Some Treasure Fetched out of Rubbish, Arguments
Of the Surplice.
Attire or veſtiments may be diſtinguiſhed into ſour ſorts.THere is a fourfold diſtinction of Attire. 1. Natural. 2. Civil. 3. Eccleſiaſtical by Divine inſtitution. 4. Eccleſiaſtical by humane ap…ointment.
The Natural is ſuch, by which the difference of Sexes, of Ma…e, and Female is profeſſed;Calv. harm. in lib. Moſ. expoſ. 7. Precept. and others. Dr. Reynolds of the overthrow of Stageplayes, pag. 10. this is Moral and perpetuall, Deut. 22.5.
The Civil is, when for eaſe, ſpeedier diſpatch of ſome civil buſineſs, ornament, or politick differencing of degree in Office, Age, Trade, &c. diverſity of habit is uſed; and this is Arbitrary, and lawfull, ſo that the rules of modeſty be obſerved. Whitgift def. of anſw. to adm…i…. tract. 7. cap. 3. diviſ. 1. pag. 264. Hooker Eccleſiaſt. P…li…. lib. 5. S. 78. pag. 424.
Thoſe are Eccleſiaſtical by Divine Inſtitution which the Lord, and Law-giver of his Church ordained to be uſed by Prieſts and Levites in the ſolemn worſhip of God,Exod. 28, 12.29, 30, 40, 41, 43. and in the place of Ceremonies: theſe veſtiments continued neceſſary in uſe, untill the abolition of the Levitical Rites, and then determined.
Such are Eccleſiaſticall by humane inſtitution, as man of his own head hath appropriated to Religious worſhip, or ſolemn Eccleſiaſtical uſe. Of this ſort and kind I take the Surplice to be, and therefore do make queſtion of the lawfulneſs thereof. My argument againſt it. I diſpoſe in this form.
All Veſtments appropriated to the ſolemn Worſhip of God, and appointed for ſignification of ſpiritual Duties by the Will of Man, without Warrant out of the Word of God, are unlawful.
But the Surplice is a Veſtment appropriated to the ſolemn. Worſhip of God, and appointed for the ſignification of ſpiritual Duties, by the Will of Man, without Warrant out of the Word of God. Therefore it is unlawful.
Propoſ▪ preved by ſix Reaſons.The truth of the Propoſition may be cleared by theſe Reaſons following.
1. All ſuch Veſtments as the Propoſition ſpeaketh of, are an external form of Worſhip; both becauſe that in their common nature or kind, they agree with the Levitical Veſtments, which I ſuppoſe will not be denyed to have been parts of their external Worſhip, as well as other Rites among them. Homil. againſt perill of Idolatry, part. 3. fol. 55. ſaith, All outward Jewiſh Rites wherewith God was honoured in the Temple, were Cultus. For what good definition can be given of Worſhip, which may not be predicated and affirmed of thoſe Rites? To be inſtituted of God, or of Man, doth not vary the common nature of Worſhip, but diſtinguiſh it into true and falſe, in which Adjuncts the common nature of Worſhip doth not conſiſt. Alſo, would not …arments of myſtical ſignification appropriated to ſolemn Worſhip, be Jewiſh in ſpecial, not in common nature onelyonly, if the Mo… High ſhould Authorize them? And if they be Worſhip, and deviſed by Man, then they are Will-worſhip which God condemneth.
2. If this Major be not true, what ſhould hinder, but that man may bring many of the Ceremonies of the Law of Moſes into the Church of the new Teſtament; for if one Jewiſh Rite may be brought in, why not any. It need not be doubted, but that Veſtments meerly Eccleſiaſtical and Myſtical, are Jewiſh, though not in number, (or perhaps in ſome other petty differences), yet in kind: and are they not then the ſame? Luke 14.18. Eph. 6.9. Dr. Raynolds Confer. with Hart. cap. 8. diviſ. 4. pag. 494, 495.
3. Either Veſtments meerly Eccleſiaſticall and Myſtical, inſtituted by Man,Exod. 25.9. & 39, 40, 42, 43, & 27, 19. 1 Chro. 28.12. 2 Chro. 29.5. are unlawful; or elſe it had been lawful for the Jewiſh Church to have deviſed to themſelves, and uſed, thoſe Prieſtly Robes that were in uſe among them, though God had not appointed them; or they might have invented others of the ſame kind afterwards, and have added to thoſe God appointed: but this they might not do. It's true, that this would increaſe the multitude of Ceremonies, and multitude of Ceremonies of one ſort, would make them(f)Dr. Morton proteſt. appeal. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 3. inconvenient, becauſe this carryeth with it change of circumſtances, whereon conveniency or inconveniency doth depend. But if one Ceremony be lawful, hundreds of the ſame kind be lawful alſo; for the definition of one is predicated of all of that ſort. It cannot be truly ſaid, That the Jewiſh Church had leſs liberty to deviſe Eccleſiaſtical Rites (whatſoever ſome ſay),(g)Dr. Sparks Perſwaſions to uniformity. cap. 3.8, 5. pag. 11. Joſh. 22.10. than the Chriſtian Church hath; except the Chriſtian Church could under the Lord's Charter ſhew this Priviledge to be granted unto her. Add further, that the ſpeciall Ground that the maintainers of Ceremonies do or can bring in, for the now-urged Ceremonies, is the fact of the Reubenites building the Altar. If this Argument be of any force, muſt they not grant liberty to the Church of the Jews, as well as the Church of the new Teſtament? Therefore, if men deny the Jews that liberty which the Chriſtian Church may rightfully claim, they will prove themſelves to ſtand upon no Ground.
4. Such Veſtiments cannot be uſed in Faith, without which the uſe thereof is ſinful. Faith, in this place, is a firm aſſurance of mind and conſcience,Rom. 14.23. reſting on aſſured Ground, that the thing which a man doth, is allowed of God to be done by him: So that two things are here implyed.
1. That the Act to be done,Calvin. in loc. & others. Vid. Marlo. in loc. be allowed of God; otherwiſe the conſcience that doth it, how confident ſoever it be, is erroneous and faulty.(h)Covel's anſ. to Mr. Burges Apol. pag. 9. citing Mooker. No man can do evil with a good conſcience.
2. That the mind of the Doer certainly apprehend a lawfulneſſe for the doing of it, elſe the conſcience ſinneth through doubtfulneſſe.
With this aſſurance of mind and conſcience, who can uſe ſuch Veſtiments as are meerly Eccleſiaſtical, Myſtical Rites, when he cannot find a… firm Ground out of the Scripture, that God alloweth ſuch under the New Teſtament?
5. Whoſeover doth not admit the Propoſition, he openeth a gap unto Oyl, Cream, Spittle, Candles; holy Water, and other Popiſh Ceremonies to enter into the Church, which our learned Divine… reject; for this, that they are myſtical ſignificant Rites, deviſed by Man; as is to be ſeen, not by the Judgment of Forraign Divines onelyonly; As of the Church of Wittenburg. Harm. Confeſſ. part. 2. artic. 32. de Corem. Eccleſiaſticis; The Churches of France; and the low Countries in their Obſervations upon the Harmony of Confeſſions. Ibid. Sect. 17. ad Sax…n. Confeſſ. Obſerv. 1. Calvin in Eſay 20.2. & Mat. 21.25. Beza Epiſt. 8. But alſo our own Divines, Dr. Whitgift, Defence of Anſwer to the Admon. Tract. 7. cap. 7. diviſ. 8. pag. 291. Mr. Perkins in his Commentary on Gal. 3.23, 24, 25. who diſſallow ſuch ſignification of Apparrel in Eccleſiaſtical uſe, as Peter Martyr in his Epiſtle to Hooper would put upon it. Loc. commun. pag. 1088. Edit. 1613.
