A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.

The third Parte, Against the lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies. (Book 3)

CHAP. 1.

That the Ceremonies are vnlawfull, because superstitious, which is particularly instanced in holy dayes, & ministring the Sacraments in private places.

THE strongest tower of refuge to which our Op∣posites [Sect. 1] make their maine recourse, is the preten∣ded lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, which now we are to batter downe and demolish, and so make it appeare how weake they are even where they thinke themselves strongest.

My first argument against the lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, I drawe from the superstition of them. I cannot marvell enough how D^r. Mourtoun and D^r. Burges could thinke to rub the superstition vpon non-conformists, whom they set forth as fancying their abstinence from the Ceremonies to be a singular peece of service done to God, placing Religion in the not vsing of them, & teaching men to abstaine from them for con∣science sake. a 1.1 D^r. Ames hath given a sufficient answ•…•…r, namely, that abstaining from sinne is one act of common obedience, belon∣ging as well to things forbidden in the second table, as to those forbidden in the first, and that we doe not abstaine from those Ce∣remonies, but as from other vnlawfull corruptions, even out of the compasse of worship. We abstaine from the Ceremonies even as from lying, cursing, stealing, &c. Shall we be houlden superstitious for abstaining from things vnlawfull? The superstition therefore is not on our side, but on theirs.

For first, superstition is the opposite vice to Religion, in the ex∣cesse [Sect. 2] as our Divines describe it, for it exhibites more in the worship of God then he requires in his worship. Porro saith b 1.2 Zanchius in cul∣tum ipsum excessu peccatur, si quid illi quem Christus instituit, jam addas, aut ab aliis additum sequaris: ut si Sacramentis à Christo institutis, alia addas Sa∣cramenta:

si Sacrificiis, alia sacrificia: si Ceremoniis cujusvis Sacramenti, alios add. is Ritus: qui merito omnes superstitionis nomine appellantur. We see he accounteth superstition to be in the addition of Ceremonies, not in∣stituded by Christ, as well as in the addition of more substantiall matters. Superstitio, (as some derive the word) is that which is done supra statutum; and thus are the controverted Ceremonies supersti∣tious, as being vsed in Gods worship, vpon no other ground then the appointment of men.

2. Superstition is that which exhibites divine worship, vel cui non [Sect. 3] debet, vel non co modo quo debet, saith the c 1.3 Schoolmen; Now our Ce∣remonies, though they exhibite worship to God, yet this is done in∣ordinately, and they make the worship to be otherwise performed then it should be; for example, though God be worshipped by the administration of the Sacraments in private places, yet not so as he should be worshipped. The d 1.4 Professors of Leyden condemne pri∣vate Baptisme as inordinate, because Baptisme as publici ministerij, non privatae exhortationis est appendix. It e 1.5 is marked in the fourth centu∣rie both out of Councels & Fathers, that it was not then permitted, to communicate in private places, but this custome was thought inordinate and vnbeseeming. If it be said, that the communion was given to the sicke privately, in the auncient Church. I answer: some∣times this was permitted, but for such speciall reasons as doe not con∣cerne us; for as we may see plainly by the 14 Canon of the first counsell of Nice (as those Canons are collected by Ruffinus;) the 69 Canon of the Councell of Eliberis; and the 6 Canon of the Counsell of Ancyra, the communion was onely permitted to be given in pri∣vate houses to the Paenitentes, who were abstenti and debarred from the Sacrament, some for three years, some for fyve, some for seven, some for ten, some for thirteen, some longer; and who should hap∣pily be overtaken with some dangerous and deadly sicknesse, before the set time of abstention were expired. As for the judgment of our owne Divines, Calviniani saith f 1.6 Balduine, morem illum quo Eucharistia ad aegrotos tanquam viaticum defertur, improbant, tamque non nisi in caetibus publicis usurpandam censent. For this he alledgeth Beza, Aretius, & Muscu∣lus. It was a better ordinance then that of Perth, which said g 1.7 non opor∣tet in domibus oblationes ab Episcopis sive Presbyteris fieri: but to returne.

3. The Ceremonies are proven to be superstitious, by this reason, [Sect. 4] if there were no more they have no necessary nor profitable use in the Church (as hath been proved) which kinde of things, cannot be used without superstition. It was according to this rule, that the h 1.8 Waldenses and Albingenses taught, that the Exorcismes, Brea∣things, Crossings, Salt, Spittle, Vnction, Chrisme, &c. Vsed by the Church of Rome in Baptisme, being neither necessarie nor re∣quisite in the administration of the same, did occasion error and su∣perstition, rather then edification to Salvation.

4. They are yet more superstitious, for that they are not onely used in Gods worship vnnecessarely and vnprofitably, but likewise they hinder other necessary duties. They, who though they serve the true God, yet with needlesse offices, and defraud him of duties necessary, are superstitious in i 1.9 Hookers Iudgment. I wish he had said as well to him, as from him. What offices more vnnecessary, then those Romane Ritualls? yet what more necessary duties, then to worship God in a spirituall and lively manner, to presse the power of God∣linesse vpon the consciences of Professors, to maintaine and keepe faithfull and well qualified Ministers in the Church, to beare the bo∣wels of mercy and meeknesse, not to offend the weake, not to con∣firme Papists in Popery, to have all things in Gods worship, disposed according to the word, and not according to the will of man, not to exercise Lordship over the consciences of those whom Christ hath made free, to abolish the monuments of by-past, and badges of present Idolatry: yet are those and other necessarie duties shut quite out off doores by our needlesse Ceremoniall service.

5. The Ceremonies are not free of superstition, in as much as [Sect. 5] they give to God an externall service, and grace-defacing worship, which he careth not for, and make fleshly observations to step into the roume of Gods most spirituall worship. Augustine k 1.10 alledg∣eth that which is said Luc. 17. The Kingdome of God is within you, a∣gainst superstitious persons, who exterioribus principalem curam impen∣dunt. The Christian worship ought to be in spirit, without the carnall Ceremonies and rites, saith l 1.11 one of our Divines, yea the Kingdome of God commeth not cum apparatu aut Pompa mundana, ita ut observari possit tempus vel locus, saith m 1.12 a Papist. Carnall worship therefore, and Ceremoniall observations are (to say the least) superfluous in Religion, and by consequence superstitious.

6. Worship is placed in the Ceremonies, therefore they are most superstitious. To make good what I say, Holinesse and necessity are placed in the Ceremonies, ergo, worship. And 1. Holinesse is placed in them. n 1.13 Hooker thinkes festivall dayes clothed with outward robes of holinesse; nay he saith o 1.14 plainly, No doubt as Gods extraordi∣nary presence hath hallowed and sanctified certaine places, so they are his ex∣traordinary workes that have truly and worthily advanced certaine times, for which cause they ought to be with all men that honour God, more holy then other dayes. p 1.15 He callerh also the Crosse an holy signe. q 1.16 D^r. Burgesse defen∣deth, that the Ceremonies are, and may be called worship of God, not onely ratione modi, as belonging to the reverend vsage of Gods pre∣scribed worship, but also ratione medij, though nor medij pe•…•…se, of and by it selfe, yet per aliud, by vertue of sommewhat else. Now doe not Papists place worship in their Crosse and Crucifixe? yet doe they place no holinesse in it per se, but onely per aliud, in respect of Christ Crucified thereby represented, and they tell vs, r 1.17 that crea∣turae

insensibilinon debetur honòr vel reverentia, nisi ratione rationalis naturae; and that they give no religious respect vnto the tree whereon Christ was crucified, the nailes, garments, speare, mang•…•…r, &c. but onely quantum ad rationem contactus membrorum Christi. Saith Dr. Burgesse any lesse of the Ceremonies? Nay he placeth every way as much holi∣nesse, and worship in them, in the forequotted place. And s 1.18 els∣where he teacheth, that after a sort the Ceremonies are worship in themselves, even such a worship as was that of the freewill offerings vnder the Law, t 1.19 and such a worship as was the building and vse of Altars here and there, (before God had chosen out the standing place for his Altar) though to the same end for which the Lords instituted Altar served. Thus we see, that they offer the Ceremo∣nies, as worship to God: yet put the case they did not, the w 1.20 Schoole saith▪ that a thing belongeth to the worship of God, vel quo ad offe∣rendum, vel quo ad assumendum. Where-vpon it followeth, that super∣stition is not onely to be layed to their charge, who offer to God for worship, that which he hath not commanded, but theirs also who assume in Gods worship, the helpe of any thing as sacred or holy, which himselfe hath not ordained. 2. They place as great a ne∣cessity in the Ceremonies, as Papists place in theirs, whereby it shall also appeare, how superstitiously they place worship in them, for quaecunque obseruatio quasi necessaria commendatur, continuo censetur ad cultum Dei pertinere, saith x 1.21 Calvine. y 1.22 The Rhemists thinke, that meates of themselves, or of their owne nature, doe not defile, but so farre as by accident they make a man to sinne: as the disobedience of Gods commande∣ment, or of our Superiours, who forbid some meates for certaine times and causes, is a sinne. And they adde; that neither flesh nor fish of it selfe doth defile, but the breach of the Churches praecept defileth. z 1.23 Aquinas defendeth that trin-immersion is not de necessitate baptismi, onely he thinkes it a sinne to baptise otherwise, because this rite is Instituted and vsed by the Church. Doe not formalists place the same necessity in the Ceremonies, while-as they say they vrge them not as necessary in themselves, but onely as necessary in respect of the determination of the Church, and the ordinance of those, who are set over vs? Nay Papists place not so great necessity in many ordinances of their Church, as Formalists place in the Ceremonies. If the cause be doubt∣full a 1.24 Aquinas sends a man to seek a dispensation from the Supe∣riour. But sicausa sit evidens, per se ipsum licite potest homo statuti obser∣vantiam praeterire. What formalist dare yeeld vs such liberty, as by our selves, and without seeking a dispensation from Superiours, to neglect the observation of their statutes, when wee see evident cause for so doing? they thinke that wee have no power at our owne hand to Iudge, that we have an evident cause of not obeying those who are set over vs, yet thus much is allowed by this Papist, who also b 1.25 elsewhere acknowledgeth that there is nothing necessary in bap∣tisme,

but the forme, the minister, & the washing of water, and that all the other Ceremonies which the Church of Rome vseth in baptis∣me, are onely for solemnity. c 1.26 Bellarmine saith, that the neglecting and not observing the Ceremonies of the Church, with them is not a mortall sinne, except it proceed excontemptu. And d 1.27 that he who entering into a Church doth not asperge himselfe with holy water, sinneth not, if so be he doe it citra contemptum. Now to be free of con∣tempt, will not satisfie our formalists, except wee obey and doe that same very thing which we are commanded to doe. e 1.28 Cornelius Ianse∣nius commenting vpon these words; In vaine doe they worship me, tea∣ching for doctrines the commandements of men, saith that the commande∣ments of men there, forbidden & condemned, are those which com∣mand nothing divine, but things merely hamane. And therefore he pleadeth for the constitutions of the Church about feasts, choyce of meats, festivities, &c. and for obedience to the same vpon no other ground then this, because pius quisque facile videt quam habeant ex scri∣pturis originem & quomodo eis consonant, eo quod faciant, ad carnis castigatio∣nem & temperantiam, aut ad fidelium unionem & aedificationem. I knowe it to be false which this Papist affirmeth: yet in that he thus pleadeth for those constitutions of the Church, from scripture and reason, forsaking the ground of humane Auctority, he is a great deale more modest and lesse superstitious, then those our opposites, who avouch the Ceremonies as necessary, and will have vs bound to the practise of them, vpon no other ground, then the bare will and auctority of Superiours, who have injoyned them, as hath been shewed in the first parte of this Dispute. Yea some of them place a certaine and constant necessity in the Ceremonies themselves, even beside and without the Churches constitution (which is more then Papists have said of their Ceremonies.) f 1.29 Dr. Forbesse calleth the Articles of Perth, pauca necessaria, &c. a few things necessary for Gods glory, and the promoving of pietie in our Church, for order, peace, unity, and cha∣rity, and particularily he teacheth, that a minister may not lawfully omit to administer the sacraments in privat places, and without the presence of the congregation, to such as through sickn esse can not come to the publicke assemblies; which he calleth eis necessaria mini∣strare. To say the trueth, the ministration of the Sacraments in pri∣vat places, importeth a necessity in the matter it self, for which cause, the g 1.30 Divines of Geneva resolved that in Ecclesiis publice institutis, bap∣tisme might not be administrat in private places, but only publikely in the congregation of the faithfull▪ partim ne sacramenta, &c. partly say they, lest the Sacraments being separat from the preaching of the word, should be againe transformed in certaine magicall ceremonies, as in Popery it was; partly that that grosse superstition of the absolute necessity of external Baptisme, may be rooted out of the mindes of men. Sure, the defenders of privat bap∣tisme place too great necessity in that Sacrament. h 1.31 Hooker plainly

insinuateth the absolute necessity of outward baptisme, at least in wish or desire, whch is the distinction of the Schoolmen, and fol∣lowed by the moderne Papists, to cloake their superstition. But whatsoever shew it hath, it was rightly impugned in the Coun∣cell of i 1.32 Trent by Marinarus, who alledged against it that the An∣gell said to Cornelius, his prayers were acceptable to God, before ever he knewe of the sacrament of baptisme, so that having no knowledge of it, he could not be said to haue received it, no not in vow or wish: and that many holy Martyrs were converted in the heat of persecution, by seeing the constancy of others, and presently taken and put to death, of whom one can not say, but by divina∣tion, that they knewe the Sacraments and made a vow.

7. I will now apply this Argument taken from superstition, par∣ticulary to holy dayes. Superstitiosum esse docemus saith k 1.33 Beza, arbitrari [Sect. 7] unum aliquem diem altero sanctiorem. Now I will shew that for malists observe holy dayes, as misticall and holyer then other dayes: how∣beit l 1.34 B. Lindsey thinks good to dissemble and denie it. Times saith he, are appointed by our Church for morning and evening prayers in great townes, houres for preaching on tuesday, thursday, &c. houres for weekly exercises of prophecying, which are holy in respect of the vse whereunto they are appointed; and such are the fyve dayes, which we esteeme not to be holy for any mistick si∣gnification, which they have, either by Divine, or Ecclesiasticall institution, or for any worship which is appropriated vnto them, that may not be performed at an other time, but for the sacred vse wherevnto they are appointed to be em∣ployed as circumstances onely, and not as misteries. Answ. this is but falsly pretended, for as m 1.35 Didoclavius observeth aliud est deputare, aliud de∣dicare, aliud sanctificare. designation or deputation is when a man appoints a thing for such an use, still reserving power and right to put it to an other vse, if he please, so the Church appointeth times and houres for preaching vpon the weeke dayes, yet reserving power to employ those times other wise, when shee shall thinke fit. Dedi∣cation is when a man so devotes a thing to some pious or civill vse, that he denudes himselfe of all right and title, which thereafter he might claime vnto it: as when a man dedicates a somme of money for the building of an Exchange, a Iudgment-hall, &c. or a parcell of ground for a Church, a Churchyarde, a Glebe, a Schoole, a Hospi∣tall; he can claime no longer right to the dedicated thing. Sanctifi∣cation is the setting apart of a thinge for a holy or religious vse, in such sort, that thereafter it may be put to no other vse, Prov. 20. 25. Now, whereas times set apart for ordinary and weekly preaching, are onely designed by the Church for this end and purpose, so that they are not holy, but onely for the present they are applied to an holy vse; neither is the worship appointed as convenient or besee∣ming for those times, but the times are appointed as convenient for the worship: festivall dayes are holy both by dedication and conse∣cration

of them. And this much the n 1.36 B. himselfe forbeareth not to say, onely he laboureth to plaister over his Superstition with the vn∣tēpered morter of this quidditative distinction; o 1.37 that some thinges are holy by consecration of them to holy misticall vses, as water inbapt isme, &c. but other things are made holy by consecration of them, to holy politicall vses. This way (saith he) the Church hath power to make a thing holy, as to build and consecrate places to be Temples, howses to be Hospitalls, to give rent, lands, money, and goods to the ministery, and to the poore, to appoint Veshells, and vestures, and Instruments for the publike worship, as Table, Tablecothes, &c. Ans. 1. The B. (I see) taketh vpon him to coyne new distinctions at his owne pleasure, yet they will not (I trust) passe current among the Iudicious: to make things holy by conse∣cration of them to holy uses for policie, is an vncouth speculation, and I dare say, the Bishop himselfe comprehendeth it not. Gods designation of a thing to any vse which serves for his owne glory, is called the sanctification of that thing or the making of it holy: and so the word is taken Isa. 13. 3. & Ier. 1. 5. as G. Sanctius noteth in his commentaries vpon these places, and Calvine commenting vpon the same places expoundeth them so likewise. But the Chur∣ches appointing or designing of a thing to an holy vse, can not be called the making of it holy. It must be consecrated at the command of God, and by vertue of the Word and Prayer: thus are breade and wine consecrated in the holy supper. Res Sacrae saith p 1.38 Fennerus, sunt quae Dei verbo in praedictum usum sanctificatae & dicatae sunt. q 1.39 Polanus speaking of the Sacramentall elements, saith, sanctificatio rei terrenae est actio ministri, qua destinat rem teurenam ad sanctum usum, ex mandato Dei, &c. The r 1.40 Professors of Leiden call onely such things persons, times, and places holy, as are consecrated & dedicated to God and his worship, and that divina praescriptione. If our ordinary meate and drinke can not bee sanctificed to vs, so that we may lawfully and with a good conscience vse those common things, but by s 1.41 the word of God and praier; how then shall any thing be made holy for Gods worship, but by the same meanes? and I pray, which is the Word, and which be the Prayers, that make holy those things, which the Bishop avoucheth for things consecrated and made holy by the Church, namely, the ground wherevpon the Church is built, the stones and timber of an hospitall, the rents, lands, moneys or goods, given to the Ministery, and the poore, the veshels, vestures, ta∣bles, napkines, basens, &c. appointed for the publike worship?

2. Times, places, and things which the Church designeth for [Sect. 8] the worship of God if they be made holy by consecration of them to holy Politicalluses, then either they are made holy, by the holy uses to which they are to be applied, or else by the Churches dedi∣cating of them to those vses. They can not be called holy by vertue

of their application to holy uses, for then (as t 1.42 Ames argueth) the aire is sacred, because it is applied to the Minister his speech whiles he is preaching, then is the light sacred which is applied to his eye in reading, then are his spectacles sacred which are used by him rea∣ding his text, &c. But neither yet are they holy, by vertue of the Churches dedicating of them to those uses for which she appoin∣teth them: for the Church hath no such power as by her dedication to make them holy. u 1.43 P. Martyr condemneth the dedication or consecration (for those words he vseth promiscuously, whereby the Papists hallowe Churches, and he declareth against it the Iudgment of our Divines to be this, licere imo jure pietatis requiri, ut in prima cu∣jusque rei usurpatione, gratias Deo agamus, ejusque bonitatem celebremus, &c. Collati boni religiosum ac sanctum usum poscamus. This he opposeth to the Popish dedication of Temples & Bels, as appeareth by these words quanto sanius rectiusque decernimus. He implieth therefore that these things are onely consecrated, as every other thing is consecrated to vs. Of this kind of consecration he hath given examples. In libro Ne∣hemiae dedicatio maenium civitatis commemoratur, quae nil aliud fuit nisi quod muris urbis instauratis, populus una cum Levitis & Sacerdotibus, nec non prin∣cipibus, co se contulit, ibique gratias Deo egerunt de maenibus reaedificatis, & justam civitatis usuram postularunt, qua item ratione prius quam sumamus ci∣bum, nos etiam illum consecramus. As the walls of Ierusalem then, and as our ordinary meate are consecrated, so are Churches consecrated, and no otherwise can they be said to be dedicated, except one would vse the word dedication, in that sense wherein it is taken, Deut. 20. 5. Where Calvine turnes the word dedicavit. Arias Montanus, initiavit. Tre∣mellius, caepit •…•…i. Of this sort of dedication Gaspar Sanctius writeth thus, Alia dedicatio est, non solum inter prophanos, sed etiam inter Haebreos usitata, quae nihil habet Sacrum, sed tantum est auspicatio aut initium operis, ad quod destinatur locus aut res, cujus tunc primum libatur usus. Sic Nero Clau∣dius dedicasse dicitur domum suam cum primum illam habitare coepit. Ita Sue∣tonius in Nerone. Sic Pompejus dedicavit theatrum suum, cum primum illud public is ludis & communibus usibus aperuit; de quo Cicero lib. 2. Epist. 1. Any other sort of dedicating Churches, we holde to be supersti∣tious. Peter Valdo, of whom the Waldenses were named. is y 1.44 repor∣ted to have taught, that the dedication of Temples was but an in∣vention of the Divell. And though Churches be dedicated by prea∣ching and praying, and by no superstition of sprinkling them with holy water, or vsing such magicall rites, yet even these dedications saith z 1.45 the Magdeburgians, ex judaismo natae videntur sine ullo Dei praece∣pto. There is indeed no warrant for such dedication of Churches, as is thought to make them holy. Bellatmine would warrant it by Moses his consecrating of the Tabernacle, the Altar, and the Veshells of the same, but a 1.46 Hospinian answereth him, Mosis factum expressum ha∣buit Dei mandatum: de consecrandis autem templis Christianorum, nullum

uspiam in verbo Dei praeceptum extat, ipso quoque Bellarmino teste. Where∣vpon he concludeth, that this Ceremonie of consecrating or dedi∣cating the Churches of Christians, is not to be used after the Exam∣ple of Moses, who in building and dedicating of the Tabernacle, did follow nothing without Gods expresse commandement. What I have said against the dedication of Churches, holds good also against the dedication of Altars; The Table wherevpon the Ele∣ments of the body and blood of Christ are set, is not to bee called holy: neither can they be commended who devised Altars in the Church, to be the seat of the Lords body and blood, as if any Ta∣ble, though not so consecrated, could not as well serve the turne. And what though Altars were used in the auncient Church? yet this custome à Iudaica, in Ecclesiam Christi permanavit ac postea superstitioni materiam praebuit, say b 1.47 the Magdeburgians. Altars savour of nothing but Iudaisme, and the borrowing of Altars from the Iewes, hath made Christians both to follow their Priesthood, and their sacrifi∣ces. Haec enim tria, scilicet Sacerdos, Altare, & Sacrificium, sunt correla∣tiva, ut ubi unum est, caetera duo adesse necesse sit, saith c 1.48 Cornelius a La∣pide.

3. If sometimes, places, and things, be made holy by the Chur∣ches [Sect. 9] dedication or consecration of them to holy uses, then it fol∣loweth that othertimes, places, and things, which are not so dedi∣cated and consecrated by the Church, howbeit they be applied to the same holy uses, yet are more prophane, and lesse apt to Divine worship, then those which are dedicated by the Church. I need not insist to strengthen the inference of this conclusion from the prin∣ciples of our Opposites; for the most learned among them, will not refuse to subscribe to it. d 1.49 Hooker teacheth us, that the service of God, in places not sanctified as Churches are, hath not in it selfe (marke in it selfe) such perfection of grace and comlinesse, as when the dignitie of the place which it wisheth for, doth concurre; and that the very Majesty and holinesse of the place where God is wor∣shipped, bettereth even our holiest and best actions. How much more soundly doe we hold with e 1.50 I. Rainoldes, that unto us Chri∣stians, no land is strange, no ground unholy; every coast is Iewry: every towne Ierusalem: and every house Sion: and every faithfull company, yea every faith∣full body, a Temple to serve God in? The contrarie opinion f 1.51 Hospinian rejecteth as savouring Iudaisme, alligat enim religionem ad certa loca. Whereas the presence of Christ among two or three gathered toge∣ther in his name, maketh any place a Church, even as the presence of a King with his attendants maketh any place a Court. As of pla∣ces, so of times our opposites thinks most superstitiously. For of holy dayes g 1.52 Hooker saith thus. No doubt as Gods extraordinarie pre∣sence hath hallowed and sanctified certaine places, so they are his extraordinary workes, that have truly and worthily advanced certaine times, for which cause

they ought to be with all men, that honour God, more holy then other dayes. What is this but Popish superstition? for just so the h 1.53 Rhemists thinke that the times, and places of Christs Nativity, Passion, Bu∣riall, Resurrection, and Ascension, were made holy: & just so i 1.54 Bel∣larmine holdeth, that Christ did consecrate the dayes of his Nativity, Passion, and Resurrection, eo quod nascens consecrarit praesepe, moriens crucem, resurgens sepulchrum. Hooker hath bene of opinion, that the holy dayes were so advanced above other dayes by Gods great and extraordinary workes done upon them, that they should have bene holyer then other dayes, even albeit the Church had not ap∣pointed them te be keeped holy. Yet B. Lindsey would have us be∣lieve, that they thinke them holy, onely because of the Churches consecration of them to holy Politicall uses. But that now at last, I may make it appeare to all that have common sense, how falsely (though frequently) it is given forth by the Bishop, that holy dayes are kept by them onely for order and policie, and that they are not so superstitious, as to appropriate the worship to those dayes, or to observe them for mistery and as holier then other dayes.

First, I require the B. to shew us a difference betwixt the kee∣ping [Sect. 10] of holy dayes by formalists, & their keeping of the Lords day: for upon holy dayes they injoyne a cessation from worke, and a de∣dicating of the day to Divine worship, even as upon the Lords day. The k 1.55 Bishop alledgeth five respects of difference, but they are not true. First, he saith, that the Lords day is commanded to be obser∣ved of necessity, for conscience of the Divine ordinance, as a day sanctified and blessed by God himselfe. Answ. 1. so have we heard from Hooker, that holy dayes are sanctified by Gods extraordinary workes, but because the B▪ dare not say so much, therefore I say. 2. This difference can not shew us, that they observe holy dayes onely for order and policy, and that they place no worship in the observing of them, as in the observing of the Lords day, (which is the point that we require) for worship is placed in the observing of humane, as well as of Divine ordinances; otherwise worship hath never bene placed in the keeping of Pharisaicall and Popish tradi∣tions. This way is worship placed in the keeping of holy dayes, when for conscience of an humane ordinance, they are both kept as holy, and thought necessary to be so kept. 3. The B. contradicteth himselfe, for l 1.56 elswhere he defendeth, that the Church hath power to change the Lords day. Secondly, he giveth us this difference, that the Lords day is observed, as the Sabbath of Iehovah, and as a day whereon God himselfe did rest after the creation. Ans. 1. This is false of the Lords day, for after the creation, God rested vpon the seventh day, not upon the first. 2. Dr Douname saith m 1.57, that festi∣vall dayes also are to be consecrated as Sabbaths to the Lord. Third∣ly, the B. tells us, that the Lords day is observed in memory of the

Lords Resurrection. Ans. 1. He shall never make this good, for, we observe the Lords day in memory of the whole worke of Re∣demption. 2. If it were so, this could make no difference, for just so Christmasse is observed in memory of the Lords Nativity, Good-friday, in memory of his Passion, &c. His fourth & fifth re∣spects of difference, are certaine misteries in the Lords day, But we shall see by and by, how his fellow Formalists who are more inge∣nuous then himselfe, shew us misteries in the Festivall dayes also. Lastly, albeit the B. have told us that there is no worship appropria∣ted unto the Festivall dayes, which may not be performed at any other time, yet this can not with him make a difference betwixt them and the Lords day: for in his Epistle which I have quotted, he de∣clareth his judgment to be the same of the Lords day, and teacheth us, that the worship performed on it, is not so appropriated to that time, but lawfully the same may be performed at any other con∣venient time, as the Church shall thinke fit. Now as the worship performed on the Lords day, is appropriated (in his judgment) to that time, so long as the Church altereth it not, and no longer, just as much thinks he, of the appropriating to Festivall dayes, the wor∣ship performed on the same.

2. If the holy dayes be observed by Formalists only for order and [Sect. 11] policy, then they must say the Church hath power to change them. But this power they take from the Church, by saying that they are dedicated and consecrated to those holy uses, to which they are applied. Semel Deo dicatum non est ad usus humanos ulterius transferendum, saith one of the n 1.58 Popes. And by the dedication of Churches, the founders surrender that right, which otherwise they might have in them, saith one of the o 1.59 Formalists themselves. If then the Church hath dedicated holy dayes to the worship of God, then hath shee denuded her self of all power to change them, or put them to ano∣ther use: which were otherwise, if holy dayes were appointed to be kept, onely for order and policy. Yea further, times and places which are applied to the worship of God, as circumstances onely for outward order and policy, may be by a private Christian applied to an civill use, for in so doing he breaketh not the ordinance of the Church: for example, Materiall Churches are appointed to be the receptacles of Christian assemblies, and that only for such com∣mon commodity and decency, which hath place as well in civill as in holy meetings, and not for any holinesse conceived, to be in them, more then in other houses. Now if I be standing in a Church-yard when it raineth, may not I go into the Church that I may be defended from the injury of the weather? If I must meet w•…•…th certain men, for putting order to some of my wordly affaires, and it fall out that wee can not conveniently meet in any parte but in the Church, may wee not there keepe our tryst? A materiall Church

then, may serve for a civill use, the same way that it serveth to a ho∣ly use. And so for times appointed for ordinary preaching upon weeke dayes in great townes, may not I apply those times to a civill use, when I can not conveniently apply them to the vse for which the Church appointeth them? I trust our Prelates shall say, I may, because they use to be otherwise employed thē in Divine worship, during the times of weekly preaching. Now if holy dayes were commanded to be kept only for order and policy, they might be applied to another use, as wel as those ordinary times of weekly meetings in great townes: whereas we are required of necessity to keep them holy.

3. If the holy dayes be kept only for order and policie, why doe [Sect. 12] they esteeme of some of them above others? doth not p 1.60 B. Andrewes call the feast of Easter, the highest and greatest of our religion? And doth not q 1.61 B. Lindsey himselfe with Chrysoftome call the festivall of Christs Nativity, metropolim omnium festorum? By this reason doth r 1.62 Bellarmine prove, that the feasts of Christians are Celebrated, non solum ratione ordinis & politiae, sed etiam misterij, because otherwise they should be all equall in celebrity, whereas Leo calls Easter festum fe∣storum, and Nazianzene, celebritatem celebritatum.

4. If the holy dayes be kept only for order and policy, then the sanctification, of them should be placed, s 1.63 in ipso actuali externi cul∣tus [Sect. 13] exercitio. But Hooker hath told us before, that they are made holy, and worthily advanced above other dayes, by Gods extraordinary workes wrought upon them. Where upon it followeth, that as t 1.64 Deus diem septimum sanctificavit vacatione sancta, & ordinatione ad usum san∣ctum; so hath he made festivall dayes no lesse holy in themselves, and that as the Sabbath was holy from the beginning, because of Gods resting upon it, and his ordaining of it for a holy use, how∣beit it had never beene applied by men to the exercises of Gods worship: even so festivall dayes are holy, being advanced truly and worthily, by the extraordinary workes of God, and for this cause commended to all men that honour God, to be holier with them then other dayes, albeit it should happen that by us they were never applied to an holy use. If B. Lindsey thinke that all this toucheth not him, he may be pleased to remember, that u 1.65 he him∣self hath confessed, that the very presence of the festivity, puts a man in minde of the mistery, howbeit he have not occasion to be present in the holy assembly. What order or policy is here, when a man being quiet in his Parlour or Cabinet, is made to remember of such a mistery on such a day? What hath externall order and poli∣cy to doe with the internall thoughts of a mans heart, to put in or∣der the same?

5. By their fruits shall we knowe them; looke whether they give [Sect. 14] so much liberty to others, and take so much to themselves, vpon

their holy dayes, for staying from the publike worship, and atten∣ding wordly businesse, as they doe at the diets of weekly and ordi∣nary preaching: yet they wold make the simple beleeve, that their holy dayes are onely appointed to be kept, as those ordinary times set apart for Divine service on the weeke-dayes. Nay, moreover let it bee observed, whether or not they keep the Festivall dayes more carefully, and vrge the keeping of them more earnestly, then the Lords owne day. Those Prelates that will not abase themselves to preach upon ordinary Sabbaths, think the high holy dayes worthy of their Sermons. They have beene also often seene to travell upon the Lords day, whereas they hold it religion to travell vpon a holy day. And whereas they can digest the common prophana∣tion of the Lords day, and not challenge it, they can not away with the not observing of their festivities.

6. By their words shall we Iudge them. Saith not x 1.66 B. Lindsey, [Sect. 15] that the five anniversary dayes are consecrate to the commemo∣ration of our Saviour his benefites beeing separate from all other ordinary workes, and so made sacred and holy dayes? Will he say this much of ordinary times appointed for weekly preaching? I trow not. y 1.67 Dr. Douname holdeth, that we are commanded in the fourth commandement, te keep the feasts of Christs Nativity, Passion, Re∣surrection, Ascension, and Pentecost, and that these feasts are to be consecrated as Sabbaths to the Lord. B. Andrewes, a man of the greatest note amongst our opposites, affoordeth us here plenty of testimonies for proofe of the point in hand, namely, that the anni∣versary Festivall dayes are kept for mistery and as holier then other dayes. Serm. on Psal. 85. 10. 11. he saith of Christmasse, that mercy and trueth, righteousnesse and peace, of all the dayes of the yeare, meet most kindly on this day. Serm. on Psal. 2. 7. he saith of the same day, that of all other hodie's, we should not let slip the hodie of this day, whereon as the law is most kindly preached, so it will bee most kindly practised of all others. Serm. on Hebr 12. 2. he saith of Good-fryday, let us now turne to him, and beseech him by the sight of this day. Serm. on 1 Cor. 5. 7. 8. he saith of the keeping of the Christian Passeover vpon Easter, that then it is best for us to doe it, It is most kindly to doe it, most like to please Christ, and to prosper with us. And indeed if at any time we will doe it, quando Pascha nisi in Pascha, &c. so that without any more adoe, the season pleadeth for this effectually, &c. Serm. on Coll. 3. 1. he saith, that there is no day in the yeare so fit for a Christian to rise with Christ, and seeke the things above, as Easter day. Serm. on Ioh. 2. 19. he saith, that the act of receiving Christs body is at no tyme so proper, so in season, as this very day. Serm. on 1 Cor. 11. 16. he tells us out of Leo, This is a peculiar that Easter day hath, that on it all the whole Church obtaineth remission of their sinnes. Serm. on Act. 2. 1. 2. 3. he saith of •…•…he Feast of Pentecost, that of all dayes we shall not goe away from the holy Ghost empty on this day; it is dies donorum: his giving

day. Serm. on Ephes. 4. 30. he saith, this is the holy Ghosts day, and not for that originaly so it was: but for that it is to be intended, ever he will doe his owne chiefe worke upon his owne chiefe Feast, and opus diei, the dayes worke upon the day it self. Sermon. on Psal. 68. 18. he saith, that love will be best and soonest wrought, by the Sacrament of love, vpon Pentecost, the Feast of love. Serm. on Act. 10. 34. 35. he saith, that the receiving of the holy Ghost in a more ample measure is opus diei, the proper of this day. Serm. on Ia. 1. 16. 17. he calles the gift of the holy Ghost, the gift of the day of Pentecost, and tells us that the holy Ghost the most perfect gift of all, this day was, and any day may be, but chiefly this day will be given, to any that will desire. Serm. on Luk 4. 18. he saith of the same Feast, that because of the benefite that fell on this time, the time it selfe it fell on, is and can not be but acceptable, even eo nomine, that at such a time such a be∣nefite happened to us. Much more of this stuffe I might produce out of a 1.68 this Prelates holy dayes sermons, which I supersede as more tedious then necessary; Neither yet will I stay here to confute the errors of those and such like sentences of his; for my purpose is onely to prove against B Lindsey, that the Festivall dayes, wherea∣bout we dispute, are not observed as circumstances of worship, for order and policy; but that as the chiefe parts of Gods worship are placed in the celebration and keeping of the same, so are they kept and celebrate most superstitiously, as having certaine sacred and misticall significationes, and as holier in themselves then other dayes, because they were sanctified aboue other dayes by the extra∣ordinary workes and great benefites of God, which happened vpon them: So that the worship performed on them, is even appro∣priated to them: all which is more then evident from those testi∣monies which I have in this place collected.

And finally, the b 1.69 Author of the nullity of Perth assembly proveth [Sect. 16] this point forcibly: Doth not Hooker say, that the dayes of publike memo∣rials should be cloathed with the outward robes of holinesse. They alledge for the warrant of anniversarij festivities, the Auncients, who call them Sacred and mysticall dayes. If they were instituted onely for order and policy, that the people might assemble to religious exercises, wherefore is there but one day ap∣pointed betwixt the Passion and the Resurrection? fortie dayes betwixt the Re∣surrection and Ascension? ten betwixt the Ascension and Pentecost? where∣fore followe we the course of the Moone, as the Iewes did; in our moveable Feasts? &c. Wherefore is there not a certain day of the moneth kept for Easter, as well as for the Nativity? &c. That which is here alledged out of Hooker and •…•…he Auncients, B. Lindsey passeth quite over, and nei∣ther inserts nor answeres it. As touching those demands which tie him as so many gordian knots, because he can not vnloose them, he goeth about to break them, c 1.70 telling us, that they order these things so for vnity with the Catholike Church. This is even as some na∣turall Philosophers, who take upon them to give a reason and

cause for all things in nature, when they can finde no other, they flee to Sympathia Phisica. When it is asked, wherefore the loadstone doth attract yron rather then other mettall? they answere, that the cause thereof is sympathia phisica inter magnetem, & ferrum. With such kind of etimology doth the B. here serve us, yet peradventure hee might have given us another cause. If so, my retractation is, that if he be excused one way, hee must be accused an other way, and if he be blamelesse of Ignorance, he is blameworthy for dissimula∣tion. The true causes why those things are so ordered, we may find in B. Andrews his Sermons, which I have made use of in handling this argument. For example, d 1.71 the reason why there is but one day betwixt the Passion and the Resurrection, is, because that Ionas was but one day in the Whales belly, and Christ but one day in the bo∣some of the earth, for in their going thither, he sets out Good-fry∣day: in their being there Easter-eve: in their comming thence Easter day. As for the 50 dayes betwixt Easter and Pentecost, e 1.72 he saith, fiftie is the number of the Iubilee; which number agreeth well with this feast, the Feast of Pentecost. VVhat the one in yeares, the other in dayes. So that this is the Iubilee as it were of the yeare, or the yearly memory of the yeare of Iubilee: that, the Pentecost of yeares: this, the Iubilee of dayes. In the end of the same Sermon he tells us the reason, why there are ten dayes appoynted betwixt the Ascension, and Pentecost. The feast of Iubilee saith he, beganne ever after the high Priest had offered his Sacrifice, and had beene in the Sancta Sanctorum, as this Iubilee of Christ also tooke place from his entering into the holy places, made without hands, after his propitiatory sacrifice, offered up for the quick and the dead, and for all yet unborne, at Easter. And it was the tenth day, that: and this now is the tenth day since. He hath told us also f 1.73. why there is not a certaine day of the moneth appointed for Easter, as there is for the Nativity, namely, because the fast of Lent must end with that high feast, according to the Prophecy of Zachary. Wherefore I conclude, aliquid misterii alunt, and so aliquid monstri too.

CHAP. II.

That the Ceremonies are unlawfull, because they are monuments of by-past idolatry, which not being necessary to be retained, should be utterly abolished, because of their idolatrous abuse: all which is particularly made good of kneeling.

I Have proven the Ceremonies to be superstitious; now I will prove them to be Idolatrous. These are different arguments, [Sect.] for every Idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is

not Idolatry, as is rightly by g 1.74 some distinguished. As for the Idolatry of the controverted Ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice Idolatrous. 1. reductivè, because they are monuments of by∣past Idolatry. 2 participativè, because they are badges of present Ido∣latry. 3. formaliter, because they are Idols themselves. First then, they are Idolatrous, because having beene notoriously abused to Ido∣latry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments, which give no small honour to the memory of that by-past Idolatry, which should lie buried in hell. h 1.75 D^r. Burgesse reckons for Idola∣trous, all Ceremonies devised and used, in and to the honouring of an Idoll, whether properly or by interpretation such. Of which sort saith he, were all the Ceremonies of the Pagans, and not a few of the Papists. If an opposite writting against us be forced to aknowledge this much, one may easily conjecture, what inforcing reason wee have to double out our point. The Argument in hand I frame thus:

All things and rites, which have beene notriously abused to idolatry, if they be not such, as either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from Divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us, as sacred things, or rites pertaining to the same.

But the Crosse, Surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the Commuion, &c. are things and rites, &c. and are not such as either God or nature, &c.

Ergo, they should be utterlie abolished, &c.

As for the proposition I shall first explaine it, and then prove it; I say, all things and rites, for they are alike forbidden as I shall shew. [Sect. 2] I say, which have beene notoriously abused to idolatry, because if the abuse be not knowne we are blamelesse for retaining the things and rites which have beene abused. I say, if they be not such as either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary use, because if they be of a necessary use, either through Gods institution, as the Sacraments, or through na∣tures law, as the opening of our mouths to speake (for when I am to preach or pray publikly, nature makes it necessary, that I open my mouth to speake audibly and articularly,) then the abuse can not take away the use. I say, they may not be used by us, as sacred things and rites pertaining to Divine worship, because without the compasse of worship, they may be used to a naturall or civill purpose. If I could get no other meat to eate, then the consecrated hoste which Papists Idolatrize in the circumgestation of it, I might lawfully eat

it, and if I could get no other cloaths to put on, then the holy gar∣ments wherein a Priest hath said Masse, I might lawfully weare them. Things abused to Idolatry, are only then unlawfull, when they are used no otherwise then religiously, and as things sacred.

The proposition thus explained, is confirmed by these five proofes, 1. Gods owne praecept, Isa. 30. 22. Ye shall defile also the [Sect. 3] covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten ima∣ges of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstrous cloath, thou shall say unto it, get thee hence. The covering of the Idoll here spoken of, i 1.76 Gaspar Sanctus rightly understandeth to be that, quo aut induebantur simulacra Gentilico ritu, aut bracteas quibus ligneae imagines integuntur, aut quo homines Idolis sacrificaturi amiciebantur. So that the lea•…•…t appurte∣nances of Idolls are to be avoided. When the Apostle k 1.77 Iude would have us to heate the garment spotted with the flesh, his meaning is, detestandam esse vel superficiem ipsam mali five peccati, quam tunicae ap∣pellatione subinnuere videtur, as our owne l 1.78 Rolloke hath observed. If the very covering of an Idoll be forbidden, what shall be thought of other things which are not only spotted, but irrecoverably pollu∣ted with idolls? many such praecepts were given to Israëll, as Exod. 34. 13. Yee shall destroy their altars, breake their images, and cut downe their groves. Deut. 7. 25. 26. The grauen images of their Gods shall ye burne with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver and gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Reade to the same purpose Numb. 33. 52. Deut. 7. 5. and 12. 2. 3. Secondly, God hath not only by his praecepts com∣manded us to abolish all the reliques of Idolatrie, but by his pro∣mises also manifested unto us, how acceptable service this should be to him. There is a command Num. 33. 52. that the Israëlites should destroy the Canaanites, evertantque res omnes idololatricas ipso∣rum: cui mandato saith m 1.79 Iunius, subjicitur sua promissio, namely, that the Lord wold give them the promised land, and they should dis∣possesse the inhabitants thereof, Vers. 53. yea there is a promise of remission and reconciliation to this worke. Isa. 27. 9. By this shall the iniquity of Iacob be purged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sinne: when he maketh all the stones of the Altar as chalke stones, that are beaten asunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

Thirdly, the Churches of Pergamos and Theatyra are reproved for suffering the use of Idolothyts, Apoc. 2. 14. 20. Where the eating [Sect. 4] of things sacrificed to Idolls is condemned as Idolatry and spirituall adultery, as n 1.80 Perkins noteth. Paybody therefore is greatly mista∣ken, when he thinkes, that meates sacrificed to Idolls, beeing the good Creatures of God, were allowed by the Lord, out of the case of scandall, notwithstanding of Idolatrous pollution, for Apoc. 2. the eating of things sacrificed to Idolls, is reproved as Idolatry, and 1. Cor. 10. 20. the cating of such thinges, is condemned as a fellow∣ship

with Divells. Now Idolatry and fellowship with divells, I sup∣pose are unlawfull, though no scandall should followe upon them. And whereas he thinkes meates sacrificed to Idolls, to be lawfull enough out of the case of scandall, for this reason, because they are the good Creatures of God, he should have considered better the Apostles mind concerning such Idolothyts. Which o 1.81 Zanchius setteth downe thus, Verum est, per so haec nihil sunt, sed respectu eorum quibus immolantur aliquid sunt: quia per haec, illis quibus immolantur, nos consocia∣mur. Qui isti? Daemones. For our better understanding of this matter, we must distinguish two sorts of Idolothyts, both which we finde 1 Cor. 10. Of the one, the Apostle speakes from the 14 Verse of that Chapter, to the 23. Of the other, from the 23. verse to the end; This is Beza his distinction in his Annotations on that Chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the Apostles minde thus; that as Christians have their holy banquets, which are badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves, and as the Israëlites by their sa∣crifices did seale their copulation in the same religion, so also Ido∣laters cum suis idolis aut potius daemonibus, solemnibus illis epulis copulantur. So that this sort of p 1.82 Idolothyts were eaten in Temples, and publike solemne banquets, which were dedicated to the honour of idolls. q 1.83 Cartwright sheweth, that the Apostle is comparing the Table of the Lord, with the Table of Idolaters: whereupon it followeth, that as wee use the Lords Table religiously, so that Table of Idolaters of which the Apostle speaketh, had state in the idolatrous worship, like that feast Num. 25. 3. quod in honorem falsorum Deorum celebrabatur, saith r 1.84 Calvine. This first sort of Idolathyts, s 1.85 Pareus calls the sacri∣fices of Idolls, and from such he saith, the Apostle dissuadeth by this argument, Participare e•…•…pulis Idolorum, est idololatria. Of the se∣cond sort of Idolothyts, the Apostle begins to speake Vers. 23. The Corinthians moved a question, whether they might lawfully eat things sacrificed to Idolls? In privatis conviviis, saith t 1.86 Pareus. The A∣postle resolves them that domi in privato convictu they might eate them, except it were in the case of scandall, thus u 1.87 Beza. The first sort of Idolothyts are meant of Apoc. 2. as Beza there noteth, and of this sort must we understand x 1.88 Augustine to meane, whiles he saith, that it were better mori fame, quam Idolothytis vesci. These sortes are simply & in themselves unlawfull. And if meates sacrificed to Idols be so unlawfull, then much more such things and rites as have not only beene sacrificed and destinated to the honour of Idolls, (for this is but one kinde of Idolatrous abuse,) but also of a long time, publikly and solemnely employed in the worshipping of Idolls, and deeply defiled with Idolatry, much more I say, are they unlawfull to be applied to Gods most pure and holy worship, and therein used by us publikely and solemnely, so that the world may see us con∣forming, and joyning our selves unto Idolaters.

Fourthly, I fortify my proposition by approven examples: and first, we find that Iacob, Genes. 35. 4. did not only abolish out of his [Sect. 5] house, the Idolls, but their eare-rings also, because they were super∣stitionis insignia, as Calvine; res ad idololatriam pertinentes, as Iunius; monilia idolis consecrata, as Pareus calleth them; all writting upon that place. We have also the example of Elijah, 1. Kings 18. 30. he would by no meanes offer upon Baals Altar, but would needs repaire the Lords Altar, though this should hold the people the longer in exspecta∣tion. This he did in P. Martyrs Iudgment, because he thought it a great indignity, to offer sacrifice to the Lord, upon the Altar of Baal. Whereupon, y 1.89 Martyr reprehendeth those who in admini∣string the true Supper of the Lord, uti velint Papisticis vestibus & instru∣mentis. Further we have the example of Iehu, who is commanded for the destroying of Baal out of Israëll, with his image, his house, and his very vestments. Read, 2. Kings, 10. from the 22. Verse to the 28. And what example more considerable, then that of Heze∣kiah, who not only abolished such monuments of Idolatry, as at their first institution were but mens inventions, but brake downe also the Brazen serpent (though originally set up at Gods owne com∣mand,) when once he saw it abused to Idolatry? 2 Kings 18. 4. This deed of Hezekiah, Pope z 1.90 Steven doth greatly praise, and pro∣fesseth that it is set before us for our imitation, that when our pre∣decessors have wrought some things, which might have beene with∣out fault in their time, and afterward they are converted into error and superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them. a 1.91 Farellus saith, that Princes & Magistrates should learne by this example of Hezekiah, what they should doe with those significant rites of mens devising which have turned to superstition. Yea, the b 1.92 B. of Wincester aknowledgeth, that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of men, when it is drawne to superstition, com∣meth under the compasse of the Brazen serpent, and is to be abo∣lished. And he excepteth nothing from this example, but only things of Gods owne prescribing, Moreover, we have the exam∣ple of good Iosiah, 2 Kings 23. for he did not only destroy the hou∣ses and the high-places of Baal, vers. 19. but his vessels also, vers. 4. and his grove, vers 6. 14. and his Altars, vers. 12. yea the horses and char∣rets, which had beene given to the Sun, vers. 11. The example also of penitent Manasseh, who not only overthrewe the strange Gods, but their Altars too 2 Chron. 33. 15. And of Moses the man of God, who was not content to execute vengeance on the Idolatrous Israe∣lites, except he should also utterly destroy the monument of their Idolatry, Exod. 32. 27. 20. Lastly, we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile himself with the portion of the Kings meate, Dan. 1. 8, because saith c 1.93 Iunius, it was converted in usum idolola∣tricum, for at the banquets of the Babylonians and other Gentiles, erant

praemessa sive praemissa, quae dijs praemittebantur. They used to conse∣crate their meate and drinke to Idolls, and to invocate the names of their Idolls upon the same, so that their meate and drinke fell un∣der the prohibition of Idolothyts. This is the reason, which is given by the most part of the Interpreters, for Daniels fearing to pollute himself, with the kings meate, and wine: and it hath also the approbation of d 1.94 a Papist.

Fiftly, our proposition is backed with a twofold reason, for things which have beene notoriously abused to Idolatry, should be [Sect. 6] abolished, 1. quia monent, 2. quia movent: first then, they are moni∣tory, & preserve the memory of Idolls, monumentum in good things, is both monimentum & munimentum, but monumentum in evill things, (such as Idolatry,) is only monimentum, which monet mentem to remember upon such things as ought not to be once named amōg Saincts, but should lye buried in the eternall darknesse of silent oblivion. Those re∣liques therefore of Idolatry, quibus quasi monumentis posterit as admoneatur (as e 1.95 Wolphius rightly saith,) are to be quite defaced and destroyed, be∣cause they serve to honour the memory of cursed Idolls. God f 1.96 would not have, so much as the name of an Idoll, to be remembered a∣mong his people, but commanded to destroy their names, as well as themselves. Whereby we are admonished, as g 1.97 Calvine saith, how detestable Idolatry is before God, cujus memoriam vult penitus deleri, ne posthac ullum ejus vesligium appareat, h 1.98 yea he requireth, eorum om∣nium memoriam deleri, quae semel dicata sunt idolis. If i 1.99 Mordecay would not give his countenance, nor doe any reverence to a living monu∣ment of that nation, whose name God had ordained k 1.100 to be blotted out from under heaven; much lesse should we give connivence, and farre lesse countenance, but least of all reverence to the dead and dumbe monuments of those Idolls which God hath devoted to ut∣ter destruction, with all their naughty appurtenances, so that he will not have their names to be once mentioned or remembered againe. But secoundly, movent too: such Idolothyous remainders move us to turne back to Idolatry. For usu compertum habemus, super∣stitiones etiam postquam explosae essent, si qua relicta fuissent earum monu∣menta, cum memoriam sui ipsarum apud homines, tum id tandem ut revoca∣rentur obtinuisse, saith l 1.101 Wolphius. Who here upon thinks it behovefull, to destroy funditus such vestigies of superstition, for this cause, if there were no more; ut &▪ aspirantibus ad revocandam idololatriam spes frangatur, & res novas molientibus ansa pariter ac materia praecipiatur. God would have Israell to overthrow all idolotrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared, Deut. 7. 25. and 12. 30. And if the m 1.102 law command to cover a pit, lest an oxe or an asse should fall therein: shall we suffer a pit to be open, wherein the pretious soules of men and women, which all the world can not ransone, are likely to fall? Did God command n 1.103 to make a battlement for the roofe

of a house, and that for the safety of mens bodies? And shall we not only not put up a battlement, or object some barre for the safety of mens soules, but also leave the way sl•…•…pty and full of snares? Reade we not that the Lord, who knewe what was in man, & saw how propense he was to Idolatry, did not only remove out of his peo∣ples way, all such things as might any way allure or induce them to Idolatry, (even to the cutting of the names of the Idolls out of the land, Zecbar. 13. 2.) but also hedge up their way with thornes, that they might not find their paths, nor overtake their Idol-Gods, when they should seeke after them, Hos. 2. 6. 7? And shall we by the very contrary course, not only not hedge up the way of Ido∣latry with thornes, which may stop and stay such as have an incli∣nation aiming forward, but also lay before them, the inciting and entising occasions, which adde to their owne propension, such delectation as spurreth forward with a swift facility?

Thus having both explained and confirmed the proposition [Sect. 7] of our present argument, I will make me next for the confutation of the answeres, which our opposites devise to elude it. And first, they tell us, that it is needlesse to abolish utterly, things and Rites which the Papists have abused to Idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge them from the abuse; and to restore them again to their right use. Hence b 1.104 Saravia will not have pium crucis usum to be abolished cum abusu, but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away. c 1.105 Dr Forbesse his answere is, that not only things instituted by God, are not to be taken away for the abuse of them, but further, neque res mediae ab hominibus prudenter introductae, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendae sunt. Abusi sunt Papistae Tem∣plis, & Oratoriis, & Cathedris, & sacris Vasis, & Campanis, & benedictione Matrimoniali: nec tamen res istas, censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjicien∣das. Ans. 1. d 1.106 Calvine answering that which Cassander alledged out of an Italian writer, abusu non tolli bonum usum; he admits it only to be true, in things which are institute by God himself: not so in things ordained by men: for the very use of such things, or rites, as have no necessary use in Gods worship, and which men have de∣vised, only at their owne pleasure, is taken away by Idolatrous abuse. Pars tutior here, is to put them wholly away, and there is by a great deale more danger in retaining; then in removing them. 2. The proofs which I have produced for the proposition, about which now we debate, doe not only inferre that things and Rites, which have beene notoriously abused to Idolatry, should be abo∣lished, in case they be not restored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they are to be abolished. e God com∣manded * 1.107 to say to the coverings, and the ornaments of Idolls get you hence. It is not enough they be purged from the abuse, but simplici∣ter, they themselves must pack them, and be gone. How did Iacob

with the eare rings of the Idolls; Elijah with Baals Altar; Iehu with his vestments; Iosiah with his houses; Manasseh with his Altars; Moses with the golden Calfe; Iosua with the Temples of Canaan; Hezekiah with the Brazen Serpent? did they retaine the things themselves, and only purge them from the abuse? belike if these our Opposites had beene their counsellers, they had advised them to be contented with such a moderation: yet we see they were better counselled, when they destroyed utterly the things themselves: whereby we know, that they were of the same mind with us, and thought that things abused to Idolatry, if they have no necessary use, are farre better away then aplace. Did Daniel refuse Bels meate, because it was not restored to the right use? Nay, if that had beene all, it might have beene quickly helped, and the meate sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Finally, were the Churches of Perga∣mos and Theatyra, reprooved, because they did not restore things sa∣crificed to Idolls, to their right use? or, were they not rather re∣prooved for having any thing at all a doe with the things them∣selves?

3. As for that which D^r. Forbesse objecteth to us, we answere, that [Sect. 8] Temples, places of Prayer, Chaires, Veshells, and Bells, are of a necessary use, by the light and guidance of nature it selfe, and Ma∣trimoniall benediction is necessary by Gods institution, Gen. 1. 28. So that all those examples doe except themselves from the argu∣ment in hand. But f 1.108 the Dr. intendeth to bring those things with∣in the category of things indifferent, and to this purpose he alled∣geth, that it is indifferent to use this, or that place, for a Temple, or a place of prayer: also to use these Veshells, and Bells, or others; And of Matrimoniall benediction to be performed by a Pastor, he saith, there is nothing commanded in scripture. Ans. Though it be indifferent to choose this place, or that place, &c. also to use these Veshells, or other Veshells, &c. yet the D^r (I trust) will not denie that Temples, houses of prayer, Veshels, and Bells are of a neces∣sary use, (which exeemeth them from the touch of our present ar∣gument:) whereas beside, that it is not necessary to kneele in the communion in this place, more then in that place, neither to keep the feasts of Christs Nativity, Passion, &c. upon these dayes more then upon other dayes, &c. the things themselves are not necessary in their kinde, and it is not necessary to keep any festuall day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the communion. There is also another respect which hindereth Temples, Veshells, &c. from comming within the compasse of this our argument: but neither doth it agree to the controverted Ceremonies. Temples, houses of Prayer, Veshells for the ministration of the Sacraments, and Bells, are not used by us in Divine worship, as things Sacred; or as holier then other houses, Veshells, and Bells; But we use them only for

naturall necessity, partly for that common decency, which hath no lesse place in the actions of Civill, then of sacred assemblies: yea in some cases, they may be applied to Civill uses, as g 1.109 hath been said. Whereas the controverted Ceremonies are respected & used, as sacred Rites, and as holier then any circumstance, which is alike common to civill and sacred actions, neither are they used at all, out of the case of worship. We see now a double respect, wherefore our argument inferreth not the necessity of abolishing and de∣stroying such Temples, Veshells and Bells, as have been abused to Idolatry, viz. because it can neither be said, that they are not things necessary, nor yet that they are things sacred.

Neverthelesse (to add this by the way) howbeit for those reasons, [Sect. 9] the retaining and using of Temples which have been polluted with Idolls, be not in it selfe unlawfull, yet the retaining of every such Temple is not ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient for fur∣ther extirpation of superstition, to demolish and destroy some such Temples, as have been horribly abused to Idolatry, as h 1.110 Calvine also and i 1.111 Zanchius doe plainly insinuate. Whereby I meane to defend (though not as in it selfe necessary, yet as expedient pro tunc, that which the Reformators of the Church of Scotland did in casting downe some of those Churches, which had been consecrate to Po∣pish Idolls, and of a long time polluted with Idolatrous worship. As on the one part the Reformators (not without great probability) feared, that so long as these Churches were not made even with the ground, the memory of that superstition, whereunto they had been employed and accustomed, should have been in them preserved, and with some sort of respect, recognized: so on the other parte they saw it expedient to demolish them, for strengthening the hands of such as adhered to the Reformation, for putting Papists out of all hope of the reentry of Popery, and for hedging up the way with thornes, that the Idolatrously minded, might not find their pathes. And since the pulling downe of those Churches wanted neither this pious intent, nor happy event, I must say, that the bitter invectives given forth against it, by some who carry a favourable eye to the pompous bravery of the Romish whoore, and have deformed to much of that which was by them reformed, are to be detested by all such, as wish the eternall exile of Idolatrous monuments, out of the Lords land: yet let these Momus-like spirits understand, that their censorius verdicts doe also reflexe upon those auncient Chri∣stians k 1.112 of whom we read, that with their owne hands they destroy∣ed the Temples of Idolls. And upon Chrysostome, who stirred up some Monkes, and sent them into Phaenicia, togither with workmen, and sustained them on the expences and charges of certaine godly women, that they might destroy the Temples of Idolls, as the l 1.113 Mag∣deburgians have marked out of Theodoret: Likewise upon them of

the Religion in France, of whom Thuanus recordeth, that templa con∣fractis ac disjectis statuis & altaribus, expilaverant. Lastly, upon m 1.114 for∣taine Divines, who teach, that not onely Idola, but Idolia also, and omnia Idololatriae instrumenta should be abolished. Moreover, what was it else, but reasons light which made Cambyses to feare, that the superstition of Egypt could not be well rooted out, if the Temples wherein it was seated were not taken away; so that offensus supersti∣tionibus Aegyptiorum, Apis caeterorumque Deorum aedes dirui jubet: ad Am∣monis quoque nobilissimum templum expugnandum, exercitum mittit, saith n 1.115 Iustinus. And is not the danger of retaining Idolatrous Churches, thus pointed at by P. Martyr. Curavit &c. Iehu (saith o 1.116 he) tooke care to have the Temples of Baall overthrowne, lest they should returne any more to their wonted use Wherefore it appears, that many doe not rightly, who having imbraced the Gospell of the Sonne of God, yet notwithstanding keep still the in∣struments of Popery. And they have farre better looked to piety who have taken care, to have Popish Images, statues, and ornaments, utterly cut off, for as we read in the Ecclesiasticall Histories, Constantine the great, after he had given his name to Christ, by an edict provided and tooke order, that the Temples of the Idolls might be closed and shut up. But because they did still remaine, Iu∣lian the Apostate did easily open and unlock them, and thereafter did prostitute the Idolls of old superstition to be worshipped in them: which Theodosius the best and commended Prince, animadverting, commanded to pull them downe, lest they should againe any more be restored. But because I suppose no so∣ber spirit will denie that sometimes and in some cases, it may be ex∣pedient to rase and pull downe some Temples polluted with Idolls, where other Temples may be had to serve sufficiently the assemblies of Christian congregations, (which is all I plead for:) Therefore I leave this purpose, and returne to D. Forbesse.

As touching matrimoniall benediction, it also is exeemed out of [Sect. 10] the compasse of our present argument, because through Divine in∣stitution, it hath a necessary use, as we have said. And though the Dr to make it appeare, that a Pastors performing of the same is a thing indifferent, alledgeth, that in Scripture there is nothing com∣manded thereanent. Yet plaine it is from Scripture it selfe, that Matrimoniall benediction ought to be given by a Pastor, for p 1.117 God hath commanded his Ministers, to blesse his people, which by just Analogy belongeth to the Ministers of the Gospell; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference, betwixt them and the Ministers of the Law, but we must conceive the commandement, to t•…•…e both alike to the blessing of Gods People. Vnto which Mini∣steriall duty of blessing, because no such limits can be set, as may exclude Matrimoniall blessing; therefore they are bound to the per∣formance of it also. And if further we consider q 1.118 that the duty of blessing was performed by the Minister of the Lord, even before the law of Moses, we are yet more confirmed, to thinke that the

blessing of the people, was not commanded in the Law as a thing peculiar and proper to the Leviticall Priesthood, but as a Mo∣rall & perpetuall duty, belonging to the Lords Ministers for ever. Wherefore notwithstanding of any abuse of Matrimoniall benedi∣ction among Papists, yet forasmuch as it hath a necessary use in the Church, and may not (as the controverted Ceremonies may) be wel spared; It is manifest, that it commeth not under the respect and account of those things, whereof our Argument speaketh.

Lastly, whereas the Dr. would beare his Reader in hand, that in the [Sect. 11] Iudgment of wise Reformators, even such things as have been brought in use by men only, without Gods institution, are not to be ever taken away, for the abuse which followeth upon them: let r 1.119 Reformators speake for themselves. Nos quoque priscos ritus, quibus indifferenter uti licet, quia verbo Dei consentanei sunt non reijcimus, modo ne superstitio & pravus abusus cos abolere cogat. This was the judgment of the wisest Reformators; that Rites which were both auncient, and lawfull, & agreeable to Gods Word, were notwithstanding of ne∣cessity to be abolished, because of their superstition and wicked abuse.

Secondly, our Opposites answer us, that beside the purging of things and Rites abused by Idolators, from their Idolatrous pollu∣tion, and the restoring of them to a right use, preaching and teaching against the superstition, and abuse which hath followed upon them, is another means to avoid that harme, which we feare to ensue upon the retaining of them. Ans. 1. This is upon as good ground pretended for the keeping of images in Churches. At inquiunt sta∣tim docemus has imagines non esse adorandas. Quasi vero saith s 1.120 Zanchius, non idem olim fecerit diligentius Deus, per Mosen & Prophetas, quam nos fa∣ciamus. Cur igitur etiam volebat tolli imagines omnes? quia non satis est ver∣bo docere non esse faciendum malum: sed tollenda etiam sunt malorum offen∣dicula, irritamenta, causae, occasiones. It is not enough with the Scribes and Pharises to teach out of Moses Chaire, what the people should doe, but all occasions, yea appearances of evill, are to be taken out of their sight. Efficacius enim & plus movent, quae in oculos quam quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat & Hezekias populum monere, ne Serpentem adora∣rent, sed maluit confringere & penitus è conspectu auferre, & rectius fecit faith t 1.121 one well to this purpose. 2. Experience hath taught, to how little purpose such admonitions doe serve. u 1.122 Calvine writing to the Lord Protector of England, of some Popish Ceremonies which did still remaine in that Church, after th•…•… Reformation of the same, de∣sireth, that they may be abolished, because of their former abuse, in time of Popery. Quid enim (saith h) illae Ceremoniae aliud fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia quae miseras animas ad malum perducerent, &c. But because he saw, that some might answer, that which our Formalists answer now to us, and say, it were enough to warne and teach men

that they abuse not these Ceremonies, and that the abolishing of the Ceremonies themselves were not necessary. Therefore imme∣diately he subjoyneth these words. Iam si decautione agitur, monebun∣tur homines scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant, &c. Quis tamen non videt ob∣durari ipsos nihilominus, nihil ut infaelici illa cautione obtineri possit. Where∣upon he concludes, that if such Ceremonies were suffered to re∣maine, this should be a meane to nourish a greater hardnesse and obfirmation in evill, and a vaile drawne, so that the sincere doctrine which is propounded, should not be admitted as it ought to be. x 1.123 In∣another Epistle to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, he complaineth, that externall superstitions were so corrected in the Church of En∣gland, ut residui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assidue pollulent. And what good then was done by their admonitions, whereby they did in some sort snedde the reviving twigs of old superstition, since for∣asmuch as they were not wholly eradicat, they did still shoot forth againe. If a man should digge a pitt by the way side, for some com∣modity of his owne, and then admonish the travellers to take heed to themselves, if they goe that way in the darknesse of the night, who would hold him excusable? How then shall they be excused, who digge a most dangerous pit, which is like to ruine many soules, and yet will have us to thinke that they are blamelesse, for that they warne men to beware of it?

Thirdly, we are told, that if these answers which our Opposites [Sect. 13] give, get no place, then shall we use nothing at all which hath been abused by Idolaters, and by consequence, neither Baptisme nor the Lords Supper. But let y 1.124 Zanchius answer for us, that these things are by themselves necessary, so that it is enough they be purged from the abuse. And z 1.125 elsewhere he resolveth, that things which are by themselves both good and necessary, may not for any abuse bee put away. Si vero res sint adiaphorae sua natura & per legem Dei, eoque tales quae citra jacturam salutis omitti possunt, etiamsi ad bonos usus initio fuerunt institutae: si tamen postea videamus illas in abusus pernitiosos esse con∣versas: pietas in Deum, & charitas erga proximum, postulant ut tollantur, &c. He addes for proofe of that which he saith, the example of Hezekiah in breaking downe that Brazen Serpent, which example doth in∣deed most pregnantly enforce the abolishing of all things or rites, notouriously abused to Idolatry, when they are not of any neces∣sary use, but it warranteth not the abolishing of any thing which hath a necessary use, because the Brazen Serpent is not contained in the number of those things quibus carere non possumus, saith a 1.126 Wol∣phius, answering to the same objection, which presently I have in hand. Now that the Ceremonies have not in themselves, nor by the Law of God any necessary use, and that without hazarde of Sal∣vation, they may be omitted, is aknowledged by Formalists them∣selves, wherefore I need not stay to prove it.

