Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 9
SECT. 18.19. Concerning Protestants witnessing against the Negative argument from Scripture.
1. BEllarmine was brought in by the Def. as an indifferent Adversarie, confessinge that Protestants holde the Apostles to have instituted some thinges, perteyning to rites and order, which are not written. Which was also granted unto him, as making nothing against us. OnelyOnly the vanitie of that allegation was in some particulars declared, which how they are cleared (it being a matter of no moment) I referre to the Readers judgement.
2. Chemnitius was alledged, saying, there be some Ecclesiasticall Rites, which have neyther command, nor testimonie, in Scripture, which yet are not to be rejected. Answer was made, that this in a right sense is granted by us. The Rejoynder taxeth this as an idle shift: because 1 Chemnitius did not intende suche a restrictive sense. 2. Circumstances of Order have command and testimonie in Scripture. But 1. It is no idle shift so to interpret an allegation objected, as that the interpretation cannot be confuted, but barely denied. 2. As Circumstances of order and decencie have their generall command or testimonie in Scripture, so have those Rites which Chemnitius understandeth, or else his sentence is without any grounde out of Scripture.
3. The same answer is given, and no other Rejoynder made, about Calvin, Danaeus, Whitakers and Zanchie, saving that of Zanchie, it is observed & urged by the Rejoynd. that he sayth some Ceremonies may help for the furtherance of pietie which have no foundation in the word: giving instance of the solemnities of Easter, etc. Tract. de Sacra. Scriptura. For whom I answer, that his sentence must be understood of no particular foundation, or else he should give more then any Papist will require, concerning their humane Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies. As for his instances in the solemnities of Easter, it seemeth he reckoned them amonge Ceremonies of order and decencie, because as the Def. and Rej. confesse, that is the onelyonly place authorizing humane institutions in Religion. If he meant otherwise, he did as a man, crosse his owne rules, as after (God willing) shall be shewed.
For the present, let that testimonie of Zanchie be well considered, which he setteth downe in Col. 2.8. It is certayn, that this consequence is very good: this or that is not according to Christ: therfore it is not to be admitted. This ought to be enough to any Christian man: It is not according to Christ: therfore I admitte it not, in the buisinesse of atteyning to salvation. Where is to be noted, 1. That according to Christ, is opposed (by the Apostle) to according to the traditions of men, and therfore is all one, with not appointed by Christ. 2, that all Ceremonies instituted to teache the doctrine perteyning to salvation, are part of the meanes wherby we are supposed to be helped & directed, in seeking and atteyning salvation.
4. About Iunius, ther is more adoe, because his wordes are set downe at large on both pars. But as for that which the Def. and Rejoynder cite out of him, pag. 109. I cannot say much more then hath been answered to the other Divines, untill a consequence be framed out of them, more effectuall to the purpose, then is in that which the Rejoynd. onelyonly quaestioneth. And doeth the rule 1. Cor. 14. concerne nothing but circumstances of Order? Or can our opposites be accorded with this saying? For it hath been formerly manifested what that rule doeth require, and how it may be accorded with our tenent.
On the other part, this professed, sworne sentence of Iunius is alledged: If any man, eyther by Civill, or Ecclesiasticall authoritie, will adde thinges not necessarie, nor agreeable to Order, wee would not pertinaciously contend with him, but desire onelyonly that he would seriously consider of three thinges. 1. By what authoritie, or example, he is led to thinke, that the holy Churche of God, and the simplicitie of the mysteries of Christ (whose voyce onelyonly is heard by his sheep) must be clad with humane traditions, which Christ doeth reject? 2. To what ende he judgeth, that thes thinges should be added unto those that are divine? For if the ende be conformitie with others, it were more aequitie, that other Churches should conforme to those, which come neerest to the Word of God (as Ciprians counsel is) then that these should conforme to the other. If the ende be comelinesse, what is more comely then the simplicitie of Christ? What is more simple then that comelinesse.
If there be no other reason beside will, then that of Tertullian is to be thought of: The will of God, is the cheif necessitie, and that the Churche of God is not tied unto mans wisdome in thinges Divine. The third thinge to be thought on is, what event allways hath followed upon humane traditions, as longe experience doeth shew? Ecclesiastíci, lib. 3. Cap. 5. This testimonie is so full, and clear, that it needeth no candle of Commentarie, or Consequence, to be set by it. What can the Rejoynder answere?
