A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the surplice, crosse in baptisme, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramentall elements of bread and wine.

THE PREFACE.

SIR,

HOwsoever ther be many vnknown motiues which lead men in these dayes unto conformitie, yet those which are openly professed, may be referred either vnto M. Sprints way, who confesseth the ceremonies to be imposed contrary unto the rules of Gods word, and yet contendeth that they are to be used in case of deprivation: Or else to D. Mortons way, who avoucheth the sayd cer••monies to be agreeable unto the rules of Gods word, and ther∣fore s••ch as ought to be observed simply. Now he that considereth wel of the ma••ter, shall find that there is no ground for the conscience to rest on in either of these wayes. As for M. Sprint, (to speak nothing of his mis-alledging very many authors) he hath but three main ar∣guments: and to all three he hath given sufficient answer himselfe. His first argument is taken from the doctrine and practise of the Apo∣stles about the Iewish ceremonies. Now all the force of this reason doth depend upon that paritie or equalitie which is supposed to be be∣twixt our ceremonies and the Iewish, our ministers warrant and the Apostles: so that if this paritie faileth, the whole argument falleth. Yet M. Sprint himselfe confesseth, pag. 250. 256. that those Iewish ce∣remonies were not every way so evill as ours are: neither doth or dare he say, that ministers now haue such particular warrant for conformi∣tie, as the Apostles had for applying themselves a little while un∣to some of the Iewish ceremonies.

His second reason is, that a lesser dutie must yeeld unto a greater. Now this case by his own cōfession p. 30. doth not hold so, as that a man should doe a thing formally, simply, and in nature evill, for any good. Now he knoweth, as appeareth p. 45. that the ceremonies in contro∣versie are esteemed such by most of these that now oppose them. So that this reason can be of no force with them.

His third reason is, because refusall of conformitie in case of de∣privation, tendeth to condemne in a manner all true Churches which haue taught and practised otherwise. Hee meaneth by condemning, accusing of error. Now M. Sprint himselfe doth thus condemne all or the most of the Churches which he alledgeth to haue practised such ceremonies. For in confessing our ceremonies to be inconvenient, scan∣dalous, evill, such as the urging of them cannot be justified, and yet affirming that almost all Churches haue appointed and used such, even out of the case of deprivation or such like necessitie, doth he not plainly accuse all those Churches of error? These things considered, I thought is needless to spend much time in examining M. Sprints booke any further. But according to your desire, I will shew you mine opinion in briefe concerning the chiefe passages which are in Thomas Chesters, or as he was wont to be called, Doctor Mortons Defence of three ce∣remonies, commonly used in our Churches, which I doe the more willingly vndertake, because divers things are therin handled of sin∣gular vse in divinitie, whereof I profess my selfe a Student, though in the ministerie I cannot find a setled station. But before I come to the Defence it selfe, first, I would faine vnderstand the reason why three Ceremonies are onely defended, seeing there be many threes of those things which stay many godly men from subscription and confor∣mitie, as is to be seen even in that abridgement which this Defender doth chiefly oppose? Is it because our best Prelats haue onely a care to perswade if it may be, those that are in the ministery, to that conformity which is most of all noted, not regarding in the meane time, what be∣commeth of so many godly learned yong men, who not onely for these, but for divers other corruptions also, are forced to turne away from the ministerie, whereunto their education, gifts and hearts did carry them, while many lewd fellowes, the chiefe spots and blots of our con∣gregations, doe possess their places.

I would know also what the reason should be, that the innocencie onely of these ceremonies is defended? Is this all that is required in ce∣remonies forcibly obtruded upon ministers and people, even to the silen∣cing, excommunicating, and uttter undoing of many hundreds? Is this all, I say, that is required, that such ceremonies be in some sence inno∣cent, or not hurtfull? surely not scripture onely, and sound reason, but common sense will looke for some good necessarie use in such cere∣monies,

and not innocencie alone.

