Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 12
SECT. 25.26.27.28. Concerning the Defender his Reasons.
1. THe Def. his first reason (by the Rejoynder his interpretation) is, that by our assertion, the Church shall loose a part of her Christian liberty: because if she may not use human Ceremonies a…used unto Idolatry and superstition, she may use none at all. Now 1. The Replier granted the conclusion, being understood of human significant Ceremonies. And thereto the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that there is the same reason of all other Ceremonies; and that one Did…clave doeth not grant this of sitting at the Lords Supper, though he confesse it to be a human significant Ceremonie. But both these answers are voyd of trueth. For Circumstances of Order and Decencie ▪ which are sometime called Ceremonies, and heer understood, are neyther meer human institutions, nor unnecessarie (which is part of the quaestion) but commanded of God, as often hath been shewed. Neyther doeth Didoclave any where confesse Sitting at the Lords Supper, to be a human Ceremonie. 2. It seemeth very strange to me, that appointing & using of human significant unnecessarie Ceremonies, notoriously knowen to have been, and be abused unto Idolatrie, should be fetched from Christian Libertie.
I have considered what is spoken of Christian libertie, in the Scripture, and what I could finde written of it by Divines: and therout observed much against these Ceremonies (as is alleged in the sixt general Argument, which the Rejoynder was not hastie to come unto, in eight or nine years) but nothing eyther for their imposing, or their using.
The Rejoynder meaneth by the Church (in England) the Convocation house; and by Christian libertie, their licentiousnesse, in Abridging Gods people of that libertie which Christ hath left unto them. So that, as in some parts of Germanie, and Polonia, the Noble men stand mightilie for the Libertie of their Countrie; And yet when the course of thinges is well weighed, that libertie is onelyonly licence for them to oppresse the common people, or Boores; whome they keep under as slaves, or litle better; whose goods they take from them upon every slight praetence; whose lives (in some places) can scarce satisfie them for the life of a stagge, if they shoot one, spoiling their corne, even so, this Christian libertie is onelyonly for our Convocation-house to oppresse the Congregations of Christ, as they doe.
2. The Defender his second reason, was such, as the Repl. could finde no conclusion in, but that somethings abused, may afterward be rightly used: which he granted. The Rejoynder addeth, that his reason did conclude this of some human Ceremonies, from the Law of shadowes. He sayd in deed, among other instances, that a Man or Woman, legally unclean, might he legally cleansed or purged. And can he conclude from Men and Women, to human unnecessarie Ceremonies? He may as well conclude, that because in a fretting leprosie, the leprous mans head may not be cutt off, nor his body burned; therfor his infected garments were not to be burnt, nor the hayre of his head and beard cutte off.
The Replier also granted that Surplices might be turned into under garments for poor people; and wooden Crosses given them for firing.
The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this is no use of Ceremonies, as Ceremonies. As if he himself did allway speak formally!
The sentence immediatly goeing before, was of things abused: And so this addition was of those thinges which are made Ceremonies. Yet if that be true, which the Rejoynder affirmed pag. 570. that a Surplice, as a Ceremonie, is in the kinde of a Garment, then it must needes follow, that this Ceremonie may be given to the poor for a garment.
And if he flie to Vse as necessarie to make a Ceremonie, as he doeth in his Definition of a Ceremonie, it may be as well quaestioned, whether a Shirt be a garment out of use when it is off a mans bodie? For a garment is a Ceremonie, by the Rejoynder his Definition. And so it may be quaestioned, whether any Shirt, or other Garment was made, or washed, when no man had it on? His 2. answer, that M. Parker calleth them Devills, and jarring on the same stringe, would fright men from burning of Idols, as he did in Germanie, whoe when men were burning of wooden Idols, bored a hole in one, into which he stopped some gunpouder; so that the Idol being in the stove to burne, the gun-pouder brake the stove together with the windows of the room, in peices; and that was imputed by some to the Idol, or Saint, and by others, to the Devil. But (sayth the Rejoynder) from hence it followeth, that th…re is a change of Law: because the Iewes might not convert the matter of Idols to their privat use. And so much we grant; urging onelyonly the aequitie of those Laws. Then (addeth he) the Abrigement hath abused the World, in alleging those Laws, as binding Christians now, as much as they did the Iewes. But with this out-cry no man will be troubled, that noteth how they are to be understood onelyonly according to their quaestion, of human unnecessarie Ceremonies, as they are such. For the Second Commandement doeth binde us as much as it did the Iewes; and so the aequitie of particular Lawes, as they illustrate the contents of that Commandement, binde us as much, though not in every other particular to so much, as they did the Iewes. The summe is; those lawes binde us as much from all religious use of human unnecessarie Ceremonies, used or abused in Idolatrie, as they did the Iewes.