Beside these answeres which are common in our adversaries [Sect. 14] mouthes, some of them have other particular subterfugies, which now I am to search. We must consider saith r B. Lindsey, the Ceremony * 1.127 it self (dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry), (whether it be of hu∣mane, or Divine institution; If it be of humane institution, it may be removed, &c. but if the Ceremony be of Divine institution, such as kneeling is; for the same is commended by God unto us in his word; then we ought to consider whe∣ther the abuse of that Ceremony, hath proceeded from the nature of the action wherein it was used: for if it be so, it ought to be abolished, &c but if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent; then the opinion being removed, the religious Ceremony may be used with∣out any prophanation of Idolatry. For example, the abuse of kneeling in ele∣vation, &c. proceeded not only from the opinion of the agent, but from the nature of the action which is idolatrous and superstitious, &c. and therefore both the action, and gesture ought to be abolished. But the Sacrament of the Supper, being an action instituted by God, and kneeling beeing of the owne nature an holy and religious Ceremony, it can never receive contagion of ido∣latry from it, but only from the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action it selfe may be rightly used, and kneeling therein, &c. Ans. 1. since he graunteth that a Ceremony dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry; may (he answereth not the argument which there he propoundeth, except he say must) be abolished, if it be of hu∣mane Institution: he must graunt from this ground, if there were no more, that the Crosse, Surplice, kneeling at the communion, &c. having been so notoriously abused to Idolatry, must be abo∣lished, because they have no institution except from men only. But, 2. Why saith he, that kneeling is a Ceremony of Divine insti∣tution? Which he pronounceth not of kneeling, as it is actuated by some individuall case, or clothed with certaine perticular circum∣stances, (for he maketh this kneeling whereof he speaketh, to be found in two most different actions, the one Idolatrous, the other holy,) but of kneeling in the generall, per se, and praecise ab omnibus circumstantijs. Let him now tell, where kneeling thus considered is commended unto us in Gods word. He would possibly alledge that place. Psal 95, 6. O come, let us worship and bowe downe: let us kneel before the Lord our maker. Which is cited in the Canon of Perth about kneeling. But I answer; whether one expound that place with sCal∣vin, * 1.128 in this sence, ut scilicet ante arcam faederis populus se prosternat, quia sermo de legali cultu habetur: Whereupon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should follow, that it commendeth kneeling, only to the Iewes in that particular case: or whether it be taken more generally, to commend kneeling, (though not as necessary, yet as laudable and beseeming,) in the solemne acts of Gods immediat worship, such as that, praise and thanksgi∣ving, whereof the beginning of the Psalme speaketh, whether I say it be taken in this, or that sence, yet it commendeth not kneeling,

except in a certaine kinde of worship only. And as for kneeling in the generall nature of it, it is not of Divine institution, but in it self indifferent, even as sitting, standing, &c. all which gestures are then only made good, or evill, when in actu exercito they are actuated and individualized by particular circumstances. 3. If so be, the Cere∣mony be abused to Idolatry, it skills not how, for as I have shew∣ed before, the reasons and proofs which I have produced for the proposition of our present Argument, hold good against the retai∣ning of any thing which hath beene knowne to be abused to Ido∣latry, and only such things as have a necessary use are to be excep∣ted. 4. The nature of an action, wherein a Ceremony is used, can not be the cause of the abuse of that Ceremony, neither can the abuse of a Ceremony proceed from the nature of the action where∣in it is used, as one effect from the cause, for d 1.129 nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati, except only propria voluntas. 5. The abuse of kneeling in the Idolatrous action of elevation, proceedeth not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent, or ra∣ther from his will, (for principium actionum humanarum, is not opi∣nion, but will chosing that which opinion conceiteth to be chosen, or voluntas praeeunte luce intellectus.) It is the will of the agent only, which both maketh the action of elevation to be Idolatrous, and likewise kneeling in this action to receive the contagion of Idolatry. For the elevation of the bread materialiter, is not Idolatrous, (more then the lifting up of the bread among us by Elders or Deacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it above the heads of the communicants;) but formaliter only, as it is elevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So likewise kneeling to the bread, materialiter, is not Idolatry, (else a man were a Idolater, who should be against his will thrust downe, and hol∣den by violence kneeling on his knees, when the bread is eleva∣ted,) but formaliter, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men, to give to the bread elevated, a state in that worship, and out of that respect to kneel before it. 6. What can he gaine by this device, that the abuse of kneeling in the Lords Supper proceeded not from the nature of the action, but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon inferre, that kneeling in that action is to be retai∣ned, notwithstanding of any contagion of Idolatry, which it hath receaved? Nay then, let him say, that Hezekiah did not rightly, in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent, which was set up at Gods command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing it self, which had a most lawfull, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse opinion and will of them who abused it to Ido∣latry.

But the comparing of kneeling to the Brazen Serpent, is very [Sect. 15] unsavory to the B. And wherefore? The Brazen Serpent saith he, in

the time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the vertue of the cure, that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling continueth allwise in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our thankfulnesse to God. Ans. 1. Both kneeling, and all the rest of the Popish Ceremonies, may well be compared to the Brazen Serpent. And Divines doe commonly alledge this example, as most pregnant, to prove that things or rites polluted with I dolls, and abused to Idolatry, may not be retained, if they have no necessary use, and I have cited before the B. of Winchester, aknowledging that this argument holdeth good against all things which are taken up, not at Gods prescription, but at mens injunction. e 1.130 I. Rainoldes argumenteth, from Hezekiah his breaking downe of the Brazen Serpent, to the plucking downe of the signe of the Crosse. 2. Why saith he, that the Brasen Serpent in the time it was abolished had no use? the use of it ceased not with the cure, but it was still kept for a most pious and profitable use, even to be a monument of that mercy, which the Israelites received in the wildernesse, and it served for the better expressing of their thankefulnesse to God, which the B. here calleth a necessary use. 3. When he saith that kneeling continueth alwayes in a necessary use, we must understand him to speake of kneeling in the act of re∣ceiving the Communion, else he runnes at randone, for it is not kneeling in the generall, but kneeling in this particular case vvhich is compared to the Brazen Serpent. Now to say, that this gesture in this action is necessary, for our better expressing of our thankeful∣nesse to God, importeth that the Church of Scotland, and many fa∣mous Churches in Europe, for so many yeares, have omitted that vvhich vvas necessary, for the better expressing of their thankful∣nesse to God, and that they have not vvell enough expressed it. And moreover, if kneeling be necessary in the Lords Supper, for our better expressing of our thankfulnesse to God, then is it also neces∣sary at our owne common tables. Though we be bound to be more thankfull at the Lords Table, and that because vve receive a benefit of infinit more vvorth. Yet we are bound to be tam grati, as vvell thankfull, at our owne tables, albeit not tanta gratitudine. If then the same kind of thankfulnesse be required of us at our owne Tables, (for intentio & remissio graduum secundum magis & minus, non va∣riant speciem rei;) that vvhich is necessary for expressing of our thank∣fulnesse, at the Lords Table, must be necessary also for the expres∣sing of it, at our ovvne. When I see the B. sitting at his Table, I shall tell him, that he omitteth that gesture vvhich is necessary, for the expressing of his thankfulnesse to God. 4. Did not the Apostles receiving this Sacrament from Christ himself, vvell enough expresse their thankfulnesse to God? yet they kneeled not, but sate, as is evi∣dent, and shall be aftervvards prooven against them vvho contra∣dict every thing vvhich crosseth them. 5. God vvill never take a

Ceremony of mens devising, for a better expressing of our thankful∣nesse, then a gesture vvhich is commended to us by the example of his ovvne Sonne and his Apostles, together vvith the Celebration of this Sacrament in all points according to his institution. 6. Hovv shall vve knovv vvhere vve have the B. and his fellovves? it seemes they know not where they have themselvs: for sometimes they tell us, that it is indifferent to take the Communion sitting, or standing, or passing, or kneeling, yet here the B. tells, that kneeling is necessary. 7. I see the B. perceiveth, that no answere can take kneeling at the Communion, out of the compasse of the Brazen Serpent, except to say, it hath a necessary use, this is the dead lift, which yet helpeth not, as I have shewed. All things then which are not necessary, (where of kneeling is one,) being notoriously abused to Idolatry, fall under the Brazen Serpen•…•….

Paybody also will here talke with us, therefore we will talke with [Sect. 16] him too. He f 1.131 saith, that God did not absolutely condemne things abused to Idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was lawfull to spare Idolatrous appurtenances: 1. If there were a needfull use of them in Gods worship: 2 In case they were so alte∣red and disposed, as that they tended not to the honour of the Idoll, and his damnable worship, 3. If they were without certaine danger, of insnaring people into Idolatry. Ans. 1. Either he requires all these conditiones, in every Idolothyte and Idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinkes, that any one of them sufficeth: If he require all these, the last two are superfluous; for that which hath a needfull use in Gods worship, can neither tend to the honour of the Idoll, nor yet can have in it any danger of insnaring people into Idolatry: If he thinke any one of those conditions enough, then let us goe through them. The first I admit, but it will not helpe his cause, for while the world standeth, they shall never prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, & the other con∣troverted Ceremonies, have either a needfull, or a profitable, or a lawfull use in Gods worship. As for his secound condition, it is all one with that which g 1.132 I have already confuted: namely, that things abused to Idolatry may be kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right use. But he alledgeth for it a passage of Parker, of the Crosse, cap. 1. sect. 7. pag. 10. Where he sheweth out of Augustine, that an Idolothyte may not be kept for privat use, ex∣cept 1. Omnis honor Idoli, cum apertissima destructione subvertatur. 2 That not only his honour be despoysed, but also all shew thereof. How doth this place (now would I know,) make any thing for Pay∣body? Doe they keepe kneeling for privat use? Doe they destroy most openly all honour of the Idoll, to which kneeling was dedica∣ted? Hath their kneeling not so much as any shew of the breaden-Gods honour? who will say so? and if any will say it, who will be∣lieve

it? who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a publike, and not for a private use, and that the breaden Idoll receiveth very great shew of honour from it? He was scarce of warrants, when he had no better, then Parker could affoorde him. His third condition rests, and touching it I aske, what if those Idolatrous appurtenan∣ces, be not without apparent danger of insnaring people into Ido∣latry? are we not commanded to abstaine from all appearance of evill? Will he correct the Apostle, and teach us, that we need not care for apparent, but for certain dangers? What more apparent danger of insnaring people into Idolatry, then unnecessarie Cere∣monies, which have been dedicated to, and polluted with Idolls, and which being retained, doe both admonish us to remember upon old Idolatry, and move us to returne to the same, as I have h 1.133 before made evident?

Now as for the assumption of our present Argument, it can not [Sect. 17] be but evident, to any who will not harden their mindes against the light of the truth, that the Ceremonies in question, have been most notoriously abused to Idolatry and superstition, and withall, that they have no necessary use to make us retaine them. I say, they have been notoriously abused to Idolatry. 1. Because they have been dedicated and consecrated to the service of Idolls. 2. Because they have been deeply polluted, and commonly employed in Ido∣latrous worship. For both these reasons doth i 1.134 Zanchius condemne the Surplice, and such like Popish Ceremonies, left in England, be∣cause the Whoore of Rome hath abused, and doth yet abuse them, ad alliciendos homines ad scortandum. Sunt enim pompae istae omnes, & Cere∣moniae Papisticae, nihil aliud quam fuci Meretricij, ad hoc excogitati, ut ho∣mines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur. O golden sentence, and vvorthy to be engraven with a pen of Yron, and the point of a Dia∣mond! For most needfull it is to consider, that those Ceremonies, are the very meretricious bravery, and inveagling trinkets, where∣with the Romish Whoore doth faird and paint her self, whiles she propineth to the world the cup of her fornications. This makes k 1.135 Zanchius, to call those Ceremonies, the Reliques & Symboles of Popish Idolatry and Superstition. When Queene Mary set up Po∣pery in England, and restored all of it, which King Henry had over∣throwne, she considered, that Popery could not stand well favou∣redly, without the Ceremonies. Whereupon l 1.136 she ordained, ut dies omnes festi celebrentur, superioris aetatis Ceremoniae restituantur, pueri adul∣tiores ante baptisati, ab Episcopis confirmentur. So that not in remote re∣gions, but in his Majesties dominions, not in a time past memory, but about fourscore yeares agoe, not by peoples practise onely, but by the lawes and edicts of the Supreme Magistrate; the Ceremonies have beene abused, to the reinducing and upholding of Popery and Idolatry. Both farre and neere then, both long since and lately, it

is more then notorious, how grossely and grievously the Ceremo∣nies have been polluted with Idolatry and Superstition.

I can not choose but marvell much, how m 1.137 Paybody was not asha∣med [Sect. 18] to deny, that kneeling hath been abused by the Papists. Blush ô paper, which art blotted with such a notable lie! What will not desperate impudency dare to averre? But n 1.138 B. Lindsey seemeth al∣so to hold, that kneeling hath been abused by the Papists, onely in the elevation and circumgestation of the Hoste, but not in the participation; and that Honorius, did not command kneeling in the participation; but onely in the elevation and circumgestation. Ans. 1. Saltem mendacem oportet esse memorem. Saith not the o 1.139 B. him∣selfe elsewhere of the Papists, In the Sacrament they kneel to the signe, whereby he would prove a disconformity between their kneeling and ours: for vve kneel, saith he, by the Sacrament to the thing signi∣fied. Now if the Papists in the Sacrament kneel to the signe, then they have Idolatrously abused kneeling, even in the participation, for the B. dare not say, that in the elevation, or circumgestation, there is either Sacrament or signe. 2. Why doe our Divines con∣trovert with the Papists, de adoratione Eucharistiae, if Papists adore it not in the participation? for the Hoste carried about in a box, is not the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 3. In the participation, Papists think that the Bread is already transubstantiate into the body of Christ, by vertue of the vvords of consecration. Now if in the participation they kneel to that which they falsely conceit to be the body of Christ, (but is indeed corruptible bread) with an inten∣tion to give it Latria or Divine worship: then in the participation they abuse it to Idolatry. But that is true. ergo. 4. p 1.140 Durand sheweth, that though in the holy-dayes of Easter and Pentecost, and the fe∣stivities of the blessed Virgin, and in the Lords dayes, they kneel not in the Church, but onely stand (because of the joy of the fe∣stivity,) and at the most doe but bovv or incline their heads at prayer; yet in presentia corporis & sanguinis Christi, in presence of the bread and vvine, vvhich they thinke to be the body and blood of Christ, they cease not to kneel. And hovv vvill the B. make their participation free of this Idolatrous kneeling? The q 1.141 Rhemists shevv us, that when they are eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord, they adore the Sacrament, and humbling themselves they say to it, Domine non sum dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori. 5. As for that which Honorius the 3 decreed, r 1.142 D^r. White calleth it, the ado∣ration of the Sacrament. Which if it be so, then we must say, that he decreed adoration in the participation it self: because extra usum Sacramenti, the bread can not be called a Sacrament. Honorius com∣manded, that the Priest should frequently teach his people, to bow downe devoutly, when the hoste is elevated in the celebration of the Masse, and that they should doe the same, when it is caried to

the sicke. All this was ordained, in reference to the participation. Ad usum illa instituta sunt, saith s 1.143 Chemnitius, speaking of this decrec, quando scilicet panis consecratur, & quando ad infirmos defertur, ut exhi∣beatur & sumatur. So that that which was specially respected in the decree, was adoring in the participation.

Lastly, here we have to doe with Dr. Burgesse, who will have us to thinke, t 1.144 that adoration in receiving the Sacrament, hath not been Idolatrously intended to the Sacrament in the Church of Rome, neither by decree nor custome: not by decree; because albeit Hono∣rius appointed adoration to be used in the elevation and circumge∣station, yet not in the act of receiving. And albeit the Romane Rituall doe appoint, that Cleargie men comming to receive the Sa∣crament, doe it kneeling, yet u 1.145 this was done in veneration of the Altar, or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for adora∣tion of the Hoste put into their mouths. Not by custome▪ for •…•…he will not have it said, that kneeling in the time of receiving, was ever in the Church of Rome, any rite of or for adoration of the Sa∣crament, because albeit the people kneel in the act of receiving, yet I denie, saith he, that they ever intended adoration of the species, at that moment of time when they tooke it in their mouths, but th•…•… turned them∣selves to God &c. Ans. 1. As for the decree of Honorius, I have all ready answered with Chemnitius, that it had reference specially to the receiving. 2. When Cleargie men are appointed in the Ro∣mane Rituall, to receive the Sacrament at the Altar kneeling, this was not for veneration of the Altar, to which they did reverence at all times when they approched to it, but this was required particu∣larly in their receiving of the Sacrament, for adoration of it Nei∣ther is there mention made of the Altar, as conferring any thing to their kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, for the Sacrament was not used the more reverently, because it stood upon the Altar, but by the contrary, for the Sacraments sake reverence was done to the Altar, which was esteemed the Seat of the body of Christ. It appeareth therefore, that the Altar is mentioned, not as concerning the kneeling of the Cleargie men in their communicating, but sim∣ply as concerning their communicating, because none but they were wont to communicate at the Altar, according to that received x 1.146 Canon. Solis autem Ministris Altaris liceat ingredi ad Altare, & ibidem communicare. The one of the Doctors owne conjectures, is, that they kneeled for reverence of that which stood upon the Altar. But I would know what that was, which standing upon the Altar, made them to kneele in the participation; if it was not the Hoste it self? Now whereas he denies, as touching custome, that people did ever intend the adoration of the species: I answer. 1. How knowes he what people in the Romane Church did intend in their mindes? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that they did not in the partici∣pation

adore the Hoste, which was then put into their mouths? 3. Though this which he saith, were true, he gaineth nothing by it; for put the case they did not intend the adoration of the species, dare he say, that they intended not the adoration of that which was un∣der the species? I trow not. Now that which was under the species, though in their conceit it was Christs body, yet it was indeed Bread. So that in the very participation, they were worshipping the Bread. But, 4. What needeth any more? he maketh himself a lyar, and saith y 1.147 plainly, that after transubstantiation was embraced, and when all the substance of the visible Creature was held to be gone, they did intend the adoration of the visible things, as if there had been now no substance of any creature left therein. Whereby he de∣stroyeth all which he hath said, of their not intending the adoration of the species.

Last of all, for the other part of my assumption, that the Cere∣monies [Sect. 20] have no necessary use in Gods Worship, I need no other proof, then the common by word of Formalists, which saith, they are things indifferent. Yet the z 1.148 B. of Edimbrugh, & a Paybody, have turned their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bravery, and chosed rather to say any thing against us, then nothing. They spare not to answer, that kneeling hath a necessary use. They are most certainly speaking of kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion; for they, and their Opposites in those places, are disputing of no other kneeling, but this onely. Now we may easily perceive, they are in a evill taking, when they are driven to such an unadvised and desperate answer. For. 1. If kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper be necessary, why have themselves two, written so much for the indifferency of it? O desultorious levity, that knows not where to hold it self! 2. If it be necessary, what makes it to be so? what law? what example? what reason? 3. If it be necessary, not onely many reformed Chur∣ches, and many auncient too; but Christ himself and his Apostles, have in this Sacrament omitted something that was necessary. 4. If it be necessary, why doe many of their owne Disciples take the Communion, sitting in places where sitting is used? what need I to say more? In the first part of this dispute, I have proven that the Ceremonies are not necessary, in respect of the Churches ordinance, howbeit if it were answered in this place, that they are in this re∣spect necessary, it helpeth not, since the Argument proceedeth a∣gainst all things notoriously abused to Idolatry, which neither God nor nature hath made necessary. And for any necessity of the Ce∣remonies in themselves, either our Opposites must repudiat, what hath unadvisedly fallen from their pennes hereanent, or else forsake their beaten ground of indifferency, and say plainly, that the Ce∣remonies are urged by them, to be observed with an opinion of ne∣cessity, as worship of God, and as things in themselvs necessary.

Looke to your selvs, ô Formalists, for you stand here upon such slippery places, that you can not hold both your feet.

CHAP. III.

That the Ceremonies are unlawfull, because they sorte us with Idolaters, being the badges of present Idolatry among the Papists.

IT followeth according to the order, which I have propo∣sed, to shew next, that the Ceremonies are Idolatrous, par∣ticipativè. [Sect. 1] By communicating with Idolaters in their Rites and Ceremonies, we our selves become guilty of Idolatry. Even as a 1.149 Ahaz was an Idolater, eo ipso, that he tooke the Paterne of an Altar from Idolaters. Forasmuch then, as kneeling before the con∣secrated Bread, the Signe of the Crosse, Surplice, Festivall dayes, Bishopping, bowing to the Altar, administration of the Sacraments in privat places, &c. Are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Baby∣lon, the trinkets of the Whoore, the badges of Popery, the ensignes of Christs enemies, and the very Trophees of Antichrist: we can not conforme, communicat, and symbolize with the Idolatrous Pa∣pists, in the use of the same, without making our selves Idolaters by participation. Shall the Chast Spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the Whoore? Shall the Israell of God symbolize with her, who is spiritually called Sodome and Egypt? Shall the Lords redeemed people weare the ensignes of their captivity? Shall the Saincts be seen with the marke of the beast? Shall the Christian Church be like the Antichristian, the Holy like the Prophane, Reli∣gion like Superstition, the Temple of God like the Synagogue of Sathan? Our Opposites are so farre from being moved with these things, that both in Pulpits, and privat places, they use to plead for the Ceremonies by this very Argument, that we should not runne so farre away from Papists, but come as near them, as we can. But for proof of that which we say, namely, that it is not lawfull to sym∣bolize with Idolaters, (and by consequence with Papists) or to bee like them in their Rites or Ceremonies, we have more to alledge, then they can answer.

For, 1. We have Scripture for us. Lev. 18. 3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not doe: and after the doings of [Sect. 2] the land of Canaan, whether I bring you, shall ye not doe, neither shall ye walke in their ordinances. Deut. 12. 30. Take heed to thy self, that thou bee not snared by following them, &c. Saying, how did these Nations serve their Gods: even so will I doe likewise. Thou shalt not doe so unto the Lord thy

God, Exod. 23 24. Thou shalt not doe after their workes. Yea, they were straitly forbidden, to round the corners of their Heads, or to make any cuttings in the flesh for the dead, or to print any marke upon them, or to make baldenesse upon their Heads, or between their eyes, for asmuch as God had chosen them to be a holy and a pecu∣liar people, and it behoved them not to be framed nor fashioned like the Nations, Levit. 19. 27. 28. and 21, 5. and Deut. 14. 1. And whit else was meant by these lawes, which forbade them to suffer their cattel to gender with a diverse kinde, to sow their field with diverse seed, to weare a garment of diverse sorts, as of Woollen and Linnen, to plow with an oxe and an asse togither, Levit. 19. 19. Deut. 22. 9. 10. 11? This was to hold that people in simplicity and purity, ne hinc inde accersat ritus alienos saith Calvine upon these places. Besides, find we not, that they were sharply reprooved, when they made themselves like other Nations? 2 Chron. 13. 9. Ye have made you Priests after the manner of the Nations of other lands, 2 Kings. 17. 15. They followed vanity and became vaine, and went after the Heathen, that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not doe like them. The Gospell commendeth the same to us which the Law did to them. 2 Cor. 6. 14. 15. 16. 17. Be not ye unequally yoked with unbeleevers: for, what fellow ship hath righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse? and what communion hath light with darknesse? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? and what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idolls? &c. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the uncleane thing, Revel. 14. 9. If any man worship the beast, and his image, and receive his marke in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God. And the Apostle Iude v. 12. will have us to hate the very garment, spotted with the flesh, im∣porting, that as under the Law men were made uncleane, not onely by leprosie, but by the garments, veshels, and houses of leprous men: so doe we contract the contagion of Idolatry, by communi∣cating with the unclean things of Idolaters.

Before we goe further, we will see what our Opposites have said to those Scriptures which we alledge, b 1.150 Hooker saith, that the reason [Sect. 3] why God forbade his people Israëll the use of such rites & customes, as were among the Egyptians, and the Canaanites, was not because it behoved his people to be framed of set purpose, to an utter dissimili∣tude with those Nations, but his meaning was to barre Israell, from similitude with those Nations, in such things as were repugnant to his ordinances and lawes. Ans. 1. Let it be so: he hath said enough against himself. For we have the same reason to make us abstaine from all the Rites & Customes of Idolaters, that we may be barred from similitude with them in such things, as are flatly repugnant to Gods word, because dissimilitude in Ceremonies, is a barre to stop similitude in substance, and on the contrary, similitude in Ceremo∣nies

openeth a way to similitude in greater substance. 2. His answer is but a begging of that which is in question, for as much as we al∣ledge those lawes and prohibitions, to prove that all the Rites and Customes of those Nations, were repugnant to the Ordinances and Lawes of God, and that Israel was simply forbidden to use them. 3. Yet this was not a framing of Israel of set purpose to an utter dis∣similitude with those Nations, for Israel used food & raiment, sow∣ing and reaping, sitting, standing, lying, walking, talking, trading, lawes, governement, &c: notwithstanding that the Egyptians, and Canaanites used so. They were only forbidden to be like those Na∣tions in such unnecessary Rites and Customes, as had neither insti∣tution from God nor nature, but were the inventions and devices of men only. In things and rites of this kind alone, it is, that we plead for dissimilitude with the Idolatrous Papists. For the Ceremonies in controversy are not only proven to be under the compasse of such, but are besides made by the Papists, badges and markes of their religion, as we shall see afterwards.

To that place, 2 Cor. 6. c 1.151 Paybody answereth, that nothing else is [Sect. 4] there meant, then that we must beware & separate our selves from the comunion of their sinnes, and Idolatries. Ans. 1. When the Apostle there forbiddeth the Corinthians, to be unequally yoked with unbeleevers, or to have any communion or fellowship with Idola∣ters, and requireth them so to come out from among them, that they touch none of their uncleane things. Why may vve not understand his meaning to be, that not only they should not partake vvith Pa∣gans in their Idolatries, but that they should not marry vvith them, not frequent their feasts, nor goe to the theatre to behold their playes, nor goe to Law before their Iudges, nor use any of their Rites? for with such Idolaters we ought not to have any fellowship, as d 1.152 Zan∣chius resolves, but only in so farre as necessity compelleth, and Cha∣rity requireth. 2. All the Rites and Customes of Idolaters, which have neither institution from God nor nature, are to be reckoned among those sinnes, wherein we may not partake with them, for they are the improfitable workes of darknesse, all which e 1.153 Calvin judgeth to be in that place generally forbidden, before the Apo∣stle descend particularly, to forbid partaking with them in their Idolatry. As for the prohibition of divers mixtures, f 1.154 Paybody saith, the Iewes were taught thereby to make no mixture of true and false worship. Ans 1. According to his Tenets, it followeth upon this an∣swere, that no mixture is to be made betwixt holy, and Idolatrous Ceremonies, for he calleth kneeling, a bodily worship, and a worship gesture more then once or twice. And we have seene before, how Dr. Burgesse calleth the Ceremonies, worship of God. 2. If mixture of true and false worship be not lawfull, then for as much as the Cere∣monies of Gods ordinance, namely, the Sacraments of the New Tes∣tament,

are true worship. And the Ceremonies of Popery, namely Crosse, Kneeling, Holy-dayes, &c. are false worship, therefore there ought to be no mixture of them togither. 3. If the Iewes were taught to make no mixture of true and false worship, then by the self same instruction, if there had beene no more, they were taught also to shunne all such occasions as might any way produce such a mixture, and by consequence all symbolizing with Idolaters in their Rites and Ceremonies.

As touching these Lawes which forbade the Israelites to make round the corners of their heads, or to marre the corners of their [Sect. 5] beards, or to make any cuttings in their flesh, or to make any balde∣nesse betweene! their eyes, g 1.155 Hooker answereth, that the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the tearing of the tufts of the beard, howbeit they were in themselves indifferent, yet they are not indifferent being used as signes of immoderat and hopelesse lamen∣tation for the dead; in which sence it is, that the law forbiddeth them. To the same purpose saith h 1.156 Paybody, that the Lord did not forbid his people, to marre and abuse their heads and beards for the dead, because the Heathen did so, but because the practise doth not agree to the Faith and Hope of a Christian, if the Heathen had never used it. Ans. 1. How much surer and sounder is i 1.157 Calvines Iudgment, non aliud fuisse Dei concilium, quam ut interposito obstaculo populum suum à pro∣phanis Gentibus dirimeret? for albeit the cutting of the haire be a thing in it self indifferent, yet because the Gentiles did use it superstitious∣ly, therefore saith Calvin, albeit it was per se medium, Deus tamen no∣luit populo suo liberum esse, ut tanquam pueri diseerent ex parvis rudimentis, se non aliter Deo fore gratos, nisi exteris & praeputiatis essent prorsus dissi∣miles, ac longissime abessent ab eorum exemplis, praesertim vero ritus omnes fugerent, quibus testata fuerit religio. So that from this law, it doth most manifestly appeare, that we may not be like Idolaters, no not in things which are in themselves indifferent, when we know that they doe use them superstitiously. 2. What warrant is there for this glosse, that the Law forbiddeth the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the marring of the corners of the beard, to be used as signes of immoderat and hopelesse lamentation for the dead, and that in no other sence, they are forbidden? Albeit the cutting of the flesh may be expounded, to proceed from immoderat grief, and to be a signe of hopelesse Lamentation, yet this can not be said of roun∣ding the haire, marring the beard, and making of baldenesse: which might have beene used in moderat and hopefull lamentation, as wel as our putting on of mourning apparrel for the dead. The law saith nothing of the immoderat use of these things, but simply forbid∣deth to round the head, or marre the beard for the dead; and that because this was one of the Rites, which the Idolatrous and supersti∣tious Gentiles did use, concerning whom the Lord commmanded

his people, that they should not doe like them, because he had cho∣sen them to be a holy and peculiar people, above all people upon the earth. So that the thing which was fordidden, if the Gentiles had not used it, should have beene otherwise lawfull enough to Gods people, as we have seene out of Calvines commentary.

Secondly, we have reason for that which we say, for by parta∣king [Sect. 6] with Idolaters in their Rites and Ceremonies, we are made to partake with them in their Religion too. For, Ceremoniae omnes sunt quaedam protestationes fidei, saith k 1.158 Aquinas. Therefore Communio rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in religione, saith l 1.159 Balduine. They who did eate of the Iewish sacrifices were partakers of the Altar, 1 Cor: 10. 18. that is, saith m 1.160 Pareus, socios Iudaicae religionis & cultus se profi∣tebantur. For the Iewes by their sacrifices mutuam in una eademque re∣ligione copulationem sanciunt, saith n 1.161 Beza. Whereupon o 1.162 Dr. Fulk no∣teth, that the Apostle in that place, doth compare our Sacraments with the Altars, Hostes. Sacrifices or immolations of the Iewes, and Gentiles, in that point which is common to all Ceremonies, to declare them that use them, to be pertakers of that religion, whereof they be Ceremonies. If then p 1.163 Isidore thought it unlawfull for Christians to take plea∣sure in the fables of Heathen Poets, because non solum thura offerendo Daemonibus immolatur, sed etiam corum dicta libentius capiendo; much more have we reason to think, that by taking part in the Ceremonies of Idolaters, we doe but offer to Divells, and joyne our selvs to the service of Idolls.

Thirdly, as by Scripture, and reason, so by Antiquity we strengthen our Argument. Of old, Christians did so shunne to be like the Pa∣gans, [Sect. 7] that in the dayes of Tertullian, it was thought that Christians might not weare a Garland because thereby they had beene made conforme to the Pagans. Hence q 1.164 Tertullian justifieth the Souldier, who refused to weare a Garland as the Pagans did. r 1.165 Dr. Mortone himself alledgeth another cafe out of Tertullian, which maketh to this purpose, namely, that Christian Proselytes did distinguish them∣selvs from Roman Pagans, by casting away their gownes and wea∣ring of cloakes. But these things we are not to urge, because we plead not for dissimilitude with the Papists, in civill fashions, but in Sacred and Religious Ceremonies. For this point then at which we hold us, we alledge s 1.166 that which is marked in the third Centurie out of Origen, namely, that it was held unlawfull for Christians, to observe the feasts and Solemnities, either of the Iewes, or of the Gentiles. Nay we find t 1.167 a whole Councell determining thus Non opportet à Iudaeis vel Haereticis, feriatica quae mittuntur accipere, nec cum eis dies agere feriatos. The Councell of Nice also condemned those who kept Easter upon the fourteenth day of the moneth. That which made them pronounce so, (as is cleare from u 1.168 Constantines Epistle to the Churches,) was, because they held it unbeseeming for Christians

to have any thing common with the Iewes in their rites and obser∣vances. x 1.169 Augustin condemneth fasting upon the Sabbath day, as scandalous, because the Manichees used so, and fasting upon that day had beene a conformity with them. And wherefore did Gre∣gory advise Leander, to abolish the Ceremony of trin-immersion? his y 1.170 words ar plaine. Quia nunc huc usque ab Haereticis infans in Baptis∣mate tertio mergebatur, fiendum apud vos esse non censeo. Why doth z 1.171 Epiphanius in the end of his bookes contra haereses, rehearse all the Ceremonies of the Church, as markes whereby the Church is dis∣cerned from all other sects? If the Church did symbolize in Cere∣monies with other sects, he could not have done so. And Moreover find we not in the a 1.172 Canons of the auncient Councels, that Chri∣stians were forbidden to decke their houses with greene boughes and bay leaves, to observe the Calends of Ianuary, to keep the first day of every moneth, &c. Because the Pagans used so to doe? Last of all, read we not, in b 1.173 the fourth century of the Ec∣clesiasticall history, that the frame of Christians in that age, was such, that nec cum haereticis commune quicquam habere voluerunt?

One would think that nothing could be answered to any of these things, by such as pretend no lesse, then that they have devoted [Sect. 8] themselves to bend all their wishes & labours for procuring the imi∣tation of venerable antiquity. Yet c 1.174 Hooker can coyne a conjecture, to frustrate all which we alleadge.

In things (saith he) of their owne nature indifferent, if either Councells, or particular men, have at any time with sound Iudgment misliked conformity betweene the Church of God and Infidells, the cause thereof hath not beene affe∣ctation, of dissimilitude, but some special accident which the Church not beeing alwayes subject unto, hath not still cause to doe the like. For example (saith he) in the dangerous dayes of triall, wherein there was no way for the trueth of Iesus Christ to triumph over infidelity, but through the constancy of his Saincts, whom yet a naturall desire to save themselves from the flame, might peradvēture cause to joyne with the Pagans in externall Customes, too farre using the same as a cloak to conceale themselves in, and a mist to darken the eyes of Infidels withall; for remedy hereof, it might be, those lawes were provided.

Ans. 1. This answer is altogither doubtfull, and conjectu∣rall, made up of If, and peradventure, and it might be. Neither is any thing found which can make such a conjecture probable. 2. The true reason, why Christians were forbidden to use the Rites and Cu∣stomes of Pagans, was neither a bare affectation of dissimilitude, nor yet any speciall accident which the Church is not alwayes sub∣ject unto; but because it was held unlawfull, to symbolize with I∣dolaters in the use of such rites, as they placed any religion in. For in the Fathers & Councells, which we have cited to this purpose, there is no other reason mentioned, why it behoved Christians to ab∣staine

from those forbidden customes, but only because the Pagans and Infidels used so. 3. And what if Hookers divination shall have place? doth it not agree to us, so as it should make us unlike the Pa∣pists? yes sure, and more properly. For put the case, that those aun∣cient Christians had not avoided conformity with Pagans, in those Rites and Customes, which we reade to have beene forbidden them, yet for all that, there had beene remaining betwixt them and the Pa∣gans, by a great deale more difference, then will remaine betwixt us and the Papists, if we avoide not conformity with them in the con∣troverted Ceremonies: for the Pagans had not the Word, Sacraments, &c. which the Papists doe retaine, so that we may farre more easily use the Ceremonies, as a mist to darken the eyes of the Papists, then they could have used those forbidden Rites, as a mist to darken the eyes of Pagans. Much more then, Protestants should not be permit∣ted to cōforme themselves unto Papists, in Rites & Ceremonies, lest in the dangerous dayes of triall (which some Reformed Churches in Europe doe presently feele, and which seeme to be faster approaching to our selves, then the most part are aware of,) they joyne themselves to Papists in these externall things, too farre using the same as a cloake to conceale themselves in, &c. 4. We find that the reason, why the fourth Councell of Toledo, d 1.175 forbade the Ceremony of thrise dip∣ping in water to be used in baptisme, was, lest Christians should seeme to assent to Heretikes who divide the Trinity. And the reason why the same Councell e 1.176 forbade Cleargie men to conforme them∣selves unto the custome of Heretikes, in the sheaving of the haire of their head, is mentioned to have beene, the removing of conformity with the Custome of Heretikes, from the Churches of Spaine, as beeing a great dishonour unto the same. And we have heard be∣fore, that Augustine condemneth conformity with the Manichees, in fasting upon the Lords day, as scandalous. And whereas afterwards the Councell of Caesaraugusta forbade fasting upon the Lords day, f 1.177 a grave Writer layeth out the reason of this prohibition, thus, It would appeare that this Councell had a desire to abolish the Rites and Customes of the Manichean Heretikes, who were accustomed to fast upon the Lords day. Last∣ly, we have seene from Constantines Epistle to the Churches, that dissimilitude with the Iewes was one (though not the only one) rea∣son, why it was not thought beseeming to keep Easter upon the fourteenth day of the moneth. Who then can thinke that any such speciall accident, as Hooker imagineth, was the reason why the Rites and Customes of Pagans were forbidden to Christians? Were not the Customes of the Pagans to be held unbeseeming for Christians, as well as the Customes of the Iewes? Nay, if Conformity with He∣retikes (whom g 1.178 Hooker aknowledgeth to be a part of the visible Church,) in their Customes and Ceremonies, was condemned as a scandall, a dishonour to the Church, and an assenting unto their He∣resies;

might he not have much more thought, that conformity with the Customes of Pagans was forbidden as a greater scandall, and dishonour to the Church, and as an assenting to the Paganisme and Idolatry of those that were without?

But to proceed. In the fourth place, the Canon Law it self spea∣keth [Sect. 9] for the Argument, which we have in hand. h 1.179 Non licet iniquas observationes agere Calendarum, & otiis vacare Gentilibus, neque lauro, aut viriditate arborum, cingere domos: omnis enim haec observatio Paganismi est. And againe, i 1.180 Anathema sit qui ritum Paganorum & Calendarum observat. And after, k 1.181 dies Aegyptiaci & Ianuarij Calendae non sunt observandae.

Fiftly, our assertion will finde place in the Schoole too, which holdeth, l 1.182 that Iewes were forbidden to we are a garment of diverse sorts, as of Linnen and Woollen togither, and that their women were forbidden to weare mens clothes, or their men Womens clothes; because the Gentiles used so, in the worshipping of their Gods. In like māner, m 1.183 that the Priests were forbidden to round their heads, or marre their beards, or make incision in their flesh, because n 1.184 the Idolatrous Priests did so. And o 1.185 that the prohibition which for∣bade the commixtion of beasts of diverse kynds among the Iewes, hath a figurative sence, in that we are forbidden to make People of one kynd of Religion, to have any conjunction with those of ano∣ther kynd.

Sixtly, p 1.186 Papists themselves teach, that it is generally forbidden to communicat with Infidells and Heretikes, but especially in any act of Religion. Yea q 1.187 they think, that Christian men are bound to ab∣horre the very phrases and words of Heretikes, which they use. Yea r 1.188 they condemn the very Heathenish names of the dayes of the wee∣ke, imposed after the names of the planets, Sonday, Moneday, &c. s 1.189 They hold it altogither a great and damnable sinne, to deale with Heretikes in matter of Religion, or any way to communicate with them in spirituall things. t 1.190 Bellarmine is plaine, who will have Ca∣tholikes to be discerned from Heretikes, and other sects of all sorts, even by Ceremonies, because as Heretikes have hated the Ceremo∣nies of the Church, so the Church hath ever abstained from the ob∣servances of Heretikes.

Seaventhly, our owne Writers doe sufficiently confirme us in [Sect. 10] this Argument. The bringing of Heathenish, or Iewish Rites in∣to the Church, is altogither condemned by u 1.191 them, yea x 1.192 though the Customes & Rites of the Heathen, be received into the Church for gaining them, and drawing them to the true Religion, yet is it condemned, as proceeding ex 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seu prava Ethnicorum imita∣tione. y 1.193 I. Rainoldes rejecteth the Popish Ceremonies, partly because they ar Iewish, and partly because they are Heathnish. The same Ar∣gument,

z 1.194 Th. Biza useth against them. In the secound command, as a 1.195 Zanchius expoundeth it, we are forbidden to borrow any thing ex ritibus idololatrarum Gentium. Fidelibus saith b 1.196 Calvin fas non est ullo symbolo ostendere, sibi cum superstitiosis esse consensum. To conclude then, since not onely Idolatry is forbidden, but also as c Pareus noteth, every sort of communicating with the occasions, appearances, or instruments of the same, and since as d 1.197 our Divines have declared, the Papists are in many respects grosse Idolaters, let us choose to have the commendation, which e 1.198 was given to the auncient Bri∣tons, * 1.199 for being enemies to the Romane Customes, rather then as f 1.200 Pope Pius the 5. was forced to say of Rome, that it did more Gen∣tilizare, quam Christianizare; so they who would gladly wish, they could give a better commendation to our Church, be forced to say, that it doth not onely more Anglizare, quam Scotizare, but also more Ro∣manizare, quam Evangelizare.

But our Argument is made by a great deal more strong, if yet fur∣ther [Sect. 11] we consider, that by the controverted Ceremonies, we are not onely made like the Idolatrous Papists, in such Rites of mans devising as they place some Religion in, but we are made likewise to take upon us those signes and symbols, which Papists account to be speciall badges of Popery, and which also in the account of many of our owne reverend Divines, are to be so thought of. In the oath ordained by Pius the 4. to be taken of Bishops at their crea∣tion, as g 1.201 Onuphrius writteth, they are appointed to sweare, Aposto∣licas & Ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem Ecclesiae observationes & constitutiones firmissime admitto & amplector. And after. Receptos quo∣que & approbatos Ecclesiae Catholicae ritus, in supra dictorum Sacramentorum solemni administratione, recipio & admitto. We see Bishops are not crea∣ted by this ordinance, except they not only believe with the Church of Rome, but also receive her Ceremonies, by which as by the badges of her Faith & Religion, cognizance may be had, that they are in∣deed her Children. And further, h Papists give it forth plainely, that as he Church hath ever abstained from the observances of Heretikes, * 1.202 so now also Ca holikes (they meane Romanists) are very we I distin∣guished from Heretikes (hey mean those of the Reformed Religion) by the Signe of the Crosse, abstinence from flesh on Fryday, &c. And how doe our owne Divines understand the Marke of the Beast; spoken of Revel. 13. 16. 17? i 1.203 Iunius comprehendeth confirmation under this marke: k 1.204 Cartwright also referreth the Signe of the Crosse to the marke of the Beast. l Pareus approveth the Bishop of Saris∣bury his exposition, and placeth the common marke of the Beast in the observation of Antichrist his festivall dayes, and the rest of his * 1.205 Ceremonies which are not commanded by God. It seemes this much hath beene plaine to Ioseph Hall, so that he could not deny it. For

whereas the Brownists alledge, that not only after their separation, but before they separated also, they were, and are verily persuaded, that the Ceremonies are but the badges and liveries of that man of sinne, whereof the Pope is the head, and the Prelates the shoulders: he in this m 1.206 Apology against them, saith nothing to this point.

As for any other of our Opposites; who have made such answers [Sect. 12] as they could, to the Argument in hand; I hope the strength and force of the same hath been demōstrated to be such, that their poore shifts are too weake for gainstanding it. Some of them (as I touched before) are not ashamed to professe, that we should come as neare to the Papists as we can, and therefore should conforme our selves to them in their Ceremonies, (onely purging away the superstition) because if we doe otherwise, we exasperate the Papists, and alienate them the more from our Religion and Reformation. Ans. 1. n 1.207 Ioh. Bastwick, propounding the same objection, Si quis obijciat nos ipsos per∣tinaci Ceremoniarum Papalium contemptu, Papistis offendiculum posuisse, quo minus se nostris Ecclesiis associent, he answereth out of the o 1.208 Apostle, that we are to please every one his neighbour onely in good things to edification, & that we may not wink at absurd or wicked things, nor at any thing in Gods worship, which is not found in Scripture. 2. p 1.209 I have shewed, that Papists are but more and more hardened in evill, by this our conformity with them in Ceremonies. 3. q 1.210 I have shewed also the superstition of the Ceremonies, even as they are re∣tained by us, and that it is as impossible to purge the Ceremonies from superstition, as to purge superstition from it selfe.

There are others, who goe about to sow a cloake of figge leaves, [Sect. 13] to hide their conformity with Papists, and to find out some diffe∣rence, betwixt the English Ceremonies and those of the Papists. So say some, that by the signe of the Crosse they are not ranked with Papists, because they use not the materiall Crosse, which is the Po∣pish one, but the aeriall onely. But it is known well enough, that Papists doe Idolatrize the very aeriall Crosse, for r 1.211 Bellarmine holds, venerabile esse signum Crucis quod effingitur in fronte, aere, &c. And though they did not make an Idoll of it, yet forasmuch as Papists put it to a Religious use, and make it one of the markes of Romane-Catho∣likes (as we have seen before) we may not be conformed to them in the use of the same. The Fathers of such a difference between the Popish Crosse, and the English, have not succeeded in this their way, yet their posterity approve their sayings, and follow their footsteps. s 1.212 B. Lindsey by name will trade in the same way, and will have us to think, that kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, and keeping of Holy-dayes, doe not sort us with Papists, for that, as tou∣ching the former, there is a disconformity in the object, because they kneel to the Signe, we to the thing signified. And as for the lat∣ter, the difference is in the employing of the time, and in the exer∣cise

and worship for which the cessation is commanded. What is his Verdict then, wherewith he sends us away? Verily, that peo∣ple should be taught, that the disconformity between the Papists and us, is not so much in any externall use of Ceremonies, as in the substance of the service, and object, whereunto they are applied. But, good man, he seeks a knot in the Bulrush. For, 1. There is no such difference betwixt our Ceremonies and those of the Papists, in respect of the object and worship, whereunto the same is applied, as he pretendeth. For as touching the exercise and worship where∣unto holy dayes are applied, t 1.213 Papists tell us, that they keep Pasche and Pentecost yearly, for memory of Christs Resurrection, and the sending downe of the Holy Ghost; And I pray, to what other imployment doe Formalists professe, that they apply these Feasts, but to the commemoration of the same benefits? And as touching kneeling in the Sacrament, it shall be proven in the next Chapter, that they doe kneel to the Signe, even as the Papists doe. In the meane while it may be questioned, whether the B. meant some such matter, even here where professedly he maketh a difference betwixt the Papists their kneeling, and ours. His words wherein I apprehend this much, are these: The Papists in prayer kneel to an Idoll, and in the Sa∣crament they kneel to the Signe, we kneel in our prayer to God, and by the Sa∣crament to the thing signified. The Analogy of the Antithesis required him to say, that we kneel in the Sacrament to the thing signified: but changing his Phrase, he saith, that we kneel by the Sacrament to the thing signified. Now if we kneel by the Sacrament to Christ, then we adore the Sacrament as objectum materialè, and Christ as objectum for∣malè. Iust so the Papists adore their Images, because per imaginem they adore prototypon. 2. What if we should yeeld to the B. that Knee∣ling and Holy-dayes, are with us applied to another Service, and used with another meaning, then they are with the Papists? doth that excuse our conformity with Papists in the externall use of these Ceremonies? If so u 1.214 I. Hart did rigtly Argument, out of Pope In∣nocentius, that the Church doth not judaize by the Sacrament of un∣ction or anointing, because it doth figure and worke another thing in the New Testament, then it did in the Olde. Rainoldes answereth, that though it were so, yet is the Ceremony Iewish: & marke his rea∣son, (which carrieth a fit proportion to our present purpose,) I trust saith he, you will not maintaine, but it were Iudaisme for your Church to sa∣crifice a Lambe in burnt offering, though you did it to signify, not Christ, that was to come, as the Iewes did, but that Christ is come, &c Sainct Peter did constraine the Gentiles to Iudaize, when they were induced by his example and auctoxity, to follow the Iewish Rite in choice of meats; yet neither he nor they allowed it in that meaning, which it was given to the Iewes in. For it was given them to betoken that holinesse, and traine them up unto it, which Christ by his grace should bring to the faithfull. And Peter knew that Christ had do•…•…

this in trueth, and taken away that Figure, yea the whole yoke of the Law of Moses: which point he taught the Gentiles also Wherefore although your Church doe keepe the Iewish Rites, with another meaning then God ordained them for the Iewes, &c. yet this of Peter sheweth, that the thing is Iewish, and you to Iudaize who keepe them. By the very same reasons prove we, that For∣malists doe Romanize, by keeping the Popish Ceremonies, though with another meaning, and to another use then the Romanists doe. The very externall use therefore, of any sacred Ceremony of hu∣mane Institution, is not to be suffered in the matter of worship, when in respect of this externall use, we are sorted with Idolaters. 3. If conformity with Idolaters in the externall use of their Ceremonies be lawfull, if so be there be a difference in the substance of the Wor∣ship and Object whereunto they are applied, then why were Chri∣stians forbidden of old, (as vve have heard before) to keep the Ca∣lends of Ianuary, and the first day of every moneth, forasmuch as the Pagans used so? Why was trin-immersion in Baptisme, and fasting upon the Lords day forbidden, for that the Heretikes did so? Why did the Nicen Fathers inhibite the keeping of Easter upon the fourteenth day of the month, x 1.215 so much the rather, because the Iewes kept it on that day? The B. must say, there was no need of shunning conformity with Pagans, Iewes, Heretikes, in the exter∣nall use of their Rites and Customes, and that a difference ought to have been made, onely in the Object and use, whereunto the same was applied. Nay, why did God forbid Israell, to cut their haire as the Gentiles did? had it not been enough, not to apply this Rite to a superstitious use, as y 1.216 Aquinas sheweth the Gentiles did? why was the very externall use of it forbidden?

There is yet another peece brought against us, but we will abide the proofe of it, as of the rest. Nobis saith z 1.217 Saravia, satis est, modestis & piis Christianis satisfacere, qui ita recesserunt à superstitionibus & Idololatriae Ro∣manae Ecclesiae, ut probatos ab Orthodoxis Patribus mores, non reijciant. So have some thought to escape by this posterne, that they use the Ce∣remonies, not for Conformity with Papists, but for Conformity with the auncient Fathers. Ans. 1. When a 1.218 Rainoldes speaketh of the abolishing of Popish Ceremonies, he answereth this subtilty. But if you say therefore, that we be against the auncient Fathers in Religion, be∣cause we pluck down that, which they did set up. Take heed lest your speech doe touch the Holy Ghost, who saith that b 1.219 Hezekias (in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent) did keep Gods commandements which he commanded Mo∣ses. And yet withall saith, c 1.220 that he brake in peeces the Serpēt of Brasse which Moses had made. 2. There are some of the Ceremonies which the Fathers used not, as the Surplice (which we have seen d 1.221 before) and kneeling in the act of receiving the Eucharist, (as we shall see e 1.222 afterwards) 3. Yeelding by concession, not by confession, that all the Ceremonies about which there is controversy now among

us, were of old used by the Fathers, yet that which these Forma∣lists say, is, (as f 1.223 Parker sheweth) even as if a Servant should be cove∣red before his Master, not as covering is a late signe of praeeminence, but as it was of old a signe of subjection, or as if one should preach, that the Prelates are Tyranni to their Brethren, Fures to the Church, Sophistae to the Trueth, & excuse himselfe thus. I use these words, as of old they signified, a Ruler, a Servant, a Student of Wisedome. All men know, that words and actions must be interpreted, used and received, according to their moderne use, and not as they have been of olde.

CHAP. IV.

That the Ceremonies are Idols among Formalists themselves; and that kneeling in the Lords Supper before the Bread and Wine in the act of receiving them, is formally Idolatry.

MY fourth Argument against the lawfulnesse of the Cere∣monies, followeth: by which I am to evince that they are [Sect. 1] not onely Idolatrous reductivè, because monuments of by∣past, and participativè, because badges of present Idolatry, but that likewise they make Formalists themselves, to be formally, and in respect of their owne using of them, Idolaters, consideration not had of the by-past, or present abusing of them by others. This I will make good: first, of all the Ceremonies in generall; then, of kneeling in particular. And I wish our Opposites here, looke to themselves, for this Argument proveth to them the Box of Pandora, and containeth that which undoeth them, though this much be not seen, before the opening.

First then, the Ceremonies are Idols to Formalists. It had been good to have remembred that which g 1.224 Ainsworth noteth, that Ido∣lothyts and monuments of Idolatry should be destroyed, lest them∣selves at length become Idols. The Idolothyous Ceremonies, we se now, are become Idols to those who have retained them. The ground which the Bishop of Winchester taketh for his Sermon of the worshipping of imaginations, to wit, that the Deuill seeing that Idola∣trous Images would downe, he bent his whole device, in place of them to erect and set up diverse imaginations, to be adored and magnified in stead of the former; is, in some things abused and mis∣applied by him. But well may I apply it to the point in hand. For that the Ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, ado∣red, and Idolized, in stead of the Idolatrous Images which were put downe, thus we instruct and qualify.

First, they are so erected and extolled, that they are more look∣ed [Sect. 2] to, then the weighty matters of the Law of God; all good Dis∣cipline must be neglected, before they be not holden up. A cove∣tous man is a Idolater, for this respect among others, as h 1.225 Davenant noteth, because he neglects the service which he oweth to God, and is wholly taken up with the gathering of mony. And I suppose e∣very one will think, that those i 1.226 Traditions, which the Pharisees kept and held, with the laying aside of the commandements of God, might vvel be called Idols. Shall vve not then call the Ceremonies Idols, vvhich are observed, vvith the neglecting of Gods com∣mandements, & which are advanced above many substantiall points of Religion? Idolatry, Blasphemy, Prophanation of the Sabbath, Perjury, Adultery, &c. are over looked and not corrected nor re∣prooved, nay, not so much as discountenanced, in these who fa∣vour and follow the Ceremonies; and if in the fellowes, and favou∣rites, much more in the Fathers. What if order be taken with some of those abominations, in certain abject poore bodies? Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas. What will not a Episcopall confor∣mitane passe away with, if there be no more had against him, then the breaking of Gods Commandements, by open and grosse wicked∣nesse? But, O what narrow notice is taken of Non-conformity! How mercilesly is it menaced? How cruelly corrected? Well! the Cere∣monies are more made of, then the Substance. And this is so evi∣dent, that k 1.227 D. Burgesse him self lamenteth the pressure of confor∣mity, and denieth not that which is objected to him, namely, that more grievous penalties are inflicted upon the refusall of the Cere∣monies, then upon Adultery and Drunkennesse.

Secoundly, did not l 1.228 Eli make Idols of his Sonnes, when he spa∣red them and bare with them, though with the prejudice of Gods worship? And may not we call the Ceremonies, Idols, which are not onely spared and borne with, to the prejudice of Gods worship, but are likewise so erected, that the most faithfull Labourers in Gods House for their sake are depressed, the Teachers and Maintainers of Gods true worship, cast out? For their sake many Learned & Godly men are envied, contemned, hated, and nothing set by, because they passe under the name (I should say the Nickname) of Puritans. For their sake, many deare Christians have been imprisoned, fyned, ba∣nished, &c. For their sake, many qualified and well gifted men, are holden out of the Ministery, and a doore of enterance denied to those, to whom God hath graunted a doore of utterance. For their sake, those whose faithfull and painfull Labours in the Lords Har∣vest, have greatly benefited the Church, have been thrust from their charges, so that they could not fulfill the Ministery, which they have received of the Lord, to testify of the Gospell of the grace of God. The best Builders, the wise Masterbuilders, have been by them over∣turned.

This is objected to m Ioseph Hall, by the Brownists: and what can he say to it? forsooth, that not so much the Ceremonies are stood upon, as obedience. If God please to try Adam but with an apple, it is enough. What doe we quarrel at the value of the fruit, when we have a probition? She∣mei is slaine: what? merely for going out of the Citie? the act was little, the bond was great: What is commanded matters, not so much, as by whom? Ans. 1. If obedience be the chiefe thing stood upon, why are not other Lawes and Statutes urged as strictly, as those which concerne the Ceremonies? 2. But what meanes he? what would he say of those Scottish Protestāts, imprisoned in the Caste of Scherisburgh in France, who n 1.229 beeing commanded by the Captaine to come to the Masse, answered, that to doe any thing that was against their conscience, they would not, neither for him nor yet for the King? If he approve this answer of theirs, he must allow us to say, that we will doe nothing which is against our consciences. We submit our selves, and all which we have to the King, and to inferior Governours we render all due subje∣ction, which we owe to them. But no mortall man hath domination over our consciences, which are subject to one onely Law-giver, and ruled by his Law. I have shewed in the first Part of this Dis∣pute, how conscience is sought to be bound by the Law of the Ce∣remonies, and here by the way, no lesse may be drawne from Hals words, which now I examine. For he implieth in them, that we are bound to obey the Statutes about the Ceremonies, merely for their Auctorities sake who command us, though there be no other thing in the Ceremonies themselves, which can commend them to us. But I have also proven before, that humane Lawes doe not bind to o∣bedience, but onely in this case, when the things which they pre∣scribe, doe agree and serve to those things which Gods Law pre∣scribeth: so that, as humane Lawes, they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but onely by Participation with Gods Law. This ground hath seemed to o 1.230 P. Bayne, so necessary to be knowne, that he hath inserted it in his briefe exposition of the fondamentall points of Religion. And beside all that, which I have said for it before, I may not here passe over in silence, this one thing, that p 1.231 Hall himselfe calleth it superstition to make any more sinnes, then the ten com∣mandements. Either then, let it be shewed out of Gods word, that Nonconformity & the refusing of the English Popish Ceremonies, is a fault, or else let us not be thought bound by mens lawes, where Gods Law hath left us free. Yet we deale more liberally with our Opposites, for if we prove not the unlawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, both by Gods Word, and sound reason, let us be then bound to use them for Ordinances sake. 3. His comparisons are farre wide: they are so farre from running upon foure feet, that they have indeed no feet at all: whether we consider the commandements, or the breach of them, he is altogither extravagant. God might have comman∣ded

Adam to eate the Apple, which he forbade him to eate, and so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evill: whereas the Will & Commandement of men is not regula regulans, but regula re∣gulata. Neither can they make good or evill, beseeming or not be∣seeming, what they list, but their commandements are to be exa∣mined by a higher rule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell at Ierusalem, and not to goe over the brooke Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required: for as n 1.232 Peter Martyr noteth, he r 1.233 was a man of the family of the house of Saul, and hated the Kingdome and Throne of David, so that relictus liber multa fuisset molitus, vel cum Israëlitis, vel cum Palesthinis. But what reason is there, for charging us with the Law of the Ceremonies, except the sole will of the Law-makers? yet say, that Solomon had no reason for this his commandement, except his owne will and pleasure, for trying the obedience of Schemei, who will say, that Princes have as great li∣berty and power of commanding at their pleasure, in matters of Religion, as in civill matters? If we consider the breach of the com∣mandements, he is still at randone. Though God tried Adam but with an apple, yet s 1.234 Divines marke in his eating of that forbid∣den fruit, many grosse and horrible sinnes, as, Infidelity, Idolatry, Pride, Ambition, Self-love, Theft, Covetousnesse, Contempt of God, Prophanation of Gods name, Ingratitude, Apostasie, mur∣dering of his posterity, &c. But I pray, what exorbitant evills are found in our modest and Christian-like deniall of obedience to the Law of the Ceremonies? When Schemei transgressed King Solomons commandement, besides t 1.235 the violation of this oath, and the dis∣obeying of the charge wherewith Solomon (by the speciall direction & inspiration of God) had charged him, (that u 1.236 his former wick∣ednesse, and that which he had done to David, might be returned upon his Head, the Divine providence so fitly furnishing another occasion and cause of his punishment;) there was also a great con∣tempt and misregard shewed to the King, in that Schemei knowing his owne evill deservings, aknowledged (as the trueth was,) he had re∣ceived no small favour, and therefore consented to the Kings word as good, and promised obedience. Yet for all that, upon such a petty and small occasion, as the seeking of two runnagat servants, he reckoned not to despise the Kings mercy and lenity, and to set at nought his most just commandement. What? is Non-conformi∣ty no lesse piacular? If any will dare to say so, he is bound to shew that it is so. And thus have we pulled downe the untempered mor∣tar, wherewith Hall would hide the Idolizing of the Ceremonies.

But thirdly, did not Rachel make Iacob an Idoll, when she ascri∣bed [Sect. 4] to him a power of giving children? Am I in Gods stead saith x 1.237 Iacob? And how much more reason have we to say, that the Ce∣remonies are Idols, and are set up in Gods stead, since an opera∣tive

vertue is placed in them, for giving stay and strength against sinne and tentation, and for working of other spirituall and super∣naturall effects? Thus is the Signe of the Crosse an Idoll, to those who conforme to Papists in the use of it. y 1.238 M. Ant. de Dominis hol∣deth, Crucis signum, contra Daemones esse praesidium. And z 1.239 that even ex opere operato, effectus mirabiles signi Crucis, etiam apud Infideles, ali∣quando enituerint. Shall I say, saith a 1.240 Mr. Hooker, that the Signe of the Crosse (as we use it) is a meane in some sort to worke our preservation from reproach? Surely the minde which as yet hath not hardened it selfe in sinne, is seldome provoked thereunto in any grosse and grievous manner, but na∣tures secret suggestion, objecteth against it ignominy, as a barre. Which conceipt being entered into that palace of mans fancie (the Forehead) the Gates whereof have imprinted in them that Holy Signe (the Crosse) which bringeth forthwith to minde whatsoever Christ hath wrought, and we vowed against sinne; it commeth hereby to passe, that Christian men never want a most effectuall, though a silent Teacher, to avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame. What more doe Papists ascribe to the Signe of the Crosse, when they say, b 1.241 that by it Christ keeps his owne faith∣full ones contra omnes tentationes & hostes? Now if c 1.242 the covetous man be called a Idolater, because, though he think not his mo∣ney to be God, yet he trusteth to live and prosper by it, (which con∣fidence and hope d 1.243 we should repose in God onely) as e 1.244 Rainoldes marketh, then doe they make the Signe of the Crosse an Idoll, who trust by it to be preserved from Sinne, Shame, and Reproach, and to have their mindes staied in the instant of Tentation. For, who hath given such a vertue to that dumbe and idle Signe, as to work that which God onely can worke? and how have these goodfel∣lowes imagined, that not by knocking at their braines, as Iupiter, but by onely signing their Foreheads, they can procreate some me∣nacing Minerva, or armed Pallas, to put to flight the Divell him∣selfe.

The same kinde of operative vertue is ascribed to the Ceremo∣ny [Sect. 5] of Confirmation or Bishopping. For the English Service Booke teacheth, that by it Children receive strength against Sinne, and against Tentation. And f 1.245 Hooker hath told us, that albeit the Suc∣cessors of the Apostles, had but onely for a time such power as by Prayer and imposition of hands to bestow the Holy Ghost, yet Confirmation hath continued hitherto for very speciall benefites; and that the Fathers impute every where unto it, that Gift or Grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men, but when we are made such, assisteth us in all vertue, armeth us against Tentation and Sinne. Moreover, whiles he is a shewing why this Ceremony of Confir∣mation was separated from Baptisme, having been long joyned with it, one of his reasons which he giveth for the Separation, is, that sometimes the parties who received Baptisme were Infants,

at which age they might well be admitted to live in the family, but to fight in the armie of God, to bring forth the fruits, and to doe the workes of the Holy Ghost, their time of hability was not yet come, which implie•…•…h, that by Confirmation men receive this habi∣lity, else there is no sence in that which he saith. What is Idolatry, if this be not, to ascribe to Rites of mans devising, the power and vertue of doing that which none but he to whom all power in hea∣ven and earth belonges, can doe? And howbeit Hooker would strike us dead at once, with the high-sounding name of the Fathers, yet it is not unknowne, that the first Fathers from whom this Idolatry hath descended, were those auncient Heretikes, the Montanists. for as g 1.246 Chemnitius marketh out of Tertullian & Cyprian, the Montanists were the first, who beganne to ascribe any spirituall efficacy or operation to Rites and Ceremonies devised by men.

Fourthly, that whereunto more respect and account is given, then God alloweth to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is pla∣ced, then God hath put into it, or will at all communicat to it, is an Idoll exalted against God: which maketh h 1.247 Zanchius to say, Si Luthero vel Calvino tribuas, quod non potuerant errare, Idola tibi fingis. Now when i 1.248 Hooker accounte•…•…h festivall dayes, for Gods extraordinary workes wrought upon them, to be holyer then other dayes, What man of sound Iudgement, will not perceive that these dayes are Idolized, since such an eminency and excellency is put in them, whereas God hath made no difference betwixt them, and any other dayes? k 1.249 We have seene also, that the Ceremonies are urged as necessary, but did ever God allow, that things Indifferent should be so highly advanced, at the pleasure of men? And moreover, l 1.250 I have shewed, that wor∣ship is placed in them; in which respect, needs they must be Idolls, being thus exalted against Gods Word, at which we are commanded to hold us, in the matter of worship. Last of all, they are Idolatrously advanced and dignified, in so much as holy misticall significations are given them, which are a great dea•…•…e more then Gods word allo∣weth in any Ri•…•…es of humane institution, as shall be shewed m 1.251 after∣wards. And so it appeareth, how the Ceremonies, as now urged and used, are Idolls. Now, to kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, which I will prove to be direct and formall Idolatry, and from Idolatry shall it never be purged, while the world standeth, though our Opposi•…•…es strive for it, tanquam pro aris & focis.

The question about the Idolatry of kneeling, be•…•…wixt them and us, [Sect. 7] standeth in this. Whether kneeling at the instant of receiving the Sacrament, before the consecrated Bread & Wine, purposely placed in our sight, in the act of kneeling, as Signes standing in Christs stead before which we the receivers are to exhibite outwardly religious adoration; be formally idolatry, or not? No man can pick a quarrell at the stating of the question thus. For, 1. We dispute only about kneeling at the instant of receiving he

Sacramentall Elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward adoration, in the act of receiving, for in our minds we then adore, by the inward graces of Faith, Love, Thankfulnesse, &c. by the holy and Heavenly exercise whereof we glorify God; so that the contro∣versy is about outward adoration. 3. No man will denie h•…•…t the consecrated Elements are purposely placed in our sight, when we kneel, except he say, that they are in that action only accidentally present before us, no otherwise then the Tabble-cloth, or the walls of the Church are. 4. That the Sacramentall Elements, are in our sight (when we knee•…•…l) as Signes standing in Christs stead; it is most unde∣nyable. For if these Signes stand not in Christs stead to us, the Bread bearing vicem corporis Christi, and the Wine vicem sanguinis; it follo∣weth, that when we eat the bread, and drink the wine, we are no more eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, spiritual•…•…y and sacramentally, then if we were receiving any other Bread and Wine not consecrated. I stay not now upon this head, because our Opposites aknowledge it, for n 1.252 D^r. Burgesse calls the Sacraments the Lords images and deputies. And the o 1.253 Archbishop of Spalato saith, that when we take the Sacrament of Christs body, we adore Christum sub hac figura figuratum. 5. That kneelers at the instant of receiving, have the consecrated Bread an Wine in the eyes both of their bodies and minds, as things so stated in that action, that before them, they are to exhibite outward religious adoration, as well as inward; it is also most plaine. For otherwise they should fall downe and kneel, onely out of incogitancy, having no such purpose in their minds, nor choice in their wills, as to kneel before these Sacramentall Signes.

The question thus stated, Formalists deny, we affirme. Their ne∣gative [Sect. 8] is destroied, and our affirmative confirmed by these reasons.

First, the kneelers worship Christ in or by the Elements, as their owne confessions declare. When we take the Eucharist, we adore the body of Christ, per suum signum saith p 1.254 the Archbishop of Spalato. We kneel by the Sacrament to the thing signified, saith the q 1.255 Bishop of Edinbrugh. r 1.256 The Archbishop of Sanct-Andrewes, and s 1.257 D^r. Burgesse, professe the adoring of Christ in the Sacrament. D^r. Mortoune mantaineth such an adoration in the Sacrament, as he calleth relative from the Signe to Christ. And t 1.258 Paybody defendeth him herein. But u 1.259 the replier to D^r. Mortoune particular defence, inferreth well, that if the adoration be relative from the Signe, it must first be carried to the Signe as a meanes of convoyance vnto Christ. x 1.260 D^r. Bourgesse alloweth adora∣tion, or Divine worship, (as he calleth it,) to be given to the Sacra∣ment respectively: and y 1.261 he alledgeth a place of Theodoret, to prove

that such an adoration as he there taketh for Divine worship, is done to the Sacrament in relation to Christ, and that this adoration performed to the mysteries as types, is to be passed over to the Ar∣chitype, which is the body and blood of Christ. Since then, that kneeling, about which our question is, by the confession of kneelers themselves, is Divine worship given by the signe to the thing signi∣fied, and done to the Sacrament respectively or in relation to Christ; he that will say, that it is not Idolatry, must acquit the Pa∣pists of Idolatry also, in worshipping before their Images: for they doe in like manner professe, that they adore prototypon per imaginem, ad imaginem, or in imagine, and that they give no more to the image, but relative or respective worship. z 1.262 The Rhemists tell us, that they doe no more but kneel before the creatures, at or by them adoring God. It availeth not here to excogitate some differences betwixt the Sacramentall Elements and the Popish Images, for what difference soever be betwixt them, when they are considered in their owne na∣turall beeing, yet as objects of adoration they differ not, because when they are considered in esse adorabili, we see the same kinde of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the Elements, which is by Papists before their Images. To come nearer the point, Papists professe, that they give to the outward Signes in the Sacrament, no other adoration, then the same which Formalists give to them. a 1.263 Fran∣ciscus à Sancta Clara saith, that Divine worship doeth not agree to the Signes per se, but onely per accidens, and he alledgeth for himself, that the Councell of Trent Can. 6. de Euch. saith not that the Sacrament, but that Christ in the Sacrament, is to be adored with latria. To the same purpose I observe, that b 1.264 Bellarmine will not take upon him to mantaine any adoration of the Sacrament with latria, holding onely that Christ in the Eucharist is to be thus adored, and that symbola ex∣terna per se & proprie non sunt adoranda. Whereupon he determineth, status questionis non est, nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu l•…•…∣triae. Now, albeit Papists understand by the outward signe of Christs body in the Eucharist, nothing else but the species or accidents of the Bread; yet c 1.265 since they a•…•…tribute to the same, quod sub illis acciden∣tibus ut vocant sit substantialiter corpus Christi vivum, cum sua Deitate con∣junctum, and since d 1.266 they give adoration or latria to the species, though not per se, yet as quid unum with the body of Christ which they containe; hereby it is evident, that they worship Idolatrously those very accidents. And I would understand, if any of our Oppo∣sites dare say, that Papists commit no such Idolatry, as here I impute to them? Or, if they aknowledge this Idolatry of Papists, how make they hemselvs cleane? for we see, that the worship which Pa∣pists give to the species of the Bread, is onely relative to Christ, and of the same kynd with that which Formalists give to the Bread and Wine.

