Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 7

Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship · Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 7

p. 423SECT. 7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20. Councels, and Ancient Writers.

THese testimonies were as illustrations breifly brought in of the Abrigers: but largely ranked by the Defender into so many sections, as … the main burden did lye upon them. The Replier …erfore conjoined them in brief: and so will I not pas…ng upon the Rejoynder his many words; whoe sayth …. That in the Abrigement, they fill seven whole pages: …hen as these answered by the Defend. in 14. Sections, make in the Abrigement, litle more than one page. …. He desireth us also to help their dulnesse, whoe cannot …istinguish, betwixt testimonies, and proofes. To which, …hough it be but skornfully propounded of them that p. 424accuse us of dull Sophistrie, cap. 2. sect. 11. I answer, that common use of speach doth shew a difference, betwixt some testimonies or witnesses, and proofs. For all good Christians are sayd to give witnesse unto God and his truthe, but not properly to prove eyther God, or his Word.

2. Out of a Carthaginian Synod, two thinges were alleged: 1. that certaine Altars in high wayes, erecte… in memorie of Martyrs, should be abolished. 2. Tha… all reliques, and monuments of Idolatry should be utterly destroyed. In the first, the Replier confessed, that there is nothing expresse to our purpose: because those Altar are noted which are destitute of Martyrs reliques. Ye… (sayth he) there was as good reason, for abolishing other as them. No (answereth the Rejoynder) because by th…s… Altars destitute of reliques, the Church was mocked. And s… was the Church mocked (say I) by those which had reliques in them: not onelyonly because they had no certaine rule of discerning true reliques from false; but also, because they were by such meanes induced, to place a speciall holinesse in those places, and led-on to the invocation of Saints departed.

The second place is expounded by the Defend. an… Rejoynd. onelyonly of Idols and immediate instruments of Idolatry: which cannot bee true, except all places groves an… greene trees (there mentioned) which had serued to the use of notorious Idolatry, were immediate instruments. And if that were so, why not, or were not once ou… Ceremonies as immediate? Because (sayth the Rejoynd, they were rather subjects of superstition. Which is a new p. 425nothing. For subjects often are al one with objects, and ma…y objects of superstition are Idols. Places were rather …ubjects (distinct from objects) then Images, such as our Crosse is. The summe is (…ayth the Rejoynder) that …ynode in the former Canon, reformed and continued a hu…an Ceremony notoriously abused to superstition: and in the …ater, were zealous against all monuments of idolatry. Zea…ous indeede they were against knowne Idolatry: but …hey did not discerne all the superstitious and idolatrous …eedes, which at that time were springing up among …hem, in immoderate and unwarrantable honouring of …aints. As for their reformation of Altars with reliques, … was no more, then divers Popish Synods have profes…ed to doe. But this I would have marked, that Altars …ith Reliques honoured as they were in those dayes, are now with the Rejoynder accounted good religious Ce…emonies.

3. A councell of Braca, or some other (it is all one) …orbad Christians to decke their houses, &c. in such …aner, and at such time as Idolaters did, that is sayth the …ef. and Rej. at the same time, in the same place, and man…er. This the Replier accepted: and assumeth, that ours …iffer not in these circumstances, but in opinion onelyonly.

The Rejoynder heere first rejoyneth, that this Canon …s to be understood so, as if it had sayd, we must not keepe the festivall-dayes of Pagans, with them, as they doe: but may …eepe in a Christian manner unto God, the same dayes, which …hey observed impiously to the service of the Divell. Now let this be understood, for me (though his marginall quo…ations proove it not) in his sense, Chrysost. hom. 1. de p. 426Laz. speaking of no more Christian observing that day, then the day following. Hesternum diem, &c. A…e it… que & hodie, &c. And more ancient testimonies may be brought even against sending of Newyeares gifts, at tha… time (Tert…ll. de Idol. cap. 14.) Let this (I say) be granted: yet the allegation is strong to our purpose, except it can be shewed, that our Ceremonies have no mo… agreement with the Papists, then preaching and praying upon New-yeares day, hath with the Pagans idolatrou… luxury, upon the same day; or that they have not th… proportion unto Popish Ceremonies, which bay leave… and greene bowes used of Christians would then have ha… to Pagans bay-leaves, and greene bowes.

After this, the Rej. taketh great paines in a large digression, that our Ceremonies differ from the Papists Cere… nies in time, place, person, and not in opinion onelyonly. Whic… is very little to the purpose except lawfulnesse and unla… fulnesse doe depend on that difference of time, place, an… person. For the Replier did heere respect those passages, wherein the Defendant flieth onelyonly to opinion fo… succour, in differencing our Ceremonies from Popis… that ours may be lawfull, though the Papists be unlawfull: as cap. 2. sect. 6. Yet …ee in short what the Rej. ha… found out.

Surplice.

1. It must (sayth the Rej.) among Papists be hallowed or consecrated. But this is nothing to time, place, and person: p. 427neyther is consecration of Surplices more unlaw…ull, then of Altars, Churches, and Church-yards.

2. Among Papists, no act of ministeriall service may be …awfully performed without it, except the masse. This is not …rue in either part. For they preach without Surplices though divers in England hold them on in the Pulpit) …nd the Masse-garment of linnen, Pontificall surplice; …nd many times put over the Surplice. So the Rejoynd. …imselfe testifieth in his third difference: which there…ore answereth it selfe, and their practise of putting on more magnificall vestures, at high Masses, or high pla…es, eyther upon that, or without that, is sufficiently practised, according to our Canons, in Cathedrall Chur…hes, Coapes.

4. They in Popery pin a number of mysticall significations upon the parts of it. But this pertaineth to opinion, not to …ime, place or person: and containeth no difference, save onelyonly in number.

Crossing.

1. The Minister (sayth the Rejoynder) with us, may not crosse himselfe, the people, or other things. Now though this be nothing to the purpose, yet I would faine know, out of what Canon, hee fetcheth this may not with us? And if there were any such, upon what reason it is grounded, that will not take our crossing of the baptized person, by the nose?

2. With us, the childe may not be crossed before Baptisme, p. 428nor after, with Chrisme-oyle. But of that same may not before, I aske as before. And as for crossing with oyle, I would be informed, what religious difference there is, betwixt drie Crosses, and oyle, as G. Parisiensis distinguisheth them?

3. The Crosse is so used with us, that it neither addeth vertue to the Sacrament, nor capacity of grace to the childe. No more it is among the Papists, by the judgement of many learned, as hath beene shewed in the first part of this writing (though this be but matter of opinion, which concerneth not the present question) See Thomas Aquinas, 3. q. 66. a. 10. But why is it used? To intimate what Baptisme bindeth unto. That is, to doe that by mans institution, which Baptisme had done by Gods appointment. Whether this be a good reason or no, I heere inquire not: this I affirme; The Papists professe the same.

Kneeling.

1. This gesture (saith the Rejoynder) may before, … by occasion of any of Gods ordinances, be performed lawfully to God. By occasion, I grant: but before importeth more, Might the Iewes kneele before the Cherubims of the Vaile, as they might before the Arke? Might they kneel before the Brazen-Serpent? Might they before every Ephod? May we before every Pastor? When the Rej. hath resolved these questions, we shall further consider.

2. The gesture of kneeling, in the act of receiving, was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome. Then p. 429the Rejoynder deceived us, when in his Manuduction, pag. 30. he tolde us, that institution, and intended observation, are all one. For he himselfe confesseth, in the next page, 479. that among the Papists, the receivers of the Hoste, doe kneele, of an ancient custome. Custome surely, ancient, and constant, hath (by all law) more in it, then every intended observation.

3. Bellarmine and the Masse-booke, mention not kneeling in the act of receiving. They mention not indeed the peoples kneeling; because they make small account of their receiving, the masse being complete without it, and that being (with them) an accidentall complement of it. But they mention the Priests bowing to the Hoste many times, in his receiving.

4. The Pope himselfe receiveth the Hoste standing. The Pope is a lawlesse man, and may doe what he please, as also impose what he please upon others. But yet, in the place quoted (Sacrae Ceremoniae, lib. 2. pag. 181. Colon. 1558.) no such thing appeareth. In the page next before, I finde this: The Pope boweth low, at the …omming of the Sacrament, and reverently adoreth it. And one thing (worthy of observation) concerning the Popes receiving, I finde in Alexander Hales, Si quaratu… quare Dominus Papa sodendo comm… nicat, potest dici, quod hee fit in recordotionem quod beatus Petrus, & alij Aptstoli sedendo corpus Dom…ni in c… n… ultimo acceperunt.(in the last words of the second part of his Tractate concerning the Masse, which is the tenth question of his fourth part) that the Pope was wonte to receive sitting, in imitation of Peter and the other Apostles, Confirming that which our Defend. and Rejoynder doubt of. If it be asked wherefore S^r. Pope receives sitting, it may be answered, in memory of B. Peter, and other Apostles, who ate the last Supper sitting. This may by p. 430some be imputed to the Popes great pride, for that as it is in that booke of Ceremonies which the Rejoynder quoteth,Romanus Pontifex nemini exonino mortalium overentiam facit, assurgendo manifestè, aut caput inclinando, seu detegendo. pag. 160. The Romish Bishop doeth reverence to no man under heaven, by rising up to him, or by inclining, or uncovering his head. So it may be thought from the same principle, he doeth not reverence to the Hoste. But I the rather assent to Alexander Hales, because I have reade some where, I thinke it is in Hospinian de Templis, that the Pope hath no Organ-piping-musicke in his Church or Chappell. And these I account the reliques of ancient simplicity, in worship, which the Pope received from the first Bishops of Rome, and regarded not to make alterations of, without advantage.

