Iesuit in Thom. p. 3 q. 65 a 4 propoundeth onely three errours as he calleth them vvherin Protestants differ from Papists concerning ceremonies in generall wherof the first is that onely those things which are written ought to be retained and used in the Church The second is that no outward worship of God is lawfull but onely that which is appointed by God The third and last is that the Church hath not power of commanding and ordeyning those things hee meaneth mysticall ceremonies which are necessarie for the convenient celebration of the Sacraments Now there is none of these three points vvherin Swarâ—z and the Defâ— doth not jumpe SECT XI THE next example is the day vvhich Mordecaâ— and Ester appointed Est. 9 concerning vvhich I answer 1 it was no mysticall ceremonie but a circumstance of order When Bellarmine objecteth the same example to like purpose against the Protestants de cult sanct lib. 3. c. 10. Iunius answereth praeceptum fuit politicum it was a precept of order And some of our owne Writers at home that it was appointed for a civill use a day of rejoycing SECT XII THE Feast of Dedication ordained by Iulas Maccabeus is also alledged by Bellarmine de cult sanct li. 3 c. 5. de Rom. pontâ—li 4 c. 17 but we need not be so carefull of excusing Machabeus and those times from all fault Christ seemeth saith hee to approue that feast Ioh. 10 22 but seemeth onely say I. It is said that Christ vvho had been before that time resident in Ierusalem vvas walking in Salomons porch at the Feast of Dedication when some Iewes came to aske him vvhether he was the Christ or no doth it follow that he observed the Feast As for Danaeus hâ—â—re cited it hath been shewed before how well he liked of significant ceremonies ordained by man SECT XIII XIIII HEere M. Cartwright is brought in as answering the former objections out of the Machabees and Ester But M. Cartwright p. 197 doth professe that there is as great difference betwixt these two as is betwixt heaven and earth And in his Confutation of the Rhemists vvho urge the feast of Dedication as this Def. doth in Ioh. 10 22 he answereth plainely that this Feast was unduely instituted and ungroundedly by the Machabees Which also he proveth by such reasons as neither the Rhemists nor this Dâ—f vvill ever answer Yet let us heare vvhat he hath chosen out of M. Cartwright to answer The Church may appoint holy daies in certaine cases but it is one thing to restraine part of the day and another to restraine the whole day Where 1 M. Cartwright is vvronged by the Def. for he confesseth in the places quoted expresly that upon some extraordinary cases the Church may restraine a whole day as at a solemne fast 2 He should let us see vvhat mysticall signification is in the times appointed as he striveth to doe in other significant ceremonies if he vvould haue a more particular answer otherwise they are alledged heere to no purpose to proue significant ceremonies The other vvords quoted out of M. Cartwright are that the exâ—mple out of Ester is no sufficient warrant for our Holy daies 1 because our estate ought not to be so ceremonious as theirs 2 That was done by a speciall direction of the spirit of God To this the Def. answereth first that if then when the ceremonies were so many one might be added much more now Which consequence vvere good caeâ—eris parâ—bus if all other things did agree but this is that very thing vvhich M. Cartwright denyed He answereth in the second place that it is presumption to imagine a speciall direction where none can be proved But how shall vve trust this man in relating the Arguments and Answers of the Ministers in private conference vvhen now the second time as it vvere in one breath he so unjustly accuseth M. Cartwright as giving no reason for that he saith vvhose printed booke doth confute him for so it followeth in M. Cartwright immediately upon the vvords by him quoted p. 194. This may appeare by another place where the Iewes changed their fasts into feasts onely by the mouth of the Lord through the ministerie of the Prophet For further proofe whereof I take the 28 ver where it appeareth that this was an order to endure alwayes even as long as other feast daies which were instituted by the Lord himselfe so that what abuses soever were of that feast yet as a perpetuall decree of God it ought to haue remained whereas our Churches can make no such decree which may not upon change of time and other circumstances be altered For the other proofe hereof I take the last verse For the Prophet contenteth not himselfe with that that he had râ—hearsed the decree as he doth sometime the decree of profane Kings but addeth precisely that as soone as ever the decree was made it was registred in this booke of Ester which is one of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture declaring therby in what esteem they had it If it had been of no further authority then our decrees or then a canon of one of the Councels it had been presumption to haue brought it into the Library of the Holy Ghost SECT XV. XVI IN the title of these two Sections