Reply to Mortons Defense of Ceremonies, Response to chapter 4

Reply to Mortons Defense of Ceremonies · Response to chapter 4

p. 58CHAP. IIII.

SECT. I.

THis argument in the Abridgement, p. 17. standeth thus: 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 devised, if they be notoriously knowen to have been of old, and still to be abused unto idolatry or superstition by the Papists, specially if the same be now of no necessarie use in the Church. But our ceremonies are such: Ergo.

The Defendants answer is very briefe: he dares not absolutely deny either part of the argument. Hee could not finde a fit distinction whereupon to ground a conditionall deniall with reason: he contents himselfe therefore to make a shew of distinguishing after an unreasonable manner. For he doth not distinguish of any one tearme found in the argument: nor maketh the parts of his supposed distinction such as will beare any Logicall sence. If (sayth hee) you require such ceremonies to bee abolished, then wee deny your Major: but if you understand indifferent things, or meane an absolute, not a convenient necessitie, wee deny your Assumption. If this and but if that, this forme of speech, as indeed, every distinction, implieth some dissention and segregation in the parts distinguished. But here is no shew of any such thing, betwixt abolishing and indifferencie, or absolute necssitie. I know not what to make of such a confused distinction. It is as if one should say, If you require an establishing of the ceremonies, I deny one thing; but if you vnderstand convevient ceremonies, I deny another thing. Such kind of speaking is nothing else but non sence, or as some use to call it, a very bull. Let this generall answer therefore passe: though he sayth, that in it we may see our marks, and take our aime.

p. 59SECT. II.

THE Abridgement beginneth the proofe of the proposition thus. This may appeare 1 by the second Com: vvhichwhich forbids all provocation unto spiritual fornication, as the seventh doth unto that which is carnall. 2 By …e commandement and direction God hath given as in his vvord, 3 By the equity and reason of these commandements. Now the Def. though he professeth a full answer to all that is objected, yet he silently passeth over the first proofe out of the second Command. vvholly: and in the 2 and 3 proofe, vvhere about forty places of Scripture are cited for confirmation of them, he doth not attempt to answer aboue 8 or 9. But let us examine his answer to these.

Lev. 18 &c. three kinde of things are forbidden, 1 incest, 2 rounding their heads and cutting their flesh for the dead, 3 sowing with diverse seeds, and letting diverse beasts to ingender together. The first was a sin against nature: the second was a wicked custome of infidelity; the third did signifie adulterie: in all which our ceremonies are innocent. He answereth heere onelyonly unto the places taken out of the 18 and 19 of Lev. concerning vvhichwhich I reply 1 that in the first place the vvords are generall, v. 3 4: howsoever therefore in the following verses they be applyed unto foule sinnes, yet seeing in other places of Scripture the like application is made unto ceremonies, they vvere therfore mentioned as the generall ground, comprehending both kindes in it, and joyned unto other places condemning conformity vvith idolaters even in matters of ceremonie. 2 The second and third vvere no more vvicked, nor yet so much in any respect among the Heathen, as our ceremonies hauehave been among the Papists: And therefore in these, M. Calvins collection in Lev. 19 27, is sound, God would hauehave his people to know, that they could not hauehave his favour, except they would in all points be unlike to such, and goe as farre as they could from their fashions and examples, especially in those rites wherein there was any shew of Religion. 3 I vvould demand whether, if the high Preist, vvith the vvhole Synedrion of the Iewes lawfully assembled, had vvith one consent decreed, that vvheras the Lord enjoyneth, Lev. 19 Yee shall not sow with diverse seeds, nor cut round your heads, nor marre the tusts of your beards: this vvas onelyonly in regard of infidelity, and in respect of an evill signification: but seeing the things are in their nature indifferent, and that it might be convenient for them to use them, they vvould therefore all from thenceforth use the same, provided that none should use them upon infidelity as the heathen did, not make any evill interpretation of them: I vvould demand (I say) p. 60whether such a decree should ever hauehave been lawfully made, or vvarrantably obeyed? I thinke the Def. vvill say no. But why? Perhaps because of the expresse commandement to the contrary; but doth not this commandement then respect some other reason, beside those vvhichwhich by this decree should be now taken away? and may we not collect a further matter from them?

SECT. III.

