined by him, unto whose judgement you do often appeal, in the whole question of Ceremonies; and whose name we acknowledge to be most worthily honourable in the Church of Christ. Bishop jewel therefore doth express his judgement, as followeth: The sign of the Cross, I grant, jewel art. 4. pag. 371. of the last Addition. was had in great regard, and that the rather both for the public reproach, & shame that by the common judgement of all the world was conceived against it, & also for the most worthy price of our redemption, that was offered upon it, (which he speaketh of the practice of Christians, before the days of Constantine; & then after the application of the example of the Emperor Constantine, concerning other Princes, he addeth) Even so Christian Princes, at this day, use the same Cross in their Arms, and Banners, both in peace and in war, in token that they fight under the Banner of Christ. Last of all, whereas M. Harding saith, jewel Ib. pag. 372. that the Professors of the Gospel cannot abide the sign of the Cross, Let him understand, that it is not the Cross of Christ, or the sign thereof, that we find fault withal, but the superstitious abuse of the Crosse. God be thanked, that they, whom M. Harding condemneth, have been able not only to abide the sign, but also to take up their cross, and to follow Christ, and to rejoice and triumph in the same. Do you not now perceive what a large & sound lecture this admirable Doctor in God's Church hath read unto you, and in how many points your gainsaying of the use of this sign is confuted? First, Bishop jewel approveth of the sign of the Cross, as it is made a significant Token of Christian Constancy in Banners; which you will not abide to have place in the Appendice unto the ministration of Baptism. Secondly, he alloweth the ancient use of the same sign at the time of Celebration of Baptism, notwithstanding the execrable abuse thereof in the Romish Church; which you urge as a necessary Cause, to have it utterly abolished. Thirdly, you commonly allege, and that not without some ostentation, a multitude of Divines, as (albeit in Titles, rather than in truth) Adversaries 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 undergoing the moral Cross (which is persecution, even unto Martyrdom itself) were also witnesses of the lawfulness of this Ceremonial sign of the Cross: so that you can have small Cause to account your suffering for Contradicting this Ceremonial Cross, the moral Cross of Christ. Fourthly, the same godly Bishop noteth these Martyrs to have admitted of this sign of the Cross (that I may so say) iam flagrant delicto: even when the abuse of Popish superstition and Idolatry was at the height, and when in detestation thereof, they yielded up their dearest lives unto Christ, which notwithstanding in your Conceits cannot be used without superstition, even now, when superstition is banished. Wherefore the Argument (wherewith I will conclude this part of Confutation) standeth strongly against you thus. Seeing that the use of the Cross was (as hath been confessed by your best witnesses) void of superstition in purer Antiquity, the same (notwithstanding the former abuse by Papists) may be practised in our Orthodox Churches with like sincerity. The reason is evident, because there is the same possibility of reforming of an abuse that there is of correcting an error. As therefore our Church hath by the mercy and grace of God, purged herself from the erroneous opinion of Popery, and now defendeth the Primitive Catholic truth, concerning the sign of the Cross; so may she as well be thought to have abandoned the superstitious practice of Popery, and to have reduced this sign unto her primitively lawful use: whereof M. Bucer said (even in the first time of the reformation of religion, Bucer. in Censur. ordinat. Eccles. cap. 12. when as yet the sign of the Cross was Idolatrously abused by Papists) that it might have, among the truely-professed, a Christian use: Hoc signum, etc. This sign (saith he) not only because it is most ancient, but also for that it is plain, & for a present admonishing us of the Cross of Christ, is neither undecent, nor unprofitable. Whereunto might be added the consonant judgements of Chemnisius, P. Martyr, Zanchy, and others: but I hasten to the third Ceremony. CHAP. III. Our particular defence of the innocency of the Third Ceremony, which is the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving of the holy Communion. SECT. I. THE Non-conformists enlarge themselves, in this Argument; seeking to oppugn it by all the vehemency, and violence of affection that they can: but, when their Exceptions, and Accusations shall be thoroughly discussed, they will perceive (I hope) that they have not been more hot in their Zeal, then cold in their Reasons; whereunto I now proceed, according to my former method, both Answering, and Confuting their Accusations, against this Gesture of Kneeling. SECT. II. The first Accusation, used by the Non-conformists, against the Gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving 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 primitive Church successively; and that which is against the intention of Christ, being in itself Idolatrous, must needs be abolished, as unlawful. But such is the Gesture of Kneeling, in the receiving of the Eucharist. Ergo, it is to be changed. Our Answer. Here are, almost, tot media, quot verba: and therefore you are to be entreated to resolve your confused Prosyllogisme into several parts, for our more plain and expedite course, in this our dispute. Begin 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, doubtless, did all things well: but you do not well, by abusing the example of Christ, to prove a necessity of the imitation thereof. This I make bold to affirm, and I hope not without good grounds. First, by Reason. SECT. FOUR Our first Reason; for Confutation of the Non-conformists former Assertion. When we come to inquire the strict manner of Christ his Gesture; out of the Evangelists, Math 26.20. we hear S. Matthew saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and S. Mark, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, (as Calvin and Beza render it) discumbentibus illis: Mark. 14.18. It is not * of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Sitting; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may be as well, Lying down: and the Evangelist S. john, concerning Christ saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, joh. 13.12. that is; He fell down, or (if you will) laid himself down, as the same Evangelist (using the first word, saith concerning S. john himself) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, joh. 13.23. Bar. Tom. 1. pag. 198. & pag. 200. he bringeth for the most part things cited out of a book called, Liber Rituaalis. [recumbens in sinu] lying upon Christ his breast. Baronius by these phrases is induced to think, verisimile esse, Christum, & Apostolos lectis discubuisse; which phrases of speech Interpreters have diversly rendered, not according to the very propriety of words of the Evangelists, but according to their different conceits, about his Gesture, which we may not deny to have been a kind of Sitting. But yet when we shall ask more precisely the continued manner of the Sitting, whether upright, or rather somewhat leaning; or what the express form of his Gesture was, it is left by the holy Evangelists in such an uncertainty, that we may justly collect from thence, that Christ intended not to make his gesture to be an exact pattern 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 diverse other like circumstances of Christ his practice, wherein the Non-conformists neither do, nor can challenge any right of imitation. This case will be evident, if we shall consult with the evangelical Story, concerning Christ his first institution of the Sacrament: where we observe related unto us both the Example and Precept of Christ; the Example is shown in his preparation for this Communion; his Precept is specified in the act of Administration. Concerning his Example of preparation, these diverse circumstances appear, the first is of the Persons, who were Twelve; or, if you will, but Eleven disciples: the second, in respect of the Sex, only Men: the third is of Place, in a private House: the fourth of Time, it was in the Night: the fifth of Gesture, which we acknowledge to have been a kind of Sitting: Not to insist upon 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 circumstantial points, be for perpetual, and necessary imitation; then farewell, from this Communion, all women, by reason of their sex; and also men, above eleven or twelve, because of their number; and let us use it rather in private houses, than in public Temples, because of the circumstance of place, which was a chamber; and concerning the time, not in the morning, but only in the night. Is not this then a singular adversenesse, in these men, so to impugn the ordinance of our Church, by exacting sitting, which is but one only circumstance of the first institution of this Sacrament, that they do consequently condemn themselves, as Prevaricators in almost all the rest? SECT. VI Our second grand Confutation, of the Non-conformists, is by their own Witnesses. Your own Witnesses, to wit, M. Beza and Zanchius do willingly confess, Beza. Zanch. the one touching unleavened 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 just premises, and good reasons, as can be required; See below, sect. 16. which will appear in Answer to your second accusation. SECT. VII. Our third grand Confutation of their first Exception, is from the practice of the Non-conformists themselves. It is true; Christ did administer this Sacrament in a kind of Sitting-gesture, and in the same Gesture did the Apostles of Christ receive it. The main question is, whether the Church be bound to the strict imitation of all such circumstances of the first administration? You challenge a precise observation thereof; and we desire you to be satisfied from your own practice: for Christ is found Sitting at one Table with his Disciples, unto whom he still Sitting distributed the blessed Sacrament, as unto his Communicants; but you, in the Administration of this Sacrament, departing from the Table of the Lord, walk from person to person, and deliver these holy Rites unto them. Say now (I pray you) is there any just resemblance between Sitting and Walking; or is not the example of Christ as good a prescription, for Gesture, unto Ministers how to distribute the Eucharist, as the example of the Apostles can be unto Laics, how to receive it? Wherefore, the pressing of your first exception was but the shooting an Arrow up directly into the Sky, without all regard, that, in falling down, it must necessarily light upon your own 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 doubt, consider, we pray you, that the Acts of Christ, concerning the institution of this Sacrament, were of two different sorts; some were only occasional, and accidental; and some were truly Sacramental and Essential. I call them Occasional, which accidentally fell out, by occasion of Christ his celebration of the Passeover; which, being the Sacrament of the jews, 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 Passeover occasioned Christ to institute this Sacrament of the Lords Supper, only with his own family; only with men; only in a private house; only in the night; as hath been said: Whereunto some do refer also the circumstances of the bread, that it was Azyme and unleavened, as then, necessarily required in the celebration of the Passeover; and of the Cup, that it had a mixture of water in it, to allay the spirit of the wine; according to the ordinary custom of that Country. But the Acts, that were essential, and necessarily to be performed, in this Sacrament, are all under that express commandment of Christ, saying, Math. 26. [Do this etc.] beginning first at these words, Christ took bread, and when he had blessed it, he broke etc. All which circumstances, delivered by Precept, the Church is tied to observe. Upon this occasion, it were no great difficulty, to show how the Church of Rome, at this day, hath degenerated from ancient Rome, by transgressing the commandment of Christ, who said, Do this etc. and by doing contrarily, in divers weighty & observable points, and circumstances, there commanded by Christ: as namely, first, Christ took bread, gave thanks, and blessed it; Ergo, the consecration that Christ used was in prayer, and not in these four words, This is my body. Secondly, Christ taking bread, broke it, and (as is confessed) took diverse parts out of one loaf; and set not before