the Defendant promiseth an instance of a ceremonious instrument belonging unto the vvorship of God But he bringeth none saue the Altar of the two tribes mentioned Iosh. 22 vvhich hee cannot shew to haue been any instrument of Gods worship so that he seemeth meerely to haue forgotten his title But for the thing it selfe M. Parker long since p. 1 c. 2 s. 33 hath given this answer 1 that we may better argue from the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16 against the crosse then they can from this Altar for it 2 that this Altar of the two Tribes vvas not in state or use religious as the Crosse is vvhich he confirmeth by the confession of B. Babington on the second Com. and by the testimony of Lavater on Ios. hom 61 3 that in this our men say nothing vvhich the Papists alledge not for their superstitions and the Lutherans for their images as probably as they Masiâ—â— and Chitreus upon this place To the same purpose tendeth the answer vvhich the Def. hath set downe in the name of certaine Ministers Let us here therefore his Reply 1 He proveth the setting up of this Altar to haue beene humane which no man that I know ever doubted of 2 He would proue that it vvas appointed to Gods service But alas he can bring no colour for that It was a patterne saith hee of the Lords altar which was a chiefâ— instrument of Gods worship as our crosse is a resemblance of the crosse of Christ. Where 1 vvhy doth he compare the crosse vvheron Christ did suffer vvith the Lords Altar that crosse vvas no more holy then the souldiers that nailed Christ to it or then Iudas that betrayed him into their hands and therefore the
id est As Swarez doth in a manner interpret it quando honor Dei in iis rebus ponitur quibus revera non colitur ut in caeremoniâ—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 insâ—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 withâ—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 Canâ—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 bodies 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 Subscriptions 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 Ministery 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 debarred 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 violate the Statutes of Parliament that they are by law subject unto a Praemunire Now as for Convocations not to dispute here what manner of Synods 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 Calvin and 3 that if anie neighbour Minister be more diligent and conscionable then they they brand him straight with the name of Puritan These notes are well known to agree unto most of our convocated Prelates 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 Arguments 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 especiallie 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 A Reply to Doctor MORTONS GENERAL DEFENCE OF THREE Nocent Ceremonies CAP. I. SECT II. VVHATSOEVER is objected in this Section for the All-sufficiencie or perfect fulnesse of the Scripture I will take for granted because nothing is denyed by the Defendant It is granted therefore at the first entrance that the Scripture condemneth whatsoever is done not onely against the vvarrant and direction of the Word but also that vvhich is done beside it SECT III. BVT that which before the Defendant durst not denie now he commeth to oppose in the proofes of it Which is a strange course in him especially that professeth a distinct logicall proceeding In the propounding of our confirmation I note two things once here in the beginning for all following occasions to be marked 1 this Defendant doth us wrong in distributing our confirmations into those vvhich are taken from Scriptures and those that are from the Fathers and those that are from Protestant Divines as if these were in our estimation of the same kinde Wheras we professe that vvee ascribe no force unto any testimony of man as if it vvere a proofe but onely bring such allegations in as illustrations in regard of our adversaries perverse prejudice 2 He vvrongeth us likewise in that difference vvhich he insinuateth betwixt the Fathers and our Divines calling their testimonies Iudgements and the other onely Confessions we acknowledge no such imparitie If this vvere nothing but idle rhetorick in the Defendant it may be passed by In the answer brought to Heb. 3 2 vve haue this distinction given us some points concerning religion are doctrinall and some meerly ceremoniall The former are sufficiently revealed in Scripture but the latter are left to the libertie of the Church But 1 vvhy is that denyed here by a distinction which passed vvithout deniall or distinction in the former section 2 vvhat kind of distinction is this vvhich doth not distinguish of any terme vvhich is in the objection 3 the Defendant should haue done vvell to haue explained and confirmed his distinction For doctrinall opposed to ceremoniall in the formall signification of these vvords I never heard of before that I remember and sure I am no sound reason vvill allow Ceremoniall is opposed to Morall and sometime to substantiall but to doctrinall it cannot
