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

8 In the next canon (saith the Def.) they would only have immediate instruments of Idolatry then brought into public use abolished. But how doth he gather this gloss out of the Text? Or wherein doth this gloss excuse our ceremonies, especially as they were in the beginning of our reformation? and since they have mended as sour Al• doth in summer.

8 In the next canon (saith the Def.) they would onely haue 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 haue mended as soure Al• doth in summer.

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

9 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 onely in some opinion: Now the Councell there doth not forbid the opinion, but the ceremony, even to them vvhich were of a better opinion.

10 The Council of Africa doth give a reason why they condemned certain feasts, because, they were drawn from the errors of the Gentiles. Herein I am sure it maketh against our ceremonies.

10 The Councell of Affrick doth giue 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.

12 The like answer is given unto Tertullian de Orat. 1 in general it is said, that Tertullian doth not condemn these ceremonies merely for resemblance with idolaters: but for opinion of efficacy and necessity: whereas the contrary is plain in Tertullian, for he saith expressly, 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. Jewel Def. Apol. with many other of our best Writers against the Papists do urge these testimonies of Tertullian merely in regard of resemblance. 2 In washing (saith the Def.) some did then hold an opinion of efficacy and necessity. If they did, that is nothing to the purpose; for they might be condemned in that behalf, and yet merely also for resemblance with idolaters. But no such thing appeareth in Tertullian, he telleth us plainly, that the washing before prayer was a significant sign in remembrance of Christs delivering unto the Jews by Pilate, when he had washed. Cum scrupulose percontarer, & rationem requirerem, compe•i commemorationem esse in domini deditionem, c. 11, so that I do not see but that this washing was every way like unto our sign of the cross in regard of the original signification and use of it. 3 In the ceremony of dossing cloaks before prayer, there was an opinion of necessity, because Tertullian saith, si sic oportet, if this ought to be done. As if sic oportet, ought to be done, ought always to be expounded of an absolute necessity. Do not our Prelates now say, sic oportet, we ought to use the ceremonies, and yet disclaim this opinion of necessity? Tertullian only condemneth, Vacua observatio, vanitas, quae sine ullius dominici out apostolici praecepti authoritate fit, atque adeo superstitioni deputanda• All these agree to our ceremonies ⟨p. 66⟩as well as to that. 4 For sitting upon beds after prayer, the opinion of necessity is only condemned by Tertullian (saith the Def.) because he inferreth, otherwaies we ought not to pray but sitting. But that inference is only upon an allegation out of Hermas which Tertullian opposeth to himself about the matter. Concerning the ceremony it self, the grounds of his condemnation are, perinde faciunt nationes: apud idola celebratur. So that the Defendant hath given no colourable answer unto Tertullian.

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, compei 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 onely condemneth, Vacua observatio, vanitas, quae sine ullius dominici out apostolici praecepti authoritate fit, atque adeo superstitioni deputanda All these agree to our ceremonies

Yet one thing he cannot conceal, though it be nothing to the purpose, viz. that Tertullian in that place condemneth sitting at prayer, which we bring up our Scholars unto. He might surely have concealed this, as being a shameless slander in regard of us, as all that know us can witness: and a shameful practise of our Prelates, generally in all prayers before and after Sermons, except it be when the Lords prayer is repeated: for it is well known how little respect they give unto any prayers, but only to the Lords prayer, and those that are in the Service-book.

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 haue 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 giue unto any prayers, but onely to the Lords prayer, and those that are in the Service-book.

13 Melchiades forbade fasting at the same time with Pagans. That was (saith the Def.) because they lived in the same Country, at the same time and place Nothing else he hath to answer. And doth Country, time and place, make such a difference, that the same ceremonies in one Country, time and place, shall be Christian, and in another Paganish? What if the Countries be within half a days sail, as France is to England, and the time be the same, as it is in our case? confess the truth, and shame the devil.

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 dissuaded Monica from bringing of wine and cakes to the Church. There is no proportion (saith the Def.) for that was an act of sacrificing performed by women, who are forbidden to sacrifice, as well as to preach: devised by private persons: of an idolatrous invention. The first of which answers is Bellarmines de sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 14, but evidently false. For the Papists themselves are not so gross as to confess that they offer any proper sacrifice unto any creature whatsoever, Bellat. de sanct. beat. lib. 1 cap. 12: and shall I we think the mother of Augustine, with other religious women in those purer times to have been guilty of so great impiety? Epiphanius may call it a sacrifice in a rhetorical phrase, because it was an offering: but in disputations we must speak properly, yet Epiphanius doth call it only an offering. 2 the person or sex of a woman, maketh no difference. For Monica was not the inventer and appointer, but only 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 have been Bishops which have fathered as good children as ⟨p. 67⟩this was: and I do not know why such a thing, or any significant ceremony may not be lawfully used upon private devotion, if it be lawful for men to impose it. 4. If that which Monica did was Idolatrous, it is the very thing for which our ceremonies are accused. 5. Lastly, neither Ambrose, Augustine, or Monica regarded these things in condemning of that act: for the reasons are only two Ne ulla occasio ingurgitandi see daretur ebriosis: & quia illa quasi parentalia superstitioni gentilium essent simillima. The latter of which, viz. resemblance of •igans, is that which we urge.