BEcause one usuall evasion, much esteemed by the patrones of our ceremonies, is, that they had a good beginning: therfore the Authors of the Abridgement to stop that muse, adde that even such things are to be cast away, which had a good originall and use (if they be not still necessarie and commanded of God) when once they are knowne to hauehave been defiled by idolatry, or abused unto it. For proofe vvherof they alledge Lev. 26 1, and other places more. But the Def. heere singleth out this one, and denyeth that the titulary pillars of the heathen (which vvere set up at limits of their grounds) had a good beginning. Suppose that this be true, and that the Authors of the Abridgment were mistaken in this place: is not the same thing sufficiently proved our of 2 King. 18 4, Dan. 1 8, Hos. 2 16 17. But yet it is more then probable, that those titular pillars, vvere at the first onelyonly set up for civill use: because many statues vvhichwhich afterward served onelyonly for vvorship, vvere at the first onelyonly for civill respects, and these had still a civill use for distinction of bounds. But Calvin collecteth, that no statue was heere condemned, but that which was erected to represent God. Calvin indeed hath those words: but vvhat kinde of representation he meaneth, he sheweth sufficiently before, omnes picturas quibus corrumpitur spiritualis Dei cultus: all pictures that corrupteth Gods spirituall worship. And after, quaecunque nos a spiritualie…us cultu abducun…: whatsoever lead us from the spirituall worship of God.

Iacob erected a pillar for a religious monument (saith the Def.) Gen. 28, true: but not after the Law vvas given against it: so also he offered sacrifices, and many other things, in such sort as after the Law vvas not lawfull.

SECT. IIII.

THE third proofe in the Abridgement standeth thus: the equity of these commandements is thus set down in Scripture: 1 the detestation which the Lord our God being a jealous God beareth unto idolatry, and all the instruments and tokens thereof, as unto spirituall whoredome, Exod. 20 5 6, Deut. 7 25 26. 2 that we cannot be said p. 61sincerely to hauehave repented of the idolatry or superstition whereby wee or our forefathers hauehave provoked the Lord unlesse we be ashamed of and cast away with detestation all the instruments and monuments of it, 2 Chron. 33 15, Es. 1 29 & 2 20 & 30 22 2 Cor. 7 11, Cal. in Deut. serm. 52 ep. 86 p. 166 167. 3 that we shall be in danger to be corrupted. Ex. 34 12 15, Deut. 7 4. 25. 26, Iud. 2 13, Gal. 2 5. 4. Wee shall harden Idolaters, Ezech. 16 54 1 Cor. 6 10. 5. There is more danger in Popish ceremonies, because the Pope is Antichrist, and we converse more with Papists then with other Idolaters.

Now of all these reasons and allegations the Def. answereth directly to nothing, but onelyonly to those words see Calvin: and yet not to them neither as they are cited in the Abridgement. For there it is, see Calvin in his 52 serm. on Deut. and ep. 87. Now on these places the Defendants eyes vvould not serue to looke: or at least, his heart would not suffer him to giuegive answer, they are so pregnant. If we hauehave any drop of good zeale in us, it must needs vexe and grieue us to see the markes and signes of idolatry: and that we must to the uttermost of our power deface them, &c. nothing upon pretence must be tolerated in the Church, which came either from Satan or from Antichrist. Yet the Def. saith, he hath seen Calvin upon Exod. 23 & 24, and Numb. 23 and Deut. 7 12, and findeth that Calvin holdeth these precepts of destroying Altars and Groues, to binde the Iewes onelyonly, not Christians: and he biddeth us see Calvin on these places. Surely I hauehave looked and could finde no such thing. If there had been any thing vvorth the knowing, for maintenance of the ceremonies, we should hauehave heard of the words of Calvin; whereas now Calvin is brought in expresly affirming that we may use temples which hauehave been defiled vvith idoles: which is nothing at all to the question of unnecessary ceremon. But if the Def. would discusse this poynt out of Authors, vvhether the lawes alledged out of the old. Testament against the monuments of Idolatry, doe not bind Christians, why doth he not answer to the testimonies of Calvin, Martyr, Grineus, Wolphius, Visinus, Machabeus, Zanchius, Simlerus, Zepperus, Fulk, & our book of homilies alledged to this purpose in the Abridg. p. 24.

SECT. V.

IN one place of Scripture yet, viz. Dan. 1 8, the Def. thinketh he hath some advantage; because Calvin interpreteth it otherwise then of ceremoniall pollution. But therein the Abridgement followed that interpretation which is most generally, received: for which see Iunius in his Commentary upon the place. And suppose that pollution vvas not ceremoniall or idolatrous, yet I hope the Def. vvill not say but if the meat had been so p. 62polluted Daniel vvould hauehave absteyned from it.

Take therefore some other testimonies to proue your assertion, saith the Def. So confidently as if he knew of no …estimonies vvhichwhich he had not answered. What can one say to him that vvill not take that which is thrust into his hands, and yet calleth for more, as if he could finde none?

SECT. VI.

THE last thing vvhichwhich the Def. vvill take knowledge of, as alledged out of the Scriptures, in this point, is the example of Hezekiah 2 King. 1… in breaking down the brazen Serpent. This example is so famous, that he could not omit it: yet he knoweth not vvell what to say unto it.

First, he giveth fiue reasons for the abolishing of the brazen serpent. As if any of us doubted, but that Hezekiah had reason enough for that he did: Or, as if there could not be reasons enough alledged, and those almost the very same, for abolishing of our ceremonies. Let them be abolished by publick authority, and I vvill undertake reasons to justifie, the action done, vvill easily be acknowledged even of those that now can see none to perswade unto the doing of it.