Secondly, religious kneeling before the Bread which is set before [Sect. 9] us for a signe to stand in Christs stead, and before which we adore whilles it is to us actually an e 1.267 Image representing Christ; is the verie bowing downe and worshipping forbidden in the secound commandement. The Eucharist is called by the Fathers, Imago, Si∣gnum, Figura, Similitudo, as f 1.268 Hospinian instanceth out of Origen, Na∣zianzen, Augustine, Hilarius, Tertullian, Ambrose. g 1.269 The Archbishop of Armagh hath also observed, that the Fathers expressely call the Sacra∣ment, an Image of Christs body: and well might they call it so, since the Sacramentall Elements doe not onely represent Christ to us, but also stand in Christs stead, in such sort, that by the worthy re∣ceiving of them, we are assured that we receive Christ himself, and in eating of this Bread and drinking of this Wine, we eate the flesh and drink the blood of Christ spiritually and by faith. Neither could the consecrated Elements make a Sacrament, if they were not such Images, standing in Christs stead. But what needeth any more? h 1.270 Dr. Burgesse himself calleth the Sacraments the Lords Images. Now that a man who adoreth before the painted or graven Image of Christ, though he professe that he intendeth his wholle adoration to Christ, and that he placeth the Image before him onely to represent Christ, and to stirre up his mind to worship Christ, doth neverthe∣lesse commit Idolatry, I trust, none of our Opposites will deny. Nay, i 1.271 B. Lindsey teacheth plainly, that it is Idolatry to set before the eyes of our mindes, or bodies, any Image as a meane or motive of adoration, even though the worship should be abstracted from the Image and not given unto it. Well then: will it please him to let us see, that kneeling before the actuall Images of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament, even though these Images should bee no otherwise considered in the act of adoration, but as active objects, motives, and occasions which stirre up the mind of the kneeler to worship Christ, (for this is the best face which himself puts upon kneeling, thoug falsely, as we shall se afterward,) is not so great Idolatry as the other. All the difference which k 1.272 he maketh, is, that no true worship can be properly occasioned by an Image, which is a Doctor of lyes teaching nothing of God, but falshood and vanities: but the blessed Sacra∣ment being instituted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his death, &c. gives us, so oft as we receive it, a most powerfull and pregnant occasion of thanksgi∣ving and praise. l 1.273 D^r. Burgesse intermedling with the same difference∣making, will not have the Sacraments, which are Images of Gods making and institution, to be compared with Images made by the lust of men. Two differences then are given us. 1. That the Sacra∣mentall Elements have their institution from God, Images not so. 2. That the Sacrament is an occasion of worship, an Image not so. The first difference makes them no help; for though the ordi∣nance and institution of God, makes the use of Sacramentall Ima∣ges

to be no will-worship, yet doeth it noth any whit availe to shew, that adoration before them is no Idolatry. May I not commit Ido∣latry with Images of Gods institution, no lesse then with those in∣vented by men, when (Caeteris paribus) there is no other difference be∣twixt them, considered as objects of adoration, but that of the or∣dinance and institution which they have? What if I fall downe at the hearing of a Sermon, and religiously adore before the Pastor, as the Vicarius signe of Christ himself, who stands there m 1.274 in Christs stead, referring my adoration to Christ onely, yet in or by that Am∣bassad out who stands in Christs stead? If this my adoration should be called so great Idolatry, as if I should fall downe before a graven Image, to worship God in or by it, (for it is indeed as great every way,) our kneelers I perceive would permit me to answere for my self, that my worshipping of God by the minister, can not be called Idolatrous, by this reason, (because the worshipping of God by a graven Image, is such, therefore also the worshipping of him by a living Image, is no other,) since Images of Gods institution must not bee paralelled with those of mens invention. As to the secound difference, I answere, 1. Though the B. muttereth here, that no true worship can bee occasioned by an Image, yet belike he and his fel∣lowes will not stand to it, for many of them allow the historicall use of Images, and the B. hath not denied this though his Antagonist, objecteth it. n 1.275 D^r. Mortoune plainly alloweth of Images for histori∣call commemoration. And herein he is followed by o 1.276 D^r. Burgesse. 2. Whereas he saith, that the blessed Sacrament is instituted by Christ to call to our rememberance his death, this inferreth not that it is an occasion of thanksgiving and praise in the verie act of receiving, as we shall see afterward. Our question is onely about kneeling in the act of receiving. 3. We confesse, that the Sacrament is an occasion of Inward worship, in the receiving of it. For p 1.277 in Eucharistia exerce∣tur summa Fides, Spes, Charitas, Religio, caeteraeque virtutes, quibus Deum co∣limus & glorificamus. but the outward adoration of kneelling downe upon our knees, can be no more occasioned by the blessed Sacra∣ment, in the act of receiving it, then by a graven Image in the act of beholding it. The point which the B. had to prove, is, that whereas an Image can not be the occasion of outward adoration and knee∣ling to God before it, in the act of looking upon it; the Sacrament may be, and is an occasion of kneeling, when it is set before us in the act of receiving. This neither he, nor any for him, shall ever make good.

Thirdly, kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, before [Sect. 10] the vicatious signes which stand in Christes stead, and are purpo∣sely set before us in the act of adoration, that before them we may adore; wanteth nothing to make up Idolatrous coadoration or rela∣tive worship. Our Opposites here tell us of two things necessary to

the making up of Idolatry, neither of which is found in their knee∣ling. First, they say, except there be an intention in the worshipper, to adore the creature which is before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no Idolatry. What shall I say, saith q 1.278 Paybody? What need I say in this place, but to professe and likewise avouch, that we intend onely to worship the Lord our God, when we kneele in the act of receiving? we worship not the Bread and Wine, we intend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch our sincerity in this matter, and it will take away the respect of Idolatry in Gods worship. Answ. I shewed before, that Paybody defendeth D^r Mor∣tone his adoration, which he calleth relative from the Signe to Christ: yet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to the Signe; will this save their kneeling from Idolatry? Nay then, the three Children should not have beene Idolaters, if they had kneeled before Nebuchadnezars image, intending their worship to God only, and not to the Image. Our Opposites here, take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what saith r 1.279 Calvine? Si isti boni sapientesque Sophistae, ibi tum fuissent, simplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo cos verbis objurgassent: miseri homines istud quidem * 1.280 non est adorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est Idololatria nisi ubi est devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda venerandasque adjunctio atque applicatio, &c. If Paybody had beene in Calvines place, he could not have called the Nicodemites Idolaters, forasmuch as they have no intention to worship the Popish Images, when they kneel and worship before them. Nay, the grossest Idolaters that ever were, shall by this doctrine be no Idolaters, and s 1.281 Paul shall be censured for teaching that the Gentiles did worship Divells, since they did not intend to worship Divells. Idololatrae nec olim in Paganismo inten∣debant, nec hodie in Papatu intendunt, Daemonibus offerre. Quid tum? Aposto∣lus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant, saith t 1.282 Pareus.

The other thing which our kneelers require to the making up of Idolatry, is, that the creature before which we adore, be a passive object of the adoration; whereas u 1.283 say they, the Sacramentall Ele∣ments are no manner of way the passive object of our adoration, but the active onely of that adoration, which at the Sacrament is given to Christ, that is, such an Object and Signe as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification thereof, to lift up our hearts, and adore the onely Object of our faith, the Lord Iesus: such as the holy Word of God, his workes, and benefites are, by meditation and consideration whereof, we are moved and stirred up to adore him. Answ. 1. That which he affirmeth is false, and out of one page of his owne booke I draw an Argument, which destroyeth it, thus: If the Sacra∣mentall Elements, were onely the active object of their adoration who kneele before them in the receiving, then their reall presence should be but accidentall to the kneelers. But the reall presence of the Elements, in the act of receiving, is not accidentall to the knee∣lers. Ergo. The proposition I drawe from his owne words: We can

neither (saith x 1.284 he) pray to God, nor thanke him nor praise him, but ever there must be, before the eyes of our minds at least, something of his Workes, Word, or Sacraments, if not before our externall sences. He confesseth it will be enough, that these active objects of worship, be before the eyes of our mindes, and that their reall presence before our external sences is not necessary, but accidentall to us whose minds are by their mea∣nes stirred up to worship. And so it is indeed. For esse scibile or reme∣morativum of an active object of adoration, is that which stirreth up the minde to worship, so that the reall presence of such an object is but accidentall to the worshipper. The assumption I likewise draw out of the Bishops owne words. For y 1.285 he saith, that we kneel before the Elements, having them in our sight, or object to our sences, as ordinary Signes, meanes, and memorialls, to stirre us up, to worship, &c. Now if we have them in our sight, and before our sences, for this purpose, that they may be meanes, signes, & memorialls to stirre us up to worship, then (sure) their beeing really before our sences, is not accidentall to us when we kneele. Since z 1.286 Dr. Burgesse hath beene so dull and sottish, as to write that the Signes are but accidentally before the Communi∣cants, when they receive, he is to be ignominiously exsibilat; for making the Sacred Sacramentall Signes to bee no otherwise present, then the walls of the Church, the nailes and timber of the materiall Table whereupon the Elements are set, or any thing else accidentally before the Communicants. But, 2. put the case they did make the Elements onely active objects of worship, when they kneel in the act of recei∣ving them: What doe some Papists make more of their Images, when they worship before them? they hold, as a 1.287 the Archbishop of Spalato noteth, that Imago est medium duntaxat seu instrumentum quo ex∣emplar occurrit suo honoratori, cultori, adoratori: imago excitat tantummodo memoriam, ut in exemplar feratur. Will we have them to speake for themselves? b 1.288 Suarez will have Imagines esse occasiones vel Signa excitan∣tia hominem ad adorandum prototypa. (c) Friar Pedro de Cabrera a Span∣jard, taketh the opinion of Durand and his followers, to be this, That Images are adored onely improperly, because they put men in mind * 1.289 of the persons represented by them: and he reasoneth against them, thus: If Images were onely to be worshipped by way of rememoration and re∣cordation, because they make us remember the samplares, which we doe so worship, as if they had beene then present, It would follow that all creatures should be adored with the same adoration, wherewith we worship God: seeing all of them doe leade us unto the knowledge and remembrance of God. Where∣by it is evident * 1.290 that in the opinion of Durand; and those who are of his minde. Images are b•…•…t active objects of adoration. Lastly, what saith d 1.291 Becane the Iesuite? Imago autem Christi non est occasio Idolo∣latriae

apud nos Catholicos, quia non alium ob finem eam retinemus, quam ut nobis Christum Salvatorem, & beneficia ejus representet. More particu∣larly, he will have the Image of Christ to be honoured for two rea∣sons. 1. Quia honor qui exhibetur Imagini redundat in eum cujus est Imago. 2. Quia illud in pretio haberi potest, quod per se revocat nobis in memoriam beneficia Dei, & est occasio ut pro e•…•… acceptis grati existamus. At Imago Christi per serevocat nobis in memoriam beneficium nostrae Redemptionis, &c. That for this respect the Image of Christ is honoured, he confir∣med by this simile. Quia ob eandem causam apud nos in pretio ac honore sunt Sacra Biblia, itemque Festa Paschatis, Pentecostes, Nativitatis, & Passio∣nis Christi. What higher accoumpt is here made of Images then to be active Objects of Worship? for even whiles it is said, that the Honour done to the Image, resulteth to him whose Image it is, there is no Honour ascribed to the Image, as a Passive Object: but they who honour an Image for this respect, and with this meaning, have it onely for an Active Object which represents and calls to their minde the first samplar, as the e 1.292 Archbishop of Spalato also observeth. Neither the Papists onely, but some also of the very Heathen Idolaters, f 1.293 Norunt in Imaginibus nihil Deitatis inesse, meras autem esse rerum absentium repraesentationes, &c. And what if neither Heathens, nor Papists had been of this Opinion, that Images are but Active Objects of worship? yet I have before observed, that the B. himselfe aknowledgeth, it were Idolatry to set before us an Image, as the Active Object of our Adoration: though the wor∣ship should be abstracted from the Image.

Finally, to shut up this point, it is to be noted, that the using of [Sect. 12] the Sacramentall Elements as active objects of Worship onely, can not make kneeling before them in the receiving, to be no Ido∣latry? for then might we lawfully, & without Idolatry, kneel before every active object, which stirreth up our mindes to worship God. All the workes of God are such active objects, as the B. also resol∣veth in the words before cited. Yet may we not at the sight of eve∣ry one of Gods workes, kneele downe and adore, whiles the eyes both of body and minde are fixed upon it, as the meanes and oc∣casion which stirreth us up to worship God. The B. indeed holdeth we may: onely g 1.294 he saith, this is not necessary, because when by the sight of the Creatures of God, we are moved privately to wor∣ship, our externall Gesture of Adoration is Arbitrary, and some∣times no Gesture at all is required. But in the ordinary Ministery, when the workes of God, or his benefits are propounded, or ap∣plied publikely, to stirre us up to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, then our Gesture ceaseth to be Arbitrary: for it must be such as is prescribed and received in the Church where we worship. Ans. 1. He shuffeleth the point deceitfully, for when he speaks of being moved to worship at the sight of any Creature, he means of

inward worship, as is evident by these words, sometime no Gesture at all is required; but when he speakes of being moved to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, by the benefites of God propounded publikely, (for example, by the blessed Sacrament,) then he means of outward worship, as is evident by his requiring necessarily a Ge∣sture. He should have spoken of one kinde of worship in both cases, namely, of that which is outward, for of no other doe we dispute. When we are moved by the Sacrament to adore God in the act of receiving, this can be no other but that which is inward, and thus we adore God by Faith, Hope, and Love, though neither the heart be praying, nor the body kneeling. That which we deny (where∣of himselfe could not be ignorant,) is, that the Sacramentall Ele∣ments may be to us, in the receiving, active objects of outward a∣doration? or because they move us to worship inwardly, that there∣fore we should adore outwardly. 2. Whereas he teacheth, that knee∣ling before any Creature, when thereby we are moved to worship privately, is lawfull, but kneeling before the Sacramentall Elements, when thereby we are moved to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, is necessary; that we may kneel there, but we must kneel here: he knew; or else he made himselfe ignorant, that both these should be denied by us. Why then did he not make them good? kneeling before those active objects, which stirre up our hearts to worship, if it be necessary in the Church, it must first be proven lawfull, both in the Church, and out of it. Now, if a man meeting his L. riding up the street upon his blake Horse, have his heart stir∣red up to worship God, by something which he seeth either in him∣selfe or his Horse, should fall downe and kneele before him, or his Horse, as the active object of his worship: I marvell, whether the B. would give the man leave to kneele, and stand still as the active ob∣ject, before the mans sences? As for us, wee holde, that we may not kneele before every Creature, which stirreth up our hearts to worship God, kneele I say, whiles the eyes both of body and minde are fastened upon it as the active object of our Adoration.

The fourth Reason, whereby I prove the kneeling in question, to be Idolatry, proceedeth thus. Kneeling in the act of receiving, [Sect. 13] for reverence to the Sacrament, is Idolatry. But the kneeling in question is such. Ergo. The Proposition is necessary. For if they ex∣hibite Divine Adoration (such as their kneeling is confessed to be,) for reverence of the Sacrament, they doe not onely give, but also intend to give Divine Adoration to the same. This is so undenia∣ble, that it dasheth h 1.295 B. Lindsey, and makes him give a broad Con∣fession, that it is Idolatry to kneele at the Sacrament, for reverence to the Elements. The Assumption I prove from the Confession of Formalists. King Edwards Booke of common Prayer teacheth, that kneeling at the Communion is injoyned for this purpose, that

the Sacrament might not be prophaned, but held in a reverent and holy estimation. So doth i 1.296 Dr. Mortone tell us, that the reason wherefore the Church of England hath institute kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, is, that thereby we might testify our due estimation of such holy Rites. k 1.297 Paybody makes one of the re∣spects of kneeling, to be the reverent handling and using of the Sa∣crament. The l 1.298 B. of Winchester exclaimeth against such as doe not kneel, for not regarding the Table of the Lord, which hath ever been thought of all holies the most holy, and for denying reverence to the holy Symboles, and pretious memorials of our greatest de∣livery, even that reverence which is given to Prayer. Where, by the way I observe, that, when we kneel at Prayer, it is not to give reve∣rence to Prayer, but to God whom then most immediately we adore, so that kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament, receiveth no com∣mendatiō from kneeling at Prayer. The act of Perth about kneeling, when B. Lindsey had pollished and refined it as well as he could, or∣dained us to kneele at the Sacrament, in due regard of so Divine a Mistery. And what think we is understood by this Mistery, for reverence whereof we are commanded to kneele? The m 1.299 B. ex∣poundeth this Mistery, to be the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. But here, he either meanes the spirituall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, or the Sacramentall. If the spirituall: why did not the Synod ordaine us to kneele in hearing the Gospell? for therein we receive spiritually the body and blood of Christ, and that as truly and really as in the Sacrament. Whereupon the n 1.300 Archbishop of Armagh sheweth, that the spirituall & inward fee∣ding upon the body and blood of Christ, is to be found out of the Sacrament, and that diverse of the Fathers doe applie the sixth of Iohn, to the hearing of the Word also; as Clemens Alexandrinus, Ori∣gen, Eusebius Caesariensis, & others. o 1.301 Basilius Magnus likewise teacheth plainly, that we eate the flesh of Christ in his Word and Doctrine. This I am sure no man dare deny. The B•…•… then must mean by this mistery, the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ. Now, the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is the receiving of the Sacramentall Signes of his body and blood. And as the p 1.302 Archbishop of Armagh also observeth, the substance which is outwardly delivered in the Sacrament, is not really the bo∣dy and blood of Christ. Againe q 1.303 he saith, that the Bread and Wine are not really the body and bloud of Christ, but Figuratively and Sacramentally: thus he opposeth the Sacramentall presence of the body and blood of Christ, not onely to bodily, but also to Reall presence: and by just Analogy Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is not onely to be opposed to a receiving of his body and blood, into the hands and mouthes of our bodyes, but likewise to the reall receiving of the same spiritually into our

soules. It remaineth therefore, that kneeling in due regard of the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, must be expounded to be kneeling in reverence of the Sacramentall Signes of Christs body and blood. And so Perths Canon, and the Bishops Commentary upon it, fall in with the rest of those Formalists ci∣ted before, avouching and defending kneeling for reverence to the Sacrament.

Those who speake out more plainely then Bishop Lindsey, doe here [Sect. 14] object to us, that reverence is due to the Sacrament, and that wee our selves doe reverence it, when we sit uncovered at the receiving of it. But r 1.304 Didoclavius doth well distinguish betwixt Veneration and Adoration, because in civility we use to be uncovered, even to inferiors and equals for the regard which we beare to them, yet doe we not worship them, as we worship the King on our knees. * 1.305 As then, in civility there is a respect and reverence different from A∣doration, so it is in Religion also. Yea s 1.306 Bellarmine himselfe di∣stinguisheth the reverence which is due to holy things from Ado∣ration. (t) Paybody, and u 1.307 D^r. Burgesse will by no meanes admit this distinction betwixt Veneration and Adoration. But since neither of them hath alledged any reason against it, I hope they will be weighed downe, by the Auctority of the x 1.308 Archbishop of Spalato, and y 1.309 the Bishop of Edimbrugh, both of which agree to this distin∣ction. * 1.310 So then, we give no Adoration at all to the Sacrament, because neither by any outward nor inward action, doe we per∣forme any worship for the honour of the same. z 1.311 Burgesse himself hath noted to us, that the first Nicene Councell exhorteth, that men should not be humiliter intenti to the things before them. We neither submit our mindes, nor humble our bodies to the Sacrament, yet (a) doe we render to it Veneration, for as much as we esteeme high∣ly of it, as a most holy thing, and medle reverently with it, with∣out all contempt or unworthy usage. Res profecto inanimatae saith the b 1.312 Archb. of Spalato, sint sacrae quantum placet, alium honorem à nobis non merentur, nisi in sensu negativo, as that they be not contemned, nor unworthily handled. If it be said, that we ought not to con∣temne the Word, yet hath it not that respect given to it, which the Sacrament hath, at which we are uncovered, so that this veneration given to the Sacrament, must be somewhat more then non Prophanatio: I answer, as honour in the Positive sence, so also in the Negative, hath various degrees: and according to the more or lesse imme∣diate manifestation of Divine Ordinances to us, so ought the de∣grees * 1.313 of our Veneration to be intended or remitted; which is not so to be understood, as if one part of Gods sacred worship, were to be lesse contemned then another, (for none of Gods most Holy Ordinances, may be in any sorte contemned,) but that for the grea∣ter regarde of those things which are more immediately Divine, we

are not in the usage of them, to take to our selves so much Scope and Liberty, as otherwise we may lawfully allow to our selves, in medling with such things, as are not merely, but mixedly Divine, and which are not from God so immediately as the other, but more by the intervention of means. And thus a higher degree of Venera∣tion is due to the Sacrament, then to the Word preached, not by ta∣king ought from the Word, but by adding more respect to the Sa∣crament then the Word hath. The reason hereof is c 1.314 given to be this, because when we come to the Sacrament, nihil hic humanum, sed Divina omnia, for Christs owne Words are, or at least should be spoken to us, when we receive the Sacrament, and the Elements also are by Christs owne Institution, holy Symboles of his blessed body and blood. Whereas the Word preached to us, is but mixedly and mediately Divine, and because of this intervention of the Mi∣nistery of men, and mixture of their conceptions with the holy Scri∣ptures of God, we are bidden try the Spirits, and are required af∣ter the Example of the Baereans to search the Scriptures daily, whe∣ther these things which we heare preached, be so or not. Now wee are not in like sorte to try the Elements, and the Words of the In∣stitution, whether they be of God or not, because this is sure to all, who know out of Scripture the first Principles of the Oracles of God. The consideration hereof warneth us, that the Sacrament gi∣ven according to Christs Institution, is more merely and imme∣diately Divine then is the Word preached. But others (I heare) object, that if a man should uncover his Head at the sight of a Graven Image, we would account this to be an adoring of the Image; and why then shall not we call our uncovering at the Sacra∣ment Adoration also? Ans. Though Veneration and Adoration be distinguished in holy things, to shew that Adoration given to them is Idolatry, but Veneration given to them is not Idolatry, yet in prophane things, such as Images are, Veneration given to them is Idolatry, as well as Adoration: and we are Idolaters for doing so much, as to respect and reverence them, as things sacred or holy. For as I touched before, and as d 1.315 Zanchius evidenceth by sundry instances, Idolatry is committed, when more estimation is had of any thing, more dignity and excellency placed in it, and more regard had to it, then God alloweth, or then can stand with Gods revealed will. For a thing thus regarded, though it be not ex∣alted, ut Deus simpliciter, yet it is set up, tanquam Deus ex parte.

Now fiftly, if the kneeling in question be not Idolatrously refer∣red to the Sacrament, I demand, whereunto is it specially intended? [Sect. 15] we have heard the confession of some of our Opposites, (and those not of the smallest note,) avouching kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament. Neither can the Mistery spoken of in the Act of Perth (in due regard whereof, we are ordained to kneel,) be any other nor

the Sacrament. Yet because B. Lindsey, and some of his kynd, who desire to hide the foule shape of their Idolatry, with the trimmest fairding they can; will not take with kneeling in reverence of the Sacrament: let them shew us, which is the object, which they doe specially adore, when they kneele in the receiving of the same, for this their kneeling at this time, ariseth from another respect, then that which they cōsider in other parts of Gods worship, let two of our Prelats tell it out? The e 1.316 Archbishop of Sainctandrewes would teach us out of Mouline, that we ought to adore the flesh of Iesus Christ in the Eucharist. The f 1.317 B. of Edinbrugh also, will have us to worship the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, because the huma∣nity of Christ is there present, beeing ever and every where joyned with the Divinity. But a twofold Idolatry may be here deprehen∣ded. 1. In that they worship the flesh and bloud of Christ. 2. In that they worship the same in the Sacrament. As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the man Christ with Divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his flesh and bloud. 1. Be∣cause though the man Christ be God, yet his manhood is not God, and by consequence can not be honoured with Divine worship. 2. If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his hu∣manity help and save us: Idolaters are mocket by the spirit of God, for worshipping things which can not helpe nor save them. But the humanity of Christ, can not save us nor helpe us, because omnis actio est suppositi: whereas the humane nature of Christ is not suppositum. 3. None of those who defend the adoring of the humanity of Christ with Divine worship, doe well and warrantably expresse their opi∣nion. First, some of the g 1.318 Schoolmen have found no other respect, wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be adored, except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who adores the word incarnate, even as the Kings cloaths are adored by him who adores the King. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored onely per accidens. Ego vero, saith the h 1.319 Archbishop of Spalato, non puto à quo∣quam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari. And I pray, why doth he that worshippes the King, worship his clothes, more then any other thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a Hauke upon his hand, or a litle dogge upon his knee? There is no more but the Kings owne person, set by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more worshipped by him. i 1.320 Others devise another respect wherefore the manhood of Christ may be said to be worshipped, namely, that as Divine worship agrees onely to the Godhead, and not personis Divinis praecise sumptis. i. e. sub ratione formali constitutiva personarum, quae est relatio: but onely as these relations iden∣tificantur with the essence of the Godhead: so the manhood of Christ is to be adored non per se praecise, sed pro ut suppositatur à Deo. I Answere, if by suppositatur they meane, (as they must meane) that the manhood

is assumed into the unity of the person of the Sonne of God. (for otherwise if they meane, that the manhood is made a person, they are Nestorians,) that which they say, can not warrant the worship∣ping of the manhood with Divine worship: because the manhood even after this assumption and hypostaticall union, & being con∣sidered by us as now assumed into this personall union, is still for all that, a creature & a distinct nature from the Godhead. (except we will be Eutychians;) so that it cannot yet be said to be worship∣ped with Divine worship. k 1.321 Dr. Field layeth out a third way. For whiles he admitteh the phrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively, that the man Christ is omnipresent but the humanity also; he forgeth a strange distinction. When we speake, saith he, of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we understand only that humane created essence of a man that was in him; sometimes all that, that is implied in the beeing of a man, as well subsistence as essence. By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of the other Divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the humane nature. But this distinction is no better, then if a man should say: by blacknesse sometimes we understand blacknesse, and sometimes whytenesse. Who ever confounded abstractum and Concretum, before that in Fields field they were made to stand for one? It is the Tenet of the Schoole, that though in God Concretum and abstractum differ not, because Deus and Deit as are the same, yet in creatures (where∣of the manhood of Christ, is one,) they are realy differenced. For l 1.322 Concretum signifieth aliquid completum subsistens, and abstra∣ctum (such as humanity,) signifieth something, non ut subsistens, sed ut quo aliquid est, as whitenesse doth not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How comes it then, that Field makes humanity in the abstract to have a subsistence. m 1.323 Antonius Sadeel censures Turrianus, for saying that albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus: his reason is, because albedo dicitur esse, non cum pa∣riete, sed in pariete. An abstract is no more an abstract, if it have a subsistence.

There is yet a fourth sence remaining, which is Augustines, and theirs who speake with him. His sentence which our Opposites cite for them, is, that it is sinne not to adore the flesh of Christ: how∣beit very erroneously he groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the Psalme, worship at his footstoole, taking this footstoole to be the flesh of Christ: Yet that his meaning was better then his expression & that he meant not that adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the Godhead, whose footstoole the flesh is; it is plaine from those words which Burgesse n 1.324 himself citeth out of him. To whatsoever earth i. e. flesh of Christ, thou bowest and pro∣stratest thy self: looke not on it as earth, i. e as flesh, but looke at that holy one whose footstoole it is that thou doest adore, i. e. looke to the God∣head

of Christ, whose flesh thou doest adore in the misteries. Wherefore if we would give any sound sence to their words, who say that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, we must note with o 1.325 A. Polanus, that cum dicitur carnem Christi adorari: non est propria, sed figurata enuncia∣tio; quia non adoratur proprie caro secundum se, quia creatura est, sed Deus in carne manifestatus, seu Deus carne vestitus. But two things I will here advertise my Reader of.

1. That though this forme of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, being thus expoūded, receiveth a sound sence, yet the expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase, when such a meaning is drawne out of it. For how can we by the flesh of Christ understand his Godhead? the communion of properties, admitteth us to put the man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And p 1.326 Hooker teacheth rightly, that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and by consequence, adorability, which is a propertie of the Divine nature,) are imputed to the person only, in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the one nature, really conveyed or translated into the other.

2. Yet our Kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, have no such Orthodox (though forced) meaning, whereby to expound themselves. For q 1.327 B. Lindsey will have us in receiving the Sacrament, to bow our knees & adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of the personall union that it hath with the Godhead. Ergo, he meanes that we should, & may adore with Di∣vine worship, that which is personally united with the Godhead. And what is that? not the Godhead sure: but the created nature of the manhood: (which not being God, but a creature only, can not without I dolatry be worshipped with Divine worship.) I con∣clude therefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in the Sacrament, he understands not the Godhead, as Augustine doth, but that created nature which is united with the Godhead.

But 2. as we have seene what is to be thought of worshipping the flesh of Christ, so let us next consider, what may be thought [Sect. XVI] of worshipping his flesh in the Sacrament; for this was the other head which I proposed. Now, they who worship the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, must either consider it, as present in the Sacrament, & in that respect to be there adored, because of the per∣sonall union of it with the Word, or else because of the Sacramen∣tall union of it with the outward Signe, which is a respect super∣venient to that of the ubiquity of it in the person of the Word. First then, touching the former of those respects, the personal union of the flesh with the word, can neither inferre the presence of the

flesh in the Sacrament, to those who worthily receive; nor yet can it make any thing for the adoration of the flesh. Not the former; for in respect of the ubiquity of the flesh in the person of the word, it is ever and alike present with the Communicants, whether they re∣ceive worthily, or not, & with the Bread & Wine, whether they be consecrated to be signes of his body and bloud or not. There∣fore Divines rightly hold r 1.328 presentiam corporis Christi in coena, non ab ubiquitate, sed a verbis Christi pendere. Not the latter neither; for (as I have shewed already) notwithstanding of the personall union, yet the flesh of Christ remaineth a creature, and is not God, and so can not at all bee worshipped with Divine worship. And if his flesh could be at all so worshipped, * 1.329 yet were there no reason for wor∣shipping it in the Sacrament, (in respect of its personall union with the Word,) more then in all other actions, and at all other times. For ever and alwayes, is the flesh of Christ personally united with the Word, & in that respect present to us. There remaineth there∣fore nothing but that other respect of the Sacramētall union of the flesh of Christ with the Sacramentall Signe, which they can have for worshipping his flesh in the Sacrament. Whereas s 1.330 B. Lindsey saith, that it is no errour, to beleeve the spirituall powerfull & personall pre∣sence of Christs body at the Sacrament, and in that respect to worship his flesh & bloud there. He meanes (sure) some speciall respect, for which it may be said, that Christs body is present at the Sacrament, (so as it is not present out of the Sacrament,) and in that respect to be there adored. Now Christs body is spiritually and powerfully pre∣sent to us in the Word (as I shewed before,) yea as often as looking by faith upon his body broken, and bloud shed for us, we receive the sence & assurance of the remission of our sinnes through his merites: and as for this personall presence of Christs body, which he speaketh of, I have shewed also, that the adoring of the flesh of Christ in the Sacramēt, can not be inferred upon it; Wherefore he can tell us nothing, which may be thought to inferre the presence of Christs flesh in the Sacrament, and the adoration of it in that re∣spect, save onely the Sacramentall union of it with the outwarde Signe. Now adoration in this respect & for this reason, must sup∣pose the bodily presence of Christs flesh in the Sacrament. Whereu∣pon t 1.331 the Archb. of Spalato saith, that the Papists adore the body of Christ in the Sacrament, only because of the supposition of the bodily presence of it; and if they knew, that the true body of Christ is not under the species of the Bread and Wine, they would exhibite no adoration. And u 1.332 elsewhere hee sheweth, that the mistery of the Eucharist can not make the manhood of Christ to be adored, quia in pane corporalis Christi presentia non est: implying, that if the flesh of Christ be adored in respect of the mistery of the

Eucharist, then must it be bodily present in the Signe, which is false; and hereupon hee gathereth truly, that it can not bee ado∣red in respect of the mistery of the Eucharist.

Further, it is to be remembered (which I have also before x 1.333 noted out of Dr. Vsher) that the Sacramentall presence of the bo∣dy of Christ, or that presence of it which is inferred upon the Sa∣cramentall union which is betwixt it and the outward Signe, is not the reall or spirituall presence of it, (for in this maner, it is present to us out of the Sacrament, even as oft as by faith we apprehend it and the vertue thereof,) but it is figuratively only so called, the sence beeing this, that the body of Christ is present and given to us in the Sacramēt, meaning by his body the Signe of his body. These things being so, whosoever worshippeth Christs body in the Eu∣charist, & that in respect of the Sacramentall presence of it in the same, can not choose but hold that Christs body is bodily and re∣ally under the species of the bread, and so fall into the Idolatry of bread-worship; or else y 1.334 our Divines have not rightly convinced the Papists, as Idolatrous worishppers of the bread in the Eucha∣rist, for as much as they attribute to it, that which it is not, nor hath not, to wit, that under the accidents thereof is contained substan∣tially the true & living body of Christ, joyned and united to his Godhead. What can B. Lindsey now answer for himselfe, except he say with z 1.335 one of his bretheren, that we should adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, because Corporalis praesentia Christi, sed non modo corporali, comitatur Sacramentum Eucharistiae: And Christ is there present corporaliter, modo spirituali? But this man contradicts himself miserably; For we had him a little before, ackowledging that in pa∣ne, corporalis Christi presentia non est. How shall we then reconcile him with himself? he would say that Christ is not bodily present in the Sacrament after a bodily manner; but he is bodily present after a spirituall manner. Why should I blot paper with such a vanity, which implyeth a contradiction, bodily and not bodily, spiritually and not spiritually?

The sixt and last Argument, whereby I prove the kneeling in que∣stion to be Idolatry, is takē from the nature & kind of the worship [Sect. 17] wherein it is used. For the receiving of the Sacrament being a me∣diate worship of God, wherein the Elements come between God & us, in such sort, that they belong to the substance of the worship, (for without the Elements, the Sacrament is not a Sacrament,) and withall are susceptive of coadoration, for as much as in the act of receiving, both our mindes, and our externall sences, are and should be fastened upon them: hereby we evince the Idolatry of kneeling in the receiving. For in every mediate worship, wherein some crea∣ture is purposely set betweene God & us to have state in the same, it

is Idolatry to kneel before such a creature, whiles both our minds & sences are fastened upō it. Our Opposites have raked many things together, to infringe this Argument. First a 1.336 they alledge the bow∣ing of Gods people before the ark, the Temple, the holy Mountain, the Altar, the Bush, the Cloud, the Fire which came from heaven. Answ. 1. Where they have read that the people bowed before the Altar of God, I knowe not. b 1.337 B. Lindsey indeed would prove from 2. Chron. 6. 12, 13, and Mic. 6, 6. that the people bowed before the Altar and the Offering. But the first of those places, speakes no∣thing of kneeling before the Altar, but only of kneeling before the Congregation, that is, in sight of the Congregation. And if Solomon had then kneeled before the Altar, yet the Altar had beene but occasionally and accidentally before him in his adoration, for to what end & use could he have purposely set the Altar before him, whiles he was kneeling and praying? The place of Micah can not prove, that Gods people did kneel before the offerings at all, (for it speakes only of bowing before God,) farre lesse, that they kneeled before them in the very act of offering, and that with their minds and sences fixed upon them, as we kneel in the very act of receiving the Sacrament, and at that instant when our minds and sences are fastened upon the signes, that we may discerne the things signi∣fied by them, for the exercising of our hearts in a thankfull medita∣tion upon the Lords death. 2. As for the other examples here alled∣ged, God was immediatly present, in and-with the Arke, the Tem∣ple, the holy Mountaine, the Bush, the Cloud, and the Fire which came from Heaven, speaking and manifesting himself to his peo∣ple by his owne immediate voice, and miraculous extraordinary presence: So that worshipping before these things had the same rea∣son which makes c 1.338 the 24 Elders in Heaven worship before the Throne. For in these things, God did immediatly manifest his pre∣sence, as well as in heaven. Though there be a difference in the de∣grees of the immediate manifestation of his presence in Earth, and in Heaven, yet magn & minus non variant speciem. Now God is pre∣sent in the Sacrament, not extraordinarily, but in the way of an ordinary dispensation, not immediatly but mediatly. They must therefore alledge some commendable examples of such a kneeling as we dispute about, in a mediate and ordinary worship, else they say nothing to the point.

Yet to no better purpose d 1.339 they tell us, that when God spake, [Sect. 18] Abraham fell on his face. And when the fire came downe at Elijas prayen, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpose? And how shall kneeling in a mediat and ordinary worship, be war∣ranted by kneeling in the hearing of Gods owne immediate voice, or in seeing the miraculous signes of his extraordinary presence?

Howbeit it can not be proved, neither, that the people fell on their faces in the very act of seeing the fire fall, (when their eyes and their mindes were fastened upon it,) but that after they had seene the mi∣racle wrought, they so considered of it, as to fall downe and wor∣ship God.

But further, it is objected, e 1.340 that a poenitentiary kneels to God pur∣posely before the Congregation, and with a respect to the Congregation, &c. When we come to our common Tables before we eate, tither fitting with our heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and blesse, with a respect to the meate, which is purposely set on Table, &c. The Pastor when he begins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set be∣fore him, purposely, upon the Table, and with respect to them, hee gives thankes, &c.

Answ. Though a poenitentiary kneele to God purposely in the presence and sight of the congregation, that he may make knowne to them his repentance for the sinne whereby he hath scandalized them; yet is the confessing of his sinne to God kneeling there upon his knees, a immediate worship, neither doth the Congregation come betwixt him and God, as belonging to the substance of this worship, for he kneeleth to God, as well, and maketh confession of his sinne, when the Congregation is not before him. But I suppose our kneelers themselves will confesse, that the Elements come so betwixt God and them, when they kneele, that they belong to the essence of the worship in hand, and that they would not, nor could not worship the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, if the Elements were not before them.

To be short, the case of a poenitentiary standeth thus, that not in his kneeling simpliciter, but in his kneeling publikely and in sight of the Congregation, he setteth them before him, purposely, and with a respect to them: Whereas our kneelers doe kneele in such sort, that their kneeling simpliciter, and without an adjection or ad∣junct, hath a respect to the Elements purposely set before them, nei∣ther would they at all kneele, for that end and purpose for which they doe kneele, namely, f 1.341 for worshipping the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, except the Elements were before the eyes both of their mindes and bodies; as the poenitentiary doth kneele, for making confession of his sinne to God, when the Con∣gregation is not before him.

And if one would say, that in kneeling at the Sacrament he wor∣shippeth not the flesh and bloud of Christ, but the Lord his God only, yet is the same difference to be put betwixt his kneeling be∣fore the Elements, & the kneeling of a poenitentiary before the Cō∣gregation: For the very kneeling it self (simply considered) before the Elements, respecteth them as then purposely set in our sight, that we may kneele before thē: whereas in the case of the poenitentiary,

it is not his kneeling to confesse his sinne to God, which hath a re∣spect to the Congregation as set in his sight for that purpose; But some cirumstances of his kneeling only, to wit, When? At that time when the Congregation is assembled; And where? Publikely in sight of the Congregation. In regard of these circumstances, he hath the Congregation purposely in his sight, & so respecteth them; But in regard of the kneeling it self simply, the presence of the Congrega∣tion is but accidentall to him who kneeleth, & confesseth his sinne before God. As touching giving thankes before the meate set on our common Tables, though a man should doe it kneeling, yet this speaketh not home to the point now in controversy, except a man so kneele before his meat, that he have a religious respect to it, as a thing separated from a common use and made holy, and likewise have both his minde & his externall sences of seeing, touching, & tasting fastened upon it in the act of his kneeling. And if a man should thus kneele before his meate, he were an Idolater.

Lastly, giving thankes before the Elements of Bread & Wine, in the beginning of the holy action, is as farre from the purpose: For this giving of thanks, is an immediate worship of God, wherein we have our minds & sences not upon the Bread & Wine, as upon things which have a state in that worshippe of the Lords Supper, & belong to the substance of the same, (for the very consecration of them to this use, is but then in fieri,) but we worship God imme∣diately by prayer and giving of thankes: Which is all otherwise in the act of receiving.

Moreover g 1.342 it is objected out of Levit. 9. 24. 2. Chron. 7. 3. [Sect. XIX] Mie. 6. 6. 2 Chron. 29. 28. 29. 30. that all the people fell on their fa∣ces, before the legall Sacrifices, when the fire consumed the burnt-offering.

Whereunto it may be answered, that the fire which came from God, and consumed the burnt offerings, was one of the miraculous Signes of Gods extraordinary and immediate presence, (as I have said before,) and therefore kneeling before the same, hath nothing to doe with the present purpose.

But if we will particularly consider all these places, we finde in the first two, that beside the fire, the glory of the Lord did also ap∣peare in a more miraculous & extraordinary maner, Levit. 9. 23. The glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. 2 Chron. 7. 1. 12. The glory of the Lord filled the house. They are therefore running at ran∣dome, who take hold of those places, to drawout of them the law∣fulnesse of kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worship.

The place of Micah I have answered before: And here I adde, that though it could be proved from that place, (as it cannot,) that the people both bowed before the offerings, & that in the very act of offering, yet how shall it be proved, that in the act of their kneeling,

they had the offerings purposely before them, and their minds & sences fixed upon them, in the very instant of their worshipping.

This I make clearer by the last place, 2. Chron. 29. out of which no more can be drawne, but that the people worshipped, whiles the Priests were yet offering the burnt-offering. Now the burnt-offering was but accidentally before the people in their worship∣ping, and only because it was offered at the same time when the song of the Lord was soung. Vers. 27. Such was the foreward∣nesse of zeale in restoring Religion, & in purging the Temple, that it admitted no stay, but eagerly prosecuted the worke, till it was perfected, therefore the thing was done suddenly, Vers. 36. Since then the Song and the Sacrifice were performed at the same time, we must note that the people worshipped at that time, not because of the Sacrifice which was a mediate worship, but because of the Song of the Lord, which was an immediat worship. Now we all commend kneeling in an immediat worship. But this can not con∣tent our Opposites, they will needs have it lawfull to kneel in the hearing of the Word, purposely and with a respect to the Word preached, (though this be a mediat worship only. h 1.343 Their warrants are taken out of Exod. 4. 30. 31. Exod. 12. 27. 2 Chron. 20. 18. Matth. 17. 6. From the first three places no more can be inferred, but that these hearers bowed their heads & worshipped, after that they had heard the Word of the Lord; Neither shall they ever warrant bowing and worshipping in the act of hearing.

In the fourth place we reade, that the Disciples fell on their faces when they heard Gods owne immediate voice out of the Cloud: What maketh this for falling downe to worship at the hearing of the Word preached by men? How long shall our Opposites not distinguish betwixt mediate and immediate worship?

Lastly, i 1.344 it is alledged, that God in his Word allowes not only kneeling at Prayer, but also at Circumcision, Passeover, & Bap∣tisme. The reason of this assertion▪ is given to be this, that a bodily gesture being necessary, God not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plaine liberty. Ans Whether we be left at plaine liberty in all things which being in the generall necessary, & are not parti∣cularly determined in Gods Word; it shall betreated of else-where in this Dispute. In the meane time, whatsoever liberty God leaves man in bodily gestures, he leaves him no liberty of an unlawfull and Idolatrous gesture, such as kneeling in the instant of receiving a Sacrament, when not only we have the outward Signe purposely before us, & our mindes and sences fastened upon it, for discerning the signification thereof, & the Analogie betwixt it and the thing signified; but also looke upon it as an Image of Christ, or as a vica∣tious signe standing there in Christs stead. The Indifferency of such a gesture, in such a mediate worship, should have beene proved,

before such a rule (as this here given us for a reason,) had been applied to it.

But the kneelers would yet make more adoe to us, and be still [Sect. 20] stirring if they can doe no more. Wherefore k 1.345 one of our Doc∣tours objecteth, that we lift up our eyes and our hands to heaven, and worship God, yet doe not worship the heaven: that a man going to bed, prayeth before his bed: that David, offered the Sacrifices of thanksgiving, in the presence of all the people, Psal. 116. that Paul having taken bread gave thankes, before all them who were in the ship Act. 27. 35. that the Israelits worshipped before Moses and Aaron, Exod. 4, 31. Hereupon l 1.346 another Dr. harping on the same string, tells us, that when we kneel in the act of receiving the Sacrament, We kneel no more to bread, then to the pulpit, when we joyne our prayers with the ministers. Oh, unworthy instances, and reproachfull to Doctours! All these things were and are acciden∣tally present to the worshippers, and not purposely before them, not respected as hauing a religious state in the worship. What? doe we worship before the bread in the Sacrament, even as before a Pulpit, a bed, &c? Nay, graduate men should understand better what they speake off.

Another objection is, m 1.347 what a man who is admitted to the office of a Pastor, and receiveth in position of hands, kneeleth still on his knees, till the ordination be ended the rest about him being standing or sitting.

Answ. Kneeling in receiving imposition of hands, which is joyned with prayer and invocation, hath nothing adoe with kneeling in a mediate worship, for in this case a man kneels, because of the imme∣diate worship of invocation: But when there is no prayer, I suppose no man will kneel religiously, and with a religious respect to those persons or things which are before him, as there purposely in his sight, that before them he may adore, which is the kind of kneeling now in Question,) or if any did so, there were more need to give him instruction then ordination.

It is further told us, that n 1.348 he who is baptised, or he who offers him that is to be baptised, humbleth himself and prayeth that the bap∣tisme may be saving unto life eternall, yet worshippeth not the ba∣sen, nor the water. But how long shall simple ones love simplici∣ty, or rather, scorners hate knowledge? Why is kneeling in the im∣mediate worship of prayer, wherein our minds doe purposely res∣pect no Earthly thing, (but the o 1.349 soule, p 1.350 the heart, the hands, [q] the eyes, r 1.351 the voice all directed immediatly to Heauen,) pa∣ralelled with kneeling in the mediate worship of receiving the Sa∣crament, wherein we respect purposely the outward signe, which is then in our sight, that both our mindes and our externall sences may be fastened upon it: Our mindes by meditation, and attentive

consideration of that which is signified, and of the representation thereof by the signe: Our sences by seeing, handling, breaking, ta∣sting, eating, drinking?

Thus we see that in all these examples alledged by our Oppo∣sites, there is nothing to prove the lawfullnesse of kneeling, in such [Sect. 21] a mediate worship, wherein something belonging to the substance of the worship comes between God and us, and is not accidentally but purposely before us, upon which also our minds and sences in the action of worship are fast fixed. Howbeit there is another respect, wherefore none of these examples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, (which I haue shewed before,) namely, that in the instant of receiving the Sacrament, the Elements are actually Images and vicarious Signes standing in Christs stead. But belike our kneelers have not satisfied themselves with the rouing table of these impertinent allegations, which they have produced to prove the lawfullnesse of kneeling in a mediate worship, they have prepared another refuge for themselves, which had been needlesse, if they had not feared, that the former ground should faile them.

What then will they say next to us? Forsooth, that when they kneel in the act of receiving they are praying and praising, and so worshipping God immediately. And if we would know, what a man doth then pray for, it is told us, s 1.352 that he is praying and earnestly crying to God vt eum faciat dignum convivam. To us it seemes very strange how a man when he is actually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating, can be made in any other sort a ban∣queter, then he is, for quicquid est, dum est non potest non esse. Where∣fore if a man in the instant of his receiving, be an vnworthy ban∣queter, he can not at that instant, be made any other then he is.

The truth is, we can not lawfully be either praying or praising in the very act of receiving, because our hearts and mindes should [Sect. 22] then be exercised in meditating vpon Christs death, and the inaestima∣ble benefites which comes to us thereby. 1. Cor. 11. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me.

This remembrance is described vers. 26. Ye doe shew the Lords death. Now one of the speciall wayes, whereby we remember Christ and so doe shew forth his death, is by private meditation vpon his death, as t 1.353 Pareus resolveth.

This meditation is a speech of the soule to it self: and though it may stand with short ejaculations, which may and should have place in all our actions, yet can it not stand with an ordinary & continued prayer purposely conceived, as v 1.354 B. Lindsey would maintaine. For how can we orderly both speake to God by prayer, and to our selves by meditation at one instant of time? If therefore prayer be purposely and orderly conceived, it banisheth away meditation, which should be the souls exercise, in the receiving of the Sacra∣ment.

And by the contrary, if meditation be entertained, as it should be, it admitteth not prayer to have place at that time. For it is wel x 1.355 said, that Dum auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus exterius; auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei interius occupamur, orationem ceontinuam & durabilem, absque mentis diragatione ab opere praecepto & imperato, instruere non possumus.

But let us heare, how the B. proveth that we should be praying & praising, in the act of receiving the Sacrament. Whatsoever spiri∣tuall [Sect. 23] benefit y 1.356 saith he, we should receive with a spirituall hunger & thirst, and with a spirituall appetite and desire after the grace and ver∣tue that is therein to salvation: The same we should receive with prayer, which is nothing else, but such an appetite and desire. But the body and bloud of Christ is such a benefit, &c.

Answ. 1. Why did he not prove his proposition? Thought he his bare assertion should suffice? Gods Word is a spirituall benefit, which we should receive with spirituall hunger and thirst, yet the B. will not say, that we should be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving it, for then could not our minds be attentive. His proposition therefore is false. For though prayer should goe before the receiving of such a spirituall benefit as the Word or the Sacra∣ment, yet we should not pray in the act of receiving. For how can the heart attend by serious consideration, what we heare in the Word, or what is signified and given to us in the Sacrament, if in the actions of hearing the Word, and receiving the Sacrament, it should be elevated out of the world by prayer?

2. Why saith he, that prayer is nothing else but a Spirituall appe∣tite or desire? He thought hereby to strengthen his proposition, but we deny all. z 1.357 He said before, that every prayer is a meditation and here he saith, that prayer is nothing else but a spirituall desire. These are vncouth descriptions of Prayer. Prayer is not meditation, because meditation is a communing with our owne soules, Prayer a communing with God: Nor yet can it be said, that Prayer is nothing else; but a spirituall desire; for Prayer is the sending up of our desires to God, being put in order.

He speeds no better in proving that we should receive the Sacra∣ment [Sect. 24] with thanksgiving. Whatsoever benefit; saith he, we should receive by extolling and preaching, and magnifying and praising the inaestimable worth and excellency thereof, the same we ought to receive with thanksgiving. But in the Sacrament we should receive the bloud of Christ with extolling and preaching, &c. The assumption he confirmes by the words of our Saviour: Doe this in remembrance of me. And by the words of S. Paul: So oft as ye shall eate this Bread and drinke this Cup, ye shall declare, that is extell, magnify, and praise the Lords death, till he come againe.

Answ. His assumption is false, neither can his proofs make it true.

First, we remember Christ in the act of receiving, by meditation, and not by praise.

2. We shew forth the Lords death in the act of receiving, by using the Signes and Symboles of his body broken and his bloud shed for us, and by meditating vpon his death thereby repre∣sented.

3. We deny not that by praise we shew forth the Lords death also, but this is not in the act of receiving. It is to be mar∣ked with a 1.358 Pareus, that the shewing forth of the Lords death, must not be restricted to the act of receiving the Sacrament, because we doe also shew forth his death, by the preaching of the Gospell, and by private and publike celebration of it, yea by a perpe∣tuall study of sanctification and thankfullnesse. So that the shewing forth of the Lords death, by extolling, preaching, magnifying and praising the same, according to the 23. Sect. Of the Confession of faith, to which his Argument hath reference, may not be expounded of the very act of receiving the Sacrament. Neither doe the words of the Institution refuse, but easily admit another shewing forth of the Lords death, then that which is in the very act of receiving. For the word is not quando, but quoties. It is only sayd, as often as ye eat this breed and drinke this cup ye doe shewe &c. Which words can not be taken, only of the instant of eating and drinking.

Now having so strongly proved the vnlawfulnesse and Idolatry of kneeling in the act of receiving the holy Communion, let me adde, [Sect. 25] corolarij loco, that the reader needs not to be moved with that which B. Lindsey in the taile of his dispute about the head of kneeling, offers at a dead lift, namely, the testimonies of some moderne Doctours. For 1. What can humane testimony availe against such cleare truth? 2. We have moe testimonies of Dwines against kneeling, then he hath for it. And here, I perceiye b 1.359 Dr. Morton fearing we should come to good speed this way would hold in our travel. We are not ig∣norant, saith he, that many Protestant Authours are most frequent in condemning the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving of the holy Com∣munion.

3. Testimonies against kneeling are gathered out of those very same Divines whom the B. alleadgeth for it. c 1.360 For Didoclavius hath cleare testimonies against it, out of Calvine, Beza, and Martyr, whom yet the B. taketh to be for it.

Neither yet need we here, to be moved with d 1.361 D. Burgesse his adventurous undertaking to prove, that in the most auncient times, before corruption of the Doctrine of the Sacrament beganne, the Sacrament was received with an adoring gesture.

He shoots short of his proofs, and hits not the marke. One place in Tertullian de oratione, he hammers upon: Similiter de Stationum.

Diebus non putant plerique sacraficiorum orationibus interveniendum quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium Eucharistiae resolvit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior erit statio •…•…ua, si & ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini & reservato, vtrumque salvum est, & participatio Sacrificij, & exec∣utio officij.

To these words the D. gives this sence; That many withdrew themselves, whē they came to the celebration of the Supper, because the body of our Lord, that is, the Sacramentall Bread, beeing taken of the Ministers hand, the station. i. e. standing must be dissolved and •…•…elf: and because standing on those dayes might not be left (as they thought,) therefore they rather left the Sacrament on these dayes, thē they would breake the rule of standing on those dayes: therefore they forbore:

Which can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the Table standing, yet they used not to partake them. i. e. eate the Bread or drinke the Wine, in any other gesture, then what was on the Station dayes then forbidden, kneeling: And that Tertullian wishes them to come, though they might not then kneele, and to take the Bread in publike, standing at the Table, and reserve it, and carry it away with them, and receive it at their owne howses, as they desired, kneeling.

Answ. The D. by this glosse puts a weapon in our hands against himself, for if when they had taken the Bread of the Ministers hand, their standing was to be left and dissolved, and Tertullian, by com∣mending to them another gesture in eating of the Bread, not stan∣ding, then whether vrgeth he that other gesture to be used in the publicke eating of the bread, or in the private? Not in the private: for his advice of reserving and eating it in private, commeth after, and is only put for a remedy or next best, in case they would not condeseend to this course in publicke, quod statio Solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Needs then, it must be understood of the pu∣blicke. Now, if in the publicke eating of the bread, Standing was to be left; Which gesture was to come in place of it? Not Kneeling.

For 1. Tertullian saith e 1.362 elsewhere: Diebus dominicis Iejunare nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare: eadem immunitate a die Paschae ad Pentecosten usque gaudemus.

2. The Dr. himselfe saith, that upon these Station-dayes, Knee∣ling was restrained, not only in prayer, but in all Divine ser∣vice.

Wherefore if according to the Doctours glosse, the gesture of stan∣ding was left or dissolved, that gesture which had come in place of it, to be used in the partaking of the Sacrament, can hardly be ima∣gined to have been any other nor sitting.

well, the D. hath unhappily raised this spirit, to disquiet himself: let him bethinke how to lay him againe. If he can not, J wil assay to make some help, and to lay him in this fashion. The station dayes were not the Lords dayes, together with those 50 betwixt Easter and Pentecost, (on which both fasting and kneeling were forbidden,) as the D. thinketh, but they were certaine set dayes of fasting. For they appointed the fourth and fixt day of the weeke, (that is wednesday and fryday) for their Stations, as f 1.363 Tertulian saith: whose words we may understand, by another place of g 1.364 Epiphanius, who writeth that the Fast of the fourth, and the sixt day, was kept throughout all the Churches, and held to be an Apostolicall constitution. Howbeit herein they did erre: for to ap∣point a certaine time of fasting to be kept by the wholle Church, agreeth not with Christian liberty, and wanteth the example of Christ and his Apostles, as h 1.365 Osiander noteth. Alwayes we see, what was meant by Station dayes, to wit, their set dayes of 150 fasting, which were called Station dayes, by a speech borrowed from a military custome, as Tertullian teacheth. For as Souldiers kept those times and places, which were appointed for their wat∣ches, and fasted all the while they continued in these watches: so did Christians upon their station dayes, resort and meet in the place appointed, and there remained falting till their station dissolved. The Dr. taketh upon him to confute those, who understand by the Station dayes set dayes of fasting. But all which he alledgeth to the contrary, is that he findeth some where in Tertullian, Statio and Iejunia put for different things. Now this helpeth him not, except he could find that Statio, and Stata Iejunia are put for different things. For no man taketh the Stations to have beene occasionall, but only set fasts. Touching the meaning then of the words alled∣ged by the D. (to give him his owne reading of them, howbeit some read otherwise,) thus we take it. There were many who came not to the Sacrament upon the Station dayes, because (in their opin•…•…ō) the receiving thereof should break the Station i. e. the service of the day, and that because it should breake their Fast, a principall duty of the same. Tertullian sheweth, they were in an errour, because their partaking of the Sacrament should not breake their Station, but make it the more solemne and remarkable. But if they could not be drawne from that false persuasion of theirs, that the Sacra∣ment should breake their Fast, yet he wisheth them at least to come, and stand at the Table, and receive the Sacrament into their hands, and take it away to eate it after, (for permitting whereof he had no warrant,) So should they both partake the Sacrament, and also (according to their mind, and to their full contentment,) keep their Stations; which were often prorogated i 1.366 till even, but ever and at least k 1.367 till the ninth houre. Finally from this place, which the D. perverteth for kneeling, it appeareth that the gesture

or posture in receiving the Sacrament, used in that place, where Tertullian lived, was standing because speaking of the re∣ceiving of the Sacrament, he saith, si & ad aram Dei Ste∣teris.

As for the rest of the testimonies, l 1.368 D. Burgesse produceth out of [Sect. 27] the Fathers for kneeling, I need not insist upon them; For either they speake of the inward adoration of the heart, which we ought to direct unto Christ, when we receive the Sacrament, (and this none of us denieth,) or else they speake of adoring the Sacrament: where by the word Adoration, we may not understand any Divine worship, inward or outward, but a reverence of another nature, called Venera∣tion. That this (which we denie not neither,) and no more is meant by the Fathers, when they speake of the adoration of the Sacrament. m 1.369 Antonius de Dominis sheweth more copiously. And thus we have suffered the impetuous current of the Doctours audacious promises, backed with a verball discourse, to goe softly by us Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu.

Finally, if any be curious to know what gesture the auncient Church did use in the receiving of the Eucharist. To such I say, first [Sect. 28] of all, that n 1.370 Didoclavius maintaineth, that which none of our Op∣posites are able to infringe, namely, that no testimony can be pro∣duced which may evince, that ever kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the 3. neither is it lesse truely observed by the Au∣thour of o 1.371 the History of the Waldenses, that bowing of the knees before the Hoste, was then only enjoyned, when the opinion of tran∣substantiation got place.

Next I say, the auncient gesture, where of we read most frequent∣ly, was standing. p 1.372 Chrysostome complaining of few communicants, saith: Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio: Frustra stamus ad altare: nemo est qui simul participet. q 1.373 The Centurie-writers make out of Dionysius Alexandrinus his Epistle to Xi•…•…us Bishop of Rome, that the custome of the Church of Alexandria in receiving the Sacra∣ment, was, ut mensae assisterent. It is also noted by r 1.374 Hospinian, that in the dayes of Tertullian, the Christians stantes Sacramenta percipiebant.

Thirdly, I say, since we all know, that the Primitive Christians did take the holy Communion, mixedly and together with their Love-Feasts, s 1.375 in imitation of Christ, who whileas he did eate his other Supper, did also institute the Eucharist. And since (as t 1.376 it is observed from 1. Cor. 11. 21. 33.) there was a twofold abuse in the Church of Corinth: One in their Love-Feasts, whileas that which should have served for the knitting of the knot of love, was used to out the cords there of, in that every one (as him best liked) made choice of such as he would have to sit at Table with him (the other either not

tarried for, or shut out when they came, especially the Poore,) The o∣ther abuse (pulled in by the former,) was, for that those which were companions at one Table in the common Feast, communicated also in the sacred, with the same separation, and severally from the rest of the Church (and the poore especially,) which was in their former Ban∣quets.

Since also we reade; that the same custome of joyning the Lords-Supper together with common Feasts continued long after. For o 1.377 Socrates reporteth, that the Aegyptians adjoyning unto Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebais, used to celebrate the Com∣munion upon the Sunday * 1.378, after this manner: When they have ban∣queted, filled themselves with sundry delicate dishes in the evening af∣ter Service, they use to communicate. How then can any man thinke that the gesture then used in the Lords Supper was any other, nor the same which was used in the Love-Feast or common Supper? And what was that, but the ordinary fashion of fitting at Table? Since, the x 1.379 Laodicean Canon which did discharge the Love-Feasts, about the yeare 368, importeth no lesse, then that the gesture used in them, was sitting. Non opportet in Ba•…•…ilicis seu Ecclesijs Agapen fa∣cere, & intus manducare, vel accubitus sternere. Now, if not only Divines of our side, but Papists also put it out of doubt, that Christ gave the Eucharist to his Apostles sitting, because being set downe to the preceeding Supper, it is said, whileas they did eate, he tooke bread, &c. (Of which things I am to speake afterward;) What doth hinder us to gather in like maner, that for as much as those Primi∣tive Christians, did take the Lords Supper, whiles they did eate their owne Love-Feasts, therefore they sate at the one as well as at the other? And so I close with this collection. Whatsoever gesture in processe of time, crept into the Lords Supper, otherwise thē sitting, of it we may truely say, from the beginning it was not so.

CHAP. V.

The fift Argument against the Lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies, taken from the mysticall and signi∣ficant nature of them.

THat mysticall significations are placed in the controverted Cere∣monies, [Sect. 1] and that they are ordained to be sacred Signes of Spiri∣tuall misteries, to teach Christians their duties, and to expresse such holy and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions and desire, as are

and should be in them; it is confessed and avouched by our Oppo∣sites. y 1.380 Saravia holdeth that by the signe of the Crosse we pro∣fesse our selves to be Christians. z 1.381 B. Morton calleth the Crosse, a signe of constant profession of Christianity. a 1.382 Hooker cal∣leth it Christ his marke, applied unto that part, where bashfullnesse appeareth, in token that they which are Christians should be at no time ashamed of his ignominie. b 1.383 Dr. Burgesse mantaineth the using of the Surplice, to signify the purenesse that ought to be in the Minister of God. Paybody will have Kneeling at the Lords Supper to be a signi∣fication of the humble and gratefull acknowledging of the benefites of Christ. The prayer which the English Service Booke appointeth Bishops to use, after the confirming of Children by the imposition of hands, avoucheth that Ceremony of confirmation for a signe whereby those children are certificed of Gods favour and goodwill towards, them. In the generall, d 1.384 Our Opposites defend that * 1.385 the Church hath pover to ordaine such Ceremonies, as by admo∣nishing men of their duty, and by expressing such spirituall and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions, or desires, as should be in men, doe thereby stirre them up to greater fervor & devotion.

But against the lawfullnesse of such misticall and significant Cere∣monies, thus we dispute, first, a cheif part of the nature of Sacra∣ments is given unto those Ceremonies, when they are in this ma∣ner appointed to teach by their signification. This reason being alledged by the abridgment of the Lincolne Ministers, e 1.386 Paybody answereth, that it is not a bare signification that makes a thing par∣ticipate of the Sacraments nature, but such a signification as is Sa∣cramentall, both in what is signified and how. Ans. 1. This is but to begge the question, for what other thing is alledged by us, but that a Sacramentall signification is placed in those Ceremo∣nies we speake of? 2. What calls he a Sacramentall signification, if a misticall resemblance and representation of some spirituall grace which God hath promised in his Word, be not it. And that such a signification as this is placed in the Ceremonies, I have allready made it plaine; from the testimonies of our Opposites. This (sure) makes those Ceremonies, so to encroach upon the confines and [Sect. 2] praecincts of the nature and quality of Sacraments, that they usurpe something more then any Rites which are not appointed by God himself can rightly doe. And if they be not Sacraments, yet saith f 1.387 Hooker, they are as Sacraments. But in Augustines Dialect, they are not only as Sacraments, but they themselves are Sacra∣ments. Signa (saith the Father) cum ad res divinas pertinent Sa∣menta appellantur. Which Testimony so masters Dr. Burgesse that he breaketh out into this witlesse answer, g 1.388 that the meaning of Augustine was to shew, that the name of Sacraments, belongeth properly to Divine things, and not to all Signes of holy things. J

take, he would have said, belongeth properly to the Signes of Divin•…•… things.

And here, beside that which Ames hath said against him, J adde that these two things, 1. That this distinction can not be conceived, which the Dr. maketh betwixt the Signes of Divine things, and the Signes of Holy things.

2. That his other distinction can as little be conceived, which impor∣teth that the name of Sacraments, belongeth to Divine things pro∣perly, and to all Signes of Holy things unproperly.

Lastly, if we call to mind that which hath been evinced before, namely, that the Ceremonies are not only thought, to be mistically significant, for setting forth and expressing certaine spirituall gra∣ces, but also operative and availeable to the begetting of those gra∣ces in us, if not by the worke wrought, at least by the worke of the worker; for example that the Signe of the Crosse, is not only thought by our Opposites, to signify that at no time we should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ, but is also esteemed h 1.389 to be a meane to worke our preservation from shame, and a most effectual teacher, to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame: And that Bi∣shopping is not only thought, to be a Signe for certifying young children of Gods favour, and good will towards them; but also an exhibitive Signe, whereby i 1.390 they receive strength against sinne and tentation, and are assisted in all vertue.

If these things, I say, we call to mind, it will be more manifest, that the Ceremonies are given out for sacred Signes of the verie same nature that Sacraments are off. For the Sacraments are called by Divines, commemorative, representative, and exhibitive Signes; and such Signes are also the Ceremonies we have spoken of in the opinion of Formalites.

Misticall and significant Ceremonies, (to proceed to a second reason) ordained by men, can be no other but meere delusions, and [Sect. 3] serve only to feed mens minds with vaine conceits. For to what other purpose doe Signa instituta serve, if it be not in the power of him who gives them institution, to give, or to worke that which is signified by them?

Now, it is not in the power of Prelats, nor of any man living, to give us these graces, or to worke them in us, which they will have to be signified by their Misticall and Symbolicall Ceremonies. Where∣fore k 1.391 Beza saith well of such humane rites as are thought to be significant; Quum nulla res signis illis subsit, proptereà quòd vnius Dei est promittere, & suis promissionibus sigillum suum opponere: consequi∣tur omnia illa commenta; inanes esse larvas, & vana opinione miseros homines, illis propositis signis deludi. l 1.392 D. Fulk thinkes he hath al∣leadged enough against the significative and commemorative vse of the Signe of the Crosse, when he hath said, that it is not ordained

of Christ nor taught by his Apostles: from which sort of reasoning it followeth, that all siginficant Signes which are not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his Apostles, must be vaine, false, and supersti∣tious.

