Brotherly Persuasion to Unity and Uniformity, Tract · Chapter 7

Brotherly Persuasion to Unity and Uniformity · Tract · Chapter 7

p. 26CHAP. 7. Containing anſweres to certaine obiections againſt the ſame, ſome new, and ſome olde, generally stood vponupon by the refuſers to vſe it.

FIrſt ſome ſeeme now to miſlike worſe of it, ſince by the ſaid third canon the vſe of it hath beene explained as it is there, then they did before, and that for two reaſons: for that it is there ſaid to be retained for the remembrance of the croſſe of Chriſt, whereof the ſacrament of the bodie, and blood of Chriſt is a sufficient remembrance, vntill his comming againe. 1. Cor. 11.26. and for that therin alſo it is firſt ſaid that the chriſtians in the primitiue Church ſigned their children therewith, when they were chriſtned, to dedicate them by that badge to his ſeruice, whoſe benefits beſtowed vponupon them in baptiſme, the name of the croſſe did repreſent and then afer p. 27that, we now following therein the primitiue and apoſtolicall churches, and accounting it a lawfull outward ceremonie, thereby alſo as by an honorable badge dedicate our baptized infants to his ſeruice: For this now ſay they muſt needs be taken for the ſenſe and meaning of our Church in the vſe thereof, howſoeuer before we might hauehave taken it, as I before hauehave ſet downe. But if ſuch would herein put in practiſe the laſt of the ſeuen rules layd downe for a preamble to this treatiſe, neither theſe reaſons would proue ſo ſtrong as otherwiſe they ſeeme, nor yet hereby would it follow, that they are one whit enforced to take it in a worſe, or harder ſenſe then they might before: for firſt in reaſon and charitie, we are all bound to thinke, that whereas by that Canon, as it euidently appeares thereby, the reuerend Biſhops and Prelates aſſembled ſeriouſly and carefully, went about by their explaining the meaning of our Church in the vſe thereof, to draw men to like and allow thereof better then before, that they were not ſo vnconſiderate, as ſo directly to croſſe their owne intent, in making it harder and worſe to be like of then it was before. Then ſecondly it is certaine, if theſe their words might be ſo hardly taken, as thereupon now to build ſuch an erronious and ſuperſtitious vſe of this ſigne, as they (that thereupon now take occaſion more to diſlike it then before) perſwade themſelues they iuſtly may; then theſe reuerend and learned fathers and brethren of ours, ſhould moſt abſurdly contrarie themſelues, euen in the Canon it ſelfe; for growing towards the end therof, as before they had confeſſed, that alwayes our Church ſince the aboliſhing of poperie, hath vſed it with ſuch ſufficient cautions and exceptions againſt all popiſh ſuperſtition and error, as in like caſes are fit and conuenient, ſo they conclude that by this their declaration and explanation of the vſe thereof, they hauehave not onelyonly purged it from all ſuperſtition and errour: but reduced it alſo in the Church of England to the primarie inſtitution of it, vponupon thoſe true rules of doctrine, concerning things indifferent: and according to the iudgement of all the ancient fathers. With what probabilitie therefore can any man thinke, that ſo many and ſuch men, could in their foreſayd words hauehave any ſuch hard meaning, as thereby not only to make the ſigne of the croſſe of it ſelfe to ſerue to the very ſame ende that the Supper of the Lord doth, as to keepe in our remembrance his death and paſſion, but alſo ſo plainly to encroach vponupon a principall vſe of the other Sacrament, as to be the meanes whereby the child is ſubſtantially and effectually dedicated to Chriſt and his ſeruice? p. 28Surely whatſoeuer other men ſay or thinke in this reſpect, chriſtian charitie neither will nor ſhall euer (I hope) ſuffer me to admit of ſo abſurd a conceit of all, or of any of their meanings, that either were the penners, makers, or allowers of that Canon: yea the ſame charity and the dutifull and reuerend eſtimation I hauehave of them all, leades, yea enforces me, euen by the conſideration of their owne words vſed within the ſame Canon, to be fully reſolued, that that was neuer their meaning: but that indeed their meaning plainly and ſimply was onelyonly, by the former to ſignifie, as the name of the croſſe in the phraſe of the Apoſtle did comprehend or repreſent, the death of Chriſt vvith all the fruits and effects thereof, ſo the ſigne thereof with the helpe of our intention and meditation in the vſing thereof, might be as a token or ſigne admonitorie to put vsus in remembrance thereof: for by the name of the croſſe they ſay expreſly the Apoſtle in his ſpeech comprehended as much, and that by that name or word was repreſented all the benefits of Chriſts death, and ſo that thereupon the making of the ſigne thereof was ſhortly after taken vp and vſed, thereby to make ſhew and profeſſion of their faith in him that died on a croſſe, which they could not doe; without taking occaſion thereby in ſome ſort (which is not vnlawfull) to remember his deaths and by the latter doubtleſſe they meant only, (as theſe words, immediatly in the latter place added, ſhew, as by the words vſed in the booke of common prayer it may appeare) ſuch a dedication of the child by that badge to the ſeruice of Chriſt, as formerly the booke onelyonly meant and intended; which was no otherwiſe, then I hauehave ſhewed before: that is, a publike admittance thereof, with the conferring of that ſigne, into the congregation of Chriſts flocke, and ſo into his ſeruice by confeſſion of faith in him, and manfully fighting vnderunder his banner againſt all the ſpirituall enemies: for immediatly before the act of the baptizing of it, the miniſter prayeth that whoſoeuer there ſhall bee dedicated