Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 1
SECT. 1. About the forming of this argument, and the generall answer given thereto.
IN the former Argument as being most essentiall, I suffered my pen to run a larger course, then in the beginning I intended. Heere I purpose to hold it shorter. Passing over therefore by-matters,
1. The Argument was thus propounded in the Abridgement: It is contrary to Gods word, to use (much more to command the use of) such Ceremonies in the worship of God as man hath devized, if they bee notoriously knowne, to have beene of olde, and still to be abused unto Idolatrie, and Superstition, by the Papists, especially, if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church. But our Ceremonies are such. Ergo.
The Def. his answer was so set downe, that (by the Rej. his owne confession) no sense could be discerned in it. But the said Rej. (after three patchings of the words, and the distinctions, about abolishing, abused, and necessary) bringeth, for account, this answer, out of all: If by abolition, be meant, Abscission, and not Cure, the Proposition being meant of things indifferent, is false. But if in the exception, of things, necessary, be meant not an absolute, but a convenient necessitie, the Assumption is false, which sayth: that our Ceremonies are of no necessary use in the Church. Heere we have three distinctions, betwixt 1. abscission, or cutting off, and curing; 2. things evill in their nature, and indifferent: 3. necessity absolute, and convenient. Now 1. see how they agree among themselves: In the first, the Ceremonies are considered as members of our Religion, or worship, which must be eyther cut off or cured (for so the Def. explaineth it of cutting off the members by the joynts) whereas they were never members joynted to our religion, or worship, but to the Harlot of Rome. In the second, they are considered as no members, but things indifferent; and in the third (at the best) onelyonly convenient. 2. For the first, it is well knowne that they are cloutes, which have lien vponupon the plague-soares of Idolaters, many hundreds of yeares: and what wise Physition, or Surgeon, was ever knowne, to goe about the curing of such clouts? 3. For the second, it is a meere affectation of casting a myst before the Readers eyes. For both the Def. and Rei. knew well, that the Authors of this Argument, holde our Ceremonies not indifferent, but unlawfull in their nature, and yet upon supposed indifferency, undertake to make good their Proposition; as having all sense on their side, namely, that things otherwise meerely indifferent, receive some difference, by their notorious abuse to Idolatry. 4. For the last, The Ceremonies are heere, onelyonly in a blinde distinction, (as it were in a parenthesis) affirmed to be of convenient use in our Church. Now let any man consider of this dealing, whether it be not more necessary for the Def. and Rej. then convenient for the Reader. In the Abridgement, pag. 42. and 43. &c. it is largely prooved, that these Ceremonies in controversie, are not convenient. The Def. (professing a full answer to all that is objected) giveth no answere to any thing there alleged to that purpose. When he was challenged by the Repl. for not shewing them convenient, the Rej. pag. 167. accuseth him of more impudencie, then hee would have expected from any Friar, and yet directeth us not to the place, where he hath gone about any such matter. The Rej. himselfe, undertaking to manifest their conveniencie by the Rules of Gods Word, suddenly breaketh off, pag. 74. and referreth that demonstration to a fitter place: which place hitherto he could not finde, nor ever will. Beside, the Rej. confesseth, a multitude of godly learned men, (among whom were) Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Bucer, Hooper, Iewel, Fulke, Rainolds, Whitakers, Humphrie, Perkins, &c.) to have held our Ceremonies inexpedient, or inconvenient, at the least. Nay he himselfe hath beene in the same haeresie. All this notwithstanding, he thinketh it not significent, in one word, to say (for a shift) without any proofe or declaration, that they are convenient for our Church. Conveniency is esteemed when as a thing after the consideration of all circumstances, isfound to bring more good (at the least) then evill with it. And I dare appeale to the Rej. his owne conscience, whether our Ceremonies have beene causes, or occasions of more good then evill? They may doe hurt (saith Beza) but they can doe no good. God knoweth (sayth Mr. Foxe) they bee the cause of much blindenesse and strife among men.
Let this (by the way) be well observed out of this generall answer, that the particular answers following, in this argument, are nothing worth, but onelyonly upon this supposition, that our Ceremonies are not onelyonly curable and indifferent, but also convenient for our Church: which neyther Def. nor Rej. nor any for them, will ever bee able with any shew of reason, and honestie, to demonstrate, while the world standeth. So that this whole fourth Argument is heere in the first section, sufficiently yeelded, For all that we desire, is plainely granted, concerning the unlawfulnesse of all such human Ceremonies in Gods worship, as are notoriously knowne to have beene and be abused unto Idolatry and Superstition, if they bee now of no convenient necessary use in the Church.