And further, if the Propoſition be not true,Perkin's Demonſtration of Probl. in Title Apurten. to Maſſe. Sect. 6. Dr. Morton's proteſt. appeal. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 5. Pag. 58. Might not a man reaſon thus for the bringing in of Popiſh Rites of the ſame nature and kind? Veſtiments inſtituted by man, and appropriated to God's Worſhip, and of myſtical ſignification, are lawful: Therefore, Oyl, Cream, Spittle, Candles; and other ſuch like Popiſh Rites are lawful alſo.
6. To conclude, worthy Divines have condemned all Ceremonies when they have been parts of, and appropriated to, Worſhip; As Calvin. Inſtitut. Lib. 4. Cap. 10. Sect. 8. Perkins Reform. Cathel. p. 136. And doth not Dr. Abbott call all Prieſtly Garments, whereby they are diſtinguiſhed from the reſt of the Church, a ſpiritual Character of the Beaſt. Antichr. Demon. Cap. 11. Sect. 26.
And whereas for eight hundred years after Chriſt, there were but eight Veſtures uſed in the whole myſteries of Religion, and now among the Papiſts there be fifteen; ſix Prieſtly, and nine of the Biſhops; What reaſon is there to prove them, or ſuch of them unlawful; which our Law hath rejected, if this Propoſition be not true. The Aſſumption proved.
In the proof whereof it is requiſite, that I inſiſt upon theſe three Heads.
1. That the Surplice in our Church is appropriated to God's ſolemn Worſhip, as to meet to Eccleſiaſtial uſe.
2. That it is appointed for ſignification of ſpiritu… Duties.
3. That this is done by Man, without Warrant from the Word of God.
The firſt of theſe 3 Heads is apparant by the Reaſons following.
1. Albeit young Students in the Univerſities, who by their matriculation, did receive their primam tonſuram into the Clergy:The Surplice to be appropriated to Eccleſiaſtical uſe. Queriſters in the Cathedrall Churches being antiently reputed of the Clergy; and ſome Clerks in ſome Parochial and Collegiat Churches, have heretofore, and ſtill do retein the Surplice: Yet we ſee that the uſe is ſtill reſtrained to Worſhip, (viz.) Prayers, reading Scripture, adminiſtration of Sacraments, &c. And out of that uſe it is not to be found, neither is there any civil uſe made of the Surplice. As for buriall of the dead, it is uſed by none but by a Miniſter, or one initiate into the Clergy, and that with ſolemn prayers accompanying: Who then can ſay, that the uſe of the Surplice in Burials, is a withdrawing of it from Eccleſiaſtical uſe.
2. I might urge what I obſerve out of Dr. Whitgift, who denying Pope Hadrian to be the Inventer of the Surplice,Spark's perſw… ſion to Uniformity. cap. 5. pag. 19. (Def. Tract. 7. cap. 6. Diviſ. 1.) would draw the Original thereof from Stepha…, Biſhop of Rome, whoſe teſtimony (if it be ought worth) proven that holy Veſtments are not to be touched of any ſave the Prieſt, (Ibid. cap. 5. diviſ. 2.) and conſequently that they are not of civi uſe. Socrates hominibus. Luc. Oſiand. Epitom. Hiſtor. Eccleſiaſt. Cent. 3. Lib. 3. Cap. 14.
3. In Popery the Surplice was appropriated to God's ſolemn Worſhip, without which no Prieſt might ſay Service. Miſſal. Rom. part. 1. Miſſa in Galli cantu, & Miſſa in die Nativitatis D…. Neither could Water or Bells, or any thing elſe be hallowed. Dr. Humphry his Antidiploma miſſal. Rom. part. 3. pag. 96. And if it were not of the eſſence of the Maſſe, that every Prieſt that ſayth it have a Surplice on, yet ſome Prieſt cannot ſay Maſs without it. Durand. rational. Lib. 3. Cap. 1. Numb. 9. Neither can any Prieſt make his breaden-god, except he have it on. Rh… a…tat. in 1 Cor. 11.29.
This I omit to urge, though I muſt confeſs, that hough o…r Church hath varied and changed ſomewhat from out immediate fore-fathers the Papiſts, from whom it cometh to us; yet they did not remove it from Eccleſiaſticall Places and Services, or inſtituted a civil or ordinary uſe of the foreſaid Veſtment. Doth not the Stature in the firſt year of Queen Elizabeth appoint ſuch Ornaments in the Church to be retained (as were in the Church of England by Authority of Parliament in the ſecond year of Edward the ſixth,Cap. 2. untill other Order be taken by the Authority of the Queen, &c.) at the time of the Communion, and other adminiſtration, &c. Was Order taken? No. We muſt judge then, for what kind of uſe the Surplice by the Stature of King Edward the ſixth was inſtituted and allowed.
The words of the Book of Common-Prayer in the ſecond year of his Reign, are theſe; Upon the Day, and at the time appointed for the Miniſtration of holy Communion; the Prieſt that ſhall execute that holy Ministery, ſhall put on him the Veſtures appointed for that Adminiſtration, &c. If the uſe of the Surplice ſtand by Statute, it is, for any thing that I know, by this, which declares it to be retained for meer Eccleſiaſtical uſe: If it be ſo, as Dr. Sparks ſaith in his Perſwaſion to uniformity, Cap. 5. pag. 20. 21. That Queen Elizabeth by vertue of the ſaid Statute, by the conſent of the Arch-Biſhop, and High Commiſſioners, in the ſeventh year of her Reign, appointed the Surplice to be worn inſtead of the Albe; yet it hindreth not, but proves what I ſay in this Section.Can. Eccleſ. 14. & 17. But becauſe this I think is confeſſed, I paſs to the ſecond Head in the Aſſumption.
That the Surplice is ſignificant of ſpiritual Duties, is clear.
1. All our Eccleſiaſticall Ceremonies are ſuch;In the Treatiſe of Ceremonies prefixed to that Book. They are neither dumb nor dark (ſaith the Book of Common-Prayer) but apt to ſtirr up the dull mind of man to a remembrance of his Duty by ſome notable and ſpecial ſignification.
Mr. Hooker ſaith, Ceremonies deſtitute of ſignification, muſt be vain; alſo he calleth them viſible Signs,Eccl. Pol. Lib. 5. Sect. 55. Ibid. Lib. 4. Sect. 1. which are undoubtedly moſt effectuall to open ſuch matter, as when men know and remember carefully, they muſt needs be a great deal the better informed: Thus much alſo Dr. Covell doth avouch (againſt the Plea of the Innoc. pag. 58.)
2. To omit that the Papiſts ſay, All their Prieſtly Garments have myſticall ſignification. Bell. de miſſ. lib. 6. cap. 14. And that the Prieſt muſt be cloathed in White to ſignifie innocency and purity,Lindan de C… lebr. miſs. & ob reverentiam Salvatoris, & totius Coeleſtis curiae, quam Sacra…into altar conſiciende, & confecto, non eſt dubium intereſſe.
Thoſe Learned men who were ſet awork in the dayes of King Edward the Sixth, and ſince (and who therefore were moſt likely to know the meaning of our Church in impoſing) have avouched, That it is,Hook. Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. Sect. 29. and ought to be continued, for ſignification. Bucer. opera Anglican. pag. 682. Pet. Mart. Loc. Comman. pag. 1088.