them (as it were so many breads) divers wafers. Thirdly, Christ gave it unto them, saying, etc. Ergo, they heard what he said; and his words were not uttered, or rather muttered in an unaudible voice. Fourthly, Christ commanded them, saying, [Take] Ergo, he spoke unto them in a known tongue, and not in a language they could not understand. Fiftly, Christ gave, saying, Take: Ergo, doubtless (for the point is confessed from the light of Antiquity) so they took it, as he gave it, namely, with their hands, and had it not put into their mouths. Sixtly, Christ, that said to them all present [Take] said also [Eat] Ergo, the use of the Sacrament, was propounded to be eaten, and not to be only gazed upon; and persons present were Actors, and not Spectators only. Seventhly, Christ likewise took the Cup, giving it unto them saying, Drink you all of this: Ergo, the Communicants did equally participate of both the Elements, as being the pledges of both the Body and blood of Christ; not dismembering the Seal of the Covenant, nor defrauding the faithful of their complemental right. Lastly, Christ expressed the special end of the Eucharist, Do it in remembrance of me; which is, as S. Paul doth interpret it, Showing the Lord's death: Ergo, it is unproperly called a Sacrifice Propitiatory, 1. Cor. 11.26. seeing that the death of Christ is thereby only Commemoratively shown, and not operatively, and corporally executed herein. Thus we find, that how many actions have been mentioned, concerning the Institution of Christ, so many prevarications and transgressions have been committed by the now Church of Rome, which the ancient mother Roman Church would have condemned as sacrilegious, if they had been practised by any Church in her time. But you call upon us to consider your next Exception. SECT. XI. The second Accusation, used by the Non-conformists, against Kneeling, is from the Intention of Christ; by four 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 Kingdom: now it suiteth not with a Coheir, or Guest, with Christ, to kneel at the Table; and it is contrary to the Law of Nature, to Kneel 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 unto us our Banquet in heaven. Our Answer. We acknowledge this Sacrament to be the most gracious Banquet, that ever was ordained for the sons of men: But how? As a bodily Banquet, trow ye? No, for if our Saviour had meant to have furnished out a bodily Banquet, he would have been more plentiful in other varieties, than in Bread and Wine. But it is a mystical Banquet, for the replenishing of our souls spiritually with the body and blood of Christ; which we feed upon, Non dente sed mente; non per fauces, sed per fidem: that is, Rather with the mind, than with the mouth; as the Fathers speak. And therefore you are not to require, or expect therein the very form and fashion of an ordinary banquet, where it will become men to talk, eat, and drink, to invite, and pledge one another; and how then can you exact of us the manner of Sitting? And for any of you so to speak of familiarity, and holding it undecent for adopted coheirs with Christ to kneel, as the receiving of this Sacrament; I think it can hardly be heard, even of some of your own fellowship, without some horror of mind. For seeing that the Right of our adoption is the same in us, without the Sacrament, which it is in the receiving thereof; then, by your Argument, it must be held an Indecorum in any Christian to be seen praying any where unto Christ, the Son of God, upon his knees. SECT. X. Their Reply. It is one thing to be a Coheir, and another thing to act the person of a Coheir; The Disputer. at other times when we present ourselves in supplication, then take we upon us the persons of suitors, & so we humble our souls in prayer: but at this Banquet we represent the persons of coheirs, as we shall be at the great Supper in heaven, and now it is our office to give resemblance hereof. Our Answer. We have indeed such kind of Similitudes in Scripture, to shadow out unto us the happy fellowship of the Communion of Saints in heaven; as the calling it a great Supper, Luke 14.16. wherein All things are prepared: namely, that either the infinite love of God would, or the omnipotency of the same love could provide for the eternal enjoyment of the faithful in Christ jesus; who talketh furthermore of Sitting, eating, and drinking, Luke 22.30. in his Kingdom. But to tell us that this Supper of the Eucharist was propounded, to be an express and proper Type and Similitude of the heavenly, is more than, I think, any Ancient learning ever taught. For the immediate mystical object 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 body and blood, as glorified in heaven? No, but as Crucified and shed on the Cross: which is expressed sufficiently by Christ; calling it blood shed for you. And the end of this Sacrament is set down thus; In remembrance of me. Now Remembrance is not of things to come, but only of things past, to wit, the work of Redemption by his Passion, in his body and blood; whereof Saint Paul hath made a plain Comment: 1. Cor. 11.26. As often as you eat of this bread, and drink of this Cup, you show the Lords death till he come. Which Comment was taken from the Analogy of the Sacrament with the thing signified thereby; for the bread broken betokeneth his body Crucified for us; the wine powered out, resembleth his blood shed, and separated from his body. Can you find in all these any one Type of the Celestial joy, which is signified elsewhere, by the promise of eating and drinking in the Kingdom of heaven? Neither can it be to any purpose, to say that in giving us his body & blood, in this Sacrament, we have bequeathed unto us all the benefits of his death, and passion, and Consequently all the joys of immortality, which may be prefigured by our eating and drinking at this Table: for Signs and Types are resemblances of immediate objects, and not of objects remote, and consectary: as for example; Tit. 3.5. Baptism is the Laver of Regeneration, a Sacrament and Sign of our new Birth, whereby we have entrance into the Kingdom of grace; and so consequently we have interest in the Kingdom of glory, as Christ teacheth; joh. 3.5. Except a man be borne again by water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven; signifying, contrarily, that the new borne, shall enter into heaven: yet is not Baptism a Type of the celestial and triumphant estate of God's children, but of our new birth, by sanctification, in the Church militant. This will appear as clearly in the Sacrament, which we have in hand; for the benefit of our redemption, by the body and blood of Christ, hath many dimensions, and every one of infinite extent. Look down into the profundity of the bottomless pit, we are redeemed from death, devil, and the eternal torments of hell: Secondly, look upon the Latitude, beside, and about us, in which respect we are redeemed from the thraldom of sin; and both from the moral world of wicked Reprobates, and the material world of this earth; the one reserved for the fire of hell, never to be consumed; and the other to be consumed with the fire of the last day. Lastly, look up to the altitude, and height of our Redemption, and it reacheth unto the everlasting joy and glory of God's Kingdom. All these, in every degree infinite, benefits are merited for us, by the royal purchase of Christ, through his passion; yet the bread and wine, are only the symbols and signs, representing unto us his body and blood; but not those other consequents thereof: Except you will say, that we have likewise herein Types of our deliverance from hell; and separation from the world of earth, earthly and carnal men, and so forth. By all which, this your so glozing and specious an Argument of a Type of Coheirship, proveth to be but an Image and Type of a self-pleasing conceit. SECT. XI. Their second Pretence, to prove 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 devils: The Communion book commandeth us to prepare ourselves for the Lord's Table; and Christ noteth this Table to be a resemblance of our heavenly society, telling his disciples, saying; You shall eat and drink with me at my Table in my Kingdom. Therefore must we still retain our prerogative of our Coheirship of Sitting, because this is a Table-gesture, according to the Country wherein we live. Our Answer. Your former fancy hath taken that impression in your brains, that now whatsoever you look upon, doth seem unto you to be of the same colour, and to make for the manifestation of your former pretence. And therefore now the Table of Christ must needs infer the like Table, wheresoever the Sacrament is administered; and this Table must enforce a Table-gesture of Sitting; and this Table-gesture must resemble the Coheirship of the faithful with Christ, in the Kingdom of heaven: and all these you hold to be essential points of this Supper. But if I might be suffered to pose you from point to point, according to this our method, I think that you would not be so far in love with your own conceit. First [A Table.] Christ had an artificial one; for so the Passeover required, and the place afforded: but let us suppose the woman driven into the Desert (as it is in the Apocalyps) that is, Apoc. 12. the Church, or any part thereof to be in distress, in a Wilderness, where no Table can be had; do you think that the Grass, or ground (as it did in the miraculous Banquet of the feeding of five thousand with five loaves and two fishes) may not serve the turn? Math. 14. Secondly, you exact that there be used 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 yearly in many parishes within this Kingdom) that a thousand, and sometimes two thousand Communicants are assembled, joh. 6.9. may not I (as Andrew said of the five loaves and two fishes, for the satisfying of five thousand people) say of one Table, What is this for so many? Can you prepare one Table, to contain thousands to sit one with another; for resemblance of our joint communion in heaven? Or if not, will you have us think that Christ doth exact of his faithful a circumstance of Impossibility? Be you rather persuaded, 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 have alleged: 1. Cor. 10. You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. For by the Table of devils, is meant every Altar, whereupon there was offered any sacrifice unto Idols; where the Heathen people were made partakers of those sacrifices, not by sitting at the Altars; but by receiving part of those sacrifices, and Libamina, which were immolated, and offered upon such Altars. As for your resemblance of Coheirship, and fellowship with Christ, in his Kingdom, by thus sitting at one Table, in receiving of the holy Communion; I have proved that it is but your private and pertinacious figment: And for further evidence, we are to enter into consideration, what person it was that Christ did sustain, at the celebration of his own Supper; was it of a Lord, or else of a Servant? The Tenure of the first Institution runneth thus: He took bread, broke it, ●uk. 22.19. Math 26. and gave it unto them.