vntounto God by his office and miniſterie (meaning in baptizing them) may bee endued with heauenly vertues, and euerlaſtingly rewarded through his merciemercy: and then hauing baptized it or them, in faith and hope that this prayer is heard, and ſo that they are by, and in baptiſme, ſubſtantially and effectually dedicated vntounto God, Amen is ſayd: after followes the miniſters and peoples admittance of them, and ſigning of them as aforeſayd: which is nothing but an approouing of the former dedication as p. 29much as lies in them, and a declaring of their hope and expectation by that which they do, that in time they will ſhew and manifeſt themſelues to be dedicated to his ſeruice indeede, in faithfully ſeruing of him both in beleefe and life: ſo that euen the words and order of the booke, whereunto they hauehave expreſſe conference, in that Canon plainely ſhew, that by them is meant no other dedication of the baptized by that badge, then an approbation by them of the former dedication of them in and by baptiſme, and ſo their declaration thereof by that, and the admittance of the baptized, as the booke appointeth. Appobatiuè therefore, and declaratiué, and non effectiuè, are they and the Canon to be vnderſtood: wherein there is no ſuch daunger or alteration of the former good meaning, that might be of this ſigne.

2. Now therefore theſe new obiections thus anſwered, let vsus go on to weigh what further either of olde or elſe of late is obiected againſt this ſigne of the Croſſe, in anſwering whereof I ſhall, I hope; yet more lay foorth the weakneſſe of theſe: …t is ſtill, and long hath beene alledged againſt it, that it is made by vsus as it is vſed ſignificatiue (and that when wee hauehave made the beſt conſtruction thereof wee can) of that which is ſufficiently ſignified by baptiſme before, and that therefore in the vrged vſe it is not indifferent, and ſo not to be yeelded vntounto. To this argument it is aunſwered firſt, that it is grounded of that which will not, nor neede not bee graunted, namely that it is not within the power and libertie of the Church of Chriſt, to ordaine rites and ceremonies with ſignification of ſpirituall things, eſpecially of any thing ſignified alreadie by either of the Sacraments, for that were, ſay they, to obſcure them, and as it were to bring in new kinde of Sacraments without expreſſe warrant from Chriſt, which is vnlawfull. For where finde they in the word any warrant to debarre the Church of this freedome and libertie, to ordaine rites with any ſuch ſpirituall ſignification? Sure I am Peter Martyr a verie godly learned man in an Epiſtle of his to Hooper, plainely ſhewes, that he had neuer found any ſuch, for there hee ſaith, how ſhall we debar the Church of God of this libertie, that it cannot ſignifie ſome good thing in ſetting forth her rites & ceremonies? eſpecially being ſo done that no maner of Gods honor is attributed vntounto them, and that they be in ſight comly, and in number few, and that chriſtian p. 30people be not with them ouerburthened, and matters of greater importance be not omitted? But indeed though this and the reſt of ours be otherwiſe, thus qualified, as Martir would hauehave all ſuch to be, and are not darke and dumbe ceremonies, as the Popiſh ceremonies aboliſhed were, but are ſo ſet forth (as is ſaid in the tract of ceremonies prefixed before our Communion booke) that eueryevery man may vnderſtand what they meane and to what vſe they ſerue, and ſo conſequently (as there alſo is noted) are the freer from danger of abuſe; yet indeed, that booke no where, nor any publike ordinance of our Church annexeth any ſignification vntounto any of them, as I ſaid before, either for that naturally of themſelues, they ſignifie any ſuch thing, or that ſupernaturally any ſuch is tied thereunto: what vſe ſoeuer therefore we make of any of them, by way of ſignification or reſemblance, it is either from our owne declared meaning and intention in the vſe thereof, as in this, or from our voluntarie meditation thereof, as in the reſt, and therefore they neither darken the nature of the Sacraments, nor no way iuſtly can be ſayd or thought to be as new Sacraments. For all Sacraments by Chriſts owne ordinance, not onelyonly ſignifie the ſpirituall things whereof they are Sacraments, but alſo are Gods ordinarie meanes, whereby he doth offer, deliuer, and ſeale the deliuerie thereof, to all the worthie receiuers of the ſame, in all which theſe come ſhort of them. And who knoweth not but the Sacraments hauehave ſignifications, ſome principall and proper, and ſome leſſe principall and common to them with other things, and that therefore, though the Church may not either in her intention or voluntarie meditation, in the vſe of her owne rites and ceremonies, thereby encroach vponupon the principall and proper vſe of Chriſts Sacraments, yet ſhe may without wronging either of Chriſt or his Sacraments, reach in her intention and meditation by occaſion of her owne rites and ceremonies, to thoſe that are leſſe principall and common. As for example, the Supper of the Lord hath two ends and vſes, the one principall and proper, to be vntounto the right receiuers the Communion of the body and bloud of Chriſt, as Paul ſheweth 1. Cor. 10.16. and another leſſe principall, ſet downe in the next verſe, namely to knit vsus in communion amongſt our ſelues. Now though the Church, neuer that we read of, ventured by any of her rites and ceremonies to ſignifie the former, yet doubtleſſe both by her louelove feaſts taken vp in the Apoſtles times, as it appeares euen in that Chapter, and by the vſe of the holy kiſſe, mentioned Rom. 16.16. and 1. Cor. 16.20. yea euen immediatly p. 31before the receipt of the Sacrament, by Iuſtine Martirs time, as it appeares in