Now concerning the third Head. The Surplice, in that foreſaid uſe and ſignification, is without warrant of the Word of God. It may thus be proved.
1. The Surplice being a garment of a ſpecial nature, and uſe, in that it is a meer Eccleſiaſtical and Myſtical Rite, ought to have a ſpecial Divine Inſtitution, as ſuch garments have had in the Church of the Jews: for Reaſon requires that the ground be ſuitable to the nature of the thing. But ſuch a ground it hath not, neither can any ſhew any ſpecial Inſtitution.
2. There is not ſo much as any general warrant for it in the Book of God. Firſt, there is none in the Old Teſtament: The Prieſtly garments were tyed only to the place of Ceremonies,Exod. 28.43. Ezek. 42.14. Mornaeus de Euchariſt. not uſed in any of the Synagogues of the Land, nor in any of thoſe 460 which are reported to be in Jeruſalem: Were typical, (wherein it ſtands not with the nature of the times of the New Teſtament to mitigate them,Ezek. 42.13, 14. & 44.15, 17, 19. 1 Chron. 15. Spark perſwaſ. to uniformity, cap. 5. pag. 22.) Neither were they uſed in the Peoples ſight, except once extraordinary by occaſion of the preſence of the Ark before the People. So that if there had been any further uſe of them (viz.) for glory and comelineſs, as one ſaith,Spark. Ibid. not conſidering, that in the uſe alſo they were typicall, yet they cannot poſſibly warrantize Veſtiments in the ſight of the People.
If the Prophets did uſe ordinarily any apparel whereby they might be known from other men, (which doth ſeem doubtfull to ſome that read 1 Sam. 9.18. 1 King. 20.41.) yet that which they did wear, was of common and daily uſe, worn in Town and Field, &c. 2 King. 1.8. Eſay 20.2. Zach. 13.14. So that it matters not in this caſe,Whitg. def. tract. 7. cap. 2. pag. 262. though the Prophets were diſcerned by a peculiar form of Cloke, ſeeing it was not of Eccleſiaſtical and Myſtical ſignification, and withall was extraordinary as their Function was. Our Divines condemn the Popiſh Maſſing Garments, becauſe they are Jewiſh. To ſeek ground for the Surplice out of the Levitical Law, is it not then to overthrow our own grounds?
Further,Matth. 3.4. in the New Teſtament, there is no ground for the Surplice: The habit of John Baptiſt was daily and common, not Eccleſiaſtical and Myſtical. That Chriſt or his Apoſtles did uſe, or inſtitute any Myſtical or Eccleſiaſtical attire, none can ſhew by the holy Scriptures: and the relation of other Hiſtories is but humane and fallible; not the ground of faith. The Apoſtle Paul, 1 Cor. 14.40. requiring all things to be done decently and in order in the Aſſemblies of the Saints, did give commandment for the right and ſeemly performance of ſuch Ordinances as were before eſtabliſhed; but laid no ground for the inſtitution of myſtical Rites in religious ſervices. This ſpeech of the Apoſtle is a Precept, and hath a Divine binding power; which not to obey, is death. How can this concern the inſtitution of the Surplice, which is no ſuch matter, but reputed indifferent by the Urgers. What the Apoſtle commands, is neceſſary and indiſpenſable by Man: But the Surplice and other Rites are arbitrary, and may be diſpenſed with, and utterly aboliſhed. D. Morton in Proteſt. Appeal lib. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 2. numb. 3. pag. 54.
The Surplice is confeſſed to be but an humane tradition:Spark. Perſwaſ. to Uniform. cap. 5. pag. 21. Who can prove hence, that there is any better ground for the Surplice, than for the 15 Prieſtly Robes uſed in the Church of Rome?
Thus doth it appear, that the Scripture affordeth not any warrant for the Surplice in our uſe. I know many Teſtimonies are cited forth of the ancient Writers: but their teſtimony being but humane, proveth not that God doth allow and warrantize the Surplice. Yea, ſome of them do not at all concern Eccleſiaſtical Veſtiments.Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 33. Such is that teſtimony, that Euſtathim was deprived of his Biſhoprick, for not wearing decent apparel befitting his place.Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 20. Such alſo was that white rayment that Semius the Novat. did wear; and that under-garment of white Linnen, in which Cyprian the Martyr ſtood apparelled after he had given his Cap or Byrrhus, to the Executioner; and his upper garment called Dalmatica, to the Deacon.Vide Concil. à Binnio Collect. Conc. Gang. cap. 12. part. 385. Such is the garment ſpoken of by the Council of Gangris, as he that conſiders it, may ſee.
So that theſe places are miſ-alledged by D. Whitgift, Def. tract. 7. cap. 4. diviſ. 1. pag. 208. &c. And that likewiſe of Chryſoſt. Homil. 6. ad popul. Antioch. who ſheweth, That the dignity of the Miniſtery ſtandeth not in going up and down the Church in a white garment, that is, as a gallant white attire being a garment of honour, both in the E… parts,Perk. Probl. t t. The Appu. ten. of the Maſſe. and in the Weſt among the ancient Romans. Sigon. de Jud. lib. 3. cap. 14.
As for that which the Apoſtle John is ſaid to went, called a Miter, but ratehr a thin plate, as foreign doth ſignifie, either Euſebius doth thereby (alluding to Moſes's Law,Hiſtor. Eccleſ. lib. 3. cap. 25. Secundū aliam div ſionem 31. Conference with Hart, cap. 8. diviſ. 4. pag. 516. Exod. 28.36.) mean, that John entred into the Sanctuary, as it were, with Prerogative, and had the very Myſterie of God revealed to him, Rev. 1.1. as Dr. Rainolds doth underſtand; or elſe, if this relation deſerve credit, ſeeing Euſebius Pamphilus lived Anno Domini 320, about 200 years after the death of him of whom he writeth, and ſaith, John was a Biſhop, which agrees not with the Apoſtle's Office and Commiſſion, that was univerſal; yet this habit was a common and daily habit, as the words of the Author rather import.
Moreover, ſome Teſtimonies urged do concern the Jewiſh Veſtiments, as that of Jerom in Ezek. 44. The Religion of God hath one habit, (as Mr. Hooker confeſſeth. Eccleſ. Pol. lib. 5. Sect. 29.)
Laſtly, though ſome teſtimonies quoted may ſhew, that anciently there were ſome Linnen garments in Eccleſiaſtical uſe, as Theodoret, lib. 2. cap. 27. ſpeaks, of a baptizing robe given by Conſtantine to Macarius, Biſhop of Jeruſalem. Lib. 1. adverſ. Pelagium.And Jerome makes mention of Linnen garments uſed in adminiſtration by Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons. And the Councel of Carthage, Can. 41. (where there were 214. Biſhops, of whom Auſtine was one) decreed, Diaconus tempore oblatimis tantum, vel lectionis, Albâ induatur. Yet none of theſe prove, that theſe were inſtituted for myſtical ſignification; or, if they were, that there was warrant from the Word of God for ſo doing.
Thus the Aſſumption being confirmed, the Concluſion neceſſarily followeth, That the Surplice may not lawfully be uſed.
Of the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſm.
THat the uſe of the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſm is unlawful, I prove by this Argument:
No Rite meerly Eccleſiaſtical, and of myſtical ſignification, having no Warrant from the Word of God, can be uſed without ſin.
