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 fourth part Against the Indifferency of the Ceremonies. (Book 4)

CHAP. 1.

Of our Opposites pleading for the Indifferency of the Ceremonies.

IF it seeme to any, that it is a strange Methode to speake now of Indifferency, in the end of this Dis∣pute, which ought rather to have been handled in the beginning of it: they may consider, that the Me∣thode is not ours, but our Opposites. For they have been fleeing upon Icarus wings, and soaring so high that their wings could not but melt from them: so have they from necessity fallen downe to expediency; from it to law∣fulnesse; and from thence to indifferency.

I knew certaine of them, who after reasoning about the Ceremo∣nies, with some of our side, required in the end no more, but that they would onely aknowledge the indifferency of the things in them∣selves. And so beeing wo'ed & solicitously importuned by our for∣mer Arguments against the Ceremonies, they take them to the weaving of Penelopes web, thereby to suspend us, and to gaine time against us: this indifferency I meane, which they shall never make out, and which themselves otherwhiles unweave againe. Alwayes, so long as they thinke to get any place for higher notions about the Ceremonies, they speake not so meanly of them, as of things in∣different. But when all their forces of Arguments, and answers are spent in vaine: then are our eares filled with uncouth outcries and declamations, which tend to make themselves appeare blamelesse for receiving, and us blameworthy for refusing matters of Rite and indifferency.

Vpon this string they harpe over and over again, in Bookes, in

Sermons, in private discourses. M G. Powell, in his booke De Adia∣phoris, and Tilen, in the 12 and 17 Chapters of his Paraenefis, condemne those who make ought adoe about the controverted English Cere∣monies, for so much as they are things indifferent. Paybody in his Apology for kneeling at the Communion, standeth much upon the indifferency of this gesture, both in every worship of God, and in that Sacrament namely. The Arch Bishop of Sainctandrewes in his Sermon at Perth Assembly, because he could not prove this indif∣ferency, he choosed to suppone it. Of the indifferency of these Articles (saith he) I thinke there is litle or no question amongst us. Whether he spake this of Ignorance or of Policy, I leave it to bee guessed at. Howso∣ever, if we should thus compose our controversy about the Ceremo∣nies; embrace them and practise them, so beeing that they be onely called things indifferent: this were to cure our Church, as L. Sulla cured his Country, durioribus remediis, quam pericula erant saith, a 1.1 Sene∣ca. Wherefore we will debate this question of Indifferency also.

CHAP. II.

Of the nature of things Indifferent.

TO say nothing here of the Homonomy of the word Indifferēt, [Sect. I] but to take it in that signification, which concerneth our pre∣sent purpose; It signifieth such a mean betwixt good and evill, in humane actions, as is alike distant from both these extreams, and yet susceptive of either of them. Indifferens saith Calepine, is that quod sua natura neque bonum est neque malum. b 1.2 Aquinas calleth that an indifferent action, which is neither good nor evill. Rem indifferentem voco quae neque bona neque mala in se est, saith c 1.3 a later Writer.

But d 1.4 D. Forbesse liketh to speake in another language. He will have that which is indifferent, to be opponed to that which is neces∣sary: and a thing indifferent he taketh to be such a thing, as is nei∣ther necessarily to be done, nor yet necessarily to be omitted, in re∣spect of any necessity of the commandement of God: or such a thing as is neither remunerable with eternall life, & commendeth a man unto the reward of God, nor yet is punishable with eternall death, and polluteth a man with guiltinesse. Now because he knew, that Divines define a thing indifferent to be that which is neither good nor evill. e 1.5 He therefore distinguisheth a twofold goodnesse of an individuall action. The one he calleth bonitas generalis, concomitans, & sine qua non. By which goodnesse is meant the doing of an action

in Faith, and the doing of it for the right end, as hee expoundeth himselfe. This goodnesse, hee saith, is necessary to every humane action, and hindreth not an action to be indifferent. The other he calleth bonitas specialis, causans, & propter quam. This goodnesse hee calleth legall, and saith, that it maketh an action necessary; In which respect indifferent actions are not good, but those onely which God in his Law hath commanded, and which are remunerable with eter∣nall life.

But that we may have the vanity of these quiddities discovered to [Sect. II] us, let us onely consider how falsly he supposeth, that there are some things which we doe, neither laudably nor culpably, and for which we shall neither bee rewarded (it is his owne phrase which I use) nor yet punished by God. I thought we had learned from Scri∣pture, that we must all compeare before the judgment seat of Christ, to give an account of every word which we speake, and of every deed which we doe in the flesh, and accordingly to receive either a reward or a punishment. What? could the D. say that those good actions which he calleth indifferent, and of which he saith, that they are done in Faith, and for the right end are not laudable nor re∣munerable? Nay, but he f 1.6 saith, that the generall goodnesse which accompanieth the action, is remunerable, because it is necessary; but the action it selfe is not necessary, because that generall good∣nesse may be had as well in the omission of it, or in the doing of the contrary, as in the doing of it. Whereupon he would have it to follow, that the action it selfe is not remunerable.

Ans. 1. The D. had done well to have remembred, that he is spea∣king onely of individuall actions, and that actus individuatur à cir∣cumstantiis & adjecto modo: so that whiles all that he saith, turneth to this, that one action considered in it selfe, without the circumstan∣ces and concomitant goodnesse, is not remunerable, he maketh not out his point: for he saith no more in effect, but that actus quo ad spe∣ciem, is not remunerable, which none of us denieth.

2. An individuall good action of that kind, which the D. calleth necessary, is no otherwise remunerable and laudable, then an indi∣viduall good action of that kinde which he calleth indifferent, for example; when I goe to heare Gods Word upon the Lords-day; let this action of mine be considered quo ad individuum: is it any o∣therwise remunerable, then in respect of the goodnesse which accom∣panieth it? whence it is, that the hearing of Hypocrites, not beeing accompanied with such goodnesse, is not remunerable: yet the hea∣ring of the Word is an action necessary, because commanded. Now may we know wherein standeth the difference betwixt the remune∣rable good of this action of hearing, and the remunerable good of

one of those actions which the D. calleth indifferent; for example, a womans action of marrying?

I perceave what the D. would answer. For he g 1.7 saith; if a wo∣man marry in the Lord, this action is good respectu adjecti modi, quam∣vis in se sit media & libera, etiam quo ad individuum. Implying, that if on the other part an individuall action be necessary, (as for exam∣ple the action of hearing the Word,) then it is in it selfe good, etiam quo ad individuum.

But I reply, what meanes he by these words, in se? meanes he the individuall nature of the action? Nay; then the sence shall bee no other then this, quo ad individuum, etiam quo ad individuum, And be∣sides the D. can not define to us, any other nature in a individuall thing, then the nature of the species or kinde.

* 1.8 Is it not holden individuum non posse definiri, nisi definitione speciei? Sure, a perfect definition expressing the nature of the thing defined, can not be given to any individuall thing, other then the definition of the species. Needs therefore must the D. by in se, understand the specificall nature: and indeed when Divines speake of things indif∣ferent in se, per se, or, sua natura; they meane onely things indiffe∣rent quo ad speciem. Yet thus also the D. hath said none sence. For so should we take his words, quamvis quo ad speciem sit media & libera, etiam quo ad individuum.

But to let his manner of speaking passe, we will consider what [Sect. III] he would or could have said. There is no difference which can here be imagined, except this: that the individuall action of hearing the Word, (when one heareth aright) is good and remunerable, in a double respect, namely, because it is both good in it self•…•…, or quo ad speciem, and likewise respectu adjecti modi: whereas a womans action of marrying (when she marrieth in the Lord) is onely good and re∣munerable in the last respect, namely, respectu modi, for, in se, or, quo ad speciem; it hath no remunerable goodnesse in it.

Ans. What doe we heare of any difference betwixt these actions quo ad speciem? That which we crave, is, that a difference may be shewed betwixt the remunerable goodnesse of the one, and of the other, both beeing considered quo ad individuum.

That whereby the D. either was deceived, or would deceive, ap∣peareth to be this; that he taketh every thing which agreeth to a in∣dividuall thing, to agree to it quo ad individuum: as if to speake of Peter quatenus est homo; and to speake of him quatenus est individuum sig∣natum, or, res singularis sub specie hominis, were all one thing. Even so, to say of my individuall action of hearing the Word, that it is ne∣cessary because of the commandement of God, (and in that respect remunerable;) is not to speake of it quo ad individuum; but as the spe∣cificall nature of that action of hearing the Word,) which God

hath commanded,) is found in it. For if we speake of this indivi∣duall action, quo ad individuum, we can not consider it otherwise then respectu adjecti modi: because in morall actions, modus adjectus is princi∣pium individuationis, and nothing else, doth individualize a morall action.

Thus shall my Position stand good, namely, that those individuall [Sect. IV] actions which the D. calleth necessary, because their species is com∣manded of God, and those individuall actions which he calleth indif∣ferent, because their species is not commanded, both being conside∣red quo ad inviduum; the former hath no other remunerable good in them, then the latter; and the whole renumerable good which is in either of them, standeth only in adjecto modo. Which beeing so, it is all one, when we speake of any individuall morall action quo ad individuum, whether we say that it is good, or that it is remunerable and laudable, both are one. For as is well said by h 1.9 Aquinas, necessa∣rium est omnem actum hominis, ut bonum vel malum, culpabilis vel laudabilis rationem habere. And againe. Nihil enim est aliud laudari vel culpari, quam imputari alicui malitiam vel bonitatem sui actus. Wherefore that distinction of a twofold goodnesse, causans and concomitans, which the D. hath given us, hath no use in this question, because every ac∣tion is laudable and remunerable, which is morally good, whether it be necessary or not. Now morall goodnesse i 1.10 saith Scaliger, est per∣fectio actus cum recta ratione. Humane morall actions are called good or evill, in ordine ad rationem, quae est proprium principium humanorum actuum, saith k 1.11 Aquinas, thereupon inferring, that illi mores dieuntur boni, qui rationi congruunt: mali autem, qui à ratione discordant. D. Forbesse doth therefore pervert the question, whiles he l 1.12 saith, in hac cum fra∣tribus quaestione, hoc bonum est quod necessarium. Nay, those actions we call morally good, which are agreeable to right reason, whether they be necessary, or not. Since then, those actions are laudable and re∣munerable, which are morally good; and those are morally good which are agreeable to right reason: it followeth, that forasmuch as those actions which the D. calleth indifferent, are agreeable to right reason, they are therefore not only morally good, but also lauda∣ble and remunerable, & so not indifferent. Yea those actions which he calleth necessary, beeing considered quo ad individuum, are no other∣wise laudable and remunerable, then those which he calleth indiffe∣rent, being considered in like manner quo ad individuum, as hath been shewed.

And besides all this, we have somewhat more to say, of the D^••. [Sect. V] speculation about the nature of things indifferent.

For, 1. the D. maketh that which is indifferent, to be opponed to that which is necessary, and yet he maketh both those to be mo∣rally

good. Now albeit in naturall things, one good is opponed to another good, as that which is hot, to that which is colde, yet, m 1.13 bonum bono non contrariatur in moralibus. The reason of the diffe∣rence is, because Bonitas Physica or relativa est congruentia naturae quaedam saith n 1.14 Scaliger: and because two natures may be contrary one to another, therefore the good which is congruous to the one, may be contrary to the good which is congruous to the other, bu•…•… bonum vir∣tutis saith o 1.15 Aquinas, non accipitur nisi per convenientiam ad aliquid unum, scilicet rationem: so that it is impossible for one morall good to be opponed to another.

2. Since Divines take a thing indifferent, to be medium inter bo∣num & malum morale: and since (as the very notation of the word sheweth,) it is such a meane, as commeth not nearer to the one ex∣treme, then to the other, but is alike distant from both: how comes it, that the D. so farre departeth both from the tenet of Divines, and from the notation of the word, as to call some such actions indiffe∣rent, as have a morall remunerable goodnesse, and yet not evill in them? or where learned he such a Dialect, as giveth to some good things, the name of the things indifferent?

3. Why doth he also waver from himself? for p 1.16 he citeth out of the Helvetike Confession Hierome his definition of a thing indif∣ferent, and approveth it. Indifferens (saith he,) illud est, quod nec bonum nec malum est, ut sive feceris sive non feceris, nec justitiam habeas nec inju∣stitiam. Behold the goonesse which is excluded from the nature of a thing indifferent, is not only necessity, but righteousnesse also; yet hath the D. excluded only the good of necessity from things indiffe∣rent, making the other good of righteousnesse to stand with them. For things which are done in faith and done for the right end (such as he acknowledgeth these things to be, which he calleth indifferent,) have righteousnesse in them, as all men know.

CHAP. III.

Whether there be any thing indifferent In actu exercito.

FOr our better light in this question, I will premit these consi∣rations, [Sect. I] 1. When we measure the goodnesse or the bad∣nesse of a human action, we must not only measure it by the object, and the end, but by all the circumstances which accompany it. q 1.17 Fed. Morellus upon those words of Seneca, Refert quid, cui, quan∣do, quare, ubi, &c. saith, that without those circumstances of things,

persons, times, places, facti ratio non constat. Circumstances some∣times constituunt rerum earum quae aguntur speciem, r 1.18 say our Divines, meaning that circumstances doe make an action good or bad. Humani actus say the Schoolmen, non solum ex objectis, verum ex circumstantiis boni vel mali esse dicuntur. It is not every mans part, (saith t 1.19 one of our * 1.20 Opposites) to judge de circumstantia, quae reddit actionem vel bonam vel malam. Some circumstances saith u 1.21 another of them, are intrinsecall and essentiall to actions, and specially making up their nature. The principall circumstances which here we speake of, are comprehended in this versicle.

Quis, Quid, Vbi, Quibus auxiliis, Cur, Quomodo, Quando.

The first circumstance which maketh an action good or bad, is, Quis, which designeth the person: If a Magistrate put to death a malefa∣ctor, the action is good, but if a privat person put him to death, it is evill.

The second is, Quid, which noteth the quality or condition of the object: If a man take sua, the action is good; If aliena, it is evill.

The third is, Vbi: If men banquet in their owne houses, the action is good: If in the Church, it is evill.

The fourth is, Quibus auxiliis: If men seek health by lawfull meanes, the action is good; If by the Divill, or his instruments, it is evill.

The fifth is, Cur: If I rebuke my brother for his fault, out of my love to him, and desire to reclaine him, the action is good: If out of hatred and spl•…•…ne, the action is evill.

The sixt is, Quomodo: for he who doth the worke of the Lord care∣fully doth well, but he who doth it negligently, doth evill.

The seaventh is, Quando: To doe servile worke upon the sixe dayes of labour, is good: but to doe it upon the Lords Sabbath, is evill.

2. There is another consideration which followeth upon the for∣mer, [Sect. II] and it is this. The goodnesse or badnesse of a humane action, may be considered two wayes, viz. either in actu signato, and, quo ad speciem; or in actu exercito, and quo ad individuum. For an action is said to be specificated by its object, and individuated by its circumstan∣ces. So that when an action is good or evill in respect of the object of it, then it is called good or evill quo ad speciem. When it is good or evill in respect of the circumstances of it, then it is said to be good or evill quo ad individuum.

3 Humane actions whether considered quo ad speciem, or quo ad indivi∣duum, are either such as proceed from the deliberation of reason, or

from bare imagination onely. To this latter kinde wee referre such actions, as are done through incogitancy, whiles the mind is taken up with other thoughts; for example, to clawe the head, to handle the beard, to move the foot, &c. which sort of things proceed only from a certaine stirring or fleeting of the imagination.