— Likewise he took the cup, and gave it unto them. These are Acts of Ministration, which he put upon his Apostles, and all other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, saying, [Do this etc.] If any could possibly doubt hereof, Christ himself would resolve them, who saith a little after, Luk. 22.28. I am among you as him that serveth. And I trust that you dare not affirm, that CHRIST, in his ministration of this Supper of Grace, was a Type and Figure of himself, in the estate of his Coheirship, which is in his Kingdom; for so shall you confound things infinitely distant, Ministration, and Dominion; estate Militant, and Triumphant; Lord, and Servant; Earth and Heaven. Let us therefore compose our minds unto a Christian moderation, and think, that we are at this Feast, both Suitors in prayer, for remission of sins; and Congratulators, by thanksgiving, for remission of our sins, and all the Royal Benefits of his Death and Passion: And not to presume too much of such familiarity with CHRIST, 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, Doorkeepers, in that Celestial Temple; and not presume that, by virtue of our Coheirship, we must needs set ourselves upon the same Tribunal with Christ, Who is set at the right hand of God in the heavenly places, Eph. 1.20.21. far above all Principality, and Power, and Might, and Domination, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. SECT. XII. Their third Pretence, to prove the Intention of Christ, is from the due disposition of the Receiver. Abridg. Linc. p. 61. The Disposition of heart, which is required of us, in our very Act of receiving, is not so much humility, as assurance of faith and cheerfulness; which is much better expressed and showed by the gesture of Sitting, than of Kneeling. Our Answer. You will not think, I hope, that Humility doth hinder the assurance of faith; or that the difference of outward Gesture must needs set Christian virtues at variance; 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 have her handmaid, called Kneeling, to wait upon her. I marvel who made you Usher at this feast. But let you these two Virtues alone, and they will walk hand in hand, as loving Sisters, and both have their servants attending upon them, in the same actions. To this end I propound unto you two Theological concord's. The first concord is between Faith and Humility, in that mirror, which is set forth by our Saviour in the Gospel, concerning the great man that said unto Christ; Lord, Math. 8.8. I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my Roof: Thus doth Humility unueile herself: but what said his Faith? Speak thou (to wit, Christ) the word only, and my servant shall be whole. This was such an admirable assurance of faith, in the estimation of Christ himself, that he said: Verily, I have 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 seen between Humiliation and Thankfulness, even in the Gesture of Kneeling, as it is often and plainly recorded in holy Writ: for the Prophet David, in a Psalm of Thankfulness, doth exhort the true Worshippers thus: Psal. 95.2. Let us come before his presence with giving of thanks: How? By Sitting or Standing? (So peradventure the presumption of some would say:) but the Prophet, as it were by way of prevention, saith: And worship, Ver. 6. and fall down before the Lord our Maker. Will you see this acted? One man of ten persons, that were cured of the Leprosy, Luk. 17.15.16. returning and glorifying God, fell down at Christ his feet, giving him thanks. And if you shall say, that this Thankfulness was not so well expressed, by this gesture of Humility, which is Kneeling; then may you as well impute a piece of Indecorum unto the twenty four Elders, more than was meet, Apoc. 11.7. when, in their act of yielding glory and praise, they are said to use the same gesture of kneeling: and accordingly, you might spy out a less seemliness in the Angels, who are described by a kind of Analogy, and resemblance, to use their Humiliation by Kneeling, Apoc. 7.11. in worshipping and giving God thanks. You must seek out, for your own reputation sake, some more tolerable reason than this, to prove your pretended Intention of Christ; or else confess that you intended nothing, but to wrangle with the Church. SECT. XIII. Their fourth pretence to prove the Intention of Christ, is from a pretended meanness of the Element. Abridg. Linc. p. 67. If our Saviour had intended that the outward Elements should h●ue been thus reverenced, he would not have made choice of bread and wine, which are so common and base. Our Answer. It seemeth then, by this Objection, that you fancy Ambrosia, Nectar, Manna, or some such other Element of a more perfect nature, which may in your opinion, deserve such a Reverence: Whereas the Sacraments of bread and wine are by you esteemed but base. I cannot, for my part, but blush in your behalf, to hear such Turkish and Heathenish language, proceed from any Professor of Christianity. Have you not yet taken out S. Peter's lesson, Act. 10.15. That which God hath sanctified, let no man call common? If he could speak thus much of ordinary meats, what an impiety must it be, to abase these Elements, which are consecrated unto a Sacramental use, to be Seals of the Covenant of grace; and are most fit, of all other creatures, to express our union with Christ, and communion with all faithful Christians? This I urge not, as persuaded that you can be so irreligiously minded, as your words may import; but to let you understand that you have been so far transported with prejudice, as that when you spoke against due reverence, in receiving this blessed Sacrament, you could not but speak irreverently. SECT. XIIII. Their fifth Pretence, to prove the Intention of Christ, against Kneeling, is from the example of the Apostles. It were great Hypocrisy in us to pretend greater Reverence and Devotion in receiving of it, than was in the Apostles; Abri●● Linc. p. 5●. nay if it were fit for us, to use Kneeling, it was much more fit for the Apostles, in ●egard of Christ his corporal presence among them. Our Answer. This Consequence is a non sequitur, and that in divers respects; first, in respect of the purpose of Christ, who then made himself familiar with his disciples, that he might the better instruct them, whilst he was yet in the form 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? joh. 13. I have given you an example (saith Christ) that as I your Lord and master have washed your feet, you also aught to wash one another's feet: And further professeth himself to have been amongst them, not so much as one that sat at Table, as one that was servant unto them. Luk. 22.27. But after his Ascension and glorification, the precept was laid upon All, that All Knees should bow unto him: Phil. 2 10. which gesture, if it ought to have been performed at the sight of his presence in the flesh, then must they have been always Kneeling. Secondly, in respect of the Apostles themselves, who were the first choice and immediate Ambassadors for Christ, and instruments of reconciliation of the world, by means of that most Royal Embassage, which they received from Christ, the King of glory; and not so only, but also who were endued with all kind of graces of God's Spirit, as well of gifts called gratum facientia, as graetis data. But we, who are exceedingly inferior unto those golden vessels, that were so excellently endued and sanctified, aught to think it our duty, that the less we are in ourselves, for gifts and graces, the more we should contend to excel them (and true humility is void of hypocrisy) in humiliation. Thirdly, the Consequence of this your own Consequence, may teach you to recant and revoke your Conclusion; seeing that it must follow, that forasmuch as we have no example (as I remember) of any Apostle, that did, upon any occasion, use the precise gesture of kneeling unto Christ; it must therefore follow, by your learning, that we ought not to kneel in our ordinary prayers, which we make unto Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! For it is no less. 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 herself wiser than the Apostles in the alteration of their gesture: for things indifferent have their alterations and Changes, as Ships have their divers motions and turnings, according as their Pilots, in their discretion, shall by variety of accidents, as it were diversity of winds, be occasioned to turn or return them. S●CT. XV. Our general Confutations of all the Non-conformists pretences, showing; That it was not the Intention of Christ to bind his Church to the Gesture of Sitting, in receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Our first Confutation. Our former distinction between the Ceremonies, used by Christ, at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament, whereof some were only accidental, (which fell out by occasion of the Celebration of the Passeover, and other Circumstances of that time;) and some essential, which were such as were comprised within the Lists of Christ his Precept of, Do this, etc. doth fully discharge as well us, in respect of the Ceremony 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 been already evinced from such special Evidence, See above Sect. 5. and Sect. 11. which it will be sufficient in this place only to have pointed at. SECT. XVI. Our second Confutation, concerning the Intention of Christ, from their own Witnesses, acknowledging, that the Intention of Christ was not to bind men unto an imitation, in the Circumstantial points of the Sacrament. Two Witnesses may be as good as twoscore, for the Clearing of this point, especially being in the judgement of the Non-conformists so judicious and Orthodox. Zanch de Redempt: l. 1. de Cul● De●●x●e p. 4●●. Zanchie. These things only (saith he) that Christ commanded at his last Supper, belong to the substance thereof: for he gave two precepts, the one in these words [hoc facite] D● this: in saying [this] he commands two things; [pr●mum ut totum; secundum, ●t tant●m faciamus, quod ips● f●cit:] so that nothing must b● added or diminished. The next precept is in those words of doing [In remembrance of me] saith Christ, which, in respect of us that receive it, belongeth to the essence of the sacrament. But if we shall alter any thing, which is not commanded of God, or add that which is not essential, but only accidental; and that not as necessary, 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 only 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, used in the Church in the days of justin Martyr, according as Christ (which is probable) did. Add unto this, that the ancient Bishops, in the Administration of the Supper, changed their vestures; which did not appertain 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 unto the essence of the Sacrament. The essentials are comprehended under those words of Christ, [hoc facite, Do this] which he spoke concerning washing of feet. Our second Witness is M. Beza, Beza. Epist. ●. p. 25. who writing his resolution, concerning another question, viz. whether the people might receive the Sacramental bread, from the hands of the Priest, with their mouths only, and not with their hands? doth determine as followeth; Christ commandeth us to take it, and the receiving with the mouth, is a kind of taking; not but that it were better to receive it according to the first example, both with hand and mouth: but that which is better, is not always absolutely necessary. You will say that Christ commanded the other, in saying, [Take] I grant it, but so, as to understand that [primaria intentio Christ●] his primary intendment was to preserve the form of the Sacrament, and not to stand too strictly upon that, which is not absolutely necessary. Christ commanded us to Baptize, signifying immersion; shall we therefore say that Aspersion is no right Baptism? so then, [ipsa sumptio, non sumendi modus praecisè praescribitur,] but you will say, Ibid. pag. 7●. we are commanded neither to add, nor detract any thing from the institution of Christ; I grant it, but the question is who are to be said to add, or detract, etc. I cannot forget, that this aberration of Popery hath been condemned by me, as a transgression of the precept and practice of Christ, who, as he gave the Sacrament into the hands of his Disciples, so did he also ordain, that it should be observed; 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 mouths of the people, by judging them too profane, to touch such Holy Mysteries with their hands; (as if a Christian man's lips were more hallowed than his fingers) this I must still hold to be a notable piece of Superstition. And although, with M. Beza, I acknowledge that it doth not detract from the substance of the Sacrament itself, yet doth it derogate from the precept of Christ his Institution thereof. M. Beza doth elsewhere discuss the nature of Circumstantial and accidental points in another instance. We may not contend (saith he) about the bread, whether it be unleavened or leavened, Be●a Epist. 