But the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſm is a Rite meerly Eccleſiaſtical, and of myſtical ſignification, having no warrant from Gods Word:
Ergo, It cannot be uſed without ſin.
The Propoſition of this Argument, being in effect the ſame with the Propoſition of the Precedent Argument, (the Croſs and Surplice being Homogenea,) is confirmed by the Reaſons of the foregoing Propoſition. I will therefore with great brevity confirm this Major.
Firſt, Such Rites as are meerly Eccleſiaſtical and myſtical, having no warrant from Gods Word, are falſe worſhip: Otherwiſe we ſhall never be able to convince the Papiſts of Will-worſhip in their Superſtitious Rites. Alſo, all actions, whereby religious duties are taught in Gods publick ſervice, are Worſhip: otherwiſe how can the preaching of the Word be worſhip. But Rites, meerly Eccleſiaſtical and myſtical, &c. do teach us ſpiritual and religious duties. Are they not Worſhip then? Yet not true, for they are not divinely warranted. Of neceſſity therefore they muſt be falſe Worſhip.
Secondly, Such myſtical Rites are Sacraments not approved of God. Sacraments they be, for they are viſible ſigns of an inviſible grace, and have both the parts of a Sacrament, which are ſet down in the common Catechiſm authoriſed by Law. But theſe are not true Sacraments, when God the Author of the Covenant doth not inſtitute them.
Thirdly, Such Rites as are meerly Eccleſiaſtical, and Myſtical, are not diſcernable to be good by the light of Nature; and therefore are to have approbation from Gods Word the rule of Faith: otherwiſe with ſafety of conſcience they cannot be received.
Fourthly, Our Learned Divines ſay, That to bring inſignificant Ceremonies into the Church, is plain Judaiſm. Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart, cap. 8. diviſ. 4. pag. 521. Willet Synopſ. 2. gen. Cont. 24.2. part of the Qu. pag. 110. Edit. 1614.
The Aſſumption now remains to be proved; and in it three things. 1. That the ſign of the Croſſe is meerly Eccleſiaſticall. 2. Of Myſtical ſignification. 3. Without warrant out of God's Word.
Firſt, There is not the leaſt ſhew, to deny the ſign of the Croſſe to be meerly Eccleſiaſtical: For other uſe of the ſign of the Croſſe, than in Baptiſm, we deny. Indeed, anciently it was ordinary in common uſe, as well as in Eccleſiaſtical. So likewiſe it is with the Papiſts: but ordinary Croſſing, morning and evening, is condemned by our Divines: and the Law requireth, urgeth, and alloweth only the uſe of the Croſſe in Baptiſm: wherein if it be not of meer Eccleſiaſtical uſe, what can Ecclefiaſticall uſe be defined to be?
Secondly, Can there be produced any likelihood, or ſhew of truth, to deny the ſign of the Croſſe to be of myſtical ſignification, ſeeing all our Ceremonies are ſuch, as was before ſhewed: and the words of the Common-Prayer-Book do teach as much, ſaying, We receive this Child into the Congregation, &c. and do ſign him with the ſign of the Croſſe, Can. 30.in token that hereafter, &c. And the Canon ſaith, That the Child baptized, is dedicated to God by the ſign of the Croſſe. Theſe things, I ſuppoſe, do prove the ſign of the Croſs to be of myſtical ſignification.
Now it remains, that I ſhew, That this myſtical Rite is without warrant out of the Word of God. This may be proved by theſe Arguments following.
Though the Croſſe, being a Rite of a peculiar nature, ought to ſhew for it ſelf a peculiar and ſpecial Inſtitution; yet it is ſo void of that, that there is not ſo much as a general warrant for it in the Book of God. As the examination of the places cited by the Papiſts, or Proteſtants, will manifeſt.
I omit to mention in this ſhort abridgment,Juſt. Martyr in Tryphone. ſome Inſtances for the Croſſe, though uſed by the Ancients, which have not ſo much as a colour of the truth, and will produce theſe few Inſtances.
(1.) The mark which was ſet in the forehead of the mourners, Ezek. 4.9. is urged to prove the ſign of the Croſs lawful.
Anſw. 1. Tau, tranſlated a mark, doth ſignifie in common any ſign, as Arius Montanus, and Paguin, in their Dictionaries, ſhew. The Vulgar Greek, called the 70, tranſlate it foreign
2. The form of Tau being this η, makes nothing for the Croſs.
3. This was an inviſible mark, and peculiar to the Elect; ſuch as that was, Apoo. 7.3. & 9.4.
(2.) Proteſtarts Object the Altar built on Jordan's bank; the Altar built by Solomon; the Muſick uſed in the Temple; the Love-Feaſts which were in uſe in the Primitive Church; and the Kiſſe of love, as grounds to warrant our uſe of the ſign of the Croſs. To all which Inſtances, I anſwer in order.
Firſt, The Altar that ſtood on Jordan's Bank, was not of Eccleſiaſtical, but of Civil uſe.Biſhop Babbington on the ſecond Commandment. The Tribes confeſs that they had indeed grievouſly ſinned, if they had determined an Altar to the ſame uſe, for which the Lord had ſet up one before. It was a memorial, that they were one people with their brethren, entitled to, and eſtated in the Priviledges of the Lord with them: but it was no myſticall ſign of Chriſt and his grace.
Secondly,Ma. Sutclif. contr Bellar. de Sum. Pont. lib. 1. cip. 6. Franc. Jun. Contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 17. nota. 4. If Solomon built not his new Altar by extraordinary Inſpiration as a Prophet (as one ſaith): Yet he did it out of the equity of Moſes, s Law it ſelf, and was no addition at all of a diverſe kind. And it it moſt certain, That God who by his viſible deſcending, did approve of the whole work of the Temple when it was done, did authorize him for the doing of it; which David's words may alſo confirm, 1 Chro. 28.19.
The Muſick uſed in the Temple, was ſpecially appointed of God, 1 Chron. 16.4. & 2 Chron. 29.5. and both the Altar and it were Typical, tyed to the place of Ceremonies, and continuing but with them.
As concerning the Love-Feaſts, if they were of Apoſtolick Inſtitution, (ordained by the Apoſtles, as they were immediately guided by that Spirit which infallibly did aſſiſt them in their Miniſterial Function) they were Divine, (for it is not Apoſtolick in that ſenſe, and divine the ſame? Dr. Abb. anſwer to W. Biſh. cap. 7. of Tradir. Sect. 4. Fran. Junius animadv. in Bellar. lib. 4. cap. 2. not. 6.) and had a ſpecial appointment from God; which the Croſſe hath not. But if none knoweth by whom they were brought in, yet they are abrogated there by the Apoſtle; where we find firſt mention of them: neither were they of myſtical ſanctification, and are not yet proved to be of meer Eccleſiaſtical uſe.
To conclude, Oſculum pacis, Juſt. Marti Apoc. 2. ad finem. Durant. de rit. lib. 2. cap. 54. Sect. 7.which went before the Solemnity of the Supper, to prepare men to the worthy receiving in Charity, was in tract of time diſliked, and degenerated into the kiſſing of the Pax. This I ſay was a natural indicant Sign of Peace and Reconciliation, as embracing, ſhaking hands, &c. and other the like actions be.
If the Sign of the Croſs be in ſome ancient Writers called Apoſtolick, they are to be underſtood in no other ſenſe than as they called Lent-Faſts, the Creed, Saturdaies, and Wedneſdaies, Faſts-Apoſtolick. Et praecepta Majorum (ſaith Jerom) unaquae que provincia leges Apoſtolicas arbitratur.Jerom. Epiſt. ad Luc.