must needs bee of other permission then the Defendant can chalenge to our ceremonies though he begg the question otherwise there should be no sence in his words 2. he sayth Wee may blush to speak of Tertullian in this case because hee professeth traditions in the same booke To which I answer that then all our writers may blush vvho alledge many things out of the fathers which they in other places gainesay 2. Wee blush not to make vse of truth where we finde it though error follow it at the heeles rather let our Idolizers of the Fathers blush vvhen they see their shame Yet of this answer wee shall haue occasion to make use hereafter SECT XV. IN this Section answer is made to some allegations brought out of Protestant Writers not unto all vvhich the Abridgement citeth for the perfection of the Scriptures where 1. the Defendant answereth for himselfe that his meaning was not of matters meerly ceremoniall And so say I the meaning of our argument vvas not of such meere ceremonies as the Defendant here describeth in the end of this Section if he meane by meere ceremonies mere order and decencie but our ceremonies are of another nature because they haue doctrine or teaching in them and therefore are doctrinall as he pleaseth to speak or mixt 2. confessing that in one place he speaketh of ceremonies he limiteth his speech to such ceremonies as are made essentiall parts of a sacrament as Milke in stead of Wine sopping in of bread into the cup and wringing in of the grape these ceremonies hee accounteth doctrinall But here I vvould faine heare a good reason vvhy sopping of the bread into the cup is more doctrinall or more against the vvord then the crosse in baptisme Bread and Wine were ordained by Christ to a holy use in the Church so is not the crosse sopping hath some agreement vvith reason crossing hath none sopping was vsed by Christ himselfe the same night and at the same table vvhere the sacrament was appointed crossing vvas never used by Christ or his Apostles In sopping there is no new materiall signe appointed but a new fashion onely of vsing the old in crossing a new signe is obtruded So that sopping seemeth to bee better then crossing If opinion of necessary use doth put a difference our men can easily conclude in the Convocation house that it is not the opinion of the Church of England and then all will be well If sopping seeme to bee a part of the sacrament crossing when it is done in the very act of sprinkling as many times it is maketh as much shew of bearing a part in baptisme But what if out of the Lords Supper a little before or a little after vvhile the prayers are making vvhich belong to the Supper there should be appointed such a sopping to bee used of all that communicate for mysticall signification I vvould know of the Defendant whether this were allowable or no by his doctrinall distinction If not vvhy should he shew more favour to the crosse In excusing of B. Iewel and D. Whitakers nothing is sayd by the Defendant which hath not formerly been confuted Now it might bee here expected that the Defendant should haue sayd something concerning those generall rules which God hath set downe in his vvord for the direction of the Church in rites and orders Ecclesiasticall mentioned by the Lincolne-shire Ministers in this argument p. 44. But neither here nor in any other place of this booke doth the Defendant so much as indevour to shew that our ceremonies are needfull and profitable for the edification of the people by the more comely and orderly performance of that service which hee hath expresly prescribed in his word This is a main matter vrged in the Abridgement vvithout which the ceremonies cannot be innocent in their vse and all that the Defendant hath hitherto endevoured to answer is in the Abridgement brought in to other end then to proue that no ceremonies are to be brought into the Church vvithout those conditions and yet for all this our ceremonies in this chiefe poynt are left destitute of all defence If therefore all were granted which the Defendants argumonts or answers in this booke maintaine yet the ceremonies wil be found nocent and to be rejected if it be but for their unprofitablenesse according to that of Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SECT XVI THE Defendant here undertaketh to proue that God in the scriptures hath granted a generall licence or authoritie to all Churches to ordaine any ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God But what if this were granted what is it to the purpose what maketh it for our ceremonies in controversie except he can shew that they are fit for the better serving of God Now this he no where undertaketh to prove nor dare I thinke professe so much in writing without many vnwarrantable limitations The onely scripture he bringeth is 1. Cor. 14. 26. 