4. Let it be remembred, that those things we call morally good, which agree to right reason: those morally evill, which disagree from right reason: and those indifferent, which include nothing belonging to the order of reason, and so are neither consonant unto nor disso∣nant from the same.

5. When we speake of the indifferency of an individuall action, it may be conceived two wayes, either absolute & sine respectu ad aliud, or, comparate & cum respectu ad aliud. In the free will offrings, if so be a man offered according as God had blessed & prospered his estaite, it was indifferent to offer either a bullocke, or a sheep, or a goate; but if he choosed to offer any of them, his action of offering could not be indifferent, but either good or evill. When we speake of the indifferency of an action comparate, the sence is only this, that it is neither better not worse then an other action, and that there is no reason to make us choose to doe it, more then another thing. But when we speake of the indifferency of an action, considered abso∣lutely and by it self, the simple meaning is whether it be either good or evill, and whether the doing of the same must needs be either sinne or evill doing.

6. Every thing which is indifferent in the nature of it, is not by & by indifferent in the use of it. But the use of a thing indifferent ought evermore to be either choosed or refused, followed or forsaken, ac∣cording to these three rules, delivered to us in Gods Word. 1. The rule of Pietie. 2. The rule of Charity. 3. The rule of Purity.

The first of these rules we finde 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drinke, or whatsoever ye doe, doe all to the glory of God. And Rom. 14. 7. 8. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Where the Apostle (as y 1.22 Calvine noteth) reasoneth from the whole to the part. Our whole life, and by consequence all the particular actions of it ought to be referred to Gods glory, and or∣dered according to his will. Againe, Col. 3. 17. And whatsoever ye doe in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Iesus. In the expounding of which words. D^r. Davenant saith well, that Etiam illae actiones quae sunt sua natura adiaphorae, debent tamen a Christianis fieri in nomine Christi, hoc est, juxta voluntatem Christi, & ad gloriam Christi.

The seconde rule is the rule of Charity: which teacheth us, not to use any thing indifferent, when scandall riseth out of it. Rom. 14. 21. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drinke wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weake; yea, though it doe not

weaken, if it be not expedient for edifying our brother, be it never so lawfull or indifferent in it's owne nature, the Law of Charity bin∣deth us to abstaine from it. Rom. 14. 19. Let us therefore followe after the things which make for peace, and the things wherewith one may edify ano∣ther, Rom. 15. 2. Let every one of us please his nighbour for his good to edifi∣cation, 1. Cor. 10. 23. All things are lawfull for me, but all things are not ex∣pedient: All things are lawfull for me, but all things edify not. Where the Apostle teacheth z 1.23 that, In cibo, &c. In meat, drinke, and the whole kind of things indifferent, it is not enough to looke whether they be lawfull: but that further, we are to looke, whether to doe or omit the same, be expe∣dient and may edify. The Bishop of Winchester preaching upon Ioh. 16. 7. I tell you the trueth, it is expedient for you that I goe away, &c. marketh, that Christ would not goe away, without acquanting his Disci∣ples with the reason of it: and that reason was, because it was for their good. Whereupon he inferreth, 1. That we should avoide a 1.24 Hophni's non vult enim, and make our vult our enim: that is, that we should not give our will for a reason, but a reason for our will. 2. That we should not with the b 1.25 Corinthians stand upon licet, it is lawfull; but frame our rule by expedit, it is expedient. 3. That our rule should not be c 1.26 Ca∣japhas expedit nobis, but Christs expedit vobis: for you it is good; you, the dis∣ciples: and make that, the rule of our going out, and our comming in. The heathens themselves co•…•…d say, that we are borne, partly for God, partly for our Country, partly for our friends, &c. How much more ought Christians to understand, that we are not borne for our selves, but for Christ and his Church? And as in the whole course of our life, so especially in the policy of the Church, we may doe nothing (be it never so indifferent in it self) which is not profitable for edifi∣cation, 1. Cor. 13. 26. Let all things be done to edifying. From which precept Pareus inferreth, that nothing ought to be done in the Church, which doth not manifestly make for the utility of all and every one: and that therefore not only unknowen toungs, but colde Ceremo∣nies, and idle gestures should be exploded out of the Church.

The third Rule is the rule of Purity, which respecteth our peace and plerophorie of conscience, without which any thing is uncleane to us, though it be cleane & lawfull in it's owne nature. Rom. 14. 14. To him that esteemeth any thing to be uncleane, to him it is uncleane. There∣fore d 1.27 Si quis aliquam in cibo immunditiem imaginetur, eo libere uti non po∣test. Whatsoever indifferent thing a man judgeth in his conscience to be unlawfull, he may not lawfully doe it. Rom. 14. 5. Let every man be fully perswaded in his owne minde. And vers. 23. He that doubteth is dam∣ned, if he eate, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sinne. Nefas est omnino faith e 1.28 Calvine, quippiam aggredi quod putes illi (do∣mino) displicere, imo quod non persuasus sis illi placere. Now, if a thing indifferent be used according to these three rules, the use of it is not

only lawfull, but expedient also. But if it be not used according to these rules, the use of it is altogither unlawfull.

And since a thing indifferent in the nature of it, can never be law∣fully [Sect. III] used, except according to these rules, hence it followeth, that the use of a thing indifferent is never lawfull to us, when we have no other warrant for using the same, beside our owne will and arbi∣trement.

f 1.29 D. Forbesse speaketh unadvisedly, whiles he saith, Evenit nonnun∣quam, &c. It falleth out sometimes, that that which was expedient for thee to doe yesterday, and to omit this day, thou may notwithstanding afterward either doe it or not doe it, according to thy arbitriment. As if forsooth, our using of things indifferent, should not evermore be determined by the rule of expediency, which Gods Word giveth us, but sometimes by our owne will. g 1.30 Dr. Davenant could not dreame that any ex∣cept the ignorant common people, could bee of this opinion, which D. Forbesse holdeth. Fallitur vulgus saith he, dum judicat licere sibi, u•…•… i•…•…victu, vestitu, sermone, aut quacunquere adiaphora pro arbitrio suo: nam haec omnia ad regulam adhibenda sunt.

Moreover, as we may not use any indifferent thing, at our owne pleasure; so neither may the Church at her will and pleasure, com∣mand the us•…•… of it: but as our practice, so the Churches injunction, must be determined and squared according to the former rules. And if any man think, that in the use of things indifferent, he may be ledde and ruled by the Churches determination, without examining any further; let him understand, that the Churches determination, is but a subordinate rule, or a rule ruled by higher rules.

D. Forbesse perceiving how these rules of Scripture may subvert his cause, desireth to subject them to the Churches determination, and to make it our highest rule. Iam autem h 1.31 saith he, in talium re∣rum usu, id edificat, quod pacificum, illud est pacificum quod est ordinatum; is autem decens ordo est in Ecclesia ab ipso Christo constitutus, ut in talibus non suo quisque se gerat arbitratu, sed audiatur Ecclesia, & exhibeatur praepositis obedientia.

He hath beene speaking of the rules which Gods Word giveth us, concerning the use of things indifferent, and all of them he com∣prehendeth under this rule, that we should heare the Church, & obey them who are set over us, as if Gods rules were subordinate to mens rules, & not theirs to his. We say not that every man may use things indifferent suo arbitratu: but we say withall, that neither may the Church command the use of things indifferent, suo arbitratu. Both she in commanding, and we in obeying, must be guided by the rules of Scripture.

They who are set over us in the Church, have no power given them of Christ, which is not for edifying, Eph. 4. 12. The Councell

of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem, (which is a lively patterne of a lawfull Synode to the worlds end) i 1.32 professed they would lay no other burden upon the Disciples, except such things as the law of Charity made necessary for shunning of Scandall: and so that which they decreed, had force and strength to binde, a Charitate propter Scandalum, saith k 1.33 Sanctius. But suo arbitratu they injoyned nothing. It appeareth by this place (saith l 1.34 Cartwright) that there may bee no abridg∣ment of liberty simply decreed, but in regard of circumstance, according to the rule of Edification. And if the Churches decrees and Canons, be not according to the rules of the Word, yet forasmuch as m 1.35 every one of us shall give account of himselfe and his owne deed, we must looke, that whatsoever the Church decree, yet our practise in the use or omission of a thing indifferent, be according to the foresaid rules.

We may not for the commandement of men transgresse the rule of Piety, by doing any thing which is not for Gods glory, and orde∣red according to his will; neither ought any of us to obey men, ex∣cept n 1.36 For the Lords sake; and o 1.37 as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God; which teacheth us the manner how we ought to obey men, namely, p 1.38 propter Christum & sicut Christus praecipit. For if we should know no more but the will of man for that which we doe, then we should be the q 1.39 servants of men, not the servants of Christ. Neither yet may we for any humane ordinance, breake the rule of Charity: but r 1.40 whatsoever either would weaken, or not edify our brother; be it never so lawfull; never so profitable to our selves; never so powerfully by earthly auctority injoyned; Christiās who are not borne unto themselves, but unto Christ; unto his Church; and unto the fellow members; must not dare to medle with it.

Nor lastly, may we obey men, so as to breake the law of Purity, and s 1.41 performe any action with a doubtfull conscience, that is, whereof ei∣ther the Word hath not, or we out of it have no warrant: in which case tender consciences must be tendered, rather then be racked by auctority: for bee the things in themselves never so lawfull, &c. they are utterly unlawfull to me, without such information. Whereas therefore some say, that in the use of matters indifferent, the lawes of those who are set over us ought to rule us; we still answer that our practise may not be ruled by any law of man, except it be according to the rules of the Word; where∣of one is this: t 1.42 Tantum oportere esse obedientiae studium in Christianis, ut nihil agant, quod non existiment vel potius certi sint placere Deo.

These considerations beeing premitted, for resolution of the [Sect. IV] question in hand, we say, 1. As touching these actions which pro∣ceed from bare imagination, whether they be evill and inordinate quo ad speciem, forsomuch as the imagination from which they have their originall, doth not in those actions subject it self to the con∣duct and moderation of reason, but is like Gchazi, running away

without his masters leave, let the learned give their judgement. Howsoever, it can not be denied, u 1.43 that such actions may be and are of en evill quo ad individuum, or in respect of the circumstances, which shew forth in them reproveable temerity, incogitancy, levity, and undecency. But such actions belong not to our purpose.

2. As for those actions which proceed from the deliberation of reason, howbeit many of them be indifferent quo ad speciem, yet none of them is, nor can be indifferent quo ad individuum. The reason of this difference and distinction is, x 1.44 because every action hath it's species or kinde from the object; and a humane morall action, hath it's species or kind, from the object referred to the originall of hu∣mane actions, which is reason. Whereupon it commeth, that if the object of the action include something that agreeth to the order of reason, it shall be a good action, according to it's kind: for exam∣ple, to give almes to an indigent man. But if it include something that is repugnant to the order of reason, it shall be an evill action according to it's kind; as, to steale or take away another mans goods. Now sometimes it happeneth, that the object of an action doth not include something that belongeth to the order of reason; as, to lift a strave from the ground, to goe to the field &c. such actions are indifferent, according to their kinde. But we must pronounce farre otherwise of them, when wee speake of them quo ad individuum, be∣cause as they are individuated by their circumstances, so in their individuall beeing, they have their goodnesse or badnesse from the same circumstances, as hath been shewed. So that no such action as is deliberated upon, can bee indifferent quo ad individuum; because oportet saith y 1.45 Thomas quod quilibet individualis actus habeat aliquam cir∣cumstantiam, per quam trahetur ad bonum, vel malum, ad minus ex parte in∣tentionis finis.

Friar Ambrosius Catarinus, following the Doctrine of Thomas, z 1.46 maintained in the Councell of Trent, that to doe a good worke, the concurrance of all circumstances is necessary, but the want of one onely is sufficient for an evill: so that howsoever among the workes considered in generall, some are indifferent, yet in the sin∣gular, there is no medium between having all the circumstances and wantimg some; therefore every particular action is good or evill. And because among the circumstances, the end is one, all workes referred to a bad end are infected. He further alledged S. Augustine, that it is sinne not onely to referre the action to a bad end, but also not to referre it to a good end. Thus spake the learned Friar very appositly. And the same is the judgment of our owne Divines. De his rebus indifferentibus saith a 1.47 Martyr, statuendum est, quod tantummodo ex genere atque natura sua. indifferentiam habeant, sed qnando ad electio∣nem descenditur nihil est indifferens. And so saith b 1.48 Pareus likewise.

These things are so plaine and undeniable, that c 1.49 D. Forbesse [Sect. V] himselfe; aknowledgeth no lesse, then that every individuall humane action is either good or bad morally; and that there is a goodnesse which is necessary to every action, namely, the referring of it to the last end, and the doing of it in Faith; which goodnesse if it be wan∣ting, the action is evill. Notwithstanding, he will have some ac∣tions even quo ad individuum, called indifferent, for this respect, be∣cause they are neither commanded of God, and so necessary to bee done, nor yet forbidden, and so necessary to be omitted.

Of an individuall action of this kind, he saith: manet homini respectu istius actus plena arbitrij libertas moralis, tum ea quae exercitij seu contradic∣tionis dicitur, tum etiam ea quae specificationis seu contrarietatis libertas ap∣pellatur. He holdeth, that though such an action be done in Faith, and for the right end (which generall goodnesse, he saith, is neces∣sary to the action, and commendeth a man to God) yet the action it self is indifferent, because it is not necessary: for a man hath liberty to omit the same, or to doe another thing, which he illustrateth by this example.

If the widow Sempronia marry at all, it is necessary that she marry in the Lord, yet it is not necessary that she marry. If she marry Ti∣tius, it is necessary that she marry him in the Lord, yet it is not ne∣cessary that shee marry Titius, but shee hath liberty to marry either him, or Caius, or Pomponius. If she marry not at all, but live a sin∣gle life, it is necessary that she live a single life in the Lord, yet it is not necessary that she live a single life. And so still it is indifferent and free for her, either to marry, or not to marry, or if she marry, it is free to her to marry either Titius, or Caius, or Pomponius.

Ans. the D. either mistaketh, or misseth the marke many wayes: [Sect. VI] which that we may discover, and withall levell better at the marke, let us note,

1. Our question is onely of individuall actions, considered both in respect of their originall, which is deliberation and election, and in respect of all their circumstances, none excepted. When d 1.50 Pareus disputeth this question, whether there be any action indifferent; he resolveth that things indifferent are considered three wayes. 1. In se, or, quo ad substantiam operis, in themselves, or, in respect of the sub∣stance of the worke: and so many things are indifferent. 2. Ratione s•…•…i principij, h•…•…e. electionis & intentionis qua fiunt, in respect of their ori∣ginall, which is the election and the intention, wherewith they are done: and so there is no action indifferent, saith he, but either good or evill, according as it proceedeth from a good or evill election and intention. 3. Ratione effectus, in respect of the effect; and so he ac∣knowledgeth no action indifferent neither: for if Scandall followe upon it; it is evill: now if it edify not, it scandalizeth and destry∣eth,

which e 1.51 hee proveth from Christs words, He that gathereth not with me, scattereth. And indeed, for so much as that which is impedi∣tivum boni spiritualis, is confessed to be scandalous, and every action which edifyeth not, hindreth our spirituall good, in that it should edify, but doth not; it followeth, that every action which edifyeth not, doeth certainly scandalize; which shall be yet more plaine, if we consider, that every action that is done to the notice and know∣ledge of a man, if it yeeld him no matter of profitable thoughts, it gives him occasion of vaine, idle, and hurtfull thoughts: for the thoughts and cogitations of mans minde, beeing stirred and set a∣worke by the view of some object, are like the upper and nether mil∣stones, which, when they have no graine to grinde, weare and spend themselves away, till at last one of them breake another. If then every action, which is done to the notice of other men, either edi∣fy or scandalize them, and every one of our actions (without excep∣tion) either edify or scandalize our selves, that is, either make us the better or the worse, it must needs follow, that there is not one of our actions indifferent, but either good or evill, in respect of the ef∣fect. Now all that the D. hath said, evinceth no more but the in∣differency of some actions considered onely in respect of the worke, not in respect of all the circumstances, (and by consequence, not quo ad individuum.) If hee had considered Sempronia, her act of mar∣rying, either in respect of the originall of it, or in respect of the ef∣fect of it, (much more if he had (as he ought to have) considered it in both these respects) he might easily have seen, that it can not bee called indifferent, because it either proceedeth from a good election and intention, or from a bad; and it hath either a good effect or a bad, I meane, it either edifyeth or scandalizeth. In which two re∣spects (we see) neither it nor any action is indifferent, in Pareus his judgement.