5. The People which receive not, doe reverently bow themselves. Much more therefore they that receive.

6. True it is, the receivers doe kneele, of an ancient c… stome; but onelyonly for conveniencie of putting the Hoste into their mouthes, by the Priest. The former part indeed is true. But the latter is so false, that the Lutherans themselves, who as Apes of the Papists in this part, put the Hoste into the receivers mouth, in like manner as they have received the custome from the Papists,Tarnovius de ministerio, lib. 2. cap 31. Pratermittendo hanc venerastionem Christi externam (genu flectionem scit) communicantes praesentiam Christi secundum corpus, negare, & se Calvinianis conjungere viderentur. professe, and mainetayne, that they doe it for adoration. By omitting this outward veneration of Christ (viz. kneeling) the people seeme to deny Christs bodily presence with the Calvinists. All these things being well considered, it will be found, that (opinion of some set aside) our Ceremonies differ not so much from Papists, as the Popish shaving of Crounes doe differ from that which was in use among Iewes, and Gentiles, of shaving whole heads, according to p. 431Baronius his distinction, and an. 58. or then the Britons square shaving of crownes did differ from that round shaving, which Augustine the Monke, sent by Gregory, inforced upon them: wherein Pitsens a Papist, in his historicall relations of England, pag. 19. doeth note one part of that Controversie to have consisted: or rather (to returne unto the argument of this section) the difference is (by the Rej. his plea) as if Christians should have in olde time, hung out bay-bowes, unconsecrated, out of an upper-chamber, in the afternoone; when the Heathenhung them out consecrated, before noone, in their lower chamber; and that upon institution, when the Heathen did it onelyonly upon an ancient received custome. Are not these fine distances from idolatrous, and superstitious abuses?

4. An African Councell condemned certaine Feasts used in memory of Martyrs, because they were drawne from the errors of the Gentiles. This the Replier affirmed to make against our Ceremonies. The Rejoynder answereth 1. That this is not enough to defend the Abridgement, nor to oppose the Defendants answer. But if the Ceremonies be hereby condemned, it is all that the Abridgement sought for; and as much opposition to the Defend. as the Replier cared for. He answereth 2. That the Councell doeth not condemne any Feasts used by Christians, Illad etiam petendum (ab-Imperatoribus) ut quae contra praecepta divinae, convivia multis in locis exercentur, quae aberrero Gentili attracta sunt, &c. vetari talia i… beant.but onelyonly the very Feasts of the Heathens. But it seemeth otherwise, so farre as I can conster these words of the Councell: And this we are to seeke of the Emperors, that such Feasts as are in many places contrary to Gods Word, and from the errors of the Gentiles, be forbidden. I remember not any such phraze of those times, wherein Gentiles are said to p. 432draw from the errors of Gentiles. They did certainely traduce Feasts unto Christians, findeing them too ready for to draw such things from them. They were not Heathens, that are spoken of, in the third Councell of Toledo, cap. 22. The people that should attend divine Service, give themselves to unseemely dancings. Fopule qui debens off…cia divina attendere, saltationibus turpibus in…igilant, &c.Hospinian (de Orig. Fest.) after Beat. Rhenanus, in Ter…ul. de Coron mil. speaking of these, and such other Feasts, declareth the trueth in these words: The old Bish…ps were wonte when they could not call men from the superstitions of the Heathens by the preaching of the Word, to seeke at least to doe it by observing their holy dayes, with their owne worship. But this was to drive out one nayle with another, no way to take off the Superstition. Albeit then the beginning of these Solemnities were tolerable at first, yet at last they grew to such a heape of superstitions, that they became the fountaine and beginning of most horible things. Voluere veter…s Episcopi, quum ipsi pradicatione verbi non possunt homines à superstitionibus Gentilium avocare, saltem hac ratione mitigare, & in fuam religionem transferre voluere, sui… Sanctis sosdem dies & ritus consecrando. fuit aut…m hoc clavum clavo …rudere, superstitionem non …ollere. Licet igitur principia hujusmodi solemnitatum tolerabilia primo fuerunt, adm…xti…tamen palarim superstitionibus, tandem fons & origo horribilium errorum, & superstitionum fu…run….Yet suppose the meaning to be of Heathen Feasts, the reason notwithstanding (drawne from the errors of the Gentiles) pertaineth to Christians, except Christians may draw frō the error of Gentiles, though Gentiles may not. In the 3. place the Rej. undertaketh to proove, that the Councell did establish those Feasts of Mar…yrs: because the petition made for abolishing Heathen Feasts, was to provide for the due and free observation of the Martyrs Feasts. Whereupon he concludeth, that the Church may lawfully make use of an human Ceremonie, for her good; though the same kinde of Ceremonie, have beene notoriously abused, by, and to Idolatry. And in the parting, he giveth us gentle thankes for these Witnesses. Now 1. for his thankes, the matter is not so much worth. We can affoord him (without any damage p. 433to our cause) ten times as many witnesses, whoe in their practise have confuted that, which sometime in their doctrine they have taught concerning Ceremonies. 2. I will grant him also, that it was not the in…ention of that Councel, wholly to abolish the Celebra…ion of Martyrs birth or death-days. Yet those Feastings (Convivia) which were used at them, in imitation of the Heathen, they did (in all probabilitie) labour to abolish. For Augustine, whoe was then alive, and is likely to have had a hand in the Decree, did wish them abolished. This …ppeareth every where in his writings: As Epist. 64. and …19. And great reason ther was for that, and more also. For the superstition, and luxurie of them was intolerable. Those luxurious banquets (sayth he▪ Epist. 64.) are supposed of the sory people to be as well the solace of the dead as …he honour of Martyrs, whosoever carry their meates thither which the better sort of Christians do not and almost all the World over is neglected) yet whosoever doth that will have …hen sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs. Luxuriosa convivia in comiteriis, non solum honore… Martyrum, a carnal… & imperita pl…bo credi solons, sed etiam solatia mortuorum. de Civit. lib. 8. cae. 27. Queunqu… epula… suas …o deferunt (quod quidem a melioribus Christianis non fit, & in plerisque terrarum …ulla est talis consuetudo▪) tamen quienuqu… id faciunt, sanctificari ca… volunt per m…rita Martyrum.And as for …he Celebrations themselves, they were partly used by Christians, as the same Augustine sayth (cont. Faustum.) For the Prayers and merits-sake of the Martyrs. If the Re…oynder houldeth this a due observation of a human Ceremonie, and so teacheth, we have no cause to thank him for it.

The Papists confesse in deed, that ther is no example of such Feasts in Scripture, much lesse praecept: but yet they will hardly grant them to be human. Vt meritis Martyrum consocientur, atque orationibus adjuventur.Baron. ad …n. 58. We grant them to be human: but the common doctrine of Protestants denie them to have been duely p. 434observed at the least in that time, & in that manner which Augustine declareth, it being not onelyonly without example or praecept of Scripture, but also directly against the rules of it.

D. Abbot (Def. of Perk. pag. 886.) sayth more, namely, that Offerings yeerly made for the dead, and for birthdays, were first brought in by the Haeretick Montanus, whoe made gaine of them.

5. Tertullian (out of Coron. milit.) was cited in the Abr. thus: We may give nothing to the service of an Idol; nor borrow any thing from it. If it be against religion, to sit at table in an Idols temple; what is it, to be seen in the habit of an Idol. The Defender answered, he spake of habites then dedicated and appointed unto the service of Idols: but our Ministers are not urged, to reverence the Masse-Priests brazen Idol, or to put on the very same Romish Surplice, now used at their Masse, even therfor, because it is Popish. Of this the Replier proveth, that this samenesse is vainely alleged, and lesse then nothing. The Rejoynder for succour, sayth that this individual samenesse was a stragling souldier, and confesseth it to be taken prisoner. But in an answer grounded on dissimilitude, where the same qualitie is affirmed of one thing, and denied of another, if that qualitie be stragling, in eyther part, and so taken prisoner, the wholle answer must needs be held captive. And this captive souldier may easily be taught to fight against him from whome he was taken; as once (by report) it was in this manner: A Minister in Qeen. El. her days, was urged by his Ordinarie to wear the Surplice, whoe p. 435after other delays, alleged, that the Surplice proffered him to put on, was the very same that the Masse-Priest was wonte to sacrifice in: the Ordinarie admitting that excuse, commanded another to be made: which being doen, when it was brought him in the Church, he tooke it up, and spake thus to those praesent: Good people, the Bishop himself confessed, that the former massing Surplice, was not to be worne by a Minister of the Gospel; and judge you if this be not as like that, as one egge to another? let this therfor goe after the other: and so he justly c…st it away.

Yet let us see what other soldiers the Rejoynder can finde in this squadron, not stragling and taken? Ther are words set down (sayth he) in a different letter: dedicated and appointed. As if a different cassok did save a soldier from stragling! The buisinesse dependeth on him that weareth the cassok: and whoe was that soldier in the Defender his answer? or what was the thing dedicated and appointed, but the same individual habit? if other, then first shew the congruitie of the Defender his dissimilitude; and then shew also, that other Crosses, and Surplices are not dedicated and appointed unto the service of Idols, by Papists. The Defender also (addeth the Rej.) addes, that the comparison betwixt Papists, and Pagans is not altogether so aequal. He sayd in deed, that he would heerafter shew such a thing: but with soldiers promised, or threatned onelyonly, I never knew any serious combat fought.