3. In the 27. Sect. the Replier could finde no shew of reason, beside meer affirmations. The Rejoynder findeth this Argument: If two other ways of reforming Ceremonies, beside Abolition, may be used; then abolition is not the onelyonly way. But two other ways, (namely changing or correcting) may be used. Ergo.
To this shew of reason, the answer is easy: 1. If those two other ways be understood as partial and insufficient, then the Proposition is false: if as sufficient by themselves, without abolition, then I denie absolutely the Assumtion, as being a meer affirmation of that which is in quaestion, according to the Repliers observation.
2. Eyther this is understood of all Ceremonies abused, or onelyonly of some? If of all, our Reformation is to be blamed, which hath used abolition without any necessitie. If of some onelyonly, the Defender ought to have tould us, which they are, or by what marke we may know them? And omitting this, he sayth neyther Argumentation, nor certain affirmation in this Section.
4. The last Reason is, because Poperie and Popish Rites are not to be esteemed of aequal abomination with Paganisme, and Paganish Rites. The Rejoynder bringeth it to this: that the Idolatrie of Papists, and Pagans, considered in themselves are not like. The Replier answered, that though this were true every way (as it is not) yet in this they may agree, that both alike are to be detested and abandoned. You speak monsters (answereth the Rejoynder) because, if they be not alike detestable, they are not alike to be detested: and Abandoning hath no degrees. But 1. The substance of this assertion was wonte to be accounted no Monster. For D. Fulke (Rejoynder to Bristow, pag. 288.) maketh open profession of it, not onelyonly in his owne name, but of other Divines: This we say; that Popish Images, although they be not the same that were the Images of the Heathen, yet they are as abominable Idols, as theirs; and the worshiping of them, as much to be abhorred of all true Christians, as the worshiping of the Images of the Gentiles.
2. When the Replier spake of like detestation, he did not mean to aequal the ballance unto a hayre, or hal…e an Ace; but according to usual speach. Hearbs hote in the fourth degree, are sayd to be alike hote, though there may be found some difference. Willfull disobedience is sayd to be as the sinne of Witchcraft; and stubbernesse as Idolatrie, 1. Sam. 15.
Yet there may some difference of degree be found betwixt these sinnes. Monsters therfore heere was too excessive a word.
3. Abandoning I take to be all one with putting or casting away: and one thing may be cast into the bottome of a ponde, when another is cast into the bottome of the Sea. It hath therfore degrees.
To the Repliers assertion, that we are by the Scriptures warned to flie as well, and as farre, from Popish, as from Paganish Idolatrie, the Rejoynder (with some litigation about Rev. 18.) consenteth: but addeth that it is not necessarie to flie from every human (he should have added unnecessarie) Ceremonie, which eyther Papists or Pagans have Idolatrously abused. Now this is the maine quaestion of this wholle chapter: and therfor not heer to be discussed. OnelyOnly this: the Defender in this Section, founding himself upon a disparitie betwixt Popish and Paganish Idolatrie, seemeth to grant, that if they were aequal, then we were to flie from the Ceremonies abused in Popish Idolatrie: and this grant the Rejoynder doeth not well to recal.