his Apologie vntounto Antoninus Pius, it was the Churches vſe to reſemble vntounto themſelues the latter, and thereby as by admonitorie ſignes and tokens the better to put and keepe themſelues in remembance thereof: what ſhould let therefore, but that the ſacrament of baptiſme principally and properly ſignifying our remiſſion of ſinnes in the bloud of Chriſt, and our regeneration through his ſpirit, in being thereby ſo ingrafted into his death and reſurrection, as that we are dead to ſinne, and raiſed vp to righteouſneſſe, but that the Church of Chriſt may vſe the ſigne of the Croſſe as ſhe doth with vsus, as an admonitorie token of our chriſtian hope and expectation that the children of Chriſtians baptized amongſt vsus, ſhall and will anſwer the leſſe principall and common end thereof, which is to bring forth the fruits and effects of the former, thereby before beſtowed vponupon them and ſealed vntounto them?

3. Hereby alſo we are led to anſwer another maine obiection which they make againſt it, for that whiles it is vſed as it is, it is charged to be an addition to Chriſts Sacrament and ordinance of baptiſme, which is vtterly vnlawfull, or at leaſt an arguing him in ſome ſort of ſome imperfection in the ordaining the maner how it ſhould be miniſtred, in that wee neuer read, he or any of his Apoſtles made any mention of the vſe hereof in the adminiſtration of this Sacrament. For euen hereby we ſee alreadie by the lawfull vſe of the louelove feaſts, and the holy kiſſe, together with the receit of the other Sacrament in the primitiue and apoſtolike Churches, neither of which were any more mentioned by Chriſt in the inſtitution of that Sacrament, then this was in this other, that euerie ſuch rite and ceremonie taken vp by the Church and vſed, when and where the Sacraments are miniſtred, though they be alſo ſuch as ſerue to betoken and ſignifie vntounto the people ſome thing alſo ſignified by the Sacraments themſelues, as theſe did, are not ſtraight to be accounted either vnlawfull additions thereunto, or things arguing Chriſt of imperfection, in not remembring them in the firſt inſtitution: They themſelues that vrge this obiection moſt, do allow diuerſe things in the adminiſtration hereof, and in the other Sacrament alſo, as here either of godfathers, or godmothers, or of the parents, or of ſome in their roome, and that to anſwer certaine queſtions, as alſo in the other of miniſtring it in the morning, in the publike aſſemblies and to women, none of which are expreſſed in the firſt inſtitution of either, and yet they will not grant p. 32either of theſe things to folllow thereupon. But the full anſwere to this obiection is this, that the truth is indeede, that Chriſt hath left the inſtitution of the Sacraments full and perfect for all the ſubſtantiall and vnchaungeable things thereunto appertaining, expreſly ſet downe by the direction of his ſpirite in the Scriptures, wherein he is to bee followed without addition or detraction, yea or any alteraon thereof at all; and that he left vntounto his Church the further ordering of the circumſtances, and further what was fit according to varietie of times, perſons and places, for the moſt orderly, decent, and comely adminiſtration thereof, prouided alwayes, that therein ſhe keepe her ſelfe in a courſe not contrarie, but conſonant to rules ſet downe in the ſame Scriptures for her direction herein: for thus the practiſe of his true Church euer ſince hath taught vsus to vnderſtand him therein. Vnlawfull addition to any of Chriſts Sacraments therefore, is only that, that either participates therewith in all, or at the leaſt in the chiefe and proper ends and vſes thereof, or is added for complement thereof, as neceſſarie and ſo vnchangeable, whereas our Church in the laſt named tract of her ceremonies proteſteth of this and of all the reſt, that they are retained only for diſcipline and order, and may vponupon iuſt cauſes be altered and changed, & therefore are not to be eſteemed equall with Gods law, and we hauehave heard that the 30. Canon particularly of this proteſteth, that the vſing of it is neither to adde any vertue or perfection to the Sacrament, nor the omitting of it detracts any thing from the effect and ſubſtance of it: And therfore not only priuate baptiſme, as we hauehave heard, is by our ſeruice booke iudged perfect and effectuall without it, but we ſee that our Church accounteth many thouſands that hauehave bin, and yet are baptized without it ſufficiently baptized: ſo that euen thereby it is euident, that it is vſed not as a neceſſarie ſupply to perfect baptiſme, though it be called the ſigne of the Croſſe in baptiſme, but that it is vrged, only vponupon the miniſter, to vſe it as is appointed, as a comly & decent rite in the adminiſtration thereof, & therfore he is only cenſured for his contempt or neglect of the churches authority in omitting it, but the ſufficiency of the ſacrament therfore, is neuer by authority for want therof once called in queſtion. To argue therfore that it is vnlawfully added to baptiſme, becauſe it is called the ſigne of the croſſe in baptiſme, in the title of the 30. Canon, is a groſſe Paralogiſme, for the words of the Canon expreſly ſeuer it frō baptiſm, in ſhewing how the child by the book is perfectly baptized before it be vſed; & though the whole tract wherin p. 33the forme of baptiſme is preſcribed, is called the form of adminiſtration of Baptiſme, yet who knowes not that it is ſo, not for that eueryevery thing therin, is to be reckoned as part of the eſſentiall forme of the adminiſtring therof, but for that the chiefe part therof ſets downe that, & the reſt appertains but to the circumſtances, & to the comly & decent outward accidentall & changeable manner of adminiſtring of it.