11. p. 109. albeit we think that common bread is more convenient unto the ordinance of Christ; for why did Christ use Azymes, but only because at that time there was no other bread, to be had? How could these witnesses have spoken more pertinently, or fully, to prove that it was not the Intention of Christ to bind us more necessarily to an imitation of the gesture of Sitting, at the Celebration of this Communion; than 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 themselves, by their own confession of the liberty of Sitting. Abridg. Linc. p. 57 quoting Bullinger. You yourselves multiply many Testimonies, telling us that M. Bullinger maketh it an indifferent thing, whether the Church receive it sitting, or coming 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 Primitive Church, saith, that the Communion was administered, either sitting at Supper, or else standing after Supper: and in Eusebius, Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, Anno 157. writeth of the manner of one, that stood at the Communion-Table: also, 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, jewel Defen. Apol. p. 237. M. jewel writeth that in Basil, in his time, every man was bound to take the Communion standing. This, which you use, in your books, as an Objection against us, we make bold to return, as an evident Conviction against yourselves: because now you cannot but see your feet in that stocks, which is called a Dilemma. For if that we, as you have said, are bound to the gesture of Sitting, by the example of Christ, how cometh it to pass that you now allow of a bond of the Primitive 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 upon us the necessity of sitting? or are you now so vehement, in excluding all indifferency of kneeling? Consider, I pray you, whether there be not the like Analogy, between kneeling and sitting▪ as there can be between sitting and standing. This Argument we have drawn, as was said, from your own Objection; and so are you outshot in your own Bow. SECT. XVIII. Their third Accusation against the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving of the holy Communion, from the example of the Primitive Church. The Primitive Churches, for sundry hundred years, Abridg. Linc. p. 58. used to receive it standing; for Tert. (who lived Anno 180,) reporteth thus, as the Custom of his time, and Tradition received from the Apostles, that it was unlawful to Kneel upon the Lord's day, or upon any other day between Easter and Pentecost; and Anno 127. it was decreed in the Council of Nice, that none might pray kneeling upon the Lord's day; the reason is commended out of the Canon Law; because on this day is celebrated the joyful remembrance of the Lords resurrection. Our Answer. This Custom of the Primitive Church, in standing at the time of public prayer, for the testifying of their faith in the Article of the Resurrection, was then held most requisite, when as yet that Fundamental Article of Christian faith was generally impugned, and gain said by some jews; by divers Heretics; & by all Pagans: which occasioned the Primitive Fathers, in those ages, to ordain, that all Christians, for the better manifesting of every man's profession herein, should use that public gesture of standing. But afterwards, when the faith of the resurrection had generally taken root in the hearts of men, them this Ceremony of standing in prayer did, by little & little, vanish in some places, together with the cause thereof. First then, in this example of the Primitive Church, we see a gesture of standing, as a Ceremony Ecclesiastical: Secondly, the end thereof, for a joyful remembrance of the Lords Resurrection, which maketh the Ceremony to be significant: Thirdly, that this was applied to God's public worship. These considerations may serve for an ample Confutation of your former general Positions, whereby you condemned our Three Ceremonies, to wit; Surplice, Cross, and Kneeling, because, forsooth they are Ceremonies of humane invention, of mystical signification, and appropriated to the service of God. Now therefore, if you allow of the foresaid practice of the Primitive Church, why have you formerly impugned it? If you do not approve thereof, why do you now object it? But more of this hereafter. Our second Inference needeth no dilatation, which is briefly this; that the example of the Primitive 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 Rites. SECT. XIX. Their fourth Accusation, against the Gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving of the Sacrament, is from the opinion of the necessity thereof; as well by the learned, as by the unlearned. 1. Of the unlearned. Many people in the Land think that this gesture of Kneeling is necessary. Abridg. Linc. pag. 42. Our Answer. The error of the people, if there be any such, is to be imputed unto two sorts of Ministers; the one kind 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 busy, who falsely impose upon the Church an erroneous opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies, which she, in their own knowledge, hath always abhorred in the Romish Professors; and disclaimed and renounced among her own. But, it may be, the principal error is the jealousy of the Accusers, who use to suspect an error in many, in stead of a few; or (for aught that I know) of any, that holdeth this gestures as essential unto 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 book of King Edward the sixth, say, that the use of kneeling is to avoid profanation. Our Answer. Are you then of opinion, either that Sacraments cannot be profaned; or that the Church had not reason to prevent, or avoid, the profanation of this Sacrament of the Eucharist? If that the Sacraments were not subject to profanation, then should they not be Sacraments. For Gods most glorious Name is subject to man's blasphemy; Man's holy life, to infamy; Godliness, to scorn; Truth, to slander; and all sacred things, unto the profaneness of godless men: otherwise, neither things could be said to be Sacred, nor godless men profane. As for the wisdom of our Church, in this case; she, perceiving the blasphemous mouths of the Papists to vilify the Sacrament of our Lord jesus, administered in our Church, with the ignominious names of Baker's Bread, Vintner's Wine, profane Elements, Ale-cakes, and such like reproachful terms; did hold it fit, that we, by our outward reverence in the manner of receiving of the Eucharist, might testify our due estimation of such holy Rites (which are consecrated to so blessed an use, as is communion of the body and blood of Christ,) and that thereby we might repel the stain and ignominy, which such virulent and unhallowed tongues did cast upon them. Be you contented, by the way, to be put in mind of your own ignorance, by confounding an Accidental, and an Essential necessity together; whereas you ought to have distinguished them, and acknowledged, that as it is necessary for the Pati●nt to take some receipts of physic, not as essential, as his daily food; but accidental, because of his present infirmity: So may we say, that the Gesture of Kneeling is not prescribed, as a necessary form of receiving the Communion; for than should we condemn not only the present, but also the primitive Churches; but yet as necessary for the reforming of the profane, and irreligious behaviour of many, in these wretched days wherein we live. SECT. XXI. Their fifth Accusation, against the Gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving of the Sacrament, is from the fi●st Invention thereof; as being Antichristian. The use of Kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, Abridg. Linc. pag. 30.31. grew first from the persuasion of the real presence, and Transubstantiation; being never enjoined to any Church till Antichrist grew to the full height, there being no action in all his service so Idolatrous as this. It was appointed by Honorius the third, anno 1220. Our Answer. There are three things considerable, in our custom; 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 days of ancient Fathers, there was used an outward Adoration, at the receiving of holy Sacraments, by bowing of the body, is so known a truth, that the Non-conformists themselves will acknowledge it: otherwise I should have alleged, to this purpose, Cyril of jerusalem 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 adoraverit; & Chrysost. ad Pop. Antioch. hom 61. Adora, & Communica. Which Testimonies, although they do not all justify 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 evince an outward Humiliation of the body to God, and unto Christ, at the receiving of these pledges, as from the hands of Christ: which the words of Cyril, in the place above cited, do explain, who speaking of taking the Cup, saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bowing thyself, after a manner of Adoration, Cyril Hier. Catech. mystagog. 5. and worship saying, Amen. Here you have a gesture of Adoration, I say not to the Cup; but, at the receiving of the Cup, unto Christ, by relation of a gift, from a Giver: I say again unto Christ; for that Adoration was directed unto him, unto whom the oration and prayer was due, in saying, Amen. In the next place, after we have learned that there was a gesture of Adoration used, we are to inquire 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 receiving of this gift be lawful; Shall the more humble gesture make the act of Adoration less lawful? The third point remaineth, which is to understand aright, whereunto, or to whom this Adoration is to be directed, without danger of Idolatry. This is taught us by our Liturgy; according herein, with the most ancient Liturgies of the Primitive Church: Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts, to wit, unto the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, that gave his Son; and unto Christ himself, the Lamb of God, that sitteth upon the Throne, that gave himself for our redemption, by his body and blood. Now, to come to the point, and, for the present, to grant that some wicked Pope had invented Adoration, by Kneeling; yet are we notwithstanding discreetly to distinguish of colours, lest that, for want of due circumspection, we call Black white, and white black. To this purpose, I shall expedite this doubt, by certain demands. I ask then, first, whether every Invention is to be condemned, because the Author thereof was some evil Pope? He that should affirm this, must consequently deny the use of a Gun; because the Inventor thereof was a Friar: or the wearing of a Coat, because the Tailor happily was a Thief. Secondly, I ask, shall we condemn the gesture itself, because it is Kneeling? To affirm this, were consequently to condemn, not so much the Invention of man, as the Ordinance of God; who often requireth in his worship the act of Kneeling. Thirdly, I ask, must we therefore refuse this gesture because it is for Adoration? To affirm this, were consequently to disallow the ancient custom of bowing the body, for that was a gesture of Adoration. Fourthly, I ask, ought we to abhor this gesture of Kneeling, only as it was applied by the Pope, for a Divine Adoration of the Host itself? This we confess to be indeed, a Popish Invention, and as execrable an Idolatry as Christendom hath ever seen; and to condemn this only, is fully to justify our Church, which doth as much detest that abomination, as any Adversary of that Romish Synagogue. As for Honorius, whom you fancy to have been the first Inventor of the foresaid manner of Adoration by Kneeling, it is more than my books do teach me; sure I am, that you will witness Zepperus saith: Honorius decrevit, Zepper. pol●●. l. ●. c. 1●. pag. 137. ut cum eleu●tur h●●tia s●lutaris, qu●sque se reverenter inclinet: Which words [to incline reverenth] do notify unto us rather the bowing of the body, that the bending of the knee: albeit I will not contend about the fi●st Author of this Adoration, whether Honorius, or Innocentius; for it is not material. SECT. XXII. Their sixth Accusation, against the gesture of Kneeling, is taken from the Popish Abuse thereof. The gesture of kneeling in the act of receiving, is notoriously known to have been of old, Abridg. Linc. p. 30. and to be still abused to Idolatry by Papists, by whom it is d●il●y used in the worship of their breaden god: a●d that upon an Idolatrous intent, that the bread is become God: yea and one of their strongest Arguments, to justify 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 known, that Protestants, in Kneeling at the receiving of the consecrated Elements, do not abuse them to Idolatry; but do as much hate the Romish Moloch, to wit, that their breaden god, as doth any Nonconformist: knowing and professing that truth, which Theodoret a thousand two hundred years since, published in express terms, saying; that Bread, after the words of Consecration, doth remain still bread, Dial. l. 2. c. 24. both in form, in figure, and in substance. Whereby the infatuation of the Romanists appeareth to be palpably gross; the rather because they can have no colour of evasion, as I have showed elsewhere. SECT. XXIII. The seventh and last Accusation, used by the Non-conformists, against the gesture of Kneeling, is a pretence of Idolatry. This gesture is used as a part of God's worship, abridge Linc. pag. 4●. because it is hel● 〈◊〉 a religious Adoration by all men. Our Answer. If you could demonstrate, that this gesture is either used as a proper part of God's worship, or else that it receiveth from us that Popish Adoration, which you pretend; then might you with one breath justify your opposition against the Church, and condemn her imposition of such Rites upon you: but that, in proof, this, as likewise the rest of our Ceremonies, are not maintained or observed in our Church, as essential parts of worship, but only as circumstantial, and convenient adjuncts, and appendices; we have already bestowed an whole Chapter. see above