2. Our question is of the indifferency of things considered abso∣lutely [Sect. VII] & by themselves, not comparatively and in relation to other things, (as we shew before.) If we speake of comparatives, there is no question, but there may be an action, which is neither better nor worse, then some other action. But if we hold us at positives, wee truly maintaine, that every action considered by it self, is either good or evill, and none indifferent. Now the D. onely compareth Sem∣pronia her marrying, with her living a single life, and her marrying of Titius, with her marrying of Caius or Pomponius. But if he had con∣sidered any one of all these things absolutely and by it self, and pro∣ven it to be in that respect indifferent, he had said something to the purpose. Nothing followeth upon that which he hath said, but that (these things beeing compared among themselves) Sempronia her marrying of Titius, is neither better nor worse, then her marrying

of Caius or Pomponius. Yet for all that, if shee marry any of them, her act of marrying that man, shall be either according to the rules of the Word, or not, & so either good or evill, not ind•…•…fferēt. Which purpose f 1.52 Amesius illustrateth by this apposite simile. A statuarie or a graver of images oftimes hath no reason, wherefore he should make this Ima∣ge, more then another; yet if he make any Image at all, he must needs either make it good, by following the rules of his art, or else evill, by departing from the said rules.

3. Though in genere naturae a man hath liberty of contradiction, to [Sect. VIII] use things which are in their owne nature indifferent, or not to use them, and liberty of contrariety to use either this or that; yet in gene∣re moris, it is otherwise: a man hath not such morall liberty in the use of things, which are in their nature indifferent, as the D. alledgeth. For those things which are in their nature indifferent, are never in∣different in their use; and that because the use of them, is either ac∣cording to the rules of the Word, and then it is expedient; or not; and then it is unlawfull. The D. distinguisheth not betwixt the nature of things indifferent and the use of them: but so he reasoneth as if every thing indifferent in the nature of it, were also indifferent in the use of it. Which how false it is, men of lower degree then Doc∣tors can easily judge.

Goe to then; let us see how the D. reasoneth. He saith, it is indiffe∣rent & free to the widowe Sempronia either to marry or not to marry; and if she marry, she hath liberty to marry either this man or that man: and that because none of all these things is either commanded or forbidden of God. Iust so, might the strong among the Romans and Corinthians, have reasoned against Paul. Why doe you goe about to adstrict or limite our use of such things, as God hath neither com∣manded nor forbidden? it is indifferent and free to us, either to eat flesh or not to eat flesh, and if we eat flesh, either to eat this kind, or that. Nay, but the Apostle will not have the indifferency of the thing it self, in its owne nature, to be ground enough for the use of it: but he will have their practise and use of it, to be ever either expe∣dient or unlawfull, in respect of the circumstances, and according as these rules of Pietie, Charity, & Purity (which Gods Word gives concerning the use of things indifferent,) are observed or not obser∣ved. And so doe we answeare the D. That if a widowes act of mar∣rying be according to the rules of the Word, that is, if it tend to Gods glory, if it be expedient for edifying, & if shee be rightly per∣swaded in her conscience that shee hath a warrant from the Word for that which shee doth, (of whioh rules, I have said enough before) then is it good, not indifferent. If it be not according to these rules, then is it evill, not indifferent.

More plainly; her act of marrying, is either according to the rules

of the Word, or not. If it be according to the rules, then it is expe∣dient that she marry, therefore not indifferent; If it be not according to the rules, then it is unlawfull, therfore not indifferent. If it be said that the best man who lives tieth not himself to these rules, in the use of every indifferent thing, but oftimes useth or omitteth a thing of that nature, at his owne pleasure. I answere, g 1.53 In many things we of∣fend all. And, h 1.54 who can understand his errors? But in the meane time, the rules of the Word limit us so strictly, that we may never use a thing in it's owne nature indifferent, at our arbitrement and pleasure, and that the use of it is never lawfull to us, except it be done piously for Gods glory, profitably for mans edification, and purely with full assurance that that which we doe is approved of God. And as all this hath beene proven from Scripture heretofore, so now let us trie whether we can make it to follow upon that which the D. himself hath said.

i 1.55 If a widow marry; he holds it necessary that shee marry in the Lord, because to her that marrieth it is commanded that shee marry in the Lord. Now when k 1.56 the Apostle commandeth that shee who marrieth marry in the Lord, he meanes, that shee marry according to the will of the Lord, saecundum voluntatem Domini, as (o) Zanchius * 1.57 expoundeth him. And what is that, but that shee marry according to the rules of the Word? neither doth the Apostle allowe her to marry, except shee marry according to these rules. So he m 1.58 bid∣deth children obey their parents in the Lord, that is, according to the will of the Lord.

Againe, n 1.59 the D•…•…holdes it necessary, that whatsoever thing we doe, we doe it in faith, because as the Apostle teacheth, whatso•…•… is not of faith is sinne. Now whiles every thing is condemned which is not of faith, two sorts of actions are rejected, as o 1.60 Calvine obser∣veth. 1. Such actions as are not grounded upon, nor approven by the Word of God. 2. Such actions as though they be approven by the Word of God, yet the mind wanting this persuasion, doth not cheerfully addresse it self to the doing of them. But I pray, doeth the Word underprope or approve the use of any thing indifferent, if it be not used according to the foresaid rules, and by consequence conveniently and profitably?

The D. thinkes it enough, that in the use of a thing indifferent, [Sect. IX] I beleeve it is lawfull for me to doe this thing, albeit I beleeve and certainly know, that it is lawfull to me to omit it, or to doe the con∣trary; so that the doing of a thing in faith, inferreth not the necessi∣ty of doing it. But for answere hereunto, we say,

1. We have sufficiently proven, that it is never lawfull for us to doe any thing which is in the nature of it indifferent, except we be

perswaded not only of the lawfullnesse of the thing, but of the expe∣diency of doing it.

2. Of his comparing of things indifferent togither, and not con∣sidering them positively & by themselves, we have also said enough before.

3. The doing of a thing in faith, inferreth the expediency and profit of doing it; and that is enough to take away the indifferency of doing it; for since every indifferent thing is either expedient to be done, or else unlawfull to be done, (as hath beene shewed,) it fol∣loweth, that either it ought to be done, or else it ought to be left un∣done: therefore it is never indifferent nor free to us, to doe it, or leave it undone, at our pleasure.

4. Because the D. (I perceive) sticketh upon the tearme of neces∣sity; and will have every thing which is not necessary to be indiffe∣rent: therefore to remove this scruple, beside that Chrysostome, & the Author of the interlineary glosse upon Math. 18. 7. take the mea∣ning of those words, It must needs be that offences come, to be this, It is profitable that offences come. Which glosse, though it be not to be re∣ceived, yet as p 1.61 Camero noteth, it is ordinary to call that necessary, which is very profitable and expedient. Beside this (I say,) we fur∣ther mantaine, that in the use of things indifferent, that which we deliberat upon to doe, is never lawfull to be done, except it be also necessary, though not necessitate absoluta seu consequentis, yet necessitate consequentiae seu ex suppositione. Pauls c•…•…rcumcising of Timothie was law∣full: only because it was necessary, for q 1.62 he behooved by this meanes to winne the good will of the people of Lystra who had once stoned him, otherwise he could not safely have preached the Gospell among them. Therefore he had done wrong, if he had not circumcised Ti∣mothie, since the circumcising of him was according to the rules of the Word, and it was expedient to circumcise him, and unexpedient to doe otherwise. And (because de paribus idem est judicium) whensoever the use of any indifferent thing is according to the rules of the Word, that is, when it is profitable for Gods glory and mans edification, & the doer is perswaded of so much, I say, putting this case, then (for so much as not only it may, but ought to be done,) the use of it is not only lawfull, but necessary: and (for so much as not only it needs not, but ought not to be omitted,) the omission of it is not only un∣necessary, but also unlawfull.

Againe, put the case, that the use of a thing indifferent be either against, or not according to the said rules, then (for so much as not only it may, but ought to be omitted, the omission of it is not only lawfull but necessary: and (for so much as not only it needs not, but may not, neither ought to be done) the doing of it, is not only unne∣cessary, but also unlawfull. For which it maketh, that the Apostles in r 1.63 their decree, alledge no other ground for abstinence from blood

and things strangled (which were in their nature indifferent,) but the necessity of abstaining caused and induced by the foresaid rules.

The Apostle sheweth that that measure of liberality whereunto hee exhorteth the Corinthians, was not by any Divine commande∣ment necessary, yet he adviseth it as a thing expedient. 2 Cor. 8, 8. 10. And were not the Corinthians thereunto bound because of this expe∣diency of the matter, though it was not necessary? Iuxta verbum, &c. According to Gods Word (saith s 1.64 the Bishop of Sarisburie,) we are obli∣ged to glorify God by our good workes, not onely when necessity requireth, but also when ability furnisheth, and oportunity occurreth, Gal: 6. 10. Tit. 2. 14.

As touching the scope of all this Dispute, which is the indiffen∣rency of the controverted Ceremonies, we shall heare sundry rea∣sons [Sect. X] against it afterward. For the present I say no more but this. As in every case, so most especially when we meddle with the Wor∣ship of God, or any appurtenance thereof, the rules of the Word tie us so straitly, that that which is in it's owne nature indifferent, ought either to be done, or to be left undone, according as it is ei∣ther agreeable or not agreeable to these rules, and so is never left free to us, to be done or omitted at our pleasure. For if at all we be (as certainely we are) abridged of our Liberty, chiefly it is in things per∣taining to Divine worship.

But I marvell, why D: Forbesse, discourseth so much for the indif∣ferency of the Ceremonies, for lib. 1. cap. 7. He holdeth, that there were just reasons in the things them selves, why the pretended As∣sembly of Perth, should injoyne the five Articles; so me of which he calleth very convenient and profitable, and others of them neces∣sary in themselves. Sure, if he stand to that which he hath there writ∣ten, he can not choose but say, that it is unlawfull both for us, and for all Christians any where, to omit the controverted Ceremonies, and that all such as have at any time omitted them, have thereby sinned in leaving that undone which they ought to have done: for the conveniency and necessity of them which he pretendeth, is per∣petuall and universall.

CHAP. IV.

Of the rule by vvhich vve are to measure and trie, vvhat things are indifferent.

THat the Word of God is the onely rule, whereby wee must [Sect. I] judge of the indifferency of things, none of our Opposites (we hope) will denie. Of things indifferent saith t 1.65 Paybody, I

lay downe this ground, that they be such, and they onely, which Gods Word hath left free unto us.

Now these things which Gods Word leaveth free and indifferent (in respect of their nature and kind) are such things as it neither shew∣eth to be good nor evill. Where we are further to consider, that the Word of God sheweth unto us the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse, goodnesse or badnesse of things, not onely by precepts and prohi∣bitions, but sometimes also, and more plainly by examples. So that not onely from the precepts and prohibitions of the Word, but like∣wise from the examples recorded in the same, we may finde out that goodnesse or badnesse of humane actions, which taketh away the indifferency of them.

And as for those who will have such things called indifferent, as are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of Cod, I aske of them, whether they speake of plaine and particular precepts and prohibitions, or of generall onely? If they speake of particular pre∣cepts and prohibitions, then by their rule; the baptising of young children; the taking of water for the Element of Baptisme; A lectors publike reading of Scripture in the Church upon the Sabbath day; the assembling of Synods for putting order to the confusions of the Church; the writing and publication of the decrees of the same; and sundry other things which the Word hath commended unto us by examples, should all be things indifferent, because there are not in the Word of God, either particular precepts for them, or parti∣cular prohibitions against them. But if they speake of generall precepts and prohibitions, then are those things commanded in the Word of God, for which we have the allowed and commended ex∣amples of such as we ought to follow, (for in the generall wee are commanded to be followers of such examples, Phil. 4. 8. 9. 1 Cor. 11. 1. Eph. 5. 1.) Though there bee no particular precept for the things themselves thus examplified.

To come therefore to the ground which shall give us here some [Sect. II] footing, and whereupon we mind to reare up certaine superstruc∣tions: we hold, that not onely we ought to obey the particular pre∣cepts of the Word of God, but that also we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable example of his Apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident, they had speciall reasons moving them thereto, which doe not con∣cerne us. Which ground as it hath been of a long time holden and confirmed by them of our side, so never could, nor ever shall, our Opposites subvert it. It's long since the Abridgment confirmed and strengthened it, out of these places of Scripture. Eph. 5. 1, Be ye there∣fore followers of God. as deare children. 1 Cor. 11, 1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 1 Thess 1. 6. And ye became followers of us and of the Lord, Phil. 3. 17, Bretheren be followers togither of me.

This ground is also at length pressed by u 1.66 Cyprian, who sheweth that in the holy Supper of the Lord, Christ alone is to be followed by us: that we are to doe what he did: and that we ought not to take heed, what any man hath done before us, but what Christ did, who is before all.

But Bishop x 1.67 Lindsey asketh of us, if we hold this rule, what is [Sect. III] the cause why at the celebration of the Sacrament, we blesse not the Bread severally by it self, & the Cup severally by it self, seeing Christ did so, yet having no cause to move him which concernes not us.

Ans. 1. Beside the common blessing of the Elements in the be∣ginning of the action, we give thankes also in the severall actions of distribution, saying after this or the like manner. The Lord Iesus, the same night he was betrayed, tooke Bread▪ and when he had given thanks (as we also give thanks to God who gave his Sonne to die for us) he breake it &c.

In like manner also after Supper, he tooke the Cup, and when he had given thankes (as we also give thankes to God who gave his Sonne to shed his blood for us) he gave it, &c. Which forme (we conceive) may be construed to be an imitation of the example of Chrict.

2. Though we did not observe such a forme, yet there were two reasons to move Christ to give thankes severally both at the giving of the Bread, and at the giving of the Cup, neither of which concer∣neth us.

1. The Eucharisticall Supper was one continued action with the other Supper which went before it, for it is said, That whiles they di•…•… eat, he tooke Bread, &c. Wherefore for more distinction of it from that Supper which immediately proceeded, it was fit that he should give thankes severally at the giving of each Element.

2. He had to doe with the twelve Apostles, (y) whose hearts bee∣ing * 1.68 so greatly troubled with sorrow, and (z) whose minds not well comprehending that which they heard concerning the death of * 1.69 Christ, much lesse those Misticall Symboles of it, especially at the first hearing, seeing, and using of the same, it was be•…•…ofefull for their cause, distinctly and severally to blisse those Elements, there∣by to help the weaknesse of their understanding, and to make them the more capable of so Heavenly Misteries.

