Our Answer.
In this Obiection, we find three Assertions; 1. that the Surplice was inuented by Antichrist: 2. that Pope Ste∣phen did appropriate it vnto Gods seruice: and 3. that (by consequence from them both) the Surplice can haue no lawfull vse.
To the first we answer, that the Surplice was in old and gray-headed vse long before the Romane Antichrist was borne: for the Inuentor, whosoeuer he was, could not be yonger than Pope Stephen, who (as you said) was the first Appropriator thereof. But he liued Anno 256. when-as The Antichrist did not put out so much as either of his hornes, for the space of more than 400. yeeres after. You may therefore lawfully subscribe to your owne wit∣nesse,* who saith that The diuersities of apparrell were not first inuented by the Pope.
Secondly, concerning the Appropriation of the Sur∣plice by Pope Stephen, vnto Ecclesiasticall vse; it is well knowne, that this Stephen was no Antichristian Pope, but Page 213 (as Platina, whom you alledge, writeth) a godly Bishop,*who, by his life and doctrine, conuerted many Gentiles to the faith of Christ, and sealed the same faith with his owne bloud, by holy Martyrdome, being beheaded vnder the Em∣perour Decian. So that the Act of this Pope must rather fortifie our cause, for as much as this Stephen was a true follower of the Proto-martyr Stephen; and the Religion which he professed, was almost as different, from the now Romish Superstition, as those times of Pope Ste∣phen were distant from these daies, wherein now Pope Paul the fift possesseth the Papall seate.
Lastly, concerning your Consequence, suppose you (if you please) that some bad and Antichristian Pope had bene the first Inuentor of this Ceremonie; yet is your consequence but lame. For,*I cannot be perswaded (saith P. Martyr, writing of the vse of the Surplice in our Eng∣lish Church) that the impietie of the Pope is so great, that whatsoeuer he toucheth must thereupon be so defiled, that afterwards it may not be of any vse, to them that are good and godly. M. Bucer is somewhat large in this point, but yet so pregnant and pertinent, that we may not omit him.*I dare not say (saith he) that these Vestments (spea∣king of the Surplice) are so polluted by Antichrist, that they are not to be permitted vnto any Church, that hath knowledge of the libertie of all things; For the Scripture doth euery where proclaime, that euery creature of God is good, vnto those that are good; that is, vnto the true belee∣uers in Christ. —I say good, not onely in respect of the natu∣rall effects, as bread is good to feede; but in respect of the diuerse significations; and admonitions by them. The pro∣pertie of a Rite, or Ceremonie (as it is Aaronicall, or Anti∣christian) doth not inhere vnto any creature of God, or Vest∣ment, or shape, or colour; but in the minde and profession Page 214 of men, that abuse those good creatures of God vnto impi∣ous and godlesse significations: for it cannot be called an Antichristian Ceremonie, except some Antichristian Re∣ligion and communion be professed thereby &c.
I returne to the point of Appropriation, to let you vnderstand, that if your exception be not so much against the Appropriator, although a Pope, as against the Appropriation it selfe, whereby such Ceremonies are de∣puted particularly vnto holy vse, then are you to con∣sider, whether it may be thought agreeable to the law of good Decorum, to see the Pulpit-cloth vsed in the stead of a flag, in a May-game; or the Communion-cup carried abroad, for common vse to serue at an Ale-house; or to behold so much as a Ministers gowne hanging on the backe of a Tinkar, or Car-man. Now if that you per∣ceiue a deformitie in the common vse of such things, that haue bene so exercised in Gods Seruice, then t•e Appropriation of such things to publicke worship is not therefore a iust matter of Indecencie.