The Replier not being willing to spend time about the comparison betwixt Popish, and Paganish Idolatry, referred the Defendant to the Abridgement, and Mr. Parker. Hereupon the Rejoynder taketh upon him to answer what is found in them, about this comparison. In which discourse, because many things before answered are repeated, to ease my selfe, and the Reader, of tedious labour, I will onelyonly note the maine grounds of his answers, pertaining directly to that comparison, and then set downe some plaine testimonies of our divines about it; because he partly denieth, and partly shifteth off Mr. Parkers quotations. His principall ground of answer is, that the Papists doe not sinne against the first Commandement, in worshipping a false God; but against the second onelyonly, in worshipping the true God, in a fa…se manner. This he produceth (pag. 618,) as Doctor Ames his judgement:Gentes in Idolis creaturas celeb…nts, … dem se…e modo, que Pontifici. S…c enim respondent, apud Aug in Psal. 9…. Non colimus lapidem, non mala Daemonia: Angelos quos dicitis i…sos & nos c…limus, Virtutes Dei magni. Ministeria Dei magni. Et Maximus Madan…ensis; apud cunde… Aug Ep. 43. Ecquidem unum esse Deum quis tam dement, tam mente captus, ut neget esse certissimum? Hu…us nos virtutes, …er mundanum opus diffusas, multis vocabulu invocamus. this he repeateth, pag. 624. and 630. But this is not so. For the wiser of the Heathen, knew well, that there was bat one true God, Creator of all things, and the ruder of the Papists, worship Creatures, more devoutly as divine objects, then those Heathen were wonte to doe.
The case is plaine, and plentifully confirmed by our Divines, in every dispute against Popish Idolatry. Doctor Ames hath not one word to the contrary: but this he hath for it, Bellar. Encrv. …om. 2.238. The Gentiles worshipped the creatures in Idols, after the same manner almost that the Papists doe. For so they answer upon August. in Psa…m. 96. We doe not worship a stone nor dev…ls: whom ye call Angels doe we worship, the V…rtues of the great God, and his Ministeries. And Maximus Madaurensis, in the same Aug. 43. ep. Certainely, who is mad, or voyd of sence, that …e wi…l once doubt, whether there be more Gods then one. Now we invocate the vertues of this one God, under many names, diffused thorow the frame of the whole world.
Another ground of the Rejoynders is, that the Popish Idolatry may be, in some respect as great a sinne, but not simply so great Idolatry. pag. 622. &c. To which I answer briefely, that there are such sinnes accompanying Popish Idolatry, as make it as detestable, as if it were one simply. As for example; the worst of the Heathens Idolatry was, that they sacrificed men unto their Idols: and the Papists burning of so many godly Martyrs, for the maintenance and promoting of their Idolatry, may be equalled thereto, in horrour of sinne.
The third ground which the Rejoynder buildeth on, is, that Achabs Baal was worse then Aarons or Ieroboams calves, &c. pag. 629. About this, Calvin shall answer, Hom. 1. de Fug. Idol. Quaemvis istis concedam, dissimilem diversamque esse rationam Idololatria Papistarum, atque ejus qua apud veteres Gentiles viguii, negare tamen non poterunt, Deum non minus severè prohibuisse cul…um in Bethel impi… constitutum, quam altas superstitiones omnes, quae caeteris in locis institutae celebrataeque fuerunt. Ego vero statuo atque ass…mo, eos omnes qui Deum ve…e metuunt, ac piè colu…t, eo majore at que aoerbiore odio debere & prosequi & detestari Missam, quo apertius violat & prosanat sanctam institutionem Iesu Christi, quam si non tam opposita contrariaque ei extitisset.Although I yeeld, that the Idolatry of the Gentiles of olde, and of the Papists now, doe differ, yet they cannot deny, that God did as severely forbid that wicked worship of Bethel, as all other superstitions which were set up in other places. But I say, that all they who truely feare and worship God, ought with so much the more detestation, and bitter hatred be against the Masse (by how much the more grossely it violates, and prophaneth the holy institution of Christ) then if it had not beene so Diademiterly contrary to it. Calvin seemeth heere to utter greater Monsters, then those were which the Replier even now was accused for.