After this, the Rejoynder allegeth, that it cannot be sayd of these our Ceremonies, (as Tertullian sayd of the habits p. 436he opposed) that they were dedicated and appointed to the service of an Idol, from the first, and never used by any godly men. But first, this can be no good explication of those words: we may borrow nothing from an Idoll: i. e. nothing which hath not been used by some godlyman. Secondly, he sayth not, that no godly man had ever used Crounes. Thirdly, Every olde usage of godly men, doeth not lessen the Idolatrie of it. For then sacrifizing of Oxen, should now be lesse Idolatrie, then of unclean Beasts. After these skirmishes, the Rejoynder finding that ther was no houlding of ground with such soldiers as the Defender had mustered, presseth new▪ at his owne charges. And first he bringeth in one persuasion, that Tertullians clear and professed judgement, was directly against our assertion, and for conformitie: because he sayth▪ Finaly those things agree to our, …Ea d…mum nostra & superiorum usibus, & Dei rebus, & ipsi Christo compotisse, quae …eras utilitates, & certa subsidia, & honest… solatia, necessaris necessitatibus vita humana pro…ura…and the use of others above us, and to the things of God, and to Christ himselfe, which indeed are proffitable to the life of man. Meaning the Sunne, the Moone, the Starrs, Fire, Earth, and such like good creatures of God. If this be against us, then we are also against our selves. For never any Non-Conformist, in England, or (as I think) in the World, dreamed (no not in an ague) any thing to the contrarie. And that this may directly make for Conformitie, the Rejoynder must shew, how our Ceremonies are meer profitable helps unto the necessitie of mans life? In the next place he maketh use of Diversion, alleging that Tertullian brought other arguments withall, against the Garland. But we keep our standing upon the argument of borrowing from the service of Idols: let others shift for themselfs.

p. 437Thirdly, he adjoyneth Accusation, that Tertl…ian di…emper…d; in bitter contention, and factious opposition, wrote …hat b…oke against the Church: quoting for it, Renatus, or …as I understand him) Rhenanus, and Doctor Abbot. But …eyther of these can helpe. For Rhenanus in the Argu…ent of that booke (de Coron. mil.) defendeth Tertul…an, about the Garland; and sheweth him to have main…ed the same sentence in his Apollogie, which was his Master piece, written without distemper, and not equal…ed by the best tempered writing extant, of the same kinde. …octor Abbot. speaketh sharpely of Tertullian, for his …aintaining of ceremoniall traditions; wherein he was to …e blamed: but not for his generall rule of not borrowing … the service of Idols: whereas the Defendant and Re…oynder allow those traditions, as appeareth in this Re…oynder, pag, 493. and oppose this rule. And it is most …rtaine, that Tertullian did not receive any distemper, or …ctious disposition from Montanus, against Ceremonies …used to Idolatry. For Montanus brought in the blood … Children into the Supper, but about the Crosse he did …n the judgement of Doctor Abbot, and all our best divines.

I have somewhat merrily answered, in this passage, …y occasion of the Rej. his mentioning of a stragling …ouldier: if any man will accuse me therefore,Congruit & veritats ridere, quia latans de emulu suis ludere, quia socura est. Curandum plane, ne rifus ejus rideatur, si su…rit ìndignus. Caeterum ubicunque dignus r…sus, officium est. of this or …at fault, as the Rejoynder doeth the Replier, upon like …ccasion, Tertullian, whose cause I pleade, shall make …y Apology: It will agree to trueth to laugh, because it is …f a pleasant disposition; and to sport with her competitors, …cause it is secure, and feares not the wals of her Bulwarke. …nely this would be regarded, that our laughter be not unworthy p. 438lest it be laught at, but if it bee worthy, it may be a dutie.

6. Another place Tertullian (de oratione, cap. 11. & 12.) was objected, where hee sayth, that Christians might not wash their hands (for a Ceremony) or lay aside their cloakes, before prayer; nor sit upon their beds, after prayer; because the Heathen used to doe so. The Def. his first answer being that these Ceremonies were not condemned meerely for resemblance with Idolatry, but for opinion of necessity; it was replied, that Tertullian speaketh plainely: therefore it d…servethto be prooved in us, because it is observed in the service of an Idol. To which the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that the Heathens might use their Idolatrous Ceremonies with opinion of necessity. Let it be so: yet Christians may be reprooved for meere likenesse unto them, though either they have not the same opinion, or the consideration of that opinion set apart. Meerely doeth not alwayes signifie onelyonly; nor can it so stand in the Def. his answer. For then thus he should speake: not onelyonly for resemblance, but (without any also) for opinion. If he did meane so, we say on the contrary, not onelyonly for opinion, but also for resemblance. So farre as I can understand the word meerely for, it noteth not more, then is implied in Tertullians therefore it deserveth. A deserving cause is meerely a cause, or else malefactours are not punished meerely for their evill deserts. In the former testimony, out of Tertullian, pag. 484. the Rej. translated meras utilitates, any commodious use. If meere commodities, be all one with any commodities, then meerely for resemblance is any thing at all for p. 439resemblance: and so the Def. denieth Tertullian to have condemned those Ceremonies he speaketh against, any thing at all for resemblance with Idolatry; which yet Tertullian doeth as plainely speake, as ever he spake any thing at all.

B. Iewel (said the Replier) doeth urge these Testimonies of Tertullian, meerely in regard of resemblance: of others it is not needfull to speake. The Rej. answereth 1. that Iuel doeth not urge these Testimonies of Tertullian. But it is to be seene in his Def. Apol. par. 3. cap. 5. div. 1. how he citeth Tertullian de Coron. mil. and de Idol. with which the Rejoynder will not deny, this (de Orat) to consent. 2. He citeth them (addeth the Rej.) not for unlawfulnesse, but for inconveniency of resembling Idolaters. Concerning this distinction, enough hath beene said in the first part. Yet this heere is worthy of observation; that both the Def. and Rej. in the first section of this fourth chapter, confessed, that human Ceremonies abused to Idolatry, are therefore unlawfull, except they be of convenient necessity, as the Rejoynder speaketh, pag. 406. What reason then had Iuel, or hath the Rejoynder in his name, to confesse such Ceremonies inconvenient, and yet make them lawfull? But that Iuel understood Tertullian, to speake against such Ceremonies, as unlawfull, it appeareth out of these his words: Tertullian disputes sharpely therein, that a Christian may not weare a lawrell-crowne, and that for no ot…er cause, but because the Gentiles did so. Acriter in eam partem disputat Tertullianus, non licere homini Christiano, ceronam lauram gestare, idqu… non aliunde, nisi ob id modo, quia idem facere solebant Ethni….I have onelyonly the latine edition at hand; and therefore quote it. But eyther the interpreter failed much, or else Iuel expresly …pake there of unlawfulnesse (non licere) p. 440and not of other inconveniencie. The Rejoynder his next answer dependeth onelyonly on that which was formerly confuted, namely, that meerely is onelyonly.

The Replier added, that it doeth not appeare out of Tertullian, that he respected opinion of necessity and efficacy, in these Ceremonies. For which, he is charged by the Rejoynder, with offence, against men, simple, and learned, as also against God himselfe. And why all this? Because (forsooth) Tertullian sayth, that such washings and cleansings, as many superstitiously affect, against every prayer, are not true; but those which we have in Christ, and in purification of the heart. But this is no sufficient ground for so deep an accusation. For if now one should admonish a Non-resident, who sendeth a reading Curate, to supply his place, in these words: This is not true fulfilling of your Ministery; but those personall offices, which are in Scripture injoyned; and the meaning of these words being questioned, one should deny, that by them it was implied, that the said Non-resident held it necessary for him, in conscience, to be absent, and send such a Curate for supply; would any man accuse the denier of offending against God and man? It was further observed by the Replier, that the washing condemned by Tertullian, had relation to Christs delivering by Pilat, after washing of his hands, and so like unto our signe of the Crosse, in regard of the originall signification and use of it. The Rejoynd. answereth many words: but to the purpose (beside repetitions) he sayth, that those washers did beleeve Pilat to have beene cleansed by his washing, and so themselves by theirs, from guilt of sinne. And this he gathereth from Tertullians p. 441confutation: We adore Christ, and not deliver him: we should abhorre the example of him that did deliver him. But out of these words no such collection can be made; any more then some like invention out of these: we adore Christ, and not crucifie him: we should abhorre the example of them that did crucifie him, and left a Crosse in the place, for a signe and memoriall that he was crucified. That washing was a signe immediatly of Pilats washing, and so of Christs delivering: our Crosse is immediately a signe of Pilats Crosse, and so of our Saviours crucifying. This is the likenesse which the Replier truely noted.

Concerning the Ceremony of Dossing cloakes, before prayer, the Defender put it off to opinion of necessity; because Tertullian in condemning it, hath these words: si sic oporteret, i. e. if it must be. It was replied, that our Prelates say also of our Ceremonies, sic oportet. i.e. It must be so, and yet disclaime absolute necessity. But (answereth the Rejoynd.) they held an internall simple necessity of conscience; not externall onelyonly for order sake, as our Prelates doe. Of this distinction, see the first part of this Suite. The collection of this opinion, from Tertullians scoffe; nisi si qui putant, except there be any so foolish as to have such an opinion is so palpably vaine, that any man may see, he durst not impute that opinion unto those washers he spake against; but onelyonly sheweth, that from their practise, such a fond and absurd opinion, which themselves would condemne, might perhaps by some be collected, Tertullian spake, as we now speake. If Crossing ought to be used in Baptisme, the Apostles in their doctrine concerning baptizing would have made some mention of it: except perhaps p. 442some thinke, that they did not then know, or cared not to use, the right or best way of signifying Christian valour, and constancy, in fighting under Christs banner.

In oppsition to that which was alleged for Tertullians respect unto opinion of necessity, and efficacy, in condemning those Ceremonies, it was replied, that he condemneth them onelyonly (that is, if they had but this fault alone) that they were empty observations, Vacua observationes, quibus vanitas merito exprobranda est, siquidem sine ullius aut Dominici, aut Apostolici praecepta authoritate fiunt. Mujusmodi enim, non religioni, sed superstitioni deputantur, affectata, & co. acta, & curiosi potius quam rationalis officij, certevel … coercenda, quod Gentilibus ad. …quent.and to be worthily upbraided with vanity, as being done without any warrant from Christ or his Apostles. For such things serve not to religion, but to superstition, and are affected, and forced, and rather over-curious, then any thing rationall at all, and even therefore to be restrained, they do so suit the Gentiles. Heere the Rejoynder after a little touch upon the particle onelyonly, now expounded, answereth, that this was because of a… opinion of necessity, which is properly superstition: because the same Tertullian (de Coron. mil.) alloweth sundry huma… signi…cant Ceremonies, held as free, and used for instruction. In which answer, the first part is manifestly false; if Tertullians owne wordes may be heard: those Ceremonies are supervacuous and vaine, which are us…d without any authority of Divine or Apostolicall command, and are to be accounted superstious: and even therefore to be repressed, because they make us (in some sort) like the Gentiles. The second part, which containeth a reason, is voyd of all trueth. For 1. Tertullian did not account those Ceremonies human, but of Apostolicall though unwritten tradition: Traditio auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, & fides observatrix. 2. For freedome, to allege this, is cleane contrary to Tertullians intention: because he went about to proove the necessitie p. 443of absteyning from the Lawral-Croune, by the necessitie of observing these unwritten traditions. 3. For instruction, I would be informed, what instruction ther was, in Crossing, at every step, Adomnem progressum, atque prometum, ad omnem aditum, & exitum, ad vestitum, & calceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad subilia, & ad sedilia?and goeing forward and at every turne, at clothing ones selfe, at washing, at bed, at board &c. 4. D. Abbot (whose judgement of Tertullian, the Rejoynder commendeth, pag. 485.) in that very place which he commendeth (Def. Perk. pag. 883.884. &c.) sayth plainly, that Tertullian defended those traditions against the Church; that therin he contradicted himself; and that those traditions were partly heathenish and haeretical devises. About Tertullian, nothing material followeth.