Moreover, whereas it may ſeem that Conſtantine's Viſion was a divine ratification of the uſe of the Croſs; I anſwer,
1. The Narration is humane and fallible.
2. The words of the Hiſtorian be foreign,Euſeb. de vitâ Conſtan. l. 1. c. 22. Soc. lib. 1. c. 1. which do rather import, In this Chriſt, than in this Sign.
3. The ſight which appeared was, foreign made after the faſhion of a Croſs, foreign &c. foreign, A maerk of Chriſt's Name.
The mark containeth the two firſt Letters of Chriſt's Name, ΧΡ, So that Ρ was made, and Χ by croſſing (as it were) a Spear aſlope, after this manner ΧΡ. Nothing hitherto hath proved the Sign of the Croſs to be warranted by the Word of God; and that which follows will prove that it is meerly humane, if not worſe.
Was not the Heretick Valentinus the begetter of this Sign, who gave it the ſame effective Power that the Papiſts do,Dr. Fulk Arg. in Rhem. Teſt. Luc. 22.5. ex Iraen. l. 1. c. 1. Magdeburg. Cen. 3. cap. 10. as our learned Writer ſaith? Was not Montanus the firſt that gave it credit? Was not Tertullian the chief Inſtrument under him, that ſo much commendeth it, (a man well known to be infamous after his Fall)? Deering on the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, Lect. 2. And did not the Superſtition of the People further the breeding of it up: D. Royn, Confer. with Hart. cap. 8. diviſ. 4. pag. 504.Ambr. in Epiſt. ad Rom. cap. 8. So did it appear, when it was ſaid, Signatos Cruce in morte ſecunda Diabolus tenere non audet: Care ſignatur, ut Anima muniatur. Tettul. de Reſurrect. carnis.
If this be the original of the Sign of the Croſs, the creeping of it into Baptiſm cannot be by divine appointment.
But to conclude, if this Sign be indifferent (as it is acknowledged by the maintainers of it,) then the inſtituting of the uſe of it cannot be more than humane. Out of theſe premiſes it is eaſy to conclude the unlawfulneſs of the Croſs in Baptiſm.
Of Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine.
I Acknowledge that the Supper of the Lord ought to be received with all due Reverence, yet ſo that the rule and meaſure of that reverence be the Word of God, not the Will and Wit of Man: To which rule, becauſe I know not how this kneeling doth agree, therefore I dare not ſubmit to the practice of it.
My Argument againſt it I thus diſpoſe.
No bodily religious Adoration of God, before any Creature, with reſpect unto it, having no allowance from God, can be lawfully uſed:
But kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine, is a bodily religious Adoration of God before a Creature, with reſpect unto it, having no ſpecial allowance from God.
Ergo, It cannot be lawfully uſed.
The Propoſition may be juſtified by four reaſons.Propoſition.
1. The Scriptures are ſo perfect in matters of Worſhip, that they ſhut out all humane Inventions: Therein God blaming what is not according to his Commandment, Lev. 10.1. Jer. 7.31. and 195. his revealed Will being the All-ſufficient Rule of Worſhip, Dout. 12.31, 32. which both ancient Writers (Chryſoſt. in Epist. 2. ad Corinth. Homil. 13. Baſil Epiſt. 80.) and modern alſo do avouch, while they maintain the Scriptures to be the total Rule of Faith and Manners: Proteſtant's Appeal. l. 2. c. 25. Sect. 11. Theſ. Joh Reynolds Theſ. 1. Sect. 3. White's Way, Sect. 5. Digreſ. 3. And many other.
2. Such Worſhip the Propoſition diſalloweth,Hook. Eccleſ. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 3. as Will-worſhip or Superſtition; which is a Religion forged by Man, the root whereof is Ignorance of mind, miſ-guided zeal, and falſe fear. This is and hath been condemned and puniſhed by the Lord, Deut. 12.8. Iſa. 1.12. & 29.13. Mat. 15.9. Lev. 10.1, 2, 3. Numb. 3.4. and judged flat Idolatry both by ancient and modern Writers,Aug de Conſen Evan. l. 1. c. 18. both Orthodox and Popiſh. Dr. Bilſon. Apol. part. 4. pag. 344. Vaſq. de Adorat. lib. 2, Diſput. 1. cap. 3.
3. The ſecond Commandment doth condemn relative Adoration of God without ſpecial Warrant: For it requireth that we worſhip the true God purely, according to his Will. For the better underſtanding of it, obſerve two things to be forbidden in this Commandment.
1. The making of an Image for religious uſe, and under this by a Trope (wherein a part is put for the whole) all Forms of Worſhip deviſed by Man, are forbidden.
2. The adoring of an Image, or Form of Worſhip of his own head: So that if a man make an Image for ſacred uſe, though he do not actually adore it, yet is he a Tranſgreſſor of this Law. If of his own head he bow down to any form of Worſhip, though he did not deviſe it, yet is he an Offender.
If any ſhould ſay, That the Lord hath forbidden making of an Image or Form of Worſhip, and the worſhipping and ſerving of that onelyonly which he deviſed, but not the adoring of God's own Ordinance; he doth ſo ſtreighten the ſenſe of the Law, that Popiſh Adoration of the Sacrament would eſcape the cenſure of this Law,Proteſ. Appeal. l. 4. c. 29. S. 3. White's Way pag. 519. and ſo ſhould be unjuſtly blamed in the Papiſts: Alſo he openeth a gap to the Jews to have worſhipped Manna, and all the Sacrifices of the Law; and to Chriſtians, with religious Worſhip bodily to adore the Bible, Baptiſm, yea, the Miniſter himſelf, without Impeachment of this Commandment: It cannot then be denyed, but that relative Adoration of God before his Ordinances, with reſpect to them without ſpecial licence, is here forbidden. Learned Divines have laid this down as an Axiom in Divinity,Dr. Reynolds of Stage-Playes. That a Negative precept ſtandeth in all the parts of it in force, except the Lord of the Law lay down ſo plain a diſpenſation of the Law, or any branch of it, that a Man's Conſcience upon good grounds may reſt perſwaded, that God doth exempt him from the Power of his Law, in this or that particular caſe;Pſal. 99.5. C…lv Piſcat. Vatabl. Muſcul. in loc. as the Jews were diſpenſed with by ſpecial Appointment, requiring they ſhould worſhip their God before the Ark and Temple, in ſuch a ſenſe as they did not before their Sacraments, and other legal Rites. Fulk againſt Rhem. in Heb. 11.…. De lib. Concord. Admon. Chriſt. cap. 11. Perkins Treatiſe of Divine and relig. Worſhip.
4, The Brazen Serpent, ſet up by the appointment of God,Numb. 21.8. Joh. 3.15. Exod. 32.4. Judg. 3.13. 2 King. 10.26, 27. Dr. Re…nolds lib. 2. de Idol. cap. 2. S. 5. was a lively Type of Chriſt, was reſerved as a memorial of ſpecial divine Mercy, and in proceſs of time the Jews did worſhip God reſpectively before it, not determining their Worſhip in it; as may be gathered from Examples in Scripture compared, and from the Judgment of the learned: yet becauſe they offered Incenſe before it to God, without ſpecial Warrant, their Fact was condemned, and the brazen Serpent demoliſhed.
The Propoſition being confirmed,Aſſumpt. the Aſſumption is to be proved. In the proof whereof four things are to be inſiſted upon.