Thirdly, to introduce significant sacred Ceremonies into the [Sect. 4] New testament, other then the holy Sacraments of Gods owne in∣stitution, were to reduce Iudaisme, and to impose vpon us againe the yoke of a Ceremoniall Law, which Christ hath taken off.

Upon this ground doth m 1.393 Amandus Polanus reprehend the Popish Cleargy, for that they would be distinguished from Laicks by their Preistly apparell, in their holy actions, especially in the Masse. Illa ve∣stium sacerdotalium distinctio & varietas, erat in veteri Testamento typica: Veritate autem exhibita, quid amplius typos requirunt.

Upon this ground also doth n 1.394 Perkines condemne all humane sig∣nificant Ceremonies. Ceremonies, saith he, are either of figure and signification, or of order. The first are abrogated at the comming of Christ, &c.

Upon the same ground doth o 1.395 Chemnitius condemne them, Quod vero praetenditur, &c. But whereas, saith he, it is pretended that by those Rites of mens addition, many things are profitably signified, ad∣monished, and taught: Hereto it may be answered, that figures doe properly belong to the Old Testament: but those things which Christ would have to be taught in the New Testament, he would have them de∣livered and propounded, not by shadowes, but by the light of the Word. And we have a promise of the efficacy of the Word, but not of figures in∣vented by men.

Vpon the same ground p 1.396 Iunius findeth fault with Ceremonies u∣sed for signification. Istis elementis mundi (& vocantur Col. 2.) Do∣minus & Servator noluit nec docuit, Ecclesiam suam infermari.

Lastly, we will consider the purpose of Christ, whiles he said to the Pharises, q 1.397 The Law and the Prophets were vntill Iohn: from that time the Kingdome of God is preached. He had in the Parable of the unjust Steward, and in the application of the same, spoken somewhat contemptibly of riches: Which when the Pharises heard, they de∣rided him, and that for this pretended reason (as is evident from the answer which is returned unto them,) because the Law promises the worlds goods, as rewards and blessings to the people of God, that by the temporall things, which are set forth for types and shaddowes of aeternall things, they might be instructed, helped and ledde as it were by the hand, to the contemplation, desire and exspectation of those heavenly and aeternall things, which are not seene. Now, Christ did not only rip up the hypocrisy of their hearts, Vers. 15. but also gave a formall answer to their praetended reason, by shewing them how the Law is by him perfected, Vers. 16. yet not destroyed, Vers. 17. Then, will we observe how he teacheth, that the Law and the

Prophets are perfected, and so our point shall be plaine. The Law and the Prophets were untill John. i. e. they did typifie and prophesie concerning the things of the Kingdome of God until John, for before that time the faithfull only saw those things afarre off, and by types, shaddowes, and figures, and the rudiments of the world were taught to know them; But from that time the Kingdome of God is preached. i. e. the people of God are no lōger to be instructed cōcerning the things of the Kingdome of God, by outward Signes, or visible shaddowes and figure, but only by the plaine Word of the Gospell, for now the Kingdome of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not typified as before, but plainly preached, as a thing exhibited to us, and present with us. Thus we see, that to us, in the dayes of the Gospell, the word only is appointed, to teach the things belonging to the Kingdome of God.

If any man reply, that though after the comming of Christ, we [Sect. 5] are liberate from the Iewish and typicall significant Ceremonies, yet ought we to embrace those Ceremonies, wherein the Church of the New Testament placeth some Spirituall signification.

I answer. 1. That which hath been said in this Argument, hol∣deth good against significant Ceremonies in generall. Otherwise when we reade of the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law, we should only understand the abrogation of those particular ordinan∣ces, which Moses delivered to the Iewes, concerning the Ceremo∣nies that were to endure to the comming of Christ; and so not∣withstanding all this, the Church should still have power to set up new Ceremoniall Lawes in stead of the old, even which & how many she listeth.

2. What can be answered to r 1.398 that which the Abridgement pro∣poundeth touching this matter? It is much lesse Lawfull, (say those Ministers,) for man to bring significant Ceremonies into Gods worship, now, then it was under the Law. For God hath abrogateth his owne (not only such as prefigured Christ, but such also as served by their signi∣fication, to teach morall duties,) so as now (without great sinne) none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for signification. Whereupon they inferre: If those Ceremonies which God him∣selfe ordained, to teach his Church by their signification, may not now be used, much lesse may those which man hath devi∣sed.

Fourthly, sacred significant Ceremonies devised by man, are to [Sect. 6] be reckoned among those Images forbidden in the second com∣mandement. s 1.399 Polanus saith, that omnis figura illicita is forbidden in the second Commandement. t 1.400 The Professours of Leyden call call it Imaginem quamlibet, sive mente conceptam, sive manu effictam.

I have shewed v 1.401 else-where, that both in the writings of the Fa∣thers,

and of Formalists themselves, Sacraments get the name of Images; and why then are not all significant and holy Ceromonies to be accounted Images? Now, the 2. Commandement forbiddeth Images made by the Lust of man (that I may use x 1.402 Dr. Burgesse his phrase,) therefore it forbiddeth also, all religious similitudes, which are homogeneal unto them. This is the inference of the Abridgement; whereat y 1.403 Paybody starteth, & replieth that the gestures which the people of God used in circumcision and Baptisme, the renting of the garment used in humiliation and prayer Ezra. 9. 5. 2 Kings 22. 19. Ier. 36. 24. lifting up the hands, kneeling with the knees, uncovering the head in the Sacrament, standing and sitting at the Sacrament; were and are significant in worshipping, yet are not forbidden by the 2. Commandement.

Answ. There are three sorts of Signes here to be distinguished. 1. Naturall Signes: so smoake is a signe of fire, and the dawning of the day a signe of the rising of the Sunne. 2. Customable signes, and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a signe of preemi∣nence, hath through custome become a signe of subjection. 3. Vo∣luntary signes, which are called Signa instituta; these are either Sa∣cred or Civill. To appoint Sacred Signes of heavenly misteries or spirituall graces, is Gods owne peculiar, and of this kynd are the ho∣ly Sacraments. Civill Signes for civill and morall uses, may be and are commendably appointed by men, both in Church and Com∣mon-wealth, and thus the colling of a Bell, is a signe given for as∣sembling, and hath the same signification both in Ecclesiasticall and Secular assemblings. Now, besides the Sacred Signes of Gods owne institution, we know that naturall Signes have also place in Divine worship; thus kneeling in time of Prayer signifieth the submission of our hearts & mindes, the lifting up of our eyes and hands, signifieth the elevation of our affections, the renting of the garments signified the renting of the heart by sorrow, standing with a religious respect to that which is before us, signifieth veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifieth familiarity & fellowship. For which of you, z 1.404 saith our Master, having a servant plowing or feeding cattell, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, goe and sit downe to meate. All these signes have their significations from nature. And if it be said that howbeit sitting at our common-tables be a signe naturall, to sig∣nify familiarity amongst us, yet nature hath not given such a signifi∣cation to sitting at the Lords-Table; I answer, that fitting is a natu∣rall signe of familiarity, at what Table soever it be used. At the Heavenly Table in the Kingdome of Glory, familiarly is ex∣pressed and signifyed by sitting Math 8. 11. Many shall come from the East and West, and shall sit downe with Abraham, &c. Much more then at the Spirituall Table in the Kingdome of Grace.

The difference betwixt other common tables, & the Lords Table, cā inferre no more, but that with great humility we ought to addresse our selves unto it: yet still we are to make vse of our familiarity with Christ ut tanquam in eodem toro accumbentes, as saith a 1.405 Chrysostome. Wherefore we doe not there so looke to Christ, in his Princely Throne and glorious Majesty, exalted farre above all principalities and powers, as to forget that he is our loving and kinde Banqueter, who hath admitted us to that familiar fellowship with him which is signifyed by our sitting at his table.

Secondly, customable Signes have likewise place in Divine Ser∣vice, for so a man comming into one of our Churches, in time of publike Worship, if he see the hearers covered, he knowes by this customeable signe, that Sermon is begunne.

Thirdly, civill or morall Signes instituted by men, for that common order and decency, which is, respect both in civill and sacred actions, have also place in the acts of Gods worship. Thus a Basen and a Lauer set before a Pulpit, are signes of Baptisme to be ministred: but common decencie teacheth us to make the same use of Basen and a Lauer in civility, which a minister maketh of them in the action of Baptising. All our Question is about Sacred Mysticall Signes. Every Signe of this kinde, which is not ordained of God, we referre to the Imagerie forbidden in the 2. Commaundement. So that in the tossing of this Argument Paybody is twise nought: neither hath he said ought, for evincing the lawfullnesse of sac•…•…ed significant Cere∣monies ordained of men, which we impugne.

Fiftly, the significancy and teaching office of mysticall Ceremo∣nies invented by men, must be drawne under those Doctrines of men [Sect. 7] condemned in the Gospell. Wherefore was it that the diverse wash∣ings of the Pharises were rejected by Christ, as a vaine worship? Was it not, because they were appointed for Doctrines? In vaine, b 1.406 saith he, doe they worship me teaching for Doctrines, the Commaunde∣ments of men.

The diverse washings commaunded in the Law were foresigni∣fying to the people, and for teaching them, what true and inward holinesse God required of them. Now, the Pharises when they multiplied their washings of Hands, of Cups and Pots, Brasen Ves∣sells and Tables, had the same respect of significancy before their eyes. Neque enim alio spectabant (that I may use the words c 1.407 of a For∣malist) quam ut se sanctitatis studios•…•…s hoc externo ritu probarent. Neither have we any warrant to thinke that they had another res∣pect then this. But the errour was in their addition to the Law, and in that they made their owne Ceremoniall washings, which were only the commaundements of men, to serve for Doctrines, Instruc∣tions and Significations. For those washings, as they were signifi∣cant and taught what holinesse or cleannesse should be among the

people of God, they are called by the name of worship: and as they were such significant Ceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vaine worship.

And further I demand, why are the Colossians d 1.408 rebuked, for subjecting themselves to those ordinances, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not? We see that those ordinances were not bare cōmande∣ments, but commandements vnder the coulour of Doctrines; To wit, as the law commanded a difference of meats, for signifying that holinesse which God would have his people formed vnto: so these false teachers would have the same to be signified and taught by that difference of meats & abstinence, which they of themselves & with∣out the commandement of God, had ordanied.

Moreover, if we consider how that the Word of God is given vnto us, e 1.409 for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instruction in righ∣teousnesse, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works: It can not but be evident, how superfluously, how superstitiously, the office of sacred teaching and misticall signifi∣cation, is given to dumbe and lifelesse Ceremonies, ordained of men, and consequently how justly they are taxed as vaine worship. We hold therefore with the worthiest f 1.410 of our Divines, nullam Doctri∣nam, nullum saorum signum debere inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo pro∣fecta esse constet.

To these reasons, which I haue put in order against mens signifi∣cant Ceremonies, I will adde a pretty History before I goe further.

g 1.411 When the Superior of the Abbey of Saint Andrewes was disputing with John Knox, about the lawfullnesse of Ceremonies devised by the Church, to decore the Sacraments and other service of God: Knox answered, The Church ought to doe nothing but in faith, and ought not to goe before, but is bound to follow the voice of the true Pastour. The Superior replied, that every one of the Ceremo∣nies hath a Godly signification, and therefore they both proceed from faith, and are done in faith. Knox replyeth, it is not enough, that man invent a Ceremony, and then give it a signification according to his pleasure; for so might the Ceremonies of the Gentiles and this day the Ceremonies of Mahomet be maintained. But if that any thing pro∣ceed from faith, it must have the Word of God for the assurance, &c. The Superior answereth, will ye bind us so strait, that we may doe nothing without the expresse Word of God. What and I aske drinke? thinke ye that I sinne? and yet I have not Gods Word for me.

Knox here telleth him, first, that if he should either eate or drinke without the assurance of Gods Word, he sinned, for saith not the Apostle, speaking even of meate and drinke, that the creatures are sanc∣tified vnto men by the Word and Prayer? The Word is this: all things are cleane to the cleane: Now let me heare thus much of your Ceremo∣nies, and I shall give you the argument?

But secondly, he tells him that he compared indiscreetly toge∣ther Prophane things with Holy, and that the Question was not of meate and drinke, wherein the Kingdome of God consisteth not, but of matters of religion, and that we may not take the same free∣dome in the vsing of Christs Sacraments, that we may doe in eating and drinking, because Moses commanded, all that the Lord thy God commandeth thee to doe, that doe thou to the Lord thy God; adde nothing to it, diminish nothing from it. The Supprior now saith, that he was dry, and thereupon desireth the gray friar Arbugkill to follow the Argument. But he was so pressed with the same, that he was con∣founded in himself, and the Supprior ashamed of him.

Dicite Io Paean, & Io bis dicite paean.

As for the examples alledged by our Opposites out of Scripture, [Sect. 9] for Iustifying their significant Ceremonies; they have been by our Propugners of Evangelicall simplicity, so often & so fully answered, that here I need doe no more but point at thē. Of the days of Purim, and Feast of Dedication I am to speake afterward. In the meane while, our Opposites can not by these examples, strengthen thēselves in this present Argument, except they could prove that the feast of Dedication was lawfully instituted, & that the dayes of Purim were appointed for a religious festivity, and that vpon no such extraordi∣nary warrant as the Church hath not ever and allwayes. The rite which Abraham commanded his servant to vse, when he sware to him namely the putting of his hand vnder his thigh, Gen. 24. 2. maketh them as litle help: for it was but a morall signe of that civill subiecti∣on, reverence, and fidelity, which Inferiors owe unto Superiors, ac∣cording to the judgment of Calvine, Iunius, Pareus, and Tremellius, all vpon that place. That Altar which was built by the Reubenites Gadites, & halfe Tribe of Manassch, Ios. 22. had (as some thinke) not a religious, but a morall vse, and was not a sacred, but a civill signe to witnesse that those two Tribes and the halfe, were of the stocke and linage of Israell: which if it were once called in question, then, their feare (deducing the connexion of causes and consequents,) led them in end to forecast this issue, Jn time to come, your chil∣dren might speake vnto our children, saying, what have you to doe with the Lord God of Jsraell, for the Lord hath made Jordan a border betwixt vs and you, &c. Therefore to prevent all apparent occa∣sions of such doolfull events, they erected the patterne of the Lords Altar, h 1.412 vt vinculum sit fraternae conjunctionis.

And besides all this, there is nothing which can vrge vs to say, that the two Tribes and the halfe, did commendably, in the erecting of this Altar i 1.413 Calvine finds 2 faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they attempted such a notable & important innovation, without advising with their brethren of the other Tribes, & especially without enqui∣ring the will of God by the high Priest. 2. Where as the Law of God

commaunded only to make one Altar, forasmuchas God would be worshipped only in one place; they did inordinatly, scan∣dalously, and with appearance of evill, erect another Altar, for every one who should looke upon it, could not but presently thinke, that they had forsaken the Law, and were setting up a strange and degenerate Rite. Whether also, that Altar which they set up for a patterne of the Lords Altar, was one of the Ima∣ges forbidden in the. 2. Commandement, I leave it to the Iudici∣ous reader, to ruminate upon. But if one would gather from vers. 33. that the Priest, and the Princes, and the children of Israel, did allowe of that which the two Tribes and the halfe had done, because it is said, the thing pleased the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God, and did not intend to goe up against them in battell.

I answere, the Hebrew text hath it thus. And the word was good in the eyes of the children of Israell &c. That is, the children of Israel blessed God, for the word which Phinehas and the ten Prin∣ces brought to them, because thereby they understood that the two Tribes and the halfe, had not turned away from following the Lord, nor made them an Altar for burnt offerings or Sacrifice; which was enough to make them (the nine Trybes and a halfe) desist from their purpose, of going up to warre against their bretheren, to shedde their bloud. Againe when Phinehas and the ten Princes say to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the halfe Tribe of Manasseh; this day we perceive that the Lord is among us, because ye have not com∣mitted this trespasse against the Lord, vers. 31. they doe not exempt thē from all preuarication; only they say signanter, this trespasse, to wit of turning away from the Lord, and building an Altar for Sacrifice, whereof they were accused. Thus we see, that no approbation of that which the two Tribes and the halfe did, in erecting the Altar, can be drawne from the text.

But to proceed our Opposites alleadge for another example a∣gainst [Sect. 10] us, a new Altar built by Solomon 1. Kings. 8. 64. In which place there is no such thing to be found, as a new Altar built by Solomon: but only that he sanctified the pavement of the inner Court, that the wholle Court might be as an Altar, necessity so requiring, because the Brazen Altar of the Lord was notable to containe so many Sacrifices, as then were offered. The building of Synagougs can make as litle against us.

For. 1. After the Tribes were setled in the land of promise, Sy∣nagougs were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could not come every Sabbath day, to the reading and expounding of the Law, in the place which God had chosen, that his Name might dwell there. what hath that case to doe with the addition of our unnecessary Ceremonies?

2. Jf Formalists will make any advantage of the building of Syna∣gogus they must prove that they were founded, not upon the ex∣traordinary warrant of Prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the Church retaineth still. As for the Love-feasts used in the primitive Church. 1. They had no religious state in Divine worship, but were used only as morall signes of mutuall Charity. k 1.414 The Rhemists will have them called C•…•…nas dominicas. But what-saith Cartwright against them? We grant that there were such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Love-feasts, not by the name of the Lords Supper: nei∣ther could one without Sacriledge give so holy a name to a common Feast, which never had ground out of the Word, and which after for just cause was thrust out by the word of God. 2. If it be thought, that they were used as Sacred Signes of Christian Charity, because they were eaten in the Church. I answere, the eating of them in the Church is forbidden by l 1.415 the Apostle. what? saith he, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God? Aperte vetat saith m 1.416 Pareus, commessationes in Ecclesia, quo∣cunque fueo pingantur. Vocabant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 charitates: sed nihil minus erant. Erant schismatum fomenta. Singulae enim sectae suas instituebant. And alitle after. Aliquae Ecclesiae obtemperasse vi∣dentur. Nam Iustini temporibus Romana Ecclesia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non ha∣buit. Concerning the kisse of charity used in those times, 2. Cor 13, 22. we say in like maner, that it was but a morall signe of that reconciliation, friendship, and amity, which shew it self as well at holy assemblies, as other meetings, in that kynd and courtisie, but with all chaste salutation, which was then in use.

As for the vails wherewith the Apostle would have women covered [Sect. 11] whileas they were praying (that is in their hearts following the publike and common prayer) or prophecying (that is singing. 1. Sam. 10. 10. 1. Chron. 25. 1.) they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment, who alleadge this example for sacred significant Ceremonies of humane Institution. This covering was a morall signe, for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women, which civill decency required in all their meetings: where∣fore, that distinction of habits, which they used for decency and comlinesse in their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle will have them, for the same decencie and comelinesse, still to retaine, in their holy Assemblies. And further the Apostle sheweth, that it is also a naturall signe, and that nature it self tea∣chet it: therefore he urgeth it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman vers. 3. 8. 9. (For covering was then a signe of sub∣jection,) and by the long haire which nature gives to a woman vers. 15. Where he would have the artificiall covering, to be fas∣hioned in imitation of the naturall. What need we any more?

Let vs see natures institution, or the Apostles recommendation for the controverted Ceremonies, (as we have seen them for vvomens vails) and we yeeld the Argument.

Last of all, the signe of imposition of hands, helpeth not the cause of our Opposites, because it the example of Christ, and the Apostles, and their disciples, which our Ceremonies have not: yet we thinke not imposition of hands to be any sacred or misticall signe, but only a morall, for designation of a person: let them who thinke more highly or honorably of it, looke to their Warrants.

Thus have I thought it enough to take a passing view of these ob∣jected instances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falshoods, which here we find in the reasoning of our Opposites. One word more, and so an end, (n) D. Burgesse would comprehend the significancy of sacred Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies, for stirring men up to the rememberance of some mysterie of piety or duty to God, under that edification which is required in things that concerne order and decency by all Divines.

Alas! what a sorie conceit is this? Divines indeed doe rightly re∣quire, that those alterable Circumstances of Divine worship, which are left to the determination of the Church, be so ordered and dis∣posed, as they may be profitable to this edification. But this edifica∣tion they speake of, is no other then that which is common to all our actions and speaches: are we not required to doe all things unto e∣difying, yea so to speak as that our speach may be profitable unto edifying? Now, such significations, as we have shewed to be given to the Ceremonies in Question, as namely, to certify a child of Gods favour and good will towards him; To betoken that at no time Chri∣stians should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ; to signify the purenesse that ought to be in the Minister of God: To expresse the the humble and gratefull acknowledgement of the benefites of Christ, &c. belong not to that edification; Which Diuines require in things prescribed by the Church concerning order and decency; ex∣cept of every private and ordinary action, i•…•… the whole course of our conversation, we either deny that it should be done unto edifying, or else affirmethat it is a sacred significant Ceremony.

CHAP. VI.

That the lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies is falsely grounded vpon the holy Scripture: vvhere such places as are alleadged by our Opposites, either for all the Ceremonies in generall, or for any one of them in particular, are vindicated from them.

IT remaineth now, to examine the warrants which our Opposites pretend for the lawfullnesse of the Ceremonies. But I perceive [Sect. 1] they know not well what ground to take hold on. For Instance whereof; o 1.417 Hooker defendeth the lawfulnesse of Festivall dayes, by the law of nature. p 1.418 D. Douname groundeth the lawfulnesse of them on the law of God, making the observation of the Sabbaths of rest appointed by the Church, such as the Feasts of Christs Nativity, Passion, &c. to be a duty commanded in the Law of God, and the not observing of them, to be a thing forbidden by the same Law. But q 1.419 B. Lindsey proveth the lawfulnes of those Holy dayes, frō the power of the Church to make lawes in such matters. As for the Lords day saith he, which hath succeeded to the Iewish Sabbath, albeit God hath cōmanded to sanctify it, yet neither is the whole publike worship nor any part of it appropriated to that time, but lawfully the same may be performed vpon any other convenient day of the weeke, of the moneth, or of the yeare, as the Church shall think expedient. Vpon this ground Zanchius affirmed: Ecclesiae Christi liberum esse quos velit preter domi∣nicos dies sibi sanctificandos deligere. And by this warrant did the Primitive Church sanctify these five anniversary dayes of Christs Na∣tivity, &c.

Nay, let us observe, how one of them wavereth from him∣selfe, in seeking here some ground to rest upon. Paybody groundeth the lawfulnesse of kneeling at the Sacrament, on nature, part. 2. cap. 4, Sect. 1. On the act of Parliament, part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 31. On an Ecclesiasticall Canon, part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 33. On the Kings soveraigne authority, part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 36. Yet againe he saith, that this knee∣ling is grounded upon the commandement of God, part. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 11.

Well. I see our Opposites sometimes warrant the lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies from the Law of God, sometimes from the Law of Man, and sometimes from the Law of Nature. But I will prove that

the lawfullnesse of those Ceremonies we speake of, can neither be grounded upon the Law of God, nor the Law of Man, nor the Law of Nature, and by consequence that they are not lawfull at all: So that besides the answering of what our Opposites alleadge for the lawful∣nesse of them, we shall have a new Argument to prove them unlaw∣full.

I beginne with the Law of God. And first, let us see what is allead∣ged [Sect. 2] from Scripture for the Ceremonies in generall: Then-after, let us looke over particulars. There is one place which they will have in mythologie to stand for the head of Medusa, and it they still object to us for all their Ceremonies: even that r 1.420 the Apostle, Let all things be done decently and in order: What they have drawne out of this place, s 1.421 D. Burgesse hath refined in this maner. He distin∣guisheth betwixt praeceptum & probatum; and will have the contro∣verted Ceremonies to be allowed of God, though not cōmanded. And if wee would learne how these Ceremonies are allowed of God, t 1.422 he gives us to understand, that it is by commanding the generall kynd to which these particulars doe belong. If we aske, what is this ge∣nerall kynd commanded of God to which these Ceremonies doe be∣long? v 1.423 He resolves us, that it is order and decency: And if fur∣ther we demaund, how such Ceremonies as are instituted and used to stirre up men in respect of their signification unto the devoute re∣membrance of their duties to God, are in such an institution and use matters of meere order? As a Magisteriall Dictatour of Quodlibets; x 1.424 he tells us that they are matters of meere order sensu largo, in a large sence. But lastly, if we doubt where he readeth of any wor∣ship commaunded in the generall, and not commaunded but only allowed in the particular y 1.425 he informeth us, that in the free-will-offrings, when a man was left at liberty to offer a Bullock, Goate, or Sheep at his pleasure, if he chose a Bullock to offer, that Sacrifice in that particular, was not commaunded, but only allowed. What should I doe, but he surd•…•… contra absurdum? Neverthelesse least this Iolly fellow thinke himself more Iolly then he is, I answer 1. How ab∣surd a tenet is this which holdeth that there is some particular wor∣ship of God allowed and not commanded? What new Light is this which maketh all our divines to have been in the mist, who have ac∣knowledged no worship of God, but that which God hath comman∣ded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship? As for the instances of the free-will-offerings, z 1.426 Ames hath answered suffi∣ciently, that though the particulars were not nor could not be deter∣mined, by a distinct rule in generall, yet they were determined by the cir∣cumstances, as our Divines are wont to answer the Papists, about their Vowes, Counsels, Supererogations: NOT BY A GENERALL LAW, BVT BY CONCVRRENCE OF CIRCVM∣STANCES.

So Deut. 16. 10. Moses sheweth that the freist offrings were to be ac∣cording as God had blessed them; From whence it followeth, it had been sinne for any Israelite, whom God had plentifully blessed, to offer a paire of Pigeons in stead of a Bullock or two, upon his owne meere pleasure. Where that proportion was observed, the choice of a Goate before a Sheep, or a Sheep before a Goate was no formall wor∣ship.

2. How will D. Burgesse make it appeare, that the English Cere∣monies [Sect. 3] doe belong to that order and decency, which is comanded. a 1.427 Bellarmine would have all the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome comprehended vnder order and decency, and therefore warranteth them by that Praecept of the Apostle. Let all things be done decent∣ly and in order. The one shall as soone prove his poynt as the o∣ther, and that shall be never.

For 1. The Apostle only commands that each action and Ceremo∣ny of Gods worship be decently and orderly performed, but gives us no leave to excogitate or devise new Ceremonies, which have not been instituted before. He hath spoken in that Chapter of assem∣bling in the Church, Prophecying and Preaching, Praying & Praising there.

Now let all these things, and every other action of Gods worship Ceremonies and all be done decently and in order. Licet ergo, Paulus, &c, Albeit therefore saith b 1.428 Ioh. Bastwick, Paul hath committed to the Church, the judging both of decency and order, yet hat he not graunted any liberty of such misticall Ceremonies, as by their more inward signification doe teach the duty of piety: For since the whole liberty of the Church in the matter of Divine worship, is exer∣cised only in order and decency; it followeth that they doe impudently scorne both God and the Scriptures, who doe extend this liberty to greater things, and such as are placed above us. Most certaine it is, that Christ the Doctour of the Church hath by his owne written and sealed Word, aboundantly expounded unto us the will of God; nei∣ther is there further need of any Ceremonies, which by a secret vertue may instruct us: neither is it lesse evident, that order consisteth not its the institution or use of new things, but only in the right placing of things which have been instituted before. Decency, saith c 1.429 Baldwine, is opposed to levitie, and order to confusion. Spectat autem hic ordo po∣tissimum ad Ritus Ecclesia in officijs Sacris in quibus nullum debet esse scand•…•…um, nulla confusio.

Then, in his Iudgment, order is not to the Rites of the Church a generall kynd, but only a concomitant circumstance; neither are the Rites of the Church comprehended under order, as parti∣culars under the generall kynd to which they belong, but order belongeth to the Rites of the Church, as an adjunct to the Sub∣ject. And I pray, must not the Rites of the Church be managed with decency and order? If so; then must our Opposites either say, that order is managed with order, which is to speake nonsence, or else that the Rites of the Church are not comprehended under order. But if not; then it followeth that the Rites of the Church are to be managed with levity; confusion, and scandall, for every action that is not done indecently and in order, must needs be done scanda∣lously and confusedly. 2. Order and decency, whether taken largo, or stricto sensu, allwayes signify such a thing as ought to be in all humane actions, as well civill as sacred; for will any man say that the civill actions of men are not to be done decently and in or∣der? d 1.430 The directions of order and decency, are not (we see) propria religionis. But as e 1.431 Balduine sheweth out Gregory Na∣zianzen, order is in all other things, as well as is in the Church. Whe∣refore sacred significant Ceremonies shallnever be warranted, by the precept of order and decency, which have place no lesse in civi∣lity then in religion.

Now to the particulars. And first, that which Christ did Matth. [Sect. 4] 19. 13. 15. can not commend unto us the Bishopping, or confirma∣tion of children by prayer and imposition of hands. For as f 1.432 Maldonat saith rightly, Haebre orum consuetudinem fuisse, ut qui ma∣jores erant & aliqua pollebant divina gratia, manuum impositione inferioribus benedicerent, constat ex Gen. 48. 14. 15. hac ergo ratione adducti parentes, Infantes ad Christum afferebant, ut impossit is manibus illis benediceret. And as touching this blessing of children and imposition of hands upon them, saith g 1.433 Cartwright, it is pecu∣liar unto our Saviour Christ: used neither by his disciples, nor his Apostles, either before or after his Ascension. Whereunto ma∣keth that the Children being brought, that he should pray over them, he did not pray for them, but blessed them, that is to say commen∣ded them to be blessed, thereby to shew his Divine power. These be∣ing also yet Infants, and in their suatheling cloutes, as by the Word which the Evangelist useth, and as by our Saviour Christs taking them into his armes, doth appeare; beeing also in all likelihood un∣baptised. Last of all, their confirmation is a notable derogation unto the holy Sacrament of Baptisme, not alone in that it presumeth

the sealing of that which was sealed sufficiently by it: but also in that both by asseueration of words; and by specialty of the Minister that giveth it, it is even preferred unto it.

The act of Perth about kneeling, would draw some commenda∣tion [Sect. 5] to this Ceremony, from those words of the b 1.434 Psalme, O come let us worship and bow downe. let us kneele before the Lord our maker. Which is as if one should argue thus. We may wor∣ship before the lord. Ergo before a creature. We may kneele in an immediate worship of God, Ergo in a mediate. For who seeth not, that the kneeling there spoken of, is a kneeling in the action of solemne praise, and Ioyfull noise of singing unto the Lord? I wish you, my Masters, more sober spirits, that ye may feare to take Gods name in vaine, even his word which he hath magni∣fied above all his name. c 1.435 Dr. Forbesse goeth about to warrant private Baptisme, by Philips baptising the Eunuch, there being no greater company present, so farre as we can gather from the nar∣ration of Luke, Act. 8. As lykwise by Paul and Silas their baptising the Goaler and all his, in his owne private house, Act. 16. Touching the first of those places, we answere. 1. How thinks he that a man of so great auctority and charge, was alone in his Iourny? we sup∣pose a great man travelling in a charret, must have some number of attendants, especially having come to a solemne worship at Ieru∣salem. 2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the Spirit guided him unto it, Vers. 29. 39. As to the other place, there was in that time of persecution no liberty for Christians to meet to∣gether in Temples and publike places as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul and Silas doth prove the lawfulnesse of the like deed in the like case.

d 1.436 Hooker muttereth some such matter, as a commendation of the [Sect. 6] Signe of the Crosse, from these two places, Ezech. 9 4 Revel. 7. 3. al∣leadging that because in the forehead nothing is more plaine to be seene then the feare of contumely and disgrace: therefore the Scripture describeth them marked of God in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from finall confusion and shame. e 1.437 Bellarmine alledgeth for the Crosse the same two places. But for answer to the first, we say that neither the signe whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make ought for them. As for the signe itselfe. Albeit the Ancients did interprete this signe of the letter Tau, to have been the signe of the Crosse, yet saith f 1.438 Junius, Bona illorum venia; T quidem Graecorum, latinorumque majuscu∣lum, crucis qoudammodo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad lite∣ram Haebreorum Tau non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Graecorum latinorumque T, formam Crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum sumebantur supplicia, representat.

Whereupon dissenting from the Auncients, he delivers his owne Iudgement, that Tau in this place is taken Technikos, for that signe or marke of the le•…•…ter wherewith the Lord commanded to marke the elect for their safety and preservation. And so there was no mistery to be sought in that letter more then in any other. As for the use of that marke, wherewith the elect in Ierusalem were at hat time sealed, it was only for distinction and separation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the doores had, Exod. 12. 7. only the foreheads of men and women, and not the posts of doores were here marked, because only the remnant according to election, and not whole families promiscously were at this time to be spared, as Iunius noteth.

But the use of the signe of the Crosse pretended by Formalists, is not to separate us in the time of Iudgement, but to teach that at no time we ought to be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.

Shortly, the signe wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for preservation from Iudgement, but the signe of the Crosse is u∣sed for preservation from sinne. Thus we see, that neither the signe nor the use of it, had any affinity with the Crosse. Now, the surest interpreation of that place Ezech. 9 4. is to take Tau for an apella∣tive noune, signifying generally and indefinitly a Marke or a Signe, so that there is no make determined by this word: only there was a commandemēt given te set a certaine marke, some signe or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have our English Translatours taken the place.

This exposition is confessed by g 1.439 Gasper Sanctius, to be fol∣lowed almost by al the Hebrew masters, and by the most Auncient Interpreters, to wit, the Septuagints, Aquila, and Symachus. The word beareth this glosse, euen according to the confession of those, who expound it otherwise in this place, to wit, for an Image or representation of the Crosse. Tau saith h 1.440 Sanctius commune no∣men est, quod signum indefinite significat. Tau is expounded by * 1.441 Bel∣larmine, to signify Signum or Terminus. Well then: our Adversaries themselves can say nothing against our interpretation of the word Tau. We have also Buxtorf for us, who in his Hebrew Lexicon, tur∣neth Tau to be Signum, and for this signification he citeth both this place Ezech. 9. 4, and Iob. 31. 35. Taui signum meum.

Lastly, if Tau be not put for a common appellative noune signify∣ing a marke or signe, but for the figure or character of the letter Tau as an Image of the Crosse, by all likelyhood this character only should have been put in the Hebrew text, and not the noune fully written; Vehithvitha tau, and marke a marke. As to the other place, Revel. 7. 3. i 1.442 Pareus observeth, that there is no figure or forme of any signe there expressed, and he thinks that seale was not outward and visible, but the same whereof we read 2. Tim. 2. 19. and Revel. 14. 1.

Which can no be interpreted de signo transeunte: nam Christianum semper nomen filij & patris in fronte opportet gerere, saith k 1.443 Iu∣nius.

D. Fulk on Revel. 7, 3. saith, that the signe here spoken of is proper to Gods elect, therefore not the signe of the Crosse, which many repro∣bates have received.

l 1.444 B. Andrewes will have the feast of Easter drawne from that [Sect. 7] place 1. Cor. 5. 8. Where he saith; there is not only a warrant, but an order for the keeping of it, and he will have it out of doubt, that this feast is of Apostolicall institution, because after the times of the Apostles, when there was a contention about the maner of keeping Easter, it was agreed vpon by all, that it should be kept, and when the oneside alleadged for them St. Iohn, and the other S. Peter, it was acknowledged by both, that the feast was Apostolicall.

J answer, the Testimony of Socrates deserveth more creditthen the Bishops naked conclusion.

I am of opinion saith m 1.445 Socrates, that as many other things crept in of custome in sundry places, so the Feast of Easter to have pre∣vailed among all people, of a certaine private custome & observation.

But whereas B. Lindsy in defence of B. Andrewes, replyeth that Socrates propoundeth this for his owne opinion only.

I answer, that Socrates in that Chapter proveth his opinion from the verie same ground, which B. Andrewes wresteth, to prove that this Feast is Apostolicall. For while as in that hot controversy about the keeping of Easter, they of the East alleadged Iohn the Apostle for their Author, and they o▪ the vvest alleadged Peter & Paul for them∣selves; Yet (saith Socrates, there is none that can shew in writing any testimony of theirs, for confirmation and proofe of their custome. And hereby I doe gather, that the celebration of the Feast of Easter, came up more of custome then by any Law or Canon.

Douname (as I touched before) alleadgeth the fourth commande∣ment [Sect. 7] for holy dayes of the Churches institution. But n 1.446 D. Bastwick alleadgeth more truly the fourth commandemēt against them, Six dayes shalt thou labour. This Argument I have made good else∣where, so that now I need not insist vpon it. There are further two examples alleadged against us, for holy dayes, out of Esther 9. 17. 18. 17. 28. and Jo. 10. 22.

VVhereunto we answer. 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole Congregation of Jsrael, and body of the people, as is plaine from Esther. 9. 31. & 1. Maccab. 4. 59. therefore they have no shew of making ought for such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their con∣sciences doe condemne them.

2. Jt appeares, that the dayes of Purim were only appointed to be dayes of civill mirth and gladnesse, such as are in use with us, when we set out bone-fires, and other tokens of civill joy for some memorable benefite which the Kingdome or Common-wealth hath received, For they are not called the holy dayes of Purim, but simply the dayes of Purim, a day of feasting and of sending portions one to another, Esther. 9. 19. 22. no word of any worship of God on those dayes. And whereas it seemeth to o 1.447 B. Lindsey, that those dayes were ho∣ly, because of that rest which was observed upon them: He must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from Vers. 16. and 22. that this rest was not a rest from labour, for vvaiting upon the vvorshipping of God, but only a rest from their ene∣mies.

But B. Andrewes goeth about to prove by six reasons, that the dayes of Purim were holy dayes, and not dayes of civill joy and So∣lemnity [Sect. 9] only. * 1.448

First, saith he, it is plaine by Vers. 31. they tooke it in animas, upon their soules, a soule-matter they made of it: there needs no soule for feria or festum, play or feasting. They bound themselves super ani∣mas suas, which is more then upon themselves, & would not have been put in the margent, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English Translatours, as you may perceive.

Answ. The B. could not be ignorant that nephesch signifyeth cor∣pus animatum, as well as anima, and that the Hebrevves doe not all∣wayes put this word for our soules, but verie often for ourselves. So Psal. 7. 2, and Psal. 59. 3. vve read naphschi: my soule: for me; and Psal. 44. 25. naphschenu: our soule: for we; and Gen. 46, 26. col-ne∣phesch: omnes animae: for omnes homines.

VVhat have we any further need of Testimonies. Six hundreth such are in the holy te•…•…t. And in this place Esth. 9, 31. vvhat can be more plaine, then that nghal-naphscham: vpon their soule: is put for nghalehem: upon themselves, especially since nghalehem is found to the same purpose both in Vers. 27. and 31.

Jf we will make the text agree well with it self, how can we but take both these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Se∣condly, saith he, the bond of it reacheth to all that religioni eo∣rum voluerunt copulari vers. 27. then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need any Ioyning in religion for a matter of good fellowship?

Answ. there is no word in the text of religion. our English tran∣slation reads it, all such as joyned them selves unto them. Montanus, omnes adjunctos. Tremellius, omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis. The old latine version reads it indeed as the Bishop doeth.

But no such thing can be drawen out of the word hannilvim, which is taken from the radix lava, signifying simply and without any

any adjection, adhaesit, or adjunxit se. But let it be so, that the text meaneth only such as were to adjoyne themselves to the religion of the Iewes; yet why might not the Iewes have taken upon them a matter of civility, not only for themselves, but for such also as were to be joyned with them in religion? Could there be nothing pro∣mised for Proselytes but only a matter of religion?

Alas! Is this our Antagonists great Achilles, who is thus falling downe and succumbing to me a silly Stripling. Yet let us see, if there be any more force in the remnant of his reasons.

For a third, he tells us, that it is expressely tearmed a Rite and a Ceremony, at the 23. and 28. Verses, as the Fathers read them.

Answ. If some of the Fathers through ignorance of the Hebrew tongue, have put into their versiones more then the originall beareth, shall we therefore erre with them.

In the 23. Vers. we have no more but Susceperunt, as Pagnime, or Re•…•…eperunt, as Tremellius reads it: But to read, Susceperunt in solem∣nem ritum, is to make an addition to the text.

The 28. Vers. calls not this Feast a Rite, but only dies memorati, or celebres. And what if we graunt that this Feast was a rite? might it not, for all that, be meerely civill? No, saith the Bishop, Rites, I trust, and Ceremonies, pertaine to the Church, and to the service of God.

Answ. The version which the Bishop followed, hath a Rite, not a Ceremony. Now, of Rites is certaine, that they belong to the com∣mon-wealth, as well as to the Church. For injure Politico, sui sunt, imperati & solemnes ritus, saith q 1.449 Iunius.

Fourthly, saith the B. they fast and pray here in this Verse; (mea∣ning the 31.) fast the eve, the fourteenth, and so then, the day follow∣ing, to be holy day of course.

Answ. The latine version, which the B. followeth, and whereupon he buildeth this reason, readeth the 31. Verse very corruptly, and no wayes according to the originall, as will easily appeare to any who can compare them together. Wherefore the best interpreters take the fasting and prayer spoken of Vers. 31. to be meant of the time before their delivery. Now, after they were delivered, they decreed that the matters of their fasting and crying, should be remembered upon the dayes of Purim; which were to solemnize that preservation, quam Iejunio & precibus fuerant a Deo consequuti, as saith Tre∣mellius.

But fiftly, sai•…•…h he, with fasting and prayer (here) almes also is en∣joyned, (at the 22. Verse) these three will make it past a day of re∣vels or m•…•…r•…•…h.

I have answered already, that their fasting and praying are not to be referred to the dayes of Purim, which were memorialls of

their delivery, but to the time past, when by the meanes of fasting and prayer they did impetrate their delivery, before ever the dayes of Purim were heard of: and as touching almes, it can make no holy day; because much almes may be, and hath been given upon dayes of civill joy and solemnity.

If the B. help not himselfe with his sixt reason•…•…, he is like to come off with no great credit. May we then know what that is?

Lastly, saith he, as a holy day the Iewes ever kept it, have a pecu∣liar set service for it in their Seders; set Psalmes to sing, set lesson, to read, set prayers to say, good and godly all: None, but as they have used from all antiquity.

Answ. 1. The B. could not have made this word good, that the Iewes did ever & from all antiquity keep the dayes of Purim, in this fashion.

2. This maner of holding that Feast, whensoever it beganne, had no warrant from the first institution, but was (as many other things) taken up by the Iewes in after ages: and so the B. proveth not the p•…•…nt which he taketh in hand, namely, that the dayes spoken of in this text were enacted or appointed to be kept as holy dayes.

3. The service which the Iewes in latter times use upon the dayes of Purim, is not much to be regarded. For as r 1.450 Godwyn noteth out of Hospinian, they reade the history of Esther in their Synagogues, and so often as they here mention of Haman, they doe with their fists and hammers beat upon the benches and boords, as if they did knock upon Hamans head.

When thus they have behaued themselves, in the very time of their Lyturgie, like furious and drunken people, the rest of the day they passe over in outragious revelling. And here I take leave of the Bishop.

Thirdly, we say, whether the dayes of Purim were instituted to be [Sect. 10] holy dayes, or not, yet there was some more thē ordinary warrāt for them, because Mordecai, by whose advice & direction they were ap∣pointed to be kept, was a Prophet by the instinct and revelation of the Spirit, Esther. 4. 13. Non multum fortasse aberraverimus, saith s 1.451 Hospinian, si dicamut hoc a Mordochao & Hesthera, ex pe∣culiari Spiritus Sancti instinctu factum.

t 1.452 B. Lindsey beleeveth, that they had only a generall warrant such as the Church hath still to put order to the circumstances be∣longing to Gods worship, and all his reason is because if the Iewes had received any other particular warrant, the Sacred story should not have passed it over in silence.

Answ. Thus much we understand from the Sacred Storie, that the Iewes had the direction of a Prophet for the dayes of Purim; and that was a warrant more then ordinary, because Prophets were the extraordinary Ministers of God.

Fourthly, as touching the Feast of the dedication of the Altar by [Sect. 11] Judas Machabeus. 1. Let us heare what w 1.453 Cartwright very gravely and judiciously propoundeth.

That this Feast was unduely instituted and ungroundedly, it may appeare by conference of the dedication of the first Temple vnder Solo∣mon, and of the secund, after the captivity returned from Baby∣lon. In which dedication seeing there was no yearly rememberance by solemnity of Feast, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly celebrtion of this Feast for eight dayes, was not compassed by that Spirit that Solomon and the captivity were directed by: Which Spirit when it dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the Pro∣phets that stood at the stearne of the captivities dedication, then it did in Iudas, it was in him so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter legge then they, he du•…•… in that matter overstride them. And his rashnesse is so much the more aggravated, as each of them for the building of the whole Temple, with all the implements and furniture thereof, made no Feast to renewe the annuall memory, where Iudas on∣ly for renewment of the Altar, and of certaine other decayed places of the Temple, instituted this great solemnity.

2. The Feast of the dedication was not free of Pharisaicall inven∣tion: For as x 1.454 Tremellius observeth out of the Talmud, statuerunt Sapientes illius seculi, ut recurrentibus annis, •…•…cto illi dies, &c. Yet al∣beit the Pharises were called Sapientes Israelis. y 1.455 B. Lindsey will not graunt, that they were the wise-men of whom the Talmud spea∣keth; for (saith he) it behoved these who appointed festivities, not only to be wise-men, but men of authority also.

But what doe we heare? were not the Pharises men of authori∣ty? Why? z 1.456 Saith not Christ they sate in Moses Chaire? Saith not a 1.457 Calvine, In Ecclesia regimine & Scripturae interpretatione, haec sect•…•… primatum tenebat? Saith not b 1.458 Ca•…•…ero, Cum Pharisaeorum pr•…•…cipua esset authoritas (ut ubique docet Iesephus.) &c.

Doth not Iosephus speake so much of their authority, that in one c 1.459 place he saith, Nomē igitur regni, erat penes reginam (Alexandram) pen•…•… Phariseos vero administratio. And in d 1.460 another place, Erat▪ enim quadam Iudaeorum Secta exactiorem Patri•…•… legis cognitionem sibi vendicans, &c. Hi Pharisaei vocatur, genus hominum astutum, arrogans, & interdum regibus quoque infestum, ut eos etiam aperte impuguare non vereatur?

3. There is nothing alleadged which can prove the lawfulnesse of this Feast of the dedication.

It is but barely and boldy affirmed by e 1.461 B. Lindsey, that the Pharises were not rebuked by Christ for this feast, because we reade not so much in Scripture. For there were very many things which Iesus did and said, that f 1.462 are not written in Scripture. And whereas it seemeth to some, that Christ did countenance and ap∣prove this feast, because g 1.463 he gave his presence unto the same, we must remember, that the circumstances only, of time and place, are noted by the Euangelist, for euidence to the storie, and not for any mistery. Christ had come up to the feast of Taberna∣cles, Io. 7. and tarried stil all that while, because then there was a great confluence of people in Ierusalem. Whereupon he tooke occasion to spread the •…•…t of the Gospell for catching of many soules And whileas Iohn saith, It was at Ierusalem the feast of the Dedica∣tion he gives a reason, only of the confluence of many people at Ierusalem, and sheweth how it came to passe that Christ had oc∣casion to preach to such a great multitude. And whileas he ad∣deth, And it was Winter, he giveth a reason of Christs walking in Solomons porch, whether the Iewes resort was; it was not thought beseeming to walk in the Temple it selfe, but in the porch men used to conveene either for talking or walking, because in summer the porch shaddowed them from the heat of the sunne, and in Winter it lay open to the sunne shine and to heat. Others thinke that while∣as he saith, it was winter, importeth that therefore Christ was the more frequently in the Temple, knowing that his time was short which he had then for his preaching, for in the entry of the nex Spring he was to suffer. Howsoever, it is not certaine of what feast of dedication Iohn speaketh; h 1.464 B•…•…llinger leaves it Doubtfull: and Maldonat saith, that this opinion which taketh the dedication, of the Altar by Iudas Machabeus to be meant by Iohn, hath sewest * 1.465 authors. But to let this passe, whereas the k 1.466 Rhemists alleadge that Christ approved this feast, because he was present at it: Cart∣wright and Fulke answere them that Christs being present at it pro∣veth not his approving of it. Non festum proprie honoravit Christus saith l 1.467 Iunius, sed caetum piorum convenientum festo: nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi Euangelii sui observabat & capiebat Christus.

Quasi vero (saith m 1.468 Hospinian) Christus Encaeniorum causa Hiero∣solymam abierit. Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, ad instituendam hominum multitudinem, ad ill•…•…d festum con∣fluentium.

Even as Paul choosed to be preseut at certaine Iewish feasts, n 1.469 not for any respect to the feasts themselves, nor for any honour which he meant to give them, but for the multitudes cause, who resorted to the same, among whom he had a more plentifull occa∣sion

to spread the Gospell at those festivities, them at other times in the yeare.

I had thought here to close this chapter; but finding that as the Parret which other while useth the forme of a mans voice, yet be∣ing [Sect. 11] beaten and chaffed, returneth to its owne naturall voice, so some of our Opposites, who haue beene but erst pr•…•…ting some what of the language of Canaan against us, finding themselves pressed and perplexed in such a way of reasoning, have quickly changed their tune, and beginne to talk to us of warrants of another nature nor the word of God: I am therefore to digresse with them. And I per∣ceive ere we know well where they are, they are passed from Scrip∣ture to custome. For if we will listen, thus saith one of te grea∣test note among hem, p 1.470 B. Andrewes I trow they call him. We doe but make our selves to be pittied otherwhile, (well said) when we stand wringing the Scriptures, (well said) to straine that out of them which is not in them (well said) and so can never come Liquide from them, (well said:) when yet we have for the same point the Churches custome, cleare enough. And that is enough by vertue of this text; (meaning. 1. Cor. 11. 16.) And after he saith, that we are taught by the Apostles example in points of this nature, of Ceremony or Circumstance, ever to pitch upon habe∣mus, or non habemus talem consuetudinem.

Answ. 1. The text gives him no ground for this doctrine, that in matters of Ceremony we are to pitch upon habemus or non habe∣mus talem consuetudinem, so that he is wide away while as he spen∣deth the greatest part of his Sermon, in the pressing of this point, that the custome of the Church should be enough to us in matters of Ceremony, and particularly in the keeping of Easter: for the cu∣stome of the Church there spoken of, is not concerning a point of circumstance, but concerning a very substantiall and necessary point, namely, not to be contentious: neither doth the Apostle urge those orders of the mens praying uncovered, and the womens praying veiled, from this ground, because so was the Churches custome, (as the B. Would have it.) but only he is warning the Corinthians not to be contentious about those matters, because the Churches have no such custome as to be contentious. So is the place expoun∣ded by Chrysostome, Ambrose, Calvine, Martyr, Bullinger. Mar∣lorat, Beza, Fulcke, Cartwright, Pareus, and our owne Arch∣bischop of Sainct Andrews in his sermon upon that text. And for this exposition it maketh, that the Apostle in the praeceding part of the Chapter hath given sufficient reasons for that order of covering or veiling the women: wherefore if any would contend about the matter, he tells them they must contend with themselves, for

they not the Churches of God would not contend with them, they had no such custome. But if we admit B. Andrewes glosse, then why doth the Apostle, after he hath given good reasons for the veiling of Women, subjoyne, If any man seeme to be contentious, &c. The B. resolveth us, that the Apostle saw that a wrangling wit would elude these reasons which he had given, and he had no other rea∣sons to give, therefore he resolves all into the Churches practice, enough of it self to suffice any that will be wise to fobriety.

Answ If any man seeme to be blasphemous, we have no such cu∣stome, neither the Churches of God. What? shall a wrangling wit elude the reasons given by the Spirit of God, in such sort, that he must give some other more sufficient proofe for that which he rea∣cheth? Then the whole Scriptures of God must yet be better pro∣ved, because the unstable doe wrest them, as q 1.471 Peter speakes.

2. The custome of the Church is not enough to pitch on, and [Sect. XIII] it is found oftentimes expedient to change a custome of the Church.

r 1.472 Basilius Magnus doth flatly refuse to admit the authority of custome: Consuetudo sine veritate, saith s 1.473 Cyprian, vetustas erro∣ris est. Frustra enim qui ratione vincuntur, saith t 1.474 Augustine, consuetudinem nobis objiciunt, quasi consuetudo major sit veritate, &c. N•…•… pudor est ad meliora transire, saith u 1.475 Ambrose to the Emperour Valentinian: Quae∣libet consuetudo, x 1.476 saith Gratia•…•…, veritati est postponenda.

And againe: y 1.477 Corrigendum est quod illicite admi•…•…itur, aut a praed•…•…∣cessoribus admissum invenitur. z 1.478 A Politick Writer admonisheth reti∣nere antiqua, only vvith this caution: Si proba.

a 1.479 Calvine (speaking against human Ceremonies) faith: Si ob∣jiciatur, &c. If. saith he, antiquity be objected (albeit they who are too much addicted to custome and to received fashions, de boldly use this buckler, to defend all their corruptions,) the refutation is easie: For the Auncienes also themselves with heavie complaints, have aboundantly testified, that they did not approve of any thing which was devised by the will of men. In the end of the Epistle he alleadgeth this testimony of Cyprian. If Christ alone be to be heard, then we ought not to give heed what any man before us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ (who is before all) hath done, for we must not follow the custome of man, but the trueth of God.

What can be more plaine, then that antiquity cannot be a con∣firmation to errour, nor custome a prejudice to trueth?

Wherefore b 1.480 D. Forbesse also despiseth such Arguments as are ta∣ken from the custome of the Church.

3. There vvas a custome in the Churches of God, to give the [Sect. XIV] holy Communion to Infants, & another custome to minister Bap∣tismeonly

about Easter and Pentecost: Sundry such abuses got place in the Church.

If then it be enough to pitch upon custome, why ought not those customes to have been commended & continued? But if they were commendably changed, then ought we not to follow blindly the bare custome of the Church, but examine the equity of the same, and demaund grounds of reason for it.

S. Paul, (saith c 1.481 D. Fulke,) doth give reasons for that order of co∣vering Womens heads: By whose example the Preachers are likewise to endeavour to satisfy by reason both men & women, that humbly desire their resolution for quiet of their conscience, & not to beate them dovvne vvith the club of custome only.

4. Whereas the custome of some Churches is alleadged for the Ceremonies, wee have objected the custome of other Churches against them: Neither shall ever our Opposites prove them to be the customes of the Church universall.

5. A great part of that Ecclesiasticall custome which is allead∣ged for the Ceremonies, resolveth into that Idolatrous & supersti∣tious use of them, which hath long continued in the kingdome of Antichrist: But that such a custome maketh against them, it hath been proved d 1.482 before.

6. If it were so that we ought to pitch upon the Churches cu∣stome, yet (that I may speake with Mr. Hooker) the Law of common indulgence permitteth us to think of our owne customes, as half a thought better then the customes of others.

But why was there such a change made in the Discipline Policie and Orders of the Church of Scotland, which were agreable to the Word of God, confirmed & ratified by generall Assemblies & Par∣liaments, used and enjoyed with so great peace and purity? Oure, custome should have holden the Ceremonies out of Scotland, hold them in else-where as it may.

CHAP. VII.

That the Lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies can not be warranted by any Ecclesiasticall Law, nor by any power which the Church hath to put order to things belonging to Divine Worship.

WE have proved that the Ceremonies cannot be warranted by [Sect. I] the Law of God. It followeth to examine whether any Law of Man, or power upon Earth, can make them lawfull or warrantable unto us.

We will beginne with Lawes Ecclesiasticall: where first of all, it must be considered well, what power the Church hath to make lawes about things pertaining to Religion & the Worship of God, and how farre the same doth extend it self. D. Fields resolution, touching this Question, is as followeth. Thus, saith e 1.483 he, we see our Adversaries cannot prove that the Church hath power to annex unto such Ceremonies and observations as she deviseth, the remission of sinnes, and the working of other Spirituall and supernaturall effects, which is the only thing questioned between them and us about the power of the Church. So that all the power the Church hath, more then by her power to publish the Comman∣dements of Christ the Sonne of God, and by her censures to punish the offenders against the same, is only in prescribing things that pertaine to come∣linesse and order. Comelinesse requireth that not only that gravity and mo∣desty doe appeare in the performance of the works of Gods service, that be∣seemeth actions of that nature, but also that such Rites and Ceremonies bee used, as may cause a due respect unto and regard of the things performed, and thereby stirre men up to greater fervour and devotion.

And after: Order requireth that there be set houres for prayer, prea∣ching, and ministring the Sacraments, that there be silence & attention when the things are performed, that Women be silent in the Church, that all things be administrate according to the rules of Discipline.

This his discourse is but a bundle of incongruities: For. 1. he saith, that the Churches power to annex unto the Ceremonies which she deviseth the working of Spirituall and supernaturall effects, is the onely thing questioned between our adversaries and us, about the power of Church. Now, our Adversaries contend with us also about the power of the Church to make new Articles of Faith; and her power to make Lawes binding the conscience: both which controversies are touched by f 1.484 himselfe.

2. He isath, that comelinesse requireth the use of such Cere∣monies,

as may cause a due respect unto, and regard of the works of Gods service, and thereby stirre men up to greater fervour and devotion. But it hath been already shewed, that g 1.485 the comeli∣nesse which the Apostle requireth in the Church and service of God, cannot comprehend such Ceremonies under it, and that it is no other then that very common externall decency, which is beseeming for all the Assemblies of men, as well civill as sacred.

3. Whileas he is discoursing of the Churches power to prescribe things pertaining to order, contra-distinguished from her power which she hath to publish the Commandements of Christ, he rec∣kons forth, among his other examples, Womens silence in the Church, as if the Church did prescribe this as a matter of order left to her determination, and not publish it as the Commande∣ment of Christ in his Word.

4. Whereas he saith, that the Church hath power to prescribe such Rites & Ceremonies, as may cause a due respect unto, & re∣gard of the workes of Gods service, and thereby stirre men up to greater fervour and devotion: by his owne words shall he be con∣demned. For a little before, he reprehendeth the Romanists for maintaining that the Church hath power to annex unto the Ce∣remonies which she deviseth, the working of Spirituall and super∣naturall effects. And a litle after, he saith, that the Church hath no power to ordaine such Ceremonies as serve to signify, assure and convey unto men, such benefites of sauing grace, as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them. Now, to cause a regard of, and a respect unto the works of Gods service, and thereby to stirre up men to •…•…ervour and devotion, what is it but the working of a Spirituall & supernaturall effect, & the conveying unto men such a benefit of saving grace, as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them? In like manner, whereas he holdeth, that the Church hath power to ordaine such Ceremonies, as serve to expresse those Spirituall and Heavenly affections, dispositions, motions or de∣sires, which are or should be in men; In the very same place he confuteth himselfe, whileas he affirmeth that the Church hath no power to ordaine such Ceremonies as serve to signifie unto men those benefites of saving grace, which God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them. Now, to expresse such Heavenly & Spirituall af∣fections, dispositions, motions, or desires, as should be in men; is (I suppose) to signify unto men such benefites of saving grace, as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them. Who dare deny it?

h 1.486 B. Lindsey's opinion touching this power of the Church, [Sect. 2] whereof we dispute, is, that power is given unto her to determine the circumstances, which are in the generall necessary to be used in Divine wor∣ship, but not defined particularly in the Word.

I know the Church can determine nothing, which is not of this kynd and quality. But the Prelats meaning (as may be seene in that same Epistle of his,) is, that whatsoever the Church determineth, if it be such a circumstance as is in the generall necessary, but not par∣ticularly defined in the word, then we can not say, that the Church had no power to determine & enioyne the same, nor be led by the judgement of our owne consciences, Iudging it not expedient, but that in this case we must take the Churches Law to be the rule of our consciences. Now, by this ground which the Prelat holdeth, the Church may prescribe to the Ministers of the Gospell, the whole habit & apparel of the Leviticall high Priest, (which were to Iudaize.) For apparrell is a circumstance in the generall necessary, yet it is not particularly defined in the Word. By this ground, the Church may determine that I should ever pray with my face to the East, preach kneeling on my knees, sing the Psalmes lying on my backe, and heare Sermon standing only upon one foot. For in all these actions a gesture is necessary; but there is no gesture par∣ticularly defined in the Word, to which wee are adstricted in any of these exercises.

And further, because uno absurdo dato, mille sequuntur: By this ground the Prelate must say, that the Church hath power to or∣daine three or foure holy dayes every weeke, (which ordinance, as he himselfe hath told us, could not stand with charity, the inse∣parable companion of piety) for time is a circumstance in the ge∣nerall necessary in divine worship: yet in his Iudgement wee are not bound by the Word to any particular time, for the perfor∣mance of the duties of Gods worship.

By this ground we were to say, that Pope Innocent the third held him within the bounds of Ecclesiasticall power, when in the great Lateran Councell, Anno 1215, he made a Decree, that all the faith∣full of both sexes should once in the yeare atleast, to wit, upon Easter-day, receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. From whence it hath come to passe, that the common people in the Church of Rome receive the Sacrament only upon Easter. Now, the time of receiving the Sacrament is a circumstance in the generall necssary, for a time it must have, but it is not particularly defined in the Word, It is left indefinite 1. Cor. 11. 26. yet the Church hath no power to determine Easter-day, either as the onely time, or as the fittest time, for all the faithfull of both sexes to receive the Eucha∣rist. What if faithfull men and women cannot have time to pre∣pare themselves (as becommeth,) being avocated & distracted by the no lesse necessary then honest adoes of their perticular callings?

What if they can not have the Sacrament upon that day ad∣ministered according to our Lords institution? What if they see Papists confirming themselves in their Easter-superstition, by

our unnecessary practice? Shall they swallow these and such like soule destroying Camels, and all for straining out the gnate of communicating precisely upon Easter day? But since time is a necessary circumstance, and no time is particularly defined, the B. must say more also, that the Church may determine Easter day, for the onely day whereupon wee may receive the Lords Supper.

Last of all, if the Church have power to determine all circum∣stances in the generall necessary, but not particularly defined in the Word, what could bee said against that auncient order of so∣lemne baptising onely at the holy dayes of Easter and Pentecost, (whereby it came to passe, that very many died unbaptised, as i 1.487 So∣crates writeth?) Or what shall be said against k 1.488 Tertullian his opi∣nion which alloweth laymen, yea women, to baptise. May the Churches determination make all this good, for asmuch as these circumstances of the time when, and the persons by whom bap∣tisme should be ministred, are in the generall necessary, but not particularly defined in the Word? Ite leves nugae.

l 1.489 Camero, as learned a Formalist as any of the former, expres∣seth [Sect. 3] his Iudgement copiously touching our present Question. He saith, that there are two sorts of things which the Church com∣mandeth, to wit, either such as belong to Faith & manners; or such as doe conduce to Faith and manners: that both are in Gods Word prescribed exserte plainly, but not one way, because such things as pertaine unto Faith and manners, are in the Word of God particularly commanded, whereas those things which con∣duce to Faith and manners are but generally commended unto us. Of things that pertaine to Faith and manners, he saith, that they are most constant and certaine, and such as can admit no change, but as for things conducing to Faith and manners, hee saith, that they depend upon the circumstances of persons, place and time, which beeing almost infinite, there could not be par∣ticular precepts delivered unto us concerning such things. Onely this is from God commended unto the Church, that whatsoever is done publikely, bee done with order; and what privately, be decent.

These things he so applieth to his purpose, that he determineth, in neither of these kindes the Church hath power to make Lawes, because in things pertaining to Faith and manners, the Law of our Lord Iesus Christ is plainely expressed: and in those things, wherein neither Faith nor manners are placed, but which con∣duce to Faith and manners, we have indeed a generall Law, not having further any particular Law, for that reason alleadged, namely, because this depends upon the circumstances.

Thereafter he addeth. Quid sit fides, quid sit pietas, quid sit charitas, verbo Dei demonstratur. Quid ad haec conducat, seu reputando rem in uni∣versum, seu reputando rem quatenus singulis competit, pendet ex cognitione circumstantiarum. Iam id definire Deus voluit esse penes Ecclesiam, hac ta∣men lege, ut quod definit Ecclesia conveniat generall definitioni Dei.

The matter he illustrates with this one Example: Gods Word doth define in the generall, that we are to fast, and that publikely, But in the particular wee could not have the definition of the Word, because there are infinite occasions of a publike Fast, as it is said in the Schooles individua esse infinita: so that it is the Churches part, to looke to the occasion, & this depends upon the considera∣tion of the circumstances. This discourse of his cannot satisfy the attentive Reader, but deserveth certaine animadversions.

First then, it is to be observed, how he is drawne into a manifest [Sect. IV] contradiction: for whereas he saith, that Gods Word doth exserte & diserte commend unto us generatim, such things as conduce to Faith and maners, & that concerning things of this nature we have a ge∣nerall Law in Scripture, how can this stand with that which he ad∣deth, namely, that it is in the Churches power to define what things doe conduce to faith, piety, & charity, even reputando rem in uni∣versum?

2. Whereas he saith, that the Church hath no power to make Lawes, neither in things belonging to faith and maners, nor in things conducing to the same; I would also see how this agreeth with that other position, namely, that it is in the power of the Church to define what things conduce to faith, piety and charity.

3. What meanes he by his application of order to publike, & decency to private actions? As if the Apostle did not require both these in the publike workes of Gods service, performed in the Church.

4. Whereas he saith, that such things as conduce to Faith and maners, doe depend upon the circumstances, and so could not be particularly defined in the Word, either he speakes of those things, as they are defined in the generall, or as they are defined in the par∣ticular. Not the first, for as they are defined in the generall, they cannot depend upon changeable circumstances, and that because according to his owne tenet, the Word defines them in the general, & this definition of the Word is most certaine & constant, neither can any change happen unto it. Wherefore (without doubt) he must pronounce this, of the definition of such things in the particular. Now to say, that things conducing to faith & maners, as they are particularly defined, doe depend upon circumstan•…•…, is as much as to say that circumstances depend upon circumstances. For things conducing to Faith and manners, which the Church hath

power to determine particularly, what are they other then circum∣stances? Surely, he who taketh not Cameroes Iudgement to be, that the Church hath power to determine somewhat more then the cir∣cumstances (and by consequence a part of the substance) of Gods worship, shall give no sence to his words. Yet if one would take his meaning so, I see not how he can be saved from contradicting himself; for as much as he holdeth, that such things as pertaine to Faith & manners are particularly defined in the Word. To say no more, I smell such a thing in Cameroes opinion as can neither stand with reason nor with himselfe.

5. Gods Word doth not onely define things pertaining to Faith and manners, but also things conducing to the same, and that not onely generally but in some respects, and sometimes particularly. And we take for example his owne Instance of fasting. For the Scripture defineth very many occasions of fasting, Ezra 8. 21. 2 Chron. 20. Iona 3. Ioel 2. Act. 13. 3. Ios. 7. 6. Iud. 20. 16. Esther 4. 16. Ezra 9. & 10. Zach. 7. From which places we gather, that the Scrip∣ture defineth fasting to be used.

1. For Supplication, when we want some necessary or expedient good thing.

2. For Deprecation, when we feare some evill.

3. For Humiliation, when by our sinnes we have provoked Gods wrath. Neither can there be any occasion of fasting, whereof I may not say that either it is particularly defined in Scripture, or else that it may be by necessary consequence defined out of Scrip∣ture, or lastly, that it is of that sort of things which were not de∣terminable by Scripture, because circumstances are infinite, as Camero hath told us.

Thus having sailed by those rockes of offence: I direct my [Sect. V] course straight, to the descrying of the true limits, within which the Churches power of enacting Lawes about things pertaining to the worship of Cod, is bounded and confined, and which it may not overleape nor transgresse.

Three conditions I finde necessarily requisite, in such a thing as the Church hath power to prescribe by her Lawes.