Secondly, he propoundeth, as very observable, that Hezekiah did not abolish the idols vvhichwhich Salomon suffered to be set up, because they were neglected. But 1 it may vvell be thought that those idols vvere destroyed by Hezekiah, and set up againe before the time of Iosiah, as many other superstitions were. 2 It cannot be doubted but they should hauehave been destroyed, even though they were for the time neglected: because either Hezekiah had as good cause to destroy them as Iosiah: or else he might hauehave prevented that cause which Iosiah had: and to prevent evill, we are as well bound, as to correct it.

Thirdly, he citeth Zanchius to proue, that this is not an universall remedy for all abuses of ceremonies. The place in Zanchie I cannot finde: neither skilleth it much. I grant the conclusion, it is not a remedy for all abuses of ceremonies, viz. for such as Gods appointment hath made necessary to be retayned. Besides the words of Zanchie heere cited by the Def. doe onelyonly therfore seem to make for him, because they are not full enough against him. But in other places of the same book Zanchius judgement is plain enough, as p. 649 vvhere from this example he reproveth those that keep the reliques of superstition in some holy places; though they hauehave removed them out of Churches. And if about this matter the Def. doth ascribe any thing to the judgement of our p. 63divines, vvhy doth he not answer the testimonies of Augustine, Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Zanchius, Sadeel, Iewel, Bilson, Fulk, Rainolds, Andrews, Perkins, alledged to this purpose in the Abridgement, p. 24?

Fourthly and lastly (vvhichwhich onelyonly in deed is to the purpose) the Def. vvould shew us a disparity betwixt the idolatry of the Iewes, and that of the Papists. The first is, that that idolatry of the Iewes was done publickely, and generally, and in the bowels of the same Church: but the Papists is not so. To which I answer 1 these circumstances are not rendred as reasons of the abolishing in the text, but invented by the Def. 2 private particular idolatry is to be removed as well as publick and generall: 3 all these circumstances did more then agree to our ceremonies in the beginning of our reformation. And sure they are not grown better since, by any good that they hauehave done.

The second difference vvhichwhich the Def. imagineth, is that there was no other meanes to cure the idolatry of those times: but now there is. I answ. 1 this is the very question whether there be any other sufficient meanes to cure the disease of humane ceremonies idolatrously abused beside abolishing. 2 It is a vaine imagination vvhereby this difference is confirmed, and no reason at all. In the Dominions of our Ezekias (saith the Def.) this disease would be found curable without any such extremity. But the experience of 50 or 60 yeares shew, that hitherto it is not cured neither in Ireland, nor Wales, to say nothing of England. Surely our Prelates are miserable Phisitions, that in a disease so easie to be cured, suffer the patients to languish under their hands, unto death. Especially (saith he) in this our most truely reformed Church, which doth most liuely expresse the face and full body of her primitiue mother Church. This he hath now 3 or 4 times repeated: as if he did desire to make a question of it: and here propounds it vvith a doubt, if you will allow. It is not sit heere to make a long digression about this matter. In short therefore thus, vve allow with all thankefulnes, that our Church is to be called a reformed Church in regard of the main points of faith, which are purely and freely taught among us vvith publick approbation: and also in regard that the grossest superstitions are by publick authority cast out of our Assembles. But if our Ecclesiasticall government be considered, and some ceremonious superstions, wee deny utterly, that vve hauehave such a reformation therin, as may represent the face of the primitiue Church. Let the Defendant tell us, if ever the primitiue Church had such chanting idol service as is every day to be seen in our Cathedrall Churches? If there were in the primitiue Church Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials under the p. 64Bishops, which executed the censures of that Church? If he can shew any primitiue pompous Bishops that had sole authoritie of ordination & excommunication? If any Minister was called in the primitiue Ch. without expresse consent of the congreg. over which he vvas set? if Ministers vvere then vvont to goe to law for their places? if the Primitiue Church ever heard of Pluralists, Non-residents or dumb ministers? If either in primitue or else in Popish Church almost simony was ever so ordinary as it is with us? If ever so many prophane men, openly known to be contemners of Religion, vvere members of any primitiue Church, as are of ours? If ever he read of such carnall proceedings about Ecclesiasticall affaires in primitiue times, as are every day practised in our spirituall-courts? who tooke money for ordination, citation, absolution, or change of pennance?

I will not insist on these things, because they are beside our present question; but onelyonly desire the Def. to behold this face which I hauehave described in a right glasse, and see if it be the face of the pure primitiue Church.

SECT. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

THE testimonies of Councels and Fathers, alledged in the Abridgement about this point, are largely ranked by the Def. into 14 Sections, as if the maine burden of this Controversie did lye upon their authority: vvheras in the Abridgement they are briefly mentioned as illustrations. I vvill therefore according to the intent of those vvhichwhich alledged them, consider all together.