VntoUnto Calvin I will adde the sentences of some others, about the question: because Mr. Parkers marginall quotations are not so easily found. Beza, Epist. 1. The Papists have turned one Sacrament into that horrible Idolatry which is not heard of among the Gentiles, A…terum Sacramentum …ontifi…aj…n horrend…m ilam Idolomaniam, qua ne fando quidem inter Gentes auditur, transformarunt, & ex mensa Domini mensam Damontorum conflarunt. Idem Beza, adv. Baldwin. fol. 4 ante finem. Quum ab Artolat indicessero, nulla est, sub Coelo, talis magiae & Idolomaniae species, qualis est illa Crucis signatio & adoratio. Id…m Beza, de Notu Ecclesiae, ciroa med…um: Non est ulla execrabilior, in orbe terrarum, Idolomavia, quam quae fuit, & est, in Crucis adoratione. Idem Beza, adv. Ha…chiam: Coenae Domini mutata est (à Pontificijs) in foreign, quo nunquam ullum execrabilius, neque extitit, neque poterit postea excogetari pag. 4 ante finem.and of …he ta…le of the Lo…d have made it the Table of Devils. When I leave Bread-worship, there is no such kinde of Magicall Idolatry under the Sunne as that of the Cr…sse. Againe, there is no greater Idolatry in the world, then that which was, and is committ…d in the wo…ship of the Crosse. The Lords Supper is changed of the Papists into that ab…mination, the like whereto there never was, nor can ever be devised for execrablenesse.
Blessed Bradford, in his ep. to the Lady Vane, hath these words sealed with his bloud: There was never thing upon the …arth, so great, and so much an adversary to Gods true service, to Christs Death, Passion, Priest-hood, Sacrifice, and Kingdome; to the Ministery of Gods Word and Sacraments; to the Church of God; to Repentance, Faith, Adoratio Papistarum, nixa fundamento commentitia transubstantiationis, est Idololatria omnium qu… unquam fuerunt crassissima. Ora pro nobis sanctissima Dei Mappa. Quales obsecio, idololatriae sunt istae Num quid simile apud Ethnicos exiflit?and all true godlinesse of life, as the Masse. Doctor Whitakers, de Sacram. pag. 582. Popish adoration built on the fiction of transubstantiation, is the foulest of all Idolatry. These testimonies concerne the Masse, and the Crosse. It were easie to adde others, conc…rning divers particulars: as Sadeel, ad. Mon. Bur▪ Ar. 58. Pray for us most holy table-cloth or handkercheife of God What Idolatry is this? was there ev…r the like amōg the Gentiles? But for particulars, I refer the studious Reader, unto our Divines: and among them, in this pointe, I rekon Doctor Iackson, in his Originall of Vnbeliefe, Sect. 4. Cap. 22. &c. where the title is, Of the Identity, or Equivalency of Superstition, in Rome Heathen, and Rome Christian, and cap. 38. he bringeth pregnant Instances, as among other, of Vrbanus, the Patrone of pleasant Companions; Gutmanus, the Warden of pudding-makers; and of S. Christopher, and S. George, men of the Painters or Heralds making; and yet adored as Gods. Nay alloweth of Sr. David Linsey, denying any difference to be betwixt Heathenish and Romish Idolatry. I will onelyonly adde the words of Hospinian, de Orig. Templ. pag. 84. Quod extenuant superstitiones Papisticas, prae Gentium Idosolatria, in eo puoriliter, ne quid gravius dicam, agunt. Annon corum Idolomania, a Papistis mutatinomin, … est revocata?That some goe about to lessen the Idols of Papists in comparison of that which was among the Heathens, is (that I say no more) most childishly done. Is not their Idolatry plainely recalled, the names onelyonly changed?
Yet it shall not be a misse, to give some reason of that which our Divines say. And this (for the present) is at hand: The Heathen gods (take them at the worst) were workes of cunning Artificers, made of silver, golde, or some precious thing curiously wrought, sumptuously adorned, representing a Majesty. But the Papists Massegod is made by every sacrificing Ideot, of a bready substance, by uttering of a word, without forme or beauty. The Heathen knew, their Idols were not Gods: and the greatest estimation they had of them, was, a certaine Divinity might lodge in them. The Papists beleeve their bread (or Hoste of starch) is very God, not by accidentall residence of some Divinity in it, but as Christ himselfe is God. The Heathen seat their Idols in Temples, and consecrated places, to be adored. The Papists having lifted up their god, and adored him, devoure him. Will any man spoyle (much lesse eate, hearke said one, how his bones crackt, when he swallowed him downe) his god? sayth the Prophet, Mal. 3.8. VponUpon such considerations Coster, a Iesuite, (Enchirid. cap. 8.) confesseth, that if the substance of bread remaine in the Sacrament, then the Idolatry of Papists is more intolerable, then the Egyptians was in worshipping of an Oxe, or a Crocodile.
