A defence of the innocencie of the three ceremonies of the Church of England viz. the surplice, crosse after baptisme, and kneeling at the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament. Diuided into two parts: in the former whereof the generall arguments vrged by the non-conformists; and, in the second part, their particular accusations, against these III. ceremonies seuerally, are answered, and refuted. Published by authoritie.

SECT. XXX. Our fift and last ground of Confutation of their generall Argument, against our Ceremonies, in respect of their former Abuses, is taken from the Confes∣sion and Practse of the Non-confor∣mists themselues.

The first, and fairest obiects which offer themselues vnto our eyes, among the Ceremonies in Romish worship, and their Churches, Chalices, Vestiments, Bels, and if you will, also their round Wafer-cake; all which haue bene Ido∣latrously abused by Papists. Their Churches were most superstitiously dedicated after the manner of charming; their Chalices, and Table-clothes, were no lesse immediate Instruments of their Idolatrous Masse, than were their Altars; their Bels were baptized, with an opinion of in∣fused Holinesse and vertue to driue away Diuels. Duran∣dus, and Durantus,* 1.1 two Maisters of the Ceremonies in the Romish Church, do deriue many superstitious Sig∣nifications from these, & almost all other Instruments of Romish seruice, even vnto the verie Knots of the Bel-ropes.

The Case thus standing, must we now by the Con∣clusion

of our Non-conformists, stand chargeable to turne our Temples into Barnes or Hay-lofts (which I wish were not practised by some that will seeme to make most cōscience against a Ceremony,) Siluer Chalices into wooden cuppes; Bels into Gunnes, and Bel-ropes into halters, &c? Nay, euen your selues are not so farre fallen out with Popish Ceremonies, but that you can be conten∣ted to except out of your Position such as may bee of ne∣cessary vse. Yea, and one who is held as a principall,* 1.2 and (as it were) Super-intendent among you, doth more ful∣ly expresse your opinion than others, thus: Many of our Churches were builded by Papists, and dedicated to the ho∣nour of Saints, and seruice of some Idol, yet these being in the first foundation,* 1.3 (which I take to h••ue beene in Constan∣tines time) intended for the true worship of God, and ha∣uing both then and now a needfull vse among vs, may be re∣tained. I thinke that Gregory did well, who said vnto Au∣gustine the Monke being then in England, that for the Pa∣gan and Idol Churches, he should onely purge them, and not pull them downe — yea, and Popish vestments may serue, for substance of the stuffe, to make window Cushions, or a Pulpit-Cloth; Prouided alwayes, that there be no Crosse nor Cruci∣fix vpō it. The like may be said of Bels, Fonts, Tables, Flagōs, Pulpits, all which hauing some profitable vse in the Church of God, may by the warr••nt of Gods word be retained, al∣though in Poperie they haue beene abused. Thus farre this Non conformist.

Marke now, I pray you, from whence, and whither you are come. Your first Conclusions were for the ex∣tirpation of all Ceremonies formerly abused to Idolatry, (whether Iewish, Heathenish or Popish;) and that (as you affirme) necessarily and absolutely to the quite aboli∣shing not onely of the things themselues, but euen

the Monuments and names, yea, and the very shadowes and resemblances of them, that at length all memorie of them may be swallowed vp of obliuion: and these your assertions you pretended to be grounded vpō Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, and Testimonies of Protestant Diuines. Thus in your former Conclusions.

