.
An Answer Rejoined to that much Applauded Pamphlet of a Nameless Author [William Ames], bearing this title: viz. A Reply to Dr. Morton’s General Defence of Three Nocent Ceremonies, etc. the Innocency & Lawfulness whereof is again in this Rejoinder Vindicated
.
By Dr. John Burges
Pastor of Sutton Coldfield in Warwickeshire
Published by his Majesty’s special command.
.
Zech. 8:19, “Love the truth and peace.”
.
London, Printed by Augustine Matthewes for Robert Milbourne, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul’s Churchyard at the Sign of the Grayhound, 1631
.
.
Table of Contents
Epistle Dedicatory
Preface
Qualifications of Subscription
Introduction
Answer to Ames’s Preface
Answer to the Reply to Morton’s General Defence
[Unfinished]
.
The Epistle Dedicatory
.
To the most high and mighty Prince Charles [I], by the grace of God King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Fatih, etc.
.
Most gracious and dread Sovereign,
It pleased your excellent Majesty by your letters to me vouchsafed, both to signify your Highness dislike of my suppressing what I had written some years past in maintenance of the reverend father the lord bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, his Defence of the Ceremonies of this Church of England, against an intemperate and scurrilous Reply made thereunto by a nameless author: and also straightly to charge me forthwith to deliver my papers on that subject into the hands of the said reverend bishop, my diocesan, that it might be seen how well I had vindicated the honor both of this Church and of that worthy prelate from the calumnies and indignities cast upon both by that Replier.
In dutiful obedience to that your Majesty’s injunction, I have so done; not keeping back any part of what I had then finished, nor presuming to stay it loner in my hands till the rest might have been added, for fear of incurring your Majesty’s displeasure. And now, that my Rejoinder (even unperfect as it was) has taken life and motion from the breath of your Majesty’s command, it comes abroad into the world.
Concerning which, I humbly crave leave of your excellent Majesty to protest (taking God Himself to witness) that I have therein sincerely followed the dictates of my conscience, labored to give (if God please) satisfaction to such as are wavering and doubtful of those matters, and to express my due respects unto the honor of this Church, by avouching of this branch of truth against the opinions of some; as also, of that most learned father, by declaring his integrity and solidity in that his Defense, against an impetuous adversary. All which I have to mine ability performed, without any aim either at advantages to myself, or at the detriment or just grievance of any contrary-minded.
Touching them (especially the moderate peaceable ones amongst them) I hold myself bound to pray, that as they are true and zealous professors with us of the same apostolical Faith, whereof God has established your Majesty under Christ, the supreme Defender within your kingdoms; so it may please God, by these my poor labors, or any other good means, to reduce them to uniformity with us, in observing the constitutions of this Church in matters of external order and discipline. Which, if God shall grant, they and we both shall rejoice: for he that is overcome of the truth, parts victory with him that overcomes, and has the better share for his part.
And now, most dread Sovereign, am I challengeable to myself, most humbly to crave of your Majesty, first your Majesty’s gracious acceptance of mine obedience to your Highness pleasure; and then a double pardon, one of my former slackness about this work; the other, of my present boldness in adventuring to dedicate so mean a piece to so great a Majesty.
So shall your Majesty’s humble petitioner be yet further bound and encouraged to enlarge his daily prayers to God Almighty for your Majesty, that your government may be long and happy on earth; and your glory endless in Heaven by Jesus Christ: as also, by all due observances to show himself always your Majesty’s most faithful and devoted subject, John Burges.
.
.
The Preface of the Answerer [Burges]
.
The Churches of Christ consisting of men which see not all by one measure of light, could yet never be, nor ever will be freed from difference of opinions, especially in these things which are not so punctually revealed, as are all the necessary matters of Faith in the word of God. And so long as we live in the flesh, we all labor more or less of self-love and pride, the one whereof makes us love the children of our own brains; and the other impatient of opposition. Hence (the malice of Satan blowing the coals) great contentions have arisen even from light occasions, as great fires from small sparks of fire.
Of which, if we find in the primitive Churches even while the holy apostles lived and shined in the glory of doctrine, sanctimony and miracles, such impressions that the stronger despised the weaker, as ignorant of Christian liberty; the weaker condemned the stronger, as men over-licentious in the matters of indifferent nature, as of meats and days (Rom. 14:12, see Beza and Piscator on the place): It is no marvel, if after those times, we find the world on fire about the observance of the memorial day of Christ’s Resurrection, called the Feast of Easter; and less marvel, if in this last age of the world, wherein charity is more cooled, and iniquity more abounding (Mt. 24:12), we find brethren of the same household of faith, divided, yea biting and devouring one another.
At the Reformation of religion, some learned and godly men were of opinion, that in detestation of the Popish superstition which had overspread and soiled al the worship of God, the best way was to go as far from the Church of Rome as possibly might be: others, no less learned and godly than they, thought it better to depart no further from the Romish Church than she had departed from the right way; partly, that they that would might step over from them to us the more easily; partly, that our departure from them, might appear to be made rather of necessity than of choice, and not for things which might be tolerated, but for things intolerable. Both aimed at one mark, but did not shoot after one compass; and the wiser sort and more pious, pleased themselves, and were not displeased with others in this difference.
But as in Germany, [Flavius] Illyricus, a man learned, but of a stirring and impetuous spirit (so Thuanus notes him, anno 1567; Beza, in the Life of Calvin, in anno 1549; Acts of the Interim, after alleged; Moller, Preface in Ps. 132), and some others of his party and temper, took fire and threw out fireballs against Melanchthon, Capito and Pomeran, and others the chiefest lights of Germany, for permitting the use of a surplice, etc. So in this land, for that and some other like ceremonies, great clamors and tragical conflicts have agitated and much afflicted the Churches thereof, yea and still do in sundry places (though not in all) to the great detriment of religion, and advantage of our common adversaries. Neither are we yet so happy, after above threescore years wrastling, as either the one to cast out the apples of contention, or the other, to find the reasons or necessity of being quiet. Yea, while both parts stand persuaded of their claim and title, and neither think enough of allaying that heat which does foment our strife more than the original matter itself, it comes to pass that fuel is brought to the fire still, and that opposition begets more opposition, and what has been done to purge out, has only stirred and sharpened the humor.
The outcries of some few in the first years of our late famous Queen Elizabeth did sharpen her, and she the bishops against them who opposed; whence even then (as appears by a letter sent by the superintendents of Scotland to the bishops of England) some were silenced and deprived, even when the preachers were but few in number, and might full ill be spared.
This pressure helped to beget the Admonitions of the parliament; those Admonitions, Answers; those Answers, Relies; those Replies begot requiring of subscription (which first was only to Articles of our Religion) unto the Books of Common Prayer and Ordination, and that subscription engendered more biting oppositions, those oppositions more vehement means of repression. Thus was the strife bandied from one to another, and holds up still.
Our late Sovereign, the learned King James, after the Conference at Hampton Court, resolved to make an end of this whirlwind by strengthening the one part more, and requiring a hotter assault of laws upon the other: at which time some peaceable and very worthy ministers were cast out of their service; whereby it was intended either to bring them in by a kind of necessity or to loosen from them such as depended more upon their examples than upon any other grounds of reason.
