Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 3 · Section 4
SECT. 5. Concerning the wronge, that is doen to Gods Sacraments, by humane sigmificant Ceremonies.
1. THe Argument dependeth on this: that humane Ceremonies appropriated to Gods wo…ship, if they be ordeyned to teache any spirituall dutie, by their mysticall signification, usurpe a cheif part of the nature of Sacraments. This was in the Abr. backed with many testimonies: which the Rej. having before eluded (so well as he could) here contenteth himself to say, they are counterfeit, forced, or forged stuffe: The contrarie wherof hath been declared. Now for the naked Arg. he affirmeth it to have no sienws which must be tried by the answers, & defence of them.
The Def. first answereth, by a distinction, betwixt the signification of grace conferred, and the signification of mans dutie, the former wherof he maketh Sacramentall, but not the later. To the which was replied, that Sacr. also doe signifie the dutie of man towards God. This (sayth the Rej.) is not true: bec. Sacr. doe onelyonly implie that dutie. But I would knowe of him, 1. how the Sacr. as signes, doe implie that which they doe not signifie, all so well as our signe of a crosse doeth signifie any dutie? The aerall crosse doeth (though very untowardly) represēt the wooddē crosse, wheron our Saviour was crucified, & so by a trope, Christ crucified: & then implieth our dutie to Christ. And doe not Sacraments signifie Christ, & our dutie toward him so well as this? 2. I aske,
If Baptisme doe not signifie our wholle mortification, vivification, and putting on of Christ? 3. If the Sacraments doe onelyonly by themselves, implie these duties, yet that implication being explicated in their administration, what use is ther of putting that explicated dutie under a bushel, or bed of mans making?
2. The Rejoynder not trusting to that deniall, sayth further, that if the Sacraments did signifie mans dutie, yet that is not a cheif part of their nature. To which I may replie, that if it were not a cheif part of their nature, but a part onelyonly, yet it is presumption for men to take any part of the Sacraments, and set it upon other thinges, at their owne pleasure. But seing by the nature of the Sacraments, is meant their office, and use, and ther be many offices and uses of them, some of which come not so neer their cheifest office as this signification doeth, it may with good reason be termed a cheif part. Calvin (Consens. de re Sacram.) sayth thus: Sacraments are notes and badges of our Christian profession and incitements to thankfulnes, Exercises of pietie, & bonds under our hands to tye us to Gods service, but their cheife end is to signifie and …igure the grace of God to us.Sacramenta no…ae sunt ae …essara profession…s Christianae, five societatis, item ad gratiatum actionum incitam enta, pietatis denique exercitia, & syngrapha ad 'Dei cultum nos obligantes: finis tamèn praecipuus est, …ratiam Domi… testari, repraesentare, atque obsignare.
Now though this last be the cheif office, yet amonge the former one is more cheif then another, and which of them more cheif, then this of signifying spirituall duties with obligation to the performance of them?
3. To prove that the Sacraments signifie morall duties (which first the Def. and in defence of him, the Rejoynder denieth) it was alleged, by the Repl. that the wholle Covenant is in them signed and sealed, betwixt God and man in which Covenāt mans dutie, thorough grace is there professed, and represented. Wherupon the Rejoynder 1. concludeth, that suche signes as doe neyther signe nor seall the covenant of grace, cannot partake the office, or speciall nature of Sacraments. Wherby he gaineth nothing but his owne ideal shadow. 2. He gathereth, that unlesse signifying, without sealing, be a more principall part of the nature of Sacraments, then sealing, suche signes as communicat with them onelyonly in signifying, doe not participat any cheif part of their nature. Which is as mere non sense, as if one should say, that unlesse teaching, without sealing be a more principall part of Sacraments, thē sealing, then the preaching of the doctrine which in Sacraments is signified and sealed, doeth not participat any cheif part of their nature. 3. He answereth, that the Sacraments doe confirme our obligation unto sanctimonie, in generall, but not signifie any morall dutie in particular. Here then is the mysterie: the Sacraments to confi…me (by signification) all our duties, but not this, or that dutie.
If our Convocation had been of the Counsel, when Sacraments were appointed they would (as it seemeth) have made them more perfect. But this is certain, our Saviour meant to put a difference, betwixt the olde A. B. C. and the new maner of t…aching fitting for riper yeares: and therfore did not s…o…ll out every letter concerning our dutie, in signes, as of oulde, but give us the summe in a few signes. Whosoever therfore goeth about to multiplie significant signes, crosseth th… very intention which was respected, in the institution of two Sacraments onelyonly. Beside, the Crosse it self, doeth not signifie our dutie of constant fighting under Christ, in pa…ticular, against this or that temptatiō of sinne, the world, or the Devill, but onelyonly in generall, so that by this reason, we should, or may have as many significant Ceremonies, as there be particular temptations to be resisted. Whither shall we come, at length, by walking in this Ceremoniall way?