4 But ſay ſome, yet it cannot be but vnlawfull in the vſe, for that being but an humane needleſſe tradition, it is placed ſo near baptiſme, and is vrged as it is. But as long as it is ſo ſeuered from it, as it is, & is vrged & vſed with the cautions before mentioned, and ſo no way made either ſimply neceſſary, or any way, any part or point of Gods immediate and proper worſhip, and ſeruice, it is not, nor cannot be any forbid addition thereuto: Deuteronomie. 12. or elſwhere, or any vaine condemned tradition, in or by the ſcriptures any where, as is premiſed in the fift principle agreed on at the firſt. But they reply confidently as it is vrged, that it is made a parte of Gods ſeruice and worſhip, and therefore that it is no better then a verie Idoll, and a forbidden likeneſſe of ſome thing in the ſecond commandement condemned, and therefore by no meanes to bee yeelded vntounto; yet as confident as they are herein this antecedent of theirs, wee vtterly and wholy deny, for neither make wee it, as the ſimilitude of any thing to bee worſhipped with any diuine worſhippe, inward or outward, either in it ſelfe, or in that whereof it is made a likeneſſe: the Papists doe both, and therfore as they vſe it, it is with them in their concept a part of Gods diuine worſhippe, and a groſſe Idoll they make of it, but in all theſe reſpects, we condemne them: and doubtleſſe they themſelues, howſoeuer they ſo eſteeme of it, as it is vſed in their manner, & with their intent & mind, yet as it is made & vſed by vsus, there is none of any iudgment & learning amongſt them, that anything regard it, and ſo much the ſtranger it is, that any of our owne religion quite contrary to our publike proteſtation ſhould beare vsus, themſelues or any other in hand, that wee lodge any peece of Gods worſhip in it, or make any Idoll of it. Sure I am our harts, our words, and deeds, cleare vsus both before God and man hereof: and that ſo being our beſt armour to beare of the blow, that by this weapon they would giuegive vsus, is to thinke & ſay with S. Paule. 1. Cor. 4. As touching our ſelue we paſſe very little to be iudged of you or of mans iudgmēt. But ſeing they are ſo confident of the truth of this their antecedent, p. 32duplicate page p. 33duplicate page p. 34let vsus ſee what they bring to prooue it withall: the effect and ſūme of all their proofe is firſt, that wee vſe it in the worſhippe or ſeruice of God, therin that the Iewes worſhiped & ſerued God, with diuine worſhip in the obſeruing of their ceremonies preſcribed by God, by the miniſtery of Moſes, alſo for that therby in the publike worſhippe of God religious dueties are taught, and laſtly for that it is an outward forme deuiſed by man to ſome vſe of religion: in that it teacheth him vponupon whom it is conferred, ſome religious dutie, by the ſignification therof. To all this, firſt I briefly anſwere, that neither any of theſe, nor all theſe togither, prooue the antecedent before denied, then my reaſon thereof is this, things may be vſed in the worſhip or ſeruice of God, either as neceſſary, eſſentiall, and ſubſtantiall parts therof only, which are part of Gods worſhip indeed, or but as circumſtances, or only as humane or eccleſiaſticall orders appointed but for ſeemelyneſſe & comlineſſe about the ſame, of which ſort this of ours is: and the Iewes obſeruing their rites & ceremonies ſo preſcribed with right vnderſtanding, and with ſound hearts to God, therin might & did immediatly ſerue and worſhip God, becauſe they therfore had the expreſſe warrant and commandement of God in particular, and yet not wee in ours, becauſe we want that, hauing only the general rule that he left vsus for matters of this kind; and eueryevery thing that any way teacheth religious dueties in the publike worſhip of God, is not therfore part of his ſeruice and worſhip, but that only is ſo indeed, that is of his own immediate ordinance, to that end, & when accordingly it is rightly vſed; of which nature we hold not this rite to bee and as for the laſt which is to proue it to be againſt the ſecond commandement & ſo an idoll, it proueth it not ſo to be in this, for though it be an outward forme of ſome thing deuiſed by mā, yet that is not ſufficient to proue it to be an idoll condemned in that commandement, for that it ſerues to ſome vſe of religion, or for that alſo by our intention, & meditation therof, it is giuen by the miniſter and people as a token betwixt them and the child, of the chriſtian hope and expectation that they hauehave it will anſwere that which therewith all is added. For as we hauehave heard the louelove feaſts and kiſſe vſed, as they were with the ſupper, and to that ende they were alſo, were all this, and yet were neither condemned by the ſecond commandement, not yet Idolls. And who can deny but that the altar, built by the a tribes and a halfe mentioned Ioſua. 