1. It must be onely a circumstance of Divine Worship, no sub∣stantiall part of it, no sacred significant and efficacious Ceremonie. For the order and decency left to the definition of the Church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehendeth no more, but mere circumstances. m 1.490 B. Lindsey, doth but unskilfully confound things different, when he talketh of the Ceremonies and Circumstances left to the determination of the Church. Now by his leave, though Cir∣cumstances be left to the determination of the Church, yet Ce∣remonies (if we speake properly) are not.

n 1.491 B Andreues avoucheth, that Ceremonies pertaine to the Church only and to the service of God, not to civill solemnities. But so much (I trust) he would not have said of circumstances, which have place in all morall actions, and that to the same end and purpose, for which they serve in religious actions, namely, for beautifying them with that decent demeanour which the very light and law of natural reason requireth, as a thing beseeming all humane actions. For the Church of Christ being a society of men and women, must either ob∣serve order & decency in all the circumstances of their holy actions, time, place, person, forme, &c. or else be deformed with that mis∣order and and confusion, which common reason and civility abhor∣reth. Ceremonies therefore, which are sacred observances, and serve only to a religious & holy use, and which may not without Sacriledge be applied to another use, must be sorted with things of another na∣ture then circumstances. Ceremoniae, Ceremonies (saith o 1.492 D. Field) are so named as Livie thinketh from a towne called Caere, in the which the Romās did hide their sacred things when the Gaules invaded Rome. Other thinke that Ceremonies are so named a carendo, of abstaining from certaine things, as the Iewes abstained from Swines flesh, and sun∣dry other things forbidden by God as uncleane. Ceremonies are outward acts of Religion, &c. Qua propter etiam, saith p 1.493 Iunius Ritus & Ce∣remonias inter se distinximus, quia in Iure politico sui sunt imperati & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ritus: Ceremonia vero non nisi sacra observationes in cultis di∣rin•…•… appellant•…•…. Ceremonia, saith q 1.494 Bellarmine, proprie & simpliciter sic vocata, est externa actio qua non aliunde est bona & landabilis, nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum. From which words r 1.495 Amesius concludeth against him, that he & others with him doe absurdly confound order, decency & the like, which haue the same use & praise in civill things, which they have in the worship of God, with religious & sacred Ce∣monies. Yet s 1.496 D. Burgesse rejecteth this distinction betwixt circum∣stances and Ceremonies, as a meere nicitie or fiction. And would ye know his reason? For that, saith he, all circumstances (I meane extrin∣secall) which incurre not the substance of the action, when they are once designed or observed purposely, in reference to such a matter, of whose substance they are not, they are then Ceremonies. If this be not a nicitie or fiction, I know not what is. For what meanes he here by a matter? An action, sure, or else a nicitie. Well then: we shall have now a world of Ceremonies. Whē I appoint to meet with another man at Barwick upon the tenth day of May, because the place and the day are pur∣posely designed in referēce to such a matter, of whose substance they are not, namely, to my meeting with the other mā, for talking of our businesse, therefore the towne of Barwick, and the tenth day of May, must be accounted Ceremonies. To me its nice, that the D. made it not nice, to let such a nicitie fall from his penne.

When I put on my shooes in reference to walking or wash my hands in reference to eating, am I using Ceremonies all the while? The Doctour could not choose but say so, for asmuch as these cir∣cumstances are purposely designed and observed in reference to such matters, of whose substance they are not.

2. That which the Church may lawfully prescribe by her Lawes [Sect. 6] and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture, for that rea•…•…on which Camero hath given us, namely, because Individua are Infini∣ta. We meane not in any wise to circumcribe the infinite power & wisdome of God: only we speake upon upposition o•…•… the bounds & limits which God did set to his written word, within which he would have it contained, and over which he thought fi•…•…t that it should not exceed. The case being thus put, as it is, we say truely of those seve∣rall and changeable circumstances, which are left to the determina∣tion of the Church, that being almost infinite, they were no•…•… particu∣larly determinable in Scripture; for the partic lar definition o•…•… those occurring circumstances, which were to be rightly ordered in the workes of Gods service, to the end of the World, and that ever ac∣cording to the exigency o•…•… every present occasion and different case, should have filled the whole world w•…•…h b•…•…okes. But as for other things pertaining to Gods worship, which are not to be reckoned a∣mong the circumstances of it, they being neither in number many, nor in change various, were most easily and conveniently determi∣nable in Scripture. Now, since God would have his word, (which is our rule in the workes o•…•… his service) not to be delivered by tradi∣tion, but to be written and sealed un o us, that by this meanes, for obviating Satanicall subtilty, and •…•…uccouring humane imbecillity, we might have a more certaine way for conservation of true religion, and for the instauration of it when it faileth among men: how cab we but assure our selves, that every such acceptable thing pertaining a•…•…y way to religion, which was particularly and conveniently de∣terminable in Scripture, is indeed determined in it, and consequent∣ly hat no such thing as is not a meere alterable circumstance, is left to the determination of the Church?

3. If the Church prescribe any thing lawfully, so that she prescribe [Sect. 7] no more then she hath power given her to prescribe, her ordinance must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant, given for he satisfaction of tender consciences. This condition is (alas) too seldome looked unto by Law-makers, o•…•… whom one fi•…•…ly com∣plaineth thus:

Lex quam vis ratio Ciceroni summa •…•…ocetur, Et bene laudetur lex quae ratione 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ Invenies inter logistas raro logistas: Mor•…•… & exempli leges sunt •…•…raque Templi.

But this fa•…•…hien we leave to them who will have all their Anoma∣lies taken for Analogies. It 〈◊〉〈◊〉 meth not the •…•…pouse of Christ endued with the Spirit of meeknesse, to command any thing impe∣•…•…iously, and without a reason given.

Ecclesiae enim est docere primùm, tum praescribere, saith t 1.497 Camer•…•…. And againe: Non enim domina•…•…uy cleris, nec agit cum ijs quos Christus redemit, ac si non possent capere qu d sit religiosum, quid minus.

w 1.498 Tertullians Testimony is knowne. Nulla lex, &c. No Law, saith he, owes to itselfe alone the conscience of its equitie, but to these from whom it expects obedience. Moreover, it is a suspected Law which will not have itself to be proved, but a wicked Law, which not being proved yet beareth rule.

It is well said by our Diuines, x 1.499 that in Rites and Ceremonies the Church hath no power to destruction but to edification. And y 1.500 that the observations of our Ecclesiasticall Canons, must carry before them a manifest utility. z 1.501 Pijs vero •…•…ratribus durum est, subjicere se rebus illis quas nec rectas esse nec utiles animadvertunt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 here it •…•…e objected, that some things are convenient to be done, therefore because they are prescribed by the Church, and for no other reason. For example, in two things which are alike lawfull and convenient in themselves, I am bound to doe the one and not the other, because of the Churches prescription. So that in such cases it seemeth there can be no other reason given for the ordinance of the Church, but only her owne power and authority, to put order to things of th•…•…s nature.

I answer, that even in such a case as this the conveniency of the thing itself is anterior to the Churches determination, anterior I say de congruo, though not de facto, that is to say, before ever the Church pre scribe it, it is such a thing as (when it falleth out to be done at all) may be done conveniently; though it be not (before the Churches prescribing of it,) such a thing as should and ought to be done as con∣venient. Which being so, we doe still hold, that the conveniency of a thing must alwayes goe before the Churches prescribing of it, goe before I meane, at least de congruo. Neither can the Church pre∣scribe any thing lawfully, which she sheweth not to have been con∣venient, even before her determination.

These things being permitted, I come to extract my projection, & to make it evident, that the lawfulnes of the controverted Ceremo∣nies, can not be warranted by any Ecclesiasticall Law. And this I prove by three Arguments.

First, those conditions which I have shewed to be required in that thing which the Church may lawfully prescribe by a Law, are not

quadrant nor competent to the Crosse, Kneeling, Surplice, Holy-dayes, &c.

For 1. they are not meere circumstances, such as have place in all morall actions, but sacred, misticall, significant, efficacious Ce∣remonies, as hath been aboundantly shewed in this dispute already. For example: a 1.502 D. Burgesse calleth the Surplice a religious or sa∣cred Ceremony. And againe, b 1.503 he placeth in it a misticall signifi∣cation of the purenesse of the minister of God. Wherefore c 1.504 the replier to D. Mortons particular defence saith well, that there is great difference betwixt a grave civill habite and a misticall garment.

2. It cannot be said, that thes•…•… Ceremonies are of that kynd of things, which were not determinab•…•… by Scripture: neither will our Opposites, for very shame, adventure to say, that things of this kynd to which Crosse, Kneeling, &c. doe belong, viz. sacred significant Ce∣remonies left (in their Iudgement) to the definition of the Church, are almost infinite, and therefore could not be well and easily deter∣mined in Scripture.

Since then, such things as are not meere circumstances of wor∣ship, can neither be many nor various (as I said before,) it is mani∣fest that all such things were easily determinable in Scripture.

3. Our Ceremoniall Lawes are not backed with such grounds & reasons, as might be for the satisfying and quieting of tender con∣sciences, but we are borne downe with will and authority: whereof I have said enough d 1.505 else-where.

2. If the Ceremonies be lawfull to us, because the Law and Or∣dinance [Sect. 9] of the Church prescribes them, then either the bare and na∣ked prescription of the Church, having no other warrant then the Churches owne authority, makes them to be thus lawfull; or else the Law of the Church, as grounded upon and warranted by the Law of God and nature. Not the first; for e 1.506 Divines hold, legem huma∣nam ferri ab hominibus, cum ratione procedunt ab illis alijs antegres∣sis legibus. Nam legis humanae regula proxima est duplex. Una in∣nata quam legem naturalem dicimus altera inspirat•…•…, quam divi∣nam, &c. Ex his ergo fontibus lex humana procedit: haec incuna∣bula illius, a quibus se aberr•…•…, lex degener est; indigna legis nomine. We have also the testimony of an Adversary. For saith not f 1.507 Paybody himselfe: I graunt it is unlawfull to doe in Gods worship any thing upon the meere pleasure of man.

If they take them, (as needs they must,) to the latter part, then let them either say, that the Ceremonies are lawfull unto us, because the Church judgeth them to be agreable to the Law of God & nature, or because the Church proveth unto us by evident reasons, that they are indeed agreeable to these Lawes. If they yeeld us the latter, then it is not the Churches Law, but the Churches reasons given for her

Law, which can warrant the lawfulnesse of the•…•… •…•…to us: which doth elude and elide all that which they alleadge for the lawfulnesse of them from the power and authority of the Church.

And further, if any such reasons be to be given forth for the Cere∣monies, why are they so long kept up from us? But if they hold them at the former, thereupon it will follow, that it shall be lawfull for us to doe every thing which the Church shall Iudge to be agree∣able to the Law of God and nature, and consequently to use all the Iewish, Popish and Heathnish Ceremonies, yea to worship Ima∣ges; If it happen that the Church judge these things to be agreeable to the Law of God and nature.

It will be answered (I know) that if the Church command any thing repugnant to Gods Word, we are not bound to doe it, nor to receive it as lawfull, though the Church judge so of it: But other∣wise, if that which the Church judgeth to be agreeable to the Law of God and nature, (and in that respect prescribeth) be not repug∣nant to the Word of God, but in itself indifferent, then are we to embrace it as convenient, and consonant to the Law of God and na∣ture, neither ought we to call in Question the lawfulnesse of it.

But I reply, that either we must judge a thing to be repugnant or not repugnant to the Word, to be indifferent or not indiffere•…•…t in itself, because the Church judgeth so of it, or else because the Church proveth unto us by an evident reason that it is so. If the latter; we have what we would. If the former; we are just where we were; The argument is still set a foot: then we must receive every thing (be it never so bad,) as indifferent, if only the Church happen so to judge of it. For quod competit alicui qua tali, &c. So that if we re∣ceive any thing as indifferent, for this respect, because the Church judgeth it to be so, then shall we receive every thing for indiffe∣rent; which the Church shall so judge of.

3. The Church is forbidden to adde any thing to the commande∣ments [Sect. 10] of God, which he hath given unto us, concerning his worship and service. Deut. 4. 2. and 12, 32. Prov. 30. 6. therefore she may not lawfully prescribe any thing in the workes of Divine wor∣ship, if it be not a mere circumstance, belonging to that kynd of things which were not determinable by Scripture.

Our Opposites have no other distinctions, which they make any use of against this argument, but the very same which Papists use in defence of their unwritten dogmaticall traditions; namely, that ad∣ditio corrumpens is forbidden, but not additio perficiens: that there is not alike reason of the Christian Church, and of the Iewish: that the Church may not adde to the essentiall parts of Gods worship, but to the accidentary she may adde.

To the first of those distinctions we Answer, 1. That the distinc∣tion itself is an addition to the word, and so doth but begge the Que∣stion.

2. It is blasphemous, for it argueth, that the commandements of God are imperfect, and that by addition they are made perfect.

3. Since our Opposites will speake in this dialect, let them re∣solve us, whether the washings of the Pharises, condemned by Christ, were corrupting or perfecting additions. They cannot say, they were corrupting; for there was no commandement of God, which those washings did corrupt or destroy, except that cōmande∣ment which forbiddeth mens additions. But for this respect, our Op∣posites dare not call them corrupting additions, for so they should condemne all additions whatsoever. Except therefore, they can shew us that those washings were not added by the Pharises, for perfecting, but for corrupting the Law of God, let them consider how they ranke their owne Ceremoniall additions, with those of the Pha∣rises. We reade of no other reason wherefore Christ cōdemned thē, but because they were Doctrines, which had no other warrant then the commandements of men. Math. 15. 9. For as the Law ordained diverse washings, for teaching and signifying that true holinesse and cleanesse, which ought to be among Gods people; so the Pharises would have per•…•…ected the Law by adding other washings (and moe then God had commanded,) for the same end and pur∣pose.

To the second distinction, we say that the Christian Church hath [Sect. 11] no more liberty to adde to the commandements of God •…•…hen the Iewish Church had. For the second commandement is morall and perpetuall, and forbiddeth to us as well as to them the additions and inventions of men in the worship of God. Nay, as g 1.508 Calvine no∣teth, much more are we forbidden to adde unto Gods Word, thē they were. Before the comming of his wel-beloved Sonne in the fl•…•…sh, saith h 1.509 Iohn Knox, severely he punished all such as durst interprise to alter or change his Ceremonies and Statutes, as in i 1.510 Saul, k 1.511 Uzi∣ias, l 1.512 Nadab, Absha, is to be read. And will he now, after that he hath opened his Counsell to the World by his only Sonne, whom m 1.513 he commaundeth to be heard, and after that n 1.514 by his holy Spirit, spea∣king by his Apostles, he hath established the religion in which he will his true worshippers abide to the end, will he now I say admitt (o) mens inventions in the matter of Religion, &c.? For this sentence he prouounceth: p 1.515 Not that which seemeth good in thy eyes, shalt thou doe to the Lord thy God, but that which the Lord thy God com∣manded thee, that doe thou: Adde nothing unto it, diminish no∣thing

from it. Which sealing up his New Testament he rep•…•…ateth in these words: q 1.516 That which ye have, hold till I come, &c.

Wherefore whileas r 1.517 Hooker saith, tha•…•… Christ hath not by po∣sitive lawes so farre descended into particularities with vs, as Moses with the lewes: Whileas s 1.518 Camero saith, non esse disputandum ita, •…•…t quoniam in vetere Testament•…•…, de rebus alioqui adiaphoris certa fuit lex, & •…•…id in novo Testamento habere locum: And whiles t 1.519 B. Lindsey saith, that in the particular circumstances of persons •…•…y whom, place where, time when, and o•…•… the forme and order how the worship and worke of the ministery should be performed h•…•… Church hath power to define whatsoeuer is most expedient, and that this is a preroga∣tive wherein the Christian Church differeth •…•…rom the Iewish Syna∣gogue: They doe but speake their pleasure in vaine, and cannot make it appeare, that the Christian Church hath any more power to adde to the commandements of God, then the Synagogue had of old.

It is •…•…ell said by w 1.520 one: There were many points of service, as Sacrifices, washings, anniversary dayes &•…•…. whi•…•…h •…•…e have not: but the determination of such as we have, is as particular as theirs, except vvherein the nationall circumstances make impediment. For one place not be appointed for the worship of God, nor one Tribe o•…•… the worke of the ministery, among us, as among them, not because more power was left to the Christian Church, for determining things that pertaine to the worship of God, then was to the Iewish, but because the Christian Church was to spread it self over the, whole Earth, and not to be confined within the bo•…•…ds of one nation as the Synagogue was.

Let us then here call to mynd the distinction which hath been shewed betwixt religious Ceremonies and morall circumstances: [Sect. 12] for as touching morall circumstances which serve for common or∣der and decency in the worship of God, they beeing so many and so alterable, that they could not be particularly determined in Scrip∣ture, for all the different and almost infinite cases, which might occure the Iewish S•…•…agogue had the same power for determining things of this na•…•…e, which the church of Christ now hath. For the law did not define but left she be defined by the Sinagogue, the set houres for all pub•…•…e divine service, whē it should begin, how long it should last, the order should be kept in the reading and expounding of the law •…•…aying, singing, carechi•…•…g, excommunicating censuring and •…•…ving of Delinquents, &c. the circumstances of the celebration of mariage, of the education of youth in Schooles and Colledges, &c.

But as for Ceremonies which are proper to Gods holy worship, x 1.521 shall we say, tat the fidelity of Christ the Sonne hath been lesse, then the fidelity of Moses the servant? which were to be said, if

Christ had not by as plaine, plentifull, and particular directions and ordinances, provided for all the necessities of the Christian Church in the matter of religiō, as Moses for the Iewish. Or if the least pinne, and the meanest appurtenance of the Tabernacle, and all the ser∣vice thereof, behooved to be ordered according to the expresse com∣mandement of God by the hand of Moses, how shall we thinke, that in the rearing, framing, ordering, & beautifying of the church the house of the living God, he would have lesse honor & prerogative givē to his owne well-beloved Sonne, by whom he hath spoken to us in these last dayes, & whom he hath commāded vs to heare in all things; Or that he will accept at our hands any sacred Ceremony, which men have presumed to bring into his holy and pure worship, with∣out the appointment of his owne word and will revealed vnto us? Albeit the worship of God and religion in the Church of the new Testament, be accompanied without Ceremonies numero paucissimis observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, (as y 1.522 Augustine speaketh of our Sacraments) yet we have in Scripture no lesse particular determination and distinct direction, for our fevve, easie and plaine Ceremonies, then the Iewes had for their many heavy, and obscure ones.

As for the third distinction, of adding to the accidentary parts of it, [Sect. 13] •…•…emēber, that J heard in the logicks, of pars essentialis or Phisica, & pars integralis or mathematica; of pars similaris, & pars dissimilaris; of pars c•…•…ua & pars discreta. But of pars accidētaria heard I never till now. There is (I know) such a distinction of Pars integralis, that it is either pr•…•…alis and necessaria, or minus principalis and non necessaria. But w•…•… cannot vnderstand their pars cultus acciden∣taria, to be pars integ•…•…alis non necessaria, because then their distri∣bution of worship into e•…•…entiall & accidentary parts, could not ans∣wer to the rul•…•…s of a just dist•…•…bution: of which one is, that distributio debet exhauri•…•…e totum distributu•…•…. Now, there are some parts of worship, which cannot be comp•…•…hended in the foresaid distribu∣tion, namely, partes integrales necessar•…•… What then? Shall we let this vvilde Distinction passe, because it cannot 〈◊〉〈◊〉 well nor formally inter∣preted? Nay, but we will observe their mean•…•… who make use of it, For unto all such parts of worship as are not ess•…•…iall (and which they are pleased to call accidentarie) they hold, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church may make addition. Whereunto I answer, 1. Let them m•…•… us under∣stand, what they meane by those essentiall parts, to which th•…•… Church may adde nothing: and let them beware least they give us a•…•… •…•…∣ticall description of the same.

2. There are many parts of Gods worship, which are not essen∣tiall, yet such as will not suffer any addition of the Church. For proof vvhereof, J demaund, vvere all the Ceremonies commanded to be •…•…sed in the legall Sacraments and Sacrifices, essentiall parts o•…•… those

worships? No man will say so. Yet the Synagogue was tied to ob∣serve those (and no other then those) Ceremonies, which the Word prescribed. When Israel was againe to keepe the Passeover, q 1.523 it was said; In the fourteenth day of this moneth at even, ye shall keep it in his appoin∣ded season: according to all the Rites of it and according to all the Ceremonies of it, shall ye keep it. And r 1.524 againe: According to all that the Lord com∣manded Moses, so did the Children of Israel. Ritibus & Ceremonijs divinitus institutis, non licuit homini suo arbitrio aliquid adijcere aut detrahere, s 1.525 saith P. Martyr.

3. If those accidentarie parts of worship, which are commanded [Sect. 14] in the Word, be both necessary to be used necessitatè praecepti, and like∣wise sufficient meanes fully adequate and proportioned to that end, for which God hath destinated such parts of his worship as are not essentiall, (which must be graunted by every one who will not ac∣cuse the Scripture of some defect and imperfection:) then it followeth that other accidentarie parts of worship, which the Church addeth thereto, are but superfluous and superstitious.

4. I call to mind another Logicall maxime: Sublata una parte, tol∣litur totum. An essentiall part being taken away, totum essentiale is ta∣ken away also. In like maner, an integrant part being taken away, totum integrum cannot remaine behinde. When a man hath lost his hand or is foot, though he be still a man Phisically, totum essentialè, yet he is not a man mathematically, he is no longer totum integralè. Iust so, if we reckon any additions (as the Crosse, Kneeling, Ho∣ly-dayes, &c.) among the parts of Gods worship, then put the case that those additions were taken away, it followeth that all the wor∣ship which remaineth still, will not be the whole and entire worship of God, but only a part of it, or at the best, a defective, wanting, lame, and maimed worship.

5. I have made it evident, t 1.526 that our Opposites make the con∣troverted Ceremonies to be worship, in as proper and peculiar sence as any thing can be; and that they are equalled to the chiefe and principall parts of worship, not ranked among the secondary or lesse principall parts of it.

6. Doe not our Divines condemne the addition of Rites & Cere∣monies, to that worship which the Word prescribeth, as well as the addition of other things, which are thought more essentiall? Wee have heard Martyrs words to this purpose.

w 1.527 Zanchius will have us to learne from the second commande∣ment, in externo cultu qui Deo debetur, seu in Ceremoniis nihil nobis esse ex nostro capite comminiscendum, wether in Sacraments or Sacrifices, or other sacred things, such as Temples, Altars, Clothes and Vessels, necessary for the externall worship; but that wee ought to be con∣tented

with those Ceremonies which God hath prescribed.

And in x 1.528 another place, he condemneth the addition of any o∣ther rite whatsoever, to those rites of every Sacrament which have been ordained of Christ. Si Ceremonijs cujusvis Sacramenti, alios addas ri∣tus, &c.

y 1.529 D. Fulke pronounceth even of signes and rites, that vve must doe in Religion and Gods service, not that which seemeth good to us, but that only which he commandeth. Deut. 4. 2. c. 12. 32.

And z 1.530 Calvine pronounceth generally, Caenam Domini rem adeo sacrosanctam esse, ut ullis hominum additamentis eam conspurcare sit nefas.

And thus have we made good our Argument, that the lawfulnsse of the Ceremonies cannot be warranted by any Ecclesiasticall Law. [Sect. 15] If we had no more against them, this were enough, that they are but humane additions, and want the warrant of the Word. When Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord, and when the Iewes burnt their Sonnes and their Daughters in the Valley of the Sonne of Hinnon; howsoever manifold wickednesse might have been chal∣lenged in that which they did, yet if any would dispute with God upon the matter, he stoppeth their mouthes with this one Answer, a 1.531 I commanded it not, neither came it into my heart. May we last of all heare what the b 1.532 Canon Law it selfe decreeth? Is qui praeest, fi praeter voluntatem Dei, vel praeter quod in sanctis Scripturis eviden∣ter praecipitur, vel dicit aliquid, vel imperat, tanquam falsus testis Dei, aut Sacrilegus habeatur.

CHAP. VIII.

That the lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies can not be vvar∣ranted by any Ordinance of the Civill Magistrate: vvhose povver in things Spirituall or Ec∣clesiasticall, is explained.

NOw are wee fallen upon the strong hold of our Opposites, which is the Kings Majesties Supermacy in things Ecclesi∣asticall. [Sect. 1] If they did meane in good earnest to qualify the lawfulnes of the Ceremonies from holy Scripture, why have they not taken more paines and travel to debate the matter from thence?

And if they meant to justify them by the Lawes & Constitutions of the Church, why did they not study to an orderly peaceable pro∣ceeding, and to have things concluded in a lawfull Nationall Synode, after free reasoning and mature advisement? Why did they carry matters so factiously and violently? The truth is, they would have us to acquiesce and to say no more against the Ceremonies, when once we heare that they are enjoyned by his Majestie, our only su∣preme Governour. What I am here to say, shall not derogate any thing from his Highnesse Supremacy, because it includeth no such thing as a nomotheticall power, to prescribe and appoint such sacred and significant Ceremonies as he shall thinke good.

The Arch-Bishop of Armagh, in his Speach which he delivered concerning the Kings Supremacy, (for which King Iames returned him in a Letter his Princely and gratious thankes, for that he had de∣fended his just & lawfull power, with so much learning and reason,) whiles he treateth of the Supremacy, and expoundeth that Title of The only Supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions and Countries, as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, as temporall; mentioneth no such thing, as any power to dispose by his Lawes and ordi∣nances, of things externall in the worship of God. Neither yet shall this following Discourse tend to the cooling & abating of that care and zeale which Princes owe to the oversight & promotion of Religion. For alas! the corruptions which have stept into Religion, and the decayes which it hath felt since Princes beganne to take small thought of it, and to leave the care of it to Popes, Bishops, Monkes, &c. can never be enough bewailed. Nihil enim, &c. For there is nothing (saith c 1.533 Zanchius) more pernitious, either to the Commonwealth or to the Church, then if a Prince doe all things by the judgement of others, and he himself understand not those things which are propounded to bee done.

Nor lastly, are we to sound an alarum of Rebellion. For to say that Subjects are not bound to obey such Lawes and Statutes of their Prince, as impose upon them a Yoke of Ceremonies, which hee hath no power to impose, is one thing; and to say, that they are not bound to subject themselves unto him faithfully and loyally, is another thing. Recte Gerson; Qui abusui potestatis resistit, non resistit divinae ordinationi, saith d 1.534 the Bishop of Sarisburie. Subjection, saith e 1.535 D. Field, is required generally and absolutely, where obedience is not. If we have leave to speake with f 1.536 Divines, the bond and signe of subjection, is only Homage, or the oath of fidelity, whereby Sub∣jects

binde themselves to be faithfull to their Prince. And we take the judge of all flesh to witnesse, before whose dreadfull Tribunall we must stand at that great day, how free we are of thoughts of Re∣bellion, & how uprightly we meane to be his Majesties most true and loy all Subjects to the end of our lives, and to devote our selves, our bodies, lives, goods and estates, and all that we have in the world, to his Highnesse service, and to the honour of his Royal Crowne.

Now for the purpose in hand, we will first examine what the Arch-Bishop of Spalato saith, for he discourseth much of the jurisdiction [Sect. 2] and Office of Princes, in things and causes Ecclesiasticall. The Title of the first Chapter of his sixt Booke de Rep Eccl. holdeth; That it is the duty of Princes super Ecclesiastica invigilare. But in the body of the Chapter, he laboureth to prove, that the power of governing Eccle∣siasticall things belongeth to Princes (which is farre more then to watch carefully over them.) This the Reader will easily perceive. Nay, he himselfe, Num. 115. & 174. professeth he hath been pro∣ving, that Divine and Ecclesiasticall things, are to be ruled and gover∣ned by the authority & Lawes of Princes. The Title prefixed to the sixt Chapter of that same Booke, is this: Legibus & edictis Principum Laicorum, & Ecclesiastica & Ecclesiasticos gubernari. So that in both Chapters, he treateth of one and the same office of Princes about things Ecclesiasticall.

Now, if we would learne what he meanes by those Ecclesiastica, which he will have to be governed by Princes, g 1.537 he resolves us that he meanes not things internall, such as the deciding of controversies in matters of faith, feeding with the Word of God, binding & loo∣sing, and ministring of the Sacraments: (for in pure spiritualibus, (as he speaketh in Summa Cap. 5.) he yeeldeth thē not the power of judg∣ing and defining:) but onely things externall, which pertaine to the externall worship of God, or which concerne externall Ecclesiastical Discipline. Such things h 1.538 he acknowledgeth to be res Spirituales. But vera Spiritualia, he will have to comprehend onely things inter∣nall, which hee removeth from the power of Princes. Thus wee have his judgement as plaine as himselfe hath delivered it unto us.

But I demaund, 1. Why yeeldeth he the same power to Princes in governing Ecclesiastica, which he yeldeth them in governing Ecclesias∣ticos? For Ecclesiasticall Persons, being members of the common-wealth no lesse then Laickes, have the same King and Governour with them. For which reason it is (as i 1.539 the B. himself sheweth out of Molina) that they are bound to be subject to their Princes Lawes, which pertaine to the whole common-wealth. But the like cannot be alleadged for the power of Princes to governe Ecclesiastica: for the B. (I trust) would not have said, that things Ecclesiasticall and things civill doe equally and alike belong to their power and Iuris∣diction.

2. Why confoundeth he the governing of things and causes Ec∣clesiasticall, with watching over and taking care for the same? Let us only call to mind the native signification of the word: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Guberno signifieth properly to rule or governe the course of a S•…•…p: And in a Ship there may be many watchfull and carefull eyes over her course, and yet but one Governour directing the same.

3. Why holdeth he, that things externall in the worship of God are not vera spiritualia? For if they be Ecclesiasticall and sacred Ce∣remonies (not fleshly and wordly) why will he not also acknow∣ledge them for true spirituall things? And if they be not vera spiri∣tualia, why calls he them res spirituales? For are not Res and Verum reciprocall, as wel as Ens and Verum?

4. Even as a Prince in his Sea-voyage is supreme Governour of all which are in the Ship with him, end by consequence of the Go∣vernour, who directs her course, yet doth he not governe the action of governing or directing the course of the Ship: So though a Prince be the only supreme Governour of all his Dominions, & by consequence of Ecclesiasticall persons in his Dominions, yet he can not be said to Governe all their Ecclesiasticall actions & causes. And as the Governour of a Ship acknowledgeth his Prince for his only supreme Governour, even then whiles he is governing & directing the course of the ship, (otherwise whiles he is governing her course, he should not be his Princes Subject) yet he doth not thereby ac∣knowledge that his Prince governeth his action of directing the course of the Ship, (for then should the Prince be the Pilot:) So when one hath acknowledged the Prince to be the only supreme Governour upon Earth, of all Ecclesiasticall persons in his Domi∣nions, even whiles they are ordering and determining Ecclesiasticall causes; yet he hath not thereby acknowledged that the Prince go∣verneth the Ecclesiasticall causes. Wherefore whiles k 1.540 the B. taketh the English Oath of Supremacy, to acknowledge the same which he teacheth touching the Princes power, he giveth it another sence then the words of it can beare. For it saith not that the Kings Majestie is the only supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions, and OF all things and causes therein, as well Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall, as Temporall. But it saith, that he is the only Supreame Governour of all his Highnes Dominions IN all things or causes, &c. Now, the spirituall Guides of the Church substituted by Christ, as Deputies in his stead, who is the most supreame Governour of his own Church, and l 1.541 on whose shoulder the Governement resteth as his Royall prorogative; even then whiles they are governing and putting or∣der to Ecclesiasticall or spirituall causes, they acknowledge their Prince to be their only supreme Governour upon Earth: yet hereby they implie not that he governeth their Governing of Ecclesiasticall causes, as hath been shewed by that Simele of governing a Ship.

5. Whereas the B. leaveth all things externall, which pertaine to the worship of God, to be governed by Princes, I object that the ver∣sion [Sect. 4] of the holy Scripture out of Hebrew and Grèeke into the vul∣gar tongue, is an externall thing, belonging to the worship of God, yet it cannot be governed by a Prince who is not learned in the ori∣ginall tounges.

6. Whereas he yeeldeth to Princes the power of governing in spi∣ritualibus, but not in pure spiritualibus, I cannot comprehend this Di∣stinction. All sacred and Ecclesiasticall things belonging to the worship of God are spirituall things.

What then understands he by things purely spirituall? If he meane things which are in such sort spirituall, that they have nothing earthly not externall in them; in this sence the Sacraments are not purely spirituall, because they consist of two parts; one earthly, and another heavenly, as Ireneus saith of the Eucharist. And so the Sacraments not being things purely spirituall, shall be left to the power and government of Princes. If it be said, that by things pu∣rely spirituall, he meanes things which concerne our Spirits onely, and not the outward man; I still urge the same Instance: For the Sacraments are not in this sence spirituall, because a part of the Sa∣craments, to wit, the Sacramentall Signes or Elements, concerne our externall & bodily sences of seeing, touching, and tasting.

7. The B. also contradicteth himselfe unawares: For in m 1.542 one place hee reserveth and excepteth from the power of Princes, the judging and deciding of controversies and questions of faith. Yet in n 1.543 another place hee exhorteth Kings and Princes, to compell the Divines of both sides (of the Roman and Reformed Churches) to come to a free conference, and to debate the matters controverted betwixt them; in which conference, hee requireth the Princes them∣selves to bee Iudges.

It remaineth to trie what force of reason the B. hath to backe his opinion. As for the ragged rabble of humane Testimonies, which [Sect. 5] he taketh together, I should but weary my Reader, and spend paper and Inke in vaine, if I should insist to answer them one by one. Only thus much I say of all those Sentences of the Fathers, and Con∣stitutions of Princes and Emperours about things Ecclesiasticall, to∣gether with the Histories, of the submission of some Ecclesiasticall causes to Emperours; Let him who pleaseth read them; And it shall appeare,

1. That some of those things whereunto the power of Princes was applied, were unlawfull.

2. There were many of them things Temporall or Civill, not Ec∣clesiasticall or Spirituall, nor such as pertaine to the worshippe of God.

3. There were some of them Ecclesiasticall or spirituall things, but then Princes did only ratify that which had beene determined by Councells, and punish with the civill sword such as did stubbornly disobey the Churches lawfull constitutions. Neither were Princes allowed to doe any more.

4. Sometimes they interposed their authority and medled in cau∣ses spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, even before the definition of Coun∣cells: yet did they not judge nor decide those matters, but did only convocate Councells, and urge the Cleargie to see to the misor∣dered and troubled estate of the Church, and by their wholesome Lawes & ordinances to provide the best remedies for the same which they could.

5. At other times Princes have done somewhat more in Eccle∣siasticall matters: but this was only in extraordinary cases, when the Cleargy was so corrupted, that either through ignorance they were unable, or through malice and perversnesse unwilling to doe their duty in deciding of controversies, making of Canons, using the keyes, and managing of other Ecclesiasticall matters: in which case Princes might and did by their coactive temporall Iurisdiction, avoid dis∣order, errour and superstition, and cause a Reformation of the Church.

6. Princes have likewise in rightly constituted and well reformed Churches, by their owne Regall authority, straitly injoyned things pertaining to the worship of God: but those things were the very same which Gods owne written Word had expressely commanded.

7. When Princes went beyond these limits and bounds, they tooke upon them to judge and command more then God hath put within the compasse of their power

But as touching the passages of holy Sripture whichthe B. allead∣geth, [Sect. 6] I will answer thereto particularly. And first, hee produceth that place Deut. Chap. 17. vers. 19. where the King was appointed to have the Booke of the Law of God with him, that he might learne to feare the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to doe them. What Logicke (I pray) can from this place inferre that Princes have the supreme power of governing all Ecclesiasticall causes? Next, the B. tells us of Davids appointing of the offices of the Levites, and dividing of their courses, 1 Chron. 23. and his commending of the same to Solomon, 1. Chron 28. But he might have observed, that David did not this as a King, but as a Pro∣phet or man of God. 2. Chron. 8. 14. yea those orders and courses of the Levites, were also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord. 2. Chron 29. 25. As touching Solomons appointing of the courses and charges of the Priests, Levites, & Porters, he did it not of himselfe, nor by his owne Princely authority, but because David the man of God had so commanded, 2. Chron. 8 14. For Solomon received

from David, a patterne for all that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord, and also for the courses of the Priests and Levites, 1. Chron. 28. 11. 12 13.

The B•…•…comes on and tells us that Hezekiah did applie his Regall [Sect. 7] power to the Reformation of the Levites, and of the worship of God in their hands; o 1.544 saying: Heare me yee Levites, sanctify now your sel∣ves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthinesse out of the holy place.

Ans. He exhorted them to no more then Gods Law required of them. For the Law ordained them to sanctify themselves, and to doe the service of the house of the Lord, Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. & 18. 32. So that Hezekiah did here constitute nothing by his owne arbitrement and authority, but plainly sheweth his warrant, vers. 11. The Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that you should minister unto him. But the B, further alleadgeth out of 2 Chron. 31. that Hezekiah appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites, every man accor∣ding to his service.

Answ. He might have read 2. Chron. 29. 25. that Hezekiah did all this according to the commandement of David & of God the Kings Seer, and Nathan the Prophet: for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets. And who doubteth but Kings may command such things as God hath commanded before them.

The next example which the B. alleadgeth, is out of 2. Chron. 35. [Sect. 8] where we read that Iosias did set the Priests and Levites againe in their charges. Which example cannot prove that Kings have the supreme power of governing Ecclesiasticall causes, unlesse it be e∣vinced that Iosias changed those orders and courses of the Levites & Priests, which the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29. 25. and that he did institute other orders by his owne Regall au∣thority. Whereas the contrary is manifest from the Text. For Iosias did only set the Priests and Levites those charges and courses, which had been assigned unto them after the writing of David and Solomon vers. 4. and by the commandement of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Ieduthun the Kings Seer, vers 15. Neither did Iosias command the Priests and Levites, any other service then that which was wri∣ten in the booke of Moses vers. 12. So that from his example it only followeth, that when Princes see the state of Ecclesiasticall persons corrupted, they ought to interpose their authority for reducing them to those orders and functions, which Gods Word comman∣deth.

Moreover, the B. objecteth the example of Ioash: who, while he [Sect. 8] yet did right in the dayes of Iehojada the Priest, p 1.545 sent the Priests & Levites, to gather from all Israell, money for repairing the house of the Lord: and when they dealt negligently in this businesse, he transferred the charge of the same unto others, and making himselfe

the Keeper of the holy money, did both prescribe how it was to be •…•…eboursed, and likewise take from good Iehojada the Preist the ad∣ministration of the same. Now, where he hath read that Ioash made himselfe the keeper of the money and prescribed how it should be deboursed, also that he tooke the administration •…•…rom Iehojada; I can not guesse, or the Text hath no such thing in it, but the contrary, viz. that the Kings Scri•…•…e, and the High Preists Officer, keeped the mo∣ney and deboursed the same, as the King and Iehojada prescribed unto them. As to that which he truly alleadgeth out of the holy Text, I answer, 1. The collection for repairing the house of the Lord was no humane ordinance, for Ioash sheweth the Commandement of Moses for it, Vers. 6. having reference to Exod. 30. 12. 13. 14. No other collections did Ioash impose, q 1.546 but those quae divino sure debebantur. 2. As for the taking of the charge of this collection from the Priests, he behooved to doe so, because they had still ne∣glected the worke, when the three & twentie yeare of his raigne was come. And so say we, that when the ministers of the Church faile to doe their duty, in providing that which is necessary for the service of God, Princes ought by some other meanes to cause these things be redressed. 3. Joash did nothing with these money•…•…s without Iehojada, but r 1.547 Pontifex eas primum laborantibus tribuit, tum in aedis s•…•…crae re∣stauration em maxime converti•…•…. 4. And what if he had done this by himselfe? I suppose no man will reckon the hiring of Masons and Carpenters, with such as wrought Iron and Brasse, or the gathering of money for this purpose, among spirituall things or causes. 5. And if these employments about Solomons Temple were not to be called Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, farre lesse about our materiall Churches, which are not holy nor consecrated as Solomons was for a typicall use. Wherefore without all prejudice to our cause, we may and doe commend the building and repairing of Churches by Christian Princes.

But the B. returneth to another Example in Solemon, which is the [Sect. 10] putting of Abjathar the chief Priest from his Office, and surrogating of another in his place. Answ. Abjathar was civilly dead, as the Lawyers use to speake, and it was only by accident or by consequent that Solomon put him from his Office: he sent him away to Anathoth, because of his treasonable following and aiding of Adonijah, where∣upon necessarily followed his falling away from the honour, dignity and Office of the High-Priest: whence it only followeth, that if a Minister be found guilty of l•…•…se Majesty, the King may punish him either with banishment or proscription, or some such civill punish∣ment, whereupon by consequence will follow his falling from his Ec∣clesiasticall office and dignity. 2. As for Solomons putting of Za∣dok in the roome of Abjathar, it maketh as litle against us, for Zadok did fall to the place jure divino.

The honour and office of the High-Priesthood was given to Elia∣zer the Elder Sonne of Aaron, and was to remaine in his family. How it came to passe that it was transferred to Eli, who was of the family of Ithamar, we read not. Alwayes after that Abjathar, who was of the family of Ithamar, and descended of Eli, had by a capitall crime fallen from it, it did of very right belong to Zadoke, who was the chiefe of the family of Eliazer. And so all this flowed, not from Solomons, but from Gods owne authority.

The B. remembreth another example in Hezekiah to, telling us [Sect. 11] that he removed the high places, and brake the Images, and cut downe the groves, and brake in peeces the brazen serpent, when the children of Israel did burne incense vnto it. Now, we wish from our hearts, that from this example all Christian Kings may learne to remove and destroy the monuments of Idolatry out of their Dominions. And if it be said that in so doing, Kings take vpon them to governe by their Princely authority, an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall cause; It is easily answered that when they destroy Idola∣trous monuments, they doe nothing by their owne authority, but by the authority of Gods Law, s 1.548 which commandeth to abolish such monuments, and to root out the very names of Idolls: which com∣mandement is to be executed by the coaction of temporall power.

Finally, saith the B. the Kings of the Iewes t 1.549 have in the Temple propounded the Law of the Lord to the people, renued the covenant [Sect. 12] of religion, pulled downe profane Altars, broken downe Idols, slaine idolatrous Priests, liberated their Kingdome from abomination, pur∣ged the Temple, w 1.550 proclaimed the keeping of the passeover, and of the Feast of the Dedication, y 1.551 and have also instituted new Feasts. For all which things they are in z 1.552 the Scriptures much praised by the Holy Spirit. * 1.553

Answ. True it is, Iosias did reade the Law of the Lord to the people in the Temple, and made a covenant before the Lord, but 1. He prescribed nothing at his owne pleasure, only he required of the people to walke after the Lord, and to keepe his commaunde∣ments.

2. Neither yet did he this worke by himselfe, but did convocate a Counsell of the Prophets Priests and Elders of Israel, for the advan∣cing of that reformation, 2. Kings. 23. 1.

3. And if he had done it by himselfe, yet we are to remember that the reformation of a Church generally and greatly corrupted, craveth the more immediate intermedling of Princes, and a great deale more then can be ordinarily and orderly done by them, in a Church already reformed. The slaying of the Idolatrous Priests had also the warrant and authority of the Law of God, which ap∣pointed a capitall punishment for blasphemers, a 1.554 or such as in

contempt of God, and to rub some ignominie upon his name, did traduce his doctrine and religion, and either detract from him and attribute to Idolls that which appertained properly unto him, or else attributed unto him either by enunciation or imprecation, such things as could not stand with the glory of the Godhead. Con∣cerning the abolishing of Idolatry and all the reliques thereof, we have answered that it was commaunded by God. The keeping of the passeover was also commaunded in the Law: so that when Heze∣kiah enjoyned it, he did but publish Gods owne expresse ordi∣nance.

Last of all touching the two remanent examples. 1. The Feast of the Dedication was not ordained by the sole authority of Iudas, but b 1.555 by his brethren and by the whole Congregation of Israel: and the dayes of Purim c 1.556 were established by Mordecai a Prophet.

2. We have else-where made it evident, that the dayes of Purim by their first Institution were only dayes of civill joy and solemnity: and that the Feast of the Dedication was not lawfully institu∣ted. * 1.557

Thus having dismissed the B. we will make us for clearing the pur∣pose in hand. But before we come to shew particularly what Prin∣ces [Sect. 13] may doe, and what they may not doe, in making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, we will first of all lay downe these Propositi∣ons following:

1. Whatsoever the power of Princes be in things and causes Ec∣clesiasticall, it is not (sure) absolute nor unbounded. Solius Dei est, saith e 1.558 Stapleton, juxta suam sanctissimam voluntatem, actio∣n•…•… suas omn•…•… dirigere, & omnia facere quaecunque voluit. And a∣gaine: Vis tuam voluntatem esse regulam rerum omnium, ut om∣nia siant pro tuo beneplacito? Whether we respect the persons or the places of Princes, their power is confined within certaine li∣mits, so that they may not enjoyne whatsoever they list. As tou∣ching their persons: Bishop Spotswood would doe no lesse then war∣rant the Articles of Perth, by King Iames his personall qualities. His person f 1.559 saith he, were he not our Soveraigne, gives them suf∣ficient authority, being recommended by him: For he knowes the na∣ture of things, and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better then we doe all.

I meane not to derogate any thing from King Iames his due de∣served praise, nor to obscure his never dying memory. Only I say, that such a Prince as the B. speaketh of, who knoweth what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better then many learned and godly Pastors assembled in a Synode, is Rara a•…•…is in terris nigroque simillima Cygno. For a Prince beeing but a man, and so subject to errour: being

but one man, and so in the greater hazard of errour, for plus vident oculi, quam oculus; and woe to him that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 alone, when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up saith g 1.560 the wisest of mortall Kings: being also compassed & assailed with so many and so mighty tenta∣tions, which other men are free of: and lastly, beeing so taken up and distracted with secular affaires and cares, that very seldome is he found well versed or singularly learned in the controversies of Reli∣gion: may not such a one in the common sence of Christians, be thought more like to faile & miscarry, in his judgement about things Ecclesiasticall, then a whole Synod, wherein there are many of the learned, judicious and godly Ministers of the Church. Papists tell us, that they will not defend the personall actions of the Pope, h 1.561 quasi ipse solus omnibus horis sapore potuerit, id quod recte nemini concessum perhibetur. Their own records let the world know the abominable vices and impieties of Popes. Witnesse Platina, in the life of John the 10. Benedict the 4. John the 13. Boniface the 7. Iohn the 20:—Iohn the 22. Paul the 2. &c. And further when our Adversaries dispute of the Popes infallability, they graunt, for his owne person, he may be an Heriticke: only they hold that he cannot erre e Cathedra.

And shall we now Idolize the persons of Princes more then Papists doe the persons of Popes? Or shall Papists object to us, that we ex∣toll the judgement of our Princes to a higher degree of authority & infallibility, then they yeeld to the judgement of their Popes? Alas, why would we put Weapons in the hands of our Adversaries?

But what say we of Princes in respect of their place and [Sect. 14] calling? Is not their power absolute in that respect? Recte quidam, saith i 1.562 Saravia, illiberalis & inverecundi censet esse ingenij, de Princi∣pum potestate & rebus gestis questionem movere, quando & Imperator sacrilegium esse scribit, de eo quod a Principe factum est disputare. k 1.563 Camero holdeth that in things pertaining to externall order in re∣ligion, Kings may command what they will pr•…•… authoritate, and for∣bidde to seeke another reason beside the Majesty of their authority: yea that vvhen they command frivola, dura, & iniqua respectu nostri, our consciences are bound by those their frivolous and unjust com∣maundements, not only in respect of the end, because scandall should possibly follovv in case vve obey them not, but also Iubentis respectu, because the Apostle biddeth us, obey the Magistrate for conscience sake. At the reading of these Passages in Sarauia & Camero, horrour and amazement have taken hold on me. O wisedome of God, by whom Kings doe raigne & Princes decree Iustice upon whose thigh & vesture is written King of Kings & Lord of Lords; make the Kings of the Earth to know that their Lawes are but Regulae regulatae, and mensurae mensuratae. Be wise now therefore. O ye Kings: Be instruc∣ted ye Iudges of the Earth. Serve the Lord with feare, and rejoyce

with trembling. Kisse the Sonne, and lay downe your Crownes at he feete of the Lambe l 1.564 that sits upon the Throne, discite justitiam moniti, and remember that this is the beginning of wisedome, by casting pride away, to addict yourselves to the Dominion of Christ: Who albeit he hath given the Kingdomes of this world unto your hands, and Non a•…•…feret mortalia, Qui regna dat caelestia; m 1.565 yet hath he kept the governement of his Church upon his owne shoulder. So that Rex non est proprie Rector Ecclesiae, sed Reipublicae: Ecclesiae ve∣ro Defensor est. O all yee Subjects of Kings and Princes understand that in things pertaining to the Church and Kingdome of Christ, n 1.566 ye are not the Servants of men; to doe what they list, and that for their listing. The Apostle Rom. 13. (o) urgeth not obedience to Magistrates for conscience sake, but only subjection for conscience * 1.567 sake. For p 1.568 he concludeth his whole purpose Vers. 7. Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custome to whom custome, feare to whom feare, honour to whom honour. There is not in all that Chapter one word of obedience to Magistrats.

And as touching the binding power of their Lawes, be they never so just they cannot bind you any other way nor in respect of the ge∣nerall end of them: For per se they cannot bind more then the Chur∣ches Lawes can. Which things q 1.569 D. Forbesse also hath told you out of Calvine.

And hence it followeth, that whensoever you may omit that which Princes enjoyne, without violating the Law of Charity, you are not holden to obey them, for the Majesty of Princely authority. Be ashamed O ye Formalists of your ascribing to Princes a Iurisdic∣tion so absolute. Bury it in the grave of eternall silence. Tell it not in Rome: publish it not among the Vashals of Antichrist, lest the daughters of Babylon rejoice, lest the worshippers of the Beast triumph. O how small confidence have the Cardinals, I say not now into the Popes person, but even into his chaire, when beeing entered in the Conclave, for the election of a new Pope, they spend the whole day following in the making of Lawes, belonging to the admi∣nistration & handling of all things by him. who shalbe advāced to the Popedome: which lawes every one of them subscribeth, and swareth to observe, if he be made Pope, as Onuphrius writeth. Though the Popes owne creatures the Iesuites in their Schooles and Bookes, must dispute for his infallibility e Cathedra, yet we see what trust the wise Cardinalls shut up in the Conclave, doe put in him, with what bound they tie him & within what bounds they con∣fine his power. Albeit the Pope after he is created observeth not strictly this oath, as r 1.570 that wise writer of the History of the Coun∣cell of Trent noteth: yet let me say once againe; shall we set up the power of Princes higher, or make their power lesse limited, then Papists doe the power of Popes? Or shall they set bounds, to Popes, and we set none to Princes.

But I find my self a little digressed, after the roving absurdities [Sect. 15] of some opposites. Now, therefore to returne, the second Proposition which I am here to lay downe, before I speak particularly of the pow er of Princes, is this, whatsoeuer Princes can commendably either do by themselves, or command to be done by others, in such matters as any way pertaine to the externall worship of God, must be both law ful in the nature of it, and expedient in the use of it, which conditions if they be wanting, their commandemēts cannot bind to obedience.

For s 1.571 1. The very ground and reason wherefore we ought to obey the Magistrate, is, for that he is the Minister of God, or a Deputie set in Gods stead to us. Now, he is the Minister of God, only for our good, Rom. 13 4. Neither were he Gods Minister, but his owne Ma∣ster, if he should rule at his pleasure•…•…, and command things which serve not for the good of the Subjects. Since therefore the com∣maundements of Princes bind only so farre as they are the Mi∣nisters of God for our good: and Gods Ministers they are not, in commanding such things as are either in their nature unlawfull, or in their use inconvenient: it followeth that such commaundements of theirs cannot bind.

2. Princes cannot claime any greater power in matters Ecclesiasti∣call, then the Apostle Paul had, or the Church her selfe yet hath: that is to say, Princes may not by any Temporall or Regall Iurisdiction urge any Ceremony or forme of Ecclesiasticall Policy, which the A∣postle once might not, and the Church yet may not urge by a Spiri∣tuall Jurisdiction. But neither had the Apostle of old, nor hath the Church now power to urge either a Ceremony or any thing else, which is not profitable for edifying. Paul could doe nothing against the truth but for the truth, and his power was given him to edifica∣tion and not to destruction, 2. Cor. 13. 8 10. Neither shall Ecclesiasti∣call persons to the worlds end receive any other power, beside that which is for the perfecting of the Saints, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. Eph. 4. 12. Therefore as s 1.572 the Churches power is only to prescribe that which may edify, so the power of Princes is in like sort given to them for edification, and not for destruction, neither can they doe ought against the truth, but only for the truth.

3. We are bound by the Law of God, to doe nothing which is not good & profitable or edifying, 1. Cor. 6. 12. & 14. 26. This Law of Charity is of a higher and straiter bound then the Law of any Prince in the World.

The generall rule of all indifferent things, is, let all things be done to edification: And Rō. 15. 1. 2. let every man please his neighbour to edification, even as Christ pleased not himself, but others. Whatso∣ever then is of this ranke, which either would weaken or not edify our

brother, he it never so lawfull, never so profitable to our selves, never so powerfully by earthly authority injoyned; Christians who are not borne vnto themselues, but vnto Christ, vnto his Church, and fellowe members, must not dare to m•…•…ddle with it, saith t 1.573 one well to our pur∣pose.

A third Proposition I premit, which is this. Since the power [Sect. 16] of Princes to make Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, is not absolute, but bound and adstricted vnto things lawfull and expedient, which sort of things, and no other, we are allowed to doe for their com∣mandements: and since Princes many times may and doe not only transgresse those bounds and limits, but likewise pretend that they are within the same, when indeed they are without them, and in∣ioyne things vnlawfull and in convenient, vnder the name, title, and shew of things lawfull and convenient: Therefore it is most necessary as well for Princes to permit, as for Subjects to take liberty to trie and examine by the judgement of discretion, everie thing which auctority enjoyneth whether it be agreeable or repuguant to the rules of the word, and if after triall it be found repugnant to abstaine from the doing of the same.

For 1. The word teacheth us, that the spirituall man judgeth all things 1. Cor. 2. 15. trieth the things that are different. Phil. 1. 10. hath his sences exercised to discerne both good and evill. Hebr. 5. 14. and that every one who wold hold fast that which is good, and ab∣staine from all appearance of evill, must first prove all things. 1. Thessal. 5. 21.

2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14. 23. But whatso∣ever a man doeth without the triall, Knowledge, and persuasion of the lawfullnesse of it, by the word of God, that is not of faith. Ergo a sinne. It is the word of God, and not the arbitrement of Princes wehereupon faith is grounded. And though the word may be withoutfaith, yet faith can not be without the word. By it therefore must a man trie and know assuredly the lawfullnesse of that which he doth.

3. Everie one of vs shall give account of himself to God. But as we cannot give an account to God of those actions which wee have done in obedience to our Prince, except we have examined•…•… considered, and vnderstood the lawfullnesse of the same: so an account could not be required of us for them, if we were bound to obey and to keep all his ordinances, in such sort that we might not trie and examine them, with full liberty to refuse those which we judg out of the word to be vnlawfull or inconvenient: for then Princes ordinances were a most sufficient warrant to us: we needed trie no more▪ let him make an account to God of his command: we have acount to make of our obedience.

4. If we be bound to receive and obey the lawes of Princes,

without making a free triall and examining of the equity of the same, then wee could not be punished for doing 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ willingly and in ignorance, things unlawfull prescribed by them. Whereas every soule that sinneth shall dye; and when the blind leads the blind, he who is ledde falls in the ditch as well as his leader.

5. No man is permitted to doe every thing which seemeth right in his eyes, and to follow every conceit which takes him in the head: but every man is bound t 1.574 to walke by a rule: But the Law of a Prince cannot be a rule, except it be examined, whether it, be consonant to the Word of God. Index secundum legem, and his Law is only such a rule as is ruled by a higher rule: In so farre as it is ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is a rule to us: and in so farre as it is not ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is not a rule to us. Quid ergo? an non licebit Christiano cuique convenientiam regula & regulati (ut vocant observare? saith w 1.575 Iunius.

6. The rule whereby we ought to walke in all our wayes, and ac∣cording to which we ought to frame all our actions, is provided of God x 1.576 a stable and sure rule, that it being obserued and taken heed unto, may guide and direct our practise aright, about all those things which it prescribeth. But the Law of a Prince (if we should without triall and examination take it for our rule,) cannot be such a stable and sure rule. For put the case that a Prince enjoyne two things which sometimes fall out to be incompatible, and cannot stand to∣gether, in that case his Law cannot direct our practise, nor resol•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what to doe. Whereas God hath so provided for us, that the case can never occurre, wherein we may not be resolved what to doe, if we observe the rule which he hath appointed us to walke by.

7. Except this Iudgement of discretion which we plead for, be permitted unto us, it will follow that in the point of obedience we ought to give no lesse, but as much honour unto Princes, as unto God himselfe: For when God publisheth his Commandements unto us, what greater honour could we give him by our obedience, then to doe that which he commandeth, for his owne sole will and authority, without making further enquiry for any other reason.

8. The Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. 23. forbiddeth us to be the servant of men, that is, to doe things for which we have no other warrant, be∣side the pleasure and will of men. Which interpretation is groun∣ded upon other places of Scripture, that teach us, we are not bound to obey men in any thing, which we know not to be according to the will of God, Eph. 6 6. 7. that we ought not to live to the lusts of men but to the will of God, 1. Pet. 4. 2. and that therefore we ought in every thing to prove what is acceptable unto the Lord, Eph. 5. 20.

9. They who cleanse their way, must take heed thereto according

to the Word, Psal. 119. 9. Therefore if wee take not heed to our way according to the Word, we doe not cleanse it. They who would walke as the Children of light, must have the Word for a lampe unto their feet, and a light unto their path, Psal. 119. 105. Therefore if we goe in any path, without the light of the Word to direct us, we walke in darkenesse and stumble, because we see not where wee goe. They who would not bee unwise, but walke circumspectly, must understand, what the will of the Lord is, Eph. 5. 17. There∣fore, if we understand not what the Will of the Lord is concerning that which we doe, we are unwise, and walke not circumspectly.

10. y 1.577 Dona Dei in Sanctis non sunt otiosa. Whatsoever Grace God giveth us, it ought to be used and exercised, and not to lie idle in us. But z 1.578 God giveth us actionem cognoscendi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 discernen∣di, &c. a certaine measure of the Spirit of Discretion, to teach us what to choose as good, and what to refuse as evill, 1 Ioh. 2. 27. The same anointing teacheth you of all things, 1 Cor. 2. 15. He that is Spiri∣tuall judgeth all things. Therefore God would have us to exercise that measure of the gift of discretion, which he hath bestowed on us, in discerning of things which are propounded to us, whether they ought to be done or not.

11. Doe not our Divines plead for this judgement of private dis∣cretion, which ought to be permitted to Christians, when any thing is propounded to bee believed or done by them? And this their judgement is to bee seene in their writings against Papists about the Controversies de interpretatione Scripturae, deside implicita, &c.

12. The Bishop of Sarisburie in his Prelections de judice contro∣versiarum, doth often and in many places commend unto Chri∣stians, the same judgement of discretion which wee stand upon, & holdeth it necessary for them to trie and examine whatsoever either Princes or Prelates command them to doe. Coactiva, &c. The coactive Power of a Prince a 1.579 saith he, doth not absolutely bind the Subject, but onely with this condition, except he would compell him to that which is unlawfull. Therefore there is ever left unto Subjects a Power of proving and judging in their owne mind, whether that which is propounded be ungodly and unlawfull or not: and if it be ungodly, that which the King threatneth should be suffered, rather then that which he commandeth bee done. This Augustine hath taught &c. And whereas it might be objected, that this maketh a Subject to be his Princes Iudge, b 1.580 he answereth thus. Non se &c, He maketh not himselfe anothers Iudge, who pondereth and examineth a Sentence publi∣shed by another, in so farre as it containeth something either to be done or to be believed by him; but onely hee maketh himselfe the Iudge of his owne ac∣tions. For, howsoever he who playeth the Iudge, is truly said to judge, yet every one who judgeth is not properly sayd to play the Iudge. Hee playeth the Iudge, who in a externall Court pronounceth a Sentence, which by force of

Iurisdiction toucheth another: but he judgeth, who in the inferiour Court of his owne private Conscience conceiveth such a Sentence of the things to be belie∣ved or done, as pertaineth to himselfe alone: This latter way private men both may and ought to judge of the Sentences and Decrees of Magistrates, neither by so doing doe they constitute themselves Iudges of the Magistrates, but Iudges of their owne actions.

Finally, there is none of our Opposites, but saith so much as in∣ferreth [Sect. XVII] the necessity of this Iudgement of private and practicall dis∣cretion, for every smatterer among them hath this much in his mouth, that if the King or the Church commande any thing un∣lawfull, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but when they commaund things indifferent and lawfull, then their Ordinance ought to be our Rule. But (goodmen) will they tell us, how wee shall know, whether the things which the King, or the Church (as they speake) doe injoyne, are lawfull or unlawfull, indifferent, or not indifferent; and so we shall be at a point. Dare they say, that we must judge those things indifferent which our Superiours judge to be such, and those unlawfull, which our Superiours so judge of? Nay, then they should deliver their distinction in other tearmes, and say thus: If our Superiours injoyne any thing which they judge to be unlawfull, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but if they injoyne such things as they judge to be indifferent, and which they com∣mand us so to account of, then we ought to obey their Ordinance. Which distinction me thinks, would have made Heraclitus himselfe to fall a lauging with Democritus. What then remaineth? Surely our Opposites must either say nothing, or else say with us, that it is not onely a Liberty but a duty of Inferiours, not to receive for a thing lawfull that which is injoyned by Superiours, because they account it and call it such, but by the judgement of their owne discretion following the rules of the Word, to trie and examine, whether the same be lawfull or unlawfull.

These Praecognita beeing now made good, come wee to speake [Sect. XVIII] more particularly of the Power of Princes to make Lawes and Ordi∣nances about things which concerne the Worship of God. The purpose we will unfold in three distinctions, 1. of things. 2. of times 3. of ties. First, let us distinguish two sorts of things in the Worship of God, viz. things substantiall, & things circumstantiall. To things substantiall we referre as well sacred and significant Ceremonies as the more necessary and essentiall parts of Worship, and in a word, all things which are not mere externall circumstances such as were not particularly determinable within those bounds which it pleased God to set to his written Word, and the right ordering whereof, as it is common to all humane societies whether civill or sacred, so it is investigable by the very light and guidance of naturall reason. That

among this kind of mere circumstances, sacred signifiant Cere∣monies can not be reckoned, we have otherwhere made it evident. Now therefore of things pertaining to the substance of Gods wor∣ship, whether they be sacred Ceremonies, or greater and more neces∣sary duties, we say that Princes have not power to injoyne any thing of this kynd, which hath not the plaine and particular Institution of God himself in Scripture. They may indeed and ought to publish Gods owne ordinances and commandements, and by their coactive temporall power urge and inforce the observation of the same. Notwithstanding it is a Princes duty, c 1.581 that in the worship of God, whether internall or externall, he move nothing, he prescribe nothing, except that which is expressely delivered in Gods owne written Word. We must beware we confound not things which have the plaine warrant of Gods Word, with things devised by the will of man. David, Iehosaphat, Heze∣kiah, Iosiah, and other Kings among the people of God, did as well laudably as lawfully, injoyne and command that worship and for me of Religion, which God in his Law and by his Prophets commanded; and forbid, avoid, and abolish such corruptions, as God had for bid∣den before them, and appointed to be abobished: whence it follow∣eth not that Kings may in joyne things which want the warrant of the word, but only this much, which we all commend, viz. d 1.582 That a Christian Princes office in Religion, is diligently to take care that in his Domi∣nion or kingdome, Religion out of the pure word of God, expounded by the word of God it self, and understood according to the first Principles of faith (which others call the analogy of faith) either be instituted; or beeing instituted be kept pure; or beeing corrupted be restored and reformed: that false doctrines, abuses, Idolls, and superstitions, be taken away to the glory of God, and to his owne and his Subjects salvation.

But in all the Scripture Princes have neither a commendable ex∣ample, [Sect. XIX] not any other warrant, for the making of any innovation in Religion, or for the prescribing of sacred significant Ceremonies of mens devising. Ieroboam caused a change to be made in the Cere∣monies and forme of Gods worship. Whereas God ordained the Arke of the Covenant to be the signe of his presence, and that his glory should dwell between the Cherubims. Ieroboam set up two Calves to be the signes representative of that God who brought Israel out of Egypt. And this he meanes while he saith, e 1.583 Behold thy Gods, &c. giving to the signes the thing signified. Whereas God ordained Ie∣rusalem to be the place of worship, and all the sacrifices to be brought to the Temple of Solomon, Ieroboam made, Dan and Bethel to be places of worship, and built there Altars and high places for the sacrifices. Whereas God ordained the sonnes of Aaron onely to be his Priests, Ieroboam made Priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sonnes of Levi. Whereas God ordained the feast of Tabernacles to be kept on the fifteenth day of the seaventh moneth, Ieroboam ap∣pointed

it on the sisteenth day of the eight moneth. Now, if any Prince in the world might have faire pretences for the making of such innovations in Religion. Ieroboam much more. He might alledge for his changing of the signes of Gods presence, and of the place of worship, that since Rehoboams wrath was incensed against him, and against the ten Tribes which adhered vnto him, (as appeareth by f 1.584 the accounting of them to be rebells, and by g 1.585 the gathering of a huge armie, for bringing the kingdome againe to Rehoboam) it was no longer safe for his subjects to goe up to Ierusalem to worsh p, in which case God who required mercy more then sacrifice, would beare with their changing of a fewe Ceremonies, for the safety of mens lives. For his putting downe of the Priests and Levites, and his ordaining of other Priests which were not of the sonnes of Levi: he might pretend that they were rebellious to him, in that h 1.586 hey would not assent vnto his new ordinances, which he had enacted for the safe∣tie and security of his Subjects, and that they did not only simply refuse obedience to these his ordinances, but in their refusall shew themselves so stedfastly minded, that they wolud refuse and with stand even to the suffering of deprivation and deposition; and not only so, but likewy se i 1.587 drew after them many others of the rest of the Tribes, to be of their judgement, and to adhere to that manner of worship which was retained in Ierusalem. Lastly, for the change which he made about the season of the feast of Tabernacles, he might have this pretence, that as it was expedient for the strengthening of his king∣dome, k 1.588 to drawe and allure as many as could be had, to associat and joyne themselves with him in his forme of worship, (which could not be done if he should keep that feast, at the same time when it was keeped at Ierusalem;) so there was no lesse (if not more) order and decency in keeping it in the eight moneth, l 1.589 when the fruits of the ground were perfectly gathered in (for thankefull remembrance whereof, that feast was celebrated) then in the seaventh, when they were not so fully collected.

These pretences he might have made yet more plausible, by pro∣fessing and avouching, that he intended to worship no Idolls, but the Lord only; that he had not fallen from any thing which was funda∣mentall and essentiall in divine Faith and Religion; that the changes which he had made, were only about some alterable Ceremonies, which were not essentiall to the worship of God; and that even in these Ceremonies he had not made any change for his owne will and pleasure, but for important reasons which concerned the good of his Kingdome and saffety of his Subjects. Notwithstanding of all this, the innovations which he made about these Ceremonies of sacred Signes, sacred Places, sacred Persons, sacred Times, are condemned for this very reason, because m 1.590 he devised them of his owne heart,

which was enough to convince him of horrible impiety in making Israel to sinne. Moreover, when king Ahaz tooke a patterne of the Altar of Damascus and sent it to Vrijah the Priest, though we can not gather from the Text, that he either intended or pretended any other respect beside n 1.591 the honouring and pleasuring of his Patrone and Protectour the king of Assyria, (for of his appointing that new altar, for his owne and all the peoples sacrifices, there was nothing heard till after his returne from Damascus, at which time he beganne to fall backe, from one degree of defection to a greater:) yet this very innovation of taking the patterne of an Altar from Idolaters, is marked as a sinne and a snare. Last of all, whereas many of the kings of Iudah and Israel, did either themselves worship in the groves and the high places, or else at least suffer the people to doe so: hou∣soever o 1.592 they might have alledged specious reasons for excusing themselves, as namely, that they gave not this honour to any strange Gods, but to the Lord only; that they choosed these places only to worship in, wherein God was of olde seene and worshipped by the Patriarchs; that the groves and the high places added a most amiable splendor and beauty, to the worship of God; and that they did con∣secratethese places for divine worship, in a good meaning, and with minds wholly devoted to the honour of God: yet notwithstan∣ding, because this thing was not commanded of God, neither came it in to his heart, he would admit no excuses, but ever challengeth it as a grievous fault in the governement of those Kings, that the high places were not taken away, and that the people still sacrificed in the high places. From all which examples, we learne how higly God was and is displeased with men, p 1.593 for adding any other sacred Ce∣remonies to those which he himselfe hath appointed.

Now as touching the other sort of things which we consider in [Sect. XX] the Worship of God, namely, things merely circumstantiall, and such as have the very same use and respect in civill, which they have in sacred actions; we hold, that whensoever it happeneth to be the duty and part of a Prince, to institute and injoyne any order or policy in these circumstances of Gods Worship, then he may onely injoyne such an order, as may stand with the observing and follow∣ing of the Rules of the Word, whereunto wee are tied in the use and practice of things which are in their generall nature indifferent.