part 1. cha. 1. And as for our manner of Kneeling, here questioned, we make no doubt to vindicate it from all crime of Idolatry; yea, or the least suspicion thereof. SECT. XXIIII. The first Reason of the Non-conformists to prove 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, only in respect of the creatures; were consequently to forbid us to pray by, or, with our tongues, the Instruments of Adoration: or, In the Temple, the house of God, and the place of the solemn Adoration; or yet either directly against us, Before the Table of this sacred Banquet, and Supper, called the Lords Table; or else upwards Before the heavens above, towards the Celestial seat and Sanctuary of God. Therefore except you will compel us to Adore God, with our lips and eyes shut, you must admit of some limitation; and, by some distinction, show, 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 prove our foresaid Gesture of Kneeling Idolatrous, because there is in it a Relative worship. M. Nic. Because all relative Adoration of God, before a creature, with respect unto it, is Idolatry. But the reverence used in the receiving of the Sacrament, is a relative adoration of Christ, with respect unto the Sacrament; for they say, they do reverence to the Sacrament, which is Idolatrous. Our Answer. We expected that you would at least have endeavoured to prove, in our manner of Kneeling, a Popish kind of relative worship, which is (as in their Crucifix) to fasten our divine Adoration upon the Creature, that it may so, by a representative relation, be conveyed unto the Creator; whereof we are to speak in the Section following. But, in stead of worship, by representative relation to Christ, you speak only of a Relation from God unto the Creature, telling us of a relative Adoration of Christ, with respect unto the Sacrament, which is extremely different, as you may judge by your own Actions. For do not you yourselves allow a relative Reverence (and that justly) in reading the word of God; a Reverence in praying unto God; a Reverence in religious hallowing of the Lords day; a Reverence in entering into the solemn place of God's worship, which is the house of God? and have not all these a relative respect between God and his Creatures? for the Scriptures, which are but lines of Ink, are Creatures, yet such as are called holy Scriptures; and are Signs expressing unto us the Truth of God. The words of man's voice are such Creatures, which by ancient learning are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, the Signs of things signified thereby; and being used in prayer unto God, do present our Humility, thankfulness, and Adoration unto him. The Sabbaoth day is, as all other days, a Creature of God, and yet is set apart, and appropriated by GOD unto his Adoration; and commanded, in that regard, to be hallowed of us, which is in a respect that we have from God unto it. The solemn place of God's worship, wheresoev it be, is a Creature of God, and hath reference unto God, as an house to the owner thereof. Now shall these be used with a Religious Reverence, and with a relative respect, and shall only the blessed Sacrament of our Lord jesus Christ be Celebrated without any such Reverence? 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 judgements of God upon many of the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 11. thus, Many of you are sick, and many are asleep, Ver 30. (that is dead,) but why? [ob hanc causam,] for this cause, saith the Apostle, to wit, because they came so profanely unto it, as if they had come to the heathenish Bacchanals, or to their own Domestical Tables. For thus he saith; Have you not houses to eat and drink in? Ver. 22. Ver. 19 but you come hither, not discerning the Lords body? As if he had said, do you come so homely unto this spiritual Banquet, ordained for the refreshing and replenishing of your souls, which you are to partake of, with hope of remission of your sins, in this life; and of a blessedness both of your bodies and souls, in the Resurrection of the just, through the virtue 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 relative worship, in Kneeling. Yea there hat● been f●un● in a●● age●, the root of Idolatry (if not gross Idolatry itself) to ●iue to the sign that show of outward Reverence and Adoration, which is du● to the thing signified, Ab●idg Linc. p. 6●. and to the giver himself. Our Answer. What a sinister supposition is this? as though that the Reverence, due to Ch●ist, were given unto the Sacrament of Christ? this, we confess, were true Idolatry. You may not think much, if our Church do now sharpen her Censures and Corrections against you, who thus multiply your Calu●niations against her, especially in this branding her with no less heinous a Crime than Idolatry, which is (as being the most vile of all other) called in holy writ, not only abominable, but also abomination itself. It will therefore concern you to make good your godless aspersion, by some manner of reason; for this, which you delivered in the last place, is rather a reproof of your supposed guiltiness, than any proof thereof. S●CT. XXVII. Their s●cond Confirmation of the pretended relative Idolatrous worship. Else why is it not used in Baptism, as well as at this Sacrament, Abridg. Linc. p. 68 except that, with the Idolatrous Papists, we will say that it is of greater dignity th●n the Sacrament of Baptism? Our Answer. Nay rather seeing that you know the doctrine of the Church to esteem both the Sacraments of equal dignity (for as much as they proceed from the same authority of our Saviour, and are ordained for the same end, even to be seals of faith, concerning the promises of salvation unto us) Why do you make such an odious objection; and not rather think that this Reverence is enjoined, without any Papistical intent? Cannot this satisfy you, but you will still exclaim and say, Why is this reverence done at the receiving 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 Baptism is a very perfect Baptism, according both to the essential matter, and manner, which Christ himself ordained. But as for our Sacrament of the Eucharist, See above. they do (as hath been shown) vilify it as common and ordinary bread and wine. The difference then, as you see, is, not in an opinion, that the Eucharist is of greater dignity than Baptism with us; but because it is of less esteem among the Papists. Notwithstanding be not offended with me, if that I cannot think any of you so irreligious, as not to be willing to kneel reverently in holy prayer unto God, in the time of the Celebration of Baptism; especially when prayer is used to God, to bless his own ordinance in the behalf of the child. Which manner of worship, is so far from Idolatry, that the very Infant baptised, if it could speak, would say, that the Adoration, there, is not directed unto the Element of the water, but unto God, for his grace upon the child. S●CT. XXVIII. Their third Confutation of the pretended Idolatry, by Relative worship. Or why do we not condemn t●e Papists, abridge Linc. p. 66. for Kneeling and praying before a Crucifix? This Bellarmine doth infer upon 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 Kneel b●fore an Image. And indeed thus the Papists answer: We (say they) do not worship unto the Image, but unto God that is represented thereby. Our Answer. There is, in the place alleged, Bell. l 2. de Euch c. 18. objected 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, upon that Answer of P. Martyr; and now our Non-conformists bring in their reference from Bellarmine's Reply. So that this play consisteth necessarily of four parts; Nazianzen the speaker, P. Martyr, the expounder, Bellarmine the replier, and the Nonconformist, the Applyers of Beauties' conceit. It will not displease our Reader, to see each party Act his own part. First, Nazianzens' Testimony is this; Super Altare coli Christum: Christ is Adored upon the Altar. Whence the Papists collect, that men must adore, with divine worship, the Sacrament that is upon the Altar. Secondly, P. Martyr Answereth; Coli quidem Christum, sed coli in Symbolo, sicut in symbolo significatur: That is, Christ is worshipped in the sign, is he is signified thereby. Thirdly, B●llarmine replieth; Then (saith he) may it be lawful to fall down before the sign, and to Adore Christ there, although absent from thence; & consequently is it lawful to fall down, and worship the Eucharist, and Images of Christ; neither is this Idolatry, as Protestants exclaim. Fourthly, hence our Non-conformists follow Bellarmine, and borrow of that good fellow his staff, to knock their fellow brethren: but leave P. Martyr, now defending the common Cause of all Protestants; as if they had conspired, to betray their own Adoration into the hands of a common Adversary. But we must in part excuse them; because they dealt not thus in malice, against his person; but in ignorance of his judgement: for P. Martyr, discussing the same Argument elsewhere, doth fully express his own meaning. P. Mar. Loc Com. Class. 4. c. 10. p. 863. Adoration (saith he) consisteth in Invocation, confession, and giving of thanks, all which are due unto God, and unto Christ, wheresoever they do manifest themselves unto us; which is done three manner of ways; First, by the inward thought of the heart moved by the Spirit of God, in our earnest apprehension of God, and of Christ: then followeth our Adoration of them, by invocating, Confession, and giving of thanks. Secondly, they declare themselves sometimes by external words, as by holy Scriptures, & godly Sermons. And thirdly, by outward signs, as in the Ark of the Covenant, and in our Sacraments; yet so, that Adoration be not fixed upon the symbols, or signs, but, in Spirit and in Truth, upon Christ sitting on the right hand of God in Heaven. Notwithstanding, because the simple people, by reason of the error of Transubstantiation, rooted in them, cannot so easily understand this, I should think, that men should abstain from outward prostrating themselves in kneeling, until they be better instructed. I confess that many do godlily kneel, and Adore at the hearing of these words, [Et verbum caro factum est,] where notwithstanding not the words, but the things are adored: even so the signs in the Sacrament are not adored. Wherein P. Martyr could have no other meaning, than, by a significative relation, from the sign, to the thing signified. For a man, in Kneeling at the Sacrament, should upon the sight thereof abstract his thoughts from the sensible object, and lifting up both his eyes and his heart unto heaven, should Adore, that is (as he saith) invocate, confess, and give thanks unto God, and unto Christ. But how shall this Answer justify the Popish manner of worship; Kneeling before, and to an Image; sometimes invocating the Image itself, and fixing their thoughts upon it; or at least using to Adore Christ, with it? as we shall prove. Whereas, chose, this our Adoration of Christ, arising from the sight of the Sacrament, is no more, in the judgement 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 upon the Elements of words and syllables, but by them are elevated and drawn unto Invocation, and thanksgiving unto God. According to this meaning, P. Martyr (you see) alloweth Kneeling, at the receiving of the Sacrament, to a people instructed. Now if, after threescore years preaching, our people have not been sufficiently instructed, the cause must be imputed either to the ignorance, or negligence of their Teachers; except you will have us think, that they are past instruction. Hitherto of our particular Answer. SECT. XXIX. Our more general Confutation of the Non-conformists, proving both that a Reverence is due, at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament; and that the Reverence, 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 divers opinions, both of our Protestants from Papists, and of Papists, among themselves, concerning Relative, or Respective worship, by only relating of their different objects; especially in these terms, concerning Reverence. We shall therefore first discover the error of Popery herein: and so will the truth of our Reverence be better discerned. SECT. XXX. Our first ground of Confutation is, by discovering of the Romish superstition, in her manner of worship, whether Relative, or Absolute, or jointly both. The Relative manner 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 Relative worship, and our difference from it. Some Romanists are produced, by Bell. to hold only this respect in their worship, by an Image; namely, Bellar. l. 2 de Imag. Sanct. c. 20. to fall down Before it, and By it, and In it, to honour the person that is represented thereby: which opinion he attributeth unto Alexander, Durand, and A●pho●sus de Castro: unto whom Suarez the jesuit adjoineth Hel●●t, Su●r. Tom. 1. in Thom. q●ae●t. 2● dis●u. 54. ●ect. 3. and Picus Mirandula. Amongst these, Durand may speak for the rest. This kind of worship of an Image (saith ●e) is but improperly and abusively so called, because, by the image, we have a remembrance of the person; wh●ch is worshipped as well in the presence of the Image, ●s if he w●re real●y present. This opinion, among many other intolerable conceits of the Papists, about their relative worship, seemeth most tolerable; and yet I may ask any ingenuous man, whether he ever heard (I do not say our Church, but) any ●pproued Doctor therein, teach, that we do, or aught to Kneel before the Sacrament; that By it, or In it, we may personally worship Christ, as if he were re●lly present. But you peradventure will ask me, what is then the respect, that we have to Christ in this receiving? Have patience a while, until we shall come to this point; & be not too hasty to urge us, to deliver all at once. It is a dangerous thing for men to gallop in rough & rocky ways. Bellarm. Ceremoniae ●onsunt re● indifferentes, sed sunt ●es utiles, meritoriae, & pars quaed●m cul●●us divini. 