1. That kneeling in the Act of Receiving, &c. is a Worſhip.
2. No civil but a religious Worſhip.
3. That it is a relative Adoration of God, before a Creature with reſpect unto it.
4. There is no ſpeciall Warrant, nor Appointment from God for it.
Concerning the firſt branch, That kneeling is a Worſhip.
1. It is a geſture of the body, uſed to teſtify, ſignify, and ſhadow out the inward and hidden Act of the mind to ſome perſon or thing.Perkins Caſe of Conſc. l. 2. cap. 11. Sect. 1. This the learned acknowledge to be Worſhip.
2. If a man ſhould bow in ſuch ſort, as he doth in the Sacrament unto God, Pſal. 95.6. to his Prince, 1 King. 1.23, 31. to his Parents, Exod. 20.12. to the Chair of State; to an Angel, Gen. 18.2. & 19.1. Rev. 19.10. to his Superiour, Gen. 33.3, 6. & 42.6, 9. compared with 37.7, 9. yea, to an Idol, is he not ſaid to give Worſhip to that whereto he kneeleth?
3. Reverend kneeling and bowing of the body is expreſſed by ſuch words in the Scripture, that ſignify outward Worſhip,Scultetus de Precatione par. 2. & Concor. Graec. de voce foreign. as foreign. Gen. 18.2. & 23.7. Mat. 2.8, 11.
4. The Evangeliſt Mark recording the Story of the Leper that came to Chriſt, ſaith, that he kneeled down, Chap. 1.40. Luke ſaith that he fell on his face, Chap. 5.12. and Matthew, that he worſhipped, Chap. 8.2.
Laſtly, Kneeling in the act of receiving is not intended by urgers, or obeyers, for eaſe, or civil furtherance. It's no geſture of neceſſity, as it is in them, who being lame, kneel,1 Sam. 9.22. becauſe they can do no otherwiſe. Neither is it a geſture of order to kneel at a Feaſt, whether Spiritual, or Corporal; and what order can there be when moſt do ſit or ſtand to attend the Word read, to ſing Pſalms, meditate, &c. that the perſon communicating ſhould kneel. But if that be true which ſome have ſaid,foreign. that the Greek words uſed by the Evangeliſt, ſpeaking of the geſture uſed by the Lord Jeſus in his Paſſover, and conſequently alſo in his Supper, do rather ſignify kneeling than ſitting; a man might have ſome colour to avouch, that nature, reaſon, and cuſtome, taught rather to kneel at ſome Feaſts, than to ſit or ſtand.foreign. But the truth is, that the Evangeliſt uſe two words to expreſs the geſture of our Saviour. The one is ordinarily rendred, ſitting, as may be ſeen in theſe places, Matth. 9.10. and 26.7.20. Mark 14.18. and 16.14. Luke 11.37. and 22.27. Joh. 6.11. or gueſts, Matth. 22.10, 11. or ſuch as are at a Table, Joh. 13.28. and ſcarce more than once it's tranſlated lying down, Mark 5.40. and once leaning, Joh. 13.28. The former of theſe not concerning any geſture, and the latter ſhewing their nationall manner and faſhion of ſitting.
The other word is tranſlated,foreign ſitting, Matth. 15.35. Mark 6.40. and 8.6. Luke 11.37. and 14.10. and 17.7. and 22.14. Joh. 6.10. and 13.12. and, it may be, not above once otherwiſe, Joh. 21.20. Theſe words are tranſlated ſitting by our Engliſh Tranſlators,Joh. R…yn. plect. 79. pag. 941, 942. Annot. Bez. in Joh. 13.23. as in the late Tranſlation in the Geneva, and in that of the great Bibles to which we were tyed by Law to ſubſcribe. Beza, Piſcator, Arias Montanus, the vulgar Interpreter, the Doctors of Rhemes, do thus tranſlate them: and do not Grecians know, that theſe words do properly note the geſture of ſitting? Indeed the faſhion of ſitting in the Oriental parts,Perk. Caſe of Conſc. l. 2. c. 11. S. 1. And Com. in Matth. 4.9. was different from that that is uſed in the Northern Climates; but National circumſtances carry not the nature of geſture. I conclude then, that ſeeing this kneeling is not a geſture of neceſſity, eaſe, order, or civill furtherance; it is a geſture of reverence and worſhip.
Secondly, kneeling in the act, &c. is a Religious worſhip; for all bodily worſhip is Civil, or Religious. Civill is ſuch as is performed to the Inhabitants of the ſame ſociety, as of man to man in reſpect of ſuperiority in office,Perk. Caſe, l. 2. c. 11. Sect. 1. age, or gifts. This is performed by man, but to ſuch with whom he doth converſe, and then onelyonly to Angells when they had viſible communion with man. Such civill adoration, kneeling in the act of receiving, is not: for what finite ſocial object is there preſent at the Communion, to which kneeling ſhould be performed? To worſhip man at that time with ſuch ſolemn worſhip, is to worſhip God by the halves, if not to give that to man which God doth appropriate to himſelf. Humane Authority commanding this geſture, doth not make it civil, no more then it makes Prayers, &c. civill actions, by enjoyning them to be made. Seeing this is not a civill geſture, it muſt needs be Religious.
2. Religious adoration, as it is an oppoſite member to civil, is Spiritual and unlimitted in all places, at all times, and in all thing…, cauſing him that worſhippeth to adore before that which is worſhiped, and this is performed to God, or ſomething that is reputed and worſhipped as God. Of this kind is the kneeling in queſtion, as the chief Patrons of conformity do aver, ſaying,Whitg. def. p. 598. tract. 15. c. 1. Div. 2. that it is the meeteſt and fitteſt in reſpect of Prayer and Thankſgiving.
It is a geſture of Piety, and more neceſſary in this act than in any other. Hook. Eccleſ. Pol. lib. 5. S. 68. Cov. againſt Burg. p. 143. Of this kneeling, the Book of Common Prayer Authorized by King Edward the 6th, ſaith, it is commanded for ſignification of the humble and gratefull acknowledgment of the benefits of Chriſt given to the worthy receiver. Add further, that ſuch kneeling as this, done to Idolls, would be an Idolatrous worſhip; which could not be, except it were a Religious worſhip.
To conclude, bowing the knee doth ſometimes in the Scripture note the whole worſhip of God. Pſal. 95.6. 1 King. 19.18. Eſay 45.23. Rom. 14.10. Phil. 2.11. Epheſ. 3.14. Hoſ. 13.2. From all this, the concluſion may be inferred, that kneeling in the act of receiving is a Religious worſhip.
This kneeling is a relative adoration of God before a Creature, with reſpect unto it. The Sacrament is a conſecrated Creature, and before the Sacramental Bread and Wine, we are required to bow. In the intention of the Law, and in the opinion of the moſt people, there is a relation had in the very act of bowing unto the Sacrament, though it be not the object in which they purpoſe their adoration ſhould determine. Is there not the like reſpect as the Papiſts have, when they kneel, or knock their breaſts before a Croſs, or Crucifix, &c?