But so far was this course from attaining the desired effect in all that I am sure more violent books and invectives against those ceremonies have been since published than in twice twenty years before: and of some of those which yet hold off from conformity, the spirits are more embittered than when they were less restrained by execution of laws.
When Master Cartwright (a man very learned, godly and sharp) had whetted his wits and pen against some of them, yet he professed to oppose them as inconvenient, not as unlawful; and therefore persuaded ministers rather to wear the garments than cease their ministry (Second Reply, pp. 262-63), and teaches men to receive the sacrament kneeling, if they cannot have it otherwise, because though that gesture be (as he takes it) incommodious, yet it is not (says he) simply unlawful. ([Latin] See Harmony of the Evangelists, in Luke, vv. 14 & 19, all after alleged)
But they which have written of later times against them, undertake to prove them simply unlawful, either to be imposed or used; yea, will-worship, idolothytes, idolatries, idols, nay devils, as Master Parker calls them in his passionate and gaudy Treatise of the Cross, the Abridgment; Master Bradshaw’s Twelve Arguments, the book called, The Old Protestant and the New Formalist, the Altar of Damascus, and others, and namely, that Reply with which I join issue, do all stand upon this tenet, That they are simply unlawful to be used, and that the ministers of Christ ought to bear silencing and deprivation, whatever waste happen to the churches, or loss to themselves, rather than conform; Yea, and the people rather not to receive the sacrament of our Lord’s body and blood than to receive it kneeling: all which must follow, if they be simply unlawful. For we may not do evil, that good may come thereof (Rom. 3:8). And though not a few of those ministers which refused conformity in their own persons do quietly suffer it in their own sons (which is argument sufficient to prove that they do not believe so ill of these ceremonies as those books speak, seeing they loe the salvation of their own children as they ought), yet many of the poor people hold these conceits strongly and passionately, and esteem any minister, however gifted and painful in his calling, however blameless and exemplary in his conversation, to be a corrupt man, a time-server, a Formalist, or at the least a man blinded and deceived through ignorance. Some are now resolved that a godly Christian woman may not lawfully give her herself in marriage to one of them, as if they were the children of a strange God. They doubt whether they may rely upon the ministry of such an one, of which, if he do not conform, they doubt not at all. Yea, some think it a piece of great godliness to go out of the church if a surplice be then worn, and some charge their children on their blessing, so to do. Some scarcely will hear their own preaching ministers that are for conformity, if within some miles they may go to hear a far weaker, who is against it.
If (for shame) they dare not deny them to have excellent gifts, yet they limit the use of them only to the breeding of knowledge, or reprehension of some gross faults, but that their ministry, as well as other men’s that conform not, may work faith and repentance to salvation, they will not easily acknowledge, yea some flatly deny (see Dighton’s book).
Nay, so far does this conceit carry some men, that they scarce will give a friendly countenance or salutation to any of different mind: and these do commonly call any small company of their own party, the Church, and the Christians of such a town, as if Christ were (I say not) divided betwixt us, but wholly taken away from us to them; and what wants this of schism in the heart?
I would by no means have this understood of all, which either use not or like not of these ceremonies in question; for I know there be some such learned, moderate, godly and loving [persons], whom with all my heart I also love and honor. But sure I am that this Serpigo spreads upon too many; and I fear that they who know that it cannot be justified, nor ought to be suffered, yet use not any such quick remedies as this disease requires, but are too indulgent to them, even only because they accord with them in the root of this division: viz. the dislike of these things, as of things simply evil, which is their partiality.
That many upon this groundwork build the doctrine and practice of Separation from this Church, is nothing so strange to me, as that all of that mind do not so: for if these be idolatrous will-worships, how can, how dare they join with us in those acts and exercises of religion which now we groan under, that all good behavior is scorned of many as a matter of Puritanism, and so termed.
Moreover, diverse [persons] in detestation of the strictness of some men in these matters of ceremonies, have declined also all strictness of conversation, which some such men do follow, and imagine their damnable looseness to be defensible, by the only accusation or scorn of some men’s preciseness where it needs not. And they again, who observe the unexcusable debosheries of many which oppose their inconformity, do strengthen themselves the more in that their preciseness. So as each party is the worse for this opposition, and the more confirmed in their mistakings, which should be reformed in each of them.
And hence also has it come, that while men have receded further and further one from another, without due circumspection, some of both sides have fallen into fearful extremities, such as lay nearest to their way: some on the one side to Separation and to Anabaptism; others to Popery or Neutrality, and in effect, Atheism, in words confessing a Godhead, in deeds denying it.
As for other evils, as the alienation or abatement of affections, even in the nearest bonds of society, and the souring of men’s minds towards their governors, in whom they cannot so heartily rejoice as they ought, while they take them to be the imposers of idolatrous ceremonies, I will not insist thereupon; not because it is a light matter, but because I neither do desire, nor would be thought willing to sharpen the sword of authority against them. Only this must I say, I heartily desire my Brethren to think, whether these their extremities do not, or may not tempt our prince and governors, and solicit them to courses inconvenient; yea, if it may not induce them to dislike anything which such sharp spirits do like, as if all which such men affect or follow, came out of rigid preciseness, and nothing out of true judgment.
I have hitherto discoursed of the mischiefs which have, do, or may follow upon this our civil war about ceremonies; I were a happy man if I could as certainly prescribe the cure, as I have truly discerned the symptoms: especially, if the same remedies might be applied. But as I am not so conceited as to think I have found out the way, nor so rash as to prescribe, yet I humbly crave leave to utter my thoughts, and subject them to the judgment of others.
To make a perfect cure is one thing; a palliate, or partial cure another.
A perfect cure cannot (I suppose) be expected, but by one of two ways, whereof the one is supposed much more easy than the other: that is to say, the former, which is the taking of this question out of the way, by those in authority, if they shall find that to be the better way: And to such it belongs to consider, as in God’s presence, not only what is lawful, but what is most expedient; And whether the keeping of a just possession be then best, when it costs more than ever it will be worth. Howbeit, to judge what is most convenient, and to determine thereof, belongs only to those, which together with the power of doing what they shall well like, have the scales of wisdom and judgment to weigh all circumstances, and so to make choice of the best way.
But so long as the State shall deem it unfit and inconvenient to alter that which it has settled, seeing it has not imposed anything unlawful, there is no hope of cure that way. The second way of remedy, is the clearing (if it may be) of the question in traverse, that they which believe themselves to oppose nothing but that which is indeed unlawful, and therefore not tolerable to them, may discern their error and so come without trouble of mind or scruple of conscience to use those things which they cannot safely adventure upon so long as they stand either resolved against, or not resolved of their lawfulness.
And indeed, while some men have, by persuasion of others, or for fear of penalties, conformed themselves in practice, before they were thoroughly settled in their judgment, God has sometimes smitten them with fearful horrors of conscience, because they dared to do that, of which they were not fully persuaded in their minds: and this by others has often been misinterpreted, as if the very thing done had been punished as unlawful in itself, and not the presumption or caring to do it before persuasion: and one or two such examples has beaten more off from conformity than a hundred other men’s conformity draws towards it.