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 himself to the Crucifix or Image, with an opinion of holiness and efficacy in that object, to make his prayers more acceptable; and therefore hath some confidence Init, & byit, 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 use it, tanquàm obiectum à quo, that upon sight of this Sacrament, as a visible Word, (even as at the hearing of the audible words of God's book) our hearts may be moved to a spiritual contemplation of God, and of Christ, unto 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 Relative Worship. SECT. XXXII. The second Romish Opinion of Relative worship, and our difference from it. You have objected, against us, the Papists in general; and by name have called in Bellarmine for your Proctor: We are desirous to hear him speak, and deliver unto us that opinion, which he himself holdeth, and defendeth, as the general 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 piece of learning? I know, you abhor it, and our Church (you know) doth as much detest it, as yourselves. Yet is this the man, forsooth, from whom you learned to compare the Romish worship of a Crucifix, with our worshipping of Christ, in receiving of the Lords Sacrament. That therefore you may be confuted (as the School speaketh) even Interminis, I shall entreat your Proctor to express the meaning of his former proposition, in their manner of worship of the Crucifix; Even as (saith he) when the Preacher saith unto the Crucifix, [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 himself: that is, they are spoken to Christ himself, whom it doth represent. I return to the proposition, as it is delivered by Suarez, a principal jesuit. Suarez quo supra sect. 4. The Image is and aught to be adored with the same worship, wherewith the person signified is honoured. Which he laboureth to prove by the Council of Trent; where it is thus decreed: Conc. Trid. ●ess. 25. By Images which we kiss, and before which we fall down [Christum adoramus,— & Sanctos veneramur] that is, We adore Christ, and reverence the Saints. Whereupon the jesuit maketh this Comment: Per [adoramus] latria; & per [veneramur] dulia significatur. By [adore] is signified [latria:] meaning the worship, which, they say, is proper unto God (so they profess to adore Christ in worshipping an Image:) and by [reverence] 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 School of Jesuits, reporting unto us 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 Divine worship; Quamuis modo quodam inferiori. Are not these excellent Chemists, who can extract a Degree of worship Inferior to that which is Divine, from an Act of worship which is properly Divine? Which if they could; yet how shall they make their people so metaphysical? But what will you say to all this? do not your consciences tell you, that the Religion of our Church hath catechized you, from your infancy, to execrate and condemn all such sacrilegious Relation of the Worship of signs, as this is; wherein they profess in the very same act of Adoration (which they call Latria, that is, a worship proper to the Divine Majesty) to adore both the creature, and the Creator; yet (as they will make us believe) to the one modo quodam inferiori, which is a Metaphysical conceit, apprehending a difference of manner in the Identity of action, whereof their people (in whom Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion) are no doubt very capable. For how can they, in an act of Latria to an (according to the ancient acceptation of the word) Idol, free themselves of all Idolatry? Thus much of the Romish manner of Relative 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 herein is to worship the Image (tanquam obiectum quod colitur,) even that which they see, and kneel before; this Bellarmine discovereth in two propositions. The first; The Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped not only improperly, Bellar. quo supra cap. 21. by themselves, and not as they do represent any person, so that the Images themselves terminate (I may render it, possess) that worship, as they are considered in themselves, and not as they represent any person. And he addeth saying; If that Images were not to be worshipped, but only improperly; as signs, before which; or, by which; or, in which the person represented is honoured: them may we deny (saith he) that any are to be worshipped at al. Now that you have heard your Proctor speak, & tell you that the Romish Church alloweth a worship of Images without relation unto any person, whose Images they be: You are chargeable to show that this superstition may be justly imputed unto us. It is manifest that you cannot: for the worship, which you call into question, is only relative; and this of Bellarmine is professedly given to Images, and to signs, 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 corporal substance contained therein) as the very person of the Son of God, in the proper substance of his bodily presence; which we judge Idolatrous, not only by an Accidental possibility, but by an absolute infallibility. For first, that the worshippers do adore the bread with divine honour, in stead of Christ himself (which possibility the Doctors of the Romish Church do confess) may happen to their Adoration of the Eucharist, by reason of many possible accidents: as if he that consecrateth have not had a true Ordination; or, See the Protestants Appeal lib. 2. c. 2. sect. 23. in consecrating of the Sacrament, have not a right Intention; or, in uttering the words of Consecration, fail in his syllabical pronunciation; or, if the forms of the Sacraments themselves, by unfit admixtion, or putrefaction, lose their perfection. In all these (for every one of them is possible) possibilities it may fall out that the Romish worshippers do adore with Divine honour the element of bread, in stead of the Son of God: which what is it but, at least, an Accidental Idolatry; but yet true Idolatry? They have, in this case, no other colour of evasion, than to tell us, that when they kneel down to adore this Sacrament, they do it with an implicit and inward conceit of the mind, saying; If Christ be present, than I adore thee etc. But this is a most miserable shift, to make Adoration (which is the highest honour, & homage, which man oweth properly to God) unto an Hypothetical belief [if Christ be there.] The truth of God telleth us, that whosoever cometh to God, He must believe that God is, that is, honour him with a Divine faith, that he is wheresoever he is adored: But in Ifs and Ands, that is, infallibilities, there can be no Divine faith. Ergo, this Suppositive faith is merely supposititious; because it is impossible, that the jealousy 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 unto the Creator himself. This be spoken of the possibility. How much more Idolatrous must they appear to be, when as, by necessary consequences from Scripture, judgement of ancient Fathers, and the advocation of the perfectest Senses of man, it may be infallibly proved, that that which they adore, as Christ himself, remaineth still in figure, form, and substance, the same Bread, that it was before Consecration? This inferreth such an infallibility 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 us, before we conclude this cause. Hitherto have we shown what kind of worship, in receiving the Sacrament, ours is not; namely, not Popish; whether you consider the Relative kind of worship, by making the Sacrament an object 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 show, what is the object of our Reverence, in receiving the Sacrament. SECT. XXXV. The Relative Reverence, which is used in our Church, in respect of the Sacrament, is without note of Idolatry. First, if our Relation be made from the Sign to Christ, the thing signified; then, is the Sacrament, obiectum à quo significatiuè: the Sign moving us to that [Sursum corda] to lift up our minds, from the earthly object of Sense, Bread etc. to the body of Christ, the spiritual object of faith, upon his Tribunal Seat in Heaven. See above. Wherein (as hath been proved out of your own Witness) there can be no shadow of any Idolatrous Adoration. Or secondly, our relation may be taken from Christ, to the Sacrament, as between a giver and his gift; and so, in Kneeling down, we take this holy Sacrament, as the mystical pledge and seal of the body and blood of Christ, the price of our Redemption, apprehended by faith. Whereas therefore the devout Communicant is upon his Knees, praying to the blessed Trinity, to be made a welcome partaker of so heavenly a Feast; and praising the supreme Deity for these Royal tokens of his grace; this respect and relation, being a reverent taking of this so inestimable a gift, as from the hands of Christ, according to his own Ordinance, cannot come within the least suspicion of Idolatry. SECT. XXXVI. This our former relation of Reverence, between a Giver and his Gift, is illustrated by a Similitude. We were ready to illustrate our former Reverence, by the comparison of receiving a gift, from the hand of earthly Majesty; but we perceive that the Non-conformists are ready to preoccupate. SECT. XXXVII. The Non-conformists prevention, unto our Comparison. Abridg. Linc. p. 67. There is no proportion between the Civil reverence, given to a King, or to the gift which we receive from him, and this religious reverence to these bodily things; for there is far more danger of Idolatry here, then there. Our Answer. This objection noteth only a danger of Idolatry: but this is to fear where no fear is; for although there be not a Proportion of equality, between a Civil and Religious reverence; yet is there a proportion of similitude, and the one doth singularly illustrate the other, in this case. For as a Civil gift ought to be taken with a Civil reverence, from the hand of an earthly Sovereign: so must a Spiritual gift, and the Instruments thereof, be received with a Spiritual and Religious Reverence; as from the Majesty of Christ, who instituted, and ordained it for us. And as the Civil reverence, used in receiving the gift of the King, doth not derogate from the dignity of the King, but rather establish it; because the whole reverence redoundeth to the King: so this our religious receiving of holy Rites, doth magnify the Author, but no way deify the gift. And doubtless, none can be so simple, as seeing any Subject, reverently 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 derogative to the Royalty, or Majesty of the King. SECT. XXXVIII. Our second ground of Confutation is taken from the Testimonies of their own Witnesses, requiring of Communicants Reverence, in receiving any such Ordinances of God. We are not ignorant, that many Protestant Authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving of the holy Communion; but how? as it is used Idolatrously of Papists, in a sacrilegious opinion, that the Element of bread, which they adore, is the very person of Christ: but not as it may be used religiously, by Orthodox and godly professors. For better demonstration whereof, it will be our office to produce their own choicest Witnesses; all of them exacting of Communicants an outward reverence; and some allowing also of this kind of Reverence, which is by Kneeling. First, M. Calvin, chalking out, as it were, the right line of true Decency, saith; Sed operaepretium est, etc. Instit. l. 4. c. 1●▪ p. 429. It will be worth our