A reply to Dr. Mortons general Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the…A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the…

OF our own Writers the Def. here opposeth unto us, Calvin Junius, Chemnitius and Zepperus. Now for these, it hath been plainly manifested before, that they all with one consent condemn humane symbolical ceremonies in Gods worship: and that upon good grounds out of Gods word. Now therefore if any thing elsewhere hath fallen from any of them by occasion, sounding to the contrary, then we may well think that either their meaning is mistaken therein, or else they showed themselves to be men: and indeed (to say the truth) there is a little variety to be found in some of our divines concerning the point of ceremonies. But the cause thereof being marked, will make it less offensive. All our Divines, when they look into the clear crystal of the scripture, condemn plainly all devices of man in Gods worship, whatsoever: but again, some of them when they fix their eyes on the false gloss of ancient times, and consider withal how hardly men are drawn from their accustomed vanities, and what good some men may do by applying themselves somewhat to the times, then receiving another kind of impression, they seem sometime to waver in their words. This observation I thought fit to set down in general, because it may have good use in some particular places which this Def. threat•eth hereafter to object. But as for the places here quoted, the answer is easy.

OF our own Writers the Def. heere opposeth unto us, Calvin Iunius, Chemnitius and Zepperus. Now for these, it hath been plainely manifested before, that they all vvith one consent condemne humane symbolicall ceremonies in Gods worship: and that upon good grounds out of Gods word. Now therefore if any thing elswhere hath fallen from any of them by occasion, sounding to the contrary, then we may well think that either their meaning is mistaken therin, or else they shewed themselues to be men: and indeed (to say the truth) there is a little varietie to bee found in some of our divines concerning the poynt of ceremonies. But the cause thereof being marked, will make it lesse offensiue. All our Divines, when they look into the clear chrystall of the scripture, condemne plainly all devices of man in Gods worship, whatsoeever: but againe, some of them when they fixe their eyes on the false glosse of ancient times, and consider withall how hardly men are drawen from their accustomed vanities, and what good some men may doe by applying themselves somewhat to the times, then receiving another kind of impression, they seeme sometime to vvaver in their words. This observation I thought fit to set down in generall, because it may haue good use in some particular places which this Def. threat•eth hereafter to object. But as for the places here quoted, the answer is easie.

Calvin in the first place, disputing against the gross corruptions of the Papists, saith, he doth not contend therein about ceremonies, which he might truly say not only comparatively, but even absolutely in regard of contention with others, who did not obtrude them upon him. And so I am assured few or none would contend much about ceremonies, if they would not force them upon others.

Calvin in the first place, disputing against the grosse corruptions of the Papists, sayth, he doth not contend therein about ceremonies, vvhich hee might truely say not onely comparatiuely, but even absolutely in regard of contention with others, who did not obtrude them upon him. And so I am assured few or none would contend much about ceremonies, if they would not force them vpon others.

In the other place, he understandeth by ceremonies, such as are given us of God: as the following words show: Paucae igitur nobis divinitus datae sunt ceremoniae. What indeed he thought was to be given to the rude people in this kind, he showed sufficiently, not only by his words formerly cited, but also by his practise, in that he banished such ceremonies utterly not only out of Geneva, but also out of all Churches, which hearkened unto his counsel.

In the other place, he understandeth by ceremonies, such as are given us of God: as the following words shew: Paucae igitur nobis divinitus datae sunt ceremoniae. What indeed he thought was to bee given to the rude people in this kinde, he shewed sufficiently, not onely by his words formerly cited, but also by his practise, in that he banished such ceremonies utterly not onely out of Geneva, but also out of all Churches, vvhich hearkned vnto his counsell.

Zepperus meaneth only that the simple having of Images in Churches is not such impiety as doth unchurch a people.

Zepperus meaneth onely that the simple having of Images in Churches is not such impietie as doth unchurch a people.

Junius and Chemnitius in the last place, do but give a difference betwixt the Fathers and Papists use of some things. Here is nothing directly against our assertion. But if all these witnesses did speak as the Defendant would have them in these places mentioned, what were that to the cloud of testimonies which are brought forth in the Abridgement, and unanswered as yet by the Defender. His own mouth will testify that our Divines are generally on out side. For in that regard (if he speaketh with good reason) he calleth them still our own witnesses. Our own they are not, because we allege them only: for so both Fathers, and Papists, and Conformists also are alleged by us: but because they speak plainly for us. Which appeareth also the more by his silence at the most part of their speeches.