Now having heard that which the B•…•… had to say against our rule, [Sect. IV] let us examine his owne. (a) He holdeth, That in the actions of Christ * 1.70 his Apostles, or the Customes of the Church, there is nothing exemplary and left to be imitated of us, but that which either beeing morall is generally comman∣ded in the Deealouge, or beeing Ceremoniall and circumstantiall is particularly commanded by some constant precept in the Gospell.

Ans. 1. This rule is most false, for it followeth from it, that the example of the Apostles making choice of the Element of Water in

Baptisme, and requiring a Confession of Faith from the person who was to be baptised; the example also both of Christ and his Apostles, using the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Holy Supper: a Ta∣ble at which they did communicate, and the breaking of the Bread, are not left to be imitated of us; because these things are ceremo∣niall, but not particularly commanded in the Gospell. So that ac∣cording to the rule which the Bishop holdeth, we sinne in imitating Christ and his Apostles in those things, for as much as they are not exemplary, nor left to be imitated of us.

2. His weapons fight against his owne fellowes, who alledge (as we have shewed b 1.71 elsewhere) the Custome of the Church, is a suf∣ficient warrant for certaine Ceremonies questioned betwixt them and us, which are not particularly commanded by any precept in the Gospell. These the B. doth unwittingly stricke at, whiles he hol∣deth, that such Customes of the Church are not exemplary, nor left to be imitated of us.

Wherefore wee hold still our owne rule for sure and certaine. [Sect. V] Christs actions are either Amanda, as the workes of Redemption, or Admiranda, as his miracles; or Notanda, as many things done by him for some particular reason, proper to that time and case, and not be∣longing to us, which things notwithstanding are well worthy of our observation; or Imitanda, and such are all his actions, which had no such speciall reason moving him thereto as doe not concerne us.

Calvine upon 1 Cor. 11. 1. saith well, that the Apostle there, cals back both himself and others to Christ. Tanquam unicum recte agendi exem∣plar. And Policarpus Lycerus, upon Math. 16. 24. Vnder that command of following Christ, comprehendeth the imitation of Christs ac∣tions.

Most certainly, it is inexcusable presumption, to leave the exam∣ple of Christ, and to doe that which seemeth right in our own eyes, as if wee were wiser then he. And now having layed downe this ground, we are to build certain positions upon it, as followes.

CHAP. V.

The first Position vvhich vve build upon the ground confir∣med in the former Chapter.

FRom that which hath been said, of following Christ and the [Sect. I] commendable example of his Apostles, in all things where∣in it is not evident that they had some such speciall reason moving them to doe that which they did, as doth not concerne us

Our first inference is this: That it is not indifferent for a Minister to give the Sacramentall Elements of Bread and Wine, out of his owne hand, to every communicant; for as much as our Lord com∣manded his Apostles to divide the Cup among them, that is, to reach it one to another, Luk 22. 17. Some of the interpreters are of opinion; that the Cup spoken of by the Evangelist in that place, is not the same whereof hee speaketh after vers. 20. but they are greatly mistaken: for if it were as they thinke, then Christ did againe drinke before his death, of that fruit of the Wine, whereof we read vers 17. 18. which is manifestly repugnant to his owne words. Where∣fore as c 1.72 Maldonat observeth out of Augustine and Euthimius, there was but one Cup, whereof Luke speaketh first by anticipation, and afterward in its owne proper place.

But d 1.73 B. Lindsey falleth here upon a very strange speculation, [Sect. II] and tels us, that if all the Disciples did drinke, howbeit they did not deliver the Cup one to another, but received it severally from Christs owne hand, they divided the same among them: because when eve∣ry one takes his part of that which is parted, they divide the whole among them. Alas that I should blot paper with the confutation of such foolleries. I beleeve, when his Majesty hath distributed and divided so many lands and revenues among the Prelates of Scotland, every one of them takes his part, but dare not say (though) that they have divided these lands and revenues among themselves. Cane 20. or 40. beggars, when an almes is distributed among them, because every one of them getteth his part, say therefore that they themselves have parted it among them: what then shall be said of the distributer, who giveth to every one his part feverally and by himselfe? That a man who required, e 1.74 that his brother should divide the inheritance with him, did not (I trow) desire Christ to cause his brother to take his owne part of the inheritance: (there was no feare, that he would not take his part) but he desired, that his bro∣ther might give to him his part. So that to divide any thing among men, is not to take it, but to give it. And who did ever confound parting and partaking, dividing a Cup and drinking a Cup, which differ as much as giving and rec•…•…iving: Thus we conclude, that when Christ commanded the Apostles to divide the Cup among them, the meaning of the words can be no other then this, that they should give the Cup one to another, which is so plaine, that f 1.75 a Iesuite also maketh it to follow upon this command, that Christ did reach the Cup, non singulis sed uni, qui proximo, proximus sequenti, & deinceps daret. Hence it is that g 1.76 Hospinian thinkes it most likely, that Christ brake the Bread into two parts, earumque alteram dederit illi qui proximus ei ad dextram accumbebat, alteram vero ei qui ad sinistram, ut isti deinceps pro∣xime accumbentibus porrigirent, donec singuli particulam sibi decerpsissent.

CHAP. VI.

Another Position, built upon the same ground.

OVr next position which we inferre, is this: that it is not in∣different [Sect. I,] to Sit, Stand, Passe, or Kneel, in the act of recie∣ving the Sacramentall Elements of the Lords Supper: be∣cause we are bound to follove the example of Christ and his A∣postles, who used the gesture of Sitting, in this holy action, as we prove from Ioh. 13. 12. from Math. 26. 20. with 26. Marke 14. 18. with 22.

Our Opposites here bestirre themselvers, and move every stone against us. Three answers they give us, which we will now con∣sider.

First, they tell us, that it is not certaine that the Apostles were sitting when they received this Sacrament from Christ, and that ad∣huc sub Iudice lis est. Yet let us see, what they have to say against the certainty hereof.

B. Lindsey objecteth, that betweene their eating of the Paschall Supper, and the administration of the Sacrament to the Disciples, five acts interveened. 1. The taking of the Bread. 2. The Thanks∣giving. 3. The Breaking. 4. The Precept, Take yee, eat yee. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The Worde, whereby the Element was made the Sacrament. In which time (saith hee) the gesture of sitting might have beene changed.

Ans. It is first of all to bee noted, that the Apostles were sitting, at that instant when Christ tooke the Bread: for it is said, that hee tooke Bread, whiles they did eat, that is (as h 1.77 Maldonat rightly ex∣poundeth it) Antequam surgerent, antequam mensae & ciborum reliquiae re∣moverentun: and so wee use to say, that men are dyning or supping, so long as they sit at Table, and the meat is not removed from be∣fore them. To Christs ministring of the Eucharisticall Supper to∣gether with the preceeding Supper, Christians had respect when they celebrated the Lords Supper together with the Love-Feasts. Probabile est eos ad Christi exemplum respexisse, qui Eucharistiam inter cae∣nandum instituit (saith i 1.78 Pareus.) But of this wee need say no more, for the B. himselfe hath here acknowledged no lesse, then that they were sitting at that time when Christ tooke the Bread. Onely hee saith, that there were five acts which interveened before the admi∣nistration of the Sacrament to the Disciples (whereof the taking of the Bread was the first) and that in this while the gesture of sitting might have beene changed: which is as much as to say; when •…•…e tooke the Bread they were sitting, but they might have changed this gesture, either in the time of taking the bread, or in the time of thanks∣giving, or in the time of breaking the Bread, or whiles he said, Take

ye, eat ye, or lastly, in the time of pronouncing those words; This is my body. (for this is the Word w•…•…ereby (in the Bishops judgment) the Element was made the Sacrament, as we shall see afterward.)

Now but by his leave, we will reduce his fyve acts to three: for thus soeaketh the k 1.79 text. And as they did eat. Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, take, eate, this is my body. Whence it is manifest, that the giving of the Bread to the Disciples, which no man (I suppose) will deny to have beene the administration of it, went before the two last acts, which the B. reckoneth out. Nothing therefore is left to him, but to say, that their gesture of Sitting might have beene changed, either in the taking, or in the blessing, or in the breaking, or else betweene the taking and the blessing, or betweene the blessing and the breaking; yet doth the text knit all the three togither by such a contiguity and connexion, as sheweth unto us, that they all did make up but one con∣tinued action, which could not admit any interruption.

I saw a Prelate sit doune to his breakefast, and as he did eate, he [Sect. II] tooke some cups, and having called for moe, he said he thanked God that he was never given to his belly: and with that, he made a promise to one in the company, which he brake within two dayes after. Wold any man question whether or not the Prelate was sitting, when he made this promise, forasmuch as betweene his sittintg doune to meate, and the making of the promise, there interveened his taking of some cups, his calling for moe, and his pronouncing of those words, I thāke God that I was never given to my belly. Yet might one farre more easily imagine a change of the Prelats gesture, then any such change of the Apostles gesture, in that holy action wheref we speake. Because the text setteth doune such a continued, entire, unbroken, and •…•…ninterrupted action, therefore l 1.80 Calvine gathereth out of the Text, that the Apostles did both take, and eate he Sacramentale Bread•…•…. whiles they were sitting. Non legimus saith he, prostratos adorasse, sed ut erant discumbentes accepisse & manducasse. Christus saith m 1.81 Martyr, Eucharistiam Apostolis una secum sedentibus aut discumbentibus distribuit. n 1.82 G. I. Vossius puts it out of doubt, that Christ was still sitting, at the giving of the Bread to the Apostles. And that the Apostles were still sitting, when they recived the Bread o 1.83 Hos∣pinian thinkes it no lesse certaine. They made no doubt of the cer∣tainty hereof, who composed that old verse which we find in p 1.84 Aquinas,

Rex sedet in caena, turla cinctus duodena: Se tenet in manibus: se cibat ipse cibus.

Papists also put it out of controversy: for n 1.85 Bellarmine aknowledgeth. that the Apostles could not externally adore Christ by prostrating

themselves in the last Supper quando recumbere cum eo illis necesse erat. Where we see, hee could guesse nothing of the change of their ges∣ture. Intelligendum est saith r 1.86 C. Iansenius, Dominum in novissima hac caena, discubuisse & sedisse ante & post comestum agnum. s 1.87 D. Stella stick∣eth not to say, distribuit Salvator mundi panem discumbentibus.

But now having heard B. Lindsey; let us heare what t 1.88 Paybody will [Sect. III] •…•…ay. He taketh him to another subterfuge, and tels us, that though we read that Christ tooke Bread whiles they did eate, yet can it not be concluded hence, that he tooke Bread whiles they did sit: because saith he, As they did eate, is expounded by u 1.89 Luke and x 1.90 Paul, to be After they bad done eating, or after Supper. Thus is their language di∣vided. B. Lindsey did yeeld to us, that when Christ tooke Bread, they were sitting, and his conjecture was, that this gesture of sitting might have been changed after the taking of the Bread. Paybody saw that he had done with the Argument, if he should graunt, that they were sitting when Christ tooke Bread, therefore he calleth that in question. Vulcans owne gimmers could not make his answer and the Bishops to sticke togither.

But let us examine the ground which Paybody takes for his opinion. He would prove from Luke and Paul, that when Mathew and Marke say, As they were eating, Iesus tooke Bread: the meaning is onely this: After Supper Iesus tooke Bread: importing, that Christs taking of Bread did not make up one cōtinued action with their eating, & that there∣fore their gesture of sitting might have been changed between their eating of the preceeding Supper, and his taking of the Sacramen∣tall Bread.

Whereunto we answer, that there are two opinions touching the Suppers which Christ did eate with his Disciples, that night wherein he was betrayed: And whichsoever of them the reader please to fol∣lowe, it shall bee most easie to breake all the strength of the Argu∣ment, which Paybody opposeth unto us.

First then, there are some who think that Christ having kept the Passeover according to the Law, (which is not particularly related, [Sect. IV] but supponed by the Evangelists,) did sit downe to an common or ordinary Supper, at which he told the Disciples that one of them should betray him. And of this judgment are Calvine and Beza upon Math. 26. 20. Pareus upon Math. 26. 21. Fulke and Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. Tolet and Maldonat upon Ioh. 13. 2. Cornelius Iansenius Conc. Evang. cap. 131. Balthasar Meisnerus, Tractat die fest virid pag. 256. Iohannes Forsterus conc. 4. de pass. p. 538. Chrystopho∣rus Pelargus in Ioh. 13. quaest. 2. and others. The reasons whereby their judgment is confirmed are these,

1. y 1.91 Many societies conveened to the eating of the Paschall Sup∣per

by Twenties. And if Twentie was often the number of them who conveened to the eating of the same, (which also confirmeth their opinion, who thinke that other men and women in the Inne, did eate both the Paschall and Evangelicall Supper, togither with the Apostles in Christs company:) it is not very likely (say some) that all those were sufficiently satisfied and fedde with one lambe, which after it was eight dayes old, was allowed to be offered for the Passe∣over, as z 1.92 Godwyn noteth. a 1.93 Neque esus unius agni saith Pareus, toti fami∣liae sedandae fami sufficere poterat.

2. The Paschall Supper was not for banquetting or filling of the belly, as b 1.94 Iosephus also writteth. Non tam exsatiendae nutriendieque na∣turae saith c 1.95 Maldonat, quam fervandae legalis Ceremoniae causa sumebatur. Non ventri saith d 1.96 Pareus, sed religionn causa fiebat. But as for that Supper which Christ and his Apostles did eate, immediatly before the Eucharisticall; e 1.97 Cartwright doubts not to call it a carnall Supper; an earthly repast; a Feast for the belly: which lets us know, that the Sacramentall Bread and Wine was ordained, not for feeding their bodies which were already satisfyed by the ordinary and dayly sup∣per, but for the nourishment of the soule.

3. That beside the Paschall and Evangelicall Suppers, Christ and his Apostles, had also that night another ordinary Supper, f 1.98 Fulke proveth by the broth wherein the Sop was dipped 10. 13. 26. Where as there was no such broth, ordained by the Divine institu∣tion, to be used in the Paschall Supper.

4. That there were two Suppers before the Eucharisticall, they gather from Ioh. 13. For first, the Paschall Supper was ended vers. 2. after which Christ washed his Disciples feet. And thereafter we read vers. 12. g 1.99 Resumptis vestibus rursum ad caenam ordinariam consedisse. The dividing of the Passeover into two services or two Suppers, had no warrant at all from the first institution of that Sacrament: for which cause, they thinke it not likely, that Christ would have thus Dividedit, according to the device & custome of the Iewes in later times; for so much as in Mariage, (and much more in the Pesseover) he did not allow of that which from the beginning was not so. Nei∣ther seemeth it to them any way probable, that Christ would have interrupted the eating of the Passeover with the washing of his Dis∣ciples feet, before the whole Paschall Supper was ended, and they had done eating of it.

But others (and those very judicious too) are of opinion, that that second course whereunto Christ sate downe after the washing [Sect. V] of his Disciples feet, and at which he told them, that one of them should betray him, was not an ordinary or commone Supper (be∣cause the Paschall Supper was enough of it self to satisfie them,) but a part of the Paschall Supper. And from the Iewish writters

they prove, that so the custome was, to divide the Passeover into two courses or services. As for that wherein Christ dipped the sop, they take it to have beene the sauce which was used in the Paschall Supper, called Charoseth: of which the Hebrewes writ, that it was made of the palme tree branches, or of dry figges, or of raysens, which they stamped and mixed with vinegar, till it was thick as mus∣tard, & made like clay, in memory of the clay wherein they wrought in Egypt; and that they used to dip both the unleavened bread & the bitter hearbs into this sauce. And as touching that place Io. 13. they expound it by the custome of the Iewes, which was to have two services or two Suppers in the Passeover: And take those words vers. 2. Supper beeing ended, to be meant of the first service: and sit∣ting downe againe to Supper vers. 12. to be meant of the second service.