But contrarily now, in your Confessions and practi∣ses, you yeeld vnto vs the vse of Shadowes, of names, and of things themselues, which haue bene once defiled by Idolatrous pollutiō. 1. Shadowes, for you forbeare not to decke your houses with Bay-leaues, notwithstanding you held this an execrable Ceremonie among the Pagans. Nor do you alter the situation of your Churches, and Chancels towards the East, albeit that Ceremonie hath bene Heathenishly abused to the adoration of the Sun. And do you not ordinarily as well in your vulgar Eng∣lish, as in Latin, call some of the dayes of the weeke by names anciently appropriated vnto the seuen Planets; or to the Heathen * 1.4 gods? viz. Dies Saturni, &c. Satur∣day, Sun-day, Moon-day? Besides, you do religiously and Christianly celebrate monthly Communions, to the re∣membrance of Christ; notwithstanding that the Pagans had their monthly festiuals in the beginning of their Ca∣lends. And finally, if you will needs stand vpon names, you may not lawfully so much ••s name the word Cere∣monie, (if as some hold) the same word [Ceremonie] haue bene borrowed by the Romish Pagans from their god∣desse Ceres. Nor can you be said to abstaine from all appearance of Iew••sh obseruations, whilest with vs you Christianly celebrate the feast of Pentecost, which the Israelites did obserue Iewishly: or else by hauing the ta∣bles of the commandements, written vpon the pillars of the Churches, which the Iewes did write vpon the Posts of their houses.

But what do we talking of names, and shadowes? you are furthermore contented in some things to retaine their materials, and to change onely the fashions: for you allow that Popish vestment•• be changed into Cushi∣ons for the Churches vs, and Copes into Pulpit-clothes. And you agree that some other things, as Bels, Fonts, Tables, a••d Churches themselues (although neuer so filthily polluted) may both in forme and in matter contiue the same. Is there not then an huge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be∣tweene your former Conclusions, and these after Con∣fessions?

We come now to examine your Reason of allowing any of the former Ceremonies, although they haue bene Idolatrously abused. You alledge that you onely allow them, because they are profitable and necessary. But what? absolutely necessary? This you cannot affirme, because the primitiue Church (as you well know) of a long time kept not their worship in Temples, but in Cryptis, e∣uen in priuate houses and deserts. Nor vsed they seats or Cushions, for in the time of persecution they were con∣tented to vse their Stations, which sheweth that their common gesture was standing. Againe, there was a time, when the Ministers were golden, and their Chalices but wooden; and indeed the Church vnder persecution did forbeare to put on any ornaments of vestures: and then Baptisme was not in Fonts, but in Riuers and Foun∣taines. Nor were people assembled to the publike Ser∣uice of God by the sound of Bels, but of mens voices. All which accidentall supplies do plainly shew, that the Profit of these things, which you your selues thinke worthy to be continued, is of no absolute necessitie.

Lastly, you may enquire of the Church of Geneua, why she imposeth the Wafer-cake to be obserued of her

Ministers and people, albeit shee is not ignorant, that the round Wafer among the Papists had the signifi∣cation of the pence, for which Christ was sold by Iudas? and became (after their Romish consecration) not one∣ly Idolatrous, but the very Idol it selfe?

Vpon these Premises, I make bold to argue thus, If your imagined necessitie, which is in truth but a conueni∣encie, be of power to take away the Idolatrous pollution of Temples, Bels, Tables, Chalices, euen (as it is said) By the warrant of the word of God, which requireth Decency, Order, and Edification in his seruice: then doubtl••sse the Decency, Order, and Edification it selfe, which are to be discerned in our Ceremonies, may be thought much more able to purge and purifie the Ceremonies, which haue bene changed from their Popish vse.

But of the Profit and conueniencie of our Ceremonies we shall haue occasion to speake more particularly, when we shall come to the confutation of your particu∣lar Accusations. I haue no delight to wade any longer in this lake of Abuses, and therefore leauing these our Confutations to the consideration of our ingenuous Reader, I passe from this fourth generall Argument of the Non-conformists against our Ceremonies, vnto the Argument following.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Durand. in Rational. Dura••t. de Ritibus.
• * 1.2

  Linc. gene∣rall Rule.
• * 1.3

  M Hy. p. 22.
• * 1.4

  So, accor∣ding to the Saxon lan∣guage, Wee∣don, sig. Mer∣curie, Thor. Iupiter, F••ya, Venus.