22. was an outward form deuiſed by them, & to a religious vſe, namely to ſhew an other day to their p. 53children, that they belonged to the ſame God that the other Tribes did, and that therfore in reſpect of that end, vſe and ſignification, it was allowed by their brethren, when they vnderſtood thereof, how angry ſoeuer they were againſt them for it, before they vnderſtood it, and ſo for all that, not condemned to be againſt the ſecond commandement or an idoll? That altar in their intention and meditation, when they made it, was to be an admonitory ſigne vntounto their poſterity of that religious leſſon in their hope and expectation, and therin there caſe and ours in this are like, but herein yet there is ſome difference that their inention and meaning therin was ſecret to thēſelues, and therfore their building thereof, ſo ſubiect as it was, to offend the reſt, and ours is plainly with all expreſſed and ſet downe in our book of eueryevery bodie to be ſeene, and therfore the better to preuent all offence, or other conſtruction of our meaning thereby: but indeede neither they, nor we hold; that the altar, or our ſigne of the Croſſe of themſelues; or any otherwiſe; then in our intention, ſignifie any ſuch thing at all. And yet this puts me in remembrance of another difference betwixt that of thicks and this of ours, that that was viſible and permanent, as the ſubſtantiall croſſes vſed in poperie alſo are, whereas ours is but as an action tranſient, and by and by ceaſed and gone, and therefore neither ſo ſubiect to further abuſe, nor yet to giuegive offence, as either that of theirs, or theſe of the Papiſts, which are vſed without any expreſſe notification with all, of the ende and vſe thereof, much more of anie lawfull and warrantable meaning they hauehave therein, and therefore the more doubtleſſe offenſiue. Yet if wee ſhould thereunto annexe the ſignification imagined, why ſhould that bee vnlawfull in our publicke eſtate, when as the writers of the admonition thinke, that they lawfully may preferre ſitting in the receipt of the Lords Supper, before any other geſture, for that it beſt ſignifies reſt thorough Chriſt from ſinne, and the rites of Moſes; yea that more is, read wee not Ioſhua 24. that hee hauing pitched a ſtone vnderunder an Oake, told the people that that ſhould be a witneſſe againſt them, if they at any time after forſooke that God, whom they then had choſen to ſerue? But yet for further and more full anſwere to theſe prooffes of theirs, we are to vnderſtand that Gods worſhip or ſeruice, is taken eyther properly, as it is immediately tendered and done to himſelfe, for that he hath ſo commaunded it: Or it is taken in a large and generall ſenſe, for whatſoeuer p. 36is done ſo with warrant from any rules of his word, as that the doer may doe it in faith, without which in nothing he doeth he can pleaſe God. Rom. 14.23. as it ſeemeth to be taken. Coloſſ. 3.17. where the Apoſtle ſaith, whatſoeuer ye ſhall doe in word or in deed, doe all in the name of the Lord Ieſus. In which ſenſe, ſeruants doing at the commaundement of their maiſters according to the fleſh, any ſeruile worke not forbidden by God, doing it willingly and cheerfully as they ought, for that God hath commaunded ſeruants to obey their Maiſters in ſuch things, the Apoſtle ſaith, they therein ſerue the Lord and not man. Epheſ. 6.7. And therefore ſo alſo when ſubiects obey the lawful ordinances and lawes of their Princes and Superiours, be they ciuill or eccleſiaſticall, becauſe God hath commaunded obedience and ſubiection to ſuch, Rom. 13. and 1. Pet 2. as we hauehave heard, and Hebr. 13.17. and their commaundements hauehave warrant from generall rules left them in the word, though there they be not particularly ſpecified, they may euen therein in this ſenſe be ſaid to ſerue God himſelfe. But yet then any man may ſee, that there is great difference betwixt this kinde of ſeruing of him and the other, for the other, is ſo his proper and immediate ſeruice, as that men ſinne, if they yeald him it not, becauſe of his owne onelyonly commaunding it and requiring it at their handes. Whereas this growes to be but an inferiour kind of ſeruice of his, though rightly done verie accetable alſo, by the meanes of the lawfull commaund of the ſuperiour, whom hee hath commaunded to bee obeyed.