And then what is the sence (trow you) in which these ceremonies may be called Innocent? when Calvin (whom the Defender calleth an honorable witnes) would devise a charitable title for them, he stiles them tolerabiles incptiae, viz. tolerable fooleries, or fopperies, Epist. 200. & 206. When he speaketh more out of iudgement, hee not onely calleth them frivoulous and unprofitable, but saith plainlie that their proper name is hurtfull, noxious, or nocent, cleane contrarie to this Defendants language. Surely one of these writers, not differing one∣ly, but flatly opposing and contradicting the other, must needs be farre wide.

Innocent indeed these ceremonies may be called in regard of their materials, and the fashions also which they haue in their naturall be∣ing: for the cloth of a Surpless and the fashion of it is innocent, and so are all the idols of Papists and Heathens verie innocent: so that this is no praise. But if we look at the use whereunto they haue been applyed, and wherein they haue beene a long time employed, I may truely say by the devill, not onely among the Papists, but even in our Churches, to the breeding of dissention and distraction among bre∣thron, to quenching of many, and many a burning shining light, to the grieving and unsetling of so many good soules, and to the advancing of the Kingdome of darkeness: If these things I say be considered, then it is more then manifest, that this licking them over with a fair word will make them no more innocent indeed then Pilats hands were when they were washed. The fashion of a Surplice naturall or artificiall in another use, as if a Porter or Baker weare such a gar∣ment is indifferent.

If it shall be said, that notwithstanding these accidentall abuses, yet the ceremonies are innocent in their own nature and use: I answer, first, they having no necessary use otherwaies, and these being the or∣dinary effects which haue followed on them, there is no rule of Logick much less of zeale that will allow the Defendant simply to call them innocent. 2 It is a shame for our Prelates to talk of the ceremonies innocencie, when they cannot defend their own innocencie in obtruding and urging of them. They are wont to say, the practise and manner of urging we will not defend, but the lawfulness or innocencie of the things themselues. Indeed for a private man to stand upon such

termes is tolerable: but for the Prelates, whose hands are chiefe in this trespass, to cover their owne guiltiness under figleaved innocencie of three ceremonies, is too too grosse. If Thomas or D. Morton in times past had pleaded for the ceremonies innocencie, it might haue been well interpreted: but for Thomas Chester, Thomas Lichfild, or any that bear••th a Cathedrall name, to write of the innocencie of three ce∣remonies, passing by three hundred foule nocencies which are plainly to be seen in the Prelates urging and managing of these ceremonies, this is somewhat like as if Samson when he had sent Foxes with fire-brands in their tailes among the corn, should then haue written unto the owners of that corne a long letter concerning the innocencie of Fo∣xes and Fire-brands.

Thirdly and lastly, it is sufficiently proved, and shall (by Gods grace) be further maintained against this Defendant, that these three ceremonies are not innocent or lawfull in their ••se.

This I had to say concerning the Title. Now before I come to the book it selfe, some few things are to be questioned in the Epistles, which are three, according to the number of the ceremonies defended. In the first Epistle to the Marquis, •• I would willingly learn, what that Church is, which is the mother of the Non-conformists? it must of necessitie be either the faithfull Congregations which are in Eng∣land, collectiuely considered: or else the Hierarchie, consisting of Archbishops, Bishops and their Officers. If the ••ormer ••••here un∣derstood, then this Defence is begunne with a Slander. For neither is the Non-conformist an adversarie impugning those Congregations, nor doe they defame their religious worship, nor infringe their wholesome libertie, nor contemne their just authoritie: but of all these things are the Prelates manifestly guiltie. For they in their Lordly humours, doe scorne and defame the most religious people as Puritanes: they hinder the people from hearing of Sermons in another parish, though they haue none, or worse then none at home: they are enemies to that preaching wherby the godly people finde themselues most edified: they inslaue both Minister and people, not onely to themselues, but even to their Chancellors, Commissaries, officials, and such like officers of their own making, to whom not Christ onely, but all the Primitiue Church saith plainely, Depart from me I know you not: they denie anie authoritie at all to be either in the Congregations, or in their Ministers, except it

be a little of courtesie from the Ordinarie. These things are so well known, that they need no proofe.