If those two opinions could be reconciled and drawen togither [Sect. VI] into one, by holding that that second course whereunto Christ sate downe after the washing of his Disciples feet, was (for the substance of it) a commone Supper, but yet it hath beene and may be rightly called the second service of the Paschall Supper, for that it was eaten the same night wherein the Paschall lambe was eaten: So should all the difference be taken away. But if the mantainers of these opi∣nions will not be thus agreed, let the Reader consider to which of them he will adhere.

If the first opinion be followed, then it will be most easily an∣swered to Paybody, that h 1.100 Inter caenamdum instituta fuit Eucharistia, cum jam rursum mensae accubuissent. Sed post caenam Paschalem, & usum agni le∣galis. When Mathewe and Marke say, As they did eate, Iesus tooke bread, they speake of the commone or ordinary Supper. But when Luke and Paule say, that he tooke the Cup after Supper, they speake of the Paschall Supper, which was eaten before the commone Supper.

Againe, if the reader follow the other opinion, which holdeth that Christ had no other Supper that night before the Evangelicall, ex∣cept the Paschall only; yet sti'l the answere to Paybody, shall be easie; for whereas he would prove from those words of Luke & Paul, Like∣wise also the Cup after Supper, that when Mathew and Mark say, As they did eat, Iesus tooke Breade, their meaning is only this, After Supper, Iesus tooke Bread: he reasoneth very inconsideratly: forasmuch as Luke & Paul lay not of the Bread, but of the Cup only, that Iesus tooke it after Supper. And will Paybody say, that he tooke the Cup so soone as he tooke the Bread? If we will speake with Scripture, we must say, that as they did eat the preceeding Supper, (to which we reade they sate downe,) Iesus tooke Bread: for nothing at all interveened be∣twixt their eating of that other preceeding Supper, and his ta∣king

of the Eucharisticall Cup, there interveened the Taking, Bles∣sing, Breaking, Distributing, and Eating of the Bread.

Now therefore, from that which hath beene said, we may well conclude, that our Opposites have no reason which they doe or can object, against the certanty of that received tenet that the Apo∣stles received from Christ the Sacramentall Bread and Wine, whiles they were sitting. k 1.101 Dr. Forbesse himself setteth downe some Testi∣monies of Musculus, Chamier, & the Professors of Leiden, all acknow∣ledging, that the Apostles, when they received the Lords Supper, were still sitting.

The second answere which our Opposites have given us, followeth. [Sect. VII] They say, that though the Apostles did not change their gesture of si•…•…ting, which they used in the former Supper; when all this is graun∣ted to us, yet there is as great difference betwixt our forme of sit∣ting, and that forme of the Iewes which the Apostles used, as there is betwixt Sedere and Iacere.

Ans. 1. Put the case it were so, yet it hath beene often answered them, that the Apostles kept the Tablegesture, used in that Nation, and so are we bound herein to followe their example, by keeping the tablegesture used in this Nation. For this keeping of the usuall tablegesture of the Nation wherein we live, is not a forsaking, but a following of the commendable example of the Apostles: even as whereas they dranke the Wine which was drunke in that place, and we drinke the Wine which is drunke in this place, yet doe we not hereby differ from that which they did.

2. The words used by the Evangelists, signify our forme of sitting, no lesse then the Iewish. Calepine, Scapula, and Thomasius, in their Dic∣tionories, take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & the Latine words Discumbo, Recumbo, Ac∣cumbo (used by Arias Montanus, Beza, Marlorat, Tremellius, &c, in their versions) not only for lying, but also for such sitting, as is opponed to lying; even for sitting up right at Table, after our custome.

3. There is not so great a difference betwixt our forme of sitting, and that which the Iewes used, as our Opposites alledge. For as l 1.102 Didoclavius sheweth out of Casaubone; their sitting at banquets was only with a leaning upon the left arme, and so not lying, but sitting with a certaine inclination. When therefore we reade of m 1.103 Lecti discubitorij tricliniares, in quibus inter caenandum, discumbebant, we must understand them to have beene seates, which compassed three sides of the Table (the fourth side beeing left open and voide for them who served) and wherein they did sit, with some sort of in∣clination.

Yet n 1.104 B. Lindsey is bold to averre, that the usuall tablegesture

of the Iewes, was lying along: and this he would prove from Amos 6. 4. They lye upon beds of yvorie, they stretch themselves out upon their couches.

Ans. 1. If we should yeeld to this Prelate his owne meaning where∣in he taketh these words, yet how thinks he that the gesture of Drun∣kards and Gluttons, which they used when they were pampering themselves in all excesse of riot, and for which also they are up∣braided by the Spirit of God, was either the ordinary table gesture of the Iewes, or the gesture used by Christ and his Apostles in their last Supper?

2. If any gesture at all be touched in those words, which he Prelate citeth, it was their gesture they used when they lay downe to sleep, and not their table gesture when they did eat. For Mitta and Ngheres, (the two words which Amos useth,) signify a Bed or a Couch wherein a man useth to lay himself downe to sleep. And in this sence we find both these words Psal. 6. 7. All the night make I my bed (mittathi) to swimme: I water my Couch (Ngharsi) with my teares. The Shunnamite prepared for Elisha a chamber, and there in set for him a bed (Mitta) and a Table, and a Stoole, and a Candlesticke, 2. Kings 4. 10. The Stoole or Chaire was for sitting at Table, but Mitta the Bed was for lying downe to sleep. Now the Prelate I hope will not say, that the Lecti tricliniares, wherein the Iewes used to sit at Table, and which compassed three sides of the same, (as hath beene said,) were their beds wherein they did lye and sleep all night.

But, 3. the place must be yet more exactly opened up. That word which is turned in our English bookes, they lie, commeth from the Radix Schachav, which in Pagnins Lexic on is turned dormire. We find Ruth 3. 7. Lischcav, which Arias Montanus turneth Ad dormiendum, to sleep Our owne English translation. 2. Sam. 11. 9. saith, Vriah sleept, where the originall hath Vajischcav. And the very same word is put most frequently in the bookes of the Kings and the Chronicles, where they speake of the death of the Kings of Iudah and Israel. Pagnine turneth it, & dormivit: and our English translators every where, And he sleept with his Fathers, &c. These things beeing considered, we must with Calvine read the place of Amos, thus; Qui decumbunt vel dormiunt in lectis. The other word which the Prophet useth, is Seruchim. Our English version turneth, They stretch themselves out. But Pagnine, Buxtorf, Tremellius, and Tarnovius, come nearer the sence, who reade Redundantes, Superstuentes, or Luxuriantes. Which sence the English translation also hath in the margen. The Septuagints followed the same sence, for they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Living in pleasure. So, 1 Tim. 5. 6. shee that liveth in pleasure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Iam. 5. 5. Yea have lived in pleasure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Radix is Sarach, Re∣dundavit, or Luxuriavit. So Exod. 26. 12. Sarach, and vers. 13. Saruach,

is put for a surplusage or superfluous remainder, redundans & super∣sluum, as Tremellius readeth. Now then, it is evident, that the thing which Amos layeth to the charge of those who were at ease in Zion, in the words which the Prelat citeth against us, is, that they slept upon beds of yvorie (such was their softnesse and superfluitie,) and swim∣med in excessive pleasures upon their couches. And incontinent this filthie and muddie streame of carnall delicacie and excessive volup∣tousnesse, which defiled their beds, ledde him backe to the uncleane fountaine out of which it ishued, even their riotous pampering of themselves at Table: Therefore he subjoyneth, And eat the lambes out of the flocke, &c. For Ex mensis itur ad cubilia, ex gula in venerem saith Cornelius a lapide commenting upon the same Text. Thus have I clea∣red he place in such sort, that the B. can not but shoote short of his aimes. Wherefore I goe on to other replies.

4. If the Apostles when they received the Lords Supper, or the Iewes, when they did eat at Table, were lying all along, how could their mouthes receive drinke unspilt? Or how could they have the use of both their armes? which the B. himself would not (I am sure) gainesay, if he would once trie the matter in his owne person, and assay to eat and drinke, whiles he is lying along.

5. The words used by Mathew 26. 20. Mark 14. 18. Where they speake of Christes sitting downe with the twelve, is also used by Iohn. 6. 11. where he speaketh of the peoples sitting downe upon the grasse, to eat the loaves and fishes: and will any man thinke that the people did eat lying along upon the grasse, where they might farre better sit upright?

6. If our Opposites like to speake with others, then let them looke backe upon the Testimonies which I have alledged before. Iansenius putteth discubuisse & sedisse: Martyr, sedentibus aut discumbentibus. Pareus useth the word Consedisse. o 1.105 M•…•…isuerus, consedendo. Evangelista (saith p 1.106 D. Stella,) dicit dominum discubuisse, id est sedisse ad mensam.

7. If they like to speake with themselves: q 1.107 Camero speaking of Ihone his leaning on Christes bosome at Supper, saith, Christus autem sedebat medius. r 1.108 D. Mortone saith, it can not be denyed, that the ges∣ture of Christ and his Apostles, at the last Supper, was sitting: only saith he, the Evangelists leave it uncertaine, whether this sitting was upright or somewhat leaning. It entered not in his minde to guesse any thing of lying. The English Translaters also, say not that Christ lay downe, but that he sate downe.

Their third answere is, that Christs sitting at the last Supper, is no more examplary and imitable, then the upper chamber, or the night season, or the sexe and number of communicants, &c. [Sect. VIII]

Ans. As for the sexe and number of communicants, s 1.109 Dr. Fulke rightly observeth, that it is not certaine from Scripture, that

twelve men onely and no women did communicate (as t 1.110 B. Lind∣sey would have us certainly to believe) But put the case it were cer∣taine, u 1.111 yet for this and all those other circumstances, which are not examplary; there were speciall reasons either in the urgency of the legall necessity, or in the exigency of present and accidentall oc∣casions, which doe not concerne us: whereas the gesture of sitting, was freely and purposely chosen, and so intended to be examplary, especially since there was no such reason moving Christ to use this gesture of sitting, as doth not concerne us.

x 1.112 The B. saith, that his sitting, at the former Supper, might have been the reason which moved him to sit at the Eucharisticall Supper. But if Christ had not purposely made choice of the gesture of sitting, as the fittest and most convenient for the Eucharisticall Supper, his sitting at the former Supper, could be no reason to move him, as may appeare by this example. There are some Gentlemen standing in a noble mans waiting roume, and after they have stood a while there, the Noble man commeth forth: they beginne to speake to him, and as they speake, still they stand. Now can any man say, that the reason which moveth them to stand, when they speake to the Noble-man, is, because they were standing before he came to them? So doth the B. come short of giving any speciall reason for Christs sitting, which concerneth not us. He can alledge no more but Christs sitting at the former Supper; which could bee no reason; else he should have also risen from the Eucharisticall Sup∣per, to wash the Disciples feet, even as he rose from the former Sup∣per, for that effect. Wherefore wee conclude, that Christ did vo∣luntarily and of set purpose, choose sitting as the fittest and best be∣seeming gesture for that holy Banquet.

Finally, y 1.113 Hookers verdict of the gesture of Christ and his Apo∣stles in this Holy Sacrament, is, That our Lord himselfe did that, which custome and long usage had made fit: we, that which fitnesse and great de∣cency hath made usuall. In which words, because he importeth, that they have better warrants for their kneeling, then Christ had for his sitting (which is blasphemie) I leave them as not worthy of an answer. Howsoever, let it be noted, that he aknowledgeth, by knee∣ling they depart from the example of Christ.

CHAP. VII.

Other Positions built upon the former ground.

THe third consequence which we inferre upon our former [Sect. I] rule of following the example of Christ, is, that it is not a thing indifferent, to omit the repetition of those words,

This is my body, enunciatively and demonstratively, in the act of di∣stributing the Eucharisticall Bread: and farre lesse is it indifferent, so to omit this demonstrative speech in the distribution, as in place of it to surrogate a Prayer, to preserve the soule and body of the com∣municant unto everlasting life. Our reason is, because Christ (whose example herein we ought to follow, used no prayer in the distribu∣tion, but that demonstrative enunciation, This is my body. But we goe forward.

The fourth Position, which we draw from the same rule, is, that [Sect. II] it is not indifferent for a Minister to omit the breaking of the Bread at the Lords Table, after the consecration, and in the distribution of it: because he ought to follow the example of Christ, who after he had blessed the Bread, and when hee was distributing it to them who were at Table, brake it, z 1.114 manibus comminuendo panem acceptum in partes: but had it not •…•…arved in small peeces, before it was brought to the Table. Hence a 1.115 G. I. Vossius doth rightly condemne those, who, though they breake the Bread in multas minutias, yet they break it not in actu sacramentali. Such a breaking as this, (he saith well,) is not Mistica but conquinaria.

The fifth Position drawen from the very same ground, is, that it [Sect. III] is not indifferent for a Minister in the act of distribution, to speake in the singular number, Take thou, eat thou, drinke thou: because he should follow the example of Christ, who in the distribution spake in the plurall number, Take ye, eate ye, drinke ye. And he who followeth not Christs example herein, by his speaking in the singular to one, he maketh that to be a private action betwixt himselfe and the commu∣nicant, which Christ made publike and common by his speaking to all at one time.

How idly b 1.116 B. Lindsey answereth to these things, it can not but appeare to every one who considereth, that we doe not challenge [Sect. IV] them for not breaking the Bread at all, for not pronouncing at all these words, This is my body, or for never pronouncing at all, those speeches in the plurall, take ye, eate ye, drinke ye; but for not breaking the Bread in the very act of distribution: for not propouncing de∣monstratively those words, This is my body, in the very act of distri∣bution: for not speaking in the plurall number, Take ye. &c. In the very act of distribution, as Christ did, having no other reasons to move him, then such as concerne us. Why then did not the B. say something to the point, which we presse him with? or shall we excuse him, because he had nothing to say to it?

Now last of all, we finde yet another point, whereby the c 1.117 B. departeth from the example and mind of Christ. He saith, that by [Sect. V]

the Sacramentall word, This is my body, the Bread is made the Sacra∣ment, &c. And that without this word, &c. all our Prayers & wishes should serve to no use. Where he will have the Bread to be other∣wise consecrated by us, then it was consecrated by Christ: for that Christ did not consecrate the Bread to be the Sacrament of his bo∣dy, by those words, This is my body, it is manifest, because the Bread was consecrated before his pronouncing of those words: or else what meaneth the blessing of it, before he brake it? It was both blessed & broken, and he was also distributing it to the Disciples, before ever he said, This is my body Beza, benedictionem expresse ad panis consecra∣tionem & quidem singularem, refert:: & omnes nostri referunt, consecratio∣nem intelligentes, &c, Qua ex communi cibo, in spiritualis alimoniae sacra∣mentum transmutetur, saith d 1.118 Pareus. Wherefore we must not think, to sanctify the Bread, by this prescript word, This is my body, but by Prayer and Thansgiving, as Christ did. Our Divines hold against the Papists, e 1.119 Verba illa quae in Sacramento sunt consecratoria, non esse paucula quaedam praescripta; sed praecipue verba orationis, quae non sunt prae∣scripta; And that f 1.120 through use of the Prayers of the Church, there is a change in the Elements. g 1.121 D Fulk objecteth against Gregory Ma•…•…tin, Your Popish Church doth not either as the Greeke Liturgies, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Chur∣ches in Ambrose and Augustines time: for they hold that the Elements are con∣secrated by Prayer and Thanksgiving. I know none who will speake with B. Lindsey, in this point, except Papists. Yet h 1.122 Cornelius a Lapide could also say, Eucharistiaconficitur & conditur sacris precibus.