And therefore the late Reuerend Archbiſhoppe in his foreſaid booke. Page 269. writing and ſpeaking there of the commaunded rites & ceremonies amongſt vsus, and namely of the diſtinct apparrell appointed miniſters, ſaith, that men know we could be without them, & that but for obedience ſake, we do not much eſteme them: which he neither could nor would hauehave ſaid, of any thing expreſly and immediatly commaunded by God, as a point of his perpetuall or neceſſarie ſeruice or worſhip. Now then who is ſo ſimple but he may eaſily conceiue, that things of this latter kinde, may be vſed about religion and the ſeruice of God in the former ſenſe, and yet for all that, made no part nor peece eyther of religion or of the worſhip and ſeruice of God in that kinde; which as long as they are not, but onelyonly keepe their owne inferiour ranke and place, that which they ſay of their ſo being vſed, makes nothing to proue their p. 37antecedent, or any vnlawfulneſſe in them. For the rules againſt all addition by man to Gods ſeruice and worſhip, preſcribed by himſelfe in his written word, and againſt worſhipping and ſeruing of him by the precepts or traditions of men, are onelyonly to be vnderſtood (as it is euident euen by that which we heard Paul ſay of ſeruants ſeruing the Lord Chriſt in doing their maiſters lawfull commaunds, in any thing that he hath not forbid) of his ſeruice and worſhip in the firſt ſenſe: and therefore they are no better then wreſted, when they are drawne againſt ſuch rites and ceremonies, and conformitie therein, as we ſpake of.

5 Neyther is that any reaſon of force againſt them, that they are ſaid to be needleſſe and vnprofitable traditions of men, nor that they are made meere eccleſiaſticall, though they had ſome ſignification of ſome religious duety annexed vntounto themſelues: for the iudgment of the publike ſtate of a Church, touching the needfulneſſe and profitableneſſe of ſuch things; is to bee preferred before the iudgment of priuate men. For they that bee in place of authority, and hauehave beene long exerciſed therein, beeing alſo Godly and learned, through their better acquaintance, with the myſteries of gouernment, muſt needs ſee and iudge better what is fit, and meete for order and comlineſſe, then priuate men can. And as for their beeing made mere eccleſiaſticall, by that which I ſaid before of the ſurpliſſe, partly appeares to be falſe, and reaſon I can ſee none (as I hauehave ſaid alſo) why the author of the booke againſt the croſſe ſhould account the vſe of it in the primitiue Church, beeing the ſame for which we vſe it, (namely to ſhew that we are not aſhamed to profeſſe faith in Chriſt crucified, &c.) to hauehave bene then ciuill, and therefore lawfull, and ours to be meere Eccleſiaſticall, and therefore vtterly vnlawfull. If their reaſon be, becauſe we vſe it onelyonly in the church & that by the miniſter, & they vſed it alſo elſewhere by any of them, ſurely that is a very weake one. For though mariage be, or were only to be ſolemnized in the church, and in the time of diuine ſeruice, and that onelyonly by a miniſter, yet that would not proue it to be meere Eccleſiaſticall, and the like may be ſayd of the buriall of the dead: For notwitſtanding burials are in ſome ſort ciuill, humane, and politicke thinges, and therefore neither the vſing it onelyonly in the Church; nor onelyonly by the Miniſter, will prooue it ſo. And I wonder that any ſhould euer imagine, that an Eccleſiaſticall rite or ceremonie, ſhould therefore bee thought to bee p. 38vnlawfull, becauſe by the end and vſe thereof it teacheth ſome good religious dutie. For none can be ignorant, that Paul ordered, that in the Church aſſemblies women ſhould be couered, and men vncouered. 1. Cor. 11. and that, (as well Caluin notes) euen from ground ſufficient in the words of the text there, thereby to ſignifie the ſubiection of the one to the other, and the ſuperioritie of the other ouer the other, which are good religious duties and leſſons. And a man would thinke they were ſo much the more commendable, and the more tending to edification, by how much the more they occaſioned men to learne thereby, and to remember good religious duties. But as I hauehave often ſaid we neyther maintaine nor defend ours, for any ſignification they hauehave, neyther doe we hold they ſignifie of themſelues any ſuch religious dutie onelyonly by the helpe of our meditation, by occaſion of them, and by our intention in the vſe of this in particular, we retaine and vſe it, adding withall as we doe, in hope of the childe learning and practiſing that after, ſo the better alſo (for that we liue amongſt ſuch who hauehave abuſed it otherwiſe, and would faine ſo doe againe) to keepe and preſerue it from all ſuch abuſe, and in this auncient and lawfull vſe; yet all other arguments failing, many thinke, that becauſe it hath ſo ſuperſtitiouſly, yea idolatrouſly beene abuſed of the Church of Rome, euen therefore as Ezechias for like abuſe of the braſen Serpent commendably defaced and deſtroyed that, though once commaunded to be ſet vp by God himſelf. Num. 