1. His first is, that Iunius doeth not here condemne our Ceremonies even because they are not commanded in the Word. But he might have remembred out of sect. 2. that the argument is of warrant and direction from the word, not of direct and speciall commanding. Now Iunius plainely denieth authoritie or example of the worde, or any thinge but mans will, to be the grounde of suche Ceremonies, and for that cause would have them avoyded.
2. His second is, that Iunius wrote not this of suche Ceremonies as ours: because he speaketh of those that are neyther necessarie, nor according to order, rejected by Christ, added to Divine thinges, which must needs import necessitie and worship a… fixed unto them. But had it not been better counsel, for the Rejoynder to have helde his peace, then to let every man see what miserable shifts he is driven to? 1. Iunius having made this conclusion: that Magistrates may not constitute, and change persons, things, Ceremonies at their pleasure, and that those which teli them they may (as our Def. and Rejoynder doe in part) are therin no well willers to the Churche, propoundeth this question: if it be not in the Magistrates power, to appointe, or abrogate suche thinges? to which he answereth negatively: because all necessaries, and essentialls are appointed by Christ, and as for other not necessarie thinges, above the sphere of order, he gives those reasons, which are in the wordes, largely cited. Now 1. what a wreched evasion is this, that he spake not of our Ceremonies?
He spake of all not necessarie not appointed by Christ: but yet he spake not of ours.
This is as some should denie that rule which some logicians call de omni & de nullo, to holde in Ceremonies: or affirme that to be false of English Ceremonies, which is true of all Ceremonies. 2. When our Divines speak against Popish Ceremonies, the Rejoynder his ordinarie answer is, that they speak of Ceremonies held necessarie, and therfore not of suche as ours. Now when Iunius expresly speaketh of Ceremonies not necessarie, the Rejoynder concludeth, that he could not meane ours or suche like. How should any man speake, to put suche a Rejoynder from having some thing to speak? 3. Iunius sayd, that those Ceremonies are unlawfully appointed, which are not convenient to, or required by Order: Ergo (sayth the Rejoynder.) he could not speak of suche as ours are. And yet the same Rejoynder manud. pag. 33. confesseth our Ceremonies to be double or treble Ceremonies and those of order, to be onelyonly single. Neyther could he ever yet finde any fit place, to shew our Ceremonies agreeable to order.
Nay when the Repl. by this argument, out of 1. Cor. 14.40. proved these Ceremonies unlawfull, the Rej. fled from Order, to Decencie, and Edification.
And yet heer in this place, being beaten out of those coverts by judicious Iunius, he betaketh himself againe to that halfmoon of order, which before he had quitted. 4. Iunius sayth, suche Ceremonies are rejected by Christ: Therfore (sayth the Rejoynder:) he cannot mean suche as ours. As if he should say, those that affirme our Ceremonies are rejected by Christ, cannot meane our Ceremonies. 5. Iunius speaketh of Ceremonies added to divine thinges: and so (by the Rejoynder his collection, not of suche as ours, because that must needs import necessitie, and worship affixed to them. And yet both Def. and Rej. cap. 2. sect. 3. can finde out many additions to Divine thinges, which are intended onelyonly for praeservation of them, and the…fore (by their owne judgement) must not needs import necessitie, and worship. Suche turning, winding, and running against walls, you shall seldom see an ingenuous man use in a good cause.
5. Two thinges yet the Rejoynder noteth in the by: 1. Iunius would not resist suche thinges pertinaciously, as the Repl. doeth 2. Iunius speaking against cladding Gods ordinances with the garments of humane Ceremonies, had another meaning, then the Def. p. 3. Rejoynder pag. 5. where he calleth suche Ceremonies as ours, the garment of Religion: because by clothing Iunius meant adorning and hiding of nakednesse, but the Def. opposed garments to members of the bodie: and therfore the Repl. need not by his marginall note have applied Iunius his clothing to the Def. his garment. Now for the first of these, ther is difference betwixt pervicatious contending, without reason and measure, which Iunius modesly putteth from him, and that constant restistance which he himself teacheth here in this place, where he affirmeth that Christs sheep (even in suche Ceremoniall matter) will not nor ought to hear any voice but Christs. For this, hee foreseeing that it would be accounted pervicacie, disclaimeth that, and yet doeth thoroughlie resist. So would the Rep. if he may have leave: If not, I see not why he may not doe the same thinge, though he be censured for it, as Iunius feared hee should be.