7. In the fift Councell of Carhage it is true, that he saith, those Altars vvere onelyonly expresly appointed to be abolished, vvhichwhich were set up vvithout reliques of Martyrs. But let the Def. shew any reason, why those also were not to hauehave the same measure vvhichwhich had reliques of martyrs in them? Surely the Councell▪ seemeth to aime at a perfect reformation: but stayed at this, because of the superstition vvhichwhich then prevailed among the peoples as they shew in that parenthesis (si fieri potest) if it may be: and in the next Canon.

8 In the next canon (saith the Def.) they would onelyonly hauehave immediate instruments of Idolatry then brought into publicke use abolished. But how doth he gather this glosse out of the Text? Or wherein doth this glosse excuse our ceremonies, especially as they were in the beginning of our reformation? and since they hauehave mended as soure Al… doth in summer.

p. 659 To the decree of the Councell of Bracara, forbidding men to decke their houses &c. in such manner and at such time as idolaters did, the Def. answereth nothing that hath any shew of reason in it. For our ceremonies differ nothing from the Papists in place, persons, time, but onelyonly in some opinion: Now the Councell there doth not forbid the opinion, but the ceremony, even to them vvhichwhich were of a better opinion.

10 The Councell of Affrick doth giuegive a reason why they condemned certaine feasts, because, they were drawn from the errours of the Gentiles. Heerein I am sure it maketh against our ceremonies.

11 To Tertullian de Coron. the Def. saith lesse then nothing. For he doth not speake of the same individuall habite which was used to idolatry, as the Def. vainely pretendeth: nor of that kind which was onelyonly used in idolatrous worship. For in the same book c. 13, he saith this habit of a garland vvas used in most base places, as playes, stewes, jakes &c.

12 The like answer is given unto Tertullian de Orat. 1 in generall it is said, that Tertullian doth not condemne these ceremonies meerly for resemblance with idolaters: but for opinion of efficacie and necessity: wheras the contrary is plaine in Tertullian, for he saith expresly, Propterea in nobis reprehendi meretur, quod apud idola celebratur. Therefore it is to be blamed in us, because it is used before Idols: And B. Iewel Def. Apol. vvith many other of our best Writers against the Papists doe urge these testimonies of Tertullian meerely in regard of resemblance. 2 In washing (saith the Def.) some did then hold an opinion of efficacie and necessitie. If they did, that is nothing to the purpose; for they might be condemned in that behalfe, and yet meerely also for resemblance vvith idolaters. But no such thing appeareth in Tertullian, he telleth us plainely, that the vvashing before prayer vvas a significant sign in remembrance of Christs delivering unto the Iewes by Pilate, when he had washed. Cum scrupulose percontarer, & rationem requirerem, compe…i commemorationem esse in domini deditionem, c. 11, so that I doe not see but that this vvashing vvas every way like unto our signe of the crosse in regard of the originall signification and use of it. 3 In the ceremony of dossing cloakes before prayer, there was an opinion of necessity, because Tertullian saith, si sic oportet, if this ought to bee done. As if sic oportet, ought to be done, ought alwaies to be expounnded of an absolute necessitie. Doe not our Prelates now say, sic oportet, vve ought to use the ceremonies, and yet disclaime this opinion of necessity? Tertullian onelyonly condemneth, Vacua observatio, vanitas, quae sine ullius dominici out apostolici praecepti authoritate fit, atque adeo superstitioni deputanda… All these agree to our ceremonies p. 66as well as to that. 4 For sitting upon beds after prayer, the opinion of necessity is onelyonly condemned by Tertullian (saith the Def.) because he inferreth, otherwaies we ought not to pray but sitting. But that inference is onelyonly upon an allegation out of Hermas vvhichwhich Tertullian opposeth to himselfe about the matter. Concerning the ceremony it selfe, the grounds of his condemnation are, perinde faciunt nationes: apud idola celebratur. So that the Defendant hath given no colourable answer unto Tertullian. Yet one thing he cannot conceale, though it be nothing to the purpose, viz. that Tertullian in that place condemneth sitting at prayer, which we bring up our Schollers unto. He might surely hauehave concealed this, as being a shamelesse slander in regard of us, as all that know us can vvitnesse: and a shamefull practise of our Prelats, generally in all prayers before and after Sermons, except it be vvhen the Lords prayer is repeated: for it is vvell known how little respect they giuegive unto any prayers, but onelyonly to the Lords prayer, and those that are in the Service-book.

13 Melchiades forbad fasting at the same time vvith Pagans. That was (saith the Def.) because they lived in the same Conutrey, at the same time and place Nothing else he hath to answer. And doth Countrey, time and place, make such a difference, that the same ceremonies in one Countrey, time and place, shall be Christian, and in another Paganish? What if the Countries be vvithin halfe a daies saile, as France is to England, and the time be the same, as it is in our case? confesse the truth, and shame the devill.

