A defence of the innocencie of the three ceremonies of the Church of England viz. the surplice, crosse after baptisme, and kneeling at the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament. Diuided into two parts: in the former whereof the generall arguments vrged by the non-conformists; and, in the second part, their particular accusations, against these III. ceremonies seuerally, are answered, and refuted. Published by authoritie.

PART. II. A PARTICVLAR DE∣FENCE OF THE INNOCENCIE of the Three Ceremonies, viz. Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiuing of the holy Communion: in opposition to All the Particular Accusations made by the Non-conformists against them. (Book 2)

CHAP. I. I. Of the Surplice.

SECT. I. The first Accusation of the Non conformists, is in respect of the distinction of Habite.

* 1.1In appointing any seuerall apparell vnto Ministers, there is some iniury done vnto them: For Bucer professeth, that in all the Chur∣ches where he had bene Teacher, he tooke order that no speciall ap∣parell might be prescribed for the Ministers to weare.

Our Answer.

ALTHOVGH, as in Women, the best orna∣ment is (as S. Peter teacheth) their holy conuersation of life, and meeknesse of spirit,* 1.2 in the hidden man of their hearts; yet the fashion of a long gowne is to be thought

requisite for the distinction of sexe: So albeit the Mi∣nisters ought to be chiefly discerned from others by the excellencie of the outward vertues of Grauitie, Sobernesse,* 1.3 Charitie, Patience &c. (which S. Paul commendeth as the best characters of their conuersation) notwithstanding the difference of outward garments cannot but be held conuenient, for the distinguishing of them from Laicks, in the discharge of their function, especially in the daies of peace, and (which the primitiue times of the Church did not enioy) full libertie of their Ministerie, euen by that Rule of Decencie: which seeing M. Beza himselfe allowed, for distinguishing of the orders of Citizens,* 1.4 and of (meaning the Ministeriall) functions in a Ciuill course; we may with as good reason require in the office of Preaching, administring the Sacraments, and other Ec∣clesiasticall duties.

For if it be conuenient to distinguish Ministers of the Word and Sacraments from Trades-men and Mecha∣nicall persons, in respect of their spirituall functions: then doubtlesse ought they especially to be distinguished at that time, when they are to discharge and execute their functions. To defend the contrarie, would make no bet∣ter congruitie, than if one should affirme, that a Iudge ought to be discerned from others, by his Scarlet, or Purple Robes, whilest he is walking in the Streete and Market, but not when he is sitting on the Bench. But remember (I pray you) that in the daies of Antiquitie,* 1.5 Christian Proselytes did distinguish themselues from Romane Pagans, by casting away their Gownes, and wearing of Cloakes, albeit they were twitted by the profane Heathen for so doing, with the taunt of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. You therefore do not a little iniurie to our Church, by exclaiming against her, and terming this

to be an iniurie vnto Ministers, to be distinguished in outward habite from persons of different callings. But it is no strange thing to heare froward children crying out against their Mothers, onely because, forsooth, they may not haue their wils, especially for wearing of what fashion of apparell, and when they list.

As for your terming it, A taking of order, that no Mi∣nister should weare distinct apparell;* 1.6 we answer, that Or∣der (as Gods cognizance) is made discernable and visi∣ble by Distinction, and not by confusion. But you obiect against vs the testimonie of M. Bucer. I cannot well perceiue with what confidence you could beginne with this Authour, with whom (I am sure) you would be loath to conclude and make an end. For that reuerend Diuine, although he would not admit the distinction of apparell, in the Germaine Churches, for causes best knowne vnto himselfe; and wished them also remoued out of our English: yet was that rather in a desire, to procure quiet vnto some scrupulous persons, than that he held either Distinction of Ministeriall apparell, or this kinde of distinction, by the vse of a Surplice, to be vnlaw∣full in it selfe. Velimus, nolimus &c. For, Whether we will or no (saith M. Bucer) we must confesse,* 1.7 that distinction of apparell is, among men that are well conditioned, a cause of giuing vnto Magistrates singular reuerence. [Quid iam obstet?] And what may hinder, that there be not the like distinction in the Ministerie of Religion? How do you now like the iudgement of Bucer, who, the more iudici∣ous he is, the more powerfull he ought to be in satisfying of the most Obiections that you vse against the Surplice, which he hath done verie exactly, as we shall haue often occasion to demonstrate. But concerning the point now in question, it would be expence of time to vse more

words, in answering an Obiection, whereof the custome, almost of all Christendome; the ordinarie practise euen of you the Non-conformists; yea, and (Distinction being the mother of Decencie) common sense it selfe, may be an ampl•• confutation? Thus much of the lawfulness•• of Distinct apparell, in respect of the person.

SECT. II. Their second Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the Office, whereunto it is applyed.

The Ministeri••ll habite ought to be free,* 1.8 and not appropriated v••to Gods worship, but such as may be well vsed in Ciuill and com¦mon vse.

Our Answer.

May it be held a Decorum (as I haue said) in Iudges, to be discerned from others, whilst they are in the place of Iudicature, by both the colour, and fashion of their At∣tire, and must it now be accounted a matter of mocke∣rie in Ministers, to haue apparell appropriated vnto their Administrations? Shall we heare, concerning married parties, of wedding garments; and yet shall we not en∣dure to see any worshipping apparell on the persons that attend vpon Gods seruice? But I need not to in∣struct you, in this point, who are able to teach others by your own examples, as namely, in Holy-daies, Churches, Communion-cups, Table-couering••, Pulpit-cloathes, and other like Ornaments and Instruments belonging to holy worship: which you your selues do apply particu∣larly vnto the solemne seruice of God.

Now if the Appropriation of Vestments vnto Tables, and Pulpits &c. which are but inanimata instrumenta,

be iustifiable in Churches; doubtlesse the proper and pe∣culiar application of a Vesture vnto the Minister, a li∣uing Organ in Gods seruice, and a person diuinely cal∣led to that sacred function, consecrated to the same wor∣ship, cannot be iustly condemned. Thus much of Ve∣sture in generall; which will be further confirmed in the Sections following.* 1.9 I will onely put you in remem∣brance of the last saying of M. Bucer, If distinct apparell may be vsed of Magistrates, Why not of Ministers?

SECT. III. Their third Accusation, against the Surplice, is in re∣spect of the colour, and matter.

* 1.10White linnen, for Ministeriall apparell, was not anciently vsed in the Primitiue Church. M. Hooker will not maintaine out of Hie∣rome, and Chrysostome (which were about 400. yeares after the birth of Christ) that any such Attire was seuerall to this purpose, that is, for sacred vse, and diuine seruice.

Our Answer.

Yet M. Hooker holdeth the distinct vse of Ministeriall Apparell, mentioned by Chrysostome and Ierome, to be probable. And what maruell though he would not stand vpon it, especially against you, who vse as easily to reiect the Testimonies of Fathers, as you can hardly obiect them? For it must be confessed, in the matter that we haue in hand, concerning White Vestments, that they did anciently belong vnto Ministers, in the time of their Functions,* 1.11 euen by the Testimonies of Hierome and Chrysostome: except you will take exceptions against your owne Witnesses; amongst whom Zepperus hath these words. Chrysostome, speaking of the Ministers, saith; This is your dignitie, your stay, your Crowne, not

that you walke through the Church in white vestments, &c. And Hierome speaking of the Ecclesiasticall order, which in the administration of the sacrifices, went in white vestures, &c. P. Martyr also,* 1.12 and Zanchie do accordingly vnder∣stand these Fathers.

Yea, and if M. Cartwright had not apprehended the same sence, he would neuer haue made so silly, and in∣deed sencelesse an answer vnto this point, as he doth, saying of this white Attire,* 1.13 that it was indeed their Holy-dayes apparell; which they vsed indifferently the same dayes, as well without, as within the place and time of Diuine Seruice. Which exception I take to be no bet∣ter than a betraying of his whole cause. For if it be law∣full for a Minister to vse a distinct habit, in respect of an Holy-day, then may he as lawfully distinguish himselfe from others, in respect of an Holy Act, such as is his sa∣cred ministration & function, according to the practize (for the iudement of Antiquitie is hereby cleerely dis∣cerned) of ancient Christians, who not long after the dayes of the Apostles were wont (as it is acknowledged by your owne Witnesses) at the time of their Baptisme,* 1.14 to attire themselues in white: whence came our Domini∣ca in albis; wherein [veteres Episcopi] the ancient Bi∣shops, when they went about to administer the Holy Supper, did put on white apparell. Why then may we not con∣clude with the same Zanchie, [de veste super pellicea] that is, concerning the wearing of the Surplice,* 1.15 at the time of the celebration of the Lords Supper? To wit; As we reade not (saith he) th••t either Christ, or his Apostles ordained any thing concerning the vse of any peculiar apparell, in the administration of this Sacrament; so do we not reade that they did forbid any such vestments: therefore it is free for vs to vse, or not to vse them.

You are willing to heare M. Bucer, when he shewth his dislike of the Surplices then vsed, as inconuenient, but passe him ouer, when he excuseth them, as not to be ne∣cessarily abolished. And, concerning the fashion and colour of the Surplice in the Ministery, he denyeth that there is any such cause of exception, Either in the matter, colour, or fashion thereof: And further addeth; Quodsi Ec∣clesia aliqua,* 1.16 &c. If any Church, with the pure consent of her members, had this custome, so to come to the Lords Supper, (according to the ancient manner of children at their Bap∣tisme) as to vse a white garment; should any man affirme, that there is no libertie permitted to the Church, to ordaine such a Ceremony? Surely we must say, that then shall it not be lawfull for the Church to appoint any thing without ex∣presse warrant from Scripture; and so shall we condemne all Churches [Impiae audaciae] of wicked sawcinesse: for all Churches vse, in the celebration of the Lords Supper, to ob∣serue time, and place, and gesture of body; or else denie that Christ hath freed vs from the abuse of his good Creatures.

SECT. IIII. Their fourth Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the Signification.

* 1.17The Defenders of the Surplice, do make it a Ceremony signi∣ficant.

Our Answer.