Nor do I conceive that pressing the utmost rigor of laws against all that refuse conformity is the way to unite us; because this is so far from altering the judgment, that it rather confirms it, in such as will add the glory of suffering for (as they call it) the Good Cause. And this breeds in others more averseness, while naturally they pity those that suffer; and specially, when they can observe such men as have many other good things in them, to suffer more hardness for lighter matters, than others, who have not any appearing worth or goodness in them at all to move compassion, do for offenses more grievous.
Neither is it like, that preaching often and invectively against such men, will ever help to the cure: For they of the common sort live mostly by an implicit faith, relying upon such or such a man’s judgment, without whose fiat you shall hardly remove them from their hold by any argument. And if the men that reprove them, be also such as are obnoxious for their own carelessness, or unfruitfulness in preaching, or misgovernment in conversation; I dare say, one sermon of such a man against inconformitants, cherishes the liking of inconformity more, than many sermons of some other men for them, could do.
I confess it is sometimes necessary to speak of these matters in the pulpit, both to inform such as need it, and to manifest unto all men that we do not (as some uncharitably say) yield to them for our living sake against our consciences: But when this is done, I wish that we be careful to show reasons, not stomach, and be always ready to acknowledge any goodness that is on our brethren who are contrary minded, lest the under-sort take occasion of insulting against things which are good in them; or others, to challenge us that we are bitter against good men: To which censure we find them so forward, as if there could not be in good men some thing worthy [of] reproof; or this which we blame were an undoubted part of their goodness.
It were to be wished that of all the ministers which are not yet brought to conformity, that were exacted, which some of them willingly perform; that is, that they should sometimes openly give attestation of their good opinion and esteem of such ministers, as being persuaded in their own minds, do use the ceremonies. I speak this for such only, as in their calling, and course of life, do labor to approve themselves to God and men. And even this would make us among ourselves the more amiable, and stay the weaker sort of people from their sinful neglects, and more sinful censures of such as be conformable, and further the efficacy of the ministry, which is now shut out by that strong iron bar, Prejudice.
But we are not yet come to the most proper way of cure, which must be some public means of informing the mind, or convincing it of error.
Our illustrious late prince, King James, to this purpose appointed the Conference at Hampton Court: But against this sundry exceptions are taken, and namely, that Doctor [John] Rainolds, and the rest which appeared for them which are against the ceremonies, were not themselves of opinion that their use is unlawful, nor would be brought so far as to say that others were of that mind. Secondly, that these were not men chosen by them that are interested in the cause. Thirdly, that freedom and liberty of dispute was restrained by the royal presence. Wherefore Master Jacob propounds a way of conference by writing, where six or eight or more, chosen for each part, should logically, punctually and soberly dispute the matter, observing certain good rules by him set down, to which I would wish one added, that the parties should be sworn to speak according to their consciences.
Master Jacob might securely brave us with this his offer of conference: For however we might willingly accept it, in hope of gaining our cause: yet he knew well that this could not be entertained without leave of the State; and as well, that the State would never suffer these things to be questioned of unlawfulness, which Doctor Rainolds, Doctor Chadderton, Doctor Sparke and the rest, the most eminent men of this nation which seemed to favor that party, would neither affirm to be unlawful, nor be known that any of that side were so weak as to think so. And when Mr. Jacob quarrels the choice of those learned persons, who shall assure us that they will either agree in the choice of their disputants, or rest in their judgments. The only way therefore remaining is that answer be given in writing to their books, or at least such as be had in great esteem with them, as has this Reply to the reverend Bishop of Covent and Lichfield.
It may be said that this way has been assayed long enough, and that a sleeping pill were more medicinable in this case than a purging. I answer that the state of the question seems to be now altered, as I have showed. And there is a mere necessity that somebody speak for our cause. unless we shall yield the same lost and unmaintainable, and so suffer a schism to grow up in the Church, and ourselves to be rooted, not out of our livings, but which is worse, out of the hearts and consciences of those whom we serve in the Lord.
For this cause myself, though the weakest of many, being called on, have yielded to cast myself into the very gulf of this contention; not much regarding what become of my repute with men, so as I may discharge myself faithfully and with a good conscience towards God’s truth and the Church’s peace, and hold unfeined love in my heart even to those whom I oppose; to whom I shall never be an enemy, unless it be in speaking for the truth, against that, which I believe to be an error in them.
Now that I may do this the more commodiously, I desire to answer such objections as have or might encounter me; and first, those which concern the business itself: Secondly, such as concern my person: for some would not have any such thing done at all; others, not by my.
…
.
Objection 2: I shall be sure to lose many good friends, and their good opinions and respects of me: for no man ever has credit with them who was once against Conformity in any degree, and comes after to speak for it.
Answer: I partly believe, nay see, and feel this already. And though I dearly love the love of good people, yet not so as to purchase or hold it, with concealment of that which, in my conscience, is God’s truth, and now necessary to be avouched, when it is most contradicted. As for credit with men, if my ways please God, I shall have enough with men. If God will that ways try my patience, or humble me more; lo, here I am. And I stand or fall to my Master, not to my fellow-servants. For what will a blast of words do me good amongst men, when I shall shortly be gone from them to God, whose I am. And if I can still love them that will not love me, I shall certainly have more comfort out of my love to them, than discomfort from their alienation of affections towards me.
Objection 3: It will be said I hunt after preferment in my old days. I answer:
Answer: Surely they who think that sincerity is only their inheritance, will surmise any thing of me. Hitherto I have lived and never sought preferment; and shall I seek it now, when I cannot hold it? O my God, be then my witness for me in other men’s hearts, as Thou art to me in mine own, that all the preferment I look after, is to do Thee and they Church service in this matter before I die.
…
Objection 8: Yet of all men I should not do this, because I have been of another mind, and the blot of inconstancy will stick in my face. It is known that about 39 years since, I was deprived of my place which I then had in Norwich, for inconformity.
Answer: I answer: that touching the use of the cross in baptism, I did then doubt and therefore refused it: But I have, I thank God, learned something more than I knew 39 years ago, and am now able to master those objections which then mastered me. Nor do I so affect the praise of constancy, as to purchase it with the holding of error or concealment of the truth when God has showed it to me, and the times call for it. And if I have mended my judgment, let them follow me; if not, let them show it.
Objection 9: Yea I then also refused the surplice, as the act of my deprival shows.
Answer: I did so; but with protestation, that I did not hold that unlawful. I told some of my parishioners that I must wear the surplice or loose my place, and they me: Requiring to know of them how they would accept my ministry if I wore it (for my judgment they knew), they answered that they should never profit by it. Hereupon I resolved not to stumble them, admonished them of their error, told them they would repent it ere the year went about; And indeed so did they with many tears, wishing that I had rather worn ten surplices than to have left them. The God of Heaven knows that I speak the truth and nothing but the truth herein.
Objection 10: I, but at the first coming in of King James, preaching before him, I related a speech of Augustus [Caesar], who commanded the glasses should be broken, that no man might incur such a fright as one [Vedius] Pollio was put into, for breaking a glass of his master’s, etc.
Answer: It is true, and my meaning was to intimate unto that wise and learned king, this consideration, whether it were not better to take away the ceremonies than throw out the ministers for them: And yet I was at that time fully resolved of their lawfulness. Zanchi wrote most earnestly to Queen Elizabeth to move her Majesty to abate the same ceremonies, or not to urge them; and at the same time to Bishop Jewel to persuade the ministers not to struggle with the Queen (in case she would not be taken off), seeing the things were not simply unlawful. Did he cross himself? or was he unsettled?