And this I may truly say, I have heard the Repl. more then once professe, that whē, in studying of Divinitie, he was something perplexed about Ceremonies and suche like humane institutions, by reason of some ambiguous, and ill consenting passages of some others, this one place of Iunius (so solemnely confirmed with the oath of suche a man, for his synceritie and unpartiallnesse in the buisinesse, and alleging suche grave reasons for his judgement therin) did very muche affect him, and first setle his minde for suche matter. So that if he be deceyved, Iunius hath deceyved him. But he hath now more cause then before, to esteem muche of this place because, the utmost that the Rejoynder could say to it, is as good as just nothing.
As for the difference which the Rejoynder would finde, betwixt that clothing of Religion, which Iunius taxeth, and the garment of Religion, which the Defend mainteyneth, I cannot discerne it.
For 1. If Iunius meant adorning, as the Rejoynder sayth he did, that is one office of a garment, and suche a one as the Rejoynder ascribeth to Ceremonies in respect of Religion, pag. 95. where is sayd that they are comely formalities, suitable to the dignitie and varietie of divine actions. 2. If Iunius meant hiding of nakednesse of Religion, he meant it onelyonly in the esteem of those which impose suche Ceremonies. And so all they that adde their Ceremonies to Religion, as usefull garments, doe seem to account it (in comparison) naked without them. 3. If the Def. meant to shew, that our Ceremonies are not essentiall limbes of the bodie of Religion, so did Iunius mean to shew, that those which adde their Ceremonies to Gods ordinances, doe pretend, they adde onelyonly clothing, not members, to the body of Religion. Neyther is this snaching at words, as the Rejoynder termeth it. For it is, and hath been an ordinarie commēdation of Ceremonies, that they are as a garment to Religion. Whence it was that a Scottishman (as I remember) at the first comming of King Iames into England, hearing them mainteyned under that name, answered that he wondred then how Religion did live, and thrive, in the colde countrie of Scotland; without suche linsiewoolsy garments?
6. VntoUnto this full testimonie of Iunius, the Repl. added the words of Zanchie, ano…her witnesse of the Defend. His words in his epistle to Q. Elizabeth, are these: the Churche must be ordered by the rule of the Apostolcall Churche, as well in Ceremonies, as in doctrine. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is no more contrarie to the Def. then to Zanchie himself, acknowleging (elsewhere) some Ceremonies lawfull, which have neyther commande nor testimonie of Scripture, which he would never say of doctrinals. Now 1. If it be also against Zanchie himself, yet it disableth his testimonie, for the Def. 2. This which is alledged out of him, for Ceremonies without testimonie or foundation in Scripture, hath been answered before, that it must needs be understood of particular foundation. And so he might well say the same of doctrinalls. For in this ther is no difference betwixt Ceremonies, and many other thinges, which are not Ceremonies, and yet apperteine to Conscience. As the Apostle sayd: let all thinges be doen comely and in order, so sayd he also: whatsoever thinges are venerable, or honest, just, of good report, and prayse, let them be doen.
All the particulars of these latter, are not Ceremoniall: and yet many hundreds of suche thinges have no more command, or testimonie in Scripture, then the particulars of order and Decencie: Neyther have the generalls of order and Decencie, lesse command and testimonie in Scripture then the generall of these.
His 2. answer that Zanchies comparison is to be understood of similitude, not of aequalitie, is in the former words answered.
For no disparitie can be shewed, betwixt many particulars of Doctrinall pointes, in their cases of practise, considered with all circumstances, and the particulars of Decencie and Order: muche lesse betwixt their generalls. As for exāple it is as difficult for D. B. to fetche from any doctrine in Scripture, this particular: It is venerable, just, and of good report, for him to write su…he a Rejoynder as he hath doen, as this particular: the Crosse in Baptisme is orderly, decent, and to edification. I take both to be impossible. But suppose both to be probable, the former (being no Ceremonie) is no more determined in Scripture, then the later.