4. The second Argument, to the same purpose, by the Repl. alleged, was, that the name Sacrament, as it signifieth an oath, or obligation, doeth import, that the Sacraments signifie our dutie to God. To this the Rejoynder answereth, that the Sacraments doe in deed implie, but not represent any morall dutie. Now let any reasonable man judge, whether dipping under the water, and rising up againe, or taking of food for strength, and growth, doeth not more represent spirituall duties, then making a Crosse with ones finger, in the ayer?
5. The third reason mentioned, was taken from the name Eucharist, notifiing thankfulnesse, and the taking of the same, in remembrance of Christ. The Rejoynder his answer is, that the word Eucharist is no Sacrament, but a terme brought in by men to put them in minde of their dutie in receyving it. But that word doeth notifie the nature of the Sacrament, at least in the judgemēt of al Divines, …hat have in this meaning used the terme, though it be not a Sacrament. And they are more then that the Rej. his judgement can counter-ballance. Yet if significant Ceremonies be like unto wordes and characters, as the Rejoynder formerly maintayned, that very word must needes be a Sacrament, or a significant signe of a Sacrament: because it was brought in to put men in minde of their dutie in receyving, as the Rej. speaketh. He addeth 2. that ther is no element, nor action of that Sacrament, so particularly repraesenting thankfulnesse, as kneeling doth reverence, or humilitie, Where first, he maketh kneeling a significant Ceremonie, whiche hitherto he hath seemed to denie. 2. I answer, that the very action of receyving so great a gift, in a cheerfull humble manner, doeth repraesent both thankfulnesse, and humilitie, so far as Christ would have it repraesented by signes. The very celebration of a great benefit receyved, is a signe of thankfulnesse. Otherwise, let the Rejoynder tell us, what repraesentation of thankfulnesse was in the Passover, for that benefit of passing over the Israelites houses, when the first-borne of the Aegyptians were slaine?
6. Instance was given (by the Replier) that both sanctitie, and constancie, which are the thinges …ignified by Surplice, and Crosse, are signified in Baptisme. The Rej. his answer is, that they are not barely or onelyonly signified in Baptisme, as duties, nor by any distinct signe repraesented. As if this were the question, and not this: if Sacraments doe signifie morall duties! Certainly, if Sacraments doe signifie these vertues as graces and duties (as is proved, and also confessed) no Christian need desire to have them …ignified over againe barely and onelyonly as duties, no more then after an instrument made betwixt the Lord of Manner, and his Tenent, conteyning the conditions of both partes, the tenent should seek for a new instrumēt, signifijng his conditions a part: and not onelyonly so, but after that his conditions had been expressed generally, that he should keep all the land in good culture, according as he found it, he should seek for one instrument about the woodes, another for the …arable land, another for the medowes, another for the pastures, and another for the broome feilds, or for every aker one, & that not from the Lord of the manner, but from some Iustice of peace, or high Constable of the Hundred. Neyther is it a thinge profitable, for Christians to remember their dutie, without remembrance of Gods grace therto apperteyning.
7. Against mysticall-morall Ceremonies, of humane institution, the Repl. brought this Arg. in Mr. Baines his wordes: To be a teacher of my understand…g, and an exciter of my devotion, are suche effects, as require vertue, inhaerent, or assistant, to those thinges which should be causes of them. But no signe of mans divizing, hath any suche vertue, in it, or with it. For then it must come eyther from the word of creation, or from Gods after institution.
But from neyther of these, have the signes of mans divizing any suche vertue. Therfore no signe, of mans divizing, can be a teacher of mine understanding, or an exciter of my devotion.
This the Rejoynder confuteth first, with skornefull wordes, as a sickly childish, and long some objection. After, he answereth, that our monitorie Ceremonies, are onelyonly externall occasions, and objects, wherby the minde of man worketh upon it self, not causes working by some vertue in them.