If by the Church heer be meant the Hierarhie, then wee profess plainely we acknowledge no such mother. She is a Step-dams, usurp∣ing this title and authoritie, without all warrant from God our Father. Shee is a creature of mans making, and may more lawfullie be remo∣ved when it pleaseth man, then ever she was by him crected.

Secondly, I marvaile with what conscience this man can spend a great part of his Epistle in stirring up a Courtier unto the opposing of. Non-conformists? As if this were a great point of admirable wise∣dome and zeale, as he calleth it: and the Courtiers such, as stood in most need of instigations to the zeale of Formalitie, being otherwise for substance such as they should be.

Thirdlie, what agreement is there in this Argument, to conjure a man by the obligation of his Baptisme, to stand for the defence of cer∣taine ceremonies? was he baptized into the faith of the cermonies? or is he bound to maintaine everie ceremonie which men haue brought into that Church where he was baptized? If he were conjured by his Bishoping to such things as these, there would be more reason in the consequence.

Fourthlie, what need is there that great men should be called to aide and assist the Prelats against Non-conformists? haue they not power enough in their own hands? can they not at their own pleasure suspend, depriue, excommunicate, & what almost they please? Do they not tread these poore men under their feet? Is it because that the Prelats cannot yet sufficientlie prevaile against thē in the consciences of men, and ther∣fore call for further help in vaine? Or is the meaning, that such men should be helped unto great Bishoprickes, as are most Zealous against Non-conformists? If this be the matter, I dare say the Petition shall be granted, and yet the Petitioner, except he make great progresse in this eagerness, will hardlie get beyond Lichfild, at least not to Can∣terburie.

In the second Epistle to the Non-conformists, manie things are jum∣bled together, which afterward must be examined, but here cannot. For this Epistle taketh the whole book for unanswerable, and there∣fore should rather haue been set at the end then at the beginning: one∣••ie one ridiculous piece of Rhetorick is to be touched, wherein (for∣sooth)

the Non-conformists aboue all their other faults wherewith they are usuallie charged and loaded, are now as it were lovinglie in∣treated to acknowledge themselues guiltie of superstition. The reason is rendred, because there is a negatiue superstition, the formall cause whereof is the forbearing and forbidding of things lawfull as unholy and profane: and the Non-conformists haue such negatiue opini∣ons, as kneel not, cross not, weare not, &c.

All this is nothing else but a trick of prevention usuall with craf∣tie men, who choose to lay that upon their adversaries which they know more properly to belong unto themselues. But I would that this De∣fendant, or rather Accusant, had given us some plaine reason of his new opinion, there is no definition of superstition, properly so called, that will father this conclusion. The Schoolemen doe with one consent place superstition in a kind of excess of Religions worship, Thom. 2. 2. q. 92. art. 1, from whom in this point our Divines doe not dissent. Now though this excess do seem sometims to consist in a negation, yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 excess or errour in negation, is never called by any author that ever writ (I dare say) superstition, when he meaneth to speake properly, except that very negation, abstinence or forbearing be held as a special worship. Now in the Non-conformists there is no such thing to be found: they doe not abstaine from these Ceremonies, but as they doe from other un∣lawfull corruptions. Suppose they erre, yet everie erronious deniall of things lawfull is not superstition.

The Defendant therefore heere being overhastie to charge his ad∣versaries, considered not well what weapon he choose. But if he had well remembred what is said of superstition, not onely by our Divines, but even by some of the Papists themselues, he would haue forborne to make mention of this word. For our Divines, let honourable Calvin speak, Iust. l. 1 c. 12. s. 1 Inde mihi videtur dicta superstitio, quod modo & praescripta ratione non contenta supervacuam re∣rum congeriem accumulet. Papists thus. Superstitio est (saith Azorius Inst. mor. l. 9 c. 11) cum quis Deo cultu•• tribuit ina∣nem & vanum, scil. commentitia & futili aliqua caeremonia eum venerando, vel cum quis Deum honorat falsis vanis, & frivolis ce∣remoniis, id est, As Swarez doth in a manner interpret it, quando honor Dei in iis rebus ponitur, quibus revera non colitur, ut in cae∣remoni••s superfluis, & ad salutem animae nihil conferentibus. If this touch not the Defendant, I would desire him to peruse what

Mr. Parker hath written concerning the superstition of the Crosse, and giue some answer to the same, before he threaten any more such kindness as this is upon the Nonconformists.