This may suffize for the 28. Section: but that the Rej. will needs have us take notice of some sharpe phrazes, and sentences he passeth upon us. To passe by therefore his prescribing of Hellebore, for Mr. Parker (which in us he would call skurrility, if it were spoken of a Prelate, though in all intellectuals, and morals, much inferiour to M. Parker) to omit (I say) this, and such like single reproaches, he gathereth a bundle together, pag. 628.
The first is, that we have wrought the faithfull Servants of Christ, out of the love and estimation of many. By Faithfull servants of Christ, he must needs meane Conformists, as they are Conformists; and that Generally: for if he except any kinde of them, they will cast upon him that imputation, which he layeth upon us: you say unto other men; stand a loofe off; we are more holy, or more faithfull then you, &c. Now 1. let any man consider, if it be any faithfulnesse to Christ, to observe and urge those religious Ceremonies, which he never commanded, but rather forbidden, as hath beene prooved? 2. Those which are in other things faithfull, we goe not about to worke out of the love and estimation of others, but them out of the love and estimation of unfaithfull conformity. May not a man speake against Non residency, if some honest man be come to it? But it becommeth not the Rej. to speake of bringing Christs servants out of love and estimation with many; while he writeth in defence of those courses, which have brought thousands of them out of house and home, into so extreame misery, as our Prelates could possibly bring any, and more then they bring the servants of Antichrist into.
The second is, that we have brought the publike prayers into contempt. Because (forsooth) we would have publike prayers free from those contemptible fashions which are taken out of the Masse booke.
Thirdly, wee have brought the preaching of the Gospel, by any conformed Ministers into disgrace. As if we did not rejoyce in the preaching of the Gospel, even by Frier Paul, or Fulgentius &c. at Venice!
Fourthly, we have brought the Sacrament to be of lesse esteeme then the gesture. Which is the proper fault of our Prelates, and those who deny the Sacrament to all that cannot bring their consciences to kneeling, though Christ hath invited them to his Table.
Fiftly, we question, whether it be lawfull for one to marry with one that conformeth to the Lawes. Now of this question I never heard any newes, before the Rej. proclaimed it. It may be, that some, observing how divers godly women, having given themselves in mariage to some Ministers, upon a great aestimation of that calling, without making just difference of the persons, have warned others to use more discretion. But this I am sure of, that all Subscribers, doe testifie under their hands; that all whoe refuse to conforme, may lawfully have their Baines and Mariages forbidden: because it is provided in the Service-booke, that none shall marry, except they communicate, wherto is annexed kneeling, and that none shall eyther communicate, or marry, except first they be Bishoped, or Confirmed.
Sixtly, we quaestion whether it be lawfull to hear a conformable Minister, if another may be heard; or safe to relie upon their Ministery? which quaestions he seemeth to invent, and teach, rather then receive from vsus; except, he meaneth by relying, taking all for good that they say, or doe.
Seventhly, we have appropriated the surnames of Christians, the title of Syncere, the very name of the Church, the Brethren, the Godly, unto our selves.
From all which slanders we are so free, that I doubt not to say (according to my conscience) that among those which live under the tyranny of the Pope, and doe not utterly seperate from him, through ignorance, there be many Christians, Syncere according to their knowledge, belonging to the true Catholike Church, and so to be accounted our Godly Brethren. But on the contrary part, Our Prelates, appropriating unto themselves the name of the Church of England, really proclaime us (by their extreame hostile courses) to be farre from the account of their Christian Brethren. If some time some of us, call those among the godly that consent with us, the Brethren, the Godly, &c. the Rejoynder should not have excepted against it, at least in this roule of accusations, in the first front whereof, he styleth and surnameth Conformists, the Faithfull Servants of Christ.