I say not, that these words, This is my body, have no use at all, in [Sect. VI] making the Bread to be a Sacrament. But that which giveth us dis∣like, is,

1. That the B. maketh not the Word and Prayer togither, but the Word alone; to sanctify the Bread and Wine. •…•…ow if i 1.123 both the Word and Prayer be necessary, to sanctify the creatures for the food of our bodies, much more are they necessar to sanctify them for the food of our soules. k 1.124 Neque enim solis domini verbis consecratio fit, sed etiam precibus. The Fathers (saith l 1.125 Trelcatius) had not onely respect to those five words. For this is my body, dum Eucharistiam fieri dixerunt, mistica prece, invocatione nominis divini, solemni benedictione, gra∣tiarum actione. 2. That he makes not the whole word of the Institu∣tion, to sanctify the Bread, but onely that one sentence, This is my body. Whereas Christs will is declared, and consequently the Ele∣ments sanctisyed, m 1.126 by the whole word of the institution: Iesus tooke the Bread, and when he had given thankes, he brake it, and said, Take eate, this is my body which is broken for you, this doe in remembrance of me, &c.

3. That he aknowledgeth not the Bread, though sanctified by Prayer, to be the Sacrament, except that very word be pronounced,

This is my body. Now when a Minister hath from Christs will & insti∣tution declared, that he hath appointed Bread & Wine, to be the Ele∣ments of his body and blood: when he hath also declared the essen∣tiall rites of this Sacrament.

And lastly, when by the Prayer of consecration he hath sancti∣fyed the Bread and Wine which are present: put the case, that all this while, those prescript sentences, This is my body, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, have not beene pronounced; yet what hin∣dereth the Bread and Wine, from beeing the Sacramentall Ele∣ments of the Lords body and blood? It is sounder Divinity to say, n 1.127 that the consecration of a Sacrament, doth not depend ex certa aliqua formula verborum. For it is evident, that in Baptisme there is not a certaine forme of words prescribed, as o 1.128 Bellarmine also pro∣veth: because Christ saith not: Say, I baptise thee in the name, &c. But onely he saith, Baptizing them in the name, &c. So that he prescribeth not what should be said, but what should be done. p 1.129 Aquinas like∣wise holdeth, that the consecration of a Sacrament is not absolute∣ly tied to a certaine forme of words. And so saith q 1.130 Conradus Vor∣stius, speaking of the Eucharist. Wherefore r 1.131 Vossius doth rightly con∣demne the Papists, quod consecrationem non aliis verbis fieri putant, quam istis, hoc est corpus meum, & hic est sanguis meus.

CHAP. VIII.

That the Ceremonies are not things indifferent to the Church of Scotland: because she did abjure and repudiat them, by a most solemne and generall Oath.

HAving spoken of the nature of things indifferent, and shewed which things bee such; also of the rule whereby to trie the [Sect. I] indifferency of things: which rule we have applied to cer∣taine particular cases. It remaineth to say somewhat of the maine and generall purpose, which is principally questioned in this last part of our Dispute, namely, whether Crosse, Kneeling, Holy-dayes, Bishopping, and the other controverted Ceremonies, wherewith our Church is pressed this day, be such things as we may use freely and indifferently? The negative (which we hold) is strongly confir∣med by those Arguments, which in the third part of this our Dis∣pute wee have put in order, against the lawfulnesse of those Cere∣monies. Notwithstanding, we have thought fit, to adde somewhat more, in this place. And first we say, whatsoever bee the condition of the Ceremonies in their owne nature, they can not bee indiffe∣rently

embraced and used by the Church of Scotland, which hath not onely once cast them forth, but also given her great Oath solemne∣ly to the God of heaven; both witnessing her detestation of the Ro∣man Antichrist his five bastard Sacraments, with all his Rites, Ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true Sacraments, without the Word of God: all his vaine allegories, Rites, Signes, and Traditions, brought in the Kirke without or against the Word of God. And likewise, Promising and swearing to continue, as well in the Discipline and use of the Holy Sa∣craments, as in the Doctrine of this Reformed Church of Scotland, which then first she embraced and used, after she was truly refor∣med from Popery and Popish abuses. And this which I say, may be seene in the generall Confession of Faith, sworne and subscribed by his Majesties Father of everlasting memory, anno 1580, and by the severall Parochines in the Land, at his Majesties strait command: which also, was renued and sworne againe anno 1596. by the gene∣rall Assembly, by provinciall Assemblies, by Presbiteries, and par∣ticular Parish Churches.

No Reformed Church in Europe, is so strictly tied by the bond of [Sect. II] an Oath and Subscription, to hold fast her first Discipline and use of the Sacraments, and to hold out Popish Rites, as is the Church of Scotland. And who knoweth not that an Oath doth alwayes ob∣lige and bind, s 1.132 quando est factum de rebus certis & possibilibus, vere de sine dolo praemeditate, ac cum judicio, juste, ad gloriam Dei, & bonum proxi∣mi? What one of all those conditions, was here wanting? Can we then say any lesse, then a t 1.133 Pope said before us, Non est tutum quem∣libet contra juramentum suum venire, nisi tale sit, quod servatum vergat in interitum salutis aeternae? O damnable impietie! which maketh so small account of the violation of the foresaid Oath, which hath as great power to bind us, as u 1.134 that Oath of the Princes of Israel, made to the Gibeonites, had to bind their posterity, 2 Sam. 21. 1. 2. For it was made by the whole incorporation of this Land, and hath no tearme at which it may cease to bind. Nay, (in some respects) it bindeth more straitly, then that Oath of the Princes of Israell. For, 1. That was made by the Princes onely: this, by Prince, Pastors, and People. 2. That was made rashly: (for the text sheweth, that they asked not councell from the mouth of the Lord:) this, with most religious & due deliberation. 3. That was made to men: this, to the great God. 4. That sworne but once: this, once and again.

Some of our Opposites goe about to derogate somewhat from [Sect. III] the binding power of that Oath of the Princes of Israell: they are so nettled therewith, that they fitch hither and thither. x 1.135 D. Forbesse speaketh to the purpose thus: Iuramentum Gibeonitis praestitum contra ip∣sius

Dei mandatum, & inconsulto Deo, non potuissent Iosuae & Israelitae opere persicere, nisi Deus extraordinarie de suo mandato dispensasset, compassione paenitentis illius populi Gibeonitici, & prop •…•…r honorem sui nominis, ut neque faedifragorum fautor, neque supplicium poenitentium aspernator esse videretur.

Ans 1. If the Oath was against the Commandement of God, what dishonour had come to the name of God, though he had not patro∣nized the swearers of it, but hindered them from fulfilling their Oath? If a Christian sweare to kill a Pagan, and hereafter repent of his Oath, and not performe it; can there any dishonour redound thereby to the name of Christ? The D. forsooth must say so.

2. Where hath he read of the Repentance of the Gibeonites, which God would not despise?

3. If an Oath made against the Commandement of God, (the breach of the commandement beeing despenced with,) bindeth so strictly and inviolably, as that Oath of the Princes of Israell did: how much more ought we to thinke our selves strictly and inviola∣bly bound, by the solemne Oath of the Church of Scotland, which was not repugnant, but most consonant to the Word of God, even our Adversaries themselves being judges? for thus speaketh y 1.136 one of them. Quod autem jurarunt nostrates, non erat illicitum, sed a nobic omnibus jure praestari potest ac debet. So that the D. hath gained no∣thing, but loosed much, by that which he saith of the Isralites Oath. He hath even fanged himselfe faster in the snare which he though to escape.

O! but saith the D. that which they did either in swearing, or in performing their Oath, against the expresse Commandement of God, we may not draw into an ordinary example.

Ans. It was against the Commandement of God; no man will say, that we should follow either their swearing or their performing of their Oath. Yet in the meane time the D. is pressed with this Ar∣gument: that if their unlawfull Oath (in the case of Gods dispensa∣tion) did bind their posterity, much more doth that Oath of the Church of Scotland (which the D. hath aknowledged lawfull and commendable,) bind us this day.

But, 4. Albeit the D. hath hereby given us scope and advantage [Sect. IV] enough against himselfe. Neverthelesse for the trueths sake, I adde, that it can not be shewed how that Oath of the Princes of Israell was against the expresse Commandement of God: but it rather ap∣peareth that it was agreeable to the same. For as z 1.137 Tremellius hath it noted, that Commandement Deut 20. Whereby the Israelites were commanded, to save alive nothing in the Cities of the Canaanites, was to be onely understood of such Cities among them, as should make warre with them, and bee besieged by them. But the Gibeonites were

not of this sort, for they sought their lives, before the Israelites came to them: and by the same meanes, a 1.138 Rahab and her Fathers house got their life, because they sought it. b 1.139 Calvine also obser∣veth, Iussos fuisse Israelitas pacem omnibus offerre. And Iunius upon Deut. 20. distinguisheth well two Laws of warre given to Israel.

The first is concerning offering peace to all: which law is generall and common, as well to the Canaanites, as to forraine Nations. When thou comest night unto a City to fight against it, then proclaime peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. Which Commandement was afterward observed by Israel, of whom we read. c 1.140 That when Israel was strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. By d 1.141 Solomon also, who did not cut off the people that were left of the Hittites, and the Amorites, but onely made them to pay tribute. That which I say, is further confirmed by e 1.142 another place, where it is said, There was not a City that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they tooke in Battell. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israell in battell, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour: but that he might de∣stroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses. From which words it appea∣reth, that if the Canaanites had made peace with the children of Is∣rael, they were to shew them favour; and that they were bound by the Commandement of the Lord to destroy them, then onely and in that case, if they would not accept peace, but make warre; whence it commeth, that the cause of the destruction of the Canaanites, is im∣puted to their owne hardnesse and contumacy in not accepting of peace; and not to any Commandement which God had given to Is∣rael, for destroying them. In a word, it was voluntas signi, which in f 1.143 one place shewed the Israelites, what was their duty, namely to offer peace to all, even to the Canaanites, and not to cut them off, if they should accept the peace. But it was, voluntas beneplaciti, which (as we read in g 1.144 another place) decreed to deliver the Canaanites, before the Israelites, that is, to harden their hearts to come against them in B•…•…ttell, and so to overrule the matter by a secret and inscru∣table providence, that the Israelites might lawfully and should cer∣tainly destroy them, and shew them no mercy. Even as that same God, who by one word shewed unto Abraham, what was his duty h 1.145 bidding him offer up his sonne Isaack, by another Word signified unto him, what he had decreed to be done, i 1.146 forbidding him to lay his hand upon the Lad, or to doe any thing unto him. But this (I know,) will be very unsavory language, to many Arminianized Con∣formitans.

The other law of warre which Iunius upon Deut. 20. observeth,

prescribed to the Israelites, how they should deale with them who refused their peace. And here onely was the difference made be∣twixt the Cities which were very farre off, and the Cities of the Ca∣naanites, Deut. 20. 15. 16. But the first law was common; as hath been proven.

Ioseph Hall seemeth to deny, that the Oath of the Princes of Israel, had any power to bind, but upon another ground then D Forbesse tooke to himself. It would seeme very questionable, saith k 1.147 Hall, Whe∣ther Iosua needed to hold himself bound to this Oath: for fraudulent conven∣tions obliege not: and Israel had put in a direct caveat of their vicinity.

Ans. I marvell how it could enter in his mind to thinke this mat∣ter questionable, since the violation of that Oath l 1.148 was afterwards punished with three yeares famine. Yet let us hearken to his reasons. One of them is forged: for the Princes of Israel who sware unto them, put in no caveat at all. m 1.149 The Text saith only in the generall, that they sware unto them. As touching his other reason, it is an∣swered by n 1.150 Calvine. Iurisjurandi religio saith he, cousque sancta apud nos esse debet, ne erroris praetextu a pactis discedamus, etiam in quibus fuimus decepti. Which that it may be made more plaine unto us, let us with the Casuists distinguish o 1.151 a twofold error in swearing. For if the error be about the very substance of the thing, (as when a man contracts mariage with one particular person, taking her to be ano∣ther person,) the oath bindeth not. But if the error be only about some extrinsecall or accidentall circumstance, (such as was the error of the Israelites, taking the Gibeonites to dwell a farre off, when they dweit a hand,) the Oath ceaseth not to bind.

This much beeing said for the binding power of that Oath of the Church of Scotland: let us now consider what shifts our Opposits use [Sect. VI] to elude our Argument, which we drawe from the same; where first, there occureth to us one ground which the Bishop of Edinbrug doth every where beat upon, in the trace of this Argument: taken out of the 21. Article of the Confession of Faith, wherein we find these words. Not that we thinke that any Policie and an order in Ceremonies, can be appointed for all ages, times, and places: for as Ceremonies, such as men have devised, are but temporall, so may and ought they to be changed, when they rather foster superstition, then that they edify the Kirke using the same. Whereu•…•…on the B. concludeth, p 1.152 that none who sware the foresaid Article, could without breach of this Oath, sweare that the Ceremo∣ny of sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament, could be appoin∣ted for all ages, times, and places.

Ans. None of us denieth that Article, we all stand to it. For that which it pronounceth of Ceremonies, must be understoode of alte∣rable

circumstances, unto which the name of Ceremonies is but gene∣rally and improperly applied, as we have shewed q 1.153 elsewhere. Neither can we, for professing our selves bound by an oath, ever to retaine sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament, in this Natio∣nall Church of Scotland, be therefore thought to transgresse the said Article.

For, 1. The Article speaketh of Ceremonies devised by men, whereof sitting at the Sacrament is none, being warranted (as hath beene shewed) by Christs owne example, and not by mans device.

2. The Article speaketh of such Ceremonies, as rather foster su∣perstition, then edify the Church using the same: whereas it is well knowen, that sitting at the Communion did never yet foster super∣stition in this Church. So that the B. did very unadvisedly reckon sitting at the Communion among those Ceremonies whereof the Article speaketh.

But the B. hath a further aime, and attempteth no lesse then both to put the blot of perjurie off himself and his fellowes, and like∣wise [Sect. VII] to rub it upon us, (s) telling us, That no man did by the Oath oblige * 1.154 himself to obey and defend that part of Discipline, which concerneth these al∣terable things, all the dayes of his life; but only, that Discipline which is un∣changeable and commanded in the Word. Yea (saith he,) we further af∣firme, that every man who sware to the Discipline of the Church in gene∣rall, by vertue of that Oath standeth obliged, not only to obey and defend the constitutions of the Church, that were in force at the time of making his Oath; but also to obey and defend whatsoever the Church thereafter hath ordained, or shall ordaine, &c. Whether thereby the former constitutions be esta∣blished or altered, &c. The same answere doth s 1.155 D. Forbesse also re∣turne us.

Ans. 1. Here is a manifest contradiction, for the B. saith that every man did by this Oath oblige himself, only to obey and defend that Discipline which is unchangeable & commanded in the Word. And yet againe he seemeth to import, (that which t 1.156 D Forbesse plainely avoucheth,) that every man obliged himself by the same Oath, to obey and defend, all that the Church should afterwards ordaine, though thereby the former constitutions be altered. The B. therefore doth apparently contradict himself, or at the best, hee contradicteth his fellow-pleader for the Ceremo∣nies.

2. That auncient Discipline and policy of this Church, which is contrary to the Articles of Perth, and whereunto we a•…•…e bound by the Oath, was well grounded upon Gods Word, and therefore should not have beene ranked among other alterable things.