Of these Rules I am to speake in the fourth part of the Dispute. And here I say no more but this: Since the Word commandeth us q 1.594 to doe all things to the Glory of God, r 1.595 to doe all things to edi∣fying, & s 1.596 to doe all things in Faith, & full persuasion of the law∣fulnesse of that which we doe: therefore there is no Prince in the world who hath Power to command his Subjects, to doe that which should either dishonour God, or not honour him; or that which should either offend their brother, or not edify him, or lastly, that

which their conscience either condemneth, or doubteth of. For how may a Prince command that which his Subjects may not doe? But a wonder it were, if any man should so farre refuse to be asha∣med, that he would dare to say, we are not bound to order whatsoe∣ver we doe according to these Rules of the Word, but onely such matters of private action, wherein we are lest at full liberty, there beeing no Ordinance of Superiours to determine our practi•…•…; and that it such an Ordinance be published and propounded unto us, we should take it alone for our Rule, and no longer thinke to examine and order ourpractise by the Rules of the Word.

For, 1. This were as much as to say, that in the circūstances of Gods Worship, we are bound to take heed unto Gods Rules, then onely and in that case, when men give us none of their Rules, which if they doe, Gods Rules must give place to mens Rules, and not theirs to his.

2. If it were so, then we should never make reckoning to God, whether that which wee have done in obedience to Superiours, was right or wrong, good or bad: and we should onely make recko∣ning of such things done by us, as were not determined by a hu∣mane Law.

3. The Law of Superiours in never the supreame, but ever a sub∣ordinate Rule, and (as we said before) it can never be a Rule to us, except in so farre onely, as it is ruled by a higher Rule. Therefore we have •…•…ver another Rule to take heed unto, beside their Law.

4. The Scripture speaketh most generally, and admitteth no ex∣ception from the Rules which it giveth. Whatsoever ye doe (though commanded by Superiours) doe all to the Glory of God. Let all things (though commanded by Superiours) be done to edifying. Whatsoever is not of Faith (though commanded by Superiours) is sinne.

5. We may doe nothing for the sole will and pleasure of men: for this were to be the Servants of men, as hath been shewed t 1.597 The Bishop of Sarisburie also assenteth hereunto. Non enim (saith he) Deus vult, ut hominis alicujus voluntatem regulam nostrae voluntatis atque vitae faciams: sed hoc privilegium sibi ac verbo suo reservatum voluit. And againe Pio itaqu•…•… animo haec consideratio semper adesse debet, utrum id quod * 1.598 praecipitur sit divino mandato contrarium, necne: atque ne ex hac parte fal∣lantur, adhibedum est illud judicium discretionis, quod nos tantopere ur∣gemus.

These things if x 1.599 Saravia had considered, he had not so abso∣lutely [Sect. XXI] pronounced that the Power of Kings may make Constitutions of the places and times, when and where the exercises of Piety may bee con∣veniently had: also with what Order, what Rite, what Gesture, what Ha∣bite, the Mysteries shall bee more decently celebrated. But what? thought hee, this Power of Kings is not a st•…•…cted to the Rules of the Word? have they any Power which is to destruction, and not to edifi∣cation?

Can they commaund their Subjects to doe any thing in the circumstances of Divine Worship, which is not for the Glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying, and which they can not doe in Faith? Nay, that all the Princes in the world have not such Power as this, will easily appeare to him who attendeth unto the reasons, which wee have propounded. And because men doe easily and ordinarily pretend, that their constitutions are accor∣ding to the Rules of the Word, when they are indeed repugnant to the same, therefore we have also proven, that Inferiours may & must trie and examine every ordinance of their Superiours, and that by the judgement of private discretion, following the Rules of the Word. I say, following the Rules of the Word, because wee will never allowe a man to follow Anabaptisticall or Swenckfeldian-like en∣thysiasmes and inspirations.

Touching the application of what hath been said, unto the con∣troverted [Sect. XXII] Ceremonies, there needs nothing now to be added. For that they belong not to that sort of things which may be applied to civill uses, with the same respect and account which they have, being applied to religious uses, the account I meane of mere circumstan∣ces, serving onely for that common order and decency, which is and should be observed in civill, no lesse then in sacred actions; but that they belong to the substance of Worship, as beeing sacred significant Ceremonies, wherein both holinesse and necessity are placed, and which may not without high sacriledge be used out of the compasse of Worship, wee have elsewhere plainly evinced. And this kinde of things, whensoever they are mens devices, and not Gods Ordinances, can not be lawfully injoyned by Princes, as hath been shewed.

But if any man will needs have these Ceremonies in question, to goe under the name of mere circumstances, let us put the case they were no other, yet our conforming unto them, which is urged, can not stand with the Rules of the Word.

It could not be for the Glory of God, not onely for that it is of∣fensive to many of Christs litle ones, but likewise for that it mini∣streth occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; to Atheists, because by these naughty observances they see the Commandements of God made of litle or no effect, and many godly both Persons & Purposes despised and depressed, whereat they laugh in their sleeve, and say, Aha, so would we have it; to Papists, because as by this our Conformity, they confirme themselves in sundry of their errors and superstitions, so perceiving us so litle to abhorre the Pompe & Bravery of their Mother of Harlots, that we care not to borrow from her some of her meretricious trinckets, they promise to them∣selves, that in the end we shall take as great a draught of the Cup of the Wine of her Fornications, as they themselves

Neither yet can our conforming unto the Ceremonies pressed on us, be profitable for edifying, for we have given sufficient demon∣stration of manifold hurts and inconveniences ensuing thereo•…•….

Nor lastly can we conforme to them in Faith, for as our Con∣sciences can not finde, so the Word can not afford any warrant for them. Of all which things now I onely make mention, because I have spoken of them enough otherwhere.

The second distinction, which may help our light in this ques∣tion [Sect. XXIII] about the Power of Princes, is of times: for, when the Church and Ministers thereof are corrupted and must be reformed, Princes may doe much more in making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, then regularly they may, when Ecclesiasticall Persons are both able and willing to doe their duty, in rightly taking care of all things, which ought to be provided for the good of the Church, and con∣servation or purgation of Religion. For (saith y 1.600 Iunius) both the Church, when the joyning of the Magistrate faileth, may extraordinarily doe something, which ordinarily shee can not: and againe, when the Church fai∣leth of her duty, the Magistrate may extraordinarily procure, that the Church returne to her duty: that is, in such a case extraordinarily happening, these (Ecclesiasticall Persons) and those (Magistrates) may extraordinarily doe some∣thing, vvhich ordinarily they can not. For this belongeth to common Lavv and Equity, that unto extraordinary evils, extraordinary remedies must also be applied. We aknowledge, that it belongeth to Princes, z 1.601 to reforme things in the Church as often as the Ecclesiasticall Persons shall either through ignorance or disorder of the affection of covetousnesse or ambition, defile the Lords Sanctuary. At such extraordinary times, Princes by their coactive temporall Power, ought to procure & cause a Reformation of a buses, and the avoiding of misorders in the Church, though with the discontent of the Cleargie: for which end and purpose they may not onely injoyne and command the Profession of that Faith, and the Practise of that Religion which Gods Word appointeth, but also prescribe such an order and policy in the circumstances of Divine Worship, as they in their judgement of Christian Dis∣cretion, observing and following the Rules of the Word, shall judge and trie to be convenient for the present time and case, and all this under the commination of such temporall losses, paines, or punish∣ments, as they shall deprehend to be reasonable. But at other or∣dinary times, when Ecclesiasticall Persons are neither through igno∣rance unable, nor through malice and perversenesse of affection un∣willing, to put order to whatsoever requireth any mutation to bee made in the Church and Service of God, in that case without their advice and consent, Princes may not make an innovation of any Ecclesiasticall Rite, nor publish any Ecclesiasticall Law.

When a 1.602 D. Field speaketh of the Power of Princes, to prescribe [Sect. XXIV] and make Lawes about things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, he saith, That the Prince may with the advice and direction of his Cleargie, command things pertaining to Gods Worship and Service, both for Profession of Faith, Ministration of the Sacraments, and con∣versation fitting to Christians in generall, or men of Ecclesiasticall order in particular, under the paines of Death, Imprisonement, Ba∣nishment, Confiscation of goods, and the like: and by his Princely Power establish things formerly defined and decreed against what∣soever error, and contrary ill custome and observation. In all this the D. saith very right: but I demaund further these two things. 1. What if the thing have not been decreed before? and what if the free assent of the Cleargie be not had for it? would the D. have said, that in such a case, the Prince hath not Power by himselfe & by his owne sole Auctority, to injoyne it, and to establish a Law concerning it. For example, that K. Iames had not Power by him∣selfe to impose the controverted Ceremonies upon the Church of Scotland, at that time, when as no free assent (much lesse the direc∣tion) of the Cleargie, was had for them, so neither had they been formerly decreed, but Lawes and Decrees were formerly made a∣gainst them. If the D. would have answered affirmatively, that he had this Power, then why did he in a scornefull dissimulation, so circumscribe and limit the Power of Princes, by requiring a former decree, and the free assent of the Cleargie? If he would have answe∣red negatively, that he had not such Power, wee should have ren∣dred him thankes for his answer. 2. Whether may the Cleargie make any lawes about things pertaining to the Service of GOD which the Prince may not as well by himselfe and without them, constitute and authorize? If the affirmative part bee graunted unto us, we gladly take it. But we suppose D. Field did, and our Op∣posites yet doe hold the negative. Whereupon it followeth, that the Prince hath as much, yea the very same Power of making lawes in all Ecclesiasticall things which the Cleargie themselves have when they are conveened in a lawfull and free Assembly, yet I guesse from the D. words, what hee would have replied, namely, that the difference is great betwixt the Power of making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, in the Prince, and the same Power in the Cleargie as∣sembled togither: for he describeth the making of a Law, to be the prescribing of something, under some paine or punishment, which he that so prescribeth hath Power to inflict. Whereby hee would make it appeare, that he yeeldeth not unto Princes, the same power of Spirituall Iurisdiction, in making of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, which agreeth to the Cleargie: because whereas a Councell of the Cleargie may frame Canons about things which concerne the Worship of God, and prescribe them under the paine of excommunication and

other Ecclesiasticall censures, the Ordinance of Princes about such matters, is onely under the paine of some externall or bodily pu∣nishment. But I answer Potestas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is one thing, and Potest•…•… 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is another thing. When the making of a Law is joyned either with the intention, or with the commination of a Punish∣ment, in case of transgression, this is but accidentall and adventi∣tious to the Law, not naturally or necessarily belonging to the es∣sence of the same. For many Lawes there hath been, and may be, which prescribe not that which they containe under the same paine or punishment. b 1.603 Gratian distinguisheth three sorts of Lawes. Omnis &c. Fvery Law saith he, either permits something, for example, let a valorous man seeke a reward: or forbids, for example, let it be lawfull to no man to seeke the marriage of holy Virgins: or punisheth, for example, Hee who committeth Murther, let him bee capitally punished. And in this third kinde onely, there is something prescribed under a paine or punishment. It is likewise holden by c 1.604 Schoolemen, that it is a Law which permitteth some indifferent thing, as well, as it which commandeth some vertue, or forbiddeth some vice. When a Prince doth statute and ordaine, that whosoever out of a generous and magnanimous Spirit, will adventure to imbarke and hazard in a certaine military exploit, against a forraine enemy whom he inten∣deth to subdue, shall be allowed to take for himselfe in propriety, all the rich spoile which he can lay hold on: there is nothing here prescribed under some paine or punishment, yet is it a Law; and properly so tearmed. And might not the name of a Law be given unto that Edict of King Darius, whereby d 1.605 hee decreed that all they of his Dominions, should fear the God of Daniel, forasmuch as he is the living and eternall God, who raigneth for ever: yet it prescribed nothing under some paine or punishment to be inflicted by him who so prescribed. Wherefore though the Princ•…•… publish∣eth Ecclesiasticall Lawes under other paines and punishments, then the Cleargie doth, this sheweth onely that Potest•…•…s 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not the same, but different in the one and in the other: yet if it be granted, that whatsoever Ecclesiasticall Law, a Synode of the Cleargie hath Power to make and publish, the Prince hath Power to make and publish without them, by his owne sole Auctority, it followeth, that that Power of the Church to make Lawes which is called Potest•…•… 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth agree as much, as properly, and as directly to the Prince, as to a whole Synode of the Church.

Now therefore we firmly hold, 1. That the Prince may not inno∣vate [Sect. XXV] any Cuctome or Rite of the Church, nor publish any Eccle∣siasticall law, without the free assent of the Cleargie, they beeing neither unable for, nor unwilling unto their Ecclesiasticall functions

and duties: yea further, that so farre as is possible, the consent of the whole Church ought to be had, whensoever any change is to be made of some order or custome in the Church. For that which toucheth the whole Church, and is to be used by the whole Church e 1.606 ab omnibus etiam merito curatur. Therefore f 1.607 when there is any change to be made in the Rites of the Church, merito fit hoc eum omnium ordinum Ecclesiae consensu. Neither was there ever a rightly reformed Church, which was helped and not hurt, by such Rites and Customes, as to their grief and miscontentment Princes did impose upon them. Whence it was, that g 1.608 they who were orthodoxe did ever withstand such a Magistrate, as would have by his commandements tied the Church, to that vvhich vvas burdensome to their consciences. That such inconveniencie•…•… may be shunned, it is fit, that when any change is to be made in the Policy of a Church, not the Cleargy alone, but the Elders also, and men of understanding among the Laytie, in a lawfull Assem∣bly, freely give their voices, and consent thereunto. Good reason have our Writers to holde against Papists, that Laymen ought to have place in Councells, wherein things which concerne the whole Church are to be deliberated upon. 2. Lest it be thought enough that Princes devyse, frame, and establish Ecclesiasticall lawes, as them best liketh, and then for more shew of orderly proceeding, some secrete and sinistrous way extort and procure the assent of the Synod of the Church; therefore we adde, that it belongeth to the Synode (the Cleargie having the chiefe place therein to give direction and advice,) not to receave and approve the definition of the Prince, in things which concerne the worship of God, but it selfe to define and determine what orders and customes are fittest to bee observed, in such things, that thereafter the Prince may approve and ratify the same, and presse them upon his Subjects by his regall coactive Power. To me, it is no lesse then a matter of admiration; how h 1.609 Camero could so farre forget himself as to say, that in things per∣taining unto Religion, dirigere atque disponere penes magistratum est pro∣prie, penes Ecclesiasticos ministerium atque executio proprie, telling us further, that the directing and disposing of such things, doth then only be∣long to Ecclesiasticall Persons, when the Church suffereth persecu∣tion, or when the Magistrate permitteth, that the matter be judged by the Church.

Our Writers have said much of the power of the Church to make lawes. But this man (I perceive) will correct them all, and will not aknowledge, that the Church hath any power of making lawes, about things pertaining to Religon, (except by accident, because of perse∣cution, or permission) but only a power of executing what Princes pl•…•…ase to direct. More fully to deliver our minde, we say; that in the making of Lawes about things which concerne the worship of God, the Prince may doe much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 act•…•… i•…•…os, but nothing p•…•…r act•…•… •…•…li∣citos.

For the more full explanation of which distinction, I liken the Prince to the will of man: the Ministers of the Church, to mans par∣ticular sences: a Synod of the Church, to that internall sence which is called Sensus communis, the fontaine & originall of all the externall: things and actions Ecclesiasticall, or such as concerne the worship of God, to the objects and actions of the particular sences: and the power of making Ecclesiasticall lawes, to that power and vertue of the common sence, whereby it perceiveth, discerneth, and judgeth of the objects and actions of all the particular sences. Now as the will commandeth the common sence to discerne and judge of the actions and objects of all the particular sences, thereafter commandeth the eye to see, the eare to heare, the nose to smell, &c yet it hath not power by it selfe to exercice or bring forth any of these actions; for the will can neither see, nor yet judge of the object and action of sight, &c. So the Prince may command a Synode of the Church, to judge of Ecclesiasticall things and actions, and to define what order and forme of policy is most convenient to be observed, in things per∣taining to divine worship, and thereafter he may command the par∣ticular Ministers of the Church to exercise the workes of their Mini∣stery, and to applie themselves unto that forme of Church regi∣ment and policy, which the Synode hath prescribed, yet he may not by himselfe define and direct such matters, nor make any lawes thereanent.

For proof of these things I adde, 1. Politicke government, versatur [Sect. XXVI] circa res terrenas & hominem externum (saith i 1.610 one of our Writers) Ma∣gistratus saith k 1.611 another) instituti sunt a Deo rerum humanarum quae homi∣num societati necessariae sunt respectu, & ad earum curam. But they are Ec∣clesiasticall Ministers, who are l 1.612 ordained for men in thing pertaining to God, that is, in things which pertaine unto Gods worship. It be∣longeth not therefore to Princes to governe and direct things of this nature, even as it belongeth not to Pastors to governe and direct earthly things, which are necessary for the externall, and civill socie∣tie of men. I meane, ordinarly and regularly, for of extraordinary cases we have spoken other wise. But according to the common order and regular forme, we are ever to put this difference, betwixt Civill and Ecclesiasticall governement, which m 1.613 one of our best learned Divines hath excellently conceived after this manner. Altera differentia, &c. The other difference (saith he) taken from the matter and subject of the administrations. For we have put in our definition humane things to be the subject of civill administration: but the subject of Ecclesiasticall ad∣ministration, we have taught to be things divine and sacred: Things divine and sacred we call, both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our minde and conscience, as things necessary; and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed, for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary. For example, Prayers; the

administration of the Word and Sacraments, Ecclesiasticall censure; are things necessary, and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saincts: but set dayes, set houres, set places, fasts, and if there be any such like, they belong to the de∣cency and order of the Church: without which the Church can not be well edified, nor any particular member thereof rightly fashioned, and fitly set in the body. But humane things, we call, such duties as touch the life, the body, goods, and good name, as they are expounded in the seconde table of the Decalogue: for these are the things in which the wholle civill administration standeth. Behold, how the very circumstances, which pertaine to Ecclesiasticall order and decency, are exempted from the compasse of civill governe∣ment.

2. Naturall reason (saith n 1.614 the Bishop of Sarisburie) telleth, that to judge of every thing, and to instruct others, belongeth to them who before others take paines & study to the care and knowledge of the same. So Phisitions judge, which meat is whollesome, which noysome: Lawyers declare, what is just, what unjust: and in all Arts and Sciences, they who professedly place their labour and study in the polishing and practising of the same, both use and ought to direct the judgements of others. Since therefore o 1.615 the Ministers of the Church are those quibus Ecclesiae cura incumbit vel maxime; since they doe above and before the civill Magistrate, devote themselves to the care and knowledge of things pertaining to God & his worship, where about they professe to bestow their ordinary study and painefull travell; were it not most repugnant to the law of naturall reason, to say, that they ought not to direct, but be directed by the Magistrate in such matters?

3. The Ministers of the Church are appointed to be Watchmen in the City of God, Mich. 7. 4. and Overseers of the Flocke, Acts. 20. v. 28. But when Princes doe without the direction and definition of Ministers establish certaine Lawes to be observed in things pertai∣ning to Religion, Ministers are not then Watchmen and Over∣seers, because they have not the first sight, and so can not give the first warning of the change which is to be made in the Church. The Watchmen are upon the walles: the Prince is within the City. Shall the Prince now view and consider the breaches and defects of the City, better and sooner then the Watchmen themselves? Or, shall one within the City tell what should be righted and helped therein, be∣fore them who are upon the walles? Againe, the Prince is one of the flocke, and is committed among the rest to the care, attendance, and guidance of the Overseers. And I pray, shall one of the sheep direct the Overseers how to governe and leade the whole flocke, or prescribe to them what orders and customes they shall observe for preventing or avoiding any hurt and inconvenience, which may happen to the flocke?

4. Christ hath ordained men of Ecclesiasticall order, p 1.616 not one∣ly for the worke of the Ministery, that is, for preaching the Word and

ministring the Sacraments, for warning and rebuking them who sinne, for comforting the afflicted, for confirming the weake, &c. but also for provyding whatsoever concerneth either the private spirituall good of any member of the Church, which the Apostle calleth the perfecting of the Saincts, or the publike spirituall good of the whole Church, which he calleth the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4. 12. Since therefore the making of Lawes, about such things without which the worship of God can not be orderly nor decently (and so not rightly) performed, concerneth the spirituall good and benefit of the whole Church, and of all the members thereof; it followeth, that Christ hath committed the power of judging, defin∣ing, and making lawes about those matters, not to Magistrats, but to the Ministers of the Church.

5. q 1.617 The Apostle speaking of the Church Ministers, saith, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves: for they watch for your soules as they that must give account. Whence we gather, that in things pertaining to God, & which touch the spirituall benefit of the soule, the Ministers of the Church ought to give direction, & to be obeyed, as those who in things of this nature have the rule over all others in the Church, (and by consequence over Princes also,) so that it bee in the Lord. And lest this place and power which is given to Ministers, should either be abused by thēselves to the com∣manding of what they will, or envied by others, as too great ho∣nour & preeminence, the Apostle sheweth what a painefull charge lieth on them, and what a great reckoning they have to make. They watch for your soules saith he, not only by preaching & war∣ning every one, and by offering up their earnest prayers to God for you, but likewise by taking such care of Ecclesiasticall discipli∣ne, order, and policy, that they must provide and procure whatso∣ever shall be expedient for your spirituall good, and direct you in what convenient and beseeming manner, you are to performe the workes of Gods worship, as also to avoid and shunne every scan∣dall and inconveniency, which may hinder your spirituall good. And of these things, whether they have done them or not, they must make account before the judgement seat of the great Bishop of your soules. Surely, if it belong to Princes to define and ordaine, what order & policy should be observed in the Church, what formes and fashiones should be used, for the orderly and right managing of the exercises of Gods worship, how scandalls and misorders are to be shunned, how the Church may be most edified, and the spiri∣tuall good of the Saincts best helped and advanced, by whollesome & profitable lawes, concerning things which pertaine to Religion; then must Princes take also upon them a great part of that charge of Pastors, to watch for the soules of men, and must liberat them from beeing lieable to a reckoning for the same.

6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the great, Theodosi•…•… both the one and the other, [Sect. XXVII] Martian•…•…, Charles the great, and other Christian Princes, when there was any change to be made of Ecclesiasticall rites, did not by their owne auctority imperiously injoyne the change, but convo∣cate Synods for deliberating upon the matter, as r 1.618 Balduine noteth. The great Counsell of Nice was assembled by Constantine, not only because of the Arrian heresie, but also (as s 1.619 Socrates witnesseth) because of the difference about the keeping of Easter. And though the Bishops, when they were assembled did put up to him libells of accusation, one against another, so that there could bee no great hope of their agreement upon fit and convenient Lawes; yet not∣withstanding, he did not interpone his owne definition and decree, for taking up that difference about Easter, only he exhorted the Bishops conveened in the Councell to peace, and so commended the whole matter to be judged by them.

7. We have for us the judgment of worthie Divines. A notable Testimony of Iunius we have allready cited. t 1.620 Dan•…•… will not allowe Princes by thēselves to make Lawes about Ecclesiasticall rites, but this he will have done by a Synod. Porro quod ad ritus, &c. Furthermore saith he for Rites & Ceremonies, & that externall order which is necessary in the ad∣ministration of the Church, let a Synod of the Church conveene; the supreme and Godly Magistrat both giving commandement for the conveening of it, and beeing present in it. And let that Synod of the Church lawfully assembled, define what should be the order and externall regiment of the Church. This decree of the Ecclesiasticall Synod, shall the godly and supreame Magistrat afterward confirme, stablish, and ratify by his edict. u 1.621 Ioh. Wolphius ob∣serveth of King Ioash, that he did not by himself take order for the reparation of the Temple, nor define what was to be done unto eve∣ry breach therein, but committed this matter to be directed and ca∣red for by the Priests, whom it chiefly concerned, commanding them to take course for the reparation of the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach should be found, and allowing them money for the worke. Whereupon he further noteth, that as the superior part of mans soule, doth not it self, heare, see, touch, walke, speake, but commandeth the eares, eyes, hands, feet, and tounge, to doe the same, so the Magistrat should not himselfe either teach, or make lawes, but command that these things be done by the Doctors and Teachers. Cartwright and Pareus upon Hebr. 13. 17. tell the Papists, that we aknowledge, Princes are holden to be obedient unto Pa∣stors, in things that belong unto God, if they rule according to the Word. Which could not be so, if the making of Lawes about things pertaining to God and his worship, did not of right and due belong unto Pastors, but unto Princes themselves. Our secound Booke of Discipline Chap. 12. ordaineth. The Ecclesiasticall Assemblies have their place: vvith povver to the Kirke to appoint times and places convenient▪ for

the same, and all men as vvell Magistrats, as inferiours, to be subject to the judgement of the same in Ecclesiasticall causes. x 1.622 Balduine holdeth, that a Prince may not by himself injoyne any new Ecclesiasticall rite, but must convocat a Synod, for the deliberation and definition of such things. And what meane y 1.623 our Writers, when they say, that Kings have no spirituall, but only a civill power in the Church? As actions are discerned by the objects, so are powers by the actions: If therefore Kings doe commendably by themselves make lawes, about things pertaining to Gods worship, which is an spirituall action, then have they also a spirituall power in the Church. But if they have no spirituall power, that is, no power of spirituall jurisdiction, how can they actually exerce spirituall jurisdiction? That the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Gods worship, is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, it needeth not great demonstration. For, 1. When a Synod of the Church maketh Lawes, about such things, all men know that this is an action of spirituall jur•…•…ction, flowing from that power of spirituall jurisdiction w•…•… is called potestas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And how then can the Princes making of such lawes, be called an action of civill, not of spirituall jurisdiction? I see not what can be answered, except it be said, that the making of those lawes by a Synod is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, because they are made and published with the commination of spirituall and Ec∣clesiasticall punishments, in case of transgression; but the making of them by the Prince, is an action of civill jurisdiction only, because he prescribeth and commandeth, under the paine of some temporall losse or punishment. But I have allready confuted this answere; be∣cause notwithstanding of the different punishments which the one and the other hath power to threaten and inflict, yet at least that part of spirituall jurisdiction which we call potestas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 remai∣neth the same in both, which power of making Lawes must not (as I shew) be confounded with that other power of judging & punish∣ing offenders. 2. Actions take their species or kynd from the ob∣ject and the end, when other circumstances hinder not. Now a Prince his making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, is such an action of Iurisdiction, as hath both a spirituall end, which is the edification of the Church and spirituall good of Christians, and likewise a spirituall object, for that all things pertaining to di∣vine worship, even the very externall circumstances of the same, are rightly called things spirituall and divine, not civill or human, our Opposites can not denie, except they say, not only that such things touch the lives, bodies, estates, or names of men, and are not ordained for the spirituall benefit of their soules, but also that the Synod of the Church, whose power reacheth only to things spi∣rituall, not civill or human, can never make Lawes about those cir∣cumstances

which are applied unto and used in the worship of God. And as the Prince his making of Lawes about things of this nature, is in respect of the object and end, an action of spirituall jurisdiction, so there is no circumstance at all, which varieth the kind, or ma∣keth it an action of civill jurisdiction only. If it be said that the circumstance of the person changeth the kynd of the action, so that the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, if they be made by Ecclesiasticall persons, is an action of spirituall juris∣diction, but if by the civill Magistrat, an action of civill jurisdiction: this were a most extreamely unadvised distinction: for so might z 1.624 Vzziah the King have answered for himself, that in burning in∣cense he did not take upon him to execute the Priests office, because he was only a civill person: so may the Pope say, that he taketh not upon him the power of Emperours and Monarchs, because he is an Eccle•…•…sticall person. Many things men may doe de facto, which they can not de jure. Civill persons may exerce a spirituall jurisdic∣tion and office, and againe Ecclesiasticall persons may exerce a civill jurisdiction, de facto, thought not de jure. Wherefore the Prince his making of Lawes about things spirituall, remaineth still an action of spirituall jurisdiction, except some other thing can be alledged to the contrary, beside the circumstance of the Person. But some man peradventure will object, that a Prince by his civill power may injoyne and command, not only the observation of those Ecclesia∣sticall rites which a Synod of the Church prescribeth, but also that a Synod (when need is) presribe new orders and rites, all which are things spirituall and divine: And why then may he not by the same civill power make lawes about the Rites and circumstances of Gods worship, notwithstanding that they are (in their use and application to the actions of worship) things spirituall, not civill.

Ans. a 1.625 The Schoolmen say, that an action proceedeth from charity two wayes, either elicitivè, or imperativè: and that those actions which are immediatly produced and wrought out by charity, belong not to other vertues distinct from charity, but are comprehended under the effects of charity it self, such as are the loving of good, and re∣joycing •…•…o it: other actions say they, which are only commanded by charity, belong to other speciall vertues distinct from charity; So say I, an action may proceed from a civill power either elicitivé, or imperativè. Elicitivè a civill power can only make Lawes about things civill or human: but imperativé, it may command the Ec∣clesiasticall power to make Lawes about things spirituall, which Lawes thereafter it may command to be observed by all who are in [Sect. XXVIII] the Church.

8. Our Opposites themselves aknowledge no lesse, then that which I have beene pleading for. To devise new rites and Ceremonies saith b 1.626 D. Bilson, is not the Princes vocation, but to receive and allowe such

as the Scriptures and Canons commend, and such as the Bishops and Pastors of the place shall advise. And saith not c 1.627 the Bishop of Sarisburie, Ceremo∣nias utiles & decoras excogitare, ad Ecclesiasticos pertinet, tamen easdem comprobare, & toti populo observandas imponere, ad Reges spectat. d 1.628 Ca∣mero saith, that it is the part of a Prince to take care for the health of mens soules, even as he doth for the health of their bodies, and that as he provideth not for the curing or preventing of bodily deseases directly and by himself, but indirectly and by the Phisitions, so he should not by himself prescribe cures & remedies for mens spirituall maladies. Perinde Principis est curare salutem animarum, ac ejusdem est sa∣luti corporum prospicere: non est autem Principis providere ne morbi grassentur directe, esset enim Medicus, at in directe tamen Princeps id sludere debet. Whence it followeth, that even as when some bodily sicknesse sprea∣deth, a Princes part is not to prescribe a cure, but to command the Phisitions to doe it: just so, when any abuse, misorder, confusion, or scandall in the Church, requireth or maketh it neecssary that a mutation be made of some rite or order in the same, & that whole∣some Lawes be enacted, which may serve for the order, decency, & edification of the Church, a Prince may not doe this by himself, but may only command the Pastors and Guides of the Church, who watch for the soules of men, as they who must give account, to see to the exigency of the present state of matters Ecclesiasticall, and to provide such Lawes as they beeing met togither in the name of the Lord, shall after due and free deliberation, find to be conve∣nient, and which being once prescribed by them, hee shall by his royall auctority confirme, establish, and presse.

Needs now it must be manifest, that the lawfullnesse of our con∣forming unto the Ceremonies in question, can be no way warran∣ted [Sect. XXIX] by any ordinance of the Supreame Magistrat, or any power which he hath in things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall. And if our Op∣posites would ponder the reasons we have given, they should be quickely quieted, understanding that before the Princes ordinance about the Ceremonies can be said to bind us, it must first be shewed that they have beene lawfully prescribed by a Synod of the Church. So that they must retire and hold them at the Churches ordi∣nance. And what needeth any more? let us once see any lawfull or∣dinance of the Synod or Church representative for them we shall without any more adoe aknowledge it to be out of all doubt, that his Majesty may well urge Conformity unto the same.

Now of the Churches power we have spoken in the former Cha∣pter. And if we had not, yet that which hath beene said in this Chapter, maketh out our point. For it hath beene proven, that nei∣ther King nor Church hath power to command any thing, which is not according to the rules of the Word, that is, which serveth not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying, & which

may not be done in faith, unto which rules whether the things which are commanded us, be agreeable or not, we must trie and examine by the privat judgement of Christian discretion, following the light of Gods Word.

Resteth the third distinction, whereof I promised to speake, & that [Sect. XXX] was of Ties or Bonds. Quaedam obligatio, &c. Some bond (saith e 1.629 Ge∣rard) is absolute, when the Lavv bindeth the conscience simply, so that in no respect, nor in no case, without the offence of God, and vvound of conscience, one may depart from the prescript thereof: but another bond is hypotheticall, vvhen it bindeth not simply, but under a condition, to vvit, if the transgres∣sion of the Lavv be done of contempt; if for the cause of lucre or some other vitious end; if it have scandall joyned vvith it. The former way he saith that the Law of God and Nature bindeth, and that the Law of the civill Magistrat bindeth the latter way. And with him we hold, that whatsoever a Prince commandeth his Subjects in things any way pertaining to Religion, it bindeth only this latter way; and that hee hath never power to make Lawes, binding the former way. For confirmation wherefore wee say,

1. The Lawes of an Ecclesiasticall Synod, to the obedience where∣of in things belonging to the worship of God, we are farre more strictly tied, then to the obedience of any Prince in the world, who (as hath beene shewed) in this sort of things, hath not such a voca∣tion nor power to make Lawes: the Lawes (I say) of a Synod can not bind absolutely, but only conditionally, or in case they can not be transgressed without violating the Law of Charity, by contempt shewed, or scandall given. Which as I have made good in the first part of this Dispute; so let me now produce for it a plaine testimony of f 1.630 the Bishop of Sarisburie, who holdeth that the Churches rites and ordinances, doe only bind in such sort, ut si extra, &c. That if out of the case of scandall or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or some rea∣sonable cause inforcing, they be omitted, no mortall sinne is incurred before God. For as touching these constitutions, I judge the opinion of Gerson to be most true, to vvit, that they remaine unviolated, so long as the Lavv of Cha∣rity is not by men violated about the same. Much lesse then, can the Lawes of Princes about things Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, bind absolutely, and out of the case of violating the Law of Cha∣rity.

2. If we be not bound to receive and aknowledge the Lawes of Princes as good and equitable, except only in so farre, as they are warranted by the Law of God and Nature, then we are not bound in conscience to obey them, except only conditionally, in case the violating of them include the violating of the Law of God and Na∣ture. But the former is true. Therefore the latter. It is Gods pecu∣culiar soveraignety, that his will is a rule ruling but not ruled, and that therefore a thing is good, because God will have it to be good.

Mans will is only such a rule, as is ruled by higher rules, and it must be knowne to be norma recta, before it can be to us norma recti.

3. If we be bound te trie and examine by the judgement of dis∣cretion (following the rules of the Word,) whether the things which Princes command be right, and such as ought to be done, and if we find them not to be such, to neglect them; then their Lawes can not bind absolutely and by themselves, (else what need were there of such triall and examination?) but only conditio∣nally, and in case they can not be neglected without violating some other Law, which is of a superior bond. But the former wee have proven by strong reasons. Therefore the latter standeth sure.

4. If neither Princes may command, nor wee doe any thing, which is not lawfull and expedient, and according to the other rules of the Word, then the Lawes of Princes bind not absolutely, but only in case the neglecting of them can not stand with the Law of Charity, and the rules of the Word. But the former hath beene evinced and made good. Therefore the latter necessarily follo∣weth.

5. If the Lawes of Princes could bind absolutely and simply, so that in no case without offending God & wounding our conscience, we could neglect them, this bond should arise either from their owne auctority, or from the matter and thing it self which is com∣manded. But from neither of these it can arise. Therefore from nothing. It can not arise from any auctority which they have, for if by their auctority we meane their Princely preeminence & dignity, they are Princes, when they command things unlawfull, as well, as when they command things lawfull, and so if because of their pre∣eminence their Lawes doe bind, then their unlawfull ordinances doe bind, no lesse then if they were lawfull: but if by their auctority, we meane the power which they have of God to make Lawes, this power is not absolute, (as hath beene said,) but limited: therefore from it no absolute bond can arise, but this much at the most, that g 1.631 Kings on earth must be obeyed, so farre as they command in Christ. Neither yet can the bond be absolute in respect of the thing it self which is commanded.

When Princes publish the commandements of God, the things them selves binde, whether they should command them or not: but we speake of such things as Gods Word hath left in their nature indiffe∣rent, & of such things we say, that if being injoyned by Princes they did absolutely binde, then they should be in themselves immuta∣bly necessary, even secluding, as well the Lawes of Princes which injoyne them, as the end of order, decency, and edification, where unto they are referred. To say no more, hath not h 1.632 D For∣besse

told us in Calvines words, Notatu dignum, &c. It is vvorthy of ob∣servation that human Lavves, vvhether they be made by the Magistrat or by the Church, hovvsoever they be necessary to be observed, (I speake of such as are good & just,) yet they doe not therefore by themselves binde the conscience, because the vvhole necessity of observing them, looketh to the generall end, but consisteth not in the things commanded.

6. Whatsoever bond of conscience, is not confirmed and war∣ranted by the Word, is before God no bond at all. But the absolute bond, wherewith conscience is bound to the obedience of the Lawes of Princes, is not confirmed nor warranted by the Word. Ergo. The Proposition no man can denie who aknowledgeth, that none can have power or dominion over our consciences, but God only, i 1.633 the great Lawgiver, who alone can save and destroy. Nei∣ther doth any Writer whom I have seene, hold that Princes have any power over mens consciences, but only that conscience is bound by the Lawes of Princes, for this respect, because God who hath power over our consciences, hath tied us to their Lawes. As to the assum∣ption, he who denieth it, must give instance to the contrary. If k 1.634 those vvords of the Apostle be objected; Yee must needs be subject, not only for vvrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not, that we must obey, but that we must be subject, for conscience sake. And how oft shall we need to tell our Opposites, that subjection is one thing, & obedience another?

2. If he had said, that we must obey for conscience sake, yet this could not have beene expounded of an absolute bond of con∣science, but only of an hypotheticall bond, in case that which the Magistrat commandeth, can not be omitted, without breaking the Law of Charity. If it be said againe that we are not only bidden be subject, l 1.635 but likewise to obey Magistrats. Ans. And who de∣nieth this? But still I aske, are we absolutely and allwayes bound to obey Magistrats? Nay, but only when they command such things as are according to the rules of the Word, so that either they must be obeyed, or the Law of Charity shall be broken: in this case, and no other, we are bidden obey.

Thus have we gained a principall point, Viz, That the lawes of [Sect. XXXI] Princes bind not absolutely but conditionally, nor propter se, but propter aliud. Whereupon it followeth, that except the breach of those ceremoniall Ordinances wherewith we are pressed, include the breach of the law of Charity, which is of a superior bond, we are not holden to obey them. Now that it is not the breach, but the obedien∣ce of those ordinances, which violateth the law of Charity, we have heretofore made manifest, and in this place we will adde only one generall. Whensoever the lawes of Princes about things Ecclesiasti∣call, doe bind the conscience conditionally, & because of some other law of a superior bond, which can not be observed if they be trans∣gressed;

(which is the only respect for which they bind, when they bind at all;) then the things which they perscribe belong either to the conservation, or purgation of Religion. But the controverted Ceremonies belong to neither of these. Therefore the lawes made thereanent bind not, because of some other law which is of a supe∣rior bond. As to the Proposition, will any man say that Princes have any more power, then that which is expressed in the 25 Article of the Confession of Faith, ratified in the first Parliament of King Iames the 6. which saith thus, Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrats, we a•…•…me that chiefly and most principally, the conservation and the purgation of the Religion appertaines, so that not only they are appointod for civill policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of Idolatry and superstition whatsoever. Hoe nomine (saith m 1.636 Calvine) maxime laudantur sancti Reges in Scriptura, quod Dei cultum corruptum vel eversum restituerint, vel curam gesserint Religionis, ut sub illis pura & incolumis floreree. The 21, Parliament of King Iames holden at Edinburgh 1612. in the ratification of the Acts and Conclusions of the generall Assembly, keeped in Clasgove 1610. did innovate and change some words of that Oath of Allegiance, which the generall Assembly in reference to the conference keeped 1571. ordained to be given to the Person provided to any benefice with cure, in the time of his admission by the Ordinare. For the forme of the Oath set downe by the act of the Assembly, beginneth thus. I. A. B. now nominat and admitted to the Kirk of D, vtterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the right excellent, right high, and mighty Prince, Iames 6, by the grace of God King of Scots, is the only lawfull supreme Governour of this Realme, as well in things temporall, as in the conservation and purgation of Religion, &c. But the forme of the Oath set downe by the Act of Parliament, beginneth thus. I. A. B. now nominat and admitted to the Kirk of D, testify and declare in my conscience, that the right excellent &c. is the only lawfull supreme Governour of this Realme, as well in matters Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, as in things tem∣porall &c. Yet I demand, whether or not doe those Matters Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, of which the Act of Parliament speaketh, or those All Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, of which the English Oath of Supremacie speaketh, comprehend any other thing then is com∣prehended under the conservation and purgation of Religion, where of the Act of Assembly speaketh? If it be answered affirmatively, ti will followe that Princes have power to destruction, and not to edifica∣tion only, for whatsoever may edify or profit the Church, pertaineth either to the conservation, or the purgation of Religion. If nega∣tively, then it can not be denied that the conservation and purga∣tion of Religion doe comprehend all the power which Princes have in things Ecclesiasticall.

Now to the Assumption. And first, that the controverted Ceremo∣nies [Sect. XXXII] pertaine not to the conservation of Religion, but contrary wise to

the hurt and prejudice of the same, experience hath (alas) made it too manifest. For, o what a dolefull decay of Religion have they drawne with them in this Land! Let them who have seene Scotland in her first glory, tell how it was then, and how it is now. n 1.637 Idle and idole-like Bishopping hath shut to the doore painefull and profita∣ble Catechising. The keeping of some Festivall dayes, is set up in stead of the thankefull commemoration of Gods inestimable bene∣fites: howbeit o 1.638 the festivity of Christmasse hath hitherto served, more to Bachanalian lasciviousnesse, then to the remembrance of the birth of Christ. The kneeling downe upon the knees of the body, hath now come in place of that humiliation of the soule, wherwith worthy communicants addressed temselves unto the holy Table of the Lord. And generally, the externall shew of these fruitlesse ob∣servances, hath worne out the very life and power of Religion. Neither have such effects ensued upon such Ceremonies among us only, but let it be observed every where else, if there be not least sub∣stance and power of godlinesse, among them who have most Cere∣monies, where unto men have at their pleasure given some sacred use and signification in the Worship of God, and most substance among them, who have fewest shewes of externall rites. No man of sound judgement (saith p 1.639 Baza) will denie, Iesum Christum quo nudior, &c. that IESVS CHRIST, the more naked he be, is made the more manifest to us: whereas contrarywise all false religions use by certaine externall gesturings to turne away men from divine things. q 1.640 Zanchius saith well of the Surplice and other popish Ceremonies, quod haec nihil ad pietatem accenden∣dam, multum autem ad restinguendam valeant. r 1.641 Bellarmine indeed pleadeth for the vtility of Ceremonies, as things belonging to the conservation of Religion. His reason is, because they set before our sences such an externall majesty and splendor, whereby they cause the more reverence. This hee alledgeth for the utility of the Cere∣monies of the Church of Rome. And I would know, what better reason can be alledged for the utility of ours. But if this be all, we throwe backe the Argument, because the externall majesty and splendor of Ceremonies doth greatly prejudge and obscure the spirit and life of the worship of God, and diverteth the minds of men from adver∣ting vnto the same: which we have offered to be tried by common ex∣perience. Durand himself, for as much as he hath written in the de∣fence of Ceremonies, in his unreasonable Rationale, yet s 1.642 he maketh this plaine confession. Sane in primitiva Ecclesia, Sacrificium fiebat in vasis ligneis & vestib•…•… communibus: tune enim evant lignei calices & aurei Sacerdo∣tes: nunc vero ècontra est. Behold what followeth upon the majesty and splendor which Ceremonies carry with them, and how Religion at it's best and first estate was without the same!

Neither yet doe the Ceremonies in question belong to the purga∣tion [Sect. XXXIII] of Religion. For wheresoever Religion is to be purged in a

corrupted Church, all men know that purgation standeth in putting some thing away, not in keeping it still, in voiding some what, not in retaining it: so that a Church is not purged, but left unpurged, when the unnecessary monuments of by past superstition are still preserved and kept in the same. And as for the Church of Scotland, least of all could there be any purgation of it intended, by the re∣suming of those Ceremonies, for such was the most glorious and ever memorable reformation of Scotland, that it was farre better purged then any other nighbour Church. And of Mr. Hookers jest we may make good earnest, for in very deed as the reformation of Genevah did passe the reformation of Germany, so the reformation of Scotland did passe that of Genevah.

Now hitherto we have discoursed of the power of Princes, in ma∣king [Sect. XXXIV] of lawes about things which concerne the worship of God; for this power it is, which our Opposites alledge for warrant of the con∣troverted Ceremonies: wherefore to have spoken of it is sufficient for our present purpose. Neverthelesse, because there are also other sorts of Ecclesiasticall things, beside the making of lawes, such as the vocation of men of Ecclesiasticall order, the convocation and moderation of Councells, the judging and deciding of controversies about faith, and the use of the keyes, in all which Princes have some place and power of intermeddling, and a mistaking in one, may possibly breed a mistaking in all: Therefore I thought good here to digresse, and of these also to adde some what, so farre as Princes have power and interest in the same.

DIGRESSION I.

Of the vocation of men of Ecclesiasticall order.

IN the vocation and calling of Ecclesiasticall persons, a Prince ought to carry himself ad modum procurantis speciem, non desig∣nantis individuum. Which shall be more plainly and particu∣larly vnderstood, in these Propositions which followe.

PROPOS. I. Princes may and ought to provide and take care, that men of those Ecclesiasticall orders, and those only, which are instituted in the new Testament, by divine auctority, have vocation and office in the Church.

Now beside the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, which were not ordained to be ordinary and perpetuall offices in the Church, t 1.643 there are but two Ecclesiasticall orders or degrees instituted by Christ in the new Testament, vix. Elders and Deacons. Excellenter Canones d•…•…os tantum sacros ordines appellari censent, Diaconatus scilicet & Presbyte∣rat•…•…, quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse, & de hi•…•… sol•…•… praeceptum

Apostli habe•…•…, saith w 1.644 the Master of Sentences. As for the order and degree of Bishops, superior to that of Elders, that there is no divine Ordinance nor institution for it, it is not only holden by Calvine, Beza, Bucer, Martyr, Sadeel, Luther, Chemnitius, Gerard Balduine, the Magdebur∣gians, Musculus, Piscator, Hemmingius, Zanchius, Polanus, Iunius, Pareus, Fennerus, Danaeus, Morney, Whittakers, Willets, Perkins, Cartwright, the Pròfessours of Leiden, and the farre greatest part of Writters in refor∣med Churches, but also by Hierome, who upon Tit. 1. and in his Epistle to Fvagrius speaketh so plainly, that x 1.645 the Archbishop of Spa∣lato is driven to say, Deserimus in hac parte Hieronymum, neque ei in his dictis assentimur: also by Ambrose on 1. Tim. 3. Augustine in his booke of questions out of both Testaments quest. 101. Chrysostome on 1. Tim. 3. Isidore dist. 21. cap. 1. The Canon Law dist. 93. c. 24. & dist. 95. c. 5. Lombard. lib. 4 dist. 24. And after him by many Schoolemen, such as Aquinas, Alensis, Albertus, Bonaventura, Richardus, and Dominicus Soto, all mentioned by the Archbishop of Spalato lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 25. y 1.646 Ge∣rard citeth for the same judgement Anshelmus, Sedulius, Primasius, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, the Councell of Basil, Ardatensis, Ioh. Pari∣siensis, Erasmus, Medina, and Cassander. All which Authors have groun∣ded that which they say upon Scripture: for beside that Scripture maketh no difference of order and degree betwixt Bishops and El∣ders, it sheweth also that they are one and the same order. For in Ephesus and Crete, they who were made Elders were likewise made Bishops, Act. 20. 17. with 28. Tit. 1. 5. with 7. And the Apostle Phil. 1. 1. divideth the wholle ministery in the Church of Philippi into two orders, Bishops and Deacons. Moreover, 1. Tim. 3. he giveth order only for Bishops and Deacons, but saith nothing of a third order. Wherefore it is manifest, that beside those two orders of Elders and Deacons, there is no other Ecclesiasticall order which hath any divi∣ne institution, or necessary use in the Church. And Princes should doe well to applie their power and auctority to the extirpation and rooting out of Popes, Cardinals, Patriarches, Primats, Archbishops, Bishops, Suffragans, Abbots, Deanes, Vice-Deans, Priors, Arch∣deacons, Subdeacons, Chancellours, Chantours, Subchantours, Exorcists, Monkes, Eremits, Acoluths, and all the whole rabble of Popish orders, which undoe the Church, and worke more mischief in the earth, then can be either soone seene or shortly told.

But contrary wise, Princes ought to establish and mantaine in the Church, Elders and Deacons, according to the Apostolicall institu∣tion. Now Elders are either such as labour in the Word and Doc∣trine, or else such as are appointed for Discipline only. They who labour in the Word and Doctrine, are either such as doe only teach, and are ordained for conserving in Schooles and Seminaries of lear∣ning, the purity of Christian Doctrine, and the true interpretation of Scripture, and for detecting and confuting the contrary heresies and

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

errors, whom the Apostle calleth Doctours or Teachers: Or else they are such as doe not only teach, but also have a more particulr charge to watch over the flocke, to seek that which is lost 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to bring home that which wandereth, to heale that which is diseased, to bind up that which is broken, to visite every family, to warne every per∣son, to rebuke, to comfort, &c, whom the Apostle calleth sometines Pastors, and sometimes Bishops, or Overseers. The other sort of Elders are ordained only for Discipline and Church governement, and for assisting of the Pastors, in ruling the people, overseeing their manners, and censuring their faults. That this sort of Elders is insti∣tuted by the Apostle, it is put out of doubt, not alone by Calvine, Beza, and the Divines of Genevah, but also by Chemnitius, exam. part. 2. pag. 218. Gerard loc. theol. tom. 6. pag. 363. 364. Zanchius in 4. praec. col. 727. Martyr in 1. Cor. 12. 28. Bullinger in 1. Tim. 5. 17. Iunius animad. in Bell. contr. 5. lib. 1. cap. 2. Polanus Synt. lib. 7. cap. 11. Pareus in Rom. 12. 8. & 1. Cor. 12. 28. Cartwright on 1. Tim. 5. 17. The Professours of Leiden Syn. pur. Theol. disp. 42. Thes. 20. And many moe of our Divines, who teach that the Apostle 1. Tim. 5. 17. directly implieth that there were some Elders who ruled well, and yet laboured not in the Word and Doctrine, and those Elders he meaneth by them that rule, Rom. 12. 8. & by Governements 1. Cor. 12. 28. where the Apostle saith not helps in Governements, as our new English Translation corruptly readeth, but helps, governements, &c. plainly putting Governements for a dif∣ferent order from Helps or Deacons. * 1.647 Of these Elders speaketh z 1.648 Ambrose, (as a 1.649 D. Fulke also understandeth him) shewing that with all nations Eldership is honourable, wherefore the Synagoge also, and afterward the Church, hath had some Elders of the Con∣gregation, without whose counsell and advice nothing was done in the Church: and that he knew not by what negligence this had growne out of use, except it had beene through the sluggishnesse of the Teachers, or rather their pride, whiles they seemed to themselves to be somet•…•…ing, and so did arrogat the doing of all by themselves.

Deacons were instituted by the Ap•…•…stles b 1.650 for collecting, recei∣ving, keeping, and distributing of Ecclesiasticall goods, which were given and dedicated for the maintenance of Ministers, Churches, Schooles, and for the help and relief of the poore, the stranger, the sicke and the weake, also c 1.651 for furnishing of such things as are neces∣sary to the ministration of the Sacraments. Beside which •…•…mploy∣ments, the Scripture hath assigned neither Preaching, nor Baptising, nor any other Ecclesiast•…•…ll function to ordinary Deacons.

PROPOS. II. Princes in their Dominions, ought to procure and effect, that there bee never wanting men qualified and fit for those Ecclesiasticall functions and charges, which Christ hath ordained, and that such men only bee called, chosen, and set apart for the same.

There are two things contained in this Proposition. 1. That Princes ought to procure, that the Church never want men quali∣lified and gifted for the worke and service of the holy Ministery, for which end and purpose they ought to provide and mantaine Schooles and Colledges, intrusted and committed to the rule and oversight of orthodoxe, learned, godly, faithfull, and diligent Ma∣sters, that so qualified and able men may be still furnished and sent forth for the Ministery and service of the Church. They ought also to take care that the Ministers of the Church neither want due reve∣rence 1. Tim. 5. 17. Hebr. 13. 17. Nor sufficient maintenance 1. Cor. 9. that so men be not skarred from the service of the Ministery, but rather incouraged unto the same 2. Chron. 31. 4.

2. That Princes ought also to take order and course, that well qualified men, and no others, be advanced and called to beare charge and office in the Church: for which purpose, they should cause, not one disdainfull p•…•…lat, but a whole Presbytery or com∣pany of Elders, to take triall of him who is to be taken into the number of preaching Elders, and to examine well the piety of his life, the verity of his Doctrine, and his fitnesse to teach. And further, that due triall may be continually had of the growth or decay of the graces and utterance of every Pastor: it is the part of Princes to injoyne the visitation of particular Churches, and the keeping of other Presbyteriall meetings, likewise the assembling of Provinciall and Nationall Synods, for putting order to such things as have not beene helped in the particular Presbyteries. And as for the other sort of Elders, togither with Deacons, we judge the aun∣cient order of this Church, to have beene most convenient for provyding of well qualified men for those functions and offices. For the eight head of the first booke of Discipline, touching the elec∣tion of Elders and Deacons, ordaineth that men of best know∣ledge and cleanest life, be nominat to be in Election, and that their names be publikely read to the whole Church by the Minister, gi∣ving them advertisement, that from among them must be chosen Elders and Deacons: that if any of these nominat be noted with publike infamie, hee ought to be repelled: And that if any man know others of better qualities within the Church, then these that be nominat, they should be put in election, that the Church may have the choice.

If these courses whereof we have spoken, be followed by Chri∣stian Princes, they shall by the blessing of God procure, that the Church shall be served with able and fit Ministers. But though thus they may procurare speciem, yet they may not designare individuum, which now I am to demonstrat.

PROPOS. III. Neverthelesse c 1.652 Princes may not designe nor appoint such or such particular men, to the charge, of such or such particular Churches, or to

the exercing of such or such Ecclesiasticall functions: but ought to provide that such an order & forme be keeped in the election and ordination of the Ministers of the Church, as is warranted by the example of the Apostles, and primitive Church.

The vocation of a Minister in the Church, is either inward or out∣ward. The inward calling which one must have, in finding himself by the grace of God, made both able and willing to serve God and his Church faithfully, in the holy Ministery, lieth not open to the vieu of men, and is only manifest to him from whom nothing can be hid. The outward calling is made up of Election & Ordina∣tion: that, signified in Scripture by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: this, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Concerning which things, we say wi•…•… d 1.653 Zanchius, Magistratus, &c. It pertaineth to a Christian Magistrat and Prince, to see for Ministers unto his Churches. But how? not out of his owne arbitrement, but as Gods Word teacheth. Therefore let the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of Paul be read, how Ministers were elected and ordained, and let them followe that forme.

The right of Election pertaineth to the whole Church: which as it is mantained by forraine Divines, who write of the controver∣sies with Papists; and as it was the order which this Church prescri∣bed in the bookes of Discipline; so it is commended unto us by the example of the Apostles, and of the Churches planted by them. Ioseph and Matthias were chosen & offered to Christ by the whole Church, being about. 120. persons. Act. 1. 15. 23. The Apostles required the whole Church and multitude of Disciples, to choose out from among them seaven men to be Deacons Act. 6. 2. 3. The holy Ghost said to the whole Church at Antioch, beeing assembled togither to minister unto the Lord, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, Act. 13. 1. 2. The whole Church choosed Iudas and Silas to bee sent to Antioch. Act. 15. 22. The brethren who travailed in the Chur∣ches affaires, were chosen by the Church, and are called the Chur∣ches Messengers. 2. Cor. 8. 19. 23. Such men only were ordained Elders by Paul and Barnabas, as were chosen and approven by the whole Church, their suffrages beeing signified by the lifting up of their hands. Act. 14. 23. Albeit Chrysostome and other Ecclesiasticall Writers use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for ordination by imposition of hands, yet when they take it in this sence, they speake figuratively and synegdochically, as e 1.654 Iunius sheweth. For these two, Election by most voices, and Ordination by laying on of hands, were joyned togither, and did cohere, as an antecedent and an consequent, whence the use obtained, that the whole action should be signified by one word, per modum intellectus, collecting the antecedent from the conse∣quent, & the consequent from the antecedent. Neverthelesse accor∣ding to the proper & native significatiō of the word, it noteth the sig∣nifying

of a suffrage or election by the lifting up of the hand, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no other thing, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to lift or hold up the hāds in signe of a suffrage. And so Chrysostome himself u∣seth the word, when he speaketh properly, for he saith, that the Senate of Rome, tooke upon him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is (as f 1.655 D. Potter turneth his words) to make Gods by most voices.

g 1.656 Bellarmine reckoneth out three significatiōs of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. To choose by suffrages. 2. Simply to choose, which way soever it be. 3. To ordaine by imposition of hands. h 1.657 Iunius answereth him, that the first only is the proper signification: the second is me∣taphoricall: the third synegdochicall.

Our English Translators, 2. Cor. 1. 19. have followed the meta∣phoricall signification, and in this place Act. 14. 23. the synegdo∣chicall. But what had they adoe either with a Metaphore or a Sy∣negdoche, when the Text may beare the proper sence? Now, that Luke in this place useth the word in the proper sence, and not in the synegdochicall, i 1.658 Gerard proveth from the words which he subjoyneth, to signify the ordaining of those Elders by the laying on of hands: for he saith that they prayed and fasted and commen∣ded them to the Lord, in which words he implieth the laying on of hands upon them, as may be learned from. Act. 6. 6. When they had prayed they laid their hands on them. Act. 13. 3. When they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them. So Act. 8. 15. 17. Prayer and laying on of hands went togither. Wherefore by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luke pointeth at the election of those Elders by voices, being in the fol∣lowing words to make mention of their ordination by imposition of hands.

k 1.659 Cartwright hath for the same point, other waighty reasons. It is absurd (saith he) to imagine, that the holy Ghost by Luke, speaking with the tongues of men, that is to say, to their understanding, should use a word in that signification in which it was never used before his time by any Writer, Holy or Prophane. For how could he then be understood: if using the note and name they used, he should have fled from the signification whereunto they used it? unlesse therefore his purpose was to write that which none should read, it must needs be that as he wrote, so he meant the election by voices. And if Demosthe∣nes for knowledge in the tongue would have beene ashamed, to have noted the laying downe of hands by a vvord that signifieth the lifting of them up: they doe the holy Ghost (vvhich taught Demosthenes to speake) great injury, in im∣sing this unpropriety and strangenesse of speach unto himself: vvhich is yet more absurd, considering that there vvere both proper vvords to utter the laying on of hands by, & the same also used in the translation of the 70: vvhich Luke for the Gentiles sake did as it may seeme (vvhere he conveniently could) most follovve. And it is yet most of all absurd, that Luke vvhich straiteneth him∣self

to keep the vvords of the 70. Interpreters, vvhen as he could have other∣vvise uttered things in better tearmes then they did, should here forsake the phrase vvherevvith they noted the laying on of hands, beeing most proper and naturall to signify the same. The Greeke Scholiast also, and the Greeke Igna∣tius, doe plainly referre this vvord to the choice of the Church by voices.

But it is objected that Luke saith not of the whole Church, but only of Paul and Barnabas, that they made them by voices Elders in every citty.

Ans. But how can one imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went to suffrages? election by most voices, or the lifting up of the hand in token of a suffrage, had place only among a multi∣tude assembled togither. Wherefore we say with l 1.660 Iunius, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both a common, and a particular action, whereby a man chooseth by his owne suffrage in particular, & likewise with others in commone, so that in one and the same action we can not divide those things, which are so joyned togither.

From that which hath beene said, it plainly appeareth, that the election of Ministers, according to the Apostolicke institution, per∣taineth to the whole body of that Church, where they are to serve; And that this was the Apostolicke & primitive Practice, it is aknow∣ledged even by some of the Papists, such as Lorinus, Salmeron, and Gas∣par 〈◊〉〈◊〉, all upon. Act. 14. 23. m 1.661 The Canon Law it self commen∣deth this forme, and saith, Electio Clericorum est petitio plebis. And was he not a Popish Archbishop, n 1.662 who condescended that the Citty of Magdeburg should have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ac constituendi Ecclesiae Mini∣stros? Neither would the Citty accept of peace, without this con∣dition.

That in the auncient Church, for a long time, the election of Mi∣nisters remained in the power of the whole Church or Congrega∣tion, it is evident from Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 4 & 68. August. epist. 100. L•…•…o. 1. epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 30. & lib. 6. cap. 2. Possidon. in vita Aug. cap. 4. The Testimonies and examples themselves for brevities cause I omit. As for the 13. Canon of the Councell of Laodicea which forbiddeth to permit to the people the election of such as were to Minister at the Altar: we say with o 1.663 Osiander that this Canon can not be approven, except only in this respect, that how∣beit the peoples election and consent be necessary, yet the election is not wholy and solly to be committed to them, excluding the judgement and voice of the Cleargie. And that this is all which the Councell meant, we judge with p 1.664 Calvine & q 1.665 Gerard. That this is the true interpretation of the Canon, r 1.666 Iunius proveth both by the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, permittere turbis, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to quit and leave the whole matter to the fidelity and will of others; and likewise by the common end and purpose of that

Councell, which was to represse certaine faults of the People, which had prevailed through custome: Indeed, if the whoole matter were alltogither left to the people, contentions and confusions might be feared. But whiles wee plead for the election of people wee adde.

1. Let the Cleargie of the adjacent bounds in their Presbyteriall Assembly, trie and judge who are fit for the Ministery; thereafter let a certaine number of those who are by them approven as fit, be offered and propounded to the vacand Church, that a free ele∣ction may be made of some one of that number, provyding al∣wayes that if the Church or Congregation have any reall reason for refusing the persons nominat and offered unto them, and for choo∣sing of others, their lawfull desires be herein yeelded unto.

2. Even when it comes to the election, yet populus non solus judicat, * 1.667 sed pr•…•…unte & modera•…•…e actionem Clero & Presbyterio, let the Elders of the Congregation, togither with some of the Cleargie concurring with them, moderat the action, and goe before the body of the people.

Would to God that these things were observed by all who de∣sire the worthy office of a Pastor! For neither the Patrons Presen∣tation; nor the Cleargies Nomination, Examination, and Recom∣mendation, nor the Bishops laying on of hands, and giving of In∣stitution, nor all these put togither, can make up to a man his cal∣ling to be a Pastor to such or such a particular Flocke, with∣out their owne free election. Even as in those places where Princes are elected, the election gives them jus ad rem (as they speake) without which, the inauguration can never give them jus in re: so a man hath from his election power to bee a Pastor, so farre as concerneth jus ad rem, and Ordination only ap∣plieth him to the actuall exercing of his pastorall office, which Or∣dination ought to be given to him only who is elected, and that because he is elected. And of him who is obtruded and thrust upon a people, without their owne election, it is well said by (t) Zanehius, that he can neither with a good conscience exercise his Ministery, nor yet be profitable to the People, because they will not willingly heare him, nor submit themselves unto him.

Furthermore, because Patronages and Presentations to Bene∣fices, doe often prejudge the free and lawfull election which Gods Word craveth, therefore the second booke of Discipline Chap. 12. albeit it permitteth and alloweth the auncient Patrones of Preben∣daries and such Benefices as have not curam animarum, to reserve their Patronages, and to dispone thereupon to Schollers and Bur∣sers, yet it craveth rightly that presentations to Benefices that have curam animarum, may have no place in this light of Reformation. Not that we thinke, a man presented to a Benefice that hath curam

animarum, can not be lawfully elected: But because of the often and ordinary abuse of this unnecessary custome, we could wish it aboli∣shed by Princes.

It followeth to speake of Ordination, wherein with v 1.668 Calvin, x 1.669 Iunius, y 1.670 Gersomus Bucerus, and other learned men, we distinguish betwixt the act of it, and the rite of it. The act of Ordination stan∣deth in the mission or the deputation of a man to an Ecclesiasticall function, with power and auctority to performe the same. And thus are Pastors ordained when they are sent to a people with power to preach the Word, minister the Sacraments, and exerce Eccle∣siasticall Discipline among them. For z 1.671 How shall they Preach except they bee sent? unto which mission or ordination, neither praier nor imposition of hands, nor any other of the Churches rites, is essentiall and necessary, as a 1.672 the Archbishop of Spalato sheweth, who placeth the essentiall act of Ordination in missionè potestativa, or à simple deputation and application of à Minister to his Ministeriall func∣tion, with power to performe it. This may be done saith he by word alone, without any other Ceremony, in such sort that the fact should hold, and the ordination thus given should be valid enough. When a man is elected by the suffrages of the Church, then his Ordination is Quasi solennis missio in possessionem honoris illius, ex decreto, saith b 1.673 Iunius. c 1.674 Chemnitius noteth, that when Christ after he had chosen his twelve Apostles, ordained them to preach the Gospell, to cast out Divells, and to heale diseases, we read of no Ceremony used in this Ordina∣tion, but only that Christ gave them power to preach, to heale, and to cast out Divells, and so sent them away to the worke. And how∣soever the Church hath for order and decency used some rite in Or∣dination, yet there is no such rite to be used with opinion of neces∣sity, or as appointed by Christ or his Apostles. When our Writers prove against Papists, that Order is no Sacrament, this is one of their Arguments, that there is no rite instituted in the new Testament, to to be used in the giving of Orders. Yet because imposition of hands was used in Ordination, not only by the Apostles who had power to give extraordinarly the gifts of the holy Ghost, but likewise by the Presbytery or company of Elders, and Timothy did not only receive the gift that was in him, d 1.675 by the laying on of Pauls hands, as the meane, but also e 1.676 with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyte∣ry, as the rite and signe of his Ordination; therefore the Church in the after ages hath still kept and used the same rite in Ordination. Which rite shall with our leave be yet retained in the Church, provyding, 1. It be not used with opinion of necessity, for that the Church hath full liberty either to use any other decent rite (not beeing determined by the Word to any one) or else to use no rite at all, beside a publike declaration, that the person there presented, is called and appointed to serve the Church in the Pastorall office,

togither with exhortation to the said person, and the commending of him to the grace of God, the Church not beeing tied by the Word to use any rite at all in the giving of Ordination. 2. That it be not used as a sacred significant Ceremony to represent and signify, either the delivering to the person ordained, auctority to Preach and to Minister the Sacraments, or the consecration and mancipation of him to the holy Ministery, or lastly Gods bestowing of the gifts of his Spirit upon him, togither with his powerfull protection and gracious preservation in the performing of the workes of his cal∣ing; but only as a morall signe, solemnely to designe and point out the person ordained: which also was one of the ends and uses, whe∣reunto this rite of laying on of hands was applyed by the Apostles themselves, as f 1.677 Chemnitius sheweth. And so Ioshua was designed and knowen to the people of Israel, as the man appointed to be the suc∣cessor of Moses, by that very signe, g 1.678 that Moses laid his hands on him.

As a sacred significant Ceremony we may not use it. 1. Because h 1.679 it hath beene proven, that men may never at their pleasure ascribe to any rite whatsoever, a holy signification of some mistery of Faith or duty of Piety. The Apostles indeed by the laying on of their hands, did signify their giving of the gift of the holy Ghost: but now as the miracle so the mistery hath ceased, and the Church not having such power to make the signification answere to the signe, if now a sacred or misticall signification be placed in the rite, it is but an emp∣tie and void signe, and rather minicall then misticall. 2. All such sacred rites, as have beene notoriously abused to superstition, if they have no necessary use, ought to be abolished, as i 1.680 we have also proven. Therefore if imposition of hands in Ordination, be accoun∣ted and used as a sacred rite, and as having a sacred signification, (the use of it not beeing necessary,) it becommeth unlawfull, by reason of the by-gone and present superstitious abuse of the same in Poperie.

Now the right and power of giving Ordination to the Ministers of the Church, belongeth primarly and wholly to Christ, who com∣municateth the same with his Bride the Church. Both the Bride∣groome for his part, and the Bride for her part, have delivered this power of Ordination to the Presbytery jure DIVINO. Afterward the Presbytry conferred, jure humano, this power upon them, who were specially called Bishops. Whence the tyrannicall usurpation of Bishops, hath in processe of time followed, claiming the proper right and the ordinary possession of that, which at first they had only by free concession. And thus that great Divine k 1.681 Franciscus Iunius, deriveth the power of Ordination. All which, that it may be plaine unto us, let us observe foure severall passages.

