Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 8
SECT. 21. Concerning the Assumption of this fourth Argument: namely, that our Ceremonies are human devises, notoriously knowne to have beene, and still to be abused unto Idolatrie and Superstition, by the Papists, and are of no necessarie use in the Church.
1. THat this was the Assumption, or second part of this Argument, no man can doubt, that readeth the Proposition, or former part, set downe in the first section of this Chapter, and understandeth the processe of reason. The Defendant therefore was blamed, for setting downe the Assumption thus: Our Ceremonies have beene Idolatrously abused by Papists. The Rejoynder not willing to forsake him in any failing, allegeth 1. That the Defendant tooke the substance of the Assumption from the Abridgement, and others. Which might indeed have occasioned him to adde some thing unto the Abridgers assumption; but in no wise to detract any thing from it: at least, not out of them and others, to patch up a false sylogisme (the whole medium, or third argument, which was used in the proposition, not being repeted in the Assumption) which every pun…e in Logick can put off with a wet finger. He addeth 2. That the clause (of no necessary use) is no part of the Argument, but an exception, answered before. sect. 1. And yet see how he contradicteth hims…lfe! The Defendant answered it: but it was no part of their Argument. He answered it was a part of the Assumption: If in their exception of things necessary, they meane a convenient necessity, he denies their Assumption. pag. 406. Yet now he denieth that to be any part of the Assumption. The trueth is, both the Defendant and Rejoynder, were loath to meddle, (more then of necessity they must) with the convenient necessity of our Ceremonies, least they should evidently either wrong their consciences, or betray their cause. In the 3. place, he denieth him to have omitted these words (human inventions, or devises) saying, that the Replier hath untruely added them: because neither they, nor any like them, are in the Abridgement, pag. 26. or 27. But let him, or any other, looke once againe upon the Abridgement, in those pages, and he shall see upon the margent, these words: All the Ceremonies in question, are human inventions, &c. After this, he accuseth the Repl. for not observing every word of the Abridgement, in repeating the Assumption: but he could shew no sens… changed: let that therefore passe.
2. The Defender his answer to the foresayd Assumption, was by the Replier thus collected: These Ceremonies are eyther generally, or individually, and numerally the same, that have been abused to Idolatrie. If generally, then it hindereth not, but they may still be lawfully used, though they have been so abused: If individually, then it is not true, which is affirmed (in the Assumption) neyther doeth it follow from thence, that they must be abolished, because they have been so abused, except they be the same formally, that is, in intention and opinion of those that impose & practise them. For this he is accused by the Rejoynder of doeing no justice, but playing a theefes part, whoe changeth coates with an honest passenger. Now for this, to spare the labor of writing out againe many lines, I desire the Reader to looke upon the Defender his wordes as they are reprinted by the Rejoynder himself, pag. 561. & compare them with the Replier his summe. If he can discerne any difference, let the Defender be the honest man, and the Replier, what it pleaseth the Rejoynder to make him. No material difference is noted by the Rejoynder but onelyonly that the Defender hath not those words (if generally, then it hindereth not, but they may still be lawful…y used, though they have been so abused) nor any thing which will bear such a collection. To which I oppose those words of the Def. If you take it in the generalitie, then cannot you justifie any one of your Ceremonies, belonging to Order and Decencie. For they have been some way abused. Was it not his meaning, to say, that as other Ceremonies of Order, so these in quaestion, if they be onelyonly generally the same with those that have been abused, may be justified, that is, lawfully used? Let the Defender hold his owne coate: then he cannot so easily escape, without being discerned, as the Rejoynder by changing, would have him. Certainly the Replier did not the evishly take his coat from him nor had he any cause to wish eyther it to himself, or his to the Defender for any advantage that he might get by that change.
3. Against the foresayd answer, it was opposed, that by this meanes, any kinde of Popish, Iewish, or Heathenish Ceremonie, may come in, so ther be new particulars, and a new intention used. To which it is rejoyned, that though they be not excluded, upon that sole poynt, of having been abused, yet they may, upon other just exceptions, be shut out. But the Rejoynder should have shewed those just exceptions, which remaine, after the particular matter, and the evill intention be removed. For according to the Defender and Rejoynder their groundes, I cannot guesse, what they should be. The Rejoynder mentioneth dumbe, darke, numerous, burthensome, incorrigible, foolish, ridiculous Ceremonies. But all these exceptions have been discussed before: where we have shewed that all these vertues are founde in our Ceremonies, as well as in Popish, beside numerousnesse, which in this place cannot be applied to the purpose: because the inference was of any kinde, not of any number. Dumbnesse in deed is denied to be in …ignificant Ceremonies: but what is ther amonge the Popish Ceremonies, which is not made by Durand of Mystical signification? It is not darke, what men say our Crosse doeth signifie: but how …t can lawfully signifie any such thinge, is very darke, &c.