3. Whereas the B. is of opinion, that a man may by his Oath tie himself to things which a Church shall afterward ordaine: he may consider, that such an oath were unlawfull, because not sworne in judgement, Ier. 4. 2. Now this judgement which is required, as one of the inseparable companions of a lawfull Oath, is not Executio justi∣tiae, but Iudicium discretionis, as u 1.157 Thomas teacheth, whom Bullinger and Zanchius x 1.158 doe herein follow. But there is no judgement of discretion, in his oath who sweares to that he knowes not what, even to that which may fall out as readily wrong as right.

4. Whereas the B. and the D. alledge, that every man who sware to the Discipline of this Church, standeth obliged to obey all that the Church ordained afterward, they greatly deceive them∣selves:

For, 1. The Discipline spoken of in the promissorie part of the Oath, must be the same which was spoken of in the assertorie part. Now that which is mentioned in the assertorie part, can not be ima∣gined to be any other, but that which was then presently used in this Church, at the time of giving the Oath. For y 1.159 an assertorie Oath is either of that which is past, or of that which is present. And the assertorie part of the Oath whereof we speake, was not of any Dis∣cipline past and away: Ergo. of that which was present. Moreover, z 1.160 Thomas doth rightly put this difference betwixt an assertorie and a promissorie Oath; that the matter of a promissorie Oath is a thing to come, which is alterable, as concerning the event. Materia autem juramenti assertorii quod est de praeterito vel praesenti, in quandam necessita∣tem jam transiit, & immutabilis facta est. Since then the Discip•…•…ine spoken of in the asseriorie part, was no other then that which was used in this Church, when the Oath was sworne: and since the pro∣missorie part is illative upon and relative unto the matter of the asser∣torie part: Therefore we conclude, the Discipline spoken of in the promissory part, could be no other, then that which was then pre∣sently used in this Church, at the swearing of the Oath.

2. Since the doctrine mentioned in that Oath, is said to have beene professed openly by the Kings majesty, and the whole body of this Realme, before the swearing of the same: why should we not likewise understand the Discipline mentioned in the Oath, to be that vvhich vvas practised in this Realme, before the svvearing of the same?

3. This is further proved by the vvord Continuing. We are svvorne to continue in the obedience of the Doctrine and Discipline of this Church: but hovv can men be said to continue in the obedience of any other Discipline, then that vvhich they have already begunne to obey? This the B. seemes to have perceived, for he speakes only of defending and obeying, but not of continuing to obey, vvhich

is the vvord of the Oath: and vvhich proveth the Discipline there spoken of, and svvorne to, to be no other then that vvhich vvas pra∣ctised in this Church, vvhen the Oath vvas svvorne. 4. Whiles vve hold, that he vvho svveareth to the present Discipline of a Church, is no•…•… by vertue of this Oath, obliged to obey all vvhich that Church shall ordaine aftervvard; both the Schoole & the Canon Lavv doe speake for us. The Schoole teacheth, a 1.161 that Canonicus qui jurat se servaturum statuta edita in aliquo Collegio, non tenetur ex juramento ad ser∣vandum futura. The Canon Lavv judgeth, b 1.162 that qui jurat servare sta∣tuta edita, &c. non tenetur ex juramento ad noviter edita.

But vve are more fully to consider that ground vvhereby be Bish∣op [Sect. VIII] thinketh to purge himself, and those of his Sect, of the breach of the Oath. c 1.163 He still alledgeth, that the points of Discipline for vvhich vve contend, are not contained in the matter of the Oath. Now as touching the Discipline of this Church which is spoken of in the Oath d 1.164 he questioneth what is meant by it.

Ans. 1. Put the case it were doubtfull and questionable, what is meant by the word Discipline in the Oath; yet pars tutior were to be chosen; The B. nor no man among us can certainly know, that the Discipline meant and spoken of in the Oath, by those that sware it, comprehendeth not under it those points of Discipline for which we now contend, and which this Church had in use at the swearing of the Oath. Shall we then put the breach of the Oath in a faire hazard? God forbid. For as e 1.165 Ioseph Hall noteth from the example of Iosua and the Princes, men may not trust to shifts for the eluding of an Oath: Surely the feare of Gods name should make us to trem∣ble at an Oath, and to bee farre from adventuring upon any such shifts.

2. The B. doth but needlessely question, what is meant by the Discipline whereof the Oath speaketh. For howsoever in Ecclesia∣sticall use, it signify oftentimes that policy which standeth in the censuring of manners: yet in the Oath, it must be taken in the lar∣gest sence, namely, for the wholle policy of the Church. For, 1. * 1.166 The wholle policy of this Church, did at that time goe under the name of Discipline: and those two bookes wherein this policy is contained, were called, The bookes of Discipline. And without all doubt, they who sware the Oath meant by Discipline that whole po∣licy of the Church which is contained in those bookes. Howbeit (as the preface of them sheveth) Discipline doth also comprehend other Ecclesiasticall ordinances and constitutions, which are not in∣seet•…•…d in them. 2. Doctrine and Discipline, in the Oath, doe com∣prehend all that, to which the Church required, and we promised to performe obedience. Ergo, the whole policy of the Church was

meant by Discipline, forasmuch as it was not comprehended under Doctrine.

f 1.167 The B. objecteth three limitations, whereby he thinketh to se∣clude [Sect. IX] from the matter of the Oath that policy and Discipline vvhich vve plead for.

First, he saith, that the matter of the Oath is the Doctrine & Dis∣cipline revealed to the world by the Gospel: and that this limita∣tion excludeth all Ecclesiasticall constitutions, which are not ex∣pressely, or by a necessary consequence contained in the written Word.

2. That the matter of the Oath is the Doctrine and Discipline, which is received, believed, and defended by many notable Chur∣ches, &c. and that this limitation excludeth all these things, wherein the Church of Scotland hath not the consent of many notable Chur∣ches, &c.

3 That the Doctrine and Discipline which is the matter of the Oath, is particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith, &c. and that in this Confession of Faith, established by Parliament, there is no mention made of the Articles controverted, &c.

Ans. I might here shew how he confoundeth the preaching of the Evangell, with the written Word: likewise, how falsely he affirmeth, that the points of Discipline for which we plead, are neither warran∣ted by the Scripture, nor by the consent of many notable Chur∣ches. But to the point. These words of the Oath: We beleeve, &c. that this only is the true Christian Faith and Religion, pleasing God, and bring∣ing salvation to man, whilk now is by the mercy of God, revealed to the world, by the preaching of the blessed Evangel. and received, believed, and defen∣ded, by many and sundry notable Kirkes and Realmes, but chiefly by the Kirke of Scotland; the Kings Majesty; and three Estaites., &c. as more particu∣larly is expressed in the Confession of our Faith, &c. are altogither perverted by the B. for there is no Discipline spoken of in these words, but af∣terward: why then talkes he of a Discipline revealed to the world by the Gospell, having the consent of many notable Churches, and ex∣pressed in the Confession of Faith? And if the B. will have any Dis∣cipline to be meant of in these words, he must comprehend it under the Christian Faith and Religion, which bringeth Salvation unto man. But this he can not doe, with so much as the least shew of rea∣son. Thus put we an end to the Argument taken from the Oath of God: wishing every man amongst us, out of the feare of Gods glorious and fearfull name, duly to regard and ponder the same.

CHAP. IX.

A recapitulation of sundry other reasons against the Indifferency of the Ceremonies.

THat the Ceremonies are not indifferent to us, or such [Sect. I] things as we may freely practise, we prove yet by other reasons.

For, 1. They who plead for the indifferency of the Ce∣remonies must tell us whether they call them indifferent in actu sig∣nato, or in actu exercito, or in both these respects. Now g 1.168 we have proven, that there is no action deliberated upon, and wherein wee proceed with the advise of reason, which can be indifferent in actu ex∣ercito: and that because it can not choose, but either have all the cir∣cumstances which it should have, (and so be good,) or else want some of them, one or moe, (and so be evill.) And as for the indifferency of the Ceremonies in actu signato, though we should acknowledge it, (which we doe not,) yet it could be no warrant for the practise of them: or else the beleeving Gentiles might have freely eaten all meats, notwithstanding of the scandall of the Iewes: for the ea∣ting of all meats freely was still a thing indifferent in actu signato.

2. The Ceremonies are not indifferent, eo ipso that they are pre∣scribed [Sect. II] and commended unto us as indifferent. For as h 1.169 Aquinas resolveth out of Isidore, every humane or positive Law, must be both necessaria ad remotionem malorum, and utilis ad consecutionem bonorum. The Guides of Gods Church have not power to prescribe any other thing, then that which is good and profitale for edifying. For they are set not as Lords over Christs inheritance, but as Ministers for their good. It seemed good to the holy Ghost & to us i 1.170 say the Apostles and Elders to the Churches, to lay upon you no greater burden then these ne∣cessary things. They would not (you see) have enacted a Canon about those things, howbeit indifferent in their owne nature, had they not found them necessary, for the eshewing of Scandall. And as for the Civill Magistrate, he also hath not power to prescribe any thing which he pleaseth, though it be in it self indifferent: for he is the Mi∣nister of God unto thee for good, k 1.171 saith the Apostle: marke that word for good. It lets us see, that the Magistrate hath not power given him, to injoyne any other thing, then that which may be for our good. Non enim su a causa dominantur saith l 1.172 Calvine: sed publico bono: neque effraeni potentia praediti sunt, sed quae subditorum saluti sit obstricta. Now the first and chiefest good, which the Magistrate is bound to see for

unto the Subjects, is, (as m 1.173 Pareus sheweth) Bonum spirituale. Let us then, either see the good of the Ceremonies; or else we must account them to be such things, as God never gave Princes nor Pastors power to injoyne. For howsoever they have power to prescribe many things which are indifferent, that is to say, neither good nor evill in their generall nature: yet they may not command us to practise any thing, which in the particular use of it is not necessary or expedient for some good end.

3. The Ceremonies are not indifferent, because notwithstan∣ding [Sect. III] that they are prescribed and commended unto us as things in themselves indifferent, yet wee are by the will and auctority of men compelled and necessitated to use them: Si vero ad res sua natura medias accedat coactio, &c. then say n 1.174 the Magdebur∣gians, Paul teacheth, Coloss 2. that it is not lawful to use them freely. If ye bee dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not, taste not, handle not: which are all to perish with the using) after the Com∣mandements and Doctrines of men? Hence is o 1.175 Tertullian taxed, for inducing a necessity in things indifferent. Now with how great ne∣cessity and coaction the Ceremonies are imposed upon us, we have made it evident p 1.176 elsewhere.

4. Whatsoever be the quality of the Ceremonies in their owne na∣ture, they are not indifferent to us, neither may we freely practise [Sect. IV] them, because Papists make advantage of them, and take occasion from them, to confirme sundry of their errors and superstitions: as we have likewise q 1.177 elsewhere made evident. Now Cum Adiaphora rapiuntur ad confessionem, libera esse desinunt r 1.178 saith the Harmony of Con∣fessions. Marke Rapiuntur. Though they get no just occasion, yet if they take occasion, though unjustly, that is enough to make us abstaine from things indifferent. Etiam ea saith s 1.179 Balduine, quae na∣tura sua sunt liberae observationis, in statu confessionis, cum ab adversari•…•…s eorum mutatio postulatur, fiunt necessaria.

5. Things which are most indifferent in themselves, become evill [Sect. V] in the case of Scandall, and so may not be used. So hold t 1.180 the Cen∣turie Writers: So u 1.181 Pareus: So x 1.182 Zanchius: So y 1.183 Chemnitius: So z 1.184 Augustine: and so hath the a 1.185 Apostle taught. But that out of the practise of the Ceremonies there groweth active Scandall unto

the weake, b 1.186 we have most clearly proven. Wherefore let them be in their owne nature as indifferent as any thing can be, yet they are not indifferent to be used and practised by us. And whosoever swalloweth this Scandall of Christs litle ones, and repenteth not, the heavie milstone of Gods dreadfull wrath, shall be hanged about his necke to sinke him downe in the bottomlesse lake: and then shall he feele that which before he would not understand.

6. It is not enough for warrant of our practise, that we doe those [Sect. VI] things which are indifferent or lawfull in themselves, except they be also expedient to be done by us, according to the Apostles rule, 1 Cor. 6. 12. But c 1.187 I have proven that many and waighty inconve∣niences doe follow upon the Ceremonies; as namely, that they m•…•…ke way and are the Vshers for greater evils: that they hinder edifica∣tion; and in their fleshly shew and outward splendor, obscure and prejudge the life and power of Godlinesse; that they are the unhap∣pie occasions of much injury and cruelty against the Faithfull Ser∣vants of Christ; that they were bellowes to blow up, and are still fewell to encrease the Church-consuming fire of woefull dissentions amongst us, &c. Where also d 1.188 we shew, that some of our Oppo∣sites themselves aknowledge the inconveniency of the Ceremonies. Wherefore we can not freely nor indifferently practise them.

7. These Ceremonies are the accursed monuments of Popish Su∣perstition; [Sect. VII] and have been both dedicated unto and employed in the publike and solemne worship of Idols. And therefore (having no necessary use for which we should still retaine them) they ought to bee utterly abolished, and are not left free nor indifferent to us. Which Argument e 1.189 I have also made good elsewhere. And in this place I onely adde, that both f 1.190 Hieronimus, Zanchius, and g 1.191 Aman∣dus Polanus, doe applie this Argument to the Surplice, holding, that though it be in it selfe indifferent, yet quia in cultu Idololatrico veste li∣nea utuntur Clerici Papani, & in ea non parum sanctimoniae ponunt supersti∣tiosi homines: valedicendum est non solum cultui idololatrico, sed etiam om∣nibus idololatriae monumentis, instrumentis & adminiculis. Yea Ioseph Hall himselfe, doth herein give testimony unto us: for upon Hezekias pulling downe of the Brasen Serpent, because of the Idolatrous ab∣use of it: thus h 1.192 he noteth, God commanded the raising of it, God com∣manded the abolishing of it. Superstitious use can marre the very institutions of God: how much more the most wise and well grounded devices of men? And further in the end of this treatise entitled, The honour of the married Clear∣gie, he adjoyneth a passage taken out of the Epistle of Erasmus Rotero∣damus to Christopher Bishop of Basil, which passage beginneth thus. For those things which are altogither of humane constitution, must (like to remedies

in diseases) be attempered to the present estate of matters and times. Those things which were once religiously instituted, afterwards according to occasion, and the changed quality of manners and times, may be with more Religion and Piety abrogated. Final•…•…y, if Hezekias bee praised for breaking downe the Brazen Serpent, (though instituted by God,) when the Israelites beganne to abuse it against the honour of God; how much more s•…•…h i 1.193 Zanchius are our Reformers to be praised, for that they did thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉. R•…•…tes instituted by men, beeing found full of Superstitious abuse, though in themselves they had not been evill.

[Sect. VIII] 8. The Ceremonies are not indifferent, because they depart too farre from the example of Christ, and his Apostles, and the purer times of the Church: for in stead of that auncient Christian-like, and soule-edifying simplicity: Religion is now by their meanes bus∣ked with the vaine trumpery of Babilonish trinckers, and her face covered with the whorish and eye-bewitching farding, of fleshly shew and splendor. And k 1.194 I have also shewed particularly, how •…•…dry of the Ceremonies are flat contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles, and the best times.