* 1.18We haue already prooued, [in thesi,] that Ceremo∣nies may be vsed, which are Significant; and that so much the rather, because Significant, For the present, we are to deale onely [in Hypothesi,] to shew, that the Surplice is not therefore vnlawfull, because it is vsed as a Signe of

some morall signification. Wherein you may be abun∣dantly satisfied by the exact iudgement of your owne Witnesses; amongst others, P. Martyr, in his Epistle vnto Bishop Hooper, concerning this very point, resolueth as followeth. Besides, the defenders of this Ceremonie,* 1.19 (saith he) may pretend some iust and honest signification; for the Ministers of God are called Angels, and Angels (as once Mal. 3.2.) appeared alwayes in white Vestments: and how shall we depriue the Church of the libertie, that shee may not signifie some thing by her actions and Rites; so that she do not place (meaning, any essentiall and necessary parts of Gods worship) the worship of God therein? But you will say, that the Ministers should rather be Angels, than signifie themselues to be such. I say, (saith the same Mar∣tyr) you might haue made the like answer vnto Saint Paul, when he ordained, that the woman should haue her head co∣uered in the Church; vrging, to that purpose, onely the sig∣nification of subiection: because any of the Church of Co∣rinth might haue readily replyed, saying, The woman should indeed be subiect vnto her husband, and not signifie her selfe so to be. But the Apostle saw that this is profitable for vs, that we doe not onely liue iustly, but that also wee be put in mind of our duties. Thus farre P. Martyr.

Yea, and your Zepperus, concerning the point of sig∣nification, by white vesture, doth excuse the ancient Church, in the dayes of Chrysostome and Ierome, to wit;* 1.20 We reade nothing (saith he) of the Histrionicall and super∣stitious habits (meaning of Papists) in the monuments of purer antiquitie; except onely of the white vesture, whereof Chrysostome and Ierome make mention, [quâ vsi sunt, sine superstitione, in signum & commonefactionem honestatis vitae;] which they vsed (saith he) without any superstiti∣on, in a signe, and for an admonishment vnto them of an ho∣nest life.

* 1.21Zanchius is of the same iudgement, touching a mo∣rall signification by the Surplice, comparing vestments [de lino, & lana;] and granting, that whether the vesture be made of white linnen, or of woollen, both are indifferent, determineth saying, that white will better become the Mi∣nister of the Sacraments [propter significationem] for sig∣nification, because it is [Symbolum] a signe of innocencie and sanctitie: whereupon it is, that in the Apocalyps white robes are said to be giuen vnto the Saints.* 1.22 So he.

I may not pretermit M. Bucer, who alloweth of di∣stinct Apparrell in the Ministeriall function;* 1.23 Et eò ma∣gis, &c. And so much the more (saith he) if that these At∣tires be deputed vnto some holy signification and admoniti∣on: which we may perceiue in the signification of the womans veile, 1. Cor. 11. And to this end the Holy Ghost did make speciall mention of the white. Attyre of Angels.

SECT. V. Their fift Accusation, against the Surplice, is in respect of the resemblance it hath to the Iewish Vestment.

* 1.24Our Diuines condemne the Massing garments, because they are Iewish and Aaronicall.

Our Answer.

It is true; they doe indeed condemne the vse of those Iewish garments, as they are some what Iewishly vsed by the Papists, who make themselues therein little better than Iewes Apes, through their imitation of the Aaroni∣call pompe, almost, as well in the number, as in the fashi∣on of their Ministeriall garments; and that also from a Iewish ground, euen because they were once ordained by

God in the Leuiticall Law: adding furthermore there∣unto an opinion (I say not of Legall, which was Iewish, but) of a spirituall sanctitie, which is now meerely Po∣pish; and was anciently a Pharisaicall superstition, con∣dēned by Christ.* 1.25 In which respect D. Raynolds did iustly re∣prooue the Popish Ceremonies,* 1.26 but yet no otherwise than he doth linnen clothes, and couerings of Altars, and Festi∣u••ll d••yes, (namely) as they are superstitiously abused by Papists.

As for our Church, she is most iustifiable in her choice, by the iudgement of S. Hierome,* 1.27 which Zanchi∣us doth approue; and which the Non-conformists them∣selues may no more dislike, than they do the obseruati∣on of the Feasts (which are Apostolically ancient,) to wit, Easter, and Pentecost. For Hierom hauing obiected vnto him that Scripture of S. Paul, Gal. 4.* 1.28 [You obserue tim••s and dayes,] answereth; Non eádem conscientiâ ob∣seruamus, quâ Iudaei: We do not obserue such times with the same conscience (or opinion) wherewith the Iewes did so∣lemnize them. And, indeed, the opinion and confidence of the Ordeiner•• and Obseruers is the very soule of any Ceremoniall practize.

As therefore, in naturall constitutions, the onely ve∣getatiue facultie and soule giueth the distinct denomi∣nation to plants; the sensible vnto beasts, and Animals; and the reasonable soule vnto men, to distinguish each one in their seuerall kindes: so likewise, in such artifici∣all and arbitrary Institutions as these, the different opini∣ons which Iew••s, Papists, and Protestants haue of their Ceremonies, may discerne their vses and Appellations, in terming them either Iewish, Popish, or Orthodoxe, respe∣ctiuely. 1. Iewish, because of an opinion of the necessi∣ty of them, by conceiuing them to be of diuine Instituti∣on,

or else of the end, whether it be for praefiguration of the Messias to come, or otherwise accounting them the essen∣tiall parts of Gods worship, without which the worship it selfe cannot please God. 2. Popish, by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or a superstitious affectation, to imitate them in Pompe, and in multitude, euen because they were once Aaroni∣call; and also by placing sanctitie and holinesse in them. But 3. Orthodoxe and true, by (as our Church professeth) a conuenient Decencie, and Significant resemblance, so far forth as they are profitable for Order and Edification.

* 1.29In briefe, your present obiection was long since an∣swered and satisfied by some of your owne Witnesses, one saying, that vnder the Priesthood of A••ron there were Sacraments, sealing vp the promises of Christ to come, all which are abrogated by the comming of Christ: and there were other actions, which were not to be accounted Sacra∣ments, but which made for decencie and order, and for some other commodious vse; which being agreeable to the light of reason, and also profitable (I thinke) may be recalled, and obserued by vs. For who knoweth no that Tithes, which now serue for the Ministery, were had of the Iewish Priests? We our selues haue some things, which are borrowed from the Law of Moses, euen from the beginning of the Church: for we haue certaine feasts. Must therefore all things be aboli∣shed, that haue in them any parts of the Old Law? So he. Yea,* 1.30 and M. Bucer doth fully ratifie the same truth, shew∣ing that Garments are not to be called Aaronicall, or Anti∣christian, but in respect of an Aaronicall or Antichristian opinion had of them, whereof we are to speake in the VII. Section following.

SECT. VI. Their sixt Accusation, against the Surplice, is both in respect of the Resemblance, and of the Sig∣nification, ioyntly.

Also would not garments of mysticall signification,* 1.31 appropriated vnto holy, and solemne worship, be Iewish in speciall, and not in com∣mon manner onely, if the most high should acknowledge them?

Our Answer.

No. The Ceremonies, which God should now au∣thorize vnder the New Testament, would not be Iewish, but Christian, because the Ceremonies must bee defined, and denominated, according to the Couenant and Te∣stament, whereof they are Appendixes, Adiuncts, and Seales. As for example, the element of Bread was com∣manded in the Old Testament to be vsed in Iewish wor∣ship,* 1.32 (to wit, the Shew-bread,) in which respect it was properly Iewish: the same element of Bread is now after Consecration appropriated to a Sacramentall vse, in the Lords Supper; and made a Seale of the New Testa∣ment; and thus it is become properly Christian.

That old Rule, Distingue tempora, ought to haue place in this Question: for the Iewish Signes and figures, that were of Christ to come, were, euen in the time, when the Law of Moses was in force, moritura, that is, mortall, and about to die: afterwards, at the time of Christ his com∣ming, vpon that his [consummatum est,] or complement of mans redemption on the Crosse, they were made mor∣tua that is, dead. But at length, after the full publication of the Gospel, they became mortifera, that is, deadly and damnable to all that should vse them after, with a Iewish opinion, by expecting still the comming of the Messias

in the flesh, to the ouer-throw of our Christian faith. This we speake of Sacramentall Ceremonies: as for such as were fundamentally morall and naturall, they could not inferre any such preiudice to the profession of Chri∣stianitie, except onely an opinion of necessitie.

SECT. VII. Their seuenth Accusation, against the Surplice, is from the pretended Author thereof.

* 1.33The Surplice was first inuented by Antichrist. Ergo, we may not allow of it. Stephen, Pope of Rome, (Anno 256.) did first appropri∣ate the Surplice vnto Gods worship, according to Platina, in vi∣ta Steph.

Our Answer.

In this Obiection, we find three Assertions; 1. that the Surplice was inuented by Antichrist: 2. that Pope Ste∣phen did appropriate it vnto Gods seruice: and 3. that (by consequence from them both) the Surplice can haue no lawfull vse.

To the first we answer, that the Surplice was in old and gray-headed vse long before the Romane Antichrist was borne: for the Inuentor, whosoeuer he was, could not be yonger than Pope Stephen, who (as you said) was the first Appropriator thereof. But he liued Anno 256. when-as The Antichrist did not put out so much as either of his hornes, for the space of more than 400. yeeres after. You may therefore lawfully subscribe to your owne wit∣nesse,* 1.34 who saith that The diuersities of apparrell were not first inuented by the Pope.

Secondly, concerning the Appropriation of the Sur∣plice by Pope Stephen, vnto Ecclesiasticall vse; it is well knowne, that this Stephen was no Antichristian Pope, but

(as Platina, whom you alledge, writeth) a godly Bishop,* 1.35 who, by his life and doctrine, conuerted many Gentiles to the faith of Christ, and sealed the same faith with his owne bloud, by holy Martyrdome, being beheaded vnder the Em∣perour Decian. So that the Act of this Pope must rather fortifie our cause, for as much as this Stephen was a true follower of the Proto-martyr Stephen; and the Religion which he professed, was almost as different, from the now Romish Superstition, as those times of Pope Ste∣phen were distant from these daies, wherein now Pope Paul the fift possesseth the Papall seate.