14 Ambrose disswaded Monica from bringing of vvine and cakes to the Church. There is no proportion (saith the Def.) for that was an act of sacrificing performed by women, vvho are forbidden to sacrifice, as well as to preach: devised by private persons: of an idolatrous invention. The first of which answeres is Bellarmines de sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 14, but evidently false. For the Papists themselues are not so grosse as to confesse that they offer any proper sacrifice unto any creature whatsoever, Bellat. de sanct. beat. lib. 1 cap. 12: and shall I we thinke the mother of Augustine, with other religious women in those purer times to hauehave been guilty of so great impiety? Epiphanius may call it a sacrifice in a rhetoricall phrase, because it was an offering: but in disputations we must speake properly, yet Epiphanius doth call it onelyonly an offering. 2 the person or sexe of a woman, maketh no difference. For Monica was not the inventer and appointer, but onelyonly the actor: and a woman may bring her offering and lay it upon the Communion table as well as a man. 3. It doth not appear that this was the invention of private persons: there hauehave been Bishops vvhichwhich hauehave fathered as good children as p. 67this was: and I do not know why such a thing, or any significant ceremony may not be lawfully used upon privat devotion, if it bee lawfull for men to impose it. 4. If that vvhichwhich Monica did vvas Idolatrous, it is the very thing for vvhichwhich our ceremonies are accused. 5. Lastly, neither Ambrose, Augustine, or Monica regarded these things in condemning of that act: for the reasons are onelyonly two Ne ulla occasio ingurgitandi se daretur ebriosis: & quia illa quasi parentalia superstitioni gentilium essent simillima. The latter of which, viz. resemblance of …igans, is that vvhichwhich vve urge.

15 To a graue sentence of Augustine, counselling to forsake all the toyes of Pagans, if vve vvould winn them, nothing is answered but that those toyes are not to be used together with Pagans, as if apart some of those toyes at the least may be profitably used. Surely to return his own phrase upon him, de bove & efus caud…, if others wil eat up the oxe, this Def. wil make no bones of the taile, so it be apart.

16 The Councel of Nice decreed that Christians might not keep the feast of Easter at the time, or in the manner as the Iewes did. Not (sayth the Def.) that it was alwayes unlawful so to do, which question I vvill leave to them that are skilful in human trao…tions, but 1. for hatred of the Iewes. 2. because of the Iewes insultation. 3. for vniformitie. The last of these causes doth not agree: for vniformitie might as well hauehave followed, if all Christians could have been drawen to the same time with the Iewes. The other two agree vvel to our ceremonies. For we are to hate the idolatrous superstitions of the Papists vvith a perfect hatred. And the Papists do insult ouer us for this, that we hauehave borrowed our ceremonies from them; as is to be seen in the Abridg. p. 25. where much is sayd to this purpose, & by the D. unanswered. And I vvould fain know for what causes other ceremonies of the Papists are abolished, if not these, or for such at the least as would sweep away our ceremonies in controversie, as vvell as them, if it pleased them that hauehave such bezomes in their hands?

17 The Councell of Gangren forbad fasting on the Lords day onelyonly (sayth the Def.) if it were in contempt of Christian profession. But Augustine Ep. 86. telleth us the true reason vvas because the heretickes did reach men to doe so, sacra solemnitate statuta; with religious solemnitie, as the Papists now doe in the Crosse. And whereas the Defen… asketh, if there be any contempt of any Christian article in our ceremonies: I answer, the crosse cannot be otherwise used, then with proiudice, disgrace, and so some kinde of contempt cast upon baptisme.

18 The 1 councel of Bracar forbad abstinence frō flesh, that Christians might shew themselves to differ from Priscillianists, the Def. p. 68answer is, that the Papists do not consort with us in the same ceremoniall acts as the Priscillianists did with the Catholicks, at the same ordinaries & banquets. But there is no such reason rendred, or limitation set in the councell, of the same ordinaries and banquets: the same ceremonie onelyonly is condemned.

19 Thrice-dipping in Baptisme was condemned by a Councel of Toledo, approved by Leo, because it was the custome of Heretickes. This was (sayth the Def.) because an hereticall construction was made of it. Even so (say we) a superstitious construction is made of our crosse, not onelyonly by the Papists, but by our owne canons and Canonicall imposers of it.

20 Leo forbidding men to have any thing to do with hereticks, meaneth it onelyonly of doctrinal conference, sayth the Def. But conformitie with them in their ceremonies is a greater fault (for the nature of it) then doctrinall disputing with them. Therefore the testimonie holdeth, from the lesse to the greater.

Thus in briefe I hauehave examined his particular answers unto our testimonies out of Councells and Fathers. B…t one answer might hauehave served for all, viz. that they were not brought in by the Authors of the Abridgement for to make an immediat conclusion by against our ceremonies, as the Def. in his answers evermore taketh them: but to illustrate the proposition vvhichwhich condemneth conformitie with Idolaters in their ceremonies. And herein wee hauehave not onelyonly the Fathers, but even the Papists themselues in words many times consenting with us. Suarez. in Thom. p. 3. q. 65. maketh it one rule which the Church is to follow in appointing of ceremonies.