21. So much more ſhould this, being but a mere humane ordinance hauehave beene abandoned, and that therefore it ought not thus to be vrged as it is, or ſo being, is yet not in any caſe for the vſing thereof by vsus to be yealded vntounto. Whereunto I anſwere, firſt that there is more in the concluſion then the antecedent or premiſſes will beare, for though the idolatrous abuſe thereof amongſt the Papiſts, by that example of Ezechias carry neuer ſuch ſhew of a ſufficient reaſon, to hauehave moued our Ezechias accordingly rather to hauehave quite remoued it (as queſtionleſſe none will or can deny but vponupon that conſideration and others, if it ſo had ſeemed good vntounto his maieſty, he might) (for doubtleſſe Princes may as well vſe their authoritie to remoue ſuch, as to continue them) yet the ſame reaſon and conſiderations whatſoeuer elſe, are not therefore ſtreight of ſufficient force, to binde vsus rather to leaue miniſterie and all, then (he chuſing rather for other reaſons that ſeemed ſtronger vntounto his highneſſe, to retaine, & thus to vrge it, which otherwiſe I am fully perſwaded p. 39he would not hauehave done) to yeeld our obedience in the vſing it accordingly. For it is generally held, that Ioab did lawfully at the laſt in obeying Dauids commaundement in numbring the people. 2. Sam. 24. hauing before in dutifull manner ſufficiently ſhewed the king his reaſons to diſwade him therfrom, howſoeuer Dauid notwithſtanding perſiſting in his purpoſe offended. And therefore euen Beza writing of theſe verie matters of ours that we hauehave in hand, ſaith that many things may be well obſerued, that are not ſo well commaunmaunded, how much more therefore herein may we lawfully obey, ſeeing as yet there is not found any vnanſwerable reaſon, but that lawfully we may alſo be commaunded as we are? And Maiſter Cartwright after he had ſaid all that hee could againſt the impoſing of theſe rites and ceremonies vponupon vsus, yet concludes in his ſecond part of his reply, Pag. 265. in theſe verie words, if the Prince vponupon declaration of the inconuenience of ſuch ceremonies, and humble ſuit for the releaſe of them, will looſe nothing of the cord of this ſeruitude, for my part, I ſee no better way for the miniſter of God, then with a vn…onition of the weak that they be not offended, & prayer to God to ſtrengthen them thereunto, to keepe on the courſe of feeding the flocke committed vntounto him. But indeed (welbeloued) now the queſtion is not that we hauehave in hand, what the ſtate ſhould hauehave done herein (though euen in that reſpect yet, we in dutie, as I hauehave ſaid all are bound to thinke and iudge, that for that they which are in authoritie hauehave done, and doe in this caſe, they hauehave ſufficient warrant and reaſons to ground, and iuſtifie their conſciences vponupon, both before God and man, though ſundrie priuate men, not ſo acquainted as they with the neceſſarie rules of gouernment conceiue them not ſtraight) but the queſtion that we are now to ſeeke to be reſolued vponupon onelyonly is this, whether any of the things whereunto our conformitie vnderunder paine of depriuation is thus required as it is, be ſo intollerable for vnlawfulneſſe or inconueniency, as that rather then, we will be drawne to yeeld obedience thereunto, wee are by our perſiſting in refuſall thereof, to ſuffer that ſentence of depriuation or but of ſuſpention from our miniſtery to paſſe vponupon vsus. Touching therefore the reſt of this obiection, (and ſo that notwithſtanding to reſolue vsus, that we may and ought rather by yeelding to the vſe of this, to hold on our miniſtery, and to keepe our places, then for abſolute refuſal ſo to do, to leeſe both,) Again, I would wiſh eueryevery man to take the paines to read what the foreſaid Archbiſhop p. 40hath ſet downe touching the lawfull retaining in the publicke ſeruice of God, things formerly vſed to idolatry, in his forenamed tract touching apparell, beginning at Pag. 272, vntounto 279. for there out of Aug. 154. Epiſtle ad publicolam, & out of Caluin vponupon the 23. of Exod. v. 24. Peter Martirs Epist. to Hooper. Bucers to Iohn Alaſco, and out of another of his to Cranmer, as alſo out of Bullinger and Gualters Epiſt. he ſhall find in all theſe mens iudgements that things both wickedly inuented, and alſo groſly abuſed, may yet be ſo purged of that abuſe, as that they may be vſed to good Eccleſiaſticall vſes. Yea who knows not that Gedeon was commanded to take his fathers bullocke which he had dedicated to Baal, & the wood which he had likewiſe appointed to his ſeruice, … therwith to offer and burnt a ſacrifice to the Lord? Iud. 6.25. that the veſſels of the temple abuſe, by Belthaſar, Dan. 5.3. were reſtored by Cyrus Ezra. 1.7. and after againe without ſcruple vſed in the Temple about Gods ſeruice, by the people of Iſrael after their captiuity, and that ſundrie things profaine before abuſed by the idolatrous inhabitants of Hiericho, were yet reſerued, & conſecrated with Gods owne liking and allowance to the vſe of the tabernacle and ſanctuary. Ioſua. 