Objection 11: Yea, but since that time I published a book against them called my Apology, to which Doctor Covell gave answer, in which book I show my judgment then to have been against these ceremonies, and give reasons also.
Answer: Indeed being called to subscription by the bishop then of Lincoln, soon after the Book of Canons came forth, I was of mind either to refuse subscription, though I had subscribed four several times before without scruple; or else to be assured by the bishop mine ordinary, that there was no such variation in the doctrine or intention of the Church as myself and others suspected (by the Book of Canons), but that I might still understand things as I had before conceived of them. Hereupon I prepared that Apology, intending to give it to the bishop, wherein I set down in what sense and construction of things I had formerly yielded to subscription, and why I did not think that I could now do so. Always resolving that if it should appear to me that there was no such variation as I then suspected, I would then again subscribe as I had done four several times before that.
This tractate was by occasion first presented by mine honorable friend Sir Thomas Jermin, Knight, unto the King’s Majesty, who knowing his own purposes of changing nothing in the doctrine and intention of the Church, took it ill of me, as if I had undutifully imputed to his Highness some close innovation, which I meant not to do. This book the then Lord Archbishop, Doctor Bancroft imparted to Doctor Covell, who answered thereto, and printed it with his answer; and thus that writing which was private, became public without my knowledge of it. But no man can truly say that in that book I say anything at all to prove these ceremonies unlawful to be used, whatever be there said against the urging of them: Nay I do there plainly set down in what sense and meaning I did before subscribe to the use of them as lawful.
And after that time, even the very day in which I was deprived for refusal of subscription, I did openly before (I take it) a hundred witnesses (whereof some yet remain) profess that if it should be made plain to me that there was no such alteration in the Church’s intendment as I apprehended, I would then subscribe as I had done before, without scruple. And accordingly afterwards I did freely subscribe after that his Majesty had seen the interpretation of things which I had conceived, and satisfied myself in, and has allowed them, and after that my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury that now is, had told me that they were not my senses, but the very true meaning and sense of the Church of England, whatsoever some men out of the riot of their wits had discoursed. These interpretations I will subjoin to this Discourse, because it may do some men good.
I now appeal to the consciences of men, and pray any sober man to tell me whether I have in all this showed any inconstancy or mutability more than Master Calvin did in subscribing, in some construction, to the Augustane [Augsburg] Confession, and yet refusing it in another. When a judge upon new evidence, or better opening of evidence, alters his sentence, no man says that the judge is various; but the case altered, or better discovered.
Objection 12: But, say some, it appears in that book that I subscribed four times, and as often revolted from it, which cannot but be a fruit of singular inconstancy, and will be upbraided to me.
Answer: Indeed so some have reported, and will needs collect it out of mine own words, because I do acknowledge in that book, in mine epistle to the bishop, that I had subscribed four times before: But I pray you, where is it said that I had also four times revolted? Let them that have laid that imputation upon me, make ready their accounts to God for that slander: it shall not touch me.
Howbeit, I do ingeniously confess two errors in that mine Apology; one that I trusted to the quotations of the Abridgment, which then I had in writing, thinking the authors thereof so just that they would not have cited them unless they had been right, and (in that confidence) made use of them in that Apology, not having then examined, nor time to examine them as since I have done, and find them, some falsified, some forced, some impertinent; which mine error of trust, shall be a warning to me hereafter.
The other fault was properly mine own, that upon some lighter surmises collected out of the Book of Canons, I did construe things to a worse meaning than I after perceived to be in the Church; which because I did not maliciously, I doubt not but God and his Church have forgiven it unto me.
Objection 13: But some yet instance that after that Apology [was] written, and after my deprivation by the then Lord Bishop of Lincoln, the King’s Majesty being then at Phinchinbrooke, required four of those ministers which stood out, to come before him; of which I was by the ministers named for one, and had gone with them, but that Master Doctor Montague, then Dean of the King’s Chapel, excepted against me. And though I went not, yet I prayed God to speed them well, and encouraged them. Therefore, say they, I was then of their mind ho condemn these ceremonies, or at least so taken to be.
Answer: I confess that choice of me, and my readiness to have gone with them, and that I wished them good speed: but I deny the inference grounded thereupon; for, as I had at other meetings with the same men at Huntingdon, in all our conferences stood professedly against their opinion who condemned them as unlawful, whereof one wrote plaintiff letters to London: So did I at that time, when I was chosen with the rest, profess that I could not speak against these things as unlawful, but only as inconvenient. And that I heartily prayed for their good speed, I do confess: For I then did, and still do, and ever shall desire that such men as they might not be cast out of the Church’s service, for their different opinion touching these ceremonies; however I then was, and still am persuaded that in judging them unlawful, they were, and are deceived. As for any other encouragement, I gave none. And they which object this against me, know this mine answer to them to be true, and so do others.
Objection [14]: Yet some say I was of their mind against these ceremonies, till a good benefice brought me about.
Answer: To which I answer that so some have said, and in the pulpit too; but the untruth thereof is famously known. For I had subscribed and obtained the liberty of my ministry again (for which I thank God, and all those that helped me) and been preacher at Bishops-gate in London, above six months before I heard any word of the benefice I have. Nor knew I my worthy patron, Master Robert Shilton, nor he me, nor had we ever seen one another, when first he pleased to bring the offer thereof unto me at Istleworth, after that Doctor Chetwind, now Dean of Bristoll had first refused it. And they which know how gainful the practice of physic was then to me (which I affirm upon my conscience to have been every year as profitable as my benefice is in three years at the least) will never believe that it was matter of profit which took me off from physic, and brought me to conformity. I may boldly say this, that I have parted with more profit by taking up conformity and a benefice than any man in England has done by his inconformity and loss of his benefice. Therefore it was not a benefice that drew me on.
.
Wherefore I conclude that as I see yet no reason sufficient to persuade me that it is not a work fit to be done in itself, so do I not yet find any such objection as should detain me from tendering my best service herein to God and his Church, to whose gracious acceptance I commend the cause and myself, beseeching God to give some good issue thereunto for his own glory.
And I do heartily pray such as be contrary minded, that if they will please to read the treatise following, they would endeavor to do it without prejudice and partiality, if possibly they can; and take heed that they struggle not in favor of their former apprehensions, or professions against any light of truth which shall appear unto them; nor yet depend upon the persons of men, how good soever, seeing all men may err, and the stricter sort sooner than others, may fall into that error which lies on the right hand of the middle way, namely of being just overmuch. Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
And to the reverend fathers the bishops who urge, and others of my brethren who practice conformity, I do make it mine humble suit in the name of Jesus Christ, that they would consider every man of his own way, and all take heed, that our negligence in matters of greater moment than a ceremony, do not give occasion to such as herein differ from us, to like their own opinions the better, because we dislike them, whensoever we do not in other necessary duties approve ourselves to the consciences of men, godly and moderate, as we ought.
And what I speak of our persons, I intend respectively to all such as any of us have charge and command over, others, children or servants. For till we shall make it appear that we labor seriously to approve ourselves to God and men in the promotion and obedience of the Gospel, we shall neither have true peace in ourselves, nor authority of persuading others to judge of these matters as we judge, when they shall not dare to do as we do in things which bear no controversy. I know they ought not to put off any light of truth by such pretences: But I am sure withal, that we ought not to give them such occasions of stumbling. And if they shall fain and make other causeless exceptions against us, yet we shall be innocent, and their partiality appear, and our cause win upon them do what they can.