Now the Def. passeth from the proposition of this argument, unto the assumption. But he should hauehave done vvell to hauehave made a little stand at the armie of Protestants vvhichwhich are brought in as giving witnesse to this truth. Abridg. p. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. & 25. why had we not heare one head of Protestant Divines, as vvell as in the former arguments, seeing more are cited here then in them? Surely the Def. could not tel how to giuegive a colorable answer to so many pregnant testimonies, and therfore thought good to passe them over in silence, and make his reader beleeve, that none were objected, because none are answered.

SECT. XXI.

THe Def. here meaning to say something against the assumption, setteth it down by halves, or rather by quarters. For the assumption is, Abridg. 26. 27. our ceremonies in question are humane inventions, of no necessary use, and abused to idolatry. He setteth it p. 69thus downe, our ceremonies hauehave been idolatrously abused by Papists. There is great difference, as by and by we shal see. His answer is by a distinction: These ceremonies are either generally or individually and numerally the same that hauehave beene abused to idolatry: If generally, then it hindereth not, but they may still lawfully bee vsed, though they hauehave been so abused. If individually, then it is not true, which is affirmed: neither doth it follow from thence, that they must be abolished, because they hauehave been so abused, except they be the same formally: i. in intention and opinion of those that impose and practise them: What miserable shifts is the Def. put to? he told us before, his distinctions were wedges: but this is a very pick-lock, made for to open the doores of Gods… Church into those ceremonies against vvhichwhich by the keyes of Gods kingdome they are streightly shut up. For by this meanes any kind of Popish, Iewish, Heathenish ceremonie may come in, so there be new particulars of the same kinde, and a new intention used. The first assertion is most grosse, viz. that in ceremonies abused to Idolatry, those are not forbidden which are generally the same, but onelyonly the same individualls. For by the like reason, of ceremonies instituted by Christ, those onelyonly are commanded which Christ individually and numerally did sanctifie: not all of the same kinde. So also Papists are iustified against all the charges of our divines, who accuse them for using of Iewish and Heathenish ceremonies: for they are not the same individually and numerally, but onelyonly in kinde with those vvhichwhich Iewes and heathens used. So the meaning of the scripture, forbidding conformitie with the heathen Idolaters, should onelyonly be of using the same particular rites and ceremonies with them: as if when the cutting of their heads, & rounding of their haire like the heathen, vvas forbidden to the Israelites; Lev. 18. & 19. there had been danger lest the people of Israel should either get heathen mens heads, and set them upon their shoulders, or heathen mens beards, and set them upon their faces, and then put them into the forbidden fashion. It is but folly to confute largely such a beggarly assertion.

But if (sayth the Def.) the same generally be forbidden, then you cannot justifie any one of your owne ceremonies of order and decencie. Why so? because there is no gesture or circumstance of worship which hath not been abused to Idolatry. Now he sheweth plainly wherefore hee set downe onelyonly a peece of the assumption: for if the reader marke, that our assumption is onelyonly of ceremonies devised by man, and of no necessarie use, then he shall see that this poore obiection concerning circumstances of order and decencie, can hauehave no place here: for they are of necessarie use in their kinde, neither are they meere inventions of man, as the ceremonies are, by Bellarmines owne confession, de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 29. For the second, that our ceremonies p. 70are not … the same which the Papists hauehave solemnly abused to Idolatry, if this be granted, it is no marvel: for it is altogether impossible to carry the same particular signe of the crosse so far as, from the font to the Church doore: or to keep it in being, so long as it is in making. Hath not the Def. then found out a great subtil mysterie in this distinction? yet it seemeth more true, that the Papists doe give divine honor unto the same individual ceremonies which are used in England: especially to the signe of the crosse as it is used among us. For Bellarmine ascribeth divine honour and operation unto the signe of the crosse as it was used by heathens, by Iewes, by Iulian the Apostate, Bell…de eff. sacr. l. 2. c. 31. Though the Papists count us hereticks, and I know not what, yet they esteeme us not vvorse then Pagans, unbeleeving Iewes, & cursed Apostates. Seeing therefore they yeeld such honor to this signe as it was used by them, they cannot deny it unto our individuall crosses.