1. l 1.682 The wholle Church hath the power of Ordination com∣municated

to her from Christ, to whom it wholy pertaineth. For, 1. It is most certaine (and among our Writers agreed upon,) that to the whole Church collectively taken, Christ hath delivered the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, with power to use the same, promising l 1.683 that whatsoever the Church bindeth on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, & whatsoever shee looseth on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Therfore he hath also delivered unto the whole Church, power to call & ordaine Ministers for using the keyes: otherwise the promise might be made void, because the Ministers which shee now hath, may faile. 2. Christ hath appointed a certaine and a ordinary way, how the Church may provide her selfe of Ministers, and so may have ever in her selfe the meanes of grace and comfort sufficient to her self, according to that of m 1.684 the Apostle, All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollo, &c. But if shee had not the power of ordaining Ministers unto her self, when shee needeth, then might shee some times be deprived of such an ordinary & certaine way of provyding her self. 3. When the Ministery of the Church faileth or is wanting, Christian people have power to exerce that act of or∣dination, which is necessary to the making of a Minister. n 1.685 D. Fulke sheweth out of Ruffinus and Theodoret, that Aede•…•… and •…•…rumen∣tius, being but privat men, by preaching of the Gospell, converted a great Nation of the Indians. And that the Nation of the Iberians being converted by a captive woman, the King and the Queene became Teachers of the Gospell to the people. And might not then the Church in those places, both elect and ordaine Ministers?

2. The Church hath by Divine institution delivered the Power of ordaining ordinary Ministers, to the Preshitery, whereof the Church consisteth representativè. And so saith o 1.686 Paraus, that the power of mission (which is Ordination) belongeth to the Presbitery-Scriptura saith p 1.687 Balduin, ordinationem tribuit toti Presbyterio, non s•…•…r∣sim Episcope. With whom say q 1.688 the Professours of Leiden in like manner. Now when the Divines of Germany, and Belgia, speake of a Presbitery, they understand such a company as hath in it both those two sorts of Elders, which we spake of, viz. some, who labour in the Word and Doctrine, whom the Apostle calleth Bishops: and others, who labour onely in Discipline. The Apostolicke and Pri∣mitive times knew neither Parishionall nor Diocaesan Churches. Christians lived then, in Cities onely, not in Villages, because of the persecution. And it is to be remembred, that in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Colosse, Philippi, Thessalonica, and such other Cities inhabited by Christians, there were moe Pastors then one. r 1.689 The Apostle cal∣led unto him the Elders (not Elder) of the Church of Ephesus. s 1.690 He writeth to the Bishops (not Bishop) of the Church at Philippi t 1.691 He biddeth the Thessalonians know them (not him) which laboured among them. Now that number of Pastors or Bishops which was

in one City, did in common governe all the Churches within that City, and there was not any one Pastor, who by himselfe gover∣ned a certaine part of the City, peculiarly assigned to his charge: to which purpose u 1.692 the Apostle exhorteth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, to take heed to all the flocke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And to the same purpose it is said by x 1.693 Hierome, that before schismes and divisions were by the Divels instigation made in Reli∣gion, communi Presbiterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur.

This number of Preaching Elders in one City, togither with those Elders which in the same City laboured for Discipline onely, y 1.694 made up that company which the Apostle, 1 Tim. 4. 14. calleth a Presbytery, and which gave Ordination to the Ministers of the Church. To the whole Presbitery, made up of those two sorts of Elders, belonged the act of Ordination, which is mission, z 1.695 how∣beit the Rite, which was imposition of hands, belonged to those Elders alone which laboured in the Word and Doctrine. And so wee are to understand that which the Apostle there saith, of the Presbiteries laying on of hands upon Timothy. As for a 1.696 D. Downams two glosses upon that place, which he borroweth from Bellarmine, and whereby he thinketh to elude our Argument, we thanke b 1.697 D. Forbesse for confuting them. Quod autem, &c. But whereas saith hee, some have expounded the Presbitery in this place, to be a company of Bishops, except by Bishops thou would understand simple Presbiters, it is a violent inter∣pretation, and a insolent meaning. And whereas others have understood the degree it selfe of Eldership, this can not sinnd, for the degree hath not hands, but hands are mens. Wherefore the D. himselfe, by the Presbitery whereof the Apostle speaketh, understandeth, (as we doe) consessus Presbiterorum.

But since we can not find in the Apostles times, any other Pres∣biterie or Assembly of Elders, beside that which hath been spoken of, how commeth it, may some say, that the Church of Scotland, and other reformed Churches, did appoint two sorts of Presbiteriall Assemblies, one (which here we call Sessions) wherein the Pastor of the Parish, togither with those Elders within the same, whom the Apostle calleth Governements and Presidents, put order to the Governement of that Congregation; another (which here we call Presbiteries) wherein the Pastors of sundry Churches lying neare togither, doe assemble themselves? Which difficulty yet more in∣creaseth, if it be objected, that neither of these two, doth in all points answer or comforme it self, unto that primitive forme of Presbite∣ry, whereof we spake. Ans. The division and multiplication of Parishes, and the appointment of particular Pastors to the peculiar oversight of particular flockes, togither with the Plantation of Churches in Villages, as well as in Cities, hath made it impossible

for us to be served, with that onely one forme of a Presbitery, which was constitute in the Apostles times. But this difference of the times beeing (as it ought to be) admitted, for a inevitable cause of the dif∣ference of the former, both those two formes of Presbyteriall mee∣tings appointed by the Church of Scotland, doe not onely necessa∣rily result from that one Apostolicke forme, but likewise (the actions of them both beeing laid togither) doe accomplish all these ordinary Ecclesiasticall functions, which were by it performed.

And first, Sessions have a necessary use, because the Pastors and those Elders who assist them in the governing of their Flockes, must as well conjunctly as severally, as well publikely and private∣ly, governe, admonish, rebuke, censure, &c. As for Presbiteries, because the Parishes beeing divided, in most places there is but one Pastor in a Parish, except there should be a meeting of a number of Pastors out of divers Parishes, neither could triall be well had of the groweth or decay of the Gifts, Graces, and utterance of eve∣ry Pastor, for which purpose the ninth head of the first Booke of Discipline, appointed the Ministers of adjacent Churches, to meet togither at convenient times in Townes and publike places, for the exercise of Prophecying and interpreting of Scripture, according to that forme commended to the Church of Corinth. 1 Cor. 14. 29. 30. 31. 32. Nor yet could the Churches bee governed by the common counsell and advice of Presbiters, which beeing necessary by Apo∣stolicke institution, and beeing the foundation and ground of our Presbiteries, it maketh them necessary too.

3. After that the golden age of the Apostles was spent and away, Presbyteries finding themselves disturbed with emulations, conten∣tions, and factions; for unities sake, choosed one of their number, to preside among them, and to conferre, in name of the rest, the rite & signe of initiation (which was imposition of hands) on them whom they ordained Ministers. This honour did the Presbytery yeeld to him who was specially and peculiarly called Bishop, jure humano: yet the act of Ordination they still reserved in their owne power. And wheresoever the act doth thus remaine in the power of the whole Presbytery, the conferring of the outward signe or rite by one in name of the rest, none of us condemneth, as may be seene in Beza, Didoclavius, and Gersonus Bucerus. Neither is there any more meant by c 1.698 Hierome, whiles he saith. What doth a Bishop, (ordination beeing excepted,) vvhich a Presbyter may not doe? For, 1. He speaketh not of the act of ordination, which remained in the power of the Presbytery, but of the outward signe or rite, d 1.699 which syneg∣dochically he calles Ordination. 2. He speaketh only of the custome of that time, and not of any Divine institution: for that the imposi∣tion of hands pertained to the Bishop alone, not by Divine institu∣tion, but only by Ecclesiasticall custome, e 1.700 Iunius proveth out of Ter∣tullian, Hierome, and Ambrose.

4. Afterward Bishops beganne to appropriat to themselves, that power which pertained unto them jur•…•… devoluto, as if it had beene their owne jure proprio. Yet so, that some vestigies of the auncient order have still remained. For both Augustine and Ambrose (whose words most plaine to this purpose, are cited by f 1.701 D. Forbesse) te∣stify, that in their time, in Alexandria, and all Aegypt, the Presbyters gave Ordination, when a Bishop was not present. g 1.702 The Canon Law ordaineth, that in giving of Ordination, Presbyters lay on their hands, togither with the Bishops hands. And it is holden by many Papists, (of whom h 1.703 D. Forbesse alledgeth some for the same point) that any simple Presbyter, (whom they call a Priest) may with the Popes commandement or concession, give valid Or∣dination. That which maketh them graunt so much, is, because they dare not denie that Presbyters have the power of ordination, jure Divino. Yea saith i 1.704 Panormitanus. Olim Presbyteri in communi re∣gebant Ecclesiam, & ordinabant Sacerdotes. The Doctor himself holdeth. that one simple Presbyter, howsoever having, by vertue of his Presbyteriall order, power to give Ordination, quo ad actum primum five aptitudinem, yet quo ad exercitium can not validly give Ordination, without a commission from the Bishop, or from the Presbytery, if either there be no Bishop, or else he be a Hereticke and Wolfe. But I would learne, why may not the Presbytery validly Ordaine, ei∣ther by themselves, or by any one Presbyter with commission and power from them, even where there is a Bishop (and he no Here∣ticke) who consenteth not thereto: for k 1.705 the D. acknowledgeth, that not only quo ad aptitudinem, but even quo ad plenariam ordinationis executionem, the same power pertaineth to the Presbytery collegialiter, which he alledgeth, (but proveth not) that the Apostles gave to Bishops personaliter.

Now from all these things, Princes may learne how to reforme their owne and the Prelats usurpation, and how to reduce the orders and vocation of Ecclesiasticall persons, unto conformity with the Apostolicke & Primitive patterne, from which if they goe on ei∣ther to injoyne, or to permit a departing, we leave them to be judged by the King of terrours.

DISGRESSION II.

Of the convocation and moderation of Synods.

TOuching the convocation of Synods, wee resolve with l 1.706 the Professours of Leiden; that if a Prince doe so much as tollerat the order and regiment of the Church to be pub∣publike,

his consent and auctority should be craved, & he may also designe the time, place, and other circumstances. m 1.707 But much more, if he be a Christian and Orthodoxe Prince, should his con∣sent, auctority, help, protection, & saffeguard be sought & graun∣ted. n 1.708 And that according to the example, both of godly Kings in the old Testament, and of Christian Emperours and Kings 111 the New. o 1.709 Chiefly then, and justly, the Magistrat may and ought to urge and require Synodes, when they of the Ecclesiasticall order cease from doing their duty. p 1.710 Veruntamen si contra, &c. Neverthe∣lesse say they, if contrarywise, the Magistrat be an enemy and persecuter of the Church, and of true Religion, or cease to doe his duty, that is to wit, in a manifest danger of the Church, the Church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting to her self, but ought to use the right and auctority of convocation, which first and foremost remaineth with the rulers of the Church, as may be seene Act. 15.

But that this bee not thought a Tenet of Antiepiscopall Writters alone, let us heart what is said, by q 1.711 one of our greatest Opposites. Neque defendi•…•…s ita, &c. Neither doe wee so defend, that this right of con∣vocating Councelle, pertaineth to Princes, at that the Ecclesiasticall Prelats may no way, either assemble themselves togither by mutuall consent, or be convocated by the auctority of the Metropolitan, Pri•…•…t, or Patriarch. For the Apostles did celebrat Councells, without any convocation of Princes. So many Coun∣cells as were celebrate before the first Ni•…•…ne, were vvithout all doubt gathered togither, by the meanes alone of Ecclesiasticall Persons: for to vuhom directly the Church is fully committed, they ought to beare the care of the Church. Yet Princes in some respect, indirectly, for help and aide, chiefly then vvhen the Prelats neglect to convocat Councells, or are destitute of povver for doing of the same, of dutymay, & use to convocat them. Where we see his judge∣ment to be, that the power of convocating Councells, pertaineth directly to Ecclesiasticall persons, and to Princes only indirectly, for that they ought to give help and aide, to the convocation of the same, especially when Church men either will not, or can not as∣semble themselves togither. His reasons whereupon he groundeth his judgement, are two, and those stronge ones.

1. The Apostolicall Councells, Act. 6. 2. & 15. 6. and so many as were assembled before the first Councell of Nice, were not con∣vocated by Princes, but by Ecclesiasticall persons, without the leave of Princes. Therefore in the like cases, the Church ought to use the like liberty, that is, when there is need of Synods, either for pre∣venting, or reforming some corruptions in the Doctrine or Po∣licy of the Church; and for avoiding such inconveniencies as may impede the course of the Gospell, (Princes in the meane time beeing hostile Opposites to the trueth of God, and to the pu∣rity of Religion,) then to convocat the same, without their auctority and leave.

2. The Church is fully committed, (and that directly) to the Ministers whom Christ hath set to rule over the same. Therefore they ought to take care and to provyde for all her necessities, as these who must give a count, & be answerable to God for any hurt which shee receiveth, in things Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, for which (when they might) they did not provyde a remedie: Which beeing so, it followeth, that when Princes will neither convocat Synods, nor con∣sent to the convocating of thē, yet if the convocating of a Synod, be a necessary meane for healing of the Churches hurt, and Eccle∣siasticall Persons be able, (through the happy occasion of a fit op∣portunity,) synodically to assemble themselves, in that case they ought by themselves to come togither, unlesse one would say, that Princes alone, and not Pastors, must give a count to God, how it hath gone with the Church, in matters Spirituall and Eccle∣siasticall.

If it be objected, that our Divines mantaine against Papists, that the right and power of convocating Synods pertaineth to Princes. Ans. And so say I, but for making the purpose more plaine I adde three distinctions. 1. In ordinary cases, and when Princes are not enemies to the trueth and purity of the Gospell, Ecclesiasticall Per∣sons should not doe well to assemble themselves togither in a Synod, except they be convocate with the auctority or consent of Princes. Yet as r 1.712 Iunius sheweth, in extraordinary cases, and when the Ma∣gistrat will not concurre not joyne with the Church, the Church may well assemble and come togither beside his knowledge; and without his consent, for that extraordinary evills must have extraordinary remedies. 2. Ecclesiasticall persons may convo∣cat Councells, simply and by a spirituall power and jurisdiction: but to convocat them by a temporall and coactive power, pertai∣neth to Princes onely. Ecclesiasticall Power (saith s 1.713 the Archb. of Spa∣lato), may appoint and convocate Councels: but yet the Ecclesiasticall Power it selfe cannot with any effect or working compell Bishops, especially if the Bishops of another Province, or Kingdome, or Patriarchship, be to be con∣vocated. For because the Church can works by her censures and deprive them who refuse of her Communion, if they come not; yet they shall not therefore come to the Councell if they contemne the censure Therefore that no man may be able to resist, it is necessary that they be called by a coactive auctority, which can con∣straine them who gainestand both with banishments, and bodily punishments, & compell the Bishops, not onely of one Province, but also of the whole King∣dome or Empire, to conveene. 3. In the maine and substantiall respects, the convocation of Councels pertaineth to the Ministers of the Church, that is, as Councels are Ecclesiasticall meetings, for put∣ting order to Ecclesiasticall matters, they ought to be assembled by the Spirituall Power of the Ministers, whose part it is, to espie and note all the misorders and abuses in the Church, which must bee

righted. But because Councels are such meetings, as must have a certaine place designed for them, in the Dommions and Territo∣ries of Princes, needing further, for their safe assembling, a certifi∣cation of their Princely protection; and finally, it beeing expedient for the better successe of Councels, that Christian Princes be present therein, either personally, or by their Commissioners, that they may understand the Councels, Conclusions, and Decrees, & assenting unto the same, ratify and establish them by their Regall and Royall Auctority; because of these circumstances it is, that the consent and auctority of Christian Princes, is, and ought to be sought and ex∣spected for the assembling of Synods.

As for the right of presidency and moderation, wee distinguish with t 1.714 Iunius two sorts of it, both which have place in Councels; vix. the moderation of the Ecclesiasticall action, and the modera∣tion of the humane order; and with him we say, that in Councels, the whole Ecclesiasticall action ought to be moderated by such a President, as is elected for the purpose, even as Hosius Bishop of Corduba was chosen to preside in the first Councell of Nice: Which office agreeth not to Princes: for in the point of propounding right∣ly the state of questions and things to be handled, and of contai∣ning the disputations in good order, Certe praefidere debet persona Ec∣clesiastica, in sacris literis erudita saith u 1.715 the Archb. of Spalato. The presiding and moderating in the humane order, that is, by a coactive power to compesce the turbulent, to avoid all confusion and con∣tention, and to cause a peaceable proceeding and free deliberation, pertaineth indeed to Princes, and so did Constantine preside in the same Councell of Nice.

DIGRESSION III.

Of the judging of Controversies and Questions of Faith.

THere is a twofold judgement which discerneth and judgeth of Faith. The one absolute, whereby the most high God, whose supreme Auctority alone, bindeth us to beleeve whatsoever he propoundeth to be believed by us, hath in his written Word pronounced, declared, and established; what he would have us to believe concerning himself, or his worship. The other limited and subordinate: which is either publike or private. That which is publike, is either ordinary or extraordinary. The Ministe∣riall or subordinate publike judgement, which I call ordinary, is the judgement of every Pastor or Doctor; who by reason of his publike vocation and office, ought by his publike Ministery to di∣rect and instruct the judgments of other men, in matters of Faith.

Which judgement of Pastors and Doctors, is limited and restricted to the plaine warrants and testimonies of Holy Scripture, x 1.716 they themselves beeing onely the Ambassadours of the judge, to preach and publish the sentence which he hath established, so that a Pastor is not properly judex but Index. The subordinate publike judge∣ment, which is extraordinary, is the judgement of a Councell, as∣sembled for the more publike and effectuall establishment and de∣claration of one or moe points of Faith, and heads of Christian Do∣ctrine, & that in Opposition to all contrary heresie, or error, which is broached and set a foot in the Church. y 1.717 From which Councell, no Christian man who is learned in the Scriptures, may be exclu∣ded, but ought to be admitted to utter his judgement in the same. For in the indagation or searching out of a matter of Faith, they are not the persons of men, which give auctority to their sayings, but the reasons and documents which every one bringeth for his judge∣ment. The subordinate judgement, which I call private, is the judge∣ment of Discretion, z 1.718 whereby every Christian, for the certaine information of his owne minde, and the satisfaction of his owne conscience, may and ought to trie and examine, as well the De∣crees of Councels', as the Doctrines of particular Pastors, and in so farre to receive and believe the same, as he understandeth them to agree with the Scriptures.

Beside these, there is no other kind of judgement, which God hath allowed to men, in matters of Faith. Which beeing first ob∣served, we say next concerning the part of Princes, that when que∣stions and controversies of Faith, are tossed in the Church, that which pertaineth to them, is, to convocate a Councell for the De∣cision of the matter, civilly to moderate the same, by causing such an orderly and peaceable proceeding, as is alike necessary in every grave Assembly, whether of the Church or of the Common-wealth; and finally, by their coactive temporall power, to urge and procure, that the decrees of the Councell be received, and the Faith there∣in contained, professed by their subjects.

But neither may they, by their owne Auctority, and without a Councell, decide any controverted matter of Faith, nor yet ha∣ving convocate a Councell, may they take upon them to command, rule, order, and dispose the disputes and deliberations according to their arbitrement; nor lastly, may they, by vertue of their Regall Dignity, claime any power to examine the Decrees concluded in the Councell, otherwise, then by the judgement of private dis∣cretion, which is common to every Christian.

First, I say, they may not by themselves presume, publikely and judicially, to decide and define any matter of Faith, which is questioned in the Church: but this definition they ought to remit unto a lawfull and free Councell. Ambrose would not come to the

Court to be judged by the Emperour Valentinian, in a matter of Faith, and asked, when ever he heard that Emperours judged Bishops in matters of Faith, seeing, if that were granted, it would follow that Laymen should dispute and deba•…•…e matters, and Bishops heare, yea that Bishops should learne of Laymen.

The true ground of which refusall (cleare enough in it selfe) is darkened by a 1.719 D. Field, who alledgeth, 1. That the thing which Valentinian tooke on him, was, to judge of a thing already resolved in a generall Councell called by Constantine, as if it had been free, and not yet judged of at all. 2. That Valentinian was knowen to be partiall; that he was but a Novice; and the other Iudges which he meant to associate to himselfe suspected. But howsoever these cir∣cumstances might serve the more to justify Ambrose his not com∣pearing, to be judged in a matter of Faith by Valentinian, yet the D. toucheth not that which is most considerable, namely, the reason which he alledged for his not compearing, because it hath been at no time heard of, that Emperours judged Bishops in matters of Faith, and if that were granted, it would follow, that Bishops should learne of Laymen. Which reason holdeth ever good, even though the thing hath not beene formerly judged by a Councell.

And furthermore, if these (which the D. mentioneth) were the true reasons of his refusing to be judged by Valentinian, then why did he pretend another reason, (whereof we have heard) and not rather defend himselfe with the reall and true reasons? Wherefore we gather, that the reason which made Ambrose refuse to be judged by him, was no other then this, because he considered, that Princes neither by themselves, nor by any whom they please to choose, may, without a lawfully assembled and free Councell, usurpe a pub∣like judgement and decisive sentence in controversies of Faith: which if they arrogate to themselves, they farre exceed the bounds of their vocation For it is not said of Princes, but of Priests, b 1.720 that their lippes should preserve knowledge, and that they should seeke the Law from their mouthes. And c 1.721 the Priests did Iehosaphat set in Ierusalem, for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies, and for judging betwixt Law & Commandement, statutes and judgements.

In the meane while, we denie not, but that in extraordinary ca∣ses, when lawfull Councels can not be had, and when the Cleargie is universally corrupted, through grosse ignorance, perverse affec∣tions, and incorrigible negligence, in such a case, the Prince not∣withstanding the defect of the ordinary and regular Iudges, may yet by the Power of he civill sword, represse and punish so many as pub∣lish and spread such Doctrines, as both he and other Christians by the judgement of discretion, plainely understand from Scripture, to be hereticall.

Next I say, that the Prince having assembled a Councell, may not

take so much upon him, as imperiously to command what he thin∣keth good, in the disputes and deliberations, & to have every thing ordered, disposed, and handled according to his minde. To debate and define Theologicall controversies, and to teach what is Orthodoxall, what Hereticall, is the office of Divines; yet by a coactive auctority to judge this Or∣thodoxe Faith to be received by all, and Hereticall pravity to be rejected is the office of Kings, or the supreme Magistrates in every Commonwealth, saith d 1.722 the Bishop of Sarisburie. And e 1.723 againe, in Searching, Directing, Teaching; Divines, ordinarily and by reason of their calling, ought to goe be fore Kings themselves: but in commanding, establishing, compelling; Kings doe farre excell. Where he sheweth, how in defining of the Contro∣versies of Religion, in one respect Ecclesiasticall persons, and in another respect Kings have the first place.

In the debating of a question of Faith, Kings have not, by ver∣tue of their Princely vocation, any precedencie or chiefe place, the action beeing meerely Ecclesiasticall. For, howbeit Kings may con∣vocate a Councell, preside also and governe the same as concer∣ning the humane and politicall order, yet saith f 1.724 Iunius, Actiones, deliberationes, & definitiones, ad substantiam rei Ecclesiasticae pertinentes, à Sacerdotio sunt, à caetu servorum Dei, quibus rei suae administrationem man∣davit Deus. And with him the Archb. of Spalato saith in like man∣ner, that howbeit Christian Princes have convocated Councels, and civilly governed the same, yet they had no power nor auctority * 1.725 in the very discussing, handling, and deciding of matters of Faith.

What then? In the handling of controversies of Faith, have Prin∣ces no place nor power at all, beside that of Politicall governement onely? Surely by vertue of their Princely auctority, they have no other place in the hādling of these matters. Yet, what if they be men of singular learning and understanding in the Scriptures? Then let them propound their owne suffrage, with the grounds and reasons of it, even as other learned men in the Councell doe. But neither as Princes, nor as men singularly learned, may they require that others in the Councell shall dispute and debate matters, and that they themselves shall sit as Iudges having judiciall power of a ne∣gative voice. For in a Councell, no mans voice hath any greater strength, then his reasons and probations have. Non enim admit∣to, &c. For I admit not in a Councell (saith h 1.726 the same Prelate) some as Iudges, others as Disputators, for I have shewed that a conciliarie judge∣ment, consisteth in the approbation of that sentence, which above others hath been shewed to have most waight, and to which no man could enough oppose. Wherefore no man in the Councell ought to have a judiciarie voice, unlesse he bee withall a Disputator, and assigne a reason wherefore hee adheres to that judgement, and repels another, and that reason, such a one, as is drawen from the Scriptures onely, and from Antiquity.

Lastly, I hold, that after the definition and decision of a Coun∣cell,

Princes may not take upon them, by any judiciall power or pu∣blike vocation, to examine the same, as if they had auctority to pro∣nounce yet another decisive sentence, either ratifying or reversing what the Councell hath decreed. Most certaine it is, that before Princes give their Royall assent, unto the Decrees of any Councell whatsoever, and compell men to receive & aknowledge the same, they ought first of all carefully to trie and examine them, whether they agree with the Scriptures or not, and if they find them not to agree with the Scriptures, then to denie their assent and auctority thereto. But all this Princes doe not by any judiciall power, or pu∣blike auctority, but onely by that judgement of private discretion, which they have as Christians, and which togither with them is common also to their subjects: for neither may a Master of a Fami∣ly commend, to his children and servants, the profession of that Faith, which is published by the Decrees of a Councell, except in like manner he examine the same by the Scriptures.

DIGRESSION IV.

Of the power of the Keyes and Ecclesiasticall censures.

ECclesiasticall censures and punishments, wherewith Delin∣quents are bound, and from which when they turne penitents they are loosed, are of two sorts: either such as are common, and agree unto all, as Excommunication and Absolution; or such as are peculiar, and agree onely to men of Ecclesiasticall order, as Suspension, Deprivation, &c.

As touching the power of the Keyes, to bindand loose, Excom∣municate and absolve: first of all, Princes are to remember, that nei∣ther they may, by themselves exerce this power, (for i 1.727 Regum est Corporalem irrogare paenam; Sacerdotum Spiritualem inferre vindictam;) nor yet by their Deputes or Commissioners in their name, and with auctority from them, because as they have not themselves the po∣wer of the Keyes, so neither can they communicate the same unto others. Secondly, forasmuch as Princes are the wardens, defenders, and revengers of both the Tables, they ought therefore to provide and take course, that neither Laymen be permitted to have and exerce the power of Excommunication, nor yet that the Prelates themselves be suffered in their particular Dioceses, to appropriate this power and externall jurisdiction, as peculiar to themselves: but that it remaine in their hands to whom it pertaineth by Divine institution. What a woefull abuse is it, that in our neighbour Chur∣ches of England, and Ireland, the Bishops Vicar generall, or Offi∣ciall, or Commissarie, beeing oftentimes such a one as hath never

entered into any holy Orders, shall sit in his Courts, to use (I should have said to abuse) the power of Excommunication and Absolution? And what though some silly Presbiter bee present in the Court? Doth not the Bishops Substitute, beeing a Layman, exa∣mine and judge the whole matter, decree, and give sentence what is to be done? Hath he not the Presbiters tong tied to his belt? And what doth the Presbiter more, but onely pronounce the sentence according to that which he who sitteth judge in the Court, hath de∣creed and decerned? As touching the Prelates themselves, I pray, by what warrant have they appropriate to themselves, the whole externall jurisdiction of Binding and Loosing, Excommunicating, and Absolving? But that we may a litle scan this their usurpation, and discover the iniquity thereof to the view of Princes, whose part it is, to cause the same to be reformed, let us consider to whom Christ himselfe, k 1.728 who hath the Key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth, hath commit∣ted this power of the Keyes to be used upon earth. And first, let us distinguish betwixt the power it selfe, and the execution of it.

The power and auctority of Binding and Loosing, Christ hath delivered to the whole Church, that is, to every particular Church collectively taken. The auctority of Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church saith l 1.729 D. Fulke. Ius excommunicandi (saith m 1.730 Balduine) non est penes quemvis privatum, five ex ordine fit Ecclesiastico, five Politico, &c. Sed hoc jus pertinet ad totam Ecclesiam. So say Zanchius in 4. praec. col. 756. Polanus Synt. lib. 7. cap. 18. Pareus in 1. Cor. 5. de Excom. Cartvvright, on 1. Cor. 5. 4. Perkins on Iude vers. 3. and generally all our sound Writers. n 1.731 The Magdeburgians cite for the same judgement, Au∣gustine and Primasius. o 1.732 Gerard citeth also some Popish Writers assenting hereunto. The reasons which we give for confirmation hereof, are these.

1. It pertaineth to the whole Church, collectively taken, to deny her Christian Communion, to such wicked persons as adde contu∣macie to their disobedience; Therefore it pertaineth to the whole Church to Excommunicat them. Againe, it pertaineth to the whole Church, to admit and receive one into her communion and familiar fellowship. Therefore to the whole Church it likewise pertaineth, to cast one out of her communion. Sure, the sentence of Excom∣munication is pronounced in vaine, except the whole Church out of the person thus judged, from all communion with her. And the sentence of Absolution is to as litle purpose pronounced, except the whole Church admit one againe to have communion with her. Shortly, the whole Church hath the power of punishing a man, by denying her communion unto him. Therefore the whole Church hath the power of judging, that he ought to be so punished. The whole Church hath the power of remitting this punishment againe.

Therefore the whole Church hath the power of judging that it ought to be remitted.

2. The Apostle 1. Cor. 5. sheweth the Israelits their purging away of leaven out of all their dwellings in the time of the Passeover, to be a figure of Excommunication, whereby disobedient and obsti∣nat sinners, who are as leaven to infect other men, are to be voided, and thurst out of the Church. Now as the purging away of the lea∣ven, did not peculiarly belong unto any one or some few among the Israëlits, but unto the whole Congregation of Israel: so the A∣postle writting to the whole Church of Corinth. even to as many as should take care to have the whole lumpe kept unleavened, p 1.733 saith to them all. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe? Purge out therefore the old leaven. Put away from among your selves that wicked person.

3. Christ hath delivered the power of binding and loosing, to every particular Church or Congregation, collectively taken, which thus we demonstrat. If our brother who trespasseth against us, will neither be reclaimed by privat admonition, nor yet by a rebuke gi∣ven him before some moe witnesses: then q 1.734 saith Christ, Tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to heare the Church, let him be unto thee as an Hea∣then man and a Publican. Verely I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, & whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Where he sheweth, that in the Christian Church (which hee was to plant by the Ministery of his Apostles) Excom∣munication was to be used, as the last remedy for curing of the most deadly & desperat evills: which Excommunication he setteth forth, by allusion unto the order and custome of the Iewes in his time, among whom they who were cast out, and excommunicat from the Synagogue, were accounted as Heathens and Publicans. And so when he saith, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, he presupposeth, that the Church hath Excommunicat him for his con∣tumacie which he hath added to his disobedience. For as r 1.735 Pareus saith, If by me, and thee, and every one, he is to be accounted for such a man, it must needs be, that the judgement of the Church be by publike declaration made knowen to me, and thee; & every one. And this meaning is throughly drawen out of the following verse. For whatsoever ye shall binde on Earth, &c. Therefore the Church ought first to binde him, before he ought to be ac∣counted by me or thee for one bound, that is, Excommunicat. Now what mea∣neth Christ by the Church, to which he giveth the power of bind∣ing and loosing? Not the Church universall, sure: for I can not tell the Church universall (whether it be understood collectivé, or re∣praesentativè) whensoever my brother trespasseth against me, and will not be reformed. He meaneth therefore the particular Church, whereof for the time it sha•…•…l happen one to be a Member. The power of the Keyes (saith s 1.736 Perkins, •…•…is given to all Ministers, Churches, & Con∣gregations.

Neither could there otherwise an ordinary, perpetuall, & ready course be had, for the correcting of all publike contumacie and scandall, by the meanes of Ecclesiasticall Discipline. But it will be said, when he biddeth us tell that particular Church, whereof wee are Members, he meaneth not that wee should tell the whole body of that Church collectivè, but that we should tell the Governours of the Church, who are the Church representativè.

How then is this place alledged, to prove, that the whole Church, collectivè, hath Power and Auctority to binde and loose?

Ans. Christ meaneth indeed, that wee should tell those Gover∣nours who represent the Church: but whiles he calleth them by the name of the Church, and sendeth us to them as to those who repre∣sent the Church, he plainly in sinuateth, that they exerce the power of the Keyes (as in his name, so) in the name of the Church, and that this power and auctority pertaineth to the whole Church: even as when one man representeth another mans person, whatsoever power he exerceth •…•…o nomine, doth first of all agree, to the man who is represented, in his owne proper person.

4. t 1.737 The Apostle writing to the whole Church of Corinth, will have them (being gathered togither) to deliver that incestuous per∣son to Satan. Therefore every particular Church or Congregation, hath power to Excommunicat such a contumacious sinner, as that incestuous person was. It is the common answere of Papists, that albeit the Apostle commanded the act should be done in face of the Church, yet the judgement and auctority of giving sentence, was in himself alone, land not in the Church of Corinth; whereupon they would make it to follow, that the power of Excommunication pertaineth to the Bishop alone, and not the Church. And the same answere doth u 1.738 Saravia returne to Beza. But howsoever x 1.739 the Apostle saith, that he had allready judged concerning the incestuous person, yet he did not hereby seclude the Church of Corinth, from the auctority of excommunicating him. It is to be observed saith y 1.740 Cal∣vine, that Paul, albeit he was an Apostle, doth not for his owne will excommu∣nicat alone: but communicateth his counsell with the Church, that the thing may be done by common auctority. Himself indeed goeth before and sheweth the way: but whiles he adjoyneth to himself other partakers, he signifieth sufficiently, that it is not the privat power of one man. Nay, let us further observe with z 1.741 Iunius, that the Apostles hath a two fold power: one, com∣monto them with other Presbyters, 1. Pet. 5. 1. another, singular proper, and extraordinary, which they had as Apostles. By this sin∣gular power. Paul saith: a 1.742 What will ye? shall I come unto you vvith a rod? but by the common power it was that he said: b 1.743 When ye are ga∣thered togither, and my Spirit, &c. By no other power, then that which was common to him with the rest of the Presbyters or Bishops in

Corinth, did he judge the incestuous person to be excommunicated: and thus, as though he had beene present in body, among the other Presbyters of that Church, and assembled togither with them, in their ordinary Councell or Consistorie (in which c 1.744 fuerunt libere Apo∣stoli, alij vero Presbyteri ex •…•…ocatione propria, & necessitate officii;) so d 1.745 he both pronounceth his owne judgement, and likewise goeth before, by pronouncing that judgement which was to be in common by them pronounced, Furthermore, that the Apostle would not have, that incestuous man to be excommunicat by his owne auctority alone, but by the auctority of the Church of Corinth, thus it appea∣reth.

1. e 1.746 The Apostle challengeth and condemneth the Corinthians, because they had not excommunicat him, before his writting unto them: which he would never have done, if that Church had not had power and auctority of Excommunication.

2. Howbeit the Apostle gave his judgement, that he should be excommunicat, because he ought not to have beene tollerated in the Church, yet for all that, he should not have beene indeed ex∣communicat and thrust out of the Church of Corinth, except the Ministers and Elders of that Church, had in name of the whole body of the same, judicially cast him forth and delivered him to Satan. Which plainly argueth, that he should not have beene ex∣communicat by the Apostles auctority alone, but by the auctority of the Church of Corinth.

3. The Apostle only sheweth, that he should bee excommunicat, but referreth the giving of sentence and judgement upon him, to the Corinthians. For he saith not, that the Corinthians being gathered togither, should declare or witnesse, that such a one was delivered to Satan, by Pauls owne power and auctority, but, that they themsel∣ves should deliver him to Satan vers. 4. 5. And againe, Purge out there∣fore the old leaven. Put away from among your selves that wicked person, v. 7. 13. But saith f 1.747 Saravia, partes Apostoli in illa actionè fuerunt au∣thoritatis, Ecclesiae vero Corinthiacae, obedientiae. Ans. That the action was done by the auctority of the Church of Corinth, it is manifest both from that which hath beene said, and likewise if further we con∣sider, that the Apostle ascribeth to the Corinthians, as much auctori∣ty in this action, as he assumeth to himself. For he saith of himself, that he had judged concerning him that had done this deed v. 3. and so he saith of them, Doe not ye judge them that are within? vers. 12. Where he speaketh not of the judgement of privat discretion, (for so they might have judged them that were without also,) but even of the externall and authoritative judgement of Ecclesiasticall Dis∣cipline. g 1.748 The Apostle indeed saith, that he wrote to the Corinthians to excommunicat that person, that he might know them, whether they were obedient in all things: but this proveth not, that the au∣ctority

of the excommunication was not theirs: for their part in this action proceeded both from auctority & from obedience: from auctority, absolutely: from obedience, in some respect. De jure, they had no liberty nor power not to excommunicate him, but were bound to doe that which Paul pointed out to be their duty, and in that respect he calleth them obedient: yet absolutely, and de facto it was free to them, (notwithstanding of Pauls writing to them) ei∣ther to excommunicate him, or not to excommunicate him, and if they had not by their auctority excommunicate him, hee had not been at all excommunicate by any vertue of Pauls judging of him.

4. When the Corinthians proceeded to excommunicate him, h 1.749 the Apostle calleth this a censure which was inflicted of many: which could not be said if he was to be excommunicate by the Apo∣stles auctority alone.

5. i 1.750 The Apostle writeth againe to the Corinthians, to forgive the incestuous man, to receive him into their communion, and to re∣mit the punishment of his excommunication, because he was winne to repentance. And k 1.751 he addeth: To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also. Now, who can remit the punishment, and save one from underlying the censure, except such as have the power and auctority of judgement?

Hitherto we have proven, that the power of binding and loo∣sing, pertaineth to every particular Church collectively taken. But the execution and judiciall exercing of this power, pertaineth to that company and assembly of Elders in every Church, which the Apostle, 1 Tim. 4. 14. calleth a Presbitery. In Scotland we call it a Session. In France it is called a Consistory. In Germany and Belgia according to the Scripture phrase it is tearmed a Presbitery. It is made up of the Pastor or Pastors of every Congregation, togither with those governing Elders which labour there (not in Doctrine, but) in Discipline onely: Of which things, we have spoken l 1.752 before. That unto this Companie or Consistorie of Elders, pertaineth the power of binding and loosing, it is averred by the best Divines. Calvine on Math 18. 17. 18. & lib. Epistol. Col. 168. 169. Beza contra Sa∣raviam de divers. Minist. grad. Zanchius in 4. praec. col. 756. Iunius animad. in Bell. cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 14. nota 28. Polanus Synt. lib. 7. cap. 18 Tilen Synt. part. 2. disp. 28. The Professours of Leiden Syn. Pur. Theol. disp. 48. Ge∣rard. loc. Theol. tom. 6. pag. 137. 138. Balduin de cas. consc. lib. 4. cap. 11. cas. 11. Pareus in Math. 18. 17. 18. & in 1 Cor. 5. Cartwright on Math. 18. sect. 7. Fennerus Theol. lib. 7. cap. 7. p. 152. 153. Alstedius Theol. casuum cap. 27. Danaeus Pol. Christ lib. 6 pag. 452. 464. Hēmingius Enchirid. class. 3. cap. 11. pag. 388. Martyr in 1 Cor. 5. and sundry others. m 1.753 Bullinger recordeth, that this was the manner of the particular Churches in Helvetia, to choose unto themselves a certaine Senate of Elders, or company of the best men in the Church, which might according

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

to the Canon of Holy Scripture, exerce the Discipline of Excom∣munication. Which forme is well warranted by the Scriptures. For when Christ committeth the auctority of binding and loosing unto the Church, Math, 18. 17. 18. Howsoever the power & auctority it selfe pertaine to any particular Church collectively taken, as hath been said, yet the execution of the same is committed to the Consi∣story or Senate of Elders, which representeth that Church, and which Paul calleth a Presbitery. n 1.754 Zanchius saith, that Chrysostome, Bullinger, and all good Interpreters, understand the Presbitery to be there meant by Christ, when he saith, Tell the Church. Chrysostome saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, saith o 1.755 Iunius, the Ecclesia∣sticall Synedrium made up of Pastors and Elders. Thus p 1.756 Camero likewise expoundeth the place. Ecclesiae nomine saith he, videtur Christus significasse Collegium Presbiterorum qui Ecclesiae Christianae erant praefuturi, cujus Presbyterij mentio fit, 1 Tim. 4. Now if Christ hath committed the power of Excommunication unto the Church, what have Bi∣shops to say for themselves, who appropriate th•…•… power unto them∣selves, each one in his owne Diocie? q 1.757 for we can not give the name of the Church unto a Bishop: because he is but one man, and the Church is a company of many men. Nay, nor yet can we give the name of the Church unto a company of Bishops; for if they might bee called the Church, it should be for this respect alone, because they represent the Church. But soli Episcopi, &c. Bishops alone saith r 1.758 Gerard, or they who teach, can not represent the Church, since hearers also pertaine to the definition thereof, but the Presbitery can represent the Church, whereunto not onely they pertaine who labour in the Word, but also Elders or Governours, put in auctority, for expeding of Ecclesiasticall matters in name of the whole Church. We graunt then, s 1.759 that by the Church, Christ meaneth that company of Church Gouvernours, whereby a certaine particular Church is represented, but for as much as the Church consisteth of two integrant parts, viz. Pastors and Sheepe, Teachers and Hearers, we therefore denie, that the representative Church whereof Christ speaketh, can be any other, then that Eccle∣siasticall Consistory, whereof we have spoken.

Moreover, albeit the Apostle wrote to the whole Church of Corinth to deliver the incestuous man to Satan, because the matter could not be otherwise done, but onely in the name, and with the consent of that whole Church, yet he never meant, that the com∣mon promiscuous multitude should by their suffrages and voices examine and judge that cause. But saith t 1.760 Calvine because the mul∣titude unlesse it be governed by councell, never doth any thing moderately, nor gravely, there was ordained in the auncient Church (meaning the Aposto∣lick Church) a Presbytery, that is, a company of Elders, which by the consent of all, had the first judgement and examination of things: from it the matter was carried to the people, but beeing already determined before. Againe,

when the Apostle writeth to them in his second Epistle, that they should forgive him, because he had repented, thus he reasoneth; u 1.761 Sufficient to such a man is this censure which was inflicted of many. Which words that we may the better understand, it is worthy of observa∣tion, (which not x 1.762 Calvins onely, but y 1.763 Saravia also noteth) that it appeareth from this place, he was not excommunicate, but by sharpe rebukes tymously winne to repentance, whereby the Apostle sheweth it to be needlesse, yea most inconvenient to proceed against him, to the extremity of Discipline. The Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there used by the Apostle, signifieth rebuke, reprehension, or chiding, saith D. Fulke. And so Scapula taketh it to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and * 1.764 to signifie another thing then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beza and Tre∣mellius turne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by increpatio. Ar. Montanus readeth, objurgatio. This chiding or threatning of the man, proceeded not from the whole Church of Corinth, but onely from many therein, as is plaine from the Text, and as a 1.765 Saravia also graunteth. And who were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those ma•…•…y of whom the Apostle speaketh? Not such as from Christian and brotherly charity did privately chide and re∣buke him, for the matter was not then depending in private rebukes, but by the Apostles direction it was brought to the Churches part, and to publike Discipline, the scandall it selfe beeing so publike and notoriously manifest. They were therefore such as had pub∣like office and auctority to chide him. And who were those, but the Consistory of Pastors and Elders, which represented the whole Church, and were set in auctority for judging and managing of things pertaining to Ecclesiasticall Discipline? They (no doubt) beeing met together, called the man before them, and did most sharpely rebuke him and chide with him, and threatned that they would not onely debarre him from the Lords Table, (which is cal∣led lesser Excommunication, but more properly, a step or degree ten∣ding next to Excommunication:) but also wholly cast him out of the Church, and deliver him to Satan. Whereupon the man beeing made to see the grievousnesse of his sinne, and the terrible punish∣ment which was to follow upon it, becommeth most sorrowfull, humble and penitent. And this moved the Apostle to say, Sufficient to such a man, &c. as if he would say: what needeth him now to be excommunicate, and so to be corrected and put to shame by you all, when every one of you shall denie to him your Christian commu∣nion, as one wholly cast out of the Church? Is it not enough, that many among you, even your whole Presbitery, hath put him to such publike shame by their sharpe reprehensions, and to so great feare by their dreadfull threatnings? and since, through the blessing of God upon these meanes, he is already w•…•…nne to repentance, why

would you have him yet more publikely corrected and rejected by all and every one?

And further, the Apostle addeth, that now they should not onely forgive him and comfort him vers. 7. but also confirme, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) their love towards him vers. 8. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to confirme or ratify by auctority, and so b 1.766 Chemnitius, Bullinger, and Cartwright expound it in this place. It commeth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Auctority, whence commeth also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Lord or one having auctority, As therefore the Presbitery or company of Pastors and Elders, had * 1.767 by their auctority established, that he was to be excommunicate, and determined to proceed to the execution of extreme Discipline * 1.768 against him, so now the Apostle would have them by the same au∣ctority, to ratify and establish the remission of this punishment unto * 1.769 him, and to decree that the Church should not denie her commu∣nion unto him. For this auctority of binding and loosing, though it pertained to the whole Church, in actu primo sive in esse, yet it per∣tained to the Presbitery alone, in actu secun•…•… sive in operari: and even as the act of speaking, pertaineth to a man, as Principium quod, but to the tongue alone, as Principium quo; so albeit the power of the Keyes, doth primarly and principally belong to the Church colle∣ctively taken, yet the actuall execution of this power, belongeth onely to the Presbitery which representeth the Church, and unto which the Church hath committed her auctority to bind and loose. Wherefore, since the Apostle writeth to the whole Church of Co∣rinth, to confirme by auctority their love to the penitent man, and since this auctority in the actuall execution of it (which the Apostle craveth) did not agree to that whole Church collectively taken, we must needs understand his meaning to be, that their love towards that man, & their forgiving of him, should be ratified & confirmed by the auctority of those Church Governours, qui Ecclesiae nomen ad caetum repraesentant, totius nimirum Presbiterij authoritate atque consensu.

Thus have we shewed, that the actuall use of the Keyes, or the execution of the auctority of binding and loosing, pertaineth to that Ecclesiasticall Sena•…•…e in every particular Church, which the Apostle calleth a Presbitery. For further illustration of the truth whereof, I adde these foure observations.

1. We must distinguish f 1.770 a twofold power of the keyes: the one is execute in Doctrine: the other in Discipline: the one Concionalis: the other Iudicialis. Touching the former, we graunt it is proper for Pastors alone, whose office and vocation it is, by the Preaching and Publishing of Gods Word, to shut the Kingdome of Heaven against impenitent and disobedient men, and to open it unto peni∣tent sinners, to binde Gods heavie wrath upon the former, and (by application of the promises of mercy) to loose the lat•…•…er from the

sentence and fear of Condemnation. When we ascribe the power of binding and loosing to that whole Consistory, wherein gover∣ning Elders are joyned togither with Pastors, we meane only of the Keyes of externall Discipline, which are used in Ecclesiasticall Courts and Iudicatories.

2. When we teach, that the Pastor or Pastors of every particular Church and Congregation, with the Elders of the same, being met togither, have power to binde and loose, we understand this, only of such places wherein a competent number of understanding and qualified men, may be had to make up an Eldership: otherwise let there be one Eldership made up of two or three of the next adja∣cent Parishes, according as was ordained by the Church of Scot∣land, in the seaventh Chapter of the second booke of Discipline. Sine totius, &c. Without the consent of some whole Church saith g 1.771 Zan∣chius, no man ought to be excommunicat. Yea I adde, if it be a small Church, and not consisting of many learned and skillfull men, Excommunication ought not to bee done, except the nighbour Churches be asked counsell of. And as touching the Pastors part, h 1.772 Calvine saith well, Nunquam, &c. I ne∣ver thought it expedient, that the liberty of excommunicating should be per∣mitted to every Pastor. The feare of great inconveniences, which he thought likely to follow upon such a custome, if once it were per∣mitted, makes him professe in that Epistle, that he durst not advise Liserus, to excommunicate any man, without taking counsell of other Pastors. Now I much marvell what Butt i 1.773 D. Forbesse shot at, when he entitleth one of his Chapters, De potestate Excommuni∣candi, and then in the body of the Chapter doth no more at all, but only quote those two Testimonies of Zanchius and Calvine: Both of which, doe utterly condemne the usurpation of Bishops, who ap∣propriat to themselves the power of Excommunication, & ascribe this power to the Consistory of Pastors and Elders in every parti∣cular Church: and in the forequotted places, doe only (for preven∣ting of abuses) set some bounds to the execution of their power: which bounds we also think good to be kept, Viz. that if a Church be so small, that it hath not so many well qualified men, as may be sufficient to assist the Pastor in the governement thereof, then let one commone Eldership be made up out of it, and some other nighbour Churches: By which meanes it shall moreover come to passe, (which is the other caution to be given) that not every Pastor (no not with the Elders of his Congregation) shall be permitted to have full liberty of binding and loosing, but shall in those matters receive counsell and advice from other Pastors. Howbeit for this latter purpose, the Church of Scotland hath profitably provyded another remedy also, namely, that in certaine chief places, all the Pastors in the adjacent bounds, shall at set and ordinary times assem∣ble themselves, (which Assemblies in this Nation we call Presby∣teries)

that so the Churches may be governed Communi Presbytero∣rum consilio, as Hierome speaketh of the Primitive times of the Church.

3. Though the execution of the Discipline of Excommunica∣tion and Absolution, pertaine to the Consistory of the Pastor and Elders in every Church, yet this Discipline is to be by them exe∣cute k 1.774 in name of the whole Church. l 1.775 Saravia is bold to affirme, that he who receiveth a sinner, or casteth him out of the Church, doth this in the name and auctority of God alone. We have pro∣ven by strong Arguments, that the auctority of Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church: which though he contradicteth, yet in m 1.776 one place forgetting himself he aknowledgeth, that the au∣ctority of the Church of Corinth, was to interveene in the Excom∣munication of the incestuous man. Wherefore, as in the name of God, so in the name and auctority of the whole Church, must one be cast our, or received.

4. To the right execution of this Discipline, n 1.777 the manifest con∣sent of the whole Church is also necessary: The trueth whereof be∣side that it appeareth from that which hath beene said concerning the Churches auctority, it is further confirmed, if we consider, either the importance of the thing, or the good of the person. Touching the importance of the thing, Gravissima, &c. Most waightie matters in the Church saith o 1.778 Gerard, (and the same saith p 1.779 Zanchius also,) ought not to be undertaken without the consent of the whole Ecclesiasticall body, and as Pope Leo writeth, Such thing as pertaine unto all, ought to be done with the consent of all. But vvhat can be more waighty, and vvhat doth more pertaine to the body of the Church, then to cut off some member from the body? And touching the good of the person, q 1.780 Augustine sheweth that then only a Sinner is both stricken with feare, and healed with shame, when seeing himself Anathematized by the whole Church, he can not find a fellowe multitude, togither wherewith he may re∣joyce in his sinne, and insult upon good men. And that otherwise, if the tares growe so ranke, that they can not be pulled up, and if the same evill disease take hould of so very many, that the consent of the Church can not be had to the excommunication of a wicked person, then good men must grieve and groane, and endure what they can not help. Therefore, that Excommunication may fruitfully succeed, the consent of the people is necessary: r 1.781 Frustra enim ejicitur ex Ecclesia, & consortio fidelium privatur, quem populus abigere, & à quo abstinere recuset. Howbei•…•… even in such cases, when the consent of the Church can not be had to the execution of this Discipline, faithfull Pastors and Professors must, every one for his owne part, take heed that he haveno fellowship with the unfruitfull workes of darkenesse, but even reprove them; yea they ought, in sensu negativo, excom∣municat those who should be (but are not) excommunicat positively:

which negative Excommunication, is not an Ecclesiasticall censure' but either a bare punishment, or a cautell and animadversion; And so saith s 1.782 the Archbishop of Spalato, not only one brother may re∣fuse to communicat with another, but a people also may refuse to communicat with their Pastor, which he confirmeth by certaine examples. But the publike censure of positive Excommunication should not be inflicted without the Churches consent, for the rea∣sons forsaid. Cyprian writteth to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, that he had much laboured with the people, that peace might be given to them who had fallen, that is, that they might be againe received into the communion of the Church: which if he might have done by him∣self, why did he labour and deale so much with the people in that bu∣sinesse? And as they were not received into the Churches commu∣nion, without the peoples consent, so neither were they, with out their consent, excommunicat. t 1.783 Chrysostome sheweth concerning his time, that when one was to be excommunicat, the whole Church was humbled in prayer to God for him, and whenhe was againe re∣leased, they did all kindly salute him, & wish him peace. u 1.784 Tertullian also writteth, that he who was to be excommunicat, in the publike Assembly of the Church, was by the common consent of all, stric∣ken with judgement, and that all the approven and well liked off Elders, had the presidence or direction of the rest of the Church in these Matters.

Now from all this, which hath beene said of the power and aucto∣rity to excommunicat and absolve, it is manifest how unjustly usurping Prelats doe arrogat & appropriat to themselves this power, which Christ hath committed to every particular Church or Con∣gregation, and ordained to be execute by the Ecclesiasticall Con∣sistory within the same. Which Episcopall usurpation, as it hath beene shewed to bee most contrary to Divine Institution, so doth it also depart from the manner of the auncient Church: For it may be seene in x 1.785 Cyprian, that the auctority of reconciling and receiving into the Church, such as had fallen, was not proper to the Bishop, but with him common to his Cleargie and Presbytery, and that jus communicationis was given them by the Cleargie, as well as by the Bishop. We have heard out of y 1.786 Hierome, that a Bishop did nothing, which a Presbyter did not also, except only that he gave the rite or sig•…•…e of Ordination, that is, imposition of hands. Whereby we un∣derstand, that as all other things, beside Ordination, so the power of Excommunication among the rest, was alike common to Bishops and Presbyters. Whence it is, that the same Hierome writting to De∣metriades, calleth excommunication, Episcoporum & Presbyterorum cen∣sura. And z 1.787 elsewhere. Alligat vel solvit Episcopus & Presbyter. Iusti∣nian Novel. 123. cap. •…•…1. saith, Omnibus autem Episcopis & Presbyteris in∣terdicimus segregare aliquem à sacra communionè, antequam causa monstre∣tur,

&c. certifying them, if they doe otherwise, that he whom they excommunicat, should be loosed from Excommunication à majore Sacerdote. Whence we see, that Presbyters also were wont to excom∣municat, & that this power was common to them with the Bishops. The first Councell of Carthage Can. 23. decreeth that a Bishop heare no mans cause without the presence of his Cleargie: and that other∣wise his sentence shall be void, except it be confirmed by the pre∣sence of his Cleargie. The Canon Law it self hath some vestigies of the auncient order: for a 1.788 it ordaineth, that when a Bishop either excommunicateth or absolveth any man, twelve of the Cleargie be present and concurre with him. b 1.789 D▪ Forbesse now also aknowled∣geth, that it is not lawfull for a Bishop to exerce the power of pub∣like jurisdiction by himself, and without the Presbytery; and un∣der this power of Iurisdiction whereof he speaketh, c 1.790 he compre∣hendeth, the Visitation of Churches, Ordination, Suspension, and Deposition of Ministers, the Excommunicating of contumacious persons, & the Reconciling of them when they become penitent, the calling of the fellow Presbyters to a Synod, the making of Ec∣clesiasticall Canons, &c. which power of Iurisdiction d 1.791 saith he, remaineth one and the same, whole and entire, both in the Bishop, and in the Presbytery, in him personally, in it collegially. His con∣fession of the Presbyteries power and auctority, we catch & lay hold on: but whereas he would have this power any way proper and perso∣nall to Bishops, he is confuted by our former Arguments.

And thus farre have we demonstrat to Princes, who be they, to whom Christ hath committed the power of Excommunication, that with them they may cause it to remaine, and correct the usur∣pation of Prelats, who bereave them of it. Let us next consider, what Princes may, or should doe, after that the sentence of any mans Excommunication, or Reconciliation, is given forth by them, to whom the power of this Discipline pertaineth. e 1.792 The Arch∣bishop of Spalato is of opinion, that, not only it is free to Princes to communicat with excommunicat persons, but also, that if they shall happen to communicat with them, the Church (for the re∣verence she oweth to Princes) should straight absolve them, and that her sentence of Excommunication should no longer have any strength. What? Shall the Church draw, and put up againe, the Spirituall Sword, at the pleasure of Princes? Or because Pr•…•…ces will perhaps cast holy things to Dogges: must others doe so like∣wise? O prodigious licentiousnesse, and hellish misorder, worthy to be drowned in the lake of Lethè! But what then is the part of the Prince, after that the Church hath given judgement? Surely, whensoever need is, he ought by the privat judgement of Christian discretion, to trie and examine, whether this Discipline be rightly execute, or not. If he find the execution thereof to be unreprove∣able,

and that yet the sinner goeth on in his contumacy, f 1.793 then by his Civill power he ought further to punish him in his person, or wordly estate, that he may either reforme or represse, such a one as hath not been terrified by the Churches censures. But if after triall, he understand that the sentence given forth is unjust and erroneous, either through the ignorance or the malice of the Ecclesiasticall and regular Iudges, then hee ought to interpone his auctority, and cause a due proceeding, for in such extraordinary cases of the failing of Ecclesiasticall persons, Princes may doe much in things and cau∣ses Spirituall, which ordinarily they can not.

It remaineth to shew, who have the power of those censures and punishments which are proper to Ecclesiasticall persons. Where first we are to consider, that there are two sorts of faults which make Ecclesiasticall men worthy to be punished, viz. either such as vio∣late sacred, or such as violate civill and humane duties: the one is to be judged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges alone, and that according to the Lawes of God and the Church: the other by civill Iudges alone, and that according to the civill and municipall Lawes of the Com∣mon-wealth. This latter sort againe is twofold, for either the fault is such, that though a man be condignely punished for it by the ci∣vill Magistrate, yet he doth not therefore fall from his Ecclesiasti∣call office or dignity; of which sort experience sheweth many: or else such as beeing punished according to their quality and demerit, a man by necessary consequence falleth from the Ecclesiasticall fun∣ction and dignity which before he had; this was Abiathars case, and the case of so many as beeing justly punished by Proscription, In∣carceration or Banishment, are secundario & ex consequenti shut from their bearing office in the Church. If Abiather had sinned in a sacred matter, the cognition thereof saith g 1.794 Iunius, had pertained to the Priests: but because he sinned against the Common-wealth and the Kings Majesty, it was necessary to deale with him Civilly, and not Ecclesiastically. What? are not Ecclesiasticall men in this time also thought to be lawfully judged by the Civill Magistrate, if at any time they be found guilty of appaired Majesty? As for the other sorts of saults, whereby (as we have said) Sacred and Ec∣clesiasticall duties are violate, such as the teaching of False and Hereticall Doctrine, neglecting of Discipline, unbeseeming and scandalous conversation, &c. which things (if they be not amended) they who have the execution of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction com∣mitted to them, ought to punish by Suspension, Deposition, &c. Now as when one is called to the worke of the Ministery, his fit∣nesse and qualification for that worke, should be tried and judged by the Cleargie of the adjacent bounds assembled in their Classicall Presbitery, to whom it also pertaineth (after that he is by them tried and approven, and after that he is elected by that Church where he is to serve) to send him out from them with power to exercise the

office of a Pastor: so when there is just cause of Suspending or De∣priving him, it belongeth to the same Presbitery to consider and judge hereof, and according to his offence to give judgement against him. For who should recall him, but they who sent him? Or who should discharge him his Ministeriall function, except they who or∣dained him to exerce the same? And who may take the power from him, but they who gave the power unto him? That Ordination per∣raineth to the whole Presbitery, and not to the Bishop alone, wee have shewed before: and now by the same reason we say, Suspension and Deposition pertaine to the Presbitery also, and are not in the power of the Bishop. And that in the auncient Church, as Bishops gave not Ordination, so neither did they Suspend nor Depose any man without the common Councell, Advice, and concurrence of the Presbitery, yea and sometimes of a Synod, it is cleare from Cypr. lib. 1. Epist. 9. lib. 3. Epist. 2. & 10. Concil. Carthag. 3. can. 8. Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 22. 23. Concil. African. can 20. Concil. Hispal. 2 can. 6. Iu∣stin Novel. 42. cap. 1. Hieron. comment. ad Isa. 3. Siricius Epist. ad Ambros. inter Ambr. epist. 80. Touching the Suspension and Deposition of Ministers, the Assembly at Glosgowe anno 1610. ordained, that the Bishop should associate to himselfe the Ministery of these bounds where the Delinquent served, that is, the Presbitery whereof hee hath been a Member, and togither with them there take triall of the fact, and upon just cause found, to Deprive or Suspend. Which act was ratified in the 21 Parliament of King Iames an∣no 1612. Neverthelesse, if any man thinke the sentence of the Bi∣shop and the Presbitery given forth against him, to be unjust, he ought to have liberty of recourse to the Synod, and there to bee heard, according as it was decreed by the fourth Councell of Car∣thage Can. 66. But oftimes the matter is of such difficulty or impor∣tance, that the Bishop and the Presbitery may not giveout an per∣emptory sentence of Suspension or Deprivation, h 1.795 till the mat∣ter be brought to the Synod of the province, i 1.796 where according to the auncient order the matter is to be handled, not by the censure of one Bishop, but by the judgement of the whole Cleargie gathered togither.

Princes therefore may not suffer Bishops to usurpe the power of Suspending and Depriving at their pleasure, and whensoever they commit any such tyranny in smiting of their fellow servants, it is the part of Princes to cause these things to be redressed, and for this end gratiously to receive the grievances of oppressed Ministers. The Arians of old beeing assembled in a Councell at Antioch, k 1.797 decreed, that if any Ecclesiasticall Person, should without the advice and the letters of the Bishops of the Province, and chiefly of the Metropolitan, goe to the Emperour to put up any grievance unto him, he should be cast out, not onely from the holy Commu∣nion, but from his proper dignity which hee had in the Church.

Whereupon l 1.798 Osiander hath this observation: This Canon also was com∣posed against holy Athanasius: for Attanasius beeing expelled by the Arrians, had fled to the Emperour Constantine the younger, and had from him obtained a returne to his owne Church. Now this Canon is very unjust, which forbids that a Bishop or any other Minister of the Church, beeing unjustly oppressed, flee to his godly Civill Magistrate: since it was lawfull to the Apostle Paul to appeale to the Romane Emperour, wicked Nero, as the acts of the Apostles wit∣nesse. But it may be seen in this place, that Bishops were very soone seeking dominion, yea tyrannie over the Church, and over their Colleags. Besides all this, there is yet another thing which ought to have a very princi∣pall consideration in the Deposition of a Minister, and that is the consent of the Church and Congregation where he hath served. Let the Magistrate know saith m 1.799 Gerard, that as the vocation of Ministers pertaineth to the whole Church, so to the same also pertaineth the removing of Ministers, therefore as a Minister ought not to be obtruded upon a unwilling Church, so the Hearers beeing unwilling and striving against it, a fit Minister ought not to be plucked away from them. The Deposing of a Minister whom the Church loves and willingly heares, n 1.800 Balduin accoun∣teth to be high Sacriledge, and holdeth, that as the calling, so the dis∣missing of Ministers pertaineth to the whole Church. And so teach∣eth o 1.801 Iunius. Shortly, as a man is rightly called to the ministeriall office and dignity, when he is elected by the Church, and ordained by the Presbitery, so is he rightly deposed and put from the same, when he is rejected by the Church, and discharged by the Presbitery.

Now there was brought forth in Scotland, anno 1610. a certaine Amphibian brood, sprung out of the stem of Neronian tyranny, and in manners like to his nearest Kinsman the Spanish Inquisition. It is armed with a transcendent power, and called by the dreadfull name of the HIGH COMMISSION. Among other things, it arrogateth to it selfe, the power of Deposing Ministers. But how un∣justly, thus it appeareth.

1. If those Commissioners have any power at all to depose Mi∣nisters, they have it from the King whose Commissioners they are. But from him they have it not. Therefore they have none at all. The proposition is most certaine: for they sit not in that Commis∣sion to judge in their owne name, nor by their owne auctority quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine proprio, as p 1.802 Panormitan saith,) but by vertue onely of the Commission and Delegation which they have of the King. Yea, Bishops themselves exerce not any Iuris∣diction in the High Commission as Bishops, but onely as the Kings Commissioners, as q 1.803 D. Downame aknowledgeth. The Assumption is gronnded upon this reason: The King hath not power to depose Ministers. Ergo he can not give this power to others. For r 1.804 Ne∣mo potest plus juris transferre in alium quam sibi competere dignoscatur. The King may sometimes inflict such a civill punishment upon Mini∣sters,

whereupon secondarily and accidentally will follow their fal∣ling away from their Ecclesiasticall office and function, (in which sence it is said, that Solomon deposed Abiathar, as we heard before,) but to depose them directly and formally (which the High Com∣mission usurpeth to doe) he hath no power, and that because this de∣position is an act of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction: Whereas the power of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction doth no more agree to the King, then the power of Ecclesiasticall order: his power is Civill & Temporall, not Spirituall & Ecclesiasticall. s 1.805 D. Field also confesseth, that none may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted, from his degree and order, but the Spirituall Guides of the Church alone.

2. The deposing of Ministers pertaineth to Classicall Presbite∣ries, or (if the matter be doubtfull and difficille) to Synods, as hath been shewed. And who then can give the High Commission such auctority as to take this power from them, and to assume it unto it selfe. These Commissioners professe, that they have auctority to discharge other Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories within the Kingdome from meddling with the judging of any thing which they shall thinke impertinent for them, and which they shall thinke good to judge & decide by themselves in their Cōmission. Which if it be so, then (when it pleaseth them) they may make other Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories to be altogether uselesse and of no effect in the Church.

3. In this Commission, Ecclesiasticall and Temporall men are joyned togither, and both armed with the same power. Therefore it is not right nor regular, nor in any wise allowable. For even as when a Minister hath offended in a Civill matter, his fault is to bee judged by Civill Iudges according to the Civill Lawes, and by no other: so when he offendeth in an Ecclesiasticall matter, his fault is to be judged onely by Ecclesiasticall persons according to Eccle∣siasticall Lawes: and in such a case t 1.806 Iustinian forbiddeth Civill men to bee joyned with Ecclesiasticall men in judgement. They are Ecclesiasticall things or causes which are handled and exami∣ned by the High Commission in the processe of deposing Mini∣sters: and a shame it is to Ecclesiasticall men, if they can without the help and joyning of Temporall men, judge and decide things of this quality.

4. As in the matters to be judged, so in the censures and pu∣nishments to be inflicted, Ecclesiasticall and Civill men have in this Commission alike power and auctority: for Ecclesiasticall men therein have power of Fining, Confining, Warding &c. common to them with the Temporal men: and againe, the Temporall men have power of Excommunication, Suspension, Deprivation, &c. common to them with the Ecclesiasticall men. For they all sit there as the Kings Commissioners, and co nomine they exerce this Iurisdiction: which Commission beeing alike discharged by them

all, it is manifest that both Temporall men take hold of the keyes, and Ecclesiasticall men take hold of the Civill sword. And this monstruous confusion and mixeture, giveth sufficient demonstra∣tion that such a forme of Iudgement is not from the God of order.

Of the abuses and inregularities of the High Commission, wee may not now speake at greater length, but are hasted to make fore∣ward.

CHAP. IX.

That the lawfullnesse of the Ceremonies, can not be warranted by the Law of Nature.

WHat our Opposites have alledged for the Ceremonies, ei∣ther from the Law of God, or the Law of man, we have [Sect. I] hitherto answered. But we heard u 1.807 the Law of Nature also alledged for Holy dayes, and for kneeling at the Communion. And when x 1.808 Hooker goeth about to commend and defend such visible signes, which being used in performance of holy actions, are undoubtedly most effectuall to open such matter, as men when they know and remember carefully, must needs be a great deale the better informed to what effect such duties serve: He subjoyneth: We must not thinke, but that there some ground of rea∣son even in Nature, &c. This is a smoake to blind the eyes of the unlearned. Our Opposites have taken no paines nor travell to make us see any deduction of those Ceremonies, from the Law of Na∣ture: We desire proofs, not words. In the meane while, for gi∣ving further evidence to the Trueth, we will expresse our owne minde, touching things warranted by the Law of Nature.