The act of kneeling, and the Circumſtances thereof, do convince, that there is ſuch a relation: for we are allowed to ſit, or ſtand meditating, or ſinging Pſalms, &c. untill we be about to receive the Sacramental Bread and Wine, and when it is given by the Miniſter to be received by us; Law requires that we ſhould reverently fall down on our knees, and the practice of moſt is ſutable ther…to. Searce is there (if any) more viſible ſign and token to the eye of the ſpectator, to convince the Papiſts of adoration of the Sacrament, than this our bowing at this time is to declare that there is an actual reverence had to the Sacrament when we kneel to God before it. If a man were not onelyonly to bow before it, but to it, what could he do more? If, in this ſenſe, and after this manner, a man ſhould bow to an Image; would not wiſe men judg this act an adoring of the Image, or of God before it? The Book of Common Prayer of Edward the 6th, enjoyneth this poſture to avoid the profanation of the Sacrament.
The urgers and maintainers of kneeling,Th. Hutton. part. 2. p. 54.56. Eccl. regim. p. 140. Spar. perſwaſ. to unifor. c. 4. Th. Hurt. part. 2. pag. 62. tell us in plain tearms, That kneeling is done to the Bread and Wine, not ſimply, but as reſembling Chriſt; that none is ſo ſottiſh to adore the ſign, but the thing repreſented by that ſign; that our bowing is an outward reverence meet to be performed, becauſe of the holy action in hand; that its done to keep the Sacrament in reverence, &c. and that we kneel to put difference between ordinary Bread and Wine, and theſe Sacramental, to which we give more reverence, becauſe its more then ordinary Bread and Wine; and partly to ſtir up in our ſelves and others a more Religious eſtimation of theſe Divine Seals, partly to remove all profane thoughts of contemners and deſpiſers of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord Jeſus; partly to put a difference hereby from our common bread and Wine which we take in our houſes, and at our Tables; and partly to teach us to lift up our hearts to God to bleſs his own Ordinance. In a word, Articles have been put into, and allowed in Eccleſiaſticall Courts, which have charged the Miniſters to have delivered the Sacrament unreverently to the people, not kneeling. To omit the opinion of the vulgar, who come, as they ſay themſelves, to receive their Maker; or who place holineſs in the outward bowing, and have relation to the Sacramentall Signs, which yet addeth ſome ſtrength to the matter in hand.Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 5. I conclude with Mr. Hooker, who ſaith well, In actions of this kind, we are more to reſpect what the greateſt part of men is prone to conceive, then what ſome few mens wits may deviſe in conſtruction of their own particular meaning.
Now it remains that I aſſay to prove, that kneeling in the act of receiving, hath no ſpecial warrant from the Word. This geſture being proved to be a relative adoration of God before a conſecrated Creature, it is of a ſpecial and peculiar nature and uſe, and therefore ought to have a peculiar warrant from God to authorize it, otherwiſe geſtures of this kind cannot be uſed in Faith; for theſe are not diſcernable by the light of Nature; neither can the general rules of the Scripture yield ground for ſuch. When the act done is of ſpecial nature, it muſt have a peculiar direction. The Jews did not worſhip towards the High Prieſt, or his Attire,Exod. 12.11. Exod. 15.16. Exod. 12.11. 1 Cor. 5.7. and 10.3, 4. towards the Paſchal Lamb, the Manna, the water of the Rock, or their Sacrifices, in that ſenſe as they did before the Ark of the Covenant, or the Mercy-ſeat in the Tabernacle, or in the Temple, although theſe holy things were Types of Chriſt. Nature could not teach, neither yet any general rules in the Scripture why, before one rather than before another, they ſhould bow; therefore for this peculiar adoration, there was a ſpecial appointment.Numb. 21.8. When the Iſraelites alſo were ſtinged with fiery Serpents, they looked up at the Brazen Serpent which was a Type of Chriſt, that they might be healed, but this was by ſpecial direction.
Now as for kneeling in the act of receiving, who can ſhew any peculiar inſtitution. Moreover, Canonical kneeling is not authoriſed by Gods Word, nor by any general rule.
1. Both maintainers and urgers of this geſture, ſay, it is indifferent; and that it was ſo reputed by the State, appears by this, that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, ſtanding was ordained at Coventry and Northampton, by vertue of her Highneſs Commiſſion, and kneeling aboliſhed.
2. Chriſt and his Apoſtles at the firſt inſtitution of the Communion, did not kneel; which they would have done,Matth. 26.20, 26. Mar. 14.18.22. Luk. 22.14.17. Joh. 13.12. if this geſture had been divinely ratified.
3. The Apoſtles after Chriſt's Reſurrection delivered nothing concerning the Lords Supper, but what they received of the Lord. 1 Cor. 11.23. and yet delivered the whole counſell of God, Act. 20.20.27. but yet ſay nothing of kneeling; which doubtleſs they would have done if it had been a divine Ordinance. Kneeling is not of that antiquity to have ground or inſtitution by the Apoſtles. That mention which may ſeem to be of it in Origen, Homil. 5. in diverſ. Evang. loca.is nothing, the book being counterfeit. Rob. Cocus in Cenſuram quorundam veterum Script. pag. 13.
Gorgonia, her bowing before the Communion Table, or Altar, was in the night intended for Prayer,Sozem. lib. 8. cap. 5. not to receive the Sacrament.
About the year of our Lord 157,Euſeb. Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 7. cap. 8, or 9. Bez. Tractar. the large Vol. 3. Part. 183. De Coron. milit. cap. 3. Can. 20. De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. Gentillettus exam. concil. Triden. lib. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 44. Dr Fulk. anſw. to Rhem. 1 Cor. 11.29. Sect. 2.4 Jewel's reſp. artic. 8. diviſ. 1. Zach. Urſ. common. Chitr. conſid. error. 3. conſid. Bale in the Life of Honorius 3. Tho. Mort. Pret. Appeal. lib. 4. cap. 29. Sect. 3. Hiſpin. Hiſt. Sacra. part. 1. lib. 4. Francis While's anſw. to the Treatiſe called, White dyed black part. 2. p. 347. Perk. Idol. of laſt times, laſt particular, &c. Willet Synopſ. contr. 13. q. 4. pag. 649. edit. 1614. John White's way to the true Church Sect. 50. Num. 9. Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. it may appear that Standing was uſed at the Communion.
About the year 160, Juſtin Martyr giveth not the leaſt inkling of this Geſture, but mentioneth the Peoples coming to the Table.
Tertullian (who was about 180 or 200 years after Chriſt) reports, That in his time they uſed not to kneel at prayer upon any Lords Day, or upon any other Day between Eaſter and Whitſuntide.
In the Council of Nice 327, a ſolemn Decree was made, That none might pray kneeling, but ſtanding, upon the Lords Day: This continued in Baſil's time, (if that Book was his) Anno Domini, 380, and was afterward confirmed by the ſixth Council holden at Conſtantinople. So that either the antient Churches never received the Sacrament on the Lords Day (which is without controverſy moſt falſe), or they uſed a Geſture of greater reverence in receiving the Sacramentall Bread and Wine than they did at prayer, (whereof there is no likelihood); or elſe it muſt be granted, That they were accuſtomed to receive the Communion with ſome other Geſture than kneeling.
Anno 380, in Gregory Nazianzen's time, the People ſtood at the Communion about the Table. I will for brevity omit other pertinent Teſtimonies for this purpoſe which he that will may read in the Acts and Monuments in the difference between the Church of Rome, that now is and the antient. The ſum of Paul's Doctrine delivered to the Gentiles, &c. Alſo in the Dialogue between Cuſtom and Truth, pag. 1264. Edit. 1610.
To draw to an end, very many of our learned Worthies do affirm, That odoration, or bowing before the Sacrament came into uſe, in the dayes of Honorius the third. But whatſoever the Original of it was, That which I have ſpoken ſheweth that it is but a humane Tradition. Seeing therefore that kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacramentall Bread and Wine, is a religious adoration of God, before a conſecrated Creature with reſpect unto it, having no ſpeciall Warrant out of the Word of God, it cannot be uſed without ſin.