7. Melchiades decreed, that no Christian should fast on the Lords day, or friday, because it was a knowen custome of Pagans, to fast on those days.

The Rejoynder 1. sayth one answer was, the incongruitie of fasting unto the Lords day. But this not being fetched out of Melchiades, the Replier justly passed by, and so will I, though enough may be sayd against it, as the Reader may see in the Altar of Damascus, pag. 669. &c. 2. He telleth us also of another answer, by a distinction, betwixt a light Ceremonie, and a sacred solemnitie. But this neyther is in Melchiades, nor holdeth congruitie eyther with Scripture, forbidding symbolizing with Idolaters in light Ceremonies; nor with it self, the light Ceremonie being sacred, and also a solemnitie. 3. The Rejoynder addeth out of his owne store, that the prohibition was onelyonly of open and solemne fasting, not appointed by the Church. Which is as wreched an evasion, as the former: because the quaestion is of open and solemne Ceremonies; p. 444and Melchiades disalowed that any Church should appoint it, in condemning the thing without any distinction, or limitation, for a reason, that layeth more fault upon the Churches, if they should appoint it, then upon privat persons, if they should observe it without appointment. For he groundeth his condemnation upon 2. Cor. 6. What concord hath Christ with Belial? What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? May the Temple of God have agreement with Idols, in Ceremonies, if the Church appoint so? 4. The Rejoynder addeth a note out of a later Councel, being a Iurie of twelve Bishops, wherin other phrases are used. Much good might it doe them that can make any thing of it.

The passage being thus cleared, let us now come to that which the Replier tooke for the Def. his onelyonly answer: Melchiades for bad fasting at the same time with Pagans, because they lived in the same Countrie, at the same time, and place. This (sayd the Replier) could not make the difference▪ because so litle a distance may be betwixt one Countrie, and another, that it can bring up no difference of moment. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that it was a reason of inconvenience onelyonly. But Melchiades sayd out of 2. Cor. 6. that it was to make the Temple of God agree with Idols. Is that onelyonly inconvenient, and not unlawful? And if it were nothing but inconveniencie, was it not confessed, in the beginning of this Chapter, that Ceremonies Idolatrously abused, if they be not of convenient necessitie, are unlawfull? If this be so, then much more unlawful are they, if they be inconvenient. He addeth 2. that some place & time may make a difference: p. 445which the Replier denied not; but onelyonly sayd, that every distance of Countrie (such as is betwixt Dover and Calise, is not sufficient.

8. Ambrose taught Monica, Augustines mother, to leave bringing of Wine and Cakes to Churche, because it had a shew of conformitie with the Gentiles funeral-feasts. The Defender answered, that it was an act of sacrificing, &c. as Bellarmine doeth, de Sanctor. Beat. lib. 1. cap. 14. Nay sayth the Rejoynder Bellarmine neyther so answered, nor had occasion so to answer. But if he had considered, that the Defender maketh this fact of Monicas, to be a sacrifice, derived from the Collyridian haereticks; and that Bellarmine there answereth to the argument taken out of Epiphanius, against those Collyridians, as may appear by comparison of cap. 11. in the ende; and that in the objection, ther is no mention of sacrificing, but Bellarmin answereth by covert of that terme; he would have forborne this censure.

It was also pronounced an incredible thing, that Augustines religious mother, should then sacrifice to a creature, which the Papists now will nor professe to doe. To this the Rejoynder is, that the Defender never sayd Monica did sacrifice. Consider therfor his words, reprinted by the Rejoynder pag. 501. The act (objected) was sacrificing: You compare our Ceremonies, with Ceremonies of sa…rif…cing. Did we object an act as comparative to our Ceremonies, any act, beside that of Monica? Certainly no. If therfor the act objected & compared, were a sacrifice, then Monicas act must needs in the Defender his account, be sacrificing.

p. 446The other passages depend upon the difference now touched, until that answer of the Replier commeth in: Neyther Ambrose, nor Augustine, nor Monica, his mother, regarded any thing in condemning that act, but onelyonly, lest any occasion should be given to intemperate ones of filling themselfs beyond measure; and because these funeral rites as it were resembled the Superstition of the Gentiles. Ne ulla oc…asio ingurgitandi se, daretur eb…iosis: & quia illa quasi parentalia, superstitioni Gentilium ossont similuna.The Rejoynder heer 1. denieth that Ambrose, Augustine, or Monica did condemne this act. Which is very strange; seing Ambrose did publick…y forbid it, by the Rejoynder his confession; Monica hearing the reasons, was affected with them in her conscience, to forbear it; and Augustin applandeth them both. Yet the Rejoynder hath r…asons for his denial, such as they be: 1. Augustine sayth his Mothers intention was good. 2. It was usual in Africa. 3. He thought that his Mother would not have been so taken-off from that custome by any beside Ambrose. 4. Ambrose did onelyonly restrayne Monicas privat devotion, as having publickly forbidden that manner, for a double inconveniencie, not for unlawfulnesse.

Now the first of these reasons import, that Augustin condemned nothing that was doen of a good intention. The second implieth, that he condemned nothing that was usual in Africa. The third supposeth, that Christians are not more easily drawn from unlawful customes, by one man, then by another. The fourth contradicteth first it self, conjoyning the restrayning onelyonly of privat devotion, with publick forbidding; and secondly, the Defender and Replier whoe (in the beginning of this chapter) confesse Ceremonies Idolatrously abused, p. 447to become unlawfull, except they be of convenient necessity; and so much more, if they have a double inconveniency in them. The rest of this section doeth onelyonly jarre upon the same strings.

9. To a grave sentence of August. (Hom. 6. de verb. Dom. in Matth.) If you aske how the Pagans may be wonne, inlightened, called▪ leave all their solemnities, and forsake their toyes. The Defendant answered, that those solemnities and toyes, are not to be used together with Pagans. The Rejoynder addeth, that Augustine meaneth feasting with Idolaters, in the Temples of Idols, which could not be used apart from Idola…ers. Suppose it were so: yet the question remaineth, whether using such toyes of theirs apart, as may be used apart, make more for their conversion, or for their hardening, according to Augustines judgement? But it is not so as the Rejoynder imagineth. For 1. Augustine spake of them, which were present at feasts, made at the solemnity of the Genius or Patron of Carthage, whom those Christians, he reprooveth, denied to be an Idol. 2. All the Citizens of Carthage could not celebrate that feast in one Temple. 3. It doeth not appeare, that the Patrone had any proper Temple. 4. The Citizens being parted into divers places of feasting, why might not the Christians that would keepe that feast, have one place apart? 5. Suppose the Christians had taken some part of the Banket, or made one like it, and carried it into their owne Temple, to use it there, with another opinion then the Heathen had; would Augustine have allowed it; 6. The case was at Carthage, as it was in Popish times, with the Company of Smithes at p. 448London, who after some worship done to their Patron, Dunstan, had a Feast in their Hall. Now if some Protestants refusing to be at their worship in Dunstans Church should yet have beene at their Feast in the Hall. I would know, whether they had more symbolized with Papists, in the worship of Dunstan, then our Conformists doe in the worship of the Crosse?

That which is after added by the Rejoynder out of other places of Augustine, concerne not our present question: because there Augustine considereth not any relation unto idolatrous abuse. Neither by citing one generall rule of Augustines, did we binde our selves to follow all his counsels.

10. Concerning the Councels of Nice forbidding Easter to be kept on the same day with the Iewes Passeover, the Rejoynder maketh long worke, to little purpose. 1. He sayth (with the Defendant) that it was not for unlawfulnesse. 2. He confirmeth that answer, by a story of the businesse, marking, that the Councell said about Easter, onelyonly, It seemed good to us. 3. He excepteth against the words, as they are cited in the Abridgement. And so spendeth many good words, and phrazes, not requiring any confutation. Now. 1. Concerning the words, as they are found in constantines letters patents, they were cleared before, cap. 3. sect. 6.2. The same, or like forme of words, is used in the same Councell about things unlawfull, though not so desperately evill, as denying the Faith. 3. The succeeding practises, and censures, doe shew, that unlawfullnesse was understood. For presently after, those which kept Easter with the p. 449Iewes, were accounted a sort of Heretickes, styled Quartadecimani. And what ruffeling, Augustine sent into England by Gregorie, made against the ancient Britons, for dissenting in that observance, after, and out of other stories, Mr. Foxe doeth at large relate. But for such matters, I leave them (with the Replier) to those that are skilfull in human traditions; not regarding that judgement of the Rejoynders. If you bee not skilfull in human traditions, you may hazzard your selves and others: because I doubt not, but skill in Gods word alone, is sufficient against all such hazzard.