labour, to define what is to be understood by that decorum and Decency, which Paul commendeth. Indeed, the end of Decency is, partly that whilst such Rites, which are used, may gain veneration or reverence unto sacred things, we may be thereby holpen and exercised unto Devotion; partly that also modesty and gravity (which ought in all actions to be especially regarded) may most shine in them. But that must we account to be decency, which shallbe so fit for the reverence of holy mysteries; as is meet for the exercise of godliness, or else convenient for ornament; nor can this be without profit, but will serve for the admonishing of men, with what modesty, religiousness, and reverence they ought to handle holy things. To this end we are forbid, by the Apostle, to mingle our profane drink with the holy Supper of the Lord; that women come not without the covers of their heads; and many other things we use, as namely, our praying upon 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 Dignity. You that have excepted against us, for Kneeling to avoid profanation, do you see how instantly and urgently M. Calvin requireth an outward Reverence, in the handling of such sacred Rites. B. jewel art. B. of Adoration p. 2●2. of the last edition. Secondly, B●shop jewel, falling upon the same subject, saith; Neither do we only adore Christ, as very God, but also reverence the Sacrament, and holy mystery of Christ his body and blood, and, as Saint Ambrose teacheth [Baptismum Christ ubicunque est veneramur,] That is, we worship Baptism wheresoever it is had; and according to the Council of Athanasius, [Dominica verba attentè audiant, & fideliter adorent,] Letoy men diligently hear, and faithfully reverence the words of God. Briefly, we worship all other like things in such religious wise unto Christ belonging; but these things we reverence as holy, and as appointed, and commended by Christ: but we adore them not with any divine honour, as Christ himself. Do you not now see a Reverence due unto the Sacrament, without Adoration; that is to say, a Religion void of Idolatrous superstition? namely, by Relation from the giver to the receiving of the gift. Zanch. de Redemp. l 1. c 17. p 497. Thirdly Zanchie, labouring likewise to remove two contrary Vices; as the deadly enemies of God's 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 mean, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the true sincere worship of God: He, against the former Monster of Contempt of holy worship (out of the Apostles doctrine, 1. Cor. 11. whereby were condemned the unreverent comers to the Eucharist) collecteth, saying, The Sacraments are to be used with outward Signs & Tokens of honour & reverence, Zanch. ibid. not in regard of themselves, but in respect of Christ, by whom they are instituted: for God himself, when he forbade in his Law, the worship of any Images of men's making, yet taught he that his own Images, to wit, his Sacraments, the signs of heavenly things should not be handled without some honour and reverence. 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 harkened unto with Reverence: so are the Sacraments worthy of Reverence; which the Apostle persuadeth unto, when he teacheth that men must eat the Sacrament of the Lords Supper [Dignè] worthily. For although this worthiness consisteth in the mind of a man, which is endued with faith and Charity, yet may it be also referred to an external Reverence, seeing that they among the Corinthians, that came irreverently unto the holy Supper, were grievously chastened of the Lord, as the Apostle teacheth in the same place. Fourthly, M. Beza is alleged, Abridg. Linc. p 64. as although commending both inward & outward adoration, when these fearful Ceremonies are celebrated: yet that, for the avoiding of danger or else suspicion of Idolatry, he held it dangerous to use the Gesture of Kneeling in the Act of receiving. It is true, and so it may be very requisite in those places and times, whereof he spoke: and his exception is only that it might be dangerous by some Consequence. But M. Beza saith not that the gesture of Kneeling, in the act of the receiving the Sacrament, is Idolatrous in itself; No, but the flat contrary. Gen●culatio denique cum Symbola accipiuntur, Speciem quidem habet piae & Christianae venerations, Beza Epist. 11. p. 109. ac proinde olim potuit cum fructu usurpari. Do you not observe that he condemneth not the gesture in itself, which (saith he) might have been profitably used in former times; namely, before that it was Idolatrously abused in the Popish Church? Which Testimony as it cannot prejudice our Church which is now so severed from Popery, even in this point of Adoration, that Papists themselves do know and confess it; so doth it justly condemn your condemnation of the act of Kneeling, by judging it to be in itself directly Idolatrous. If you shall persist to tell us, that Beza was of your judgement, then must you grant, that with the same breath, he defended a commendable Idolatry; seeing that he judgeth the act of Kneeling to be in itself a profitable gesture, even in the receiving of the Sacrament. Fiftly, to the same purpose, and somewhat more expressly P. Martyr, P. Mart. Loc. Com. Class 2. c 4. p. 203. I do not contend (saith he) that Ceremonies should be every where the same, but yet we ought to provide, that they be not against the word of God; yea they should as much as may be, be reduced unto edification and decency. Therefore it is no matter of difference, whether we receive the Sacraments sitting, or standing, or Kneeling, so that the Institution of Christ itself be preferred, and occasion of superstition removed. This his Position containeth in it, these two suppositions, the first is, that Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion is not an act of superstition itself: Secondly, that it may possibly be used now without danger of Superstition. And is not this also a plain contradiction unto your former assertions? I make no quetion but all other the Authors, who have spoken absolutely for outward Reverence, in the use of sacred Mysteries, would not have been more vehement in condemning the Idolatry, and sacrilegious manner of Kneeling of the Papists, than they would have been (at the least) equal and indifferent, to admit of our custom of Kneeling, if that they had beheld the decent integrity that is used therein. All this while we have kept aloof off; we come at last to parley with the Non-conformists themselves. SECT. XXXIX. Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists, and justification of Ourselves, is from the confession of Bellarmine, excusing Protestants from the suspicion of Adoration; even because they hold the matter of the Sacrament to remain Bread. This our justification, I confess, is against their will, for it issueth out of an objection, which the Non-conformists have made to accuse, and condemn our Church. The Non-conformists Objection. And Bellarmine having 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 marvel at that, seeing they do not believe 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 Oven. Our Answer. Do you not remember Joseph's Cloak, which his Mistress caught hold of, to draw him to her lustful bed? who notwithstanding afterwards, in a complaint unto her husband, turned the same Cloak as a witness against joseph, to convince him of folly; notwithstanding it was, indeed, and in truth, a full demonstration of her own filthiness, and dishonesty. And see you not how wittily you do imitate that fact of Joseph's Mistress, by objecting to the Church of England the speech of Bellarmine, which in true construction may be a sound and evident Argument for her justification: Seeing, that Bellarmine, so great an Adversary, confessing that Protestants do not adore the bread, even because they believe it to be bread; doth consequently acknowledge, that they, by their receiving of this Sacrament, cannot possibly be guilty of the Romish manner of Adoration of the outward Elements. What needeth therefore so great an outcry in the ears 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 reverence? I always expected, that, as often as you take from the mouth of Bellarmine such kind of speeches as this, objecting that we think the Sacrament to be nothing else but bread, that came out of the Oven; you should have shown yourselves zealous Advocates for the common cause, by controlling the jesuits impudency: according as M. jewel might have instructed you, in his Answer against the like scoff of M. Harding, in vilifying of our Sacrament. jewel art. 4. of Adoration. p. 282. Whereas M. Harding (saith he) unjustly defameth us as reckoning the Sacraments of Christ nothing else but Tokens, let him understand that we both think and speak reverently of Christ his Sacraments, as knowing them to be the Testimonies of God's promises, and instruments of the holy Ghost: and as we make not the Sacrament of Baptism bare water, notwithstanding the nature and substance of water remaineth the same still; so we make not the Sacrament 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 signify, to wit, according to the new nature that they have of a Divine Sacrament. SECT. XL. Our fourth Confutation of the Non-conformists, and justification of ourselves, issueth from the Non-conformists own Practice. First, by their Intentional Reverence. You would account it an extreme injury, to be censured as contemners, or profaners of these holy mysteries; or not to celebrate and receive them reverently, with the truly religious affections of your hearts and minds: which you profess will be the duty of every worthy Communicant, that shall rightly discern in this Sacrament the Lords body. 1. Cor. 11.29. This being granted (which without impiety cannot be denied) it ministereth unto us an Argument, whereby you may be confuted (as I suppose) without all contradiction. Fist, I may reason thus: That manner of Reverence, which it is lawful for a Christian to conceive in his mind, the same is as lawful for him (the case of Scandal excepted) to express in his outward gesture of body. But it is lawful for a Christian to conceive such a Relative Reverence; as from the sight of the Sacrament (being Obiectum àquo) to raise his thoughts to a contemplation of the mystical and spiritual object of faith, signified thereby: and upon the understanding of the mystical, even the body and blood of Christ really (albeit not corporally) exhibited unto us in this Sacrament, to receive these visible pledges of our redemption, by the death of Christ, (as the Obiectum propter quod) with all holy and reverent devotion of heart and mind. Therefore, it is lawful to perform a sensible and bodily reverence at our outward receiving thereof. The infallibility of this Consequence ariseth from the difference which is between the inward, and outward Reverence: for the inward reverence is the formal part and very soul of reverence, and far exceedeth the bodily, which is but only the material. Where therefore the material and bodily form of Reverence is accounted Idolatrous, there the Intentional and formal much more; because the worship is in itself and Act indifferent, and so may become either religious, or superstitious, by the use, or abuse thereof, according to the intention and mind of the Agent: even as we may discern in this one word, ave, used in salutation; for many came to Christ, and said ave; O hail Master, and did honour him; the jews also bowed to him, & said ave; & dishonoed him. The difference of these two consisted not in the out ward gesture, which was the same (both sorts Saluters) but from the diverse Intentions, the one kind performing their salutations in civility, but the other in mockery. Even so the gesture of Kneeling is an act indifferent in itself, being used as well of Children to their Parents, as of either religious persons to God; or sacrilegious unto Idols: but the formal distinction of each one proceedeth from the mind and affection of the Actor; for that, which is in children piety, & in subjects loyalty, the same is in the truly religious devotion, and in the superstitious and sacrilegious Idolatry. Upon these Premises we infer this conclusion; that if there be in you an inward, relative reverence of soul, in the receiving of this blessed Sacrament, from a respect had betwixt the Donor, God, and this holy Sacrament, being so precious a pledge of our salvation: then can it not be unlawful, to give some expression of this your religious intention, by the same visible reverence, in one, or other outward gesture of the body; especially being to participate of the Sacrament, the seal of man's redemption, both body and soul. And indeed the