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

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.

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.

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. 69⟩thus down, our ceremonies have been idolatrously abused by Papists. There is great difference, as by and by we shall see. His answer is by a distinction: These ceremonies are either generally or individually and numerally the same that have been abused to idolatry: If generally, then it hindereth not, but they may still lawfully be used, though they have 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 have 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 doors of Gods• Church into those ceremonies against which by the keys of Gods kingdom they are strictly shut up. For by this means any kind of Popish, Jewish, Heathenish ceremony may come in, so there be new particulars of the same kind, and a new intention used. The first assertion is most gross, viz. that in ceremonies abused to Idolatry, those are not forbidden which are generally the same, but only the same individuals. For by the like reason, of ceremonies instituted by Christ, those only are commanded which Christ individually and numerally did sanctify: not all of the same kind. So also Papists are justified against all the charges of our divines, who accuse them for using of Jewish and Heathenish ceremonies: for they are not the same individually and numerally, but only in kind with those which Jews and heathens used. So the meaning of the scripture, forbidding conformity with the heathen Idolaters, should only be of using the same particular rites and ceremonies with them: as if when the cutting of their heads, & rounding of their hair like the heathen, was forbidden to the Israelites; Lev. 18. & 19.

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

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 (saith the Def.) the same generally be forbidden, then you cannot justify any one of your own ceremonies of order and decency. Why so? because there is no gesture or circumstance of worship which hath not been abused to Idolatry. Now he showeth plainly wherefore he set down only a piece of the assumption: for if the reader mark, that our assumption is only of ceremonies devised by man, and of no necessary use, then he shall see that this poor objection concerning circumstances of order and decency, can have no place here: for they are of necessary use in their kind, neither are they mere inventions of man, as the ceremonies are, by Bellarmines own confession, de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 29. For the second, that our ceremonies ⟨p. 70⟩are not […] the same which the Papists have solemnly abused to Idolatry, if this be granted, it is no marvel: for it is altogether impossible to carry the same particular sign of the cross so far as, from the font to the Church door: or to keep it in being, so long as it is in making. Hath not the Def. then found out a great subtle mystery in this distinction? yet it seemeth more true, that the Papists do give divine honour unto the same individual ceremonies which are used in England: especially to the sign of the cross as it is used among us. For Bellarmine ascribeth divine honour and operation unto the sign of the cross as it was used by heathens, by Jews, by Julian the Apostate, Belled eff. sacr. l. 2. c. 31. Though the Papists count us heretics, and I know not what, yet they esteem us not worse then Pagans, unbelieving Jews, & cursed Apostates. Seeing therefore they yield such honour to this sign as it was used by them, they cannot deny it unto our individual crosses.

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 onely a peece of the assumption: for if the reader marke, that our assumption is onely 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 haue 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. 70⟩

The last conceit, that our ceremonies are not formally the same with the Papists, because we have another intention and opinion of them then they, and therefore need not be abolished, is as vain as the former. For (not to dispute here of material and formal identity) 1. a very show of Idolatry must be abstained from and abolished. 2. It cannot be said simply and truly, that our intention and opinion concerning the ceremonies, is not the same with the Papists. For we have no intention or opinion in the use of the cross, or other ceremonies, but the Papists have the same; only they have some other opinions about these things which we have not. And if this doth make a ceremony not the same, that men have not altogether the same opinion of it, then among the Papists there are also as many kind of ceremonies, crosses, Surplices, &c. as there is diversity of opinion about their nature and use, which no man will say. 3. the Altar erected by Uria, 2. King. 16. was an idolatrous Altar, like that of Damascus, though it was for another intention. 4. the Papists do ascribe divine honour to the ceremonies used with our intention, as formerly was showed out of Bellarmine. 5. This is the Papists answer when they are accused for symbolizing with Pagans and Jews in their ceremonies: Licet in externo symbolo sit aliqua similitudo, absolute tamen maximum est discrimen: nam à sine & intentione sumunt externae actions speciem suam. Bell. de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 32.

The last conceit, that our ceremonies are not formally the same with the Papists, because we haue 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 haue no intention or opinion in the use of the crosse, or other ceremonies, but the Papists haue the same; onely they haue some other opinions about these things vvhich wee haue not. And if this doth make a ceremonie not the same, that men haue 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, vvhich 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 down the profession of the Church of England: which because he draws no conclusion from, it is not needful to examine, though it cannot be defended, that the most abused ceremonies are ⟨image 41⟩taken away (as this profession telleth us) because no one ceremony among the Papists hath been so much abused as the cross. That therefore only I would have here marked, how this profession doth confute this Defender. For he would make us believe, that none of the old ceremonies used in Popery, are retained, 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 do remain.

HEre, as a ground of confutation, the Def. setteth downe the profession of the Church of England: vvhich because hee drawes no conclusion from, it is not needfull to examine, though it cannot be defended, that the most abused ceremonies are ⟨image 41⟩taken away (as this profession telleth us) because no one ceremony among the Papists hath been so much abused as the crosse. That therefore onely I would haue 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.