.
.
[Qualifying Interpretations of Burges’s Subscription]
A particular of those interpretations of some things questions in the matter of subscription, with which I had satisfied myself in former times, and with which I offered to subscribe the same day wherein I was deprived for not subscribing, which were after presented to his Majesty, by the then Bishop of Winchester, and after to my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury, upon which I was restored to my ministry.
.
To the first article, concerning his Majesty’s supremacy, and the third concerning the Articles of Religion, agreed on in the Convocation House, etc. I do willingly and absolutely subscribe.
To the second article, viz. “That there is nothing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the two Books of Homilies, contrary to the Word of God,” I do also willingly subscribe, if I may have leave to satisfy myself in such interpretation of some things questioned, as may stand with the words of subscription, and things subscribed to, in manner following:
1. Concerning the translations of some Scriptures, printed in the Book of Common Prayer.
I understand that our subscription to the Book of Common-Prayer is to approve the form of Common-prayer contained in that Book, and consequently, the reading of such Scriptures as are therein appointed to be read: And not to justify either the printer or translators’ error, which may be noted in any part of the Scriptures, contained in the closure of that book. For I see that men are allowed to read the same Scriptures after his Majesty’s translation [the KJV].
2. Concerning the Apocrypha Scriptures appointed to be read.
I undertake by subscription to acknowledge that the reading of these (which is all the Book requires) not as canonical, but as Apocrypha books for instruction’s sake, so far as they accord with the canon, is lawful.
3. Concerning the rites and ceremonies required by the Book, as the use of the surplice, cross in baptism, kneeling in receiving the Communion, in general.
I undertake not by subscription to determine how well these be imposed, but only to acknowledge that the use thereof upon his Majesty’s command, and that in the best construction of them, is lawful.
4. Of the use of the surplice in particular.
I understand it not to be imposed as an holy vestment, as were the priestly garments under Moses, by reason of God’s institution; nor as a thing necessary to the worship of God, or any part thereof; neither take I it to be enjoined as any sacramentally-significant sign, but only for order and uniformity’s sake.
5. Of the use of the cross in baptism.
I know it is not made any part of the sacrament of baptism, which is acknowledged (by the Canon) to be “complete without it,” and not perfected, or bettered by it.
I understand it not as any sacramental or operative, or efficacious sign, bringing any virtue to baptism, or the baptized.
Where the Book says, “and do sign him with the sign of the cross, in token, etc. I understand the Book not to mean that the sign of the cross has any virtue in it to effect or further this duty, but only to intimate and express by that ceremony (by which the ancients did avow their profession of Christ crucified), what the congregation hopes and expects hereafter from that infant, viz. That he “shall not be ashamed to profess the faith of Christ crucified,” into which he was even now baptized.
And therefore also when the 30th Canon says that “the infant is by that sign dedicated unto the service of Christ,” I understand that dedication to import, not a real consecration of the child, which was done in baptism itself, but only a ceremonial declaration of that dedication, like as the priest is said to make clean the leper, whose being clean he only declared.
6. Of the interrogatories in baptism.
I conceive that these interrogatories made to the infant, and answered as in his name by the sureties, intend only an adumbration of that stipulation and covenant, which is really entered into by receiving the sacrament of baptism, and not to import that the child actually has such a distinct faith, repentance, or desires as are there professed: or that he is indeed supplied thereof from his sureties, who cannot make over their own faith and repentance to others, as goods and chattels use to be conveyed.
7. Of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord’s Supper.
I confess I never saw cause to think this unlawful to be done, and therefore I do it.
First, because the Church of England abhors all adoration of the sacrament, and the Papists know it.
Secondly, because it holds sitting or standing to be as lawful and holy as kneeling, putting no necessity or worship of God in any of these arbitrary gestures. Yea, because in this Church a prayer is then used for each communicant, this gesture may seem more agreeable to the external arbitrary form here used than to the fashion of other Churches, whose liberty is not abridged by ours; as not ours, by theirs.
8. As for other phrases of doubtful construction, I take them in the best sense, and so subscribe to the Book of Common Prayer.
9. Of the Book of Ordination of bishops, priests and deacons.
I conceive that subscription to this Book does not intend an approbation of every phrase or application of every place of Scripture therein alleged as fitly applied: but only that the calling of bishops to govern in the Church, and the ordination of inferior ministers by them to the uses there assigned, are not contrary to the Word of God, and so I subscribe to that Book.
10. Of the two Books of Homilies.
I undertake not to approve of every phrase or allegation of Scripture as fitly applied to the mind of the Holy Ghost: But that dogmatically there is nothing delivered in those Homilies that I know to be contrary to the Word of God, but that they may lawfully and profitably be read to the people for their edification when better means are wanting: And in this sense I subscribe to those Books also.
.
These interpretations King James accepted, and my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury affirmed them to be the true sense and intention of the Church of England.
.
.
A Manuduction [Introduction] into the following Dispute.
.
The matters and questions occasionally handled in this treatise are neither few nor unuseful: But the prime question here debated is, whether the wearing of a surplice in divine service, signing the forehead of the newly baptized with the figure of the cross, and kneeling in the act of receiving the bread and cup of the Lord’s Table, being enjoined by lawful authority to be used as indifferent rites, may lawfully and with a good conscience be so used and observed, or no? We hold the affirmative, others the negative.
Some of those which deny the use of them to be lawful, published anno 1605 a book called the Abridgement, etc. containing certain objections or arguments against the same. Other ministers also of the diocese of Chester, since that time, gave to their then bishop, the reverend and most learned bishop now of Coventry and Lychfield, their arguments against the said ceremonies, in writings, mostly the same with the Abridgement, and some few others. The said lord bishop, to give (if it might be) satisfaction to them and others, published a book, anno 1618, which he called a Defence of the Three Innocent Ceremonies, etc., wherein he conjoined (where it might be) the arguments (but not always the full words) of the Abridgers and those other ministers, or else took them apart, or so many of them as needed particular answer; sorting the objections which were made against all the three ceremonies by themselves, undert the title of General Arguments; and such as were laid particularly against each of these three, he called their Particular Exceptions. The generals he answers in the first part of his Defence, the particulars in the second: and after his answers given to their objections, he fails not to set down some of our arguments for the affirmative.
To the former part of this Defence, a Reply was made in print; but by whom, when or where printed, is not to be known by the book. After followed a Reply to the second part, printed (I suppose at Amsterdam) anno 1623, written (no doubt) by him that made the first, and both these carry this title, A Reply to Doctor Morton’s Defence of the Three Nocent Ceremonies, etc. In which book, the Replier tramples so scornfully and often upon the Defendant that many of the ignorant people have gloried in this triumphant book, and reported the same to be unanswerable: Yea, and some have been at the cost to get it written out, whereby the fire which was well allayed before, is now as by a new gale of wind more dispersed and flaming then it has been of some years past amongst the vulgar, in sundry places, to no small prejudice of such as conform to the law in the use of these ceremonies, and hinderance of the success of their labors in the Gospel.