The reasons rendred by the Defendant, for the Nicene prohibition of keeping Easter as the Iewes, are three: 1. Hatred of the Iewes. 2. Because of the Iewes insultations. 3. For uniformity. Of the last, it was Replied, that uniformity might have beene, if all could have beene drawne to the same time with the Iewes. Which the Rejoynder confesseth to be true, if they could have beene drawne thereto as well. Where 1. He taketh it for granted, that all were well drawne to the time determined; the contrary whereof appeareth, as in others, so in our ancient Britons. 2. Well or ill, that is, easily or hardly, these make no difference in uniformity, but onelyonly in the meanes of accomplishing the same. The other two reasons are sayd by the Replier, to agree unto our Ceremonies; because we are to hate the Idolatrous superstitions of the Papists, with a perfect hatred; and the Papists insult over us, for borrowing our Ceremonies from them. About this (because it could not be denied) the Rejoynder spendeth many words and phrazes, partly p. 450Rhetorically good, and partly Morally not good; which I leave as I found: because there is no doing with them, but in greate leisure, or in idle time.

In the conclusion, it was asked by the Replier, for what causes many other Ceremonies of the Papists were abolished, if not for these two last named? or if the same causes that abolished them, would notsweep away these, if it pleased them who have the beezoms in their hand? About this the Rejoynder first, referreth the Reader to a preface set before the Service-booke, and I am contented he should seeke if he can finde any such reasons there. Secondly, he addeth, that wee which have not the bezome in our hands, should not shuffle abroad the dust with our feete. No more doe we (say I) but onelyonly keepe it out of our eyes, and throates, so well as we can, giving reasons, why the Sweepers should not thrust it upon us, nor us for it out of the doores

11. About the Gangren forbidding fasting upon the Lords-Day, many words are spent by the Rejoynder. The summe is, that such fasting is there spoken of, as was performed out of an H…reticall opinion, either of necessity so to doe, or of contempt of the Lords-Day. But this cannot be prooved. For there being divers different editions of that Councell, none of them mention opinion of necessity: and in the ordinary greek copy, there is neither contempt, nor contumacy, named, as Binius noteth. Beside, opinions and contempts, as they are inward, cannot be noted by the Church. If they were outward, in word; then not so much the fasting upon opinion, as the opinion it selfe, was to be condemned. If the act it selfe was taken for a manifestation p. 451of such an opinion, that is it which we urge As for that accusation which is layd upon the Replier, for relating the Defendant his answer, so as if he had referred the matter unto contempt of Christian profession, that is remooved by the Defendant his owne words, related by the Rejoynder, pag. 521. Contempt, to wit, of the Christian profession. See before, in Melchiades his decree.

12. The Councell of Bracara, forbad abstinence from flesh, for avoyding of all suspicion in consenting to the Priscillian Hereticks. This (sayth the Rejoynder) was in respect of inexpediency onelyonly. Let it be so: yet 1. They that forbad it, held it not lawfull to be commanded, as our Ceremonies are. 2. Inexpediencie, or inconveniency of Ceremonies notoriously knowne to be Idolatrously abused, maketh them unlawfull, by the Defendant and Rejoynder their owne confessions, in the first section of this chapter: where convenient necessity is required, to make them lawfull.

13. Thrice dipping in Baptisme, was condemned, by a Councell of Toledo. It was added in the Abridgement, that Gregory alledged and approoved this decree: and the Replier, named Leo in stead of Gregory. Heere the Rejoynder catcheth holde of the names of Gregorie, and Leo, and findeth matter for many words, in the account of their lives, not agreeing to the fourth Councell of Toledo, where this was decreed. Now the Replier was (through haste) mistaken, as understanding the first Councell of that place, for the fourth: and the Authors of the Abridgement, or their Scribes pen, misplaced the word alledgeth: because the Councell doeth alledge p. 452Gregory,Te…atur modus ille quom Gregorius primus definivit. Tolet. 4 cap. 5. and not Gregory the Councell: Let that manner be held, which Gregory the first defined. These are not stragling Souldiers, such as formerly were taken from the Defendant as the Rejoynder spake, but Souldiers boyes, or Bedees, upon whom little or nothing dependeth in the bartell. Let them therefore goe; or by exchange be dismissed. Gregory hath the same sentence, lib. 1. Epist. 41. and therefore approoved the decree of Toledo, before it was there decreed. For reall answer, it is rejoyned, 1. That all things forbidden, are not condemned at unlawfull. But yet (by his leave) whatsoever is forbidden lawfully, and reasonably, is held unlawfull upon some reason; and therefore so farre condemned for unlawfull, as it is lawfully forbidden. Certainely, in Lawes, forbidding doeth as well imply some unlawfull evill, as commanding doeth necessary good. 2. The Rejoynder denyeth the Papist to make any superstitious construction of our use of the Crosse. But this is plaine enough: and it commeth after to be handled, yet in this place it is enough, if they make a superstitious construction of the Crosse, which we make use of, though not of our use, which the Rejoynder addeth, that he might with some colour accuse the assertion of falshood. More was not, nor needed be affirmed by the Replier, in this point. 3. He pronounceth it a male volent calumniation, that our owne Canons, and Canonicall Imposters make a superstitious construction of it. But this hath beene prooved before, especially in the second Argument, where it hath been convinced of will-worship. 4. He formeth a new proposition; and thereupon girdeth at sitting in the Lords-Supper: p. 453which is not worth the answering. All the rest of his words turne upon the loose hingel of inconveniency without any unlawfulnesse, now often confuted. This therefore shall suffize for this testimony; and so I end, the head of Fathers, and Councels. For Leo's words, make not directlytothe purpose.

Concerning Protestant Divines.

This head was passed over by the Defendant, but the Rejoynder undertaketh to cleare it: wherein, either his skill, orhis confidence, must needes occasion wondering.

1. The generall Assembly of Scotland (anno. 1566.) writ thus to the Bishops of England. If Surplice, Corner-Cap, and Tippet, have beene badges of Idolaters, in the very act of Idolatry, what have the Preachers of Christian liberty, and the open Rebukers of superstition, to doe with the dregs of the Romish Beast? And in their Confession: We detest all the Ceremonies and false doctrine of the Romish Antichrist, added to the ministration of the true Sacraments: we detest all his vaine Allegories, Rites, Signes, and Traditions, brought into the Church without, or against the Word of God. To the former testimony, the Rejoynder answereth 1. That these words are not the definitive judgement of the Assembly, but onelyonly spoken as the Plea of some tender-hearted men, which suffered for refusall of those things. Now if this were so as the Rej. maketh it, yet this we may gather from thence; that the Plea of many godly ministers of England, in those dayes, p. 454was, that our Ceremonies are unlawfull. For so it is there sayd: many thousands, both godly, and learned, have their consciences continually stricken, with these sentenses: what hath Christ to doe with Belial? what fellowship is there betwixt darkenesse and light? &c. in the words formerly cited. What meant the Rejoynder then, to perswade his Readers, in his Preface, and upon all occasions, that our Ceremonies were not by Non-Conformists held unlawfull, but onelyonly inconvenient, untill of late? If nothing else can, yet this his owne (not confession, but) peremptory answer, may so convince him, that he must acknowledge his accusing of us, as dissenting therein from the first seekers of reformation, in the Ceremonies, and so the occasion of his bitter writing, is a meere conceyt, built up by desire of putting some colour upon that, which, nakedly beheld, would be offensive. Observe further, that a definitive judgement, is vainely heere denyed, where it was never sought for. The Ministers of England did not send into Scotland, for a definitive sentence, concerning the use or abuse of things in England. Neither were they of Scotland so simple, as to take that authority of defining upon them. But for their advizing judgement, is plaine enough to all that read their words with any indifferency. They were not ignorant of our English question: there were among them, that had beene at Frankford, as M^r. Knoxe, M^r. Good-man, &c. They did not so farre forget themselves, as to send allegations in other mens names, into England, to be admitted there, which themselves did not allow of. Beside, they directly call them unprofitable vaine trifles. Yea (sayth the Rejoynder) but they p. 455disclaime the very question; they supposed the refusers of the Ceremonies, not to damne the consciences of the users: and call them vaine trifles in comparison of preaching the Gospel. They disclaim indeed professed entering into the ground of that question, as mediators use to doe, but yet insinu…te their judgement of it. Ceremonies may be damned, …hough the consciences of all that use them, be not condemned. Vnprofitable vaine trifles, found not of compa…ison. Neither is there any thing in the letter, that gives …ny inkling of such a limitation.

To the second testimonie, taken out of the Scottish Confession, the Rejoynder answereth 1. that it respecteth all Ceremonies, as they were Antichrists, formally, and not all materialy. After which manner, it is easie to answer any …estimonie that ever was alleged. For in the Confession, there is no difference made betwixt all, and some; neyther can the Rejoynder give any apparent reason of his formal interpretation; and it is well knowen, that the …ery material Popish Ceremonies were then detested by M^r. Knoxe, with those that agreed unto his direction, as …hey also have been, ever since the Reformation, abhor…ed generally in Scotland, untill of late, when that which one of them calleth an Altar of Damascus, came into that Countrey.

The Rejoynder his 2. answer is, that they of the Assembly professed, what liked them best in Scotland; not what they thought others bound to do; as appeareth by our late King Iames, the chiefe of them. But before this can stand, it must be shewed, in what Synode, we detest, is taken, for wee like …ot so well in our Country; and then, how the after-interpretation p. 456of one, who was then but fifteene yeares old, can over-sway the common interpretation of the whole Church?

2. Oecolampadius requireth a Minister of Scaphusium (Epist. 1. lib. 1. pag. 129.) utterly to cast off all the Ceremonies of the Papists, in celebration of the Lords Supper, as those which cannot be continued, without nourishing of the superstition and impiety, whereunto they served of olde. The Rejoynder answereth 1. That this was not Oecolampadius his owne advise, but that which some others would have had him given. But he propounding it, and onelyonly excusing himselfe modestly that he was slow in put on others so farre (insinuating that though he himselfe was so resolved, yet he durst not urge others thereto, and therefore onelyonly requireth conveniency without offense, sufficiently testifieth his allowance of that advise. And who (thinke you) were the Authors of that advise, but zuinglius &c ▪ He 2. addeth, out of divers Epistles, that Oecolampadius would not have all that country tye themselves in Ceremonies, to Basil, Tigure, or Bern that he holde gold… silver, glasse, or wooden vessels in administration of the Sacrament, indifferent. As if any of us were of another minde this is a meere colour of something, where nothing is to be found.