40. concerning order and decencie a place much profaned by the patrons of our ceremonies as shall be shewed This place is vsed sayth he by Fathers and all Divines for one and the same conclusion It is much used I grant and as much abused But 1. it is not used by all Divines to proue the institution of such ceremonies as ours lawfull For they are much mistaken vvhich think our ceremonies to be mere matters of order and as for decencie they haue been often proved to be farre from it which of it selfe to every indifferent eye is more then apparant 2. it is not used to this purpose by any that haue authoritie sufficient to perswade us that it will beare such a conclusion except they will shew us by what Logick they form their consequence which the Defendant is not able to doe for them 3. This scripture being rightly understood doth not onely not justifie such ceremonies as ours but plainly condemneth them For the manifesting of which assertion because it may seem strange to those eares that are accustomed to other sounds I will here distinctly set down an argument drawn out of these words against such ceremonies as ours are All that is left vnto the Churches liberty in things pertaining unto Gods worship is to order them in comely maner This is manifestly collected out of the place in question so the Defendant seemeth to grant so P. Martyr vnderstandeth it as is to be seen in his commentarie upon 1 Sam. 14. which judgement of his is cited and approved by D. Whitaker de Pont p. 841. 844. confirmed also by Iunius against Bell. cont 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86. 87. c. 17. n. 9. 10. 12. 13. where he sheweth that Christ is the onely law-giver that appointeth things in his Church and that he hath appointed all that are requisite and that the Church maketh no lawes properly so called to appoint any new things to be used but onely canons orders directions ordering in seemly maner those things which Christ hath
appointed and that if she addeth any thing of her own she doth decline The reason is because unto her is commited no authoritie of appointing new things but a ministerie to observe and doe such things which Christ hath appointed vide etiam Iun. de transl imper l. 1. c. 2. n. 26. 27. 31. This is also confirmed by sound reason both in respect of the wisdome required in all law-makers perfectly found in Christ and also in regard of the nature of such institutions For the former reason teacheth as Aristotle sheweth Rhet. 1. 3. that all which possibly may should be appointed in the law by the giuer of it and nothing left unto the ministerial iudges but that which must needs be left as matters of fact c. Now in the worship of God all but particular circumstances of order may easily bee appointed as in very deed they were by our law-giver Christ. As for the nature of such institutions that doth also require so much for whatsoever is aboue civilitie therein if it bee not a circumstance of order it is worship and therfore invented by man unlawfull will-worship For vvhatsoever is used or acted by him that worshippeth God in that act it must needs be either grounded on civill humane considerations and therefore civilitie or an act and means of worship and therfore worship or the ordering and manner of disposing those acts meanes and therefore lawfull if lawfully and fitly applyed or else at the least idle and vaine and therefore to be avoided according to that of Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A fift cannot be given By all this it may appeare that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what she will no not of things in their own nature indifferent and say they be in order or for order but onely to order those things vvhich God hath appointed Thus farre the proposition or first part of my syllogisme the assumption followeth But to appoint use the ceremonies as we doe is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to Gods worship The reason is because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing but onely the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted This appeareth 1. by the notation which is given of the word it selfe which both in greek latine is taken from the ranking of soldiers in certain bounds limits of time place Dicebāt enim militibus tribuni hactenus tibi licet hic consistes eô progrediere huc revertere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inde ordo Scalig. and 2 by the definitions which are given therof by Philosophers and Divines Tull. off lib. 1 eadem vis videtur ordinis collocationis Ordinem definiunt compositionem rerum aptis accommodatis locis Locum autem actionis opportunitatem dicunt esse temporis Aug. de civit lib. 15 cap. 13 order is the disposition which fit places to things equall and unequall id est when things are handsomely ranked some to goe before and some to follow as P. Martyr expoundeth it loc com cl 4 c. 5. 3 The same also is confirmed by our Divines vvho usually giving instances of order doe infist in time place and such like circumstances making a difference betwixt mysticall ceremonies and order many times condemning the one and allowing the other as the divines of France and the low Countries in their observations on the Harmonie of Confessions Sect. 17 Beza Ep. 8. Iun. in Bell. append tract de cultu imaginum c. 7 n. 12 13 14. 