IV. Before we answer unto these things, we are to cut off that whereunto they from whom these objections proceed do oftentimes fly for defence and succour, when the force and strength of their arguments is elided. For the ceremonies in use amongst us being in no other respect retained, saving only for that to retain them is to our seeming good and profitable, yea, so profitable and so good, that if we had either simply taken them clean away, or else removed them so as to place in their stead others, we had done worse: the plain and direct way against us herein had been only to prove, that all such ceremonies as they require to be abolished are retained by us to the hurt of the Church, or with less benefit than the abolishment of them would bring. But forasmuch as they saw how hardly they should be able to perform this, they took a more compendious way, traducing the ceremonies of our church under the name of being popish. The cause why this way seemed better unto them was, for that the name of popery is more odious than very paganism amongst divers of the more simple sort, so as whatsoever they hear named popish, they presently conceive deep hatred against it, imagining there can be nothing contained in that name but needs it must be exceeding detestable. The ears of the people they have therefore filled with strong clamour: “The Church of England is fraught with popish ceremonies: they that favour the cause of reformation maintain nothing but the sincerity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: all such as withstand them fight for the laws of his sworn enemy, uphold the filthy relics of Antichrist, and are defenders of that which is popish.” These are the notes wherewith are drawn from the hearts of the multitude so many sighs; with these tunes their minds are exasperated against the lawful guides and governors of their souls; these are the voices that fill them with general discontentment, as though the bosom of that famous church wherein they live were more noisome than any dungeon. But when the authors of so scandalous incantations are examined, and called to account how can they justify such their dealings; when they are urged directly to answer, whether it be lawful for us to use any such ceremonies as the church of Rome useth, although the same be not commanded in the word of God; being driven to see that the use of some such ceremonies must of necessity be granted lawful, they go about to make us believe that they are just of the same opinion, and that they only think such ceremonies are not to be used when they are unprofitable, or “when as good or better may be established1.” Which answer is both idle in regard of us, and also repugnant to themselves.
It is in regard of us very vain to make this answer, because they know that what ceremonies we retain common unto the church of Rome, we therefore retain them, for that we judge them to be profitable, and to be such that others instead of them would be worse. So that when they say that we ought to abrogate such Romish ceremonies as are unprofitable, or else might have other more profitable in their stead, they trifle and they beat the air about nothing which toucheth us; unless they mean that we ought to abrogate all Romish ceremonies which in their judgment have either no use or less use than some other might have. But then must they shew some commission, whereby they are authorized to sit as judges, and we required to take their judgment for good in this case. Otherwise their sentences will not be greatly regarded, when they oppose their methinketh unto the orders of the Church of England: as in the question about surplices one of them doth2; “If we look to the colour, black methinketh is more decent; if to the form, a garment down to the foot hath a great deal more comeliness in it.” If they think that we ought to prove the ceremonies commodious which we have retained, they do in this point very greatly deceive themselves. For in all right and equity, that which the Church hath received and held so long for good, that which public approbation hath ratified, must carry the benefit of presumption with it to be accounted meet and convenient. They which have stood up as yesterday to challenge it of defect, must prove their challenge. If we being defendants do answer, that the ceremonies in question are godly, comely, decent, profitable for the Church; their reply is childish and unorderly, to say, that we demand the thing in question3, and shew the poverty of our cause, the goodness whereof we are fain to beg that our adversaries would grant. For on our part this must be the answer, which orderly proceeding doth require. The burden of proving doth rest on them. In them it is frivolous to say, we ought not to use bad ceremonies of the church of Rome, and presume all such bad as it pleaseth themselves to dislike, unless we can persuade them the contrary.