4. While the Replier was goeing on in confutation of the Defender his answer, namely, that in Ceremonies …bused to Idolatrie, those are not forbidden, which are gene…ally the same, but onelyonly the same individuals; the Rejoynd. …inding that undefensible, out of curtesie, as he sayth, set…eth up another answer, which he calleth a Faire Marke; …amely, that sometime, when the particulars or individuals, …hich have been prostituted to Idolatrie, may not lawfully be …sed; yet others of the like kinde, may be lawfully used with …awful intentions. But this is litle curtesie, or faire deal…ng, when the Repliers arrow was shotte, and stucke in …he Defender his White, cliving the very Peg of it; to set …p another Marke, and then accuse the shooter, that his …rrow doeth not sticke in this Marke, set up after the …hotte was made. Beside, this concerneth not our As…umption, which should be the Rejoynder his Marke: be…ause there is nothing in it of human Ceremonies, not ne…essarie.
5. It was replied also, that by the Defender his rule by paritie of reason) it might be gathered, that of Ce…emonies instituted by Christ, those onelyonly are commanded, which he did sanctifie in particular. No: (sayth …he Rejoynder) because in institution of the Sacraments, …her was ordeyned a continuance in the like kinde. Doe this. And was ther not also, in the prohibition of Ceremonies human, Idolatrously abused, ordeyned a continuance in the like kinde, in those wordes, Deut. 12. thou …halt not doe so to the Lord thy God?
6. From the same rule, the Replier sayd, it may be concluded, that no Popish Ceremonies are Iewish, or Heathenish: because they are not the same individually, or in particular. Not so neither (sayth the Rejoynder) because they use Iewish Typicals; and others, as still in force by the Iewes lawes; and Pagan Rites, with the like intention. But 1. The Papists doe not use Iewish Typicals, as types of Christ yet to come; and therefore according to the Def. and Rej. their sentence, must be excused: because they holde Circumcision it selfe lawfull to Christians, pag. 285. 2. They doe not hold any Ceremoniall Iewish lawes to binde Christians. See Bellarmine, de justificatione, lib. 4. cap. 6. It is neither good, nor safe, to accuse any beyond their deserts. 3. Likenesse of intention, betwixt Pagans and Papists, is such as admitteth much dislikenesse. And such likenesse there is betwixt our Ceremonies, and Popish.
7. It was inquired, whether the Scripture, forbidding conformity with Heathen Idolaters, in shaving of heads, and cutting of beards, did meane the same heads and beards onelyonly? No: (answereth the Rejoynder) because the like in kinde was forbidden. And this is that which the Replier sought. For then by proportionable equity, Ceremonies like in kinde to Idolaters, are forbidden to Christians, at this day, and not the same particulars onelyonly.
8. Because the Defendant objected, that all circumstances of Order and Decency have beene abused to Idolatry; the Rejoynder noted, that this is one advantage he maketh of leaving out of our Assumption, those limitations: Ceremonies devised by man, of no necessary use: because Circumstances of Order, and Decency, are necessarie in their kinde, and not meere devises of men; Bellarmine himselfe being Iudge, de effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 29. VponUpon this the Rejoynder having little reason to oppose thereto, after some repetition of confuted shifts, commeth on with a current of words, like a flood from the hils, after a great raine, which carrieth much mud with it. For after some rouling of Circumstances in their particulars, with adding of divers, neither meere circumstances, nor allowed by us, as he supposeth (which make nothing to the purpose) this muddy stuffe is found in the valley: The matter comes to this issue: you a…e the godly men; other reformed Churches are the Churches of Christ, All other men are Carnall, Time-servers, Formalists, that have no conscience, no syncerity, no godly wisedome, no zeale; you are the onelyonly men. I cannot devise, what occasion he had of this extraordinary passion, but that he was angry, to see he could not confront reason with reason. In his could blood, I dare say, he will recall these words of distemper, which cannot be fastened upon us, and therefore rebound upon him from whose violence they proceeded.
With more shew of reason, he addeth, that for necessity in the kinde, a Surplice in the kinde of a garment; the Crosse, in the kinde of admonition to professe the faith; and kneeling, in the kinde of a reverent gesture, are as necessary, as any circumstance of Order, and Decency. But this comparison hath beene largely confuted in the first part of this Writing, in the heade of Ceremonies, &c. Heere, it shall suffice to note, that time, place, and such like circumstances, are so manifestly necessary in their kinde, that the particulars may be deduced from them, by particular considerations, without any institution: but no man can deduce our Ceremonies from those kindes named. Mans will is the onelyonly reason, of them; as Gods will is the onelyonly reason of Ceremonies truely divine by institution. No man can conclude thus: we must every where have some garment, and therefore in England, a Surplice. We must alwayes in Baptisme, have some admonition to professe the faith; and therefore in England a Crosse. We must use reverent gestures in receiving the holy Communion; and therefore in England we must kneel in the act of receiving. But we may conclude thus: We must have a fit place to meete in; and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation: therefore we must have this. We must have a convenient time to meete in; and this houre is generally most convenient for our Congregation: therefore this. The Monkes may as well conclude: We must have some garments: therefore we must in one order have blacke; in another, white; in a third, blacke over white, or white over blacke; in a fourth, gray; a fifth, party coloured; in some, all wollen; in some, all linnen; &c. ad infinitum; as well (I say) every whit, as the Rejoynder can conclude from a garment to a Surplice; from admonition, to the signe of a Crosse; or from reverence in a table-gesture, to kneeling.