To this Reply, or at least the first part of it, an Answer is made, to stay (if God will) the fury of that unseasonable and unprofitable fire which by this Reply has been and is blown, lest when we have greatest need of accord and agreement amongst ourselves, the people of Christ and members of the Church should grow unto bitter and hateful distractions and into open schism. The parties in this dispute are four:
First, the Opposers of conformity, the Abridgers and others, whose words are marked when they speak with Opp.
Secondly, the Defender of conformity [Morton], whose words are fully set down where it seemed needful, or else the sum of them. And his badge is, Def., whether he answer objections against us, or object against them.
The third is the Replier [Anonymous / Ames], whose words are set down punctually, yea even his out-leaps and digressions, that nor he, nor any for him, may justly complain of such injurious dealing with him, as he has commonly used toward the Defendant: and his mark, whether he reply or answer, is Repl.
The last actor is the Answerer [Burges] to this replier, whose words whether he answer or sometimes object, are marked with Answ.
So that it may always be known by the marks, whether the Opponent, or the Defendant, the Replier or the Answerer speak. And of this advertisement there is a further use, viz. to show how this book swells to so great a bulk, namely because it has so many other books in the belly of it.
The reader also will find at the ends of sundry sections certain digressions, to which though the main cause did not necessarily lead, yet where the Replier has pleased to make his out-roads, the Answerer thought good to follow him: that he might not be thought to have said anything against this Church of England to which no answer could be given.
But over and besides these directions, the reader (before he can judge of this question) behooves to understand: 1. What a ceremony is, 2. What sorts of ceremonies there are, 3. Of what sort these in question are, and lastly, [4.] What is meant by using them in the solemn worship or service of God.
.
First, of the Definition or Nature of a Ceremony.
Whether the word ceremonia [in Latin] took the first rise from the old word cerus, id est, sanctus, “holy”; or from Ceres, a town by Rome, or Ceres the mother of fruits, the earth, or a cerendo, or a claritate, the very difference of conjectures makes it uncertain, nor is it to our purpose material, seeing we enquire what thing is usually, and in this dispute, meant by that term, and not so much whence it was first derived. For customy use rather than notation or birthright of words settles their signification.
Wherefore I thus describe it: A ceremony is an outward action designed or purposely observed and done in reference to some other thing, to the substance whereof it does not belong, either as a proper cause or part thereof. Which description I thus explain:
[1.] I call it an action, because nothing is or can be a ceremony in respect of existence or being, but only in respect of acting or usage thereof as a ceremony; however the very materials by a metonymy of the subject are often called ceremonies, i.e., improperly.
A surplice, or cross, or the gesture of kneeling, are no ceremonies, but the wearing of the surplice, signing with the cross, kneeling purposely in the act of partaking the communion are ceremonies.
The Tabernacle and some appurtenances of it, while they were in action and use were ceremonies, but when after the building of the Temple, they were laid up in it, they were no longer ceremonies, but relics and monuments.
[2.] I call it an external action, because internal actions of the mind being matter of substance whether good or evil, cannot duly be called ceremonies.
[3.] I say designed or purposely observed and done, because such actions as are casually or necessarily done for the attainment of some other matter, are not ceremonies, though actions done in reference to some other thing. For that to a ceremony (qua talis [as such]), institution or (which is all one) intended observation is essential.
Fourthly, I difference it from other sorts of actions natural or voluntary, by this, that it is always understood to be done in reference to some other matter, to the substance whereof it belongs not as a necessary cause or part thereof. For such is in our notion the incompatibility of substance and ceremony, that whatever belongs to anything as cause or part of the substance thereof, cannot be to the same thing, and in the same respect, a ceremony.
For example, the wearing of a judge’s, minister’s, lawyer’s or citizen’s gown merely to keep a man warm, is in that use no ceremony. But the wearing of any of these as a distinctive cognisance of such or such a calling and profession, is in that use a ceremony.
So washing of the satints’ feet, mentioned [in] 1 Tim. 5:10, was in that use of the substance of hospitality, and therefore no ceremony. But when our Lord washed his disciples feet for a document of humility, that washing was a ceremony, Jn. 13:12-15.
When we make profession of our faith to the honoring of God, that act is a part of the external worship to God, and no ceremony; but when the same [Apostles’] Creed is repeated at baptism, to remind the Church into what Faith all are baptized, this is a ceremony, because [it is] no substantial part either of divine worship, or of baptism to which it refers as a profitable ceremony.
Lifting up the eyes to behold the heavens is a necessity means to that end to which it serves, and then [is] no ceremony; but lifitng up the eyes purposely in token of our expectation of help from Him that dwells in the heavens, is in that use a ceremony.
Convening in one set place and at an hour appointed unto the worshipping of God then and there, in the use of the Word, sacraments and prayers; is in that relation to the worship of God a ceremony, as not being any proper part of the worship itself, which might be entirely and as acceptably performed to God in another place, and at another hour caeteris paribus [all things being equal]: And yet the same convention, so far as it is the observance of order, is in that respect no ceremony, but a part of the order constituted.
Where may be marked, that they which oppose matters of order to matters of ceremony, as if the same thing could not be done in double relations, do confound the several notions of things, and oppose things coincident.
For example, the observance of the order appointed for the readings, singing of psalms, prayers, administration of the sacraments, or preaching in their turns and times, is, in respect of that order, of the substance thereof, and so no ceremony: But as the same refers to the several exercises of divine service, it is but a ceremony, because all the same acts of devotion might be performed in another order or manner, without any alteration or diminution of the substance thereof.
So in giving of possession of lands by an attorney, the delivery of a turf and twig (being by law or custom an essential form of giving such possession) is, in that respect, of the substance of real possession, and not a ceremony. But as that turf and twig do represent, and in a sort contain all the soil and appurtenances conveighed (from which they are now divided and therefore [are] no parts thereof), it is a ceremony.
Out of which premises will follow these consectaries:
First, that the very same actions done at the same time, may be, in several respects, ceremonies and no ceremonies.
Secondly, that it is not a natural aptness and habitude of any action to express this or that, that makes it a ceremony, but institutions or observation of it to such an use as is ceremonious. For as Dr. [William] Ames well says of sacraments, that “it is their institution” which imprints their signification, and not simply their own similitude, which is but the “substratum”. (Marrow, pt. 1, ch. 30, thesis 30) So say I of all actions which do naturally carry in them some aptness for expression (as kneeling, to show reverence; sitting, familiarity) that they are not therefore ceremonies, but only when they are so designed and observed. Whence also may appear that these things are no whit the less ceremonies in such designation, because their significancy is naturally engraven in them; but [they are] only so much the more lively, easy and familiar ceremonies.
Thirdly, that it is not mystical signification, or the want [lack] of it, which makes a ceremony or no ceremony (as some would have it), but relation only to some further matter, to the essence whereof it belongs not. For not only sacrifices, and sacraments or types, of the [Old Testament] Law were ceremonies in their use, but the observances even of place or time, of the laver, besoms [brooms], fireshovels, and other circumstances of order, as touching of the right care of the leper first, and his thumb after (Lev. 14:14), and the wearing of linen breeches by the priests, and such like, were ceremonies so far as they had relation to the service of God, no less than such as were significant: Only those which had relation to some further worship, and withal some character of significancy, were in a double or perhaps treble relation, double or triple ceremonies; the other single: Those, in more respects; these, in one; but all ceremonies.