Where 1. observe, how he mangleth and marreth the Argument, that he may maister it: the wordes are, that suche effects require vertue inhaerent, or assistant: he interpreteth them onelyonly of vertue in them, i. e. inhaerent, leaving out assistant: and yet dareth affirme, that upon this fiction of vertue in them (which is his owne fiction) the wholle objection is builded. 2. He maketh our Ceremonies to be onelyonly occasionall objects, and no causes: wheras every instituted signe is a meanes, and so a cause of that effect for which it is appointed, as Logick teacheth. And if they were mere occasions of conceyving that which they signifie, then a white Surplice would not prove half so significant a Ceremonie of Ministers sanctitie, as a white Cocke, especially when it croweth, nor an aeriall Crosse, so significant, as a Gallowes. Beside, if our Ceremonies be occasionall objects onelyonly, then no man is tied to regard the whitenesse of his Ministers Surplice, therby to thinke of his sanctitie, any more then he is bounde to regard the fowlnesse and soile of it, when for a longe time, it is unwashed, and he also useth it in stead of a handkerchif, about his nose, therby to thinke of the imperfection, spots, and blots, which are founde in Ministers disposition, and conversation. Concerning, Letters, Characters, and Giblets, mentioned here againe by the Rejoynder, answer was made before, in the first section of this Chapter.
8. To like purpose, the Repl. used this reason: If humane inventions be suche morall admonishers, in spirituall duties, then our consciences are bound to subject themselves to their admonitions, and so to those mortall men, who made them admonishers. The Rejoynder his answer is like his former: humane significant Ceremonies have no vertue of teaching the understanding, or exciting the devotions of mē: but only externall objects tending by their signification to those uses, to the use of which, the consciences of men are not bounde simplie but onelyonly collaterally, and for another thinge. In which answer, 1. ther is a strange mysterie confessed: that humane Ceremonies are appointed to doe that, whiche they have neyther antecedently, nor consequently, any vertue to doe. 2. Externall objects are made opposite unto admonishers with vertue to admonish: as if no externall objects (as Baptisme administred to a childe, before mine eyes) had any vertue of admonishing 3. As strange a distinction is made betwixt simply, and collaterally, and betwixt simplie, and for another thinge: which are suche sustian stuffe, that ther is no fear, they should satisfie any but suche as take termes without reason… or right reason.
9. Another reason of the Repliers, was, that every teaching signe, of publicke use in the Churche, ought often to be interpreted, in preaching, and also defended if they be called in question, in the same preachinges, which kinde of preaching, upon Crosse and Surplice, were very absurd, especially in those Parishes, that scarce have Quarter-Sermons. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that the Crosse having interpretation with it, need not be interpreted: and that the Surplice signifieth, he doeth not well know what, but suche a thinge as may be soon taught. Now that which he sayth of Crosse, he may as well say of the Sacraments, that because in their administration, they have the interpretation goeing along with them, therfore no Minister need muche preache of them. But indeed, ther is speciall need, that the very interpretation which goeth alonge with the use of the Crosse, should be well interpreted: because few or none, eyther of the people, or of the Crossers themselves doe understand, how it hath that signification which the Convocation hath layd upon it, any more, then any other toy, which may easily be devized by the same Convocation: as if they should put a straw into the childes hand, in stead of a spear, to signifie, that he should manfully fight, against all enimies of Christianitie. And of the Surplices signification, seing the Rejoynder himself is not yet certainly informed, what it is, ther must needs be great use of muche preaching about it, first to declare certainly (if it may be founde) what it signifieth, secondly to shew the ground of that signification, or authoritie from whence it commeth, lawfull, and thirdly to urge it upon the consciences of those that are to make use of that signification. His second answer is a bundle of phrases: and so let it passe. OnelyOnly let it be noted. 1. that he calleth it furie, to charge our Ceremonies of superstition and yet in sobrietie, mainteyned before, that those which count them unlawfull, are superstitious brethren. 2. that he determineth absolutely, upon his refuted groundes, that we have stopped our own mouths, from preaching the Gospell, by calumniations. Wheras all England knoweth, that those which never preached, or writ against the Ceremonies, have their mouthes stopped by his Prelates, though they onelyonly professe, they cannot use them, by reason of scandall, of which number, Doctor Burges himself hath been one. 3. He would perswade the world, that some of us place all religion in opposing Ceremonies by speaking and writing: which is greater calumnie, then any he charged us with, or then he can prove of any one. 4. He affirmeth us to be of all men he ever knew, the most impatient of opposition, and so most partiall, and Pharisaically proude as if his Prelates were very patient toward those that oppose their Ceremonies, no way so partiall, nor drew any thinge from the Pharisies, or as if himself in this Rejoynder, had not shewed more of these vertues, then any other. 5. He sheweth where the store lieth: in rooting of them out of the hearts of their people, by clamours, and calumnies. We cannot then defend our practise, but with clamours and calumnies, nor answer for our hearts, without rooting them out of peoples hearts.