Iunius and Chemnitius in the last place, doe but give a difference betwixt the Fathers and Papists use of some things. Here is nothing directly against our assertion. But if all these witnesses did speak as the Defendant would haue them in these places mentioned, what were that to the cloud of testimonies which are brought forth in the Abridgment, and unanswered as yet by the Defender. His own mouth will testifie that our Divines are generally on out side. For in that regard (if he speaketh with good reason) he calleth them still our owne witnesses. Our owne they are not, because we alledge them onely: for so both Fathers, and Papists, and Conformists also are alledged by us: but because they speake plainly for us. Which appeareth also the more by his silence at the most part of their speeches.

SECT. XXXI.

After much sailing in the main sea, the Defendant directeth his course (as he saith) homeward to the narrow seas, by instancing, in the practise of Non-conformists themselves. His comparison is good: for as the scriptures were too deep for him to fasten any anchor of a conforming argument in: so the practises of weak men are so full of sands and shelves, that here he can have no sure riding. The sea of Rome turned, by one of our Prelates, mare Romanum, is the best harbour of all the world for the ceremonies to arrive and rest in.

AFter much sayling in the maine sea, the Defendant directeth his course (as he sayth) homeward to the narrow seas, by instancing, in the practise of Non-conformists themselues. His comparison is good: for as the scriptures were too deepe for him to fasten any anchor of a conforming argument in: so the practises of vveak men are so full of sands and shelves, that here hee can haue no sure riding. The sea of Rome turned, by one of our Prelates, mare Romanum, is the best harbour of all the world for the ceremonies to arriue and rest in.

The first example brought is the form of an oath, which is taken on a book. To which I answer, 1. That if this form of swearing can be proved to be of the same nature with the cross in baptism, &c. we will rather abandon this form to avoid the Cross, then admit of the cross for love of this. 2 I affirm, that it were much better that this form (invented by Papists, and abused not only by them, but also by many among our selves) were abolished, as it is in other Countries not Popish,¹ then retained. Mr. W. Thorpe a Martyr, or Confessor, in King Henry the fourth his days, refused to swear upon a book, alleging Chrysostom for the same opinion. 3. This form if it be worship, seemeth to be essential and necessary worship, not accidental: for no man is esteemed to have taken his corporal oath (as Lindwood affirmeth) but he that sweareth upon a book. 4. It is not our practise to make any more of touching the book, then of lifting up, ⟨p. 57⟩of the hand, which is used in other Countries: i. to make it a sign of assent unto that which is required of us. So that I for my part would not find fault with those which sometime hold out a service-book, or any other to touch and kiss: for it is all one whether we show our assent one way or another, so it be shown i• a decent manner. 5. This form is not used in the special solemn worship of God: but in a civill assembly, where occasionally God is called upon for confirmation of the truth. And indeed, as the Def. speaketh well, an oath is rather a cognizance or note of supreme worship, then proper and direct worship.

The first example brought is the forme of an oath, vvhich is taken on a booke. To which I answer, 1. That if this forme of swearing can be proved to bee of the same nature with the crosse in baptisme, &c. we will rather abandon this forme to avoyd the Crosse, then admit of the crosse for loue of this. 2 I affirme, that it vvere much better that this forme (invented by Papists, and abused not onely by them, but also by many among our selues) were abolished, as it is in other Countries not Popish,¹ then reteined. Mr. W. Thorpe a Martyr, or Confessor, in King Henry the fourth his dayes, refused to sweare upon a booke, alledging Chrysostome for the same opinion. 3. This forme if it bee vvorship, seemeth to be essentiall and necessarie vvorship, not accidentall: for no man is esteemed to haue taken his corporall oath (as Lindwood affirmeth) but hee that sweareth upon a booke. 4. It is not our practise to make any more of touching the book, then of lifting up, ⟨p. 57⟩of the hand, vvhich is used in other Countries: i. to make it a signe of assent unto that which is required of us. So that I for my part vvould not finde fault vvith those vvhich sometime hold out a service-booke, or any other to touch and kisse: for it is all one vvhether we shew our assent one way or another, so it be shewen i• a decent manner. 5. This forme is not used in the speciall solemne worship of God: but in a civill assembly, where occasionally God is called upon for confirmation of the truth. And indeed, as the Def. speaketh well, an oath is rather a cognifance or note of supreame worship, then proper and direct vvorship.