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 haue 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 onely an offering. 2 the person or sexe of a woman, maketh no difference. For Monica was not the inventer and appointer, but onely 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 haue been Bishops vvhich haue fathered as good children as

15 To a grave sentence of Augustine, counselling to forsake all the toys of Pagans, if we would win them, nothing is answered but that those toys are not to be used together with Pagans, as if apart some of those toys at the least may be profitably used. Surely to return his own phrase upon him, de bove & efus caud•, if others will eat up the ox, this Def. will make no bones of the tail, so it be apart.

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 Council of Nice decreed that Christians might not keep the feast of Easter at the time, or in the manner as the Jews did. Not (saith the Def.) that it was always unlawful so to do, which question I vvill leave to them that are skilful in human trao•tions, but 1. for hatred of the Jews. 2. because of the Jews insultation. 3. for uniformity. The last of these causes doth not agree: for uniformity might as well have followed, if all Christians could have been drawn to the same time with the Jews. The other two agree well to our ceremonies. For we are to hate the idolatrous superstitions of the Papists with a perfect hatred. And the Papists do insult over us for this, that we have borrowed our ceremonies from them; as is to be seen in the Abridg. p. 25. where much is said to this purpose, & by the D. unanswered. And I would 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 controversy, as well as them, if it pleased them that have such besoms in their hands?

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 haue 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 haue 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 haue such bezomes in their hands?

17 The Council of Gangren forbade fasting on the Lords day only (saith the Def.) if it were in contempt of Christian profession. But Augustine Ep. 86. telleth us the true reason was because the heretics did reach men to do so, sacra solemnitate statuta; with religious solemnity, as the Papists now do in the Cross. And whereas the Defend asketh, if there be any contempt of any Christian article in our ceremonies: I answer, the cross cannot be otherwise used, then with prejudice, disgrace, and so some kind of contempt cast upon baptism.

17 The Councell of Gangren forbad fasting on the Lords day onely (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 council of Bracar forbade abstinence from flesh, that Christians might show themselves to differ from Priscillianists, the Def. ⟨p. 68⟩answer is, that the Papists do not consort with us in the same ceremonial acts as the Priscillianists did with the Catholics, at the same ordinaries & banquets. But there is no such reason rendered, or limitation set in the council, of the same ordinaries and banquets: the same ceremony only is condemned.

18 The 1 councel of Bracar forbad abstinence frō flesh, that Christians might shew themselves to differ from Priscillianists, the Def. ⟨p. 68⟩answer 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 onely is condemned.

19 Thrice-dipping in Baptism was condemned by a Council of Toledo, approved by Leo, because it was the custom of Heretics. This was (saith the Def.) because an heretical construction was made of it. Even so (say we) a superstitious construction is made of our cross, not only by the Papists, but by our own canons and Canonical imposers of it.

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 onely by the Papists, but by our owne canons and Canonicall imposers of it.

20 Leo forbidding men to have any thing to do with heretics, meaneth it only of doctrinal conference, saith the Def. But conformity with them in their ceremonies is a greater fault (for the nature of it) then doctrinal disputing with them. Therefore the testimony holdeth, from the less to the greater.

20 Leo forbidding men to have any thing to do with hereticks, meaneth it onely 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 brief I have examined his particular answers unto our testimonies out of Councils and Fathers. B•t one answer might have served for all, viz. that they were not brought in by the Authors of the Abridgement for to make an immediate conclusion by against our ceremonies, as the Def. in his answers evermore taketh them: but to illustrate the proposition which condemneth conformity with Idolaters in their ceremonies. And herein we have not only the Fathers, but even the Papists themselves 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.

Thus in briefe I haue examined his particular answers unto our testimonies out of Councells and Fathers. B•t one answer might haue 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 vvhich condemneth conformitie with Idolaters in their ceremonies. And herein wee haue not onely 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 have done well to have made a little stand at the army of Protestants which are brought in as giving witness to this truth. Abridg. p. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. & 25. why had we not hear one head of Protestant Divines, as well as in the former arguments, seeing more are cited here then in them? Surely the Def. could not tell how to give a colourable answer to so many pregnant testimonies, and therefore thought good to pass them over in silence, and make his reader believe, that none were objected, because none are answered.

Now the Def. passeth from the proposition of this argument, unto the assumption. But he should haue done vvell to haue made a little stand at the armie of Protestants vvhich 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 giue 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.