To Bellarmine, the Rejoynder answereth, that he speaketh of naturall Ceremonies. Which is true: but are not these conteined under the generality of the Defend…nt his words: there is no gesture, or circumstance of worship, which hath not beene abused? And as for other circumstances, which are called civill, many of them admit onelyonly of such variety, as nature doth lead unto, by occasion of this or that determination, common to religion with other affaires.
9. That our Ceremonies are not individually, or singularly the same which Papists have solemnely abused, the Replier said, it is no marvell: because it is impossible to carry the same particular signe of the Crosse, from the Fonte, to the Church doore; or to keep it being so long as it is in making. That is therefore no great mystery. The Rejoynder answereth nothing to this, save onelyonly that he descanteth upon the terme mystery.
10. It was added (as an overplus, not for necessity of the Argument) that as it seemeth, Papists doe give divine honour unto the signe of the Crosse, as it is us…d among us: because they ascribe divine operation un…o it, as it was used by Iewes, Heathens, and Iulian the Apostata. Bell, de effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 31. and they doe not account us worse then them. The Rejoynder opposeth 1. That the Papists honour not the Lords Supper in our hands. The difference is, that unto that Sacrament, they require a right-ordained Priest; but not so to the Crosse. 2. He answereth, that they ascribe this divine operation unto it, onelyonly when there is an intention of such an operation, in him that maketh the Crosse. Be it so: the Patrones of our crossing, defend that use which the Crosse had among the Fathers, who allowed that intention, as Bellarmine (in the place now cited) sheweth. And how shall the inward intention of them be discerned?
This at the least seemeth to follow, that as for uncertainty of the Priests intention, divers Papists worship the Hoaste, onelyonly upon condition, if it be changed into the body, by the Priests intention; so they must ascribe divine honour unto our Crosses, upon the like condition of such an intention, as was in the Fathers.
11. About materiall formall samenesse, the Replier refused to dispute: that was (sayth the Rejoynder) because if he had, he must either have opposed all learning and common sense, or else have yeelded to the D…fendant, that change of essentiall forme maketh the same materiall to become another thing; as in the changing of water into wine. But 1. with consent of all common sense, we may say, that our Crosse differeth not so from the Popish Crosse as the wine did from water, Ioh. 2. 2. It were no opposition to all learning (whatsoever Aristole teacheth) if one should say, that not the forme onelyonly, but also the matter was in a great part changed, when water was turned into wine. 3. Opinion, and intention, is not the essentiall forme of a ceremoniall Crosse. For one and the same ceremoniall Crosse, is used by Papists, to divers intentions, as to represent a Mystery, to cure diseases, to drive away divels, &c. Bellarmine in the fore-cited place. And opinion belongeth to the efficient or making cause, not to the forme. 4. The very making of a Crosse▪ in such a manner, or with such circumstances, as put upon it a relation to religion, maketh both matter and forme of that Ceremony: and so after idolatrously abused, carrieth with it at least a shew of an Idolatrous Ceremony. But this shew the Rej. referreth unto the fifth chapter: and heere opposeth onelyonly, that likenesse and samenesse are not one. Which is true of individuall or singular samenesse, not otherwise: for those things are like which have one and the same qualitie. But he himselfe will not say, that onelyonly the same individuall or particular Ceremonies, which Idolaters abuse, are forbidden to us. He hath hitherto in all this section declined the defence of that absurdity. This quidity therefore is not to the purpose.
12. It was added by the Replier, that we have no intention, or opinion, in the use of the Crosse, but the Papists have the same (though they have others more) and therefore there is some formall samenesse in their Crosse and ours. To this the Rejoynd. in many words, answereth nothing, but that this replie stifles it selfe: because, if we have not all the same opinions, which they have, then they have not the same with us. But it doeth not follow of positive opinions, concerning the Crosse it selfe. For we may want some of their opinions, and yet they have all that we have, the same. Doeth not he that knoweth most, of this or that, know the same thing with him that knoweth little, though he knoweth more?