1. 1Mr. Fox.

SECT. XXXII.

The next instance is, The observation of the Lords day: which the Defendant would never have brought in as an example of a humane ceremony, if he had not either been sea-sick or else sleepy with his long sailing which he spake of in the former section. For he taketh it for granted, that we hold the Lords day to be an institution of man, which we utterly deny: We hold, as Junius answereth Bell. about this matter de cult. sanct. l. 3. c. 10. an. 33. c. 11. an. 3. it is the divine institution of Christ himself.

THe next instance is, The observation of the Lords day: vvhich the Defendant would never haue brought in as an example of a humane ceremonie, if he had not either been sea-sicke or else sleepie with his long sayling which he spake of in the former section. For he taketh it for granted, that we hold the Lords day to be an institution of man, vvhich we utterly deny: We hold, as Iunius answereth Bell. about this matter de cult. sanct. l. 3. c. 10. an. 33. c. 11. an. 3. it is the divine institution of Christ himselfe.

By the way here he bringeth in a testimony of Zanchius, calling our Temples types and shadows of the celestial Temple. But Zanchier meaning was not to make them destinated instituted types: but only such things as by accommodation may serve fitly to put us in mind of such a matter: even as any arbitrary similitude that is fit, may be called a tide and shadow. I would the Defendant would read the very next Thesis of Zanchie to that he quoteth: there he should see, that Images, though they be not for the present worshipped, yet ought to be removed out of Churches, because they help not but hinder the worship of God. If Images, then by the Def. own former grant, mystical ceremonies of mans invention: and so mystical Churches too.

By the vvay here he bringeth in a testimony of Zanchius, calling our Temples types and shadowes of the celestiall Temple. But Zanchier meaning was not to make them destinated instituted types: but onely such things as by accommodation may serve fitly to put us in minde of such a matter: even as any arbitrarie similitude that is fit, may be called a tyde and shadow. I would the Defendant would read the very next Thesis of Zanchie to that hee quoteth: there he should see, that Images, though they bee not for the present worshipped, yet ought to be removed out of Churches, because they helpe not but hinder the vvorship of God. If Images, then by the Def. own former grant, mysticall ceremonies of mans invention: and so mysticall Churches too.

SECT. XXXIIII.

IN this last section, some reason is promised for a final confutation of the Non-conformists in this point; but I for my part can see none. Nothing (saith he) is properly called a ceremony, if it be altogether destitute of signification. Then (say I) away, and out of the Church with all ceremonies properly so called, of mans invention. But why hath he gone about to deceive us so often before, by confounding circumstances of order and decency with other ceremonies, & now in the winding up of all, confesseth ⟨p. 58⟩that they cannot be properly called ceremonies? surely there is no reason in this kind of dealing, but only that which they call Sophistry.

IN this last section, some reason is promised for a finall confutation of the Non-conformists in this poynt; but I for my part can see none. Nothing (sayth he) is properly called a ceremony, if it be altogether destitute of signification. Then (say I) away, and out of the Church with all ceremonies properly so called, of mans invention. But vvhy hath hee gone about to deceiue us so often before, by confounding circumstances of order and decencie with other ceremonies, & now in the winding up of all, confesseth ⟨p. 58⟩that they cannot be properly called ceremonies? surely there is no reason in this kind of dealing, but onely that which they call Sophistry.

Calvin (saith the Def.) and some other, do accuse the Popish ceremonies because they are dumb. I answer, they accuse them also for speaking, as the scripture doth condemn Images both for being dumb, and also for teaching lies. So that lay all together which those Divines say, and you shall find that in their judgement, humane ceremonies in Gods worship, are like a fool in a place of honour, who whether he speaketh, or holdeth his peace, still showeth himself unworthy of that place.

Calvin (sayth the Def.) and some other, doe accuse the Popish ceremonies because they are dumbe. I answer, they accuse them also for speaking, as the scripture doth condemne Images both for being dumb, and also for teaching lies. So that lay all together which those Divines say, and you shall find that in their judgement, humane ceremonies in Gods worship, are like a foole in a place of honour, vvho vvhether hee speaketh, or holdeth his peace, still sheweth himselfe unworthy of that place.

CHAP. IIII.