The last conceit, that our ceremonies are not formally the same with the Papists, because we hauehave another intention and opinion of them then they, and therfore need not be abolished, is as vain as the former. For (not to dispute here of materiall and formall identitie) 1. a very shew of Idolatry must be abstained from and abolished. 2. It cannot bee sayd simply and truely, that our intention and opinion concerning the ceremonies, is not the same with the Papists. For we hauehave no intention or opinion in the use of the crosse, or other ceremonies, but the Papists hauehave the same; onelyonly they hauehave some other opinions about these things vvhichwhich wee hauehave not. And if this doth make a ceremonie not the same, that men hauehave not altogether the same opinion of it, then among the Papists there are also as many kinde of ceremonies, crosses, Surplices, &c. as there is diversitie of opinion about their nature and use, vvhichwhich no man wil say. 3. the Altar erected by Vria, 2. King. 16. vvas an idolatrous Altar, like that of Damascus, though it vvas for another intention. 4. the Papists doe ascribe divine honour to the ceremonies used vvith our intention, as formerly vvas shewed out of Bellarmine. 5. This is the Papists answer vvhen they are accused for symbolizing with Pagans and Iewes in their ceremonies: Licet in externo symbolo sit aliqua similitudo, absolute tamen maximum est discrimen: nam à sine & intentione sumunt externae actiones speciem suam. Bell. de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 32.

SECT. XXII.

HEre, as a ground of confutation, the Def. setteth downe the profession of the Church of England: vvhichwhich because hee drawes no conclusion from, it is not needfull to examine, though it cannot be defended, that the most abused ceremonies are taken away (as this profession telleth us) because no one ceremony among the Papists hath been so much abused as the crosse. That therefore onelyonly I would hauehave here marked, how this profession doth confute this Defender. For he would make us beleeve, that none of the old ceremonies used in Poperie, are reteined, because they are not formally the same in respect of intention and opinion. But this profession telleth us plainly, that some of the old ceremonies doe remaine.

SECT. XXIII.

NO example can the Defendant find in all the booke of God, for lawfull reserving of Idolatrous ceremonies, but only two; one of Gedeon, Iudg. 6. 26. and another of Ioshua, los. 6. 19. and yet of Gedeons example, the Def. himselfe confesseth, that it vvas by speciall commandment from God: and that it is not every vvay imitable. And of Ioshuas, beside that it was also the expresse commandement of God; and that there is no mention made of things appropriated unto Idolatry, but onelyonly of goods which had been the possession of Idolaters: so that he may fetch as good an argument and better, from the Spanish Crusadoes, for the crosse in baptisme, then from the riches of Iericho. It doth no way appeare in the text, but that the vessells were first molten, and then the gold onelyonly, and the silver, brasse or yron of them, brought into the tabernacle. So that by this wretched penurie of Scripture proofes, it is manifest, that the vvarrant for reteining of humane Idolatrous ceremonies, must be fetched out of another court, then that vvhichwhich God holds in his holy word.

SECT. XXIIII.

I Had thought verily that the Def. would hauehave brought some pregnant testimonies out of the Fathers, though he could finde none in the holy Scriptures. But he is here also as farre to seeke as before: for he bringeth nothing at all vvorth the answering. The feast of Easter (which now the fourth time is brought upon the stage by the Def. in vain) was never generally observed at the same time with the Iewes, nor ever so appointed by any decree or canon of Councel: if it had, yet that had been but an agreement in a circumstance of time, and the translation of it to another time, did shew, they liked of no conformitie of Iewes. There were feasts also appoynted at times differing from hereticks. What Cart-rope will draw a conclusion from hence for conformity with idolaters in their ceremonies? Besides, feasts & fasts, he nameth habits, but giveth no instance or proofe at all of any such thing. Circumcision, he sayth, was continued under many Christian Bishops of Ierusalem. But let him shew that those Christian Bish. allowed of any such thing. p. 72I neuer heard nor read of more confident conclusions out of such beggarly premisses.

SECT. XXV.

THe reasons had need be strong, when they come without any testimonie of Scripture, and antiquitie. But here the Defendant is as much forsaken of all helpe, as he vvas in the other. His first reason is, because hereticks hauehave perverted the sacraments Now he knew that the question is of humane ceremonies, not of Gods holy institutions: therfore he fetcheth about, and draweth this to his purpose, by gathering from thence, that it is almost impossible to finde any ceremony without exception. All which we grant, of human significant ceremonies, as he knoweth well: except therefore hee be resolved to make a trade of begging the question, I know not vvhat he should meane by this unreasonable reason.

SECT. XXVI. XXVII.

THe very same disease is found in his second reason: vvherout he can conclude nothing, but that some things abused may afterward be rightly used; vvhichwhich vve vvillingly grant: nay, it may be granted of some human ceremonies also▪ as if the Surplices of England were turned into under garments for poore people: and vvoodden crosses were given them for firing. But if any conclude from hence, that therfore they may hauehave lawfull state in Gods vvorship, and there hauehave a good use, surely his wit & words might bee better used.

In the 27 section there is no shew of any reason at all, except affirmations bee reasons.

SECT. XXVIII.