4 By the context of the Chapter viz. 1 Cor. 14. it plainly appeareth that order is opposed to that confusion spoken of v. 33 and therfore importeth nothing but that peaceable proceeding vvhereby they that should speak speak one by one and the rest attend c. v. 30 31. So Basil expoundeth it shewing order to consist in sorting of persons some to this and some to that according to their office and in determining of time and place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 459. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and p. 530. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly neither Luk. 1 8 neither in any place of Scripture doth the word order import any more then hath been said As for comelinesse that is nothing but the seemlinesse of order For as P. Martyr saith in 1 Cor. 11 it is such a tempering of actions as vvherby they may more fitly atteine their end Otherwhere it may conteine that natural or civill handsomenesse which is spoken of ch 11 13 as it doth ch 12 23 and so includeth all that which is grounded on civility as a faire cloth and cup for the communion a faire and firme vessell for baptisme but not the appointing of new mysticall ceremonies for then such ceremonies were here commanded to all Churches vvhich the Def. I think vvill not say and then the Apostolick Assemblies should haue worshipped God uncomelily Thus we haue both proposition and assumption of our Argument against the ceremonies confirmed out of this place which the Defendant choose as the onely place that could be brought for them Now I hope vve may adde the Conclusion Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we doe is not left to the liberty of the Church i. e. it is unlawfull SECT XVII COncerning the Fathers vve are told out of Zanchius that they had alwaies some universall ceremonies as certaine feast daies not appointed by God To this vve answer 1 If this alwaies bee taken in the largest extent to signifie from the beginning wee cannot beleeue the truth of this Assertion neither can the Defend proue it Who can think that presently upon the Apostles departure their disciples should presume to be vviser then their Masters 2 the first beginning of these feasts vvas not by canonicall imposition to binde men unto new ceremonies but a voluntarie accommodation in respect of the infirmity of some in the Church or comming towards it This appeareth by the variety vvhich was betwixt one Church and another in observing of them and by the testimonie of Socrates alledged and allowed by this Defend himselfe Apol. p. 2 lib. 2 c. 9. 3 The mischiefe that came in by these observations in that they so soone overshadowed obscured and justled out of dores the simplicitie of the Gospell and many ordinances of Christ do sufficiently shew that the fathers in these things had neither direction nor blessing from God But that which the ancient Churches of Christ did alwaies maintaine may not be deemed to derogate from the authority of holy Writ If alwayes include the Apostolicall times I grant If otherwise then let the Def. take to himselfe that vvhich he unreasonably cast upon us before of symbolizing with Bellarmine con l 4. c. 9. The same answer which our Divines giue there will serue here Wherunto may be added that vvhich M. Parker hath in his book of the Crosse p. 2 ch 9 s. 6 and de Polit. Eccles. l. 2. SECT XVIII FOr Protestant
that those titular pillars vvere at the first onely set up for civill use because many statues vvhich afterward served onely for vvorship vvere at the first onely for civill respects and these had still a civill use for distinction of bounds But Calvin collecteth that no statue was heere condemned but that which was erected to represent God Calvin indeed hath those words but vvhat kinde of representation he meaneth he sheweth sufficiently before omnes picturas quibus corrumpitur spiritualis Dei cultus all pictures that corrupteth Gods spirituall worship And after quaecunque nos a spiritualieâ—us cultu abducunâ— whatsoever lead us from the spirituall worship of God Iacob erected a pillar for a religious monument saith the Def. Gen. 28 true but not after the Law vvas given against it so also he offered sacrifices and many other things in such sort as after the Law vvas not lawfull SECT IIII. THE third proofe in the Abridgement standeth thus the equity of these commandements is thus set down in Scripture 1 the detestation which the Lord our God being a jealous God beareth unto idolatry and all the instruments and tokens thereof as unto spirituall whoredome Exod. 20 5 6 Deut. 7 25 26. 2 that we cannot be said sincerely to haue repented of the idolatry or superstition whereby wee or our forefathers haue provoked the Lord unlesse we be ashamed of and cast away with detestation all the instruments and monuments of it 2 Chron. 33 15 Es. 1 29 2 20 30 22 2 Cor. 7 11 Cal. in Deut. serm 52 ep 86 p. 166 167. 3 that we shall be in danger to be corrupted Ex. 34 12 15 Deut. 7 4. 25. 