In the third place, he sheweth, how Oecolampadius, allowed of the termes of Sacrifice, Altar, and omitted no wonted Ceremonies, but onelyonly the latine tongue, in reading the Epistle, and Gospel. But if the Rejoynder had considered, that termes are no Ceremonies; and that Oecolampadiu… allowed and Practised this last mentioned imperfect reformation, p. 457when he was (in comparison) but a Novice in religon, before he came to Basil, he would not have so exulted in this quotation, as he doeth: The Abridgers (sayth he) never (I thinke) read Oecolampadius his Epistles. But he hath no just reason to thinke, but some of them had read those Epistles; unlesse he can shew from whence else they had this testimony. I have read them long since, and remember well, that to be true which now I sayd. How it stood at Basil, with Popish Ceremonies, when Oecolampadius was Minister there, it appeareth out of Zuinglius, his Fellow-Minister (de Baptismo) in these words, worthy to be recited, though somewhat too large for this place:Luben… equidem Catabaptistu concedam & fatebor, aliqui dutilitatis, ex contentione illa, quam ipsi de Baptism… instituerunt, enatum esse. Hine enim factum est ut eae quae humanae rationis stulta superstitio add…derat (qualia sunt exorcism, sputi sausque usus, & alia hujus generis complura) in lucem protracta, ab omnibus pro vanis & inutilibus habita fint— Non infi…iamur illa à Majoribus nostris ad nos usque, & nostra tempora manavisse. — Interim tamen constat, hac divinitus institut a non esse, sed ab hominibus olim addita, quae fortasse tune, pro temporum ratione ferri poterant: eo quod, ut Israelitae olim sub…nd… Aegypti desiderio tact…, ad illius delicias respicsebant, fic qui nuper ad Christ… pertes concesserant, ad Gentilium religioxem non nihilo promptiores propensioresque erant, quae Ceremonias …usmodi plures continebat. I will easily grant the Catabaptists, and confesse, that the strife which they made about Baptisme, hath not beene altogether without benefit: For hence it comes to passe, that those things which the foolish superstition of human reason had added thereunto (as Exorcismes, Spittings, Salt, and such like more) being brought into question, are now become vaine & unprofitable in every mans judgmēt. Wee deny not but wee received those things from our Fathers. — Howsoever it is evident they were not of God, but set up of man; which also it may be, (consideration had to that time) might have beene borne; because that as the Israelites heretofore affected with a desire of Aegypt, looked backe to the delicacies thereof, so they which lately are come over to Christ, were a little propence and prone to Heathenish religion, which cont…ined many such rites. p. 458And these, Has ergo Christiani homines in alium usum convertere solebant, quo sacilius pristina illa superstitione liberarentur. Sed longe prestitisset▪ si omnia … medio sublata fu ssent & abolita, &c.Christian m…n were wonte to turne i…to other use, that they might in time the bett…r be freed from that superstition. But how much better had it beene, if all and every of those things had beene abolished at the first.

3. Concerning Calvin, I say, as the Rejoynder sayth, that which is alleged out of him, hath suffici…ntly been handled before. As for the new addition, which the Rejoynder heere bringeth, as making against us (that gold and silver, come and wine, and usefull meeting places, may be retained, after Idolatrous abuse of t…em) he knoweth, and all the world knoweth, it maketh nothing for such Ceremonies as ours are; nor any thing against us, who continually professe the same trueth. Except he meant to abuse the Reader, I know not wherefore he should bring in such impertinent allegations.

4. M^r. Bucer was alleged (in the Abridgement) as scarce esteeming them syncere Christians, who can abide the Ceremonies of Antichrist, or such as have affinity with his. The Rejoynder opposeth other places, where he speake…h for a toleration of some such Ceremonies. Neither of these allegations can be denied. What then shall we say?Tanto studio propagandi Evangelij flagrat Bucerus, ut qua praci pua sunt contentus impetrass…, interdum fit aequo lenior in cis concedendis, quae in nutula quidem ipse putat sed habent etiam suum pendus. surely 1. That Pucer though he was a reverend zealous man, yet he was a man; and so shewed himselfe sometime about Ceremonies. So Calvin observed, Epist. 13. Bucer was so zealous for the propag…tion of the Gospel, that contented with the maine, he was sometime more remisse then was meete, in allowing petty matters as he tooke them, but yet for all that, they had their weight. To the same purpose he gently admonisheth Bucer himselfe, even concerning the matters of England, Epist. 39. p. 459This by name I commend to thee, Hoc tibi nominatim commendo, ut te invidiâ liberes, qua te falso gravari apud multos non ignoras, nam modijs consilijs vel authorem, vel approbatorem te simper inscribunt.by all meanes to free thy selfe from envy, under which thou sufferest (though unjustly) among many, as thou thy selfe knowest. For they still taxe you by middle dealing, to be either Author or Abettour. And according to this observation, we finde, that Cassander, and Baldwine, writing against Calvin himselfe, about Ceremonies, oppose unto him every where the name of Bucer. 2 It is to be noted, that when Bucer looked simply to his Rule, he condemned all ceremonious reliques of Idolatry as much as any: but in some particular perplexity, other impressions did sometime draw him to an unwilling toleration of some such reliques. But then he doeth it so fearfully, and with so many cautions, that any may see, it was but a suspensive sentence of toleration, extorted by a kinde of necessitie, not any allowance, out of constant judgement. Thus Beza in his Answer to Baldwine, whoe alleged Bucers allowance of our English Ceremonies, answereth:Quod ad illam Anglicanam reformationem attinet, quum dicis eam ex Buceri consilio ac voluntate fuisse institutam, magnam optimo viro injuriam facis. Sunt qui fermento Antichristi conglu…inare veliut Deum & Belial, &c. As for that English reformation, which you ascribe to Bucer you do the good man not a little wrong. To manifest this, he allegeth these wordes of Bucer: There be who with the leaven of Antichrist, would joyne together God and Belial.

All these thinges considered, that which Bucer spake against such Ceremonies, is to be taken for his judgement: and when he occasionally varied therfrom, that is to be imputed unto his good, but excessive affection.

5. The wordes cited out of Musculus (loc. com. de Trad. pag. 421.422.) are: It is not fit, that those thinges which are rather superstitious, then religious, or have so much as a shew of superstition, should be reteyned in the Church. God p. 460forbid, that I should mainteyne any traditions, Rites, or worships, which are Popish. And I call them Popish, which eyther of their owne nature or by abuse, do serve unto Popish impiety, superstition, and blindenesse: all which I am perswaded ought to be detested, as much as is possible. Now marke the Rejoynder his answer: 1. He sayth, Musculus sheweth onelyonly what is meete, not what is unlawfull. This he gathereth out of the first words: it is not fit. But first, may things not meete, be appointed, and urged, as our Ceremonies are? Secondly, Musculus speaketh of such things as he holdeth unlawfull to mainetaine: God forbid that I should maintaine them. 1. Would he then have mainteyned our Ceremonies (as the Def. and Rej. doe) sometime as lawfull though unm…et, and sometime as meet, and of convenient necessitie? Thirdly, he speaketh of such thinges as are to be detested as much as is possible: are they lawfull? 2. The Rejoynder addeth, that Musculus speaketh of such human traditions, as had been formerly under abuse, but were now reduced to another use. In which wordes, (if they be right printed) he maketh Musculus to speake as directly against our Ceremonies, according to his owne interpretation, as the Abrigement doeth. If not be left out by the Printer, then he may be convinced by those words of Musculus: so much as a shew of superstition.

But (sayth he) our Ceremonies considered as Ceremonies, (otherwise then in their materials) have no outward shew of Popish superstition, which consisteth onelyonly in the reason and intention of their use. As if eyther outward shew, or outward superstition, consisted onelyonly in inward intention! p. 461Such miserable answers have at the least, an outward shew of no syncere intention. His 3. answer is, that Musculus speaketh of such traditions as in their praesent, and publick professed use were Popish. He doeth not indeed exclude such out of his censure: but if he spake onelyonly of such, what need was ther, that he should so carefully interpret what he called Popish traditions? or what meant he in his description of them, to leave out praesent publick professed use, and use such wordes, as every ordinary impartial Reader must needs take to be more general?

6. P. Martyr giveth for a Rule, to the Ministers of Poland, that such order in the administration of Sacraments, is to be kept, as differeth most from the toys and Ceremonies of Papists. It is an excellent Rule (sayth the Rejoynder) but he sayd not, that human Ceremonies abused unto superstition, in Poperie, are now unlawful for us to use. As if he that sayth, we ought to keep that order which differeth most from Popish toys and Ceremonies, did not say, we ought n…t to use Popish Ceremonies! He speaketh (without quaestion) of an internall oug…t, or sic oportet, which the Rejoynder (pag. 492.) confesseth to binde the conscience.