Lastly, concerning your Consequence, suppose you (if you please) that some bad and Antichristian Pope had bene the first Inuentor of this Ceremonie; yet is your consequence but lame. For,* 1.36 I cannot be perswaded (saith P. Martyr, writing of the vse of the Surplice in our Eng∣lish Church) that the impietie of the Pope is so great, that whatsoeuer he toucheth must thereupon be so defiled, that afterwards it may not be of any vse, to them that are good and godly. M. Bucer is somewhat large in this point, but yet so pregnant and pertinent, that we may not omit him.* 1.37 I dare not say (saith he) that these Vestments (spea∣king of the Surplice) are so polluted by Antichrist, that they are not to be permitted vnto any Church, that hath knowledge of the libertie of all things; For the Scripture doth euery where proclaime, that euery creature of God is good, vnto those that are good; that is, vnto the true belee∣uers in Christ. —I say good, not onely in respect of the natu∣rall effects, as bread is good to feede; but in respect of the diuerse significations; and admonitions by them. The pro∣pertie of a Rite, or Ceremonie (as it is Aaronicall, or Anti∣christian) doth not inhere vnto any creature of God, or Vest∣ment, or shape, or colour; but in the minde and profession

of men, that abuse those good creatures of God vnto impi∣ous and godlesse significations: for it cannot be called an Antichristian Ceremonie, except some Antichristian Re∣ligion and communion be professed thereby &c.

I returne to the point of Appropriation, to let you vnderstand, that if your exception be not so much against the Appropriator, although a Pope, as against the Appropriation it selfe, whereby such Ceremonies are de∣puted particularly vnto holy vse, then are you to con∣sider, whether it may be thought agreeable to the law of good Decorum, to see the Pulpit-cloth vsed in the stead of a flag, in a May-game; or the Communion-cup carried abroad, for common vse to serue at an Ale-house; or to behold so much as a Ministers gowne hanging on the backe of a Tinkar, or Car-man. Now if that you per∣ceiue a deformitie in the common vse of such things, that haue bene so exercised in Gods Seruice, then t••e Appropriation of such things to publicke worship is not therefore a iust matter of Indecencie.

SECT. VIII. Their eight Accusation, against the Surplice, is from the former Abuse thereof.

* 1.38The Surplice is notoriously knowne to haue beene abused by Pa∣pists to superstition and Idolatrie. Durand calleth it the Armour of God, wherewith the Priest is harnessed. Their Missals say, that thereby the Priest is defended from the temptatiòns of the wicked spirits; without which, neither water, nor bels, nor ought else can be hallowed. This is also vsed in their abominable Masse; which they make so peculiar to their Religion, as that they pull it off them, whom they do degrade. Ergo, it ought be remoued.

Our Answer.

We haue already discouered your great Abuse of Logicke, in this Consequence; whereby,* 1.39 from the Abu∣ses of things, you inferre the necessarie extirpation of the things themselues. For the present, we are onely to re∣pell this your particular exception against the Surplice. To this purpose, we must first enquire, wherein you will haue the pretended Abuse to consist. Surely, this cannot be imputed to the matter of the Surplice, for that is na∣turall; nor to the fashion, for that is onely artificiall; nor to the colour, for that is meerely accidentall. We must therefore seek out the pretended Popish abuse in the Surplice, as it is Ceremoniall.

In the Ceremoniall obseruation of the Surplice, by the Romish Church, we can conceiue but two points, that may be considerable: the first is their Dedication of it; the second is the opinion that they conceiue there∣of. The consideration of the Romish practise is con∣cerning the Dedication of the Surplice vnto an Idola∣trous seruice. This cannot be a sufficient cause of an vt∣ter abolishing of all the vse thereof:* 1.40 for the Apostle tea∣cheth, concerning the Idolothyta, that is, meates sacrifi∣ced vnto Idols, (which notwithstanding he commendeth to the vse of Christians) that they are so to be vsed, be∣ing first sanctified by their prayers and thankesgiuing, albeit they were indiuidually the same things, that had bene Idolatrously polluted.

It will not auaile you to reply; that this alteration and change of Idolatrous meates was for a Ciuill, and not for any Religious vse: Because the Apostle,* 1.41 in the same place, saying, Idolum nihil est, An Idoll is nothing in the world, signifyeth (as M. Beza hath well com∣mented) that The Idoll had no power, or vertue either to

pollute or sanctifie that which was offered vnto it. How then can that, being but a [nihil] haue force to pollute the religious vse thereof? Which were to make some∣thing of nothing. But if we shall admit of your owne assertion, to thinke that the same things, which haue bene Idolatrously abused, may not afterwards be applyed vnto any religious purpose: yet what can this inferre against the Surplices, now worne in our Church, which are not indiuidually, or numerally the same, that haue bene Dedicated to Romish worship?

The next point remaineth, concerning the opinion and intention of the Papists, in the vse of their Surplices, wherein onely consisteth the formall cause of Abuse; which if it may be found in the vse of our Surplices, then must we necessarily confesse our Surplices to be as truly the same, in their superstitious abuse; as, in respect of matter and substance, we are sure they cannot be iud∣ged the same.

The conceit and opinion, that Papists haue in this Ceremonie, is to iudge it partly significatiue, as a signe of a morall dutie; partly operatiue, as hauing in it an efficacie of holinesse to defend vs from temptations; or else to hallow certain other things, as hath bene shewne. If you meane to impugne the Significatiue propertie, then we say that the Papists opinion is herein iustifia∣ble, as we haue already proued, not onely in our gene∣rall confutation of your iudgement in that behalfe;* 1.42 but in our particular Answer, concerning the Surplice, euen by the Testimonies of your owne Witnesses. But if you condemne the opinion of operatiue power in the Surplice, then our Answer is, that our Surplices are not Popish, seeing that we ascribe no such efficacie vnto them.

To conclude therefore, for as much as the opinion and intent of the worshippers, is the onely character and forme, to discerne and distinguish a religious worship, from that which is superstitious; the doctrine of our Church, concerning all such Ceremonies, being so syn∣cere, and iustifiable, and the opinion of the Church of Rome in consecrating of her Rites so idolatrous: it must needs be an iniurie, and indeed an impiety, to call their Popish, and our English Surplices, so precisely the same.

We appeale againe vnto M. Bucer, for the decision of this point: he supposing our Vestments to be the same, that were abused in Poperie, doth notwithstanding re∣solue thereof, saying; Quicquid de abusu harum vestium di∣citur, id non in vestibus, sed impuris haerere animis.* 1.43 That is, Whatsoeuer can be obiected, concerning the Abuse of these vestures, that cannot be said to cleaue vnto the vestures themselues, but to the vncleane minds of those that do abuse them.

SECT. IX. Their ninth Accusation, against the Surplice, is from the effects thereof; both by begetting an opi∣nion of holinesse; and also by working a Scandall in the Church.

First,* 1.44 the Surplice is esteemed of many people within the Land as an holy thing, so that they receiue not the Sacrament from them that vse it not: and vnto others it is scandalous.

Our Answer.

Our Reader, I suppose, will not easily disgest Cole∣worts twice sod, nor require a repetition of an Answer vnto Obiections already obi••cted.* 1.45 Therefore referring him to our generall Confutation of this Argument, ta∣ken

from these effects; I say, touching this your sup∣posed (if not fayned opinion of, I know not what) peo∣ple, that no particular errour, ought to preuaile against a common truth, especially where the sinne of the peo∣ples ignorance must condemne the negligence of the Teachers, by whom they might, and ought to haue bene better instructed.

And if this Answer seeme vnto you to want weight, yet hearken vnto the Testimonies of such grand Di∣uines, whom you vse to produce for your Witnesses, in the question of Ceremonies. P. Martyr counselleth you, in this very case,* 1.46 saying; If they that are weake haue occa∣sion of offence hereby, let them be admonished, that these things are ind••fferent; and let them be taught in your Ser∣mons, not to thinke that the worship of God consisteth in these things. This was the resolution of that learned man, concerning the Surplice, iudging the vse thereof indifferent; notwithstanding all the imputations of Iewish, of Popish, of Idolatrous, and of the Scandalous Abu∣ses thereof.

I may not let passe the iudgement of M. Caluin, who hearing into what trouble Bishop Hooper was fallen, for refusing to weare such Ecclesiasticall Vestments, which had bene formerly polluted with Popish superstition, saith as followeth. Sicut eius, in recusanda vnctione, con∣stantiam laudo,* 1.47 ita de pileo, & veste linea maluissem (vt illa etiam non probem) non vs{que} adeó ipsum pugnare, id{que} nuper suadebam. In which words M. Caluin, howsoeuer he doth not simply approue of the Ceremonies, which had bene abused to Idolatrie; yet maketh he a difference betweene the Popish abuse in vnction, and the Surplice; commending the Bishops constancie, in reiecting the vnction, and condemning his contentiousnesse against

the Surplice: which M. Caluin could not haue done, except he had accompted both the English vse of the Surplice, a matter indifferent; and also Bishop Hoopers refusall of it more scandalous, that his conformity to the vse thereof could haue bene. Whereunto P. Mar∣tyr likewise laboured to perswad t••at same holy Bishop, by many Arguments,* 1.48 wh••reof some haue bene for∣merly alleaged.

For how should it not be a matter of scandall, to impugne these kinde of habites with such vehemencie, as if it were an impietie to vse them? whereby the liber∣ty of Christians is not a little impeached, if you will be∣leeue your owne Witnesse. For M. Bucer saith, Non du∣bito qu••n illa &c. I do not doubt but that,* 1.49 concerning Ce∣remonies of place, time, apparell, and other things, belonging vnto the outward decencie, Christ hath left a liberty vnto his Church, to appoint, and ordaine such things, which eue∣ry Church shall iudge to be most behoouefull, for the vphol∣ding and increasing of reuerence towards holy things, among the people of God. And againe,* 1.50 that Christ hath deliuered his Churches from all abuse of the creatures, that had bene formerly defiled. From Answers, we proceed to Confu∣tations.