Fourthly, that the difference which some would make betwixt circumstances and ceremonies, while they admit unto the Church’s power the determination of some circumstances, but not of any ceremonies in the service of God, may hereby appear to be a mere nicety or fiction. For that all circumstances (I mean extrinsical) which incur not the substance of the action, when they are once designed or observed purposely in reference to such a matter of whose substance they are not, they are then ceremonies as well as circumstances of that matter or action to which they so refer.
Fifthly, that to acknowledge any thing to be a ceremony ordained by man to be used in the worship of God, and yet to affirm the same to be a part of that worship to which it refers, implies a contradiction, because nothing can be both substance and ceremony to or of itself. Wherefore it must be fictitious worship (which is no worship indeed) when an outward human ceremony is made a part of substantial worship.
Sixthly, that divine or human institution does not make an action to be a ceremony or no ceremony, but rather makes a difference of necessary and arbitrary ceremonies: For that it is the relation (as has been said) which constitutes a ceremony, whether divine or human.
Seventhly, that it is not essential to a ceremony simply that it be no proper part of divine worship, but to an human ceremony only. For the sacraments of the Old or New Testament were or are essential parts of God’s external worship in their use, because required of Him; and yet as they refer to religion itself, which is an internal virtue, they are ceremonies, as [Daniel] Chamier rightly says; and so also are they (I mean the outward elements and acts) in respect of the internal things which they represent and sacramentally exhibit. Where may be marked also, that as the same person is in one relation a father, and in another a son and not a father, so the same action may be in some consideration a real act of divine worship; and, as so, no ceremony: and in reference to some other act of worship, a ceremony, and not of the substance thereof.
Eighthly, that it is not the same use and end which makes a ceremony to be a part of divine worship or not, but institution. For divine institution makes any circumstance to be a part of that service of God to which it is limited, however in some other relation it be but a ceremony. But human institution, though to the same end and use, cannot make that action to be a part, but only an adjunct to the act of divine worship, because the observance thereof, cannot incur the act of any proper worship to god, but serves only as a ceremony thereto. For example:
The Lord’s appointment of one place for sacrifices, and of some set days for the solemn worship of God, as the Sabbath and three solemn feasts to Israel, made the observance of that very place, and of those very times to be part of the worship itself. But the Church’s appointment of a set place or time unto the celebration of the acts of religious worship, because it incurs not the worship itself, leaves the observance thereof as a mere ceremony in relation to the worship, of the substance whereof it is no cause or part.
Lastly, that ceremonies may be, in respect of the genus and end to which [they?] serve, acts of religious worship.
I say in their general kind, viz. so far as they are in their kind parts of order and decency, to which they serve, because God has commanded in general that “all things be done in order” and “decency”: and yet considered in their particulars they are not of the substance of order, comeliness or worship, because the same may possibly be as well provided for (at least in other times and places) by observance of other particulars different from these.
Thus not only Calvin acknowleges kneeling in prayer to be a part of that comeliness which God requires in his worship, and so David’s dancing before the ark; but Doctor Ames also says of constitutions tending to order and decency, that when they are duly made and are most convenient, all circumstances being well considered, they are to be “counted rather divine.” (Marrow, pt. 2, ch. 15, thesis 27) And yet in their particulars no wise man will say that they are divine, or simply necessary, or proper parts of any worship of God, not being prescribed of Him, but left unto discretion. So that when human ceremonies are called accidental parts of worship, nothing is meant but that properly they are not any parts thereof, but adjuncts thereto; and those ambulatory, that is, mere ceremonies.
.
The Second Point concerns the Sorts and Difference of Ceremonies.
Ceremonies bear many partitions, of which it will suffice to know some:
First, the more close or open use makes them to be private or public. For it is not essential to a ceremony, but to a solemn ceremony, that it be public.
Secondly, ceremonies, from their object and use, are either civil or sacred, or mixed. Civil when their immediate object and end is civil; sacred when their immediate object and end is matter pertaining to religion; or if it be double and look both ways alike they are mixed.
Let the reader consider, not only that use and end of actions does discriminate them; but that it is the immediate object and end of actions from which they are called civil or sacred. For when the remote end is some civil respect, as was it in the setting up of Jeroboam’s calves at Dan and Bethel, to fasten the kingdom in his hands; yet if the next and immediate use belong to religion, as his setting up of the calves there was, that his people might worship God there, the action shall be construed religious or sacred, whether truly or falsely so called. So on the other side, when the remote end respects the glory of God, as even in eating and drinking and whatever we do, [which] we all stand bound to do, yet when the immediate end and use is civil, the action shall then be so esteemed.
And it is not so much the terminus a quo [from which], as the term ad quem [to which], that shall denominate. For an action imperated of religion, shall yet be civil in respect of the proper object, as was the midwives’ sparing of the Israelites’ children a civil action, belonging (says Junius) to the Second Table; because though itsprang out of the fear of God which is religion, yet it determined in the lines of men, and therefore was civil. So, though Jeroboam’s device sprang out of civil respects, yet because it pitched on a matter of religion, that action of erecting the calves was not civil.
Touching the difference of civil and sacred ceremonies, the reader also must know that we consider the present use of either, and so name them. For the same ceremony which is in present use sacred, may be forthwith by the change of the object, civil: and so on to the contrary.
The people in bowing down worshipped God and the king [1 Chron. 29:20], the ceremony was materially the same; but objectively different; one civil, the other sacred: So was the wearing of blacks, rending of garments, putting on of ashes, civil, when used to express natural sorrows and mournings for friends: yet the very same things used in humiliation to God, were in that use sacred.
So when at King James’s funeral the bishops went before the corpse or hearse in their formalities, [and] the clerks of his Majesty’s chapel [did so] in their surplices. This use of those habits [garments] was civil, as serving to show that they, as other sorts of his subjects, mourned for the loss of their prince. But the use of the same habits in the execution of their functions in the service of god, is in that use rather a religious or sacred ceremony.
Wherefore they which tell us that all which the Church may do touching rites and ceremonies is but the application of circumstances which are in nature civil, and serve to the comeliness as well in civil as sacred actions; adding that the Church may not ordain any one or other ceremony which shall be merely ecclesiastical, do manifest a spirit which lusts after contradiction. For if the Church ordain or observe at all any ceremonies in religious affairs, the same must be, in that use, sacred or merely ecclesiastical, though in other use civil. And yet, it is this they say were true, the ceremonies in question might stand, seeing there has been, may be, and is a civil use also of a linen garment, a cross for a shop sign and kneeling to honor a king or a father.
Thirdly, ceremonies called “sacred” are of two sorts, properly so called, or reductively.
Properly sacred are all and only such as be of divine institution, which we call also simply necessary, necessitato praecepti [by the necessity of precept].
Reductively sacred are such as in their particular have no divine institution, but are applied in their use to those things which are divine, and these we call arbitrary or ambulatory ceremonies.
Fourthly, of those which are reductively sacred, some are so called rightly, some absolutely.
Rightly, when both the object they serve unto is some matter of true religion, and when the end for which they are imposed and to be observed, is also such as God has allowed, and the things not unapt thereunto: For, variation from these rules, will abate the just title of sacred ceremonies.