The same P. Martyr sayth: Certainly, if we did from the heart hate superstition, we would doe our endevour, cleane to put out and deface all the footsteps, and monuments therof. He spake this (answereth the Rejoynder) when Missalattire, Altars, and Crucifixes, were as yet remayning. Now for Missal attire, I know none then remayning, which remayneth not now. Altars also have p. 462ever since remayned in diverse Churches, and are now (for countenance of other Ceremonies) comming up againe where they were abolished, with an Idolatrous addition of bowing unto them. Crucifixes will soon follow, and that by good right, if the Defender and Rejo. their groundes be good. For the doctrine being changed, and the materials onelyonly of Popish Crucifixes remayning, what can be sayd, to make them simplie unlawfull? And for their conveniencie, whoe may judge of that, but those that have authoritie of praescribing and imposing matters of order and decencie? But to let that passe, P. Martyr spoke of that time, when he supposed the doctrine reformed; and manifestly riseth in his discourse, from those specials, to the general to all footsteps of superstition, and not those onelyonly. But (sayth the Rejoynder) the same P. Martyr professeth, no separation would be made for such matters. He sayth so in deed of the Surplice, pag. 1127. and so say we; especialy upon the same condition, that we may be suffered to abrogate them for our owne practise: Ferremus, nobis gratulando quod eas abrogaverimus. To this the Rejoynder addeth diverse sentences of P. Martyrs, somewhat favoring a toleration (for a time) of our Ceremonies, especialy in M. Hoopers case. To which I answer 1. that this was in perplexitie, caused by the mischief of our Ceremonies, which are therfor so much the more to be hated, even that they have allways bred such trouble unto good men, whoe should have troubles enough,De vestibus quas vocant sacras fateor aliquid esse du…us, & quod meipsum nonnihil perturbet: ut merer illas tam mordicus retineri. though they were abolished. Quaestions of this kind, are to us somwhat difficult. There is somwhat more hard I confesse, of those garments they call holy, & which p. 463somwhat troubleth me, that I wo…d…r they are so strictly reteined. He himself refused to wear the Surplice, and that upon such ground as may move us to refuse it, as he prof…sseth: When I was at Oxford, I would never use those white …arments in the Quire, though I were at that time a Canon. Ego cum essem Oxonij, vestibus illis albis in Choro nunquā uti volui, quā vis essem Canonicus. Mei facti ratio mihi constabat. Quod verò me movit, & adhuc movet & te sortasse movere poterit, nempe id non esse fac…endum quod ea confirmet, quae conscientia mea non probes.… had a reason for it. But that which mooved me then and …ill doeth moove, and perhaps may justly moove you, is name…y; that, that is not to be d…n, which sh…ll confirme, what my …onscience cannot allow of. 3. He telleth us plainly, …hat these Ceremonies are merae Papatus reliquiae, meere Popish reliques condemned by Bullinger, and that he was, upon hope of their abolishing, onelyonly tardior ad suadendum, loath to persuade unto suffering of deprivation for h…m. All these thinges are found in the places quoted by the Rejoynder. Let any indifferent reader gesse by …hem, what was P. Martyrs judgement, in his free, and …nperplexed thoughts? Certainly it was not that which …he Defender and Rejoynder have rep…aesented unto us …or theirs; whoe accuse all those (beside o…her faults, many, and great) of …uperstition that refuse them as unlawful; they being Rites both orderly and also decent.

7. Bezas wordes are: that the footsteps of Idolatrie ought not to appear in the Church, but to be utterly banish…d. The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this toucheth not our Ceremonies, in Bezas judgement, Epist. 12. It touched our Ceremonies in the eyght Epistle of Beza; but not in his twelf: what difference was ther betwixt these two Epistles? OnelyOnly this: in the former, he writte to a Bishop, and so sheweth him the foulnesse of our Ceremonies plainly; but in the later, he speaketh to poor p. 464Ministers, persecuted for those Ceremonies, whose great affliction, with the Churches detriment, made him to conceal some part of his judgement.

Yet in that twelf Ep. he insinuateth the same judgement of our Ceremonies:Qui cuperunt superstitiones co usque d…testart, ut etiam illarum vestigia …perint execrars, quantoperà offenduntur. They which began to hate superstitions so far as to curse their footsteps; how greatly are they offended?

Ther is yet fresh superstition of the signe of the Crosse, mo… detestable. They therefore have don wonderful well, who have once banisht that rite out of the Church, whereof for ou… parts we see no good. Signs crucis est adhuc recens superstitio manimè execrabi…u. Rectitissimè igitur fetisse arbitramur, gus so…el istum …itum ex Ecclesis expularunt, cuius eti… non videmus quae sit utilitas. Quoniam ex genius latione dum symbola accipintuur, orta est foreign illa detestabilis, & adhue in multorum animis baerens, me vito sublata esse vid tur.Because by kneeling at receiving, it sprung that most abominable Bread-worship, and still cleaving to the minds of many, is worthily abolished.

The Rejoynder noteth 2. that in Bezas judgement, many thinges may and must be tolerated, which are not rightly imposed. Which is true: but 1. let it be then openly confessed by the Rejoynder, that our Ceremonies are not rightly imposed, before he abuse this rule. 2. Let him tell us, if approving by subscription, and use, be a meer toleration? 3. The same Beza telleth us: Toleran… quaedaem putaemus quae omninò ferri non debent. con. Westph. We think somthings may be tolerated, which altogether may not be born.

In the 3. place, it is added by the Rejoynder that Beza sayth of some, that reteyne the Crosse, they may use their owne libertie. But in the next words he addeth: If they have any just Causes of reteining this signe in their Churches. So that he limiteth that libertie unto such causes as he was not privie to;Nos cortè cur …llud signum nullo modo tolerenous, & plurimas, & necessarias causes hab…mus. nay to such as they at Geneva, found to be clean contrarie: As for us, we have many necessarie p. 465reasons why wee doe no way tolerat that signe. & their causes, alleged in the 8. Epistle, were not peculiar to any time or place, but perteyne as well to England, as to Geneva. So that this was but to stop a Papists mouth, with using of gentle words, and suppositions concerning our unwarrantable course. Of the surplice he speaketh sometime more indifferently: but in the same places, he will have it not subscribed to, not defended, or rejoyned for, but by all meanes hastened out of the Church, as a ridiculous stage-play garment, or a Foolescoat.

8. Many other Divines were named, as Zanchius, Pezelius, Mollerus, Zegedinus, Daneus, Machabeus, Zepperus, Wigandus, and Sadeel; but their words not cited, except onelyonly Sadeels, for avoyding of unnecessarie tediousnesse, they all speaking to the same purpose with the former. The Rejoynder hath one general answer for diverse of these; that they allowed some human Feasts, which have been abused to Superstition. Now though this be no direct answer, and the Authors may in part forget their owne general rule, in some particular; yet this may be further sayd; that they accounted not these Feast-days such kinde of Ceremonies, as we speak of. This appeareth in Zepper, whoe put them under the head of Order, cap. 13. wheras he handleth the Crosse under the head of Sacramental Ceremonies, cap. 10. In particular, 1. Daneus and Zegedinus (sayth the Rejoynder) speak not to our purpose. Daneus I have not at hand: but Zegedine in his tables of Baptisme, calleth them Popish additions, by which Baptisme is prophaned. 2. Zanchies judgement p. 466hath been shewed. Namely that it was contrarie to all such Ceremonies.

And this doeth abundantly appear out of his Epist. to Q. Elizabeth, printed before, in English. 3. Zepper alloweth the ancient use of the Surplice. If he did, therin he should not have crossed his rule given, cap. 10. reg. 4. out of the Scriptures, at least in his opinion, except he judged the Surplice before that ancient use to have been notoriously abused unto Idolatrie. But the trueth is, Zepper doeth but comparatively excuse a supposed ancient use of that garment, which in ancient times was not knowen, but as a civil habit, usual in hote countries. 4. Wigandus (sayth the Rejoynder) was Illyricus his associat in the furious opposition of the Surplice. Wheras the trueth is, Illyricus himself did not furiously oppose, but use the Surplice, as Calvin testifieth, Epist. 117.

5. Sadeels words are: We reject whatsoever remayneth in the Church of Rome, which came eyther from Iews, or Pagans. The Rejoynder answereth, that Sadeel sheweth what Ceremonies the Refor. Churches of France did reject; but not what were necessarily to be rejected of all Churches: He useth also the limitation of Iewish and Paganish Ceremonies. But he clean mistaketh Sadeels meaning: Iewish and Paganish, are no wordes of limitation, but of explication by way of reason. Our use of his testimonie is 1. thus: Whatsoever Ceremonies they of France have rejected, are in Sadeels judgement Iewish or Heathenish, which can have no lawful use in Gods worship. But the Churches of France have rejected our Ceremonies in controversie. Ergo. 2. Thus: If Iewish and Heathenish Ceremonies are p. 467to be rejected; then Popish also, they being in their nature, or kinde, Iewish, and having evermore been notoriously abused unto Popish Idolatrie.

9. M. Rogers, Martyr, in King Edwards days, would not consent to conformitie in Cap, and Tippet, unlesse the Papists might be constreyned to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice and Hoast. True (answereth the Rejoynder 1.) but other good Martyrs did. Therfor (say I) not they, but M. Rogers was alleged. Yet beside zealous Hooper, with whome after Ridly and others agreed, Heavenly M. Bradford might have been added, whoe in his letters to Erkinald Rawlins, calleth forked caps, and tippers, Antichristian pelse and baggage. He 2. answereth, that the quaestion was for inconveniencie, not unlawfulnesse. But he knoweth well, that M. Hooper, and so (in all likelyhood) M. Rogers stood upon such inconveniencie, as in their learning was unlawfulnesse.

His 3. and 4. answer is of different intentions, in the same materials. But this was in King Edwards days, by all professed: and yet M. Rogers and such could not see it sufficient. 5. M. Rogers would (sayth the Rejoynder) allow the same thinges with some marke of difference. Not allow, but tolerate; not upon every marke of difference, but such as he knew would never be consented unto; that is, not at all.

10. Publick injunctions were wonte to forbid all Monuments of Superstition; and the Canons 1571. did forbid the gray Amice, and all other garments defiled with like superstition. Therfor (sayth the Rejoynder 1.) …hey did not take our Ceremonies for suche Monuments. But p. 468that is nothing to the Proposition: Neyther yet maketh it much to the Assumption of this Argument, what these or those did then take our Ceremonies to be. What they are in deed, we shall see in the Assumption. He 2. allegeth, that the Su…plice was none of the Missal garments, as the Amice. But first Bellarmine, whome the Rejoynder made (of late) the Canon of Missal garments, maketh no more mention of the Amice, then of the Surplice. Durandus, or G. Minatensis, Rational. lib. 3. cap. 1. sayth, In some things about the Altar they must use the Surplice. Superpelliceo in quibuslibet servitius Altaris uti debent.Steven Mephem. cap Linteam. No clarck may be suffred about the Service of the Altar, unlesse he have the Surplice on at Masse. Nullus Clericus permistatur in of ficio Altaris, nisi indutus superpellecio, tempore quo Missarum solemnia peraguntur.3. The Rejoynder addeth, that it is a strong imagination, to thinke that the very Injunctions, and Canons of this Church, could prove her to judge her owne impositions unlawful. Which if he meant of formal particular judgement, it is his owne weak imagination; if of general and virtual judging, ther is neyther strongnesse, nor strangenesse in it: because this Church hath no privilege that way above other Churches, of which none were ever found nor can be, imposing any thing unlawful, which did not professe that trueth, who…e contents did prove that unlawful imposition to be unlawful. D. Morton hath plentifully shewed so much of the Popish Church, as the Rejoynder will not denie.