And first we must understand aright, what is meant by the Law of Nature. To wit, that Law y 1.809 which God writteth and imprinteth [Sect. II] in the Nature of man, so that it is as it were connaturall and borne togither with man. Now if wee consider, what Law was written in the nature of man in his first creation, it was no z 1.810 other then the Decalogue or the Morall Law. But the Law which we are here to enquire of, is that Law, which after the Fall, God still writteth in the heart of every man: which (we all know) commeth farre short, & wanteth much of that which was written in the heart of man before his fall. That we may understand, what this Law of Nature is, which is written in all mens hearts, since the Fall, we must distin∣guish jus naturale from jus Divinum naturale. For that Law which is simply called jus naturale is innatum, and layeth before the minds of men, that way, wherein a 1.811 by the guidance and conduct of nature,

they may be ledde to that good, which is in the end proportionat to nature. Whereas Ius Divinum is inspiratum, & layeth before us ano∣ther way, wherein b 1.812 by a supernaturall guidance, we may be ledde to a supernaturall good, which is an end exceeding the proportion of nature. As for that part of the Law of God, which is called Ius divinum naturale, it is so called in opposition to jus divinum positivum.

Ius naturale (saith c 1.813 Iustitian,) est quod natura omnia animalia doeuit. [Sect. III] This the Lawyers take to be the Law of Nature, which Nature by its sole instinct, teacheth as well to other living creatures, as to men, for Nature teacheth all living creatures, to save and preserve their owne being, to decline things hurtfull, to seeke things necessary for their life, to procreat their like, to care for that which is procreated by them, &c. d 1.814 The Arch Bishop of Spalato liketh to speake with the Lawyers, Ius naturale saith he simpliciter ponitur in omnibus animali∣bus. Videntur autem (saith e 1.815 Ioachinus Mynsingerus) Iurisconsulti, valde in hoc abuti vocabulo Iuris, cum exempla praedicta sint potius affectus & incli∣nationes naturales, quae cum quibusque animantibus enascuntur: quas Philosophi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appellant. In brutis enim cum nulla sit ratio, igitur nec ullum jus esse potest.

f 1.816 Aquinas also sheweth, that beasts are not properly governed by the Law of Nature, because Lex is aliquid rationis. Wherefore they erre, who would make the Law of Nature to differ in kynd, from Ius gentium, which naturall reason hath taught to all Nations. For this Law of Nations per se speciem non facit, as saith g 1.817 Mynsingerus. And the Law of Nature is also by the Heathen Writters, often cal∣led Ius gentium, as h 1.818 Rosinus noteth. If any will needs have the Law of Nature distinguished from the Law of Nations, let them either take i 1.819 Aquinas his distinction, who maketh the Law of Nature to con∣taine certaine principles, having the same place in practicall reason, which the principles of scientifike demonstrations have in specu∣lative reason: & the Law of Nations to containe certane conclu∣sions drawen from the said principles. Or otherwise embrace the difference which is put betwixt those lawes by k 1.820 Mattheus Wesenbe∣cius. Quae bestiae, naturali concitationè; ea (saith he) homines ex eodem sen∣su ac affectionè, cum moderationè tamen rationis si faciant, jure naturae fa∣ciunt. Quae bruta non faciunt. sed sola ratione hominis propria, non affec∣tionè communis naturae, omnes homines faciunt, fierique opportere intelligunt, hoc fit jure gentium.

For my part, I take the Law of Nature, and the Law of Na∣tions, [Sect. IV] to be one and the same. For what is the Law of Nations, but that which Natures light & reason hath taught to all Nations? now this is no other, then the Law of Nature. We thinke therefore, they have well said, l 1.821 who comprehend under the Law of Nature, both the common principles of good and evill, vertue and vice, right

and wrong, things beseeming and things not beseeming; and like∣wise the generall conclusions which by necessary consequences are drawen from the said principles. To come to the particulars, there are three sorts of things which the Law of Nature requireth of man, as both m 1.822 Schoolmen, and n 1.823 Moderne Doctors have rightly taught. The first, it requireth as he is Ens; The second, as he is Ani∣mal. And the third, as he is Homo ratione praeditus. First, as he is Ens, the Law of Nature requireth him to seeke the conservation of his owne being, and to shunne or repell such things as may destroy the same. For so hath Nature framed, not only all living creaturs, but other things also which are without life, that they seeke their owne conservation, and flee (if they can) from appearant destruction. Let us take one example out of subtile o 1.824 Scaliger, which is this. If a small quantity of oyle, be poured upon a sound boord, let a burning coale be put in the midst of it, and the oyle will quickly flee back from its enemy, and seeke the conservation of it self. This is therfore the first precept of the Law of Nature, that man seeke his owne con∣servation, and avoyde his owne destruction. Whereupon this con∣clusion necessarily followeth, that he may repell violence with vio∣lence. Secondly, as man is a living creature, the Law of Nature teacheth him to propagate and to conserve his kynd. Whereupon these conclusions doe followe, Viz. the commixtion of Male & Fe∣male, the procreation of Children, the educating of them, and provyding for them. This Nature hath taught to man, as a thing common to him with other living creatures.

Thirdly, as man is a creature endued with reason, the Law of Na∣ture teacheth him, 1. Something concerning God. 2. Something [Sect. V] concerning his Nighbour. 3. Something concerning himselfe. I meane some generall notions concerning good and evill, in respect of Each of these. Whereof the Apostle meaneth, whiles p 1.825 he saith, that the Gentiles shewe the worke of the Law written in their hearts. First then, the Law of Nature teacheth man, to know that there is a God, and that this God is to be worshiped. Whereupon it followeth, that man should seeke to know God, and the manner of his worship. Now that which may be knowen of God, is shewed even unto the Gentiles. q 1.826 The Apostle saith signanter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, meaning those few and small sparkles of the knowledge of God, which natures imbredde light discovered unto the Gentiles, for ma∣king them inexcusable, namely, that there is a eternall power and Godhead, which men ought to reverence and to worship. 2. The Law of Nature teacheth man to hold fast friendship and amiti with his Nighbours, for as much as he is Animal sociale. Violare alterum saith r 1.827 Cicero, naturae lege prohibemur. For the Law of Nature biddeth us s 1.828 doe to others as we wold have them to doe unto us. And from

these precepts it followeth, that we should not offend other men, that vve should keep promises, stand to bargains, give to every man his owne, &c. 3. As touching a mans selfe, the Law of Nature teach∣eth him, that he should not live as a reasonlesse creature, but that all his actions should be such, as may be congrous and beseeming for a creature endued with reason. Wherupon it followeth, that he should live honestly and vertuously, that he should observe order & decen∣cy in all his actions, &c. Hence t 1.829 the Apostle saith, that nature it self teacheth, that it is a shame for a man to have long haire, be∣cause it is repugnant to that decency and comelinesse which the Law of Nature requireth. For u 1.830 among other differences which Na∣ture hath put betwixt men and women, this is one, that it hath given to women thicker and longer haire, then to men, that it might be as a vaile to adorne and cover them. The reason whereof, Nature hath hid in the complexion of a woman, which is more humide then the complexion of a man. So that if a man should take him to this womanish ornament, hee should but against Nature trans∣forme himself (in so farre) into a woman.

These things being premitted, I will adde foure reasons to prove, [Sect. VI] that neither sacred significant Ceremonies in generall, nor Knee∣ling, Holy dayes, &c. in particular, can be warranted unto us by the Law of Nature. 1. The Law of Nature can not direct us unto a supernaturall end, as is aknowledged not only by x 1.831 our Divines, but by y 1.832 Aquinas also. It only teacheth us, to seeke and to doe z 1.833 bonum, velut finem naturae, such a good as is a end proportioned to Nature. All those precepts of the Law of Nature which •…•…e have spoken of, could never lead men to a supernaturall good. a 1.834 It is only the Divine Law, revealed from God, which informeth the minds of men, with such notions, as are supra naturam, and which may guide them ad finem supernaturalem. But all sacred significant Ceremonies, which by their holy and spirituall significations, ex∣presse to us some misteries of grace, and of the Kingdome of God; must be thought, to direct us unto a supernaturall good; Therefore they are not of that sort of things, which the Law of Nature requi∣reth. For this Law goeth no higher, then to teach men that there is a God, and that this God is to be worshipped, the knowledge of which things is not a good exceeding the proportion of Nature. For it was found in the Gentiles themselves, who knew no other good then that which was proportioned to Nature. Let me now conclude this reason vvith b 1.835 Scaligers vvords. Neque enim quae supra naturae leges sunt, ex naturae legibus judicanda censeo.

2. As the Ceremonies by their sacred spirituall and misticall sig∣nifications, [Sect. VII] direct us unto a supernaturall good, so they are thought to guide us unto the same, by a spirituall and supernaturall way,

which natures light could never discover unto men. But in the Law of Nature, as we are directed unto no other good then such as is pro∣portioned to nature, so are we guided unto the same, c 1.836 Natura duce, that is to say, by such common notions, as God hath imprinted in the Nature of all men. Now I suppose our Opposites will not unwil∣lingly reckon their sacred significant Ceremonies, among those things of the Spirit of God, d 1.837 which a naturall man can not receive, because they are spiritually discerned. What then have they to doe with the Law of Nature? If it be said, that they necessarily follow upon those first principles & conclusions, which a naturall man re∣ceiveth; I answere, this shall never be proven. They will say perhaps, that nature teacheth us to use certaine rites in the worship of God, to observe set times for his worship, also to kneele downe in reve∣rence of God whom we worship. Ans. Be it so: but how make they up a necessary connexion betwixt certaine Rites, & significant Ce∣remonies of human institution? betwixt set times, & some moe dayes then one of seaven: betwixt kneeling in the worship of God in gene∣rè, and kneeling at the Sacrament in Speciè; unlesse they say., that Na∣ture requireth us to kneel in every act of worship, and never to worship God, without kneeling on our knees.

3. Ius naturae is ubique idem, as e 1.838 Rosinus: It is approven communi [Sect. VIII] omnium gentium judicio atque assensu, as f 1.839 the Professors of Leiden: It is one & the same among all Nations, in respect of the principles of it, as g 1.840 Aquinas and h 1.841 Zanchius: The Law of Nature fixa est cor∣dibus nostris, as i 1.842 Stella. Yea it is so written in our hearts, that iniquity it self can not blot it out, as k 1.843 Augustine saith. And we learne from the l 1.844 A∣postle, that the Law of Nature is manifest in the Gentiles, for God hath shewed it unto them. Ergo non ignorant saith m 1.845 Pareus. Wha•…•…soever then the Law of Nature requireth, it doth clearly and necessarily follow upon those principles which are written in every mans con∣science, unlesse we set up new Divinity, and either say that the prin∣ciples of the Law of Nature are not written in every mans conscience, or else that they may be at some time abolished and razed out of the consciences of men, which were to leave men without a witnesse. Nay, saith n 1.846 Augustine, the Heaven and the Earth and all that is in them, on every side cease not to bid all men love God, that they may be made inexcusable. Now if all the principles of the Law of Na∣ture▪ be fir•…•…ly and clearly written in every mans conscience, and can not but be knowen to every man who hath the use of naturall jud∣gement & r•…•…ason; it followeth, that they who will prove or warrant any thing by the Law of Nature, must only take their premisses from evey •…•…ans conscience, & say as o 1.847 the Apostle saith, Iudge in your selves, &c. doth not even Nature it self teach you? &c. As if the Apostle said, This principle of Nature is fixed in all your hearts, that men should affect honestie and comelinesse. Goe to; reason in your selves from the Judgment of Nature whether it follow not upon this

principle, that a man should not weare long haire, for as much as his wearing of long haire, is repugnant to the principle of nature. Committit ipsis judicium saith p 1.848 Pareus: ipsos testes, imo judices appellat. So that if the Ceremonies be warranted unto us by the Law of Na∣ture; the judg•…•…ment must be committed to every mans conscience, & so should every man be convinced in himself, by such a principle of Nature, from which the Ceremonies have a necessary and mani∣fest deduction. Yet we attest the searcher of all hearts, that we have never beene convinced in our selves, by such a principle of Nature, no not after diligent search and enquiry.

4. Let our Opposites say to us, once for all, upon what praecept of [Sect. IX] the Law of Nature doe they ground the Ceremonies? for I have be∣fore opened up, all sorts of things which the Law of Nature requireth of man as he is Ens; & as he is Animal, belongeth not to our purpose. As for that which it requireth of him, as he is a creature endued with reason; there is one part of it that concerneth our selves; Viz. that we should live honestly, & secundum modum rationis, that we should observe order & decency in all our actions. This order and decency, doe not respect our holy duties to Godward, not comprehend any sacred Ce∣remony in his worship: but they looke to us ward, & are referred only to such beseeming qualities, as are congrous & convenient to a rea∣sonable Nature in all its actions. Yea even generally we may say with q 1.849 Scaliger. Ordinem dico sine quo natura constare non potest. Nihil enim absque ordine vel meditata est vel effecit illa. Another part of that which Nature requireth of man, as he is a creature endued with reason, concerneth (as we shewed) our Nighbours, whom it teacheth us, not to harme nor offend, &c. And if our Opposites wold reckon with us here, their Ce∣remonies will appeare repugnant to Nature, because of the detriment & offence which they offer unto us, whereof we have spoken in our Argument of Scandall. But there was a third part concerning God & his worship: & here must our Opposites seeke a warrant for the Cere∣monies. Now albeit Nature (as was said) teach all men, that there is a eternall & mighty God, who should be worshipped & honoured by them. Yet it descendeth not unto such particular precepts, as can have any shew of making ought for significant Ceremonies Omnibus enim in∣natum est & in animo quasi insculptum, esse deos: but yet quales sint saith r 1.850 Ci∣cero, varium est. And as Nature hath not taught men to know the Na∣ture & the attributs of the Godhead, togither with the sacred Trinity of persons in the same: so neither hath it taught, what sort or manner of worship should be given unto God s 1.851 Lex naturalis rerum communium est, & doth only informe us with those common notions called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Concerning the worship of God, it speakes only de genere, not de specie. Wherefore there can be no inference from that worship which the Law of Nature require h, either of any distinct kynd of worship, or of any Ceremony in that kynd. No more then it followeth. Si est animal, est Asinuc: for à genere ad speciem non valet consequentia affirmando.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Fresh sute ag. Ce∣rem. cap. 9. pa. 96. 100.
• b 1.2

  lib. 1. de vit ext. cult oppos. Col. 501. 502.
• c 1.3

  Aquin. 2. 2^a q 92. art. 1.
• d 1.4

  Syn. pur. Theol. Disp. 44. thes. 53.
• e 1.5

  Magdeb. cent. 4. cap. 6. Col. 427.
• f 1.6

  de cas. consc. lib. 2. cap. 12. cas. 13.
• g 1.7

  Conil. Laodic. can. 58.
• h 1.8

  Hist. of the Walden∣ses part. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6.
• i 1.9

  Eccles. Pol. lib. 5. sect. 3.
• k 1.10

  apud A∣quin. 2. 2 q. 93. art. 2.
• l 1.11

  I. Rainol∣des, confer: with I. Hart cap. 8. divis. 4. p. 489.
• m 1.12

  Stella com. in Luc. 17. 20. Sect. 6.
• n 1.13

  Eccl. pol. l. 5. l. 70.
• o 1.14

  Ibid. s. 69.
• p 1.15

  Ibid. s. 65.
• q 1.16

  Of the lawfulnesse of kneeling. cap. 3.
• r 1.17

  Aquin. 3. 4. 25. art. 4.
• s 1.18

  ubi su∣pra cap. 15. p 42.
• t 1.19

  ibid. p. 41.
• w 1.20

  Aquin. 2. 2 q. 95. art. 2.
• x 1.21

  de vera eccl reform. pag. 367.
• y 1.22

  annot on Matth. 15. Sect. 5.
• z 1.23

  3. q. 66. art. 6.
• a 1.24

  2. 2 q. 147. art. 4.
• b 1.25

  3. q. 66. art. 10.
• c 1.26

  de sacr. M•…•…ssae l. b. 6. cap. 13.
• d 1.27

  de Pont. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 18.
• e 1.28

  Conc. Evang. cap. 60.
• f 1.29

  Iren lib. 1. cap. 5. §. 6 & cap. 7. §. 7.
• g 1.30

  apud Zanch epist. lib. 1. pag. 111.
• h 1.31

  eccl. Pol. lib. 5. s. 60.
• i 1.32

  Hist. of the Connc. of Trent. lib. 2.
• k 1.33

  Conf•…•…ss. cap. 5. art. 41.
• l 1.34

  Proc. in Perth. as∣semb. part. 3 pag. 18.
• m 1.35

  Alt. Damasc. cap. 10. p. 878.
• n 1.36

  ubi su∣pra pag. 29.
• o 1.37

  ibid. pa. 28.
• p 1.38

  Theol. lib. 6. cap. 3.
• q 1.39

  Synt. lib. 6. c. 5•…•…. pag. 433.
• r 1.40

  Syn. pur. Theol. Disp. 21. Thes. 7.
• s 1.41

  1 Tim. 4, 5.
• t 1.42

  fresh sute cap. 5. pag. 59.
• u 1.43

  Comm. in 1 Reg. 8. de templ. de∣die.
• y 1.44

  Hist. of the Valdens. lib. 1. cap. 1.
• z 1.45

  Cent. 4. cap. 6. col. 408.
• a 1.46

  De orig. templ. lib. 4. cap. 2.
• b 1.47

  cent. 4. cap. 6. Col. 409.
• c 1.48

  comm. in Mal. 1. 11.
• d 1.49

  Eccles. Pol. lib. 5. s. 16.
• e 1.50

  confer. with I. Hart. cap. 8. divis. 4. pag. 491.
• f 1.51

  ubi su∣pra.
• g 1.52

  Eccl Pol. lib. 5. s. 69.
• h 1.53

  annot. on 1 Tim. 4. 5.
• i 1.54

  decult. Sanct. cap. 10.
• k 1.55

  ubi su∣pra pag. 21.
• l 1.56

  Ep. to the Past. of the Church of Scotl.
• m 1.57

  on praec. 5.
• n 1.58

  Bonifac. 8. de reg. ju∣ris. reg. 51.
• o 1.59

  Hook. eccl. pol lib. 5. s. 12.
• p 1.60

  Serm. on Mat. 6. 16.
• q 1.61

  ubi supra pag. 25.
• r 1.62

  de cult. sanct. cap. 10.
• s 1.63

  Zanch. in. 4. praec. p. 682.
• t 1.64

  Paraeus comm. in Gen. 2. 3.
• u 1.65

  Vbi su∣pra pag. 20.
• x 1.66

  ubi su∣pra pag. 29.
• y 1.67

  on praec. 4.
• a 1.68

  See Serm. on Gal. 4. 4 Serm. on Luk. 2. 10. 11. Serm. on Lament. 1. 12. Serm on Io. 20. 19. Serm. on Iob. 19. 23 Serm. on Io. 20. 17. Serm. on Heb. 13. 20. 21. Serm. on Math. 6. 16. Serm. on Act. 2. 16. Serm. on Io. 5. 6. &c
• b 1.69

  pag 67.
• c 1.70

  ubi supra pag. 23.
• d 1.71

  Serm. on Mat. 12. 39. 40.
• e 1.72

  Serm. on Luk. 4. 18. 19.
• f 1.73

  Serm. on Math. 6. 16.
• g 1.74

  Synop. pur. Theol. disp. 19. thes. 30.
• h 1.75

  Man∣duct. pag. 38.
• i 1.76

  comm. in illum locum.
• k 1.77

  Iud. 23.
• l 1.78

  comm. in Thess. 5. 22.
• m 1.79

  anal. in illum locum.
• n 1.80

  expos. upon Re∣vel. 2. 14.
• o 1.81

  In praec. 2. p. 534.
• p 1.82

  1 Cor. 8. 10.
• q 1.83

  annot. on 1 Cor. 10. 21.
• r 1.84

  com. in illum locum.
• s 1.85

  anal. in 1 Cor. 10.
• t 1.86

  ibid.
• u 1.87

  annot. ibid.
• x 1.88

  de bono conjugali, cap. 16.
• y 1.89

  comm. in illum locum
• z 1.90

  apud wolphium com. in 2 Reg. 18. 4.
• a 1.91

  Io. Calv. epist. & resp. pag. 79.
• b 1.92

  serm. on Phil. 2. 10
• c 1.93

  com. in locum illum
• d 1.94

  G. San∣ctius com. ibid.
• e 1.95

  com. in 2 Reg. 23. 6.
• f 1.96

  Exod. 23. 13. Deut. 12. 3. Ios, 23. 7.
• g 1.97

  com in Isa. 27. 9.
• h 1.98

  Calv. com. in Exod. 23. 24.
• i 1.99

  Esther. 3. 2.
• k 1.100

  Deut. 25. 19.
• l 1.101

  ubi supra
• m 1.102

  Exod. 21. 33.
• n 1.103

  Deut. 22. 8.
• b 1.104

  N fratri & amico art. 17.
• c 1.105

  Iren. lib. 1. cap. 7. 9. 6.
• d 1.106

  resp. ad versipel. pag 41. 4.
• * 1.107

  (b) Isa. 30. 22.
• f 1.108

  ubi supra
• g 1.109

  supra cap. 1. sect. 11.
• h 1.110

  Com. in Deut. 12. 2.
• i 1.111

  In 4. praec. Col. 709.
• k 1.112

  Magdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 15. Col. 1538. 1539.
• l 1.113

  Cent 5. cap. 15. Col. 1511.
• m 1.114

  Daneus Polit. Christ. lib. 3 p. 229 Polan. synt. Theol. lib. 10 cap. 65.
• n 1.115

  Epit. Hist. lib. 1.
• o 1.116

  Com. in 2 Reg. 10. 27.
• p 1.117

  Num. 6.
• q 1.118

  Hebr 6. 7.
• r 1.119

  Calv. Res. ad Ver∣sipel. p. 413.
• s 1.120

  de ima∣gin, Col. 402.
• t 1.121

  Tho. N•…•…o. georgus in 1 10. 5. 21.
• u 1.122

  Ioh. Calv. Epist. & resp. pag. 86.
• x 1.123

  Ibid. Col. 136.
• y 1.124

  comm. in Col. 2. 17.
• z 1.125

  de ima∣gin. Col. 403.
• a 1.126

  com. in 2 Reg. 18. 4.
• * 1.127

  (b) Proc. in Perth assemb part. 2. pag. 120.
• * 1.128

  (〈◊〉〈◊〉) com. in illum locum
• d 1.129

  Aquin. 2. 2^a. q. 43. art. 1.
• e 1.130

  Confer. vvith 1. Hart cap. 8. divis. 4. pag. 509.
• f 1.131

  apol. part. 3. cap. 4. sect. 15. 16. 17.
• g 1.132

  supra sect. 9.
• h 1.133

  supr•…•… sect. 6.
• i 1.134

  Epist. ad Regin. Elisab. Epistolar. lib. 1. pag. 112.
• k 1.135

  Ibid. pag. 111.
• l 1.136

  Sleid. comm. lib. 25. p. 48•…•….
• m 1.137

  Apol. part. 3. cap. 4.
• n 1.138

  Proc. in Perth. as∣semb. part. 2. p. 118. 119
• o 1.139

  Ibid. pag. 22.
• p 1.140

  Ration. lib. 5. tit. de prima & lib. 6. tit. de die sancta pasche.
• q 1.141

  annot. on Math. 8. sect. 3. & on 1 Cor. 11. sect. 18.
• r 1.142

  Way to the Church, answer to sect. 51.
• s 1.143

  exam. conc. trit de Euchar. can. 6. pag. 86.
• t 1.144

  of the lawfull, of kneeling, cap▪ 21. p. 65.
• u 1.145

  Ibid. p. 69.
• x 1.146

  Concil. Laodicaen. can. 19. See also Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 17.
• y 1.147

  ubi su∣pra pag. 71.
• z 1.148

  ubi su∣pra pag. 118 (a) ubi su∣pra.
• a 1.149

  2 Kings 16, 10.
• b 1.150

  Eccl. pol. lib. 4. s. 6.
• c 1.151

  apol. part. 3. cap. 4. s. 5.
• d 1.152

  in pr•…•…. 2. pag. 543.
• e 1.153

  com in illum locum.
• f 1.154

  ubi supra.
• g 1.155

  Eccl. pol. lib. 4. s. 6.
• h 1.156

  ubi su∣pra
• i 1.157

  com. in Levit. 19. 27. 28.
• k 1.158

  2. 2. q. 103. art 4.
• l 1.159

  de cas. consc. lib. 2. cap. 14. cas. 7.
• m 1.160

  com. in illum locum
• n 1.161

  annot. ibid.
• o 1.162

  ag. the Rhem. ann. on 1. Cor. 10. s. 8.
• p 1.163

  apud Gratian. decr. part. 1. dist. 37. c. 15.
• q 1.164

  de Co∣rona militis
• r 1.165

  partic. des. cap. 1. sect. 1.
• s 1.166

  Magd. cent. 3. cap. 6. Col 147.
• t 1.167

  Concil. Laodicaen. can. 37.
• u 1.168

  apud Theod. lib 1. cap. 10.
• x 1.169

  epist. 86. ad Casulan.
• y 1.170

  lib. 1. epist. 41.
• z 1.171

  apud Bellar. de ef∣fect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 31.
• a 1.172

  Conc. African. can. 27. Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 5. & 10. Conc. Brac. 2. can. 73.
• b 1.173

  Magd. cent 4. cap. 6. col. 458.
• c 1.174

  eccl. pol. lib. 4. s. 7.
• d 1.175

  Can. 5.
• e 1.176

  Can. 40.
• f 1.177

  Sims. hist. of the Church. lib. 4. cent. 6.
• g 1.178

  eccl pol. lib. 3. s. 1.
• h 1.179

  decr. part. 2. cau∣sa. 26. quaest, 7. c. 13.
• i 1.180

  ib. c. 14.
• k 1.181

  ib. c. 17.
• l 1.182

  Aquin. 1. 2a. q. 102. art. 6. resp. ad 6^m.
• m 1.183

  ibid. resp. ad 11m.
• n 1.184

  Baruch. 6. 3. Reg. 18.
• o 1.185

  ibid. resp. ad 8m.
• p 1.186

  Rhem. annot. on 2 Cor. 6. 14.
• q 1.187

  Rhem. on 1 Tim. 6. sect. 4.
• r 1.188

  Rhem. on Apoc. 1. 10.
• s 1.189

  Rhem. on 2. 10. 10
• t 1.190

  de effect. sacr. lib. 2. cap. 31.
• u 1.191

  Magd. Cent. 4. c. 6 col. 406.
• x 1.192

  Hospin. de orig. tēpl. l. 2. cap. 7. pag. 115.
• y 1.193

  Confer. with. I. Hart. divis. 4. cap. 8.
• z 1.194

  Antith. Pap. & Christ. art 9.
• a 1.195

  in 2. praec. col. 363.
• b 1.196

  com. in Ps. 16. 4.
• d 1.197

  synops. purior. Theol. disp 19.
• e 1.198

  Vsher of the relig. prof. by the aunc. Irish. cap. 4.
• * 1.199

  () com. in 1. Cor. 10. 14.
• f 1.200

  apud Hosp. de orig. imag. pag. 200.
• g 1.201

  de vit. pii. 4.
• * 1.202

  (〈◊〉〈◊〉) Bell. de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 31.
• i 1.203

  annot. in illum locum.
• k 1.204

  annot. ib.
• * 1.205

  () com. ibi.
• m 1.206

  sect. 48
• n 1.207

  Elencis. Relig. Papist. in praefat.
• o 1.208

  Rom. 15. 2.
• p 1.209

  part. 2. cap. 6.
• q 1.210

  supra cap. 1.
• r 1.211

  de imag. Sanct. cap. 29.
• s 1.212

  Proc. in Perth as∣smb part. 2. pag. 22.
• t 1.213

  Rhem. annot. on Act. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• u 1.214

  I. Rain. confer. with 1. Hart cap. 8. divis. 4. pag. 496.
• x 1.215

  Zanch. lib. 1. in 4. praec. Col. 674.
• y 1.216

  1^a. 2^a. q. 102. art. 6. resp. ad 11 Sect. 14.
• z 1.217

  N. Fra∣tri & amico resp. ad art. 12^••.
• a 1.218

  ubi su∣pra Pag. 510.
• b 1.219

  2 Reg. 18. 6.
• c 1.220

  2 Reg. 18 4.
• d 1.221

  supra part. 2. cap. 9. s. 14.
• e 1.222

  infra cap. 4. sect. 26. 27. 28.
• f 1.223

  of the Crosse cap. 2 sect. 10.
• g 1.224

  upon Gen. 35. 4.
• h 1.225

  Expos. in Col. 3. 5.
• i 1.226

  Mark. 7. 8. 9.
• k 1.227

  of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 18. pag. 62 Sect. 3.
• l 1.228

  1 Sam. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 29.
• n 1.229

  Histor. of the Church of Scotl. lib. 1. pag. 181.
• o 1.230

  part. 1. quest. 3.
• p 1.231

  lib. 2. Charact. of the superstit.
• n 1.232

  comm. in 1 Reg. 2.
• r 1.233

  2 Sam. 16 5.
• s 1.234

  A. Po∣lan. synt. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 3. D. Pareus ex∣plic. catechet. part. 1. quest. 7. 1. Schar∣pius curs. Theolog. de peccato cap. 8
• t 1.235

  1 Reg. 2. 43.
• u 1.236

  ib. v. 44
• x 1.237

  Gen. 30. 1. 2.
• y 1.238

  de Rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 88.
• z 1.239

  Ib. num. 89.
• a 1.240

  Eccl Pol. lib. 5. sect. 65.
• b 1.241

  Cornel. a Lapide com. in Hag. 2. 24.
• c 1.242

  Eph. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.
• d 1.243

  Ier. 17. 7.
• e 1.244

  confer with Hart. chap. 8. div. 5. p. 509.
• f 1.245

  Eccl. Pol. lib. 5 sect. 66
• g 1.246

  Exam. part. 2. de rit in admin. sacr pag. 32. Sect 6.
• h 1.247

  lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. Col. 505.
• i 1.248

  Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. sect. 69.
• k 1.249

  supra part. 1. cap. 1
• l 1.250

  supra cap. 1.
• m 1.251

  Infra. cap. 5.
• n 1.252

  Of the lawf. of kneel. pag. 115, 116.
• o 1.253

  De Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 126.
• p 1.254

  De rep. eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 138.
• q 1.255

  Pr•…•… in Perth. assem. part. 2. pag. 22.
• r 1.256

  Serm. at Perth. as∣semb.
• s 1.257

  Of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 10. p. 17.
• t 1.258

  Apol. part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 16.
• u 1.259

  Cap. 1. sect. 35.
• x 1.260

  Of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 22. pag. 85.
• y 1.261

  ibid. cap. 23.
• z 1.262

  Annot. on Hebr. 11. 21.
• a 1.263

  Expos. artio. con∣fess. Angl. Art. 28.
• b 1.264

  De sacr. Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 29.
• c 1.265

  Zanch. lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. col. 504.
• d 1.266

  Bell. ubi supra.
• e 1.267

  Cart∣wr. on 1 Cor. 11. Sect. 18.
• f 1.268

  De orig. imag. pag. 245.
• g 1.269

  Ans. to the Ies. chall. of the reall pres. p. 74.
• h 1.270

  of the lauf: of kneeling, pag. 116.
• i 1.271

  Proc. i•…•… Perth. as∣semb. part. 2 pag. 92.
• k 1.272

  ubi su∣pra.
• l 1.273

  ubi su∣pra.
• m 1.274

  2 Cor. 5. 20.
• n 1.275

  g•…•…er. def. cap. 3. sect. 3.
• o 1.276

  Rejoind. pag. 296.
• p 1.277

  Cornel. à lapide com. in Mal. c, 11.
• q 1.278

  part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 29.
• r 1.279

  De f•…•…∣giend. idolo∣lat. homil. 1.
• * 1.280

  Homines qui ex corpo∣re & Spiritis sunt cōstitu∣ti, corpore co∣lunt mate∣rialiter: Spi∣ritu forma∣liter, as Iu∣nius saith vpon Deut. 12.
• s 1.281

  1 Cor. 10. 20.
• t 1.282

  Com. in illum locum. Sect. 11.
• u 1.283

  Lindsey ubi supra pag. 81.
• x 1.284

  Ibid. pag. 92.
• y 1.285

  Ibid.
• z 1.286

  Of the lawf. of kneell. cap. 32. pag. 115.
• a 1.287

  De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 42.
• b 1.288

  Com. 1. disp. 54. sect. 3.
• * 1.289

  See D^r Vsher. •…•…ans. to the Iesu. chall of Images pag. 499.
• * 1.290

  Aliud est picturam a dorare: aliud per picturae historiam, quid sit adorandum addiscere, saith Durand Ration lib. 1. tit. de pictur.
• d 1.291

  manual. lib. 3. cap. 2. quast: 5:
• e 1.292

  ubi su∣pra.
• f 1.293

  Zanch. lib. 1. de vi∣ti ext. cult. Oppos. Col. 510.
• g 1.294

  ubi su∣pra pag. 88.
• h 1.295

  ubi su∣pra pag 69.
• i 1.296

  partic. def. cap 3. sect. 20.
• k 1.297

  part 3. cap. 3. sect. 45.
• l 1.298

  Serm. on Luke 1. 74 p. 991.
• m 1.299

  ubi su∣pra pag. 72. 73.
• n 1.300

  Ans. to the chall. of the reall pres. pag. 50. 51
• o 1.301

  Epist. 141. ad Cae∣sarian.
• p 1.302

  ubi su∣pra pag. 55.
• q 1.303

  ibid pag. 61.
• r 1.304

  alt. dam. pag. 809.
• * 1.305

  Ea (vene∣ratio) potest esse etiam si∣ne cultu saith Scaliger de subtil. ad Card. exerc. 317. dist 3.
• s 1.306

  de sa∣cram. con∣firm. cap. 13
• u 1.307

  Of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 8.
• x 1.308

  de rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 137. & lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 48.
• y 1.309

  ubi su∣pra pag. 70.
• * 1.310

  (〈◊〉〈◊〉) part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 50.
• z 1.311

  ubi su∣pra cap. 21. p. 73.
• b 1.312

  de rep. Eccl lib. 7. cap. 12. n. 50.
• * 1.313

  (1) Cartwr. on 1 Cor. 11. sect. 18.
• c 1.314

  Dido∣clav. ubt su∣pra pag. 808.
• d 1.315

  Lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. Col. 504. 505.
• e 1.316

  Serm. at Perth As∣semb.
• f 1.317

  ubi supra pag. 142.
• g 1.318

  Aquin. 3. q. 25. art. 2.
• h 1.319

  De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. c. 12. •…•…. 43.
• i 1.320

  Franc. à S. Clara ex∣pos. artic. confess. Angl. art. 28.
• k 1.321

  Of the Church lib. 5. cap. 15.
• l 1.322

  Aquin. 1. q 13. art. 1.
• m 1.323

  Cent. Flosc. Tur. disput. Flosc. 26.
• n 1.324

  Of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 23 p. 88.
• o 1.325

  Synt. l. 6. c. 16. col. 125.
• p 1.326

  Eccl. pol. lib. 5. s. 55.
• q 1.327

  Vbi su∣pra.
• r 1.328

  Zanch. tom. 8. col. 521.
• * 1.329

  We adore Christ as well in the prea∣ching of the Gospell and Sacra∣ment of Baptisme, as in the Sacrament of the Sup∣per, saith Cart∣wright on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18.
• s 1.330

  Vbi su∣pra.
• t 1.331

  De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 11. num. 7.
• u 1.332

  Ostens. error. Fr. Suarez. cap. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13.
• x 1.333

  Supra Sect. 13.
• y 1.334

  Zanch. lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. col. 504.
• z 1.335

  Marc Ant. de Dom. ostēs. error Fr. Suarez, c. 2. n. 13.
• a 1.336

  Burg. of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 32. p. 113. Pay∣body part. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 4.
• b 1.337

  Vbi su∣pra. p. 94.
• c 1.338

  Apoc. 4. 10.
• d 1.339

  B. Linds. ubi supra, pag. 76.
• e 1.340

  Ibid. pag. 91.
• f 1.341

  Vbi su∣pra, sect. 15.
• g 1.342

  Paybody part. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 4.
• h 1.343

  Paybo∣dy ibid. Sect. 5.
• i 1.344

  Id pa•…•…t. 2 cap. 1. Sect. 7.
• k 1.345

  Dr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Iren. lib. 1. cap. 1.
• l 1.346

  Ios. Hall. Apol. a∣gainst Brown Sect. 36.
• m 1.347

  D. Forb. ubi supra.
• n 1.348

  D. Forb. ibid.
• o 1.349

  Psal. 25. 1.
• p 1.350

  Lament. 3. 41. Psal. •…•…23. 1.
• r 1.351

  Psal. 5. 3
• s 1.352

  Dr. Forb. ubi supra.
• t 1.353

  Com. in 1 Cor. 1•…•…. 26.
• v 1.354

  Vbi su∣pra. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 104.
• x 1.355

  Didect. Alt. Dam. pag. 803.
• y 1.356

  Vbi su∣pra, p. 112
• z 1.357

  Ibid. p. 101.
• a 1.358

  Vbi su∣p•…•….
• b 1.359

  Partic. def. cap. 3. Sect. 38.
• c 1.360

  Alt. Dā. pag. 756. 782. 794. Sect. 26.
• d 1.361

  Of the lauf. of kneel. cap. 22.
• e 1.362

  De coro∣na militis.
• f 1.363

  de Iejun. cap. 2. & 14.
• g 1.364

  Haeres. 75.
• h 1.365

  hist. eccl. cent. 4. lib. 2 cap. 22. p. 150.
• i 1.366

  Magd. cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 135.
• k 1.367

  Epiphan. vbi supra.
• l 1.368

  Vbi su∣pra cap. 22 & 23.
• m 1.369

  Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6.
• n 1.370

  Alt. Dā. p. 784.
• o 1.371

  Lib. 1. cap. 1.
• p 1.372

  In Eph. 1 Serm. 3.
• q 1.373

  Cent. Magd. 3. cap. 6. col. 133.
• r 1.374

  De Orig. Templ. lib. 2. cap. 28.
• s 1.375

  Paréus in 1 Cor. 11. 21. & Calb. ibid.
• t 1.376

  Cartwr. in 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 6
• o 1.377

  Lib. 5. cap. 22.
• * 1.378

  Quia Paulus has epulas sa∣cram C•…•…∣nam voca∣rit: Et quia scri∣ptum est apud Lu∣cam. Simi∣liter & ca∣licem post∣quam Coe∣navit. Quae etiā fuerunt ut arbitror causae, cur illi Aegyp∣tij de qui∣bus loqui∣tur Socra∣tes Lib. 5. priusquam ad miste∣ria acce∣derent laute coe∣narent, faith Ca∣saubone. Exerc. 16. 31.
• x 1.379

  Conc. Laod. can. 28.
• y 1.380

  N•…•…fratri & amico art. 17.
• z 1.381

  Partic. def. cap. 1. sect. 6.
• a 1.382

  Eccl. pol. lib. 5. s. 65.
• b 1.383

  Of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 17. p. 52.
• d 1.384

  Sarav. de divers. grad. Mi∣nist. Evan. cap. 24. sect. 25. Dr. Field of the Church lib 4. cap. 31. p. 396. Ant. de∣d•…•…m Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. num. 48.
• * 1.385

  c Apol. for kneel. part. 3. cap. 2. sect. 15.
• e 1.386

  4 pol. part 3. cap. 2.
• f 1.387

  Eccl pol. lib. 4. sect. 1.
• g 1.388

  Ames. fresh. sute p. 223.
• h 1.389

  Supra cap. 4. Sect. 4.
• i 1.390

  Ibid. Sect. 5.
• k 1.391

  Antith. Papat. & Christian. art. 11.
• l 1.392

  On Luk. 24. 50.
• m 1.393

  Synt. Theol. lib. 9. cap. 38.
• n 1.394

  Com. on Gal. 3. 24.
• o 1.395

  Exam. part. 2. de rit. in ad∣min. sa∣cram. p. 32
• p 1.396

  Aminad. in Bell. de cult. sanct. cap. 5.
• q 1.397

  Luc. 16. 16.
• r 1.398

  Ames fresh suite Pag. 266.
• s 1.399

  Synt. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 10. pag. 58. 59
• t 1.400

  Synop. pur. Theol. disp. 19. thes. 4.
• v 1.401

  Supra cap. 4. Sect. 9.
• x 1.402

  Of the lawf. of kneel. pag. 116.
• y 1.403

  Apol. Part. 3. cap. 2. Sect. 4.
• z 1.404

  Luc. 17. 7.
• a 1.405

  Homil. 27. in 1. Cor.
• b 1.406

  Mark. 7. 7.
• c 1.407

  Camer. praelect. Tom. 3. p. 37.
• d 1.408

  Col. 2. 20. 21. 22.
• e 1.409

  2. Tim. 3 16. 17.
• f 1.410

  I. Calv. in Matth. 21. 25. Sect. 8.
• g 1.411

  Hist. of the Church of Scotl. l. 1. p. 157. 158. 159.
• h 1.412

  Calv. in Ios. 22.
• i 1.413

  Ibid.
• k 1.414

  On. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 6.
• l 1.415

  1. Cor. 11. 22.
• m 1.416

  com. in illum lo∣cum.
• o 1.417

  Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. S. 69.
• p 1.418

  On praec. 4.
• q 1.419

  Epist. to the past. of the Church of Scotl.
• r 1.420

  1. Cor. 14. 40.
• s 1.421

  Of the law•…•…. of kneel. pag. 3.
• t 1.422

  Ibid. pag. 11.
• v 1.423

  Ibid. pag. 4.
• x 1.424

  Ibid. pag. 14.
• y 1.425

  Ibid. pag. 6. 7.
• z 1.426

  Fresh suite, pag. 153.
• a 1.427

  De effect. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 31.
• b 1.428

  In prae∣fat. elench. relig. Pa∣pistic.
• c 1.429

  De cas. consc. lib. 4. cap. 11.
• d 1.430

  Ames. Bell. enerv iom. 1. lib. 3. crp. 7.
• e 1.431

  Vbi su∣pra.
• f 1.432

  Com. in illum lo∣cum.
• g 1.433

  on Mat 19. sect. 9.
• b 1.434

  Psal. 95. 6.
• c 1.435

  Iren. lib. 1. cap. 7, 6. 7.
• d 1.436

  Eccles. Pol. lib. 5. S. 65.
• e 1.437

  De l∣mag. sanct. cap. 29.
• f 1.438

  Com. in illum lo∣cum.
• g 1.439

  Com. in Ezech. 9. 4
• h 1.440

  Ibid.
• * 1.441

  Gram. Hebr. part. 1. cap. 1.
• i 1.442

  Comm. i•…•… illum locum.
• k 1.443

  Animad. ad Bell. de imag. sanct cap. 29.
• l 1.444

  Serm. on that place.
• m 1.445

  Lib. 5. cap. 22.
• n 1.446

  In Epist. ad quenda qui a re∣form. re∣lig. ad Pa∣pism. defe∣cerat.
• o 1.447

  Proc. in Perth. as∣semb. part, 3. p. 30.
• * 1.448

  p Serm. on Esther. 9. 31.
• q 1.449

  De Pol. Mosis cap. 7.
• r 1.450

  Mos. and Aaron, lib. 3. cap. 11.
• s 1.451

  De Orig∣festor. cap. 2. ad. finem.
• t 1.452

  Vbi su∣pra pag. 31.
• w 1.453

  Annot. on Io. 10. Sect. 4.
• x 1.454

  Annot. in Jo. 1•…•…. 22.
• y 1.455

  Vbi su∣pra, p. 31.
• z 1.456

  Math. 23. 2.
• a 1.457

  Com. in illum locū.
• b 1.458

  Praelect. in Math. 19. 3. de Pharis.
• c 1.459

  Antiq. Iud. lib. 13 cap. 24.
• d 1.460

  Antiq. Iud. lib. 17 cap. 3.
• e 1.461

  Vbi su∣pra pag. 32.
• f 1.462

  Jo. 21. 25.
• g 1.463

  Jo. 10. 22. 23.
• h 1.464

  In Io. 10. 22.
• * 1.465

  Comm, ibid.
• k 1.466

  Annot. ibid.
• l 1.467

  Ani∣mad in Bell contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 17. nota. 6.
• m 1.468

  De orig. Temp lib. 4. cap. 2.
• n 1.469

  Calv. in act. 18. 21.
• p 1.470

  Serm. on. 1. Cor. 11. 16.
• q 1.471

  2. Pet. 3. 16.
• r 1.472

  Epist. 80. ad Eu∣slath. me∣dle.
• s 1.473

  Ad Pompeium contra Epist Ste∣phani.
• t 1.474

  De Bapt. contra Do∣natist. l. 4. cap. 5.
• u 1.475

  Ep. 31.
• x 1.476

  Decr. part. 1. dist. 8. c. 7.
• y 1.477

  Decr. part. 2. caus. 35. q. 9. c. 3.
• z 1.478

  I. Lips. lib. de una relig. ad∣vers. Dialogistam
• a 1.479

  Ioh. Calv. Epist. & resp. col. 484. 485.
• b 1.480

  Iren. lib. 1. c. 8. §. 3.
• c 1.481

  Annot. on 1 Cor. 11. 16.
• d 1.482

  Supra cap. 2.
• e 1.483

  Of the Church, lib. 4. cap. 31.
• f 1.484

  lib. 4. cap. 6. & cap. 34.
• g 1.485

  Supra cap. 6. sect. 3
• h 1.486

  Epist. to the Past. of the Church of Scotland.
• i 1.487

  Lib. 5. cap. 22.
• k 1.488

  Lib. de Baptismo.
• l 1.489

  Prael. tom. 1. de potest. Eccl. contr. 2.
• m 1.490

  Epist. to the Past. of the Church of Scotland.
• n 1.491

  Serm. on E•…•…her. 9. 31.
• o 1.492

  Of the Church, lib. 4. cap. 31.
• p 1.493

  De polit. Mos. cap. 7.
• q 1.494

  De Sa∣ram. lib. 2. cap. 29.
• r 1.495

  Bell. enerv. tō. 3 lib. 1. cap. 8.
• s 1.496

  Man•…•…∣duct. pag. 33.
• t 1.497

  Israele•…•… Tom. 1. pag. 367.
• w 1.498

  In apo∣loget.
• x 1.499

  Chem∣nit. exam. part. 2. p. 121.
• y 1.500

  Calv. instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. f. 32.
• z 1.501

  Joh. Calv. E∣pist. & resp. col. 478.
• a 1.502

  Manu∣duct, pag. 37.
• b 1.503

  Of the kawf. of 5 neel. pag. 2.
• c 1.504

  Cap. 1.
• d 1.505

  Supra part. 1. cap. 4. & 6
• e 1.506

  Fr. Iun. de polit. Mos. cap. 1
• f 1.507

  Apol. part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 25.
• g 1.508

  Inst. lib. 4. cap. 10. f. 17.
• h 1.509

  Letter to the Re∣gent of Scotland.
• i 1.510

  1. Reg. 13. and 15
• k 1.511

  2. Pa∣ral. 26.
• l 1.512

  Levit. 10.
• m 1.513

  Math. 17.
• n 1.514

  Act. 1. (, and 3. 2. Cor. 11. 1 Col. 2.
• p 1.515

  Deut. 4. 12.
• q 1.516

  Apoc. 2
• r 1.517

  Eccl. pol. lib. 2.
• s 1.518

  Prael•…•…ct. tom. 1. pag 369.
• t 1.519

  Epist. to the Past. of the Church of Scotland.
• w 1.520

  Course of confor∣formity, pag. 155.
• x 1.521

  Hebr. 3. 2.
• y 1.522

  Epist. 118.
• q 1.523

  Num. 9 3.
• r 1.524

  ib. vers. 5.
• s 1.525

  Com. in 1. Reg, 8. 65.
• t 1.526

  Supra Cap. 1. Sect. 6.
• w 1.527

  In 〈◊〉〈◊〉. praec Col. 363.
• x 1.528

  Ib. col. 502.
• y 1.529

  Annot. on Phil. 2. 10.
• z 1.530

  Epist ad protect. Angl.
• a 1.531

  Levit. 10. 1. ler. 7. 31.
• b 1.532

  Causa. 11. q. 3. v. 101.
• c 1.533

  In 4. praec. col. 791.
• d 1.534

  DeIud. controv. cap. 14. p. 76
• e 1.535

  Of the Church, lib. 4. c. 34. p. 400.
• f 1.536

  Gerard. loc. theol. tom. 6. p. 1280. Polan. Synt. lib. 10. cap. 62. col. 960.
• g 1.537

  Lib 6. Cap. 5. num. 3. & 17.
• h 1.538

  Ostens. error. Fr. Suarez. Cap. 3. Nmu. 23. Sect. 3.
• i 1.539

  De Rep. Eccl. Cap. 6. Num. 38.
• k 1.540

  Ostens. error Fr. Suarez. Cap. 3. n. 23.
• l 1.541

  Isa. 96.
• m 1.542

  Lib. 6. cap. 5. n. 174.
• n 1.543

  Ibid. num. 177.
• o 1.544

  2. Chrō 29. 5.
• p 1.545

  2. Chrō 24.
• q 1.546

  I. Wolph. in 2. Reg. 12.
• r 1.547

  Id. I. bid.
• s 1.548

  Exod. 33 13. & 34. 13. 14. Deut 7 5. Isa. 30. 22.
• t 1.549

  1. Kings 23. & 2•…•… Chron. 19
• w 1.550

  2 Chrō. 34 & 35.
• y 1.551

  Esther. 9. 26.
• z 1.552

  2. Chrō. 29. 2 & 34. 2. &c.
• * 1.553

  x 1. Mac∣cab. 4. 59.
• a 1.554

  Zanch. in 3. praec. 575. 576. 577. 578.
• b 1.555

  1. Mac. 4. 59.
• c 1.556

  Est. 9. 20. 21.
• * 1.557

  d Supra Cap. 6.
• e 1.558

  Promp•…•…. morall. in Domin. 1. quadrag. text. 10.
• f 1.559

  Serm. in Perth. as∣semb.
• g 1.560

  Eccl. 4. 10.
• h 1.561

  Onuphr de. vit. Hadr. 6.
• i 1.562

  De im∣per. aut. lib. 2. cap. 55.
• k 1.563

  praelect. tom. 1. pa. 370. 372. & tom. 2. pag. 41.
• l 1.564

  Calv. in Psal. 2.
• m 1.565

  Psal. 9. 6, & 22. 21.
• n 1.566

  1. Cor. 7. 23.
• * 1.567

  (a) Taylor. on Tit. 3. 1. pag. 543.
• p 1.568

  Pareus in illum locum.
• q 1.569

  Iren. lib 2. cap. 4. §. 3.
• r 1.570

  Lib. 1.
• s 1.571

  Pareus in Rom. 13. 4.
• s 1.572

  D. Forb. Iren. lib 2 cap 4s. 10.
• t 1.573

  Taylor on Tit. 1. 15. pag. 295.
• t 1.574

  Gal. 6. 16.
• w 1.575

  Ani∣mad. in Bell. cont. 1. lib. 3. cap. 10.
• x 1.576

  Psal. 9. 7.
• y 1.577

  Zanch. in Phil. 1. 10.
• z 1.578

  Id. ibid.
• a 1.579

  cap. 14. pag. 77.
• b 1.580

  Ibid. c. 26. p. 152.
• c 1.581

  Danaus pol. Chryst. lib. 6. Cap. 3.
• d 1.582

  Zanch. in 4. praec. col. 791. Polan. synt. lib. 10. cap. 65.
• e 1.583

  1. King 12. 28.
• f 1.584

  2. Chron. 13. 6.
• g 1.585

  2. Chron 11. 1.
• h 1.586

  Martir. in 1. Reg. 8. 31.
• i 1.587

  2. Chron. 11. 16.
• k 1.588

  Martir. in 1. Reg. 8. 32.
• l 1.589

  Id. ibid.
• m 1.590

  1. Kings 22. 33.
• n 1.591

  2. Kings 16. 10. 18.
• o 1.592

  Hospin. de orig Tēpl. lib. 1. Cap. 1. 10. Wolph. in 2. Reg. 12. 4.
• p 1.593

  Hospin. ibid. pag. 3.
• q 1.594

  1 Cor. 10. 31.
• r 1.595

  1 Cor. 14. 26.
• s 1.596

  Rom. 14. 5. 23.
• t 1.597

  de justit. actual. cap. 41.
• * 1.598

  (u) dejudice controv. cap. 26. pag. 153
• x 1.599

  de im∣per. author. lib. 2. c. 52.
• y 1.600

  •…•…nimad. in Bell. cōtr. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. & 18.
• z 1.601

  Cartwr. on Math. 22. sect. 3.
• a 1.602

  of the Church. lib. 5. cap. 53.
• b 1.603

  decr. part. 1. dist. 3. c. 4.
• c 1.604

  Aquin. 1•…•… 2•…•… q. 92. art. 2.
• d 1.605

  Dan. 6.
• e 1.606

  Bald de cas. consc lib. 4. cap. 11. c•…•…s. 1.
• f 1.607

  Ide. ibid.
• g 1.608

  Ibid, cas. 2
• h 1.609

  Pralect. tom. 2. pag. 50.
• i 1.610

  Til. synt. part. 2. disp. 32. th. 33.
• k 1.611

  Danaeus. pol. christ. lib. 6. cap. 1.
• l 1.612

  Hebr. 5. 1.
• m 1.613

  Fr. Iun. Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• n 1.614

  de Iudice controv. cap. 14 p. 70.
• o 1.615

  Gerard. locor. theol. tom. 6. pag. 840.
• p 1.616

  zanch. in Eph. 4. 12.
• q 1.617

  Hebr. 13. 17.
• r 1.618

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 cas. consc. lib. 6. c. 11. cas. 2.
• s 1.619

  lib. 1. cap. 8.
• t 1.620

  pol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 3.
• u 1.621

  In. 2. Reg. 12. 5.
• x 1.622

  ubi su∣pra.
• y 1.623

  Perk. on Revel. 3. 7.
• z 1.624

  2. Chrō. 26. 18.
• a 1.625

  Aquin. 3•…•…. q. 85. art. 2.
• b 1.626

  apud Parker •…•…f th•…•…osse; c. 5. sect. 6.
• c 1.627

  de Iudi∣ce controv. cap. 16. pag. 92.
• d 1.628

  praelect. tom. 1. pag. 25.
• e 1.629

  locor. theol. tom. 6. p. 963.
• f 1.630

  de Iudi∣ce controv. c. 16. pag. 86. 87.
• g 1.631

  Perkins on Rev. 1. 5.
• h 1.632

  Iren. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 3.
• i 1.633

  Ia. 4. 12.
• k 1.634

  Rom. 23. 5.
• l 1.635

  Tit. 3. 1•…•….
• m 1.636

  Inst. lib. 4. cap. 20. §. 9.
• n 1.637

  Cart•…•…. on Act. 8. sect. 7.
• o 1.638

  G. B•…•…∣chan. hist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Scot. lib. 5. p. 152.
• p 1.639

  Confess. cap. 5. art. 20.
• q 1.640

  epist. ad Regin Elisab. epistolar lib. 1. p. 112.
• r 1.641

  de effect. sacr. cap. 31.
• s 1.642

  Rat. lib. 1. tit de pie∣tur & cortin.
• t 1.643

  Fr. I•…•…. animad. in Bell. cont. 5. l. 1. c. 11.
• w 1.644

  lib. 4. dist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• x 1.645

  de rep. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 3. n. 47.
• y 1.646

  loc. th•…•…l. tom. 6. pag. 374. 375. 376.
• * 1.647

  Tertullian also maketh mention of them, Apolo∣get c. 39. and Clemens epist. 1. ad Iacob.
• z 1.648

  In 1. Tim. 5. 1.
• a 1.649

  on 1. Tim. 5. 17.
• b 1.650

  Zanch. in 4. prac. col. 766. 767.
• c 1.651

  Iun. anim in Bell. cont. 5. l. 1. c. 13.
• c 1.652

  Iun. ubi sup. cap. 7. nota. 17. Bald. de cas∣cons. lib. 4. cap. 5. caf. 5. Ger. loc. theol. tom. 6. pag. 835. 132.
• d 1.653

  In. 4. prac. col. 794.
• e 1.654

  anim. in Bell. cont. 5. lib. 1. c. 7. •…•…ta. 59.
• f 1.655

  Charity mistaken. sect. 5. pag. 145.
• g 1.656

  de cleric. lib. 1. cap. 7.
• h 1.657

  ubi su∣pra nota. 55.
• i 1.658

  loc. theol. tom. 6. pag. 151.
• k 1.659

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Act. 14. 23.
• l 1.660

  ubi supra 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 63. 64.
• m 1.661

  Decr. part. 1. dist. 62.
• n 1.662

  Thuan. hist. lib. 83. pag. 85.
• o 1.663

  hist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cent. 4. lib. 3. c. 38.
• p 1.664

  In Act. 14. 23.
• q 1.665

  ubi sa∣pra pag. 178.
• r 1.666

  ubi supra nota. 16.
• * 1.667

  (〈◊〉〈◊〉) Iun. ubi supra nota. 24.
• v 1.668

  In 1: Tim. 4. 14.
• x 1.669

  ubi su∣pra cap. 3.
• y 1.670

  de ga∣b•…•…n. eccl.
• z 1.671

  Rom. 10. 15.
• a 1.672

  de rep. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. 2. cap. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. •…•…4. & cap. 4 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13. 19. & lib. 3. cap. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 48.
• b 1.673

  ubi supra cap. 7. nota 59.
• c 1.674

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. part. 2. pag. 221.
• d 1.675

  2. Tim. 1. 6.
• e 1.676

  1. Tim. 4. 14.
• f 1.677

  ubi su∣pra
• g 1.678

  Deut 34.
• h 1.679

  supra cap. 5.
• i 1.680

  supra cap. 2.
• k 1.681

  animad. in Bell. cont. 5. l. 1. cap. 3.
• l 1.682

  Ger. loc. theol. tom. 6. pag 135. Bald. de cas. consc. lib. 4. c. 6. cas. 4.
• l 1.683

  Math. 18. 1•…•….
• m 1.684

  1. Cor. 3. 21. 22.
• n 1.685

  on Rom. 10. 15.
• o 1.686

  In Rō. 10. 15:
• p 1.687

  ubi su∣pra.
• q 1.688

  Syn. pur. Theol. disp. 42. thes. 32. 37.
• r 1.689

  Act. 20. 17
• s 1.690

  Phil. 1. 1.
• t 1.691

  2 Thess. 5. 12.
• u 1.692

  Act. 20. 28.
• x 1.693

  Com. in Tit. 1.
• y 1.694

  Gerard loc. Theol. tom. 6. pag. 134 364.
• z 1.695

  Iun. ubi sup. not. 5. 12. Syn pur. Theol. disp. 42. thes. 37.
• a 1.696

  Serm. on Apoc. 1. 20.
• b 1.697

  Iren. lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 161.
• c 1.698

  Epist. ad Evagr.
• d 1.699

  Iun ubi sup. nota. 22.
• e 1.700

  ibid. nota. 10.
• f 1.701

  Iren. lib. 2. c. 11. pag. 165.
• g 1.702

  dist. 23. cap. 8.
• h 1.703

  ubi sup. pag. 175. & seq.
• i 1.704

  apud Forbes. ubi sup. p. 177.
• k 1.705

  Ibid. p. 194. 195. 196.
• l 1.706

  Disp. 49. thes. 20.
• m 1.707

  Ib. Thes. 21.
• n 1.708

  Thes. 22.
• o 1.709

  Thes. 23.
• p 1.710

  Thes. 24.
• q 1.711

  M. Ant. de Dom de rep. eccl. lib 6. cap. 5. num. 89.
• r 1.712

  ani•…•… in •…•…ell. cont. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. not. 4. 18.
• s 1.713

  de Rep. Eccl lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 16.
• t 1.714

  animad. in Bell. cent. 4. lib. 1. cap. 19. no∣ta 12.
• u 1.715

  de rep. Eccl. leb. 7. cap. 3. n. 43
• x 1.716

  Iun. cont, 1. lib. 3. cap 4. nota 17.
• y 1.717

  M. Ant. de Dom. de rep. Eccl. lib. 7. c. 3. n. 32.
• z 1.718

  Dave∣nāt de jud. controv. cap. 25. Iun. ubi su∣pra.
• a 1.719

  of the Church lib. 5. cap. 53.
• b 1.720

  Mal. 2. 7.
• c 1.721

  2 Chron. 19. 8. 10.
• d 1.722

  de Iud. controv. cap. 16. pag. 92:
• e 1.723

  ibid. cap. 14. p. 75,
• f 1.724

  ani∣mad. in Bell. cont. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. nota 15
• * 1.725

  (g) de rep. Eccl. lib 6. cap. 5. num. 8. 30.
• h 1.726

  de Rep. num, 33.
• i 1.727

  Decr. part, 2. cau∣sa 2. q. 7. c. 41.
• k 1.728

  Rev. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• l 1.729

  on 1. Cor. 5. 4.
• m 1.730

  de cas. consc. lib. 4. cap. 10. cas. 9.
• n 1.731

  Cent. 5. cap. 4. col. 383.
• o 1.732

  loc. theol. tom. 6. p. 136. 137.
• p 1.733

  1. Cor. 5. 6. 7. •…•…3.
• q 1.734

  Math. 18. 17. 18.
• r 1.735

  In Math. 18. 17.
• s 1.736

  on Iude vers. 3.
• t 1.737

  1. Cor. 5. 4. 5.
• u 1.738

  de tripl. episc. gen. pag. 42. 43.
• x 1.739

  vers. 3.
• y 1.740

  In 1. Cor. 5. 4.
• z 1.741

  animad. in Bell. cont. 4. lib. 2. cap. 16. nota 6.
• a 1.742

  1. Cor. 4. 21.
• b 1.743

  I•…•…. 5.
• c 1.744

  Iun ubi supra nota. 7.
• d 1.745

  Id. cont. 3. lib. 4. c. 16. nota. 37.
• e 1.746

  1. Cor. 5. •…•…. 6. 9.
• f 1.747

  ubi su∣pra.
• g 1.748

  2. Cor. 2. 9.
• h 1.749

  Ib. vers. 6.
• i 1.750

  vers. 7.
• k 1.751

  vers. 10
• l 1.752

  supra Digr. 1.
• m 1.753

  apud. Zanch. in 4, praec. col. 745.
• n 1.754

  in 4. praec. col. 741.
• o 1.755

  cont. 3. lib. 1 cap. 6. nota 19.
• p 1.756

  praelect. tom. 1. pag. 23.
• q 1.757

  Calv. & Cartwr. on Math. 18. •…•…7. Par. in 1 Cor. 5
• r 1.758

  loc. Theol. tom. 6 pag. 137.
• s 1.759

  Trelcat Inst Theol. lib. 1. pag. 291.
• t 1.760

  in 1 Cor. 5. 4.
• u 1.761

  2 Cor. 2. 6.
• x 1.762

  com. in illum locum
• y 1.763

  de di∣vers minist. grad cap. 8. p. 85.
• * 1.764

  (z) on 2 Cor. 2. 6.
• a 1.765

  ubi su∣pra.
• b 1.766

  exam. part 4 de indulg p. 53.
• * 1.767

  (c) com in hunc locum.
• * 1.768

  (d) annot. ibid.
• * 1.769

  (e) Par. in 1 Cor. 5. 4.
• f 1.770

  Trelcat. Inst. theol. lib. 2. pag. 287. 288. Pareus in 1. Cor. 5. de excom.
• g 1.771

  In. 4. praec. col. 756.
• h 1.772

  lib. epistolar. col. 180.
• i 1.773

  Iren. lib. 2. cap. 12.
• k 1.774

  Zanch. in 4. praec. col. 756. D. Fulke on 1. Cor. 5. 4.
• l 1.775

  de tripl. Episc. gencr. pag. 43.
• m 1.776

  de di∣vers. minist. grad. p. 85. 86.
• n 1.777

  Zanch. ubi supra. Synop. pur. theol. disp. 48. thes. 9.
• o 1.778

  loc. theol. tom. 6. pag. 463.
• p 1.779

  ubi su∣pra.
• q 1.780

  lib. 3. contra epist. Parmen.
• r 1.781

  Ant. de Dom. de rep eccl. lib. 5. cap. 12. n. 67.
• s 1.782

  Ib. cap. 9. num. 8.
• t 1.783

  In 2. Cor. hom. 18.
• u 1.784

  apolo∣get. cap. 39. See Rhena∣nus his an∣notation upon that place, and M. Ant. de Dom. de rep. eccl. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. cap. 12. n. 67.
• x 1.785

  lib. 3. epist. 14. 15. 16. & lib. 5. epist. 12.
• y 1.786

  epist. ad Evagr.
• z 1.787

  In Math. 16.
• a 1.788

  Decr. part. 2. causa. 11. q. 3. c. 108. 110.
• b 1.789

  Iren. lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 195.
• c 1.790

  Ib. pag. 191.
• d 1.791

  p. 195. num. 25.
• e 1.792

  lib. 6. cap. 9.
• f 1.793

  Calv. lib. Episto∣lar. col. 169 Gratian. caus. 11. q. 1. c. 20.
• g 1.794

  contr. 4. lib. 1. e. 20. nota 8.
• h 1.795

  Fenner. Theol. lib. 7 c. 7. p. 153.
• i 1.796

  Hem∣ming en∣chir. class. 3. cap. 11. p. 39•…•…, 91
• k 1.797

  Can. 11.
• l 1.798

  Hist. Ec∣cl. cent. 4 l. 2. c. 48. p. 242.
• m 1.799

  loc. Theol. tom. 6. p. 838.
• n 1.800

  de cas. consc. l 4. cap. 5. cas. 12.
• o 1.801

  Eccle∣siast. lib. 3. cap. 3.
• p 1.802

  apud Forb. Iren lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 177.
• q 1.803

  Defens. lib. 1. p. 8.
• r 1.804

  Bonifae. 8. de regul. Iuris reg. 79.
• s 1.805

  of the Church. lib. 5. cap. 53. p. 682.
• t 1.806

  Novell. 83. cap. 1.
• u 1.807

  supra cap. 6. s. 1.
• x 1.808

  Eccl. pol. lib. 4. s. 1.
• y 1.809

  Zanch. lib. 1. de lege Dei. thes. 8. col. 190.
• z 1.810

  A. Pol. synt. lib. 6. cap. 9. col. 49. D. Pau. explic. ca∣tech. part. 3. q. 92. pag. 503.
• a 1.811

  Fr. Iun. de pol. Mos.
• b 1.812

  Idi bid.
• c 1.813

  Instit. lib. 1. tit. 2.
• d 1.814

  de rep. Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 2. n. 35.
• e 1.815

  Schol. in Instit. lib. 1. tit. 2.
• f 1.816

  1^a. 2^a. q. 91. art. 2.
• g 1.817

  ubi su∣pra.
• h 1.818

  anti∣quit. Rom. lib. 8. cap. 1.
• i 1.819

  ubi su∣pra. q. 95. art. 4.
• k 1.820

  Schol. in instit. lib. 1. tit. 2.
• l 1.821

  Rosin. ubi supra. Synops pur. theol disp. 18. thes. 16. Til. synt. part. 1. disp. 35. thes. 16. Iun. de pol. Mos. cap. 1.
• m 1.822

  Aquin. ubi supra q. 94. art. 2.
• n 1.823

  Zanch. ubi supra. col. 1889 189. Iun. ubi supra. Sharp. curse theol. de lege Dei p. 299.
• o 1.824

  de sub∣til. exerc. 5. dist. 8.
• p 1.825

  Rom. 2. 15.
• q 1.826

  Rom. 1. 19.
• r 1.827

  lib. 3. offic.
• s 1.828

  Luc. 6. 31.
• t 1.829

  Cor. 11. 14.
• u 1.830

  Par. com. in il∣lum locum.
• x 1.831

  Iun. de pol. Mos. cap. 1. Par. com. in Rom. 1. 19.
• y 1.832

  1a. 2a. 91. art. 4.
• z 1.833

  Iun. ubi supra.
• a 1.834

  Iun. ibid.
• b 1.835

  de sub∣til. exerc. 77. dist 2.
• c 1.836

  Iun ubi supra.
• d 1.837

  1. Cor. 2. 14.
• e 1.838

  ubi su∣pra.
• f 1.839

  disp. 18. thes. 26.
• g 1.840

  1a. 2•…•…. q. 94. art. 4.
• h 1.841

  ubi su∣pra thes. 9.
• i 1.842

  in Luc. 6. 31.
• k 1.843

  lib. 2. confess c. 4.
• l 1.844

  Rom. 1. 19.
• m 1.845

  com in illum locum.
• n 1.846

  lib. 10. confess. cap. 6.
• o 1.847

  1 Cor. 11. 13. 14.
• p 1.848

  com. in illum locum.
• q 1.849

  de subtil. ex•…•…rc 2.
• r 1.850

  lib 2. de nat. Deor.
• s 1.851

  Iun ubi supra.