To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
THe Def. here meaning to say something against the assump∣tion, setteth it down by halves, or rather by quarters. For the assumption is, Abridg. 26. 27. our ceremonies in question are hu∣mane inventions, of no necessary use, and abused to idolatry. He setteth it
thus downe, our ceremonies haue been idolatrously abused by Papists. There is great difference, as by and by we shal see. His answer is by a distinction: These ceremonies are either generally or individually and nu∣merally the same that haue beene abused to idolatry: If generally, then it hindereth not, but they may still lawfully bee vsed, though they haue 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 haue been so abused, except they be the same formally: i. in intention and opi∣nion 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 doores of Gods•• Church into those ceremonies against vvhich by the keyes of Gods kingdome they are streightly shut up. For by this meanes a∣ny kind of Popish, Iewish, Heathenish ceremonie may come in, so there be new particulars of the same kinde, and a new intention u∣sed. The first assertion is most grosse, viz. that in ceremonies abused to Idolatry, those are not forbidden which are generally the same, but one∣ly the same individualls. For by the like reason, of ceremonies insti∣tuted by Christ, those onely are commanded which Christ indivi∣dually and numerally did sanctifie: not all of the same kinde. So also Papists are iustified against all the charges of our divines, who accuse them for using of Iewish and Heathenish ceremonies: for they are not the same individually and numerally, but onely in kinde with those vvhich Iewes and heathens used. So the meaning of the scripture, forbidding conformitie with the heathen Idola∣ters, should onely be of using the same particular rites and cere∣monies with them: as if when the cutting of their heads, & roun∣ding of their haire like the heathen, vvas forbidden to the Israe∣lites; Lev. 18. & 19. 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 (sayth the Def.) the same generally be forbidden, then you can∣not 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 in∣ventions of man, as the ceremonies are, by Bellarmines owne con∣fession, de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 29. For the second, that our ceremonies
are not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the same which the Papists haue solemnly abused to I∣dolatry, if this be granted, it is no marvel: for it is altogether impos∣sible to carry the same particular signe of the crosse so far as, from the font to the Church doore: or to keep it in being, so long as it is in making. Hath not the Def. then found out a great subtil my∣sterie in this distinction? yet it seemeth more true, that the Papists doe give divine honor unto the same individual ceremonies which are used in England: especially to the signe of the crosse as it is u∣sed among us. For Bellarmine ascribeth divine honour and opera∣tion unto the signe of the crosse as it was used by heathens, by Iewes, by Iulian the Apostate, Bell••de eff. sacr. l. 2. c. 31. Though the Papists count us hereticks, and I know not what, yet they esteeme us not vvorse then Pagans, unbeleeving Iewes, & cursed Apostates. Seeing therefore they yeeld such honor to this signe as it was used by them, they cannot deny it unto our individuall crosses.
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 opi∣nions 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 inten∣tion, as formerly vvas shewed out of Bellarmine. 5. This is the Papists answer vvhen they are accused for symbolizing with Pa∣gans and Iewes in their ceremonies: Licet in externo symbolo sit a∣liqua similitudo, absolute tamen maximum est discrimen: nam à sine & intentione sumunt externae actiones speciem suam. Bell. de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 32.