Hitherto of the Arguments directly concluding the unlawfulneſs of the controverted Rites. Now follow the conſiderations for which our requeſt not to be urged unto conformity, may ſeem reaſonable.
1. It was not the intent of the Statute by which the Ceremonies ſtand in force to perpetuate the uſe of them, but onelyonly to tolerate them out of hope of a fitter time of reformation. This Law was not intended to be reverſed, or the benefit thereof to denyed,In the Procla. prefixed, and ſet before the Book of Canons. though the Proclamation of his Highneſs did ratify the Authority of the Biſhops to make Eccleſiaſtical Canons, as the words of that Proclamation do import; — moſt humbly deſiring us to give our royal aſſent unto the ſaid Canons.
2. Non-conformity proceeding from fear of ſinning againſt God,Treatiſe of Ceremonies prefixed before the Book of Common-prayer. And Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. B. Bilſon. ag a. Apol. part. 2. pag. 349. Mort. anſw. to the Popiſh demands. Demand. 30. is neither contempt, nor ſcandall; and therefore may be allowed favour in the eye of the Law. If a bare omiſſion of a Rite were contempt, then all that uſe Bowling which the Law diſſalloweth, and do not were Caps and ſuch Habits as the Statute enjoyneth, ſhall be Contemners. Where we dare not do, we are ready without reſiſting to ſuffer; and ſuffering is as ſure a Sign of ſubjection, as obeying. In ſome caſes, the Law is ſatisfied by ſubmitting a mans ſelf to the Mulct. Neither is forbearance a ſcandall, becauſe it afford, no hurtfull concluſion, which may be naturally and neceſſarily thence deduced; except as much and more, may be deduced from ſome Conformities, that do not uſe the Ceremonies ſo oft as the Law requireth. The rayling Inferences of ſome malicious Papiſts, are but meer inconſequences; and do not proceed from our forbearance, but from their malice.
3. The uſe of Ceremonies ought to be free. This the Law ſeemeth probably to import,Jewel of the private Maſs tract. 2. div. 9. in the end of his anſw. Stat. 13. Eliz. cap. 12 which enjoyneth ſubſcription with this exception to the Articles of Religion, which onelyonly concern the confeſſion of the true Chriſtian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments. This practice (onelyonly) limits ſubſcription to the things expreſſed, leaving as it may ſeem other things at liberty. Neither was there any hurt that came to the Church of God by the free uſe of the Ceremonies in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign.Sir Edward Cook his ſpeech at Garnet's Arraignment. P. Mart. Epiſt. cuidam in Angl. Scripta an. 1559 Vide loc com. p. 1225. Bucer. cenſura. Mr. Caſaubon Mr. Hooker. Eccleſ. Pol. 1. Lib. 5. Sect. 67. For the ſpace of 10 years Papiſts came generally to the Church, but ſince the urging of theſe Rites, they have not been ſo forward. This God hath not bleſſed the impoſing of them, as the leaving of them free.
4. Worthy men, the maintainers of theſe Rites in the Dayes of King Edward; (viz.) Peter Martyr, and Bullinger, upon better conconſideration, did retract their Judgments.
Forraign Divines diſallow theſe Rites, and may not we be ſuffered to doubt of them?
5. Since the urging of theſe Ceremonies, theſe Points have ſprung up for the defence of them; (viz.) The Churche's Authority binds the Conſcience, That it's not to be enquired into, whether Chriſt be preſent in the Sacrament by Conſubſtantiation or Tranſubſtantiation, and that it doth no way hinder or further us, however it ſtandeth. That relative adoration of God before a Creature with reſpect unto it, without ſpeciall Warrant, may be lawful, &c. May not this breed ſome doubt of the quality of the cauſe, that is by great Schollars thus maintained?
6. As yet we have nothing to ſettle our doubting-conſciences upon, but th…ſe two Points, which yet are not without ſome doubt.
1. That the Rites impoſed are indifferent.
2. That in ſuch things, the Churche's or Magiſtrate's Authority binds the Conſcience.
Yet are we taught that no individual Action is indifferent, (Thom. Mort. Apolog. Lib. 1. Cap. 47.) indifferency reſting in the general Nature, (Aquin. 1.2, 18. Artic. 97. That, particulares Magistratuum leges mullum habent in conſcientias dominatum. Whitak. contra Duraeum. Lib. 8. Sect. ultim. That no man incurreth the guilt of Damnation, but by breaking the Laws of God. Dr. Pield of the Church, Lib. 4. Cap. 33. to which purpoſe ſome other Worthies do write: Perkin's Treatiſe of Conſcience, Cap. 2. Sect. 7. in the end. If it ſhould be ſaid that the uſe of the Vail, 1 Cor. 11. may afford Warrant unto us, for ſuch Rites as are in Queſtion. We are to conſider, That the uſe of the Vail was in ordinary uſe, not in meer Eccleſiaſtical uſe, Gen. 24.65. Alſo it was not not a Symbolicall Sign, but a Natural indicant Sign of modeſty. This conſidered, doth not our humble ſuit ſeem reaſonable, that till theſe Propoſitions be better cleared, we may be foreborn?
7. Reſolution in matter of Ceremonies is not eaſy, becauſe the holy Scriptures which in weightier matters is clear, is more dark in things of leſſer moment. So that the Media to be uſed in Argument either for,Calvin. inſtit. Lib. 4. Cap. 10. Sect. 8. Beza Epiſt. 24. Zanch. de operib. Redemp. cap. 4. de cultu …tern. qu. 4. Dr. White's defence. p. 287. or againſt, the Ceremonies are difficult to be found out: Hence it is, That from the beginning there have been great Controverſies, and that among the greateſt, in matter of Ceremonies; as Bellarm. ſaith, De effect. Sacram. Lib. 2. Cap. 3.
8. Are learned Proteſtants deceived or not, when they ſay, Popiſh Ceremonies are to be condemned, becauſe there is an opinion of holineſs, neceſſity, and worſhip annexed, wherewith they are urged? Or can our's be freed from this holineſs or neceſſity, ſeeing they are reputed religious Rites, and urged under a great penalty, both upon Miniſter and People, as the Canons ſhew.
9. Laſtly, If this Propoſition be true that is given and agreed of by the Learned; Rites of meer humane Invention, of no neceſſary uſe, antiently abuſed to Idolatry, now ſuperſtitiouſly uſed among many ignorant perſons, are to be aboliſhed: It is a worthy labour to reſolve us that our Ceremonies be not ſuch. We are taught,Dr. Willet Synopſ. 2. Gen. Contr. qu. 3. part. 2. p. 110. Edit. 1614. Tho: Rogers his expoſ. of the 39. artic. Act. 20. pag. 101. 102. that Ceremonies to be in the Church, muſt not be in nature impious, in uſe ſuperſtitions; for their weight not over heavy, and grievous to be born; that for their worthineſs in the eyes of the Ordainers, they be neither of an equall prize, nor of more account then the Ordinances of God, ſo as, for the performance of them, the Law of God muſt be left undone; that they be not againſt the liberty of Chriſtians, or any way contrary to the Commandment of God: but tend both to the nouriſhing and increaſe of Love, friendſhip and quietneſs among Chriſtians, and retaining of God's People in God's holy fear, &c.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Cotton, Some Treasure Fetched out of Rubbish (1660)