26 Iud. 2 13 Gal. 2 5. 4. Wee shall harden Idolaters Ezech. 16 54 1 Cor. 6 10. 5. There is more danger in Popish ceremonies because the Pope is Antichrist and we converse more with Papists then with other Idolaters Now of all these reasons and allegations the Def. answereth directly to nothing but onely to those words see Calvin and yet not to them neither as they are cited in the Abridgement For there it is see Calvin in his 52 serm on Deut. and ep 87. Now on these places the Defendants eyes vvould not serue to looke or at least his heart would not suffer him to giue answer they are so pregnant If we haue any drop of good zeale in us it must needs vexe and grieue us to see the markes and signes of idolatry and that we must to the uttermost of our power deface them c. nothing upon pretence must be tolerated in the Church which came either from Satan or from Antichrist Yet the Def. saith he hath seen Calvin upon Exod. 23 24 and Numb 23 and Deut. 7 12 and findeth that Calvin holdeth these precepts of destroying Altars and Groues to binde the Iewes onely not Christians and he biddeth us see Calvin on these places Surely I haue looked and could finde no such thing If there had been any thing vvorth the knowing for maintenance of the ceremonies we should haue heard of the words of Calvin whereas now Calvin is brought in expresly affirming that we may use temples which haue been defiled vvith idoles which is nothing at all to the question of unnecessary ceremon But if the Def. would discusse this poynt out of Authors vvhether the lawes alledged out of the old Testament against the monuments of Idolatry doe not bind Christians why doth he not answer to the testimonies of Calvin Martyr Grineus Wolphius Visinus Machabeus Zanchius Simlerus Zepperus Fulk our book of homilies alledged to this purpose in the Abridg. p. 24. SECT V. IN one place of Scripture yet viz. Dan. 1 8 the Def. thinketh he hath some advantage because Calvin interpreteth it otherwise then of ceremoniall pollution But therein the Abridgement followed that interpretation which is most generally received for which see Iunius in his Commentary upon the place And suppose that pollution vvas not ceremoniall or idolatrous yet I hope the Def. vvill not say but if the meat had been so polluted Daniel vvould haue absteyned from it Take therefore some other testimonies to proue your assertion saith the Def. So confidently as if he knew of no â—estimonies vvhich he had not answered What can one say to him that vvill not take that which is thrust into his hands and yet calleth for more as if he could finde none SECT VI. THE last thing vvhich the Def. vvill take knowledge of as alledged out of the Scriptures in this point is the example of Hezekiah 2 King 1â— in breaking down the brazen Serpent This example is so famous that he could not omit it yet he knoweth not vvell what to say unto it First he giveth fiue reasons for the abolishing of the brazen serpent As if any of us doubted but that Hezekiah had reason enough for that he did Or as if there could not be reasons enough alledged and those almost the very same for abolishing of our ceremonies Let them be abolished by publick authority and I vvill undertake reasons to justifie the action done vvill easily be acknowledged even of those that now can see none to perswade unto the doing of it Secondly he propoundeth as very observable that Hezekiah did not abolish the idols vvhich Salomon suffered to be set up because they were neglected But 1 it may vvell be thought that those idols vvere destroyed by Hezekiah and set up againe before the time of Iosiah as many other superstitions were 2 It cannot be doubted but they should haue been destroyed even though they were for the time neglected because either Hezekiah had as good cause to destroy them as Iosiah or else he might haue prevented that cause which Iosiah had and to prevent evill we are as well bound as to correct it Thirdly he citeth Zanchius to proue that this is not an universall remedy for all abuses of ceremonies The place in Zanchie I cannot finde neither skilleth it much I grant the conclusion it is not a remedy for all abuses of ceremonies viz. for such as Gods appointment hath made necessary to be retayned Besides the words of Zanchie heere cited by the Def. doe onely therfore seem to make for him because they are not full enough against him But in other places of the same book Zanchius judgement is plain enough as p. 649 vvhere from this example he reproveth those that keep the reliques of superstition in some holy places though they haue removed them out of Churches And if about this matter the Def. doth ascribe any thing to the judgement of our divines vvhy doth he not answer the testimonies of Augustine Calvin Martyr Wolphius Lavater Zanchius Sadeel Iewel Bilson Fulk Rainolds Andrews Perkins alledged to this purpose in the Abridgement p. 24 Fourthly and lastly vvhich onely in deed is to the purpose the Def. vvould shew us a disparity betwixt the idolatry of the Iewes and that of the Papists The first is that that idolatry of