SECT. X. Our summarie Confutation of the Non-confo••mists Assumptions, and Accusations against the vse of the Surplice, by the Confessions of their owne Witnesses.

We haue seriously and exactly examined all the Ac∣cusations, whereby the Wits of the Non-conformists could in any colour of probability impugne this Eccle∣siasticall garment, viz. vpon pretence of Indecencie, vn∣lawfull

Appropriation, Mysticall Signification, Noueltie, Antichristian Inuention, Iewish Imitation, Popish Supersti∣tion, and the like: and making vp our accounts, by the light of sound iudgement, in our seuerall proofes; and more especially by the confessions of the best Wit∣nesses, that the Non-conformists can require, haue found, (notwithstanding all their former exceptions) 1. that there is a Decencie in this kinde of Apparell, for the distinguishing of the Ministeriall Function, from other Callings; 2. a Conueniencie, in appropriating it vn∣to an Ecclesiasticall office in Gods worship, according to the ancient custome both of Bishops, and inferiour Ministers, in the administration of the Sacraments; and also of persons baptized, when by Baptisme they be∣come holy votaries vnto Christ; 3. A commendable re∣presentation of Sanctitie, by the colour of White, agree∣able both to the example of Scripture, and practise of Antiquitie in the same kinde; 4. A profitable vse there∣of, and without superstition, to put Ministers in minde of their Morall duety; 5. and lastly, That the fierce and factious opposition, to the vse of the Surplice, doth worke nothing but Schisme, Scandall, and a great preiu∣dice against the liberty of Christian Churches. We, vpon these considerations, stand confident, that euerie Minister, who is not peruersly carried with the impetu∣ousnesse of a peeuish affection, may hereafter be per∣swaded to leaue this Vesture out of his needlesse con∣trouersies, and contentions; and in his Ministeriall Of∣fice and Function to put it on.

CHAP. II. Our defence of the second Ceremonie, which is the Signe of the Crosse, vsed after Baptisme.

The Accusations, which vse to be made against this Ceremonie, by the Non-conformists, are; that it is

• 1. Contrary to the second Commandement.
• 2. Derogatory to the holy Sacrament of Baptisme, in diuers respects.
• 3. Popishly abused.
• 4. As ill, as Crossing of the brest, &c.
• 5. A Relique of superstition.
• 6. An inuentiō of hereticks.
• 7. Superstitious, euen accor∣ding to the intention, wherein our Church pro∣fesseth to vse it.

SECT. I. Their first Accusation, is, that the vse of the Crosse is contrary to Gods Commandement.

Euery making of an Image or similitude in religious vse, which is not commanded by God, is forbidden by the second Commandement.* 1.51 But the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme is such a similitude. The Maior prooued; because that the Commandement is expresly thus: Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image, or any similitude.

Our Answer.

WE say, that the Image or Similitude, forbidden in this Commandement, is an Image or Simi∣litude

representatiue, that is to say, vsed for an outward resemblance and description of the Godhead; wherewith the signe of the Crosse at Baptisme hath no affinitie or similitude.

Their Reply.

The command••ment is with an absolute prohibition of man his making of any Image,* 1.52 or similitude in the seruice of God.

Our Answer.

In this you teach vs a new piece of Cathechisme, neuer heard of before.

SECT. II. Their Replie.

* 1.53So doth M. Caluin interpret it: [I am tenendum est, duas esse mandati huius partes; priore ve••at erigisculptile, aut vllam Simili∣tudinem:] We must obserue that their are two parts of this coman∣dement, in the first God forbiddeth the erection of any carued thing, or any similitude.

Our Answer.

So you say, M. Caluin doth interpret this Comman∣dement; but if you will giue any other man leaue to in∣terpret M. Caluin, he will readily tell you, that he, by this part of the Commandement, excludeth those Images & similitudes onely, which men erect for a kind of repre∣sentation of the God-head. This appeareth by his owne phrases, first; Negat igitur (hoc praeceptum) in toto mundo reperiri veram Imaginem Dei.* 1.54 This Commandement (saith he) denyeth, that there is to be found in all the world any proper Image of God. Secondly, shewing, that this pre∣cept was giuen for the condemning of the worships, v∣sed among the Gentiles: Qui in forma Creaturarum pu∣tabant

Deum repraesentari: Who thought (saith he) that God was to be represented in the forme of Creatures, Thirdly, hee saith; Affingere Deo Imaginem per se impium est, quia hâc coruptelâ adulteratur eius maiestas, & fingitur sibis dissimi∣lis. That is; It is an impietie to faigne an Image of God. And yet againe; Et sanè nimis indigna est deformitas, Deum facere similem Ligno vel lapidi: It is a vile deformitie to make God like vnto wood, or stone.

All which sentences condemne onely the represen∣tatiue Similitude of God; and not without good reason: for if the words of the Commandement should be ta∣ken absolutely, as you inforce it, then away with all Art of Caruing, and painting of any figures or similitudes: which opinion, in the iudgement of M. Caluin, is at the least foolish; for thus he saith.* 1.55 Quod quidam stultè putâ∣runt hîc damnari sculpturas, & picturas quaslibet, refuta∣tione non indiget, &c. It seemeth therfore that this Obie∣ctor, in so expounding of M. Caluin, had his eyes so fix∣ed vpon these words of the Commandement onely (to wit) Images and Similitudes, that he could not see the works of God Commandement, that is, the Similitudes and Images themselues; namely, of Cherubins, Lyons, and other Creatures,* 1.56 which God himselfe commanded to be represented in his Tabernacle (as afterwards he or∣dained the Brazen serpent to be erected in the wilder∣nesse;) all which were appointed by God himselfe,* 1.57 for Ornament, Decencie, and Signification, respectiuely; but not either for any personall representation of God, or else diuine worship.

For there are two things, which are forbid by this Commandement, 1. Representation of God by an Image, 2. Adoration of any Image. The first, by the first part of this Commandement, [Non facies, &c.] Thou shalt not

make to thy selfe grauen Image,* 1.58 &c. The second, by the words following, [Thou shalt not bow downe to it nor worship, &c.] which point Zanchius, another of your Witnesscs, doth expresse at large.

SECT. III. Their second Accusation, against the Signe of the Crosse, about the administration of Baptisme, is, that it detracteth from the perfe∣ction of the Sacrament of Bap∣tisme; and that in di∣uers respects.

1. Respect is, because it is vsed as an Addition vnto Baptisme.

* 1.59The signe of the Crosse is imposed as an addition to Baptisme, and in the very act of Baptisme, the Minister saith, [Wee receiue this child into the Congregation of Christ his Flocke, &c.] which shew∣eth it to be vsed as a substantiall part of Gods worship.

Our Answer.

It is no tollerable disposition in a child, that will ad∣mit a suspition against his mother, contrary to both the manifest protestation of her meaning, yea and also her expresse Construction of the very words that are here obiected. First she professeth and protesteth, saying;

The Church of England,* 1.60 since the abol••shing of Poperie, hath euer held and taught, and teacheth still, that the signe of the Crosse vsed in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament: for when the Minister, dipping the in∣fant in water, or laying water vpon the face of it, (as the manner also is) hath pronounced these words [I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and

of the Holy Ghost] The Infant is fully Baptized; so as the signe of the Crosse, being afterwards vsed, doth nei∣ther adde any thing to the vertue or perfection of Baptis∣me; nor, being omitted, doth detract any thing from the effect and substance of it.

And, indeed, the Tenure of the words themselues can admit no other in∣terpretatiō, which the Minister, in preparing to make the

signe of the Crosse, vttereth in this maner; [We receiue this child into Christ his Flock;]

euidently signifying, that the child, now baptized, is by Baptisme already incorporated into the mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church; & therefore is pronounced by the Priest, not in fieri, but in facto esse, (as the Schoole speaketh) to be publikely Re∣ceiued into it; and to be acknowledged as a visible mem∣ber thereof:

for this whole clause is fully distinct from the words following, [And do signe him with the signe of the Crosse, in token that hereafter he shal not be ashamed to fight manfully, &c.

]

Marke here, I pray you, that the signe is called a [To∣ken that hereafter he shall not be ashamed.] Consider with your selues, whether any could interpret that, which is called a Token of a duty to be practised afterward, to be a signe of Baptisme it selfe, which was already actually per∣formed; except either his mind had bene preoccupated with notable preiudice, or else his affection peruerted with some extreme lust of Contradiction.

SECT. IIII. Their second Reason, to make the signe of the Crosse derogatorie from Baptisme.

It is vsually made, whilest that the words of Institution, are in pronouncing.* 1.61 Ergo, &c.

Our Answer.

This is no more, in effect, than for vs to say; Some ignorant ones (if yet there are any such) haue trans∣gressed the Ordinances of the Church, by vsing the Signe (as you imagine) contrary to our acknowledged dire∣ction, and profession thereof: and the Non-confor∣mists do as willingly transgresse the same Ordinances, by not vsing them at all. If therefore the former sort of Mi∣nisters (as indeed they must needes be) are reproouea∣ble; the Non-conformists cannot be altogether ex∣cusable.

But yet, that we may suppose that some such prepo∣sterous Ministers may be found, it would be, notwith∣standing, your parts, either to reforme them, if they be tractable; or, if refractary, then to informe the Church against them: so might both you haue lesse cause to be offended by them, and we by you.

SECT. V. Their third Reason, to make the signe of the Crosse, de∣rogatorie to Baptisme.

The same may excuse the Papists who vse it before Baptizing, as we do after;* 1.62 nay it is worse after Baptisme then before, because it is nearer the errour of them, that held Episcopall Confirmation to be a perfection of Baptisme.

Our Answer.