9. The Ceremonies make us also too conforme, and like to the [Sect. IX] Idolatrous Papists: whereas it is not lawfull to symbolize with Ido∣laters, or to be like them, in a Ceremony of mans devising, or any thing which hath no necessary use in Religion: such a distance and a dissimilitude thete is required to be betwixt the Church of Christ and the Synagouge of Sathan, betwixt the Temple of God and the Kingdome of the Beast, betwixt the company of sound Beleevers & the conventicles of Heretikes who are without, betwixt the true worshippers of God, and the Worshippers of Idols: that we can not without beeing accessary to their superstitious and false Religion, and partaking with the same, appeare conforme unto them in their unnecessary Rites and Ceremonies. l 1.195 Durand tels us, that they call Easter by the Greeke, and not by the Hebrew name, and that they keep not that Feast upon the same day with the Iewes: and all for this cause, least they should seeme to judarze. How much more reason have we to abstaine from the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, lest we seeme to Romanize? But I say no more in this place, because m 1.196 I have heretofore confirmed this Argument at length.

10. The Ceremonies as urged upon us, are also full of Super∣stition: Holinesse and Worship are placed in them: as n 1.197 we have [Sect. X] proven by unanswerable grounds, and by Testimonies of our Op∣posites

themselves. Therefore were they never so indifferent in their owne generall nature, this placing of them in the state of worship, maketh them cease to be indifferent.

11. The Ceremonies against which we dispute, are more then [Sect. XI] matters of mere order, forsomuch as sacred and misterious signifi∣cations are given unto them, and by their significations they are thought to teach men effectually, sundry misteries, and duties of Pietie. Therefore they are not free nor indifferent, but more then men have power to institute: For except Circumstances and mat∣ters of mere order, there is nothing which concerneth the Worship of God, left to the determination of men. And this Argument al∣so o 1.198 hath been in all the parts of it fully explained and strength∣ned by us, which strongly proveth that the Ceremonies are not indifferent, so much as quo ad speciem. Quare doctrina a nobis tradita (these be p 1.199 Zanchius words) non licere nobis, aliis externi cultus Ceremo∣niis Deum colere, quam quas ipse in sacris literis per Apostolos praescripsit, fir∣ma ac certa manet.

12. Whatsoever indifferency the Ceremonies could bee thought [Sect. XII] to have in their owne nature, yet if it be considered how the Church of Scotland hath once been purged from them, and hath spewed them out with detestation, and hath enjoyed the comfortable light and sweet beames of the glorious and bright shining Gospell of Christ, without shadowes and figures; then shall it appeare, that there is no indifferency in (p) turning backe to weake and beggarlv E•…•…ements. * 1.200 And thus saith r 1.201 Calvine of the Ceremonies of the Interim, that graunting they were things in themselves indifferent, yet the restitu∣tion of them in those Churches, which were once purged from them, is no indifferent thing. Wherefore ô Scotland! s 1.202 strengthen the things which remaine, that are read•…•…e to die.

t 1.203 Remember also from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and doe the first workes: or else thy candlestick will be quickly removed out of this place, except thou repent.

Notes

• a 1.1

  de benef. lib. 5. cap. 16.
• b 1.2

  1. 2a q. 18. art. 9.
• c 1.3

  Bald. de cas. consc. lib. 2. cap. 9. cas. 9.
• d 1.4

  Iren. lib. 1. cap. 13. §. 7.
• e 1.5

  Ibid. §. 10.
• f 1.6

  ubi su∣pra.
• g 1.7

  ubi su∣pra cap. 13. §. 7.
• * 1.8

  Quaestio, quid est? de quolibet in∣dividuo con∣tento sub spe cie, non pe∣tit quiddi∣tatem ejus singularem, sed commu∣nem totius speciei, saith P. Fonseca, com. in Me∣taph. Arist. lib. 7. cap. 15 quest. unic. sect. 2.
• h 1.9

  1^a. 2^a. q. 21. art. 2.
• i 1.10

  de subtil. exerc. 307. dist. 27.
• k 1.11

  1^a. 2^a. q. 100. art. 1.
• l 1.12

  ubi su∣pra cap. 13. §. 7.
• m 1.13

  Aquin. 1. 2a q. 31. art. 8.
• n 1.14

  ubi su∣pra.
• o 1.15

  ubi su∣pra.
• p 1.16

  ubi su∣pra lib. 2. c. 5. num. 1.
• q 1.17

  Schol. in lib. 2. de Ben•…•…f.
• r 1.18

  Iun. de pol. mos. cap. 7.
• t 1.19

  Camer. prael tom. 2. pag. 49.
• * 1.20

  (s) Aquin. 1^a 2^a. q. 18. art. 3.
• u 1.21

  D. Bur∣gess of the lauf of kneel. c. 1.
• y 1.22

  com. in illum locum.
• z 1.23

  Pareus com. in il∣lum locum.
• a 1.24

  1. Sam. 2. 15.
• b 1.25

  Cor. 6. 13. & 10. 23.
• c 1.26

  10. 1•…•…. 50.
• d 1.27

  Calv. com. in il∣lum locum.
• e 1.28

  In Rom. 14. 7. 8.
• f 1.29

  Iun. lib. 1. cap. 12. §. 16.
• g 1.30

  expos in. Col. 3. 17.
• h 1.31

  ubi su∣pra cap. 11. sect. •…•…6.
• i 1.32

  Act. 15. 28.
• k 1.33

  In Act. 15. n. 18.
• l 1.34

  Annot. on Act. 15 sect. 10.
• m 1.35

  Rom. 14. 1•…•….
• n 1.36

  1 Pet. 2. 13.
• o 1.37

  Eph. 6. 6.
• p 1.38

  Zanch. in Ephes. 6. 5. 6.
• q 1.39

  1 Cor. 7. 23•…•…
• r 1.40

  Taylor on Tit. 1. 15. p. 295.
• s 1.41

  Id. ibid. p. 289.
• t 1.42

  Calv. in Rom. 14. 5.
• u 1.43

  Ames. lib 3 de consc. cap. 8. q. 5.
• x 1.44

  Aquin. 1a. 2a. q. 18. art 8.
• y 1.45

  ibid. art. 9.
• z 1.46

  Hist. of the counc. of Trent. lib. 2 p. 196.
• a 1.47

  Com. in 1 Cor. 6. 12.
• b 1.48

  in Rō. 14. dub. 1.
• c 1.49

  Iren. lib. 1. cap. 13. §. 7. 9. 10.
• d 1.50

  In Rom. 14. dub. 1.
• e 1.51

  In Rō. 14. 20.
• f 1.52

  lib. 3. de conss. cap. 18.
• g 1.53

  Ia. 3. 2.
• h 1.54

  Psal. 19. 12.
• i 1.55

  ubi su∣pra. §. 7.
• k 1.56

  1. Cor. 7. 39.
• * 1.57

  (〈◊〉〈◊〉) com. in Eph. 6 1.
• m 1.58

  Eph. 6. 1.
• n 1.59

  ubi su∣pra.
• o 1.60

  com. in Rom. 14. 23.
• p 1.61

  prael. Tom. 2. pag. 345.
• q 1.62

  G. •…•…anct. in Act. 16. 3.
• r 1.63

  Act. 1•…•…. 28.
• s 1.64

  de Instit. actual. cap. 42. p. 490.
• t 1.65

  Apol. Part. 1. cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. sect. 1.
• u 1.66

  lib. 2. Epist. 3.
• x 1.67

  Proc. in Perth. As∣semb. part. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 38. & 40.
• * 1.68

  (〈◊〉〈◊〉) Io. 16. 6.
• * 1.69

  (〈◊〉〈◊〉) Io. 16. 12.
• * 1.70

  (〈◊〉〈◊〉) ubi su∣pra.
• b 1.71

  supra part. 3. cap. 6. sect. 12.
• c 1.72

  com. in Math. 26. 27.
• d 1.73

  ubi su∣pra pag. 62.
• e 1.74

  Luk. 12. 13.
• f 1.75

  Maldon. ubi supra.
• g 1.76

  de re Sacram. lib. 2. pag. 31.
• h 1.77

  com. in Math. 26. 26.
• i 1.78

  com. in 1. Cor. 11 21.
• k 1.79

  Math. 26. 26. Marke 14. 22.
• l 1.80

  Instit. lib. 4. cap. 17. § 35.
• m 1.81

  apud Didcclav. p. 794.
• n 1.82

  disp. 3. de symb. ca∣nae dom. thes 4.
• o 1.83

  vbi supra
• p 1.84

  3. q. 81. art. 1.
• n 1.85

  de sacr. Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 30.
• r 1.86

  concord. Evang. cap. 129.
• s 1.87

  In Luk. 22. 19.
• t 1.88

  Apol. part 2. cap. 3. sect 5.
• u 1.89

  Luke 22. 20.
• x 1.90

  1 Cor. 11. 25.
• y 1.91

  Ioseph. lib. 7. de bello Iud. cap. 17.
• z 1.92

  Mos. and Aaron lib. 3. c. 4.
• a 1.93

  com. in Math. 26. 21.
• b 1.94

  ubi su∣pra.
• c 1.95

  com. in 10. 13. 2.
• d 1.96

  ubi su∣pra.
• e 1.97

  annot. on. 1 Cor. 11. 23.
• f 1.98

  ubi su∣pra.
• g 1.99

  par. ubi supra.
• h 1.100

  Iansen. conc. Evang. cap. 131.
• k 1.101

  Iren. lib. 2. pag. 5 5. 361. 362.
• l 1.102

  Alt. dam. pag. 739.
• m 1.103

  Hadr. •…•…ua. in no∣men•…•…lat.
• n 1.104

  ubi su∣pra pag. 46.
• o 1.105

  Tractat. die festo vi∣rid. p. 256.
• p 1.106

  In Luke. 22. 14.
• q 1.107

  praelect. Tom. 3. pag 27.
• r 1.108

  partic. def. cap. 3. sect. 4.
• s 1.109

  annot. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1 Cor. 11. 23.
• t 1.110

  ubi supra p. 11.
• u 1.111

  See Alt. Dā. p. 742.
• x 1.112

  ubi su∣pra p. 40.
• y 1.113

  Eccl. Pol. lib. 5 sect. 6.
• z 1.114

  Pareus in 1 Cor. 11. 24.
• a 1.115

  de symb. caenae dom. disp. 2. thes. 5.
• b 1.116

  Part. 2. pag. 55. 56. 57.
• c 1.117

  Ibid.
• d 1.118

  com. in Math. 26. 26.
• e 1.119

  Ames. Bell. ener. Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 2. q. 2.
• f 1.120

  Cartwr. on Math. 26. s 6.
• g 1.121

  defence of the English translation cap. 17. n. 5
• h 1.122

  com. in Mal. 1. 11.
• i 1.123

  1 Tim. 4. 5.
• k 1.124

  G. I. Voss. de symb caenae dom. disp. 2. thes. 2.
• l 1.125

  Instit. Theol. lib. 2. p. 258.
• m 1.126

  Ames. ubi supra.
• n 1.127

  Ames. ubi supra. lib 4. cap. 6.
• o 1.128

  apud. A∣mes. ibid. lib. 1 cap. 2.
• p 1.129

  3. q. 60. art. 8.
• q 1.130

  in En∣chir. contr. inter Evang. & Pontif.
• r 1.131

  ubi supra,
• s 1.132

  Alsted. Theol. cas. cap. 15. p. 270.
• t 1.133

  Decret. Greg. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 8
• u 1.134

  Ios. 9.
• x 1.135

  Iren. lib. 1. cap. 9. §. 2.
• y 1.136

  D. Forb. ibid. §. 3.
• z 1.137

  In Ios. 9. 19.
• a 1.138

  Ios. 2.
• b 1.139

  com. in Ios. 9.
• c 1.140

  Ios. 17. 13. & Iudg. 1. •…•…8.
• d 1.141

  •…•…2 Chron. 8. 7. 8.
• e 1.142

  Ios. 11. 19. 20.
• f 1.143

  Deut. 20, 10.
• g 1.144

  Deut. 7. 2.
• h 1.145

  Gen. 22. 2.
• i 1.146

  Ibid. vers. 12.
• k 1.147

  con∣templ. lib. 8. of the Gibeon.
• l 1.148

  2. Sam. 21. 1. 2.
• m 1.149

  Ios. 9. 15.
• n 1.150

  com. in Ios. 9.
• o 1.151

  Ames. lib. 4. de consc. cap. 22. q 9.
• p 1.152

  part. 2. pag. 5.
• q 1.153

  supra part. 3. c. 7. sect. 5.
• * 1.154

  (r) ubi su∣pra pag. 16.
• s 1.155

  Iren. lib. 1. c. 9. §. 3. 4. 6.
• t 1.156

  Ibid. §. 4. & 6.
• u 1.157

  2a. 2a. q. 49. art. 3.
• x 1.158

  Zanch. in 3 um. praec. p. 599.
• y 1.159

  polan. synt. theol. l 9. cap. 23. pag. 802. Zanch. in 3. um. praec. p. 599.
• z 1.160

  2a •…•…a. q. 89. art. 9.
• a 1.161

  Aquin. ubi suprae q. 48. art. 2.
• b 1.162

  decr. Greg. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 35.
• c 1.163

  ubi su∣pra pag. 9.
• d 1.164

  ibid. pag. 12.
• e 1.165

  ubi su∣pra.
• * 1.166

  Zan∣chius gi∣veth the name of Ec∣clesiasticall Discipline to the rites and policy of the Church and lawes made thereanent. In 4. praec, col. 763.
• f 1.167

  ubi supra pag. 10.
• g 1.168

  supra cap. 3.
• h 1.169

  1^a. 2^oe. q. 95. art. 3.
• i 1.170

  Act. 15. 28.
• k 1.171

  Rom. 13. 4.
• l 1.172

  com. in illum locum.
• m 1.173

  com. ibid.
• n 1.174

  cent. 3 cap. 4. col. 86.
• o 1.175

  Ibid.
• p 1.176

  supra part 1. cap. 3. & 4.
• q 1.177

  supra part. 2. cap. 6 & cap. 9. sect. 4.
• r 1.178

  apud Parke of the Crosse cap. 3 sect. 6.
• s 1.179

  de cas. consc. lib. 4. c. 11. cas. 3.
• t 1.180

  cent. 1. lib. 2 cap. 4. col. 441.
• u 1.181

  com. in Rom. 14. dub. 1.
• x 1.182

  de imagin. p. 390.
• y 1.183

  exam. part. 1. pag. 179.
• z 1.184

  Epist. 86. ad Casulan.
• a 1.185

  1 Cor. 8. 8. 9.
• b 1.186

  supra part. 2. cap. 9.
• c 1.187

  supra part. 2.
• d 1.188

  Ibid. cap. 1.
• e 1.189

  supra part. 3. cap. 2.
• f 1.190

  lib. 1. de cult. Dei ex∣tern. col. 4•…•…6.
• g 1.191

  Synt. Theol. lib. 9. cap. 38.
• h 1.192

  lib. 7. contempl. of the Brazen Serpent.
• i 1.193

  •…•…m. in Eph 5. de Bapt. cap. 7.
• k 1.194

  supra cap. 5. 6. 7. & part. 1. cap. 8. & 9. sect. 2. & part. 3. cap. 1. sect. 3. & 4. sect. 5. 28: & part. 2. cap. 9. sect. 14.
• l 1.195

  Ration. lib. 6. tit. de die sanct. Pasch.
• m 1.196

  supra part. 3. c. 3.
• n 1.197

  supra part. 3. c. 1.
• o 1.198

  supra part. 3 cap. 5. & 6. sect. 3. & 7. sect. 5. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
• p 1.199

  de cult. Dei extern. Col. 494.
• * 1.200

  (q) Gal. 5. 9.
• r 1.201

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Calv. Epist. & resp. col 119
• s 1.202

  Revel. 3. 2.
• t 1.203

  Ibid. 2. 5.