11. B. Iewell was cited, as approving Tertullians judgement concerning the unlawfulnesse of Garlands, though not evill of themselves, because they had appearance of evill. Well (sayth the Rejoynder) then they were not evill in themselves, by abuse. That is, abuse did not make p. 469them evill, before they were abused. which is true. But …f B. Iewel allowed Tertullians judgement (as the Rej. granteth) by the abuse they became evill, and unlawfull. Appearance of that which is evill in it selfe, is evill in it selfe: but the abuse was evill in it selfe, and the after use was an appearance of that abuse, in Iewels judgement. Ergo. It was also alleged out of Iewels Ap. c. 2. div. 9. that the Papists had so misused sundry Ceremonies, that wee may not longer continue them without great conscience. The Rejoynder answereth, 1. That this was spoken of other Ceremonies, not of those in quaestion. 2. That Iewel was a Bishop, and used Episcopall garments. 3. That upon his death-bed, he professed, that he would not grieve any of his brethren, who were of contrary opinion, concerning the Ceremonies. Now 1. If other Ceremonies (among which yet holy Garments were objected by Harding, in that place) may by abuse, become unlawfull, what priviledge hath the Crosse, as much abused as any? 2. As Iewel was a Bishop of England, so Cajetan was a Cardinall of Rome; and therefore as Cajetan condemned many Romish superstitions, in so much as when he died, he refused to be buried in a Church, as the story of his life, prefixed to his Commentaries on Iob testifieth, so might B. Iewel condemne some superstitious Ceremonies in England. As for his wearing of Episcopall Garments, let D. Fulke answer in his Repeale of Heskins Parliament, pag. 412. M^r. Heskins girdeth at the proclaimer (B Iewel) as …earing Aarons garments for a Bishopricke. But if the Popish Priests had no more pleasure to say Masse in their vestiments, then the Proclaimer to minister in Coapes, I thinke the common p. 470sort of Papists would have lesse devotion to the Masses, the… Gods people have to the Communion, when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attire. 3. Those words which the Rejoynder allegeth out of his Godly speech, a little before his departure, make much against the Rejoynder, because they shew 1. That many then opposed our Ceremonies as unlawfull, which the Rejoynder denyeth. For how else could they more dislike them then Bishop Iewel himselfe, who held them (by the Rejoynder his confession) very inconvenient? 2. That B. Iewel would not grieve or prejudice those that were so minded, which our Defendant and Rejoynder labour to doe with all the strength they have, and all the advantage they can catch holde on. Iewel durst not have called them Superstition brethren, factious and exorbitant men, &c. Moreover, two faults are committed by the Rejoynder, in reciting those words of Iewel: one, that he leaveth out the word padagogia, wherein he accused our Ceremonies as belonging to the infancy of the Iewish Church: and the other, that he tooke no knowledge of the following words, wherein he accuseth the Pope as the fountaine of those evils, Istorum malorum capi…s, qui contendi causas & occasiones subministravis & vel…t ossa canibus objecit.which gave cause and occasion of strife, and as it were thre… bones to the dogs. Where he maketh our Ceremonies reliques of Popery, and cause of dissention. Adde unto this, that in his Epistle to Q. Elizabeth, before the Defence of his Apollogie, he prayeth to God, that she might live to abolish all groves and high places, in England and it will appeare how lawfull our Ceremonies were in the judgement of that good learned man, as well in his life time, as at the houre of his death.

p. 47112. B. Pilkinton sayd, that it is our fault generally, …hat we differ no more from the Papists, in all our ministery. True (answereth the Rejoynder) but he thought not …hese things to be simply unlawfull. As if B. Pilkington had …earned, and taught a distribution of faults in religion, some unlawfull, and some lawfull faults! It is a new distinction coined since his time.

13. B. Westphaling (with Augustine) peremptorily …ffirmeth, that Iewish Ceremonies cannot be used, no not with an intent differing from that of the Iewes, with out danger of damnation. We allow this (answereth the Rejoynder) because God hath repealed them; and to use them …ere to call the comming of Christ into question. And is it so great a sinne, to use Iewish Ceremonies, without a …ewish intent? How then durst the Defendant and Rej. pag. 285. affirme, that to use some Iewish rite (even Circum…ision it selfe) without a Iewish opinion, is not damnable? In one, or both of these places, they much forgat themselves. And they that disallow of a Iewish Ceremony, used without a Iewish opinion, how can they allow of a Popish Ceremony, in any use?

14. D. Bilson, alloweth in reformed Churches, that they can by no meanes digest one dram of Popish Ceremonies. It was well spoken (answereth the Rejoynder) in defence of those Churches which had cast off all the Ceremonies of the Papists, for the consequence sake; but prooveth not, that all Churches are bound to doe so; or that this Bishop thought so, who used and urged these Ceremontes. Where he would perswade us 1. That our Church can (lawfully) doe that, which Reformed Churches cannot by any meanes doe. p. 4722. That whereas Reformed Churches regard the evill consequence of such Ceremonies, ours need not. 3. That Doctor Bilson Warden of Winchester, either did write otherwise then he thought, or else changed his thoughts, when he was risen to be Bishop of Winchester. The judgement of these conjectures I leave to the understanding Reader. We urge onelyonly his plaine words: V… leant quantum valere-pessint.

15. To Doctor Humphrey, the Rejoynder had nothing to oppose, but that afterwards he did weare the Surplice. Now the trueth of this dependeth on the Rej. his heare-say, so farre as I know. Yet be it so: doeth not affliction, and poverty, make many a wise man, turne a little aside out of his way? The histories of all ages testifie such infirmities to have beene found in many Godly and learned. And after-yeelding to the Surplice without giving any publike reason for it, doeth not argue that he did not formerly holde that (and constantly the other) unlawfull, upon those groundes which he hath left in print, unrecalled. I doe not believe that there can be so much shewed under D. Humphres hand for ou… Ceremonies, as his Epistle, represented in the forme Chapter, hath against them.

16. Concerning Doctor Fulke, one sentence of his was alledged, that he which disliketh our forme of service, as not differing sufficiently from the Papists, sheweth his zeale in detestation of Idolatry. This (sayth the Rejoynder) was a charitable excuse of them. The urging then, defending and rejoyning, for our Ceremonies in that manner as now is used, is an uncharitable accusation p. 473not agreeable to the minde of Doctor Fulke. A second sentence of the same D. Fulke, is: We abhorre whatsoever hath but a shew of Popery. Therefore (concludeth the Rejoynder) he did not judge our Ceremonies to have any shew of Popery: Nay rather, therefore he abhorred our Ceremonies. For that of their Popish shew, he doubted not, …it appeareth out of divers passages, in his writings: as in his Rejonder to Martiall, art. 4. M^r. Calfhill answereth well, that the Ceremony of the Crosse, once taken up of good intent, being growne into so horrible abuse, is justly refused of us. And art. 5. Although the elder and better age used and received the signe of the Crosse tolerably, yet considering the shamefull abuse of it, it ought now, of right and conscience, to be condemned. Martiall will none of that: for (sayth he) things good in their owne nature, must not be taken away, or condemned, for the abuse. Very true; but who will grant him, that the signe of the Crosse is good of it selfe? It is as much as may be borne, to grant it a thing indifferent. But (sayth the Rejoynder) our Ceremonies Doctor Fulke hath (of my knowledge) used and defended as lawfull. Of this knowledge, for his using and defending all our Ceremonies, his writings doe constraine me (at the least) to doubt. He was once so farre of from using all, that rather then he would use the Surplice, he went out of S^t. Iohns Colledge, in Cambridge, with his pupils, and hired chambers for himselfe, and them, in the towne: M^r. Travers is my author for this. If afterward he was bowed something by the times, unto a little use of one Ceremony, that he might in some manner, and measure, excuse: but if he had purposed to defend that, and the other Ceremonies, some p. 474foot-steps of that defence would be found in his writings, as there are divers of his opposing them. The knowne trueth is, that many good men through the iniquity of the times, have beene brought to be distressed, betwixt desire of liberty in the Ministery, and hatred of superstition; so that they have sayd with the Apostle, I know not which to choose; and so afterward, have given some place unto the later. To judge their persons, it is farre from us. We onelyonly make use of their free and undistressed judgement.

17. Of D. Andrues, and M^r. Merbury, I have not to say: because their Catechismes I never saw. D. Sutliffe, though he were a Deane (as the Rejoynder noteth) yet he writ in his latter time, as a Divine, not as a Cathedrall man: and so he was cited. His proposition is this: All Ceremonies taken from Iewes and Pagans are unlawfull. We onelyonly adde, that Ceremonies taken from Papists, are subject to the like censure; because Popish superstition, or Idolatry, is no more lawfull then the other. Of M^r. Greenham, (beside that which hath beene often confuted) the Rejoynder sayth onelyonly, that he did not perswade men against the use of our Ceremonies; and that he was loath to be put unto the solution of that objection: weare the Surplice or preach not. In which there is nothing pertinent. For to give proportionable answers, I my selfe was present, when an honest Conformist perswaded another not to conforme: For (sayd he) though I have not strength enough to stand out, yet I would not have you that have strength, for to yeeld. If all should yeeld, the trueth concerning these matters would be buried, and more superstition is to be expected. p. 475This was more then not to perswade unto Conformity. And as for the second, I thinke the Defendant and Rej. would be loath to be put to the solution of this objection: Confesse the Ceremonies to be unlawfull, or loose your livings, and liberties, with disgrace. Thus (sayth the Rej.) I have broken thorow the army of Protestants. That is, just so, as a naked body breaketh thorow a thicket of thornes, getting more gashes, then he made steps for his passage.