The Fathers indeed vsed the Crosse, immediatly be∣fore Baptisme, as the Centurists haue proued out of Ori∣gen, Cyprian, and Tertullian:* 1.63 wherof we reade also in Ba∣sil; where he placeth this amongst the Apostolical Tradi∣tions. They might haue added Arnobius, and Augustine. Accordingly there was brought in Exorcisme, and Insuf∣flation, now practised by the Papists (yet in a farre diffe∣rent straine from the Custome of these holy Fathers, as namely) to driue away Diuels, not onely out of the bo∣dies, but euen out of the soules of Infants.* 1.64 The which power they likewise ascribe to the signe of the Crosse, as it is a Sacramentall Ceremonie. But our Church, to the end that she might remoue this point of Superstition, hath wisely ordained, that the signe of the Crosse should be vsed after that Baptisme is fully ended: yet notwithstan∣ding is she here calumniously traduced by you, as worse then the Popish. Lingua quò vadis? what shall we call this maladie, whereby our Church, if shee Symbo∣lize with Papists but so much as in a Surplice, is accoun∣ted Popish, and Antichristian? and if contrarily she al∣ter that vse of the signe of the Crosse, to the end that shee may crosse and controll the Superstition of Papists, yet euen then also is she censured to be, yea, worse then Papisticall? How fitly do such Obiectors exemplifie those way ward and vntractable Children, mentioned in the Gospel, whom neither weeping nor piping could please, or still?

As for your Reason, taken from the superstitious opi∣nion of Romists, concerning Confirmation, it is not wor∣thy the repeating. For our Church teacheth not that Confirmation is a perfecting, or confirming of Baptis∣me,

but onely of the parties baptized; by calling them to a personall profession of the faith, which their Godfa∣thers and Godmothers (as it were their Guardians) did in their Infancie promise should be by them perfor∣med.

To conclude; our Church, placing the vse of the Signe of the Crosse after the end of Baptisme, to remoue the superstitious opinion, which the Papists had thereof, in their abuse of this Signe immediatly before Baptisme; you may now (if it please you) compare this alteration and your obiection, concerning Confirmation, in (as you call it) nearenesse of error: and then let that man among you dispute, whether an errour in Baptisme, be not nea∣rer vnto the Corrupting of the Sacrament of Baptisme, then to the Corrupting of the doctrine of Confirmation, which is out of Baptisme, who doubteth whether a wound, in the head, or in the heele, may more nearely endanger the health of the braine.

SECT. ••I. Their fourth Reason, why the Signe of the Crosse in Baptisme may be said to derogate from the perfection thereof.

Yea but it is said to be a Token of the profession, which the child must make in the spirituall combat,* 1.65 Ergo; (this being a proper end of Baptisme) is vsed as a part of Gods worship in Baptisme.

Our Answer.

This Argument is as loose and lanke, as the former; for Baptisme is in it selfe a Token and Signe of a Couenant & stipulation betweene man & God: but this signe of the

Crosse, appointed by man, is onely a Token of protesta∣tion betweene particular men, the members of the Church of Christ (which is the Congregation of Chri∣stians then assembled) and the Church it selfe.

Besides, Baptisme is a signe of Regeneration, that is, Gratiae collatae, of Grace conferred by the Spirit of God: but the Crosse in the fore-head is onely a signe of mans constant profession of Christianity, which he ought to haue amongst them that are the enemies of the doctrine of the Crosse of Christ; which are two distinct and farre different ends.

Thirdly, I could not but maruaile, that you should therefore exclaime against this Signe, because it is vsed as a Token of Christian profession, especially if you were acquainted with your owne learned Witnesses, who taught their Readers, both to obserue and approue: First, that the vse of the Crosse, in the primitiue Church, was (thus Chemnitius) a profession,* 1.66 and commone faction of beleefe in Christ crucified: Secondly, that this kind of Testification (thus M. Iewel) is not to be disallowed: Third∣ly, that it was vsed to the end, that Thereby the persons Baptized (thus P. Martyr) might testifie their faith.* 1.67 All which, and much more will appeare, for the iustificati∣on of this Token, when we come to answer your seuenth Accusation, where you shall heare Zanchie affirme,* 1.68 that this vse of the Signe of the Crosse, to testifie that we are not ashamed of Christ crucified, is not to be disliked.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

SECT. VII. Their fift and last Reason, why the Signe of the Crosse may seeme to be made an essentiall part of the Sa∣crament; and consequently a derogation from the perfection thereof.

* 1.69But vnderstand, that the last Canons do adde, that by the Signe of the Crosse, the childe is dedicated to the seruice of Christ; now some of these are the proper ends of Baptisme: Ergo, not to be as∣cribed vnto mans additions.

Our Answer.

Although the word Dedication might be drawne by the generality of the signification to an other sence than the Church did intend, because of the doubtfull ambi∣guity which is in it: yet you ought to consider, that some mens Wits are giuen to iudge of words by the sound, and not by the sence. But if you will be in the number of those cleane creatures, which do diuide the hoofe, and chew the cud, you will easily distinguish, and discerne, that there is a two-fold (we speake onely of the Humane) Dedication; one Declaratiua, which is by way of Protestation; the other Consecratiua, by Conse∣cration.

This distinction may be inlightned by example. If a man, who is piously deuoted, doth build an Oratory or Chappell for Gods worship, which he doth sequester by Vow and Promise, from the common vse, and lastly as∣signeth it vnto the seruice of God; this is called a Dedi∣cation, by Protestation. Afterwards, for a more solemne appropriation thereof to the worship of God, the Epis∣copall Consecration is required, to the end that, by pray∣ers and other religious Rites, that place may be pub∣liquely

Dedicated to the same seruice; this is Dedication by Consecration.

And how much more may this distinction take place in the case now in question? For, by the formall words of the institution of Christ, the childe is Dedicated vn∣to God, by Consecration in Baptisme, which is a Sacra∣ment of Grace; but the Dedication, which is signified by the Signe of the Crosse, is not by any proper Consecration vnto God, or Token of grace receiued from God, by such a Signe made: but onely of a declaratiue Token of duety, which afterwards the person baptized ought to performe, concerning his constant and visible professi∣on of the Christian faith. The summe of all is, that the difference betweene the Dedication by Baptisme, and by this Signe, is no lesse than a Sacramentall Stipulation with God, and a Morall representation and protestation vnto man.

SECT. VIII. Their third Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse, is from the Popish abuse thereof.

The Signe of the Crosse is notoriously knowne to be abused to su∣perstition and Idolatrie by Papists;* 1.70 for both Stapleton and Bellar∣mine make it the speciall Badge of their Idolatrous religion, as∣cribing to it the miraculous effects of driuing away diuels, expelling diseases, sanctifying the persons that are marked with it;* 1.71 and that which they worship (cultu latriae,) which is the very same kind of worship, which they giue vnto God.

Our Answer.

But our Church, vsing that Signe of the Crosse with no such superstition, either by vsing it as a speciall Badge of any Idolatrous Religion; or by ascribing vnto it any

miraculous power of driuing out diuels; or of curing Di∣seases; or by sanctifying persons, that are marked there∣with; or yet by offering the worship of Latria, yea or so much as Dulia vnto it: And contrariwise professing, that she hath purged this

Signe from all Popish supersti∣tion and errour;* 1.72 and to vse it onely as primitiuely it was vsed,

that is, onely as a Token, whereby there is protestation made of a future constancie in the professi∣on of Christianity. You your selues could not but dis∣cerne hereby as great a difference betweene the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, as betweene re∣ligous deuotion, and blind superstition; light and darke∣nesse; God and Belial.

I passe ouer the maine Argument, taken from the former Abuses and Scandall, which are said to be occa∣sioned by this Signe; because I will not trouble my Reader with needlesse repetitions of that Answer,* 1.73 which hath more then once bene giuen to this kind of Ob∣iection.

SECT. IX. Their fourth Accusation, against the vse of the Signe of the Crosse about the time of Baptisme, is from the consequent Licence of ordinary Cros∣sings of the body in other parts, and vpon other occasions.

* 1.74If crossing vpon the fore-head be lawfull, then that which is lesse ill is lawfull, viz. the crossing vpon the breasts &c. which is the manner of the Papists.

Our Answer.

I perceiue, that if we had no other Aduocates to pleade our cause against the Papists, than such Ob∣iectors,

then might the Papists presume of a victorie; not so much by their owne strength, as by your imbecil∣lity. For it had bene an easie matter for you to haue an∣swered the Papists, by telling them that there is a great difference betweene the manner of Protestants crossing the foreheads of Infants, and the Papists crossing their Breasts &c. because euen (if there were no other oddes) the practise of the Protestants is ioyned with an interpre∣tation of their meaning, shewi••g to what end the Crosse is vsed; namely in a Morall Token of Christian courage, that the child

shall not be ashamed of the Crosse of Christ &c.

which declaration, of the godly vse and end thereof, may be a sufficient instruction vnto the peo∣ple, to free them from that superstition.

But the other kinde of crossing the breast, practised by Papists, without any words of Interpretation to mani∣fest their meaning (except it be to nourish their super∣stitious confidence therein) may easily draw ignorant men into some Idolatrous conceits. As it is a farre greater safety and security for a Trauellour, passing through any Desart, to reade written on * 1.75 Marble Stones, or Pillars in a High-way (according to the cu∣stome of some Countries) the direct path from Citie to Citie, than if he shall be left wholy vnto his owne imagination, voyde and destitute of any direction. Otherwise, if that the people were fully instructed in the right vse of Crossing their breasts, according to the pri∣mitiue vnderstanding thereof, to keep themselues in a Christian moderation; this also could not be iustly ex∣cepted against: whereof we are to speake in the 13. Section.

SECT. X. Their fift Accusation against the Crosse, vsed in the time of Baptisme, is from the pretended Au∣thour thereof; whom they name to haue bene Valentinus.

* 1.76Irenaeus saith, that the Heretique Valentinus was the man that first aduanced the Crosse to any religious vse.

Our Answer.