Another thing also is by a figure of praetermition ins••nuated in this Epistle, not unworthie consideration, viz. that many Parliaments and Convocations haue established these rites. To this I answer, 1 the Prelats in such matters as these, haue no respect unto the authoritie of Parliaments. For they frame Canons, urge and excute them with••ut the consent of any Parliament, nay flatly against them. For so wee reade in the Records of that worthie Parliament which was ann: 1610. Among the Canons late made by the Clergie of England in their Convocation, it vvas thought that some of their Can••ns did extend to charge the bodies, lands, and goods of the subjects of the Realme, further then vvas lawfull and meet. We therefore made a good law to make voide such Canons as doe charge the bo∣dies, lands, and goods of the subjects, unlesse that the same canons vvere confirmed by Parliament. 2 The Defendant cannot bring forth one Act of Parliament now in force, that doth allow of Sub∣scriptions and Conformitie to be urged as now it is by the Prelats. This appeareth by the judgement of the foresaid Parliament in those words of their petition, where they complaine, That diverse painfull and learned Pastors that haue long travelled in the vvork of the Mini∣stery, vvith good fruit and blessing of their labours, vvho vvere ever readie to performe the legall Subscription, appointed by the Statute of 13 Eliz. which onely concerneth the Confession of the true Christian Faith, and doctrine of the Sacraments, yet for not conforming in some points of Ceremonies, and refusing the Subscription directed by the late Canons, haue been removed from their Ecclesiasticall livings, being their freehold, and debar∣red from all meanes of maintenance, to the great griefe of sundry well-affected Subjects. 3 It is well known that the Prelates themselues in their proceedings about these matters, doe so farre vio∣late the Statutes of Parliament, that they are by law subject unto a Praemunire.

Now as for Convocations, not to dispute here what manner of Sy∣nods they be, 1 It is well known that they consist now of a Faction, and that in memorie of man, they never concluded any thing for the common good of the Church more then by others was better done to their hands: but much evill hath come from among them, and more would

but that many times their commission serveth not but onely to giue Subsidies, and then to tell the clock. 2 They are servile to those on whom they depend, and tirannicall over the poore that are subject unto them: 3 there are verie few that haue place in them which are not gross offenders against the most ancient Canons. As for example, it was observed that in that Convocation which established and revived these corruptions, of 300 or 400, there were not aboue twise three, which were not, or had not been gross Non-residents or Pluralists. D. Morton himselfe, in a Latine Sermon had before a Convocation some 8 yeares since, described well the most part of them (though he did not speak distinctlie of the number) to be unsavorie salt. For he gaue us three notes whereby corrupt Ministers in England might be discerned. 1 That they studied chieflie and stuft their Sermons with Friers and Iesuits: 2 that they sought occasions to disgrace Cal∣vin: and 3 that if anie neighbour Minister be more diligent and con∣scionable then they, they brand him straight with the name of Puritan. These notes are well known to agree unto most of our convocated Pre∣lates. 4 The authoritie of this Convocation either against or without consent of Parliament, is not to be regarded, much less against the Scriptures.

In the Epistle to the Reader, this onelie I would inquire of, what is the reason, that seeing he choose to himselfe for Cheife Opposites, the Lincolneshire Ministers, he doth not deale with all their Argu∣ments, nor the twentieth part of their Allegations, but onelie with such as he thought fittest for his purpose? Of this I will not saie all. But this I maie not omit, that considering he knew how much hath been said against the Ceremonies by them and others, especi∣allie by M. Parker, which he never attempted to answer, neither hee, nor others for him, had anie cause to triumph in this booke, as in a compleate Defense.