bodily parts of man are nothing else but the Organs and Instruments of the affections of his soul. If therefore that godly Indignation, which the Publican had against his sins, Luk. 18. beshrewing (as it were) his own heart, commanded his hands to Knock on his breast: 1. Tim. 2. If Hope lifteth up pure hands in prayer unto heaven, in confidence of God's promises: If holy Faith moved the woman's hand to pull Christ by the hem of his garment, Math. 9 in belief to be healed by some virtue from him: If Charity stretched out the Samaritans hand, Luk. 10. to Bind up the wounds of the distressed man, that lay half dead by the way: If Devotion towards God in Lydia, Act. 16. charged her ears to give Attention to God's word: If Contrition for sin powered out of Peter's eyes bitter tears of repentance; shall not the virtue of Humility, Math. 26. have some power to make demonstration of itself, in an acknowledgement of so undeserved mercy, as is to be partaker, by faith, of the body and blood of our Lord jesus, by some significant gesture of bowing the body at the receiving thereof, answerable to the religious affection of your minds? Thus much of the Intentional Reverence. SECT. XLI. The second Practice of the Non-conformists, for our justification, is Bodily: And this is either Accidental, in respect of the Communicants; or Proper, in the manner of communicating. The Accidental is their Bodily presence, communicating with us in this Sacrament, notwithstanding our manner of Reverence. This shall be my Reason: Idolatry is set down, in the book of God, as a necessary cause of Separation from all Idolatrous worshippers: for what affinity is there between God and Belial? Which one cause, although it were only, might justify our departure out of the Romish Babylon. To this purpose, your Witness Zanchie giveth this Thesis. Zanch. de redemp. p. 533. Idololatriae crimine involuuntur, qui cum Idololatris, ipsorum Idololatrijs communicant. Contrariwise; the material breaking of bread, that is, the communicating in the blessed Sacrament, is a principal note of Union in one Faith and Religion, seeing that this Sacrament itself is a mystical sign of the union of the faithful among themselves; from which it hath received the Appellation to be called the Communion. Notwithstanding, you have the grace to abide in the womb of our Church, and to live in one Brotherhood with us, in a public profession of one doctrine and worship of God, in Prayers and Psalms, and in the Communion itself. And now deliberate with yourselves (I beseech you) whether you, by this your manner of calumniating, and traducing of the Church's practice, to call it Idolatrous, have not been the Authors of Schism to the Separatists, and Apostates of these times; unto whom you have given their first bane (even this suspicion of Superstitious worship in our Church) whereby their hearts are so poisoned, and their brains intoxicated, that now no Antidote of your making, can be able to cure them. Take therefore unto you the minds of discreet and Christian hearts, either to be that you seem, or to seem to be that you are; as glorifiers of God with us in our Church, so for our Church; that therefore you do not dishonour her that is your Glory and your Crown, seeking (as she hath done many worthy Martyrs of Christ, and holy Saints) to breed and bring you up, in the sincere faith of Christ, unto your assured hope of eternal glory. Thus much of our justification, by your Accidental practice of consent, in Communion with us, in this Sacrament. SECT. XLII. The third Practice of the Non-conformists, is from their Bodily Reverence, at the receiving of their food, both corporal and Sacramental. First of their corporal. You yourselves are known to be so reverent in praying unto God, as that, in saying grace before meat, you use to uncover your heads, and you do well: but look now to the act, is it not an act of Reverence? Why else are you uncovered? And is it not an act of Spiritual worship; wherefore else do you pray? And is not the outward object, whereupon you look, meat, even the creature of God? how else can you desire God to bless These his creatures? And is not this your Adoration of God, relative and respective, arising between the Gift, and the Giver? otherwise why should you have reference in prayer unto God, for his blessing upon your meats? And lastly, will you say (for this Interrogative must needs convince your consciences) that this your Adoration is according to the Popish opinion, by a personal representation, in giving any part thereof to the creature; by adoring either It, or In it, or By it? How then should you justly condemn that Romish Church of Superstition? Nay do you not acknowledge, that the respect, which you have from the meat to God, is as from the gift unto the Giver; and that God's gift is an object, propter quod; for which you pray, and render praise unto 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 avoid all Idolatry? Surely he that cannot distinguish between these two, to wit, Reverence to God, at the receiving of his Sacrament; and reverence to God, in the Sacrament received, may, when he would warm him at the fire, burn himself in the fire. Thus much of your practice in Reverence, at receiving your corporal food. SECT. XLIII. Our fifth Confutation of the Non-conformists, and justification of ourselves, is from the proper practice of the Non-conformists, in their outward Reverence, at the receiving of this Sacrament. You may remember the whole passages, and very paces, we have gone, that we might persuade you to allow, and embrace our outward gesture of reverence, in receiving of the blessed Sacrament: some taken from Reasons; from Confessions of your own Witnesses; from your own Practices not only Intentional, but also Real; and this both Accidental and Proper: and this, as in an outward and visible reverence, in receiving as well Corporal, as Sacramental food. All these four having been manifested; it remaineth only that we prove the last, concerning the bodily Reverence performed by yourselves, at the receiving of the Sacrament itself. I need not use many words; you receive this Sacrament with your heads uncovered, and would (I think) hold it a profaneness, not to give some outward semblance of uncovering your heads at the receiving thereof. This being your general practice, I do not see how you may justify your own heads, and condemn your knees; by whatsoever pretence you can make. Will you say that (kneeling, & uncovering being both practised about the same act) the one gesture can be more subject to Idolatry then the other? I appeal to your own Witness, who condemning the people's adoration of Images, doth jointly abandon these three gestures; Genuflectionem, Zanch. de redemp. lib. 1. pag. 401. Capitis apertionem & Corporis inclinationem: Kneeling on the knee, uncovering of the head, and bowing of the body; where and whensoever they are applied unto a false adoration: as being contrary to the second commandment, [Thou shalt not worship etc.] 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 thanksgiving, were uncovered; and that now it is but continuata actio, a continuing of the same gesture, at the administration and participation thereof; either because of the public Psalms, then used in the Church, or for that you are ex●rcised in a divine meditation, about the Analogy between the elements of bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ, signified thereby; by as real an applying of the same body and blood of Christ to your souls, for the nourishment thereof, as you have a real and substantial incorporation of the bread and wine into your bodies; & that you are presently ready to proceed in other prayers: so that, being uncovered, you cannot be said, so much to put off, as to keep off your hats; nor to be made kneel, but to be found kneeling, at the receiving of this Sacrament. He that condemneth, in his own conscience, an other man's direct uncovering of the head, at the receiving of the holy Sacrament, as superstitious, being himself uncovered; and shall notwithstanding excuse his own gesture, because of the former pretence of a continued action, or spiritual meditation: This man shall be but (as S. james calleth him) a Paralogizer, jam 1. and deluder of his own soul: because no act is called goo●, nisi ex integra causa, that is, wh●n it is good in every part; but it is evil, ex quovis defectu, that is, upon any one defect. Therefore the continuance of the same gesture cannot ma●e that action good, wherein any part thereof, in respect of the object, is condemnable in itself; because if the reverence at the receiving be unlawful, I ought, in my behaviour, as well to have declined that which ought not; as to have practised that which ought to have been performed; especially where (for God is a jealous God) there could be the least jealousy of Idolatry. The nature of due reverence will more clearly appear, by a sight of the contrary. If any Tenants, seeing their Lord riding, with his servants, some before, and some behind, yet but meanly furnished for their attendance, should be disposed to laugh and jest at them; & exercise the same scoff upon their Lord approaching; would it be any tolerable satisfaction, to say (when they should be called in question) that they did but only continue their laughing and jesting? Or will you hereupon suspect, that you have erred, in being uncovered, and hereafter make amends with covering your heads? This would be but an hiddie, and giddy retractation, by which you must needs contradict the custom (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, cum ad Sacramentorum participationem reverentèr, apertóque Capite accedunt; hàc ratione protestants, aquam illam Baptismi, panem & vinum Coenae non amplius esse res profanas, sed sacras, per quas Christus seipsum, suamque gratiam communicate; eóque esse reverentia dignas etc. It is a thing granted (saith he) of all godly men, and indeed testified and approved of them, by their coming to the participation of the Sacraments, Reverently, with their heads uncovered, protesting thereby that the water of Baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are no common, but sacred things; whereby Christ doth communicate himself and his graces unto us, and that therefore they are worthy of this reverence. Even as (saith he) the word preached, although it is not to be adored, yet must it be reverently handled, is the word not of men, but of God: and so likewise the Sacraments, in the administration of them, a●e worthy of reverence, whereunto appertaineth the saying of the Apostle, commanding us to eat and drink that cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worthily; which worthiness and dignity, although it doth properly consist in the mind endued with faith an● love, yet may we not without cause refer it unto the external reverence, whereupon it was that they, that came to the Lords Supper irreverently, were severely chastened by the hand of God. 1. Cor. 11. You see how exactly this your choice and venerable Witness hath pleaded for an external gesture of reverence, by uncovering the head, at the receiving of such holy Rites; which he maketh to be the same, in the case of worship, with the bowing of the knee. You will peradventure reply; if the case standeth so, concerning uncovering our heads, why are we then condemned for irreverence, and why is Kneeling required? Shall I tell you? I can conceive but three reasons hereof: the first is, because divers of you are thought to be uncovered, not with any intention to express your reverence, at the receiving of this Sacrament, because you condemn those that perform any reverence by kneeling; therefore ye are urged to kneel, that thereby you may manifest your unanimity of one judgement with our Church. Secondly, the order of kneeling having been established by the Church, and being (as hath been proved) a Ceremony indifferent, it is lawfully exacted, and aught to be performed by you, for expression of uniformity. Lastly, because that women also (who because of their sex may not be uncovered) might show the devotion of their souls, by their bodily representation of kneeling; this gesture is required for an universality of Conformity. To conclude, be you exhorted but to permit your internal reverence, to become visible, by bodily gesture; or suffer your knees to be answerable to your heads, in outward reverence: and then may we all join the hands of true fellowship and godly union, in the participation of this holy Communion; and a more acceptable Thanksgiving in the Eucharist unto the Trinity, in one indivisible Unity, whereunto be ascribed all glory and praise for ever. Amen. FINIS.