Sooner shall you be able to extract Lead out of a Marble-stone, than to draw any such saying, yea or sence, out of Irenaeus. This Father, discouering the here∣ticall speculations of this grand Heretique Valentinus, among others, reckoneth his opinion concerning that Crosse, whereof he speaketh; which some times he cal∣led Stauros, Crux; and sometimes Horos, terminus, attri∣buting thereunto a double vertue, one Confirmatiua, that is, of confirming and strengthning a Christian in his profession; the other Diuisiua, that is, of diuiding and se∣parating him from the world. The first vertue Valentinus gathered out of the words of Christ, He that taketh not vp his Crosse and followeth me,* 1.77 is not worthy of me: signifying, that the Crosse doth establish a Christian, and ioyne him vnto Christ, in following him: The other diuisiue vertue he collected out of that speech of Christ, He hath his fanne in his hand, and will purge his floore, and gather his Wheate into his Garner,* 1.78 but the Chaffe will he con∣sume in vnquenchable fire; noting, what the nature of persecution is, namely, to separate and distinguish the faithfull Professor, from the Hypocrite. In all this, here is not any mention, or meaning at all, Vel ligni, vel sig∣ni Crucis; either of the Wood, or of the Signe of the Crosse;

but onely of the persecution of Christians, for the name of Christ; which Christ himselfe called a Crosse. This is most euident by the verie place of Irenaeus: For first, Christs words, alledged by Valentinus, concerne eue∣ry Christian man, to take vp a Crosse; but not that whereupon Christ did suffer, for then the words of Christ should haue stood thus; Except a man take vp [crucem meam] my Crosse &c. Which were to make eue∣ry true Christian a Simon of Cyrene, who was compel∣led to take vp Christ his Materiall Crosse.* 1.79 But the words are these; Qui non tollit crucem suam: He that tak••th not vp his Crosse; that is, his owne Crosse of suffering perse∣cution for the name of Christ, (whensoeuer occasion shall require) cannot be accompted the disciple of Christ.

This meaning of Valentinus is yet more manifest by the second vertue of that same Crosse, which he calleth diuisiua, that is, a power of diuiding; in which respect Christ did call persecution [Ventilabrum] a fanne to win∣now, and seuer the chaffe from the wheate. Now Valenti∣nus (saith Irenaeus) Ventilabrum illud crucem interpreta∣tur; Doth interprete that Fanne to be the Crosse, whereof he spake. Who then can be so silly, or senselesse, as not to discerne, at the first sight, that this Fanne doth signifie no other Crosse than persecution?

SECT. XI. Their Reply.

There was some cause,* 1.80 why Irenaeus did reprehend the Heretique Valentinus, whom he reproued, saying (Talia enim &c. Such things the Valentinians speake, seeking to apply the good speeches of Christ vnto their owne wicked Inuentions.) Therefore the words of Valentinus had some euill meaning concerning the Crosse.

Our Answer.

The reproofe, which Irenaeus vseth against Valenti∣nus, doth more fully conuince you of an egregious abuse of your Authour, because Iraeneus doth plainly iustifie the former sayings of Valentius, concerning the Crosse of persecution, calling them Benè dicta, Good say∣ings, (and how shall they be otherwise, being the very words of Christ himselfe?) but he condemneth onely the application of those sentences, saying of the Valen∣tinians,* 1.81 [Bene dicta adaptare cupiunt hijs, quae malè sunt ab ipsis inuenta] That they did apply those good sayings vn∣to their owne wicked inuentions, namely, to that Plero∣ma, that is, (according to their owne Interpretation) vnto God, but yet such a God, as those Heretikes had moulded in their owne phantasticall braines; farre diffe∣ring from the infinite, and absolute nature of God. Wherefore, vpon due examination of the testimony out of Irenaeus, grounded vpon the words of Christ, you may, by your Obiection, as well make Christ as Valenti∣nus, the first Inuentor of the Signe of the Crosse.

SECT. XII. Their sixt Accusation, against the Signe of the Crosse, is, because (as is pretended) the Hereticke Mon∣tanus was the first Countenancer there∣of among Christians.

That Montanus gaue it first credite amongst Christians, the Centurists seeme to affirme,* 1.82 saying: Et quidē Ceremonias mutuatas a Montanistis induxit Tertullianus, & auxit, vt vnctionem exter∣nam, signum crucis, ••blationes pro defunctis, quas consuetudines fa∣tetur non esse institutas in sacra Scriptura.

Our Answer.

Not, that Montanus may be said to haue bene a more countenancer of the Crosse, than of threefold dipping in Baptisme, which Tertullian (being then a Montanist) did there mention, following Montanus in the obserua∣tion of such Rytes,* 1.83 which had bene vsed of Orthodoxe Fathers, before euer Montanus was borne, who liued a∣bout the yere 173. But some of the Ceremonies, which together with the Crosse, are related in that place of Ter∣tullian, were long before that mentioned by Irenaeus, Iu∣stin Martyr, and Ignatius. There is nothing more easie than defamation, by calling any child a Bastard; especi∣ally when it doth not certainly appeare, who was the right Father thereof: yet what need such iealousie in this Case, concerning the Father of this Signe? may it not be sufficient for vs to know infallibly, that the mother was an honest woman? for such was that ancient Church of Christ, wherein the Signe of the Crosse was first vsed and practised; as we are bound to prooue, in the Section following.

SECT. XIII. Their seuenth and last Accusation, against the Signe of the Crosse, is, because of the super∣stitiousnesse, which ancient Fathers are pretended to haue had therein.

The Canons professe to vse and esteeme of it as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did; but sundry of them put holinesse in it,* 1.84 and wrote of it very superstitiously. Some telling vs that it was a terror a∣gainst Diuels, attributed a power thereunto of working miracles: af∣terwards it was vsed in Italy (in signum salutaris expeditionis) whence it tooke then the name of (Cruciata expeditio) such as some record that Constantine, and Theodosius had taken vp before. What

shall we say, but that the Crosse hath beene as superstitiously abused by the Fathers, as by the ranckest Papists, sauing that Papists haue rancked it with Diuine worship, and so bestowed more honour vpon it then euer the Fathers did afford it? but the Church of England, Can. 30. doth professe to maintaine it in the same vse which it had with the ancient Fathers; therefore it must needes follow, that the Signe of the Crosse is superstitiously vsed.

Our Answer.

If I should note any man to be as rancke a Traitor, as euer was Rebell in Ireland, SAVING THAT he doth acknowledge his due obedience vnto the King, would not any thinke, that I bewrayed thereby both malignan∣cie, and folly? And how doth this differ (I pray you) from your censure of the Fathers, noting them to haue as much abused the Signe of the Crosse; as the ranckest Pa∣pists, Sauing that they did not bestow diuine worship on it? Howsoeuer the matter go, we must iudge the Fathers, by your Censure, to haue bene superstitious. But it would haue became the children of those ancient Fathers to haue acknowledged that Orthodoxe sence in their wri∣tings which Protestant Diuines, of principall note, and your owne Witnesses haue obserued.

There was indeed often mention made among the ancient Fathers of the Signe of the Crosse, but Chemnitius willeth you to marke what kind of Signe it was.* 1.85 In the Primitiue times (saith he) there was not any Image or fi∣gurature of the face of man, hauing his armes spred out, and nayled to the Crosse, but in the dayes of Tertullian, and after∣wards the Christians did fashion a Transuerse figure, as it were a Crosse, and did Signe themselues: but this was not a signe for worship or Adoration, [non enim tunc aliquid subsistens erat] for there was not any thing really subsis∣tent

in that signe, but it was onely [professio & commone∣factio,] a profession and remembrance that they should be∣leeue in Christ Crucified, and put all their hope and confidence in him; Thus farre Chemnitius, to let vs vnderstand the integritie of Antiquitie, in this point, because there can∣not be the like superstition in the Crosse, as it is a signe Transient, which there may be in it, as it is permanent.

Secondly, Zanchie,* 1.86 distinguishing of the Histories concerning Images, some he calleth true, and some fa∣bulous: and in the true, obserueth, that Things (Speaking of the Signe of the Crosse) were not then turned into su∣perstition, which were tollerable (saith he) in those times, when as there was no such danger of Idolatry. After he confesseth that At the signe of the Crosse, the Diuell was repelled, yet not by power or vertue of the Crosse, but by faith in Christ crucified, euen as grace is conferred vpon vs by the Sacraments, not through the power of the Sacraments, but by our faith in Christ crucified, whereby we receiue those Sa∣craments; but Papists attribute an efficacie vnto it [ex o∣pere operato] euen by the power of the signe. And lastly, speaking of the principall cause of the Signe of the Crosse in the forehead, addeth, saying; [praecipua causa, & ea non reprobanda] the chiefe reason (which we may not disal∣low) was to testifie that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified. So he: whereby you see, he freeth the ancient Fathers from the imputatiō of Superstition, & approueth the reason of their Vse of the Crosse in Token that they should not be ashamed, &c. Which reason our Church hath expresly specified, as the onely and sufficient cause, why she hath retained the Vse of this Ceremonie.

P. Martyr,* 1.87 dissenteth not from the former Witnesses so much almost as in Syllables; and afterwards iustifieth the placing of the Crosse in Banners, Coynes, and Crownes

of Kings and Emperours, which (saith he) was done with∣out any Superstition, to testifie that they defended the Chri∣stian faith.

Zepperus, reckoneth many Ceremonies which had bene anciently vsed in Baptisme,* 1.88 and among others the Signe of the Crosse, and exorcisme, which he calleth superstitious; but yet confesseth that they were vsed in those ancient Churches [nulla cum superstitione] without all superstiti∣on, being voyde of opinion of worship, merit, or necessitie, but in a good intent, thereby to gaine more reuerence and admi∣ration vnto this diuine Sacrament, and to exercise the deuo∣tion of mens minds in the celebration thereof: vntill at the length they grew to that height of impietie and superstition which is to be seene in the Church of Rome at this day.

* 1.89M. Perkins, although he acknowledgeth not any fur∣ther Antiquity of the vse of the Crosse in either Sacramēt, beyond the 400, yeere after Christ yet doth he confesse; first, that Crux transiens apud puriorem ecclesiā communiter in vsu fuit; non Crux permanens: The transient signe of the Crosse was in common vse in the purer Church (meaning the signe done suddenly with the finger) but the signe of the Crosse in any mettall not till 400. yeares after Christ. Secondly, that for the first 300. yeares after Christ (which he calleth the purer Church) it was vsed as a signe of the externall profession of Christian faith. Thirdly, that mira∣cles were done of God at the signe of the Crosse, that had ioy∣ned vnto it a manifest or at least a secret inuocation of the name of Christ crucified: so that the vertue was not to be imputed vnto the signe of the Crosse but vnto the faith of the worker and inuocation of Christ. Much time would not suffice to reckon vp the Testimonies of Authors who haue iustified the anciēt Churches in the vse of the Crosse. Therefore because Bishop Iewell hath discussed this mat∣ter

at large, I haue reserued his Testimony for the next Section. Hitherto of our seuerall Answers vnto your particular Accusations.