10. For the further manifestinge of the uselesse signification of our significant Ceremonies, the Repl. appealed to the consciences of the best conforminge Christiansin England, whether ever they founde themselves truly stirred up to holynesse, by the Surplice, or to constancie in fayth, by the Crosse? The Rejoynder answereth, that no man is stirred up by them, as by causes, but onelyonly as by the sight of the creatures, or other memorialls: of which use if men deprive themselves, it is their prejudice or negligence. Now of causes ther was no mention in the quaere. And the question being made of the best conforming Christians (amonge whome the Rejoynder himself is one) prejudice, and negligencie of some, make up no answer. The trueth is, that he himself could not say, out of his conscience, that ever he felt suche motions within him, by occasion of a Surplice, or Crosse, and therfore baulked the question. Yet this is here to be observed: that by the Rejoynder his confession, our sacred Ceremonies are no more admonishers unto spirituall duties, then any creature of God, i. e. then any butterflie is. And are not then our Ceremonies very sacred, or religious. Or is our representative Churches institution, of any more force, or worth, then any childes, that catcheth butter-flies?
11. It was added also which by experience, it is founde) that in some one Congregation, where these Ceremonies have not been used, more holinesse, and constancie of faith hath appeared, then in many Cathedral Churches, where they were never omitted. The Rejoynder his answer is, that where other helpes stand equall, ther is no difference, save onelyonly in a Pharisticall opinion of those, who counte their very opposition of Ceremonies an high poynt of devotion, and stiffenesse therin, constancie in the fayth.
Behold the man, that even now complayned of clamours, and calumnies. The reasonable part of this answer is, that in Cathedrall Churches, other helpes (as diligent preaching, catechizing, admonishing, directing in Christian duties) are not aequall or answerable to that which is founde in divers Congregations where the Ceremonies have not been used: otherwise ther were no difference. Now heerin, 1. he confuteth himself, in confessing that his Prelates, even those whose admirable wisdome he extolleth, though they have power enough, doe not provide the cheif helpes of edification, for their Churches, aequall to those that are founde in poore Congregations, which receyve not their Ceremoniall helpes, and yet will not suffer those poore Congregations to enjoy their helpes. For doe they not by this, place a high poynt of devotion in their Ceremoniall helpes? 2. How can this stand with reason: where other helpes are aequall, ther is no difference? Certainly, if our Ceremonies be helpes to Edification (as the Def. and Rejoynder mainteine) then where other helpes are aequall, the Cathedrall Churches have a great advantage in helpes, above other, that want those Ceremonies. Nay one Cathedrall Churche exceedeth another in this kinde: as Durrham, for Ceremonies, doeth Chester, and Lichefeild.
12. Because the Def. (to make way for an injurious accusation) changed the phraze used in the Abrigemēt, a cheif part of the Sacraments nature, into another more obnoxious unto exception, the cheif part, the Repl. justly noted this, as no plaine dealing. The Rejoinjoynder (being loath to leave any of the Def. his words un-mainteyned) answereth, that the Sacraments have but two parts, signification, and obsignation: and therfore if signification be a principall part, it is also the principall part: so that the Defend (sayth he) dealt heerin fairely, and pressed us with suche wordes as our Argument requires.
But 1. whoe authorized the Defend. to change the termes of our Argument, and then presse us with his changelinges? Let him reserve suche faire dealing for other occasions, when it may passe with lesse notice taken of it. 2. What doeth the Rejoynder mean, to imitate the Defend. in attributing unto us, that we make mere signification, without any qualification or limitation, eyther the or a cheif part of the Sacrament? The Abrigement sayth onelyonly, that suche signification as is ordeyned mystically to teache and admonish us of spirituall duties, is a cheif part of the Sacrament. 3. Mr. Hooker, (lib. 5. pag. 3.10.) sayth that ther are great store of properties belonging to the Sacraments▪ as that they are boundes of our obedience, obligations to mutuall charitie, provokation to godlinesse, preservations from sinne, memorialls of great benefites, markes of distinction from strangers etc. How then can the Rejoynder so resolutely determine of two onelyonly offices, which belonge to them? 4. If all essentiall parts of the Sacrament may be reduced to these two, yet the lesser of these may be called a principall part, without any prejudice to the other, in respect of those mē, which make accidentall, circumstātiall, & improper parts of Gods worship, and so of his Sacraments, as the Def. and Rejoynder upon every occasion doe shift off Arguments with those termes. The rest of this section (beside wordes of no weight) conteyneth nothing which hath not been in the former passages, sufficiently cleared.