Besides, they are herein opposite also to themselves. For what one thing is so common with them, as to use the custom of the church of Rome for an argument to prove, that such and such ceremonies cannot be good and profitable for us, inasmuch as that church useth them? Which usual kind of disputing sheweth, that they do not disallow only those Romish ceremonies which are unprofitable, but count all unprofitable which are Romish; that is to say, which have been devised by the church of Rome, or which are used in that church and not prescribed in the word of God. For this is the only limitation which they can use suitable unto their other positions. And therefore the cause which they yield, why they hold it lawful to retain in doctrine and in discipline some things as good, which yet are common to the church of Rome, is for that those good things are “perpetual commandments in whose place no other can come;” but ceremonies are changeable4. So that their judgment in truth is, that whatsoever by the word of God is not unchangeable in the church of Rome, that church’s using is a cause why reformed churches ought to change it, and not to think it good or profitable. And lest we seem to father any thing upon them more than is properly their own, let them read even their own words, where they complain, “that we are thus constrained to be like unto the Papists in Any their ceremonies;” yea, they urge that this cause, although it were alone, ought to move them to whom that belongeth to do them away, forasmuch as they are their ceremonies;” and that the Bishop of Salisbury doth justify this their complaint5. The clause is untrue which they add concerning the Bishop of Salisbury6; but the sentence doth shew that we do them no wrong in setting down the state of the question between us thus: Whether we ought to abolish out of the church of England all such orders, rites, and ceremonies as are established in the Church of Rome, and are not prescribed in the word of God. For the affirmative whereof we are now to answer such proofs of theirs as have been before alleged.
← Our orders and ceremonies blamed, in that so · Contents · That our allowing the customs of our fathers →
Footnotes
-
T. C. iii. p. 171. “What an open untruth is it, that this is one of our principles, not to be lawful to use the same ceremonies which the papists did; when as I have both before declared the contrary, and even here have expressly added, that they are not to be used when as good or better may be established!” ↩
-
Eccles. Discip. fol. 100. [in Cartwright’s Transl. 134. “Si de colore agitur, mihi quidem magis decorus niger color videtur; si autem de forma, talaris vestis honestior.”] ↩
-
T. C. lib. iii. p. 176. “As for your often repeating that the ceremonies in question are godly, comely, and decent; it is your old wont of demanding the thing in question, and an undoubted argument of your extreme poverty.” ↩
-
T. C. iii. 174. ↩
-
“And that this complaint of ours is just in that we are thus constrained to be like unto the papists in any their ceremonies, and that this cause only ought to move them to whom that belongeth, to do them away, forasmuch as they are their ceremonies: the reader may further see in the Bishop of Salisbury, who brings divers proofs thereof.” T. C. lib. iii. p. 177. [It may be worth observing that the Italics are Cartwright’s own.] ↩
-
[Cartwright’s margin refers to Apol. Part i. c. 2. div. 8. by mistake for div. 9. “They cry out. . .that we have rashly and presumptuously disannulled the old ceremonies which have been well allowed by our fathers and forefathers many hundred years past, both by good customs, and also in ages of more purity.” On which Harding’s remark is, “Concerning ceremonies: if ye shew us not the use of chrism in your churches; if the sign of the cross be not borne before you in processions, and otherwheres used; if holy water be abolished; if lights at the Gospel and Communion be not had; if peculiar vestments for Deacons, Priests, Bishops, be taken away; and many such other the like: judge ye, whether ye have duly kept the old ceremonies of the Church.” Jewel replies, “Verily, M. Harding, we hate not any of all these things. For we know they are the creatures of God. But you have so misused them, or rather so defiled and berayed them with your superstitions, and so have with the same mocked and deceived God’s people, that we can no longer continue them without great conscience.” This passage, it will be seen, refers to the ceremonies omitted, and not to those retained in the English church. Concerning the latter, although it is well known that he would not have disapproved of further concessions, (see his letters to Bullinger in Strype, Ann. 1. i. 262. ii. 544.) yet it is equally certain that his views were not founded on the puritan principle of absolute unlawfulness in the use of things once abused. For in the very same year (1565-6) that he last wrote to Bullinger as above, he had refused his intimate friend, Humphrey, institution to a benefice in the diocese of Sarum, because Humphrey would not pledge himself to wear the habits. Strype, Park. i. 369. and Ann. 1. ii. 133. Wordsworth, E. B. iv. 63. How far he differed with the Puritans on Church government may be seen by a paper of his in Whitg. Def. 423. and in Strype, Whitg. iii. 21. 1 App. No. x.] ↩