13. Another odde reason was framed by the Repl. thus: If this doeth make a Ceremony not the same, that men have not altogether the same opinion of it; then among the Papists, there are as many kinde of Ceremonies, Crosses, Surplices, as there are diversities of opinions, about their nature and use; which no man will say. Yes (sayth the the Rejoynder) I will say it of Ceremonies: and he that shall denie this, must lay aside both learning, and conscience, not knowing what to say. But he is too too confident, upon the ground which he is driven to by force of a contrary winde. For without laying aside of learning, and conscience, we may thus argue: If this be so, then all human Ceremonies used among the Papists, and brought in (as hitherto all have used to speake) by Popes, are not Popish. For they may be this or that Hedge-Priests Ceremonies, who hath added his opinion and institution unto them. 2. The Pope) by the same reason) cannot know, when his Ceremonies ar… observed, or omitted▪ because he cannot know all opinions and intentions of men. And the like reason holding with us, our Church must inquire into the opinions and intentions of men, before she can know, whether her Ceremonies be observed, yea, or no. I leave it then to a Convocation-consultation, if it be not necessary, that in the Bishops Articles, the Church-Wardens should be asked, upon that oath, which they usually take, and breake, With what opinion, and intention, their Minister doeth weare the Surplice, and use the Crosse? For otherwise, it cannot be knowne, whether he useth the Ceremonies of the Church of England, or others of his owne making? 3. When men have no opinion or intention of such Ceremonies, but onelyonly that they are necessary to stand betwixt them and deprivation, or excommunication, or other vexation (which is the case of our best Conformers) then, though they use Crosse, Surplice, &c. they doe not conforme to the Ceremonies of our Church, but in hypocrisie, and so with great sinne.
Three wordy exceptions (he useth to call such things quarrels) the Rejoynder heer maketh: one that the Replier put in not altogether the same opinion, for not the same: an other, that he mentioned onelyonly opinion, wheras the Defender joyned to it, intention: the third, that Crosses and Surplices, are wrought upon, as they are material. But the two later of these are now voided, by my repe…ition of the reason: and the former is the Rejoynder his owne interpretation, pag. 575.576. namely, if our opinion be not altogether the same, then it is not simplie the same.
14. Instance was made (by the Replier) in the Altar erected by Vriah, 2. King. 16. which was idolatrous, like that of Damascus, though for another intention.
The Rejoynder answereth 1. that this Altar was not formaly the same with that of Damascus. But the formalitie of that Altar, conteyning all the idolatrousnesse that was in it, or belonged unto it, and that Idolatrie being in part common to Vrias Altar, with that of Damaskus, it must needs be in that part the same, though not altogether. Idolatrie against the second Commandement, hath some formal communitie with that which is against the first. He addeth 2. that if Achaz had intention of offering to false Gods, then his intention was the same with theirs at Damascus. But yet there would be found a difference of intention in Achaz, in that he intended worship both to the true God, and to those false; wheras they at Damascus were onelyonly for the false. And Vrias intention might be (as it seemeth to have been) onelyonly to satisfie the Kings minde, that he might keep his favour, upon which intentions, Courting Praelats use to goe very farre.
15. In the last place, it was observed by the Replier, that this answer of the Defender is the very same with that which Papists give unto our Divines, when they are accused for using of Heathenish and Iewish Ceremonies.Licet in externo symbolo sit aliqua similitudo, absolut… …amen maximum est discrimen: nam a fine & intentione sumunt externae actiones speciem suam. Although in the outward signe there be some likenesse, yet absolutely there is great difference: for outward actions take their kind from the end and intention of them. Bellarm. de effectu Sacr. l. 2. cap. 32.
The Rejoynder being angrie, useth divers sharp wordes, and after answereth, that this plea is unsufficie… for the Papists: because they retayne Iewish Ceremonies to the like Iewish ends; and Pagan Ceremonies to like superstitious ends: but our intentions are no way like the Papists. Bellarmin sayth as much for their Ceremonies in the place noted: The rites of the Gentiles were done for the worship of Devils: but ours are for the worship of the true God: therefore there is as much difference betweene ours and theirs, as between Sacred, and Sacrilege; as b…twe…ne piety and impiety, as betweene God and Satan. Iewish rites signified Christ to come ours are partly in memorie of things past, and partly to signif… the glorie to come. Ritus Gentilium siebant ad cuitum Daemoniorum: nostri sunt ad colendum verum Deum: ideo tantum interest inter illos & nostros, quantū inter sacrum & sacrilegum: quantum inter pietatem & impietatem, & quantum inter Deum & diabolum. Ritus Iudaiei Christum venturum praenunciabant: vestri partim sunt in memoriam r…rum praeteritorum, partim ad sig…ific… dam gloriam suturam.And yet our Divines cease not to accuse them of Iewish and Pagan Ceremonies. In their judgement therfore, such differences cannot excuse ou… Ceremonies from being Popish.