6.23. Whereby, what exceptions ſoeuer otherwiſe they make againſt theſe examples as vnlike to the things with vsus in queſtion, thus much yet is got, that the groſſe abuſing of a thing to to idolatry, makes it not alwaies after ſo polluted, as that euē therfore ſimply, it can neuer be purged of that abuſe, & ſo vſed againe about Gods ſeruice to a lawfull and good end and vſe. But to vrge them with examples neerer & liker to our rites in queſtion: Bells in popery hauehave been & yet be (witnes Durand writing of the vſe of them, de rat. diuin. offic. Fol 7.) as much abuſed as any of theſe, and yet we remouing the abuſe, lawfully I hope retaine them to a good vſe, to call our people together to praiers and ſermmons. Againe the commemoration of the Saints departed, vſed to good and holy ends onelyonly at the firſt in the primitiue Church (as to the praiſing of God for them, and to the better incouraging of others to imitate them) grew in time groſly to be abuſed, in adoring & praying vntounto them: and yet in the vniuerſities in their Colledges, and at Saint Maries in Oxenford as alſo at Pauls Croſſe, and elſe where, the abuſe being remooued, the is a kind of commemoration of ſome departed vſed, and I think none will ſay vnlawfully. They cannot denie both theſe were firſt taken vp by humane ordinance, that the vſe of them is Eccleſiaſticall, and that neither of them, are ſimply neceſſarie, and yet I truſt p. 41they will not ſay, that the Church with vsus doth amiſſe in retayning them as ſhe doth to a good vſe, notwithſtanding their foreſaid abuſe by and in the Church of Rome. And kneeling who knoweth not hath beene a geſture and yet is, moſt groſly abuſed in and of that ſynagogue; in ſaying their prayers, and doing their idolatrous deuotions to their ſtocks and ſtones, and yet who is there that will or may diſalow it as an vnfit & vncomly geſture to be vſed in our religious & dutifull ſeruice of God I grant for kneeling we hauehave warrant by the commended examples of the godly in the ſcripture, yet thence it followes not that it is ſimply alwaies a neceſſarie geſture in praying, which is ſufficient in this, for that point. But to preſſe them yet more neerely in this caſe, howſoeuer they may ſay, that ſome ſigning with the ſigne of the croſſe and ſome making thereof hath beene, and yet is ſuperſtitiouſly and idolatrouſly abuſed of Papiſtes, how can they ſay in particular that euer this of ours hath ſo beene, or is. They knowe and wee know, that wee in the vſe thereof hauehave and doe baniſh all their ſuperſtitiouſneſſe and idolatrie in the vſe of it. As therefore wee vſe it there neuer was nor is abuſe in it: neither hauehave or doe they abuſe the ſame that wee vſe Numero & indiuiduo eodem: but the like onelyonly in Genere aut ſpecie: which makes no more to the condemnation of ours, then the abuſe of ſome particular cattell, to the ſacrificing of them to idols or diuels, could or did make vnlawfull the ſacrifycing of any other in the time of the olde Teſtament like thereunto to the Lord, or as I ſaid before, to debarre the Corinthians from eating without ſcruple of all like mutton or meat, to that which had beene f…red to Idolls. And as for the vrged example of Ezechias in demoliſhing, for the groſſe abuſe therof, of the braſen ſerpent, who ſeeth not that it reacheth no further but to the encouraging by that example of others of like authority, vponupon like occaſion, to do the like, to and with the very particular things ſo abuſed, and yet not to deale in like manner with all things that after ſhall bee like the other made and vſed onelyonly to a lawfull and good ende? And after the vſe of that particuler braſen ſerpent was ended, for the which GOD commaunded it to bee ſet vp, as wee read. Num. 21.8. the retaining of it ſo long after, euen without any warrant from God, and therfore there beeing no vſe thereof, neither by diuine ordinance, nor by the churches, when it was ſo abuſed, it was the beſt ſo to deface it. p. 34And yet theſe things conſidered, that bindes not our King ſtraight of neceſſity to aboliſh this, which he found here before impoſed by the lawfull authority of a famous Church, to a lawfull end, … howſoeuer other abuſed the like. But why may wee not, to ſome ſuch good ends as wee may imagine, then ſay ſome, aſwell retaine the vſe of ſome materiall croſſes, and other images in our churches, as this? I anſwere that beſides that there are many other reaſons, why that ſhould not be allowed, though this thus bee, there are two euident reaſons taken euen from the nature of this, and the manner of the vſe thereof, that put ſuch a difference betweene this as it is vſed and them, that no way the tolleration of them followes vponupon the allowance of this. For firſt as I ſaid before, this is paſt and gone as ſoone as it is made, when as thoſe ſtand and abide ſtill, and this hath the vſe and end expreſs, and that lawfull with the making of it, and ſo hauehave not the other theirs, neither is their vſe lawfull. And therefore this is, ſo freed from the danger of ſuperſtition and idolatry infinitly better then thoſe.