Absolutely called “sacred,” are all such as are either idolatrous, superstitious or impious.
Idolatrous, when intended to a wrong object, as namely all ceremonies devised and used in and to the honoring of an idol, whether properly or by interpretation such; Of which sort were all the ceremonies of the pagans, and not a few of the Papists.
Superstitious, if men worshipping only the true God, yet place and put upon their own ceremonies, the title of divine, whether plainly in terms, or in effect.
In terms, as Bellarmine does father on their use of the cross, that it effects great and supernatural matters ex opere operato, by virtue of a divine institution;
Or in effect, as when the proper service of God is placed in them, or merit, necessity, holiness and efficacy (though by virtue of the Church’s institution or the doers’ merits) and when the very omission of them is reputed a sin, even though it be without contempt or scandal. For what can be said more of God’s own ordinances than this, nay nor all this truly I mean for efficacy ex opere operato or by merit operantis.
Impious ceremonies, when God’s own ceremonies are cast off, as the not giving of the cup in the Supper to the people; or when they obscure the Gospel, representing the history and mystery thereof by dumb shows, as in the pagent of the Mass.
Again, sacred ceremonies are, in respect of their continuance or changeableness, perpetual or temporary, moveable or immoveable.
Perpetual are only so many as God has ordained to be so. For the Church being bounded with certain rules and confined to them, cannot ordain any ceremony which shall not be alterable, when the same shall, by change of times and occasions, become not unprofitable alone, but dangerous and hurtful in the judgment and conscience of those to whom it belongs to discern thereof.
Of ambulatory ceremonies, some also are free, as left free by the Church as touching their use; and these are rather allowed than commanded: as when sundry synods (after mentioned) left it free to stand or kneel in receiving the Lord’s Supper, but forbade sitting, because of the Arians, who used that gesture in contempt of Christ’s deity.
Others are fixed (as being commanded). In which the observation must ever be free, in respect of the judgment to be had of them (otherwise they become superstitions and snares), but the practice only is required and restrained for order and discipline sake, and for edification of men unto the worship of god.
Again, ceremonies in regard of their use are simple or double. Double are such as beside their use for order and decency, serve also to edification by some profitable signification, which either of themselves they have some aptness unto, or receive by appointment, as it were by common agreement.
Significant ceremonies also are sacramental or moral.
Sacramental are either properly so called or improperly.
Properly so called, are only such as signify and seal the Covenant of Grace; The spiritual thing signified in the sacrament is (says Doctor Ames) the Covenant of Grace: which, because none can institute or ratify but God, therefore no creature may or can institute such a significant ceremony.
Improperly sacramental ceremonies are so called either reductively or analogically.
Reductively sacramental are all ceremonies which are ordained of men to attend upon the administration of the sacraments, whether they bear signification or not;
but significative sacramental ceremonies reductively so called, are such as being affixed to the use of the sacraments, bear some significancy, either of their virtues or our duties to which we are obliged by the sacraments.
Such was the tasting of milk and honey, the wearing of a white coat for a week after baptism, used of old and now deserted, and the holy kiss, used at the Communion, as shall appear. And such is the rehearsal of the [Apostles’] Creed, and imposition of the name at baptism (as of old at circumcision) as it were to notify that we have no name till we be incorporate into the Church of God.
These sorts, if they offend not in their unaptness, number, obscurity, or superstitious opinion or abuse of them, were never yet condemned as unlawful for their only significancy: And of this sort with us, signing with the cross after baptism, and kneeling in the act of receiving are sacramental, as ceremonies waiting on the sacraments in that use.
Analogically sacramental are such significant ceremonies which by men are instituted or observed not only to signify, but also to work supernatural effects, whether ex opere operato [from the work working], as (says Bellarmine) the signing with the cross does; or ex opere operantis [from the work of the worker], and that either by virtue of the Church’s consecration, prayers or blessing, or by the merit of him that uses them.
All such significant ceremonies which are analogically sacramental, albeit they signify not the Covenant of Grace, yet, inasmuch as operation and virtue is inscoffed upon them, they are fancy and impious emulators of God’s holy sacraments, and of all sound divines condemned in the Church of Rome, and justly.
Morally significant, we call those ceremonies which of men are ordained and observed not to signify or seal the Covenant of Grace, nor yet to exhibit any grace at all sacramentally, but only to express some benefit which God gives us, or to notify, profess or express some duty which we owe to Him or one to another.
And of this sort we affirm our ceremonies in question to be, if they be all (as two of them are) significant. For though reductively they may be called sacramental, as has been said; yet properly or analogically, that is, in respect of their own import and signification, or use, they are not sacramental: that is, either in respect of the matter signified by sacraments, which is the Covenant of Grace, or in respect of any operative or exhibitive virtue of that which they signify, ascribed to them.
They which make all mystical or significative ceremonies to be sacramental, because they carry some signification, do affect strife, and take up the term “sacramental” in such a sense as did never any before them, that men finding sacramental ceremonies to be condemned (that is, the falsely called sacraments, or analogically answering to them in signifcation and fained efficacy too in a measure), they might think ours to be condemned as sacramental in that sense and meaning.
Such significant symbolical rites, as ours be, in the intention of the Church, I dare affirm never to have been condemned as unlawful in the Church of God, save only by such as oppose us now.
And in the discourse it will appear that the Jews without divine prescription did devise and use such ceremonies as helps unto men in the acts of God’s worship. Such was the stone which Joshua pitched in the court of the sanctuary to be a monitory witness of their profession made in that place. Such the gesture of lying on couches in eating the Passover, in token of the rest which God had now given them in their own land, and the bread of affliction then also given with these words, “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers did eat in Egypt.” Yea such was the passing betwixt the parts of the sacrifice, Jer. 34:18. The sealing to the covenant, Neh. 9, and hundreds more which no law of God did institute, and yet no prophet of God condemned, and some Scriptures allow (as shall appear) so long as they were used as moral signs for the help of men, and not as necessary acts of religious worship to God in themselves, nor as counterfeit sacraments.
.
The Third Point, what the Ceremonies in Question are.
Now to the third point we say that these our ceremonies are not private, but public; sacred, not civil: but yet sacred only by application, not by divine institution; mutable, not permanent; indifferent, not necessary; sacramental reductively, but properly moral; in the signification partaking nothing at all of the proper nature of sacraments, neither in the matter signified by sacraments, nor in the virtue of obsignation or moral efficacy, ordained to be used necessarily in respect of order and peace; but in respect of the judgment concerning them, and immediate conscience to God, freely.
.
4. What is Meant by using them in the Worship of God.
Of which when we say that they may lawfully be used in the solemn service of God, we mean not, that they are, or may lawfully be used as acts which in themselves are any part of God’s external service, but only as free ceremonies, when, and while we are in the exercise of prayers, the Word or sacraments, which are by God’s institution in their own use proper acts of outward religious or divine service, to which these serve only as ceremonies for order, decency and edification, and are not of the substance of all or any of them, because but mere ceremonies.
.
.
The Answer to the Replier’s Preface
…
…
.
An Answer Rejoined to the Reply to Dr. Morton’s General Defence of the Innocency of the Three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. Surplice, Cross after Baptism and Kneeling at the Receiving of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
.
Chapter 1
[This transcription is unfinished]
.
.
.
.
Related Pages