SECT. XIIII. Our Confutation of the Non-conformists Detractions, against the vse of the Signe of the Crosse, by their owne Witnesses.

I wish that this whole cause may be determined by him, vnto whose iudgment you do often appeale, in the whole question of Ceremonies; and whose name we acknowledge to be most worthily honourable in the Church of Christ.

Bishop Iewel therefore doth expresse his iudgement, as followeth: The signe of the Crosse, I grant,* 1.90 was had in great regard, and that the rather both for the publique reproach, & shame that by the common iudgement of all the world was cō∣ceiued against it, & also for the most worthy price of our re∣dēption, that was offered vpon it, (which he speaketh of the practise of Christians, before the dayes of Constantine; & then after the application of the example of the Empe∣rour Constantine, concerning other Princes, he addeth) Euen so Christian Princes, at this day, vse the same Crosse in their Armes, and Banners, both in peace and in war, in token that they fight vnder the Banner of Christ. Last of all, where∣as M. Harding saith,* 1.91 that the Professors of the Gospell can∣not abide the signe of the Crosse, Let him vnderstand, that it is not the Crosse of Christ, or the signe thereof, that we find fault withall, but the superstitious abuse of the Crosse. God be thanked, that they, whom M. Harding cōdemneth, haue bene able not only to abide the signe, but also to take vp their crosse, and to follow Christ, and to reioyce and triumph in the same. Do you not now perceiue what a large & sound lecture

this admirable Doctor in Gods Church hath read vn∣to you, and in how many points your gainsaying of the vse of this signe is confuted?

First, Bishop Iewell approueth of the signe of the Crosse, as it is made a significant Token of Christian Constancie in Banners; which you will not abide to haue place in the Appendice vnto the ministration of Baptisme.

Secondly, he alloweth the ancient vse of the same signe at the time of Celebration of Baptisme, notwith∣standing the execrable abuse thereof in the Romish Church; which you vrge as a necessarie Cause, to haue it vtterly abolished.

Thirdly, you commonly alledge, and that not without some ostentation, a multitude of Diuines, as (albeit in Titles, rather then in truth) Aduersaries to these and all such kind of Ceremonies: Notwithstanding he bring∣eth in the Consent of holy men and Martyrs (that is, Witnesses of the faith of Christ,) who vndergoing the morall Crosse (which is persecution, euen vnto Martyr∣dome it selfe) were also witnesses of the lawfulnesse of this Ceremoniall signe of the Crosse: so that you can haue small Cause to account your suffering for Contra∣dicting this Ceremoniall Crosse, the morall Crosse of Christ.

Fourthly, the same godly Bishop noteth these Martyrs to haue admitted of this signe of the Crosse (that I may so say) iam flagrante delicto: euen when the abuse of Popish superstition and Idolatrie was at the height, and when in detestation thereof, they yeelded vp their dearest liues vnto Christ, which notwithstanding in your Conceits cannot be vsed without superstition, e∣uen now, when superstition is banished.

Wherefore the Argument (wherewith I will con∣clude this part of Confutation) standeth strongly a∣gainst

you thus. Seeing that the vse of the Crosse was (as hath bene confessed by your best witnesses) void of superstition in purer Antiquitie, the same (notwithstan∣ding the former abuse by Papists) may be practized in our Orthodoxe Churches with like sincerity. The rea∣son is euident, because there is the same possibilitie of re∣forming of an abuse that there is of correcting an error. As therefore our Church hath by the mercie and grace of God, purged her selfe from the erronious opinion of Poperie, and now defendeth the Primitiue Catholique truth, concerning the signe of the Crosse; so may shee as well be thought to haue abandoned the superstitious practise of Poperie, and to haue reduced this signe vnto her primitiuely lawfull vse: whereof M. Bucer said (e∣uen in the first time of the reformation of religion,* 1.92 when as yet the signe of the Crosse was Idolatrously abused by Pa∣pists) that it might haue, among the truely-professed, a Christian vse: Hoc signum, &c. This signe (saith he) not onely because it is most ancient, but also for that it is plaine, & for a presēt admonishing vs of the Crosse of Christ, is nei∣ther vndecent, nor vnprofitable. Whereunto might be added the consonant iudgements of Chemnisius, P. Mar∣tyr, Zanchy, and others: but I hasten to the third Ceremo∣nie.

CHAP. III. Our particular defence of the Innocencie of the Third Ceremony, which is the gesture of Knee∣ling, at the receiuing of the holy Communion.

SECT. I.

THE Non-conformists inlarge themselues, in this Argument; seeking to oppugne it by all the vehemency, and violence of affection that they can: but, when their Exceptions, and Accusations shall be throughly discussed, they will perceiue (I hope) that they haue not bene more hot in their Zeale, then cold in their Reasons; whereunto I now proceed, according to my former methode, both An∣swering, and Confuting their Accusations, against this Gesture of Kneeling.

SECT. II. The first Accusation, vsed by the Non-conformists, against the Gesture of Kneeling, at the receiuing of the B. Sacrament, is from the example of Christ and his Apostles.

* 1.93That which is contrary both to the example of Christ, in the first Institution, and also to the example of the Apostles, and primi∣tiue Church successiuely; and that which is against the intention of Christ, being in it selfe Idolatrous, must needs be abolished, as vnlawfull. But such is the Gesture of Kneeling, in the receiuing of the Eucharist. Ergo, it is to be changed.

Our Answer.

Here are, almost, tot media, quot verba: and there∣fore you are to be intreated to resolue your confused Prosyllogisme into seuerall parts, for our more plaine and expedite course, in this our dispute. Beginne at the first point, by examples.

SECT. III. Their first Instance in the Example of Christ.

We are to imitate Christ and his Apostles;* 1.94 but Christ did mini∣ster it sitting at Table. And is it not wicked (saith one) not to imi∣tate his doings, of whom it is said, that he did all things well?

Our Answer.

Christ, doubtlesse, did all things well: but you do not well, by abusing the example of Christ, to proue a ne∣cessity of the imitation thereof. This I make bold to af∣firme, and I hope not without good grounds. First, by Reason.

SECT. IIII. Our first Reason; for Confutation of the Non-conformists former Assertion.

When we come to enquire the strict manner of Christ his Gesture; out of the Euangelists,* 1.95 we heare S. Mat∣thew saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and S. Marke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, (as Caluin and Beza render it) discumbentibus illis:* 1.96 It is not* 1.97 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Sitting; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which may be as well, Lying downe: and the E∣uangelist S. Iohn, concerning Christ saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.98 that is; He fell downe, or (if you will) laid himselfe

downe, as the same Euangelist (vsing the first word, saith concerning S. Iohn himselfe) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.99 [recumbens in sinu] lying vpon Christ his breast. Baronius by these phrases is induced to thinke, verisimile esse, Chri∣stum, & Apostolos lectis discubuisse; which phrases of speech Interpreters haue diuersly rendered, not accor∣ding to the very propriety of words of the Euangelists, but according to their different conceits, about his Ge∣sture, which we may not deny to haue bene a kind of Sitting. But yet when we shall aske more precisely the continued manner of the Sitting, whether vpright, or rather somewhat leaning; or what the expresse forme of his Gesture was, it is left by the holy Euangelists in such an vncertainety, that we may iustly collect from thence, that Christ intended not to make his gesture to be an exact patterne of necessary imitation to be conti∣nued in his Church.

SECT. V. Our second Reason of confuting the Non-conformists.

This may be taken à paribus, that is, from diuerse other like circumstances of Christ his practise, wherein the Non-conformists neither do, nor can challenge any right of imitation. This case will be euident, if we shall consult with the Euangelicall Storie, concerning Christ his first institution of the Sacrament: where we obserue related vnto vs both the Example and Precept of Christ; the Example is shewne in his preparation for this Com∣munion; his Precept is specified in the act of Admini∣stration. Concerning his Example of preparation, these diuerse circumstances appeare, the first is of the Persons,

who were Twelue; or, if you will, but Eleuen disciples: the second, in respect of the Sexe, onely Men: the third is of Place, in a priuate House: the fourth of Time, it was in the Night: the fift of Gesture, which we acknowledge to haue bene a kinde of Sitting: Not to insist vpon the nature of the Bread, nor the mixture of water with Wine, or the like.

Now if the example of the first Institution, in these circumstantiall points, be for perpetuall, and necessary imitation; then farewell, from this Communion, all women, by reason of their sexe; and also men, aboue eleuen or twelue, because of their number; and let vs vse it rather in priuate houses, than in publique Temples, because of the circumstance of place, which was a chamber; and concerning the time, not in the morning, but onely in the night. Is not this then a sin∣gular aduersenesse, in these men, so to impugne the or∣dinance of our Church, by exacting sitting, which is but one onely circumstance of the first institution of this Sacrament, that they do consequently condemne them∣selues, as Preuaricators in almost all the rest?

SECT. VI. Our second grand Confutation, of the Non-conformists, is by their owne Witnesses.

Your owne Witnesses, to wit, M. Beza and Zanchius do willingly confesse,* 1.100 the one touching vnleauened bread; the other concerning the mixture of water with wine; that we are not bound to an imitation of Christ: And this they conclude, but not without as iust pre∣misses, and good reasons, as can be required;* 1.101 which will appeare in Answer to your second accusation.

SECT. VII. Our third grand Confutation of their first Exception, is from the practise of the Non-conformists themselues.