There hath been a fashiō taken up of speaking otherwise, but no reason can be rendered of it. Let any man shew the reason, and I will yeeld.
The epistle out of which this quotation is, was written in deed against our Ceremonies, yet the Repl. leaving to a fitter place, noted onelyonly for the present purpose, that it was written of them. But the Rejoynd. being great with an observation or two, addeth about that: Moreover Zanchie when he wrote to Q Eliz. to persuade her not to urge the Ceremonies so severly, did write at the same time to B. Iewel, that Ministers should rather yeeld to them, then leave their places: because they are not simplie unlawfull.
To which I answer 1. Zanchie writ to Q. Eliz not onelyonly that the Ceremonies should not be so severe…y urged, but also that they ought not to be urged, imposed, or allowed of at all, but abolished. And of this his judgement, he gave suche effectuall reasons, as can never be answered. Amonge other, one is proper unto this place, and fit here to be remembred, because it overthroweth all that warrant which the Def. and Rejoynder have hitherto, or can heerafter plead for them, out of 1. Cor. 14. Order, Decencie, Edification. These Ceremonies saith he make not for edification, but for publicke dissention, private perturbation of conscience, with scandall of good and bad. They make not for order, but disorder, and confusion of good Ministers with evill or Popish, who ought even in garments to differ. They make not for decencie of Christs Spouse: because they are a strange ridiculous, idolatrous attire of this Romish whore.
2. Zanchie when he writ unto B. Iewel, gave no reason of this counsel for yeelding, but left them to be invented by B. Iewel. Now because those reasons of yeelding were never yet made knowen, wherby the former reasons directed by Zanchie against urging can possibly be overborne, I cannot otherwise thinke, but this later counsel was more out of charitie guided by humane erring prudence, then out of judgement grounded on Scripture. Howsoever our question is, not onelyonly of yeelding in case of extreame necessitie, but also of appointing and urging men to that extreame necessitie.
3. Zanchie doeth not perswade to allow of these Ceremonies by subscription, or silence, but onelyonly in extreme necessitie, to yeeld unto them, and that with Protestation. Etsi fortitorestistendum est Magistr…it illis traditionum et leges: Po…tificum acriter v…tuperand…, quib…s in Populum Dei,Now this was according to a kinde of charitable Pollicie, which Luther is author of about all Popish Ceremonies: de Libertate Christiana, in these wordes: Although we must manfully resist those Masters of traditions, and the lawes of the Popes wherwith they overrun the people of God are tartly to be dispraised, …t assantur, tarbae tamen pavi dae parcendum est, quam captivam tenent eisdem leg…us impij illi tyranni, donec explicentur, In liges & legissatores ivehu…is, et tamen simoul serves … infirmis, donec et insi tyrannid…m cognos…ant & liberta…m suam intellegaus.yet the timorous multitude (whome those wicked Tyrants lead captive with the same lawes) must stoop till they be pl…inely layd open. You may inveigh against the lawes and law makers, but withall you may observe them with the weake, untill both they do know the Tyranny and come to understand their liberty.
But 1. what warrant have we for suche a course but of Gods word? 2. Mr. Hooker, pag. 247. derideth this course, as a Theorie neyther allowable, nor any way practicable in England.
3. Our opposites, that defend, and commend the Ceremonies, as orderly decent thinges, tending to Edification, cannot without contradiction assent unto this counsel. D. B. in deed did formerly beginne after some manner, to put some peice of this course in practise. But the ill successe that he found in it, hath since made him, & others, keep farr from that part of it, which concerns Protestation, and in stead therof, to turne them unto Commendation. Did ever any that writ for our Ceremonies, write suche an Epistle as Zanchies, unto Queen, or Kinge? Can they say so muche, and doe as they doe? Nay is ther any Bishop, that dare license Zanchie his Epistles, to Queene Eliz and B. Iewel, both together, for to be printed in English?
These thinges being so, I leave it unto consideration, unto whom the Rejoynder his affected censure belongeth: Now wel-sare a good stomacke: Hee cannot resist, but hee will not yeeld.