THE last reason is, because Poperie and Popish rites are not to be esteemed of equall abomination with Paganisme and Paganish rites. Suppose this vvere true every way (as it is not) yet in this they may …agrree, that both alike are to bee detested and abandoned. Nay, a lesser superstition the authors and countenances wherof are neere at hand, doth call for more hastie removall, then a greater, whose authours and users are vnknown. Howsoever, vvhen the scriptures bid us flie from Idolatry, and that also particularly, from Popish Idolatries without any distinction, as from Divells, Ap. 18. a few smoothing vvords cannot satisfie our consciences in this, but, that wee are as well and as farre to flie from p. 73Popish Idolatry, as from Paganish. But if the Defendant vvould hauehave throughly discussed this question, vvhy did hee not answer that vvhichwhich Mr. Parker hath to this purpose? p. 1. c. 1. S. 25. or that vvhichwhich is alledged in the Abridgement, p. 24.

SECT. XXIX.

OVR Witnesses can give the Defendant but small aid, being separated from scripture and reason; yet he catcheth at three, Calvin, Martyr, and Zepperus. Calvin (sayth he) teacheth that there is great difference betwixt Turks and Papists, lib. de vitand superst. True, but in the same place hee answereth the consequence vvhichwhich you would make from hence, viz. that therefore vvee need not flie so farre from Popish superstition, as from heathen: and in the same place also hee argueth from Turkes to Papists. Calvins purpose was not to condeme any thing but that which is evill in it selfe. True, in that discourse vvherein he dealeth against those vvhichwhich could swallow downe the masse it selfe: it had been no vvisedome to dispute vvith them about Crosse and Surplice. Hee alloweth of Temples which hauehave been abused to Idolatry. So doe we, because they are not religious ceremonies, of mysticall signification, vvithout necessarie use. And is this all that can bee brought out of Calvin? Then surely hee doth not contradict the many sentences of condemnation vvhichwhich as other where, so also in that very Tractate, he passeth against Idolatrous reliques.

Zepperus is alledged as allowing of Temples, which hauehave been abused, because they were not immediat instruments of Idolatry. So doe we al…o, as before I sayd, for that and other causes. But altars in the same place he condemneth: which yet are retained in our Cathedrall Churches, and I hope the crosse being an Idoll it selfe, had as immediat commu…ion with Idolatry, as Zepper or any reasonable Iudge would require for the cashiering of it.

As for Peter Martyr, howsoever in one epistle to Hooper, he setteth as good a colour upon the reliques of Idolatry as he could, because he thought by a little yeelding of Hooper and such men, the superstitions themselues might quickly be removed: yet in another Epistle, p. 1125. he giveth this peremptorie sentence, Profecto si ex animo superstitiones edissemus, vel ipsa eorum vestigia omnibus modis curaremus extirpanda: 1. If wee hated superstition from the heart, wee would abolish all the reliques of it. To the same purpose he speaketh p. 1127. vvhere he sheweth that his conscience would never suffer him to weare the Surplice, when he vvas Canon of Christ church in Oxford. If this vvere not his reason, hee had some other very much a kin to this. Neither will the Defendant say hastily, I p. 74hope, that either Peter Martyr, or Hooper, were disorderderly exorbitant men in those times, fit to be displaced, that more discreet conformists might come in their places: as now he pronounceth of those that refuse to conforme.

SECT. XXX.

WHen all faile, a contradiction must be found betwixt our conclusions, and our confessions and practises, but I assure my selfe, there is not any reader so simple, but if hee look over this section, will presently see, that he hath not brought one example of any humane ceremonie, not necessarie, notoriously known▪ to hauehave been abused unto Idolatry, that is allowed by us. Why then should I spend ink and paper in labouring to un…wine such ropes of sand? OnelyOnly I would ask the Defendant certaine questions.

1. If a Temple, a Bell, or a Table-cloth hauehave such idolatry put uppon them by the Papists, as the crosse hath?

2 If his own heart do not tell him, that there is a civill use of such things, which cannot be imagined of the crosse?

3 What superstition there was in the meere significations given by Durandus unto Bells, and Bell-ropes, vvhichwhich is not to be found in the Crosse and Surplice?

4 Whether the Pagan use of Bay-leaues vvhichwhich was aboue a thousand yeares past, doth cast such a reflection upon our civill use of bay-leaues, as the Popish superstition doth upon our ceremonies?

5 What sence he had to find fault with us for not altering the situation of Churches?

6 If it be all one to call a ship by the name of Castor and Pollux, as Paul doth, Act. 28. 11. and to use a religious ceremonie in Gods worship, vvhichwhich is taken from these Idolls?

7 If it be one thing to change copes into cushions, and to use a Masse vestiment in Gods worship?

8 If it be not a kind of slander to say, that the Church of Geneva imposeth a round wafer cake, like the Papists, to be used in the Lords Supper, when as onelyonly unleavened bread is used, because custome in that part more prevailed, then the grave advice of Calvin, Farel, Viret, and the other excellent pastors? And if it bee not a wide leap, to bring in the practise of Geneva, for an instance of the Non-conformists practise in England?

By that time these questions be truely answered, the Defendant vvill hauehave but a small harvest out of our confessions and practises.