It is true; Christ did administer this Sacrament in a kind of Sitting-gesture, and in the same Gesture did the Apostles of Christ receiue it. The maine question is, whether the Church be bound to the strict imitation of all such circumstances of the first administration? You challenge a precise obseruation thereof; and we desire you to be satisfied from your owne practise: for Christ is found Sitting at one Table with his Disciples, vnto whom he still Sitting distributed the blessed Sacrament, as vnto his Communicants; but you, in the Admini∣stration of this Sacrament, departing from the Table of the Lord, walke from person to person, and deliuer these holy Rites vnto them.

Say now (I pray you) is there any iust resemblance betweene Sitting and Walking; or is not the example of Christ as good a prescription, for Gesture, vnto Ministers how to distribute the Eucharist, as the example of the Apostles can be vnto Laicks, how to receiue it? Where∣fore, the pressing of your first exception was but the shooting an Arrow vp directly into the Sky, without all regard, that, in falling down, it must necessarily light vp∣on your owne heads.

SECT. VIII. Our determination of this first point, concerning the first Accusation, from the Example of Christ.

That we may more accurately determine this whole

doubt, consider, we pray you, that the Acts of Christ, concerning the institution of this Sacrament, were of two different sorts; some were onely occasionall, and accidentall; and some were truely Sacramentall and Essentiall. I call them Occasionall, which accidentally fell out, by occasion of Christ his celebration of the Passeouer; which, being the Sacrament of the Iewes, was at the same time to expire and die; at what time the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the new Testament, was to take life and breath. Now then, the circumstances of the Passeouer occasioned Christ to institute this Sacra∣ment of the Lords Supper, onely with his owne family; onely with men; onely in a priuate house; onely in the night; as hath bene said: Whereunto some do referre also the circumstances of the bread, that it was Azyme and vnleauened, as then, necessarily required in the cele∣bration of the Passeouer; and of the Cup, that it had a mixture of water in it, to allay the spirit of the wine; ac∣cording to the ordinarie custome of that Country.

But the Acts, that were essentiall, and necessarily to be performed, in this Sacrament, are all vnder that ex∣presse commandement of Christ, saying,* 1.102 [Do this &c.] beginning first at these words, Christ tooke bread, and when he had blessed it, he brake &c. All which circum∣stances, deliuered by Precept, the Church is tyed to ob∣serue.

Vpon this occasion, it were no great difficulty, to shew how the Church of Rome, at this day, hath dege∣nerated from ancient Rome, by transgressing the com∣mandement of Christ, who said, Do this &c. and by doing contrarily, in diuers weighty & obseruable points, and circumstances, there commanded by Christ: as namely, first, Christ tooke bread, gaue thankes, and blessed

it; Ergo, the consecration that Christ vsed was in pray∣er, and not in these foure words, This is my body. Second∣ly, Christ taking bread, brake it, and (as is confessed) took diuerse parts out of one loafe; and set not before them (as it were so many breads) diuers wafers. Thirdly, Christ gaue it vnto them, saying, &c. Ergo, they heard what he said; and his words were not vttered, or rather mutte∣red in an vnaudible voice. Fourthly, Christ commanded them, saying, [Take] Ergo, he spake vnto them in a knowne tongue, and not in a language they could not vnderstand. Fiftly, Christ gaue, saying, Take: Ergo, doubtlesse (for the point is confessed from the light of Antiquity) so they tooke it, as he gaue it, namely, with their hands, and had it not put into their mouthes. Sixt∣ly, Christ, that said to them all present [Take] said also [Eate] Ergo, the vse of the Sacrament, was propounded to be eaten, and not to be onely gazed vpon; and per∣sons present were Actors, and not Spectators onely. Seuenthly, Christ likewise tooke the Cup, giuing it vnto them saying, Drinke you all of this: Ergo, the Commu∣nicants did equally participate of both the Elements, as being the pledges of both the Body and bloud of Christ; not dismembring the Seale of the Couenant, nor de∣frauding the faithfull of their complementall right. Last∣ly, Christ expressed the speciall end of the Eucharist, Do it in remembrance of me; which is, as S. Paul doth in∣terprete it, Shewing the Lords death: Ergo, it is vnproper∣ly called a Sacrifice Propitiatory,* 1.103 seeing that the death of Christ is thereby onely Commemoratiuely shewne, and not operatiuely, and corporally executed herein.

Thus we finde, that how many actions haue bene mentioned, concerning the Institution of Christ, so many preuarications and transgressions haue bene com∣mitted

by the now Church of Rome, which the ancient mother Romane Church would haue condemned as sa∣crilegious, if they had bene practised by any Church in her time. But you call vpon vs to consider your next Exception.

SECT. XI. The second Accusation, vsed by the Non-conformists, against Kneeling, is from the Intention of Christ; by foure pretences.

Their first pretence is from the nature of a Banquet.

Christ ordained this for a banquet, whereat we are to act the part of the Guests of Christ:* 1.104 in imitation to resemble our Coheir∣ship with him in his Kingdome: now it suteth not with a Coheire, or Guest, with Christ, to kneele at the Table; and it is contrarie to the Law of Nature, to Kneele at a Banque, twhich is a Gesture of infe∣riority, and abasement: and we may not lose our fellowship with Christ to sit thereat, whereby Christ would represent vnto vs our Banquet in heauen.

Our Answer.

We acknowledge this Sacrament to be the most gra∣tious Banquet, that euer was ordained for the sonnes of men: But how? As a bodily Banquet, trow yee? No, for if our Sauiour had meant to haue furnished out a bodily Banquet, he would haue bene more plentifull in other varieties, than in Bread and Wine. But it is a mysti∣call Banquet, for the replenishing of our soules spiritu∣ally with the body and bloud of Christ; which we feed vp∣on, Non dente sed mente; non per fauces, sed per fidem: that is, Rather with the minde, than with the mouth; as the Fathers speake. And therefore you are not to re∣quire,

or expect therin the very forme and fashion of an ordinary banquet, where it will become men to talke, eat, and drinke, to inuite, and pledge one another; and how then can you exact of vs the manner of Sitting?

And for any of you so to speake of familiaritie, and holding it vndecent for adopted Coheires with Christ to kneele, as the receiuing of this Sacrament; I thinke it can hardly be heard, euen of some of your owne fellow∣ship, without some horror of mind. For seeing that the Right of our adoption is the same in vs, without the Sa∣crament, which it is in the receiuing thereof; then, by your Argumēt, it must be held an Indecorum in any Chri∣stian to be seene praying any where vnto Christ, the Son of God, vpon his knees.

SECT. X. Their Reply.

It is one thing to be a Coheire, and another thing to act the per∣son of a Coheire;* 1.105 at other times when we present our selues in suppli∣cation, then take we vpō vs the persons of suters, & so we humble our soules in prayer: but at this Banquet we represent the persons of Co∣heires, as we shall be at the great Supper in heauen, and now it is our office to giue resemblance hereof.

Our Answer.

We haue indeed such kind of Similitudes in Scrip∣ture, to shadow out vnto vs the happie fellowship of the Communion of Saints in heauen; as the calling it a great Supper,* 1.106 wherein All things are prepared: namely, that either the infinit loue of God would, or the omni∣potencie of the same loue could prouide for the eternall

enioyment of the faithfull in Christ Iesus; who talketh furthermore of Sitting, eating, and drinking,* 1.107 in his Kingdome. But to tell vs that this Supper of the Eucha∣rist was propounded, to be an expresse and proper Type and Similitude of the heauenly, is more than, I thinke, a∣ny Ancient learning euer taught.

For the immediate mysticall obiect of this Supper, is the body and blood of Christ; the words of Christ pointing it out, This is my body, and This is the new Testament in my blood: But how? Of his bodie and blood, as glorified in heauen? No, but as Crucified and shed on the Crosse: which is expressed sufficiently by Christ; calling it blood shed for you. And the end of this Sacrament is set downe thus; In remembrance of me. Now Remembrance is not of things to come, but only of things past, to wit, the worke of Redemption by his Passion, in his body and blood; whereof Saint Paul hath made a plaine Comment:* 1.108 As often as you eate of this bread, and drinke of this Cup, you shew the Lords death till he come. Which Comment was taken from the Analogie of the Sacrament with the thing signified thereby; for the bread broken betoke∣neth his bodie Crucified for vs; the wine powred out, re∣sembleth his blood shed, and separated from his bodie. Can you find in all these any one Type of the Celestiall ioy, which is signified else-where, by the promise of ea∣ting and drinking in the Kingdome of heauen?

Neither can it be to any purpose, to say that in giuing vs his body & blood, in this Sacrament, we haue bequea∣thed vnto vs all the benefits of his death, and passion, and Consequently all the ioyes of immortalitie, which may be prefigured by our eating and drinking at this Table:

for Signes and Types are resemblances of immediate ob∣iects, and not of obiects remote, and consectarie: as for example;* 1.109 Baptisme is the Lauer of Regeneration, a Sa∣crament and Signe of our new Birth, whereby we haue entrance into the Kingdome of grace; and so conse∣quently we haue interest in the Kingdome of glory, as Christ teacheth;* 1.110 Except a man be borne againe by water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of hea∣uen; signifying, contrarily, that the new borne, shall en∣ter into heauen: yet is not Baptisme a Type of the celesti∣all and triumphant estate of Gods children, but of our new birth, by sanctification, in the Church militant.

This will appeare as clearely in the Sacrament, which we haue in hand; for the benefite of our redemption, by the body and bloud of Christ, hath many dimensions, and euery one of infinite extent. Look downe into the pro∣fundity of the bottomlesse pit, we are redeemed from death, diuell, and the eternall torments of hell: Second∣ly, looke vpon the Latitude, besides, and about vs, in which respect we are redeemed from the thraldome of sin; and both from the morall world of wicked Reprobates, and the materiall world of this earth; the one reserued for the fire of hell, neuer to be consumed; and the other to be consumed with the fire of the last day. Lastly, look vp to the altitude, and height of our Redemption, and it reacheth vnto the euerlasting ioy and glory of Gods Kingdome. All these, in euery degree infinite, be∣nefites are merited for vs, by the royall purchase of Christ, through his passion; yet the bread and wine, are onely the symbols and signes, representing vnto vs his body and bloud; but not those other consequents there∣of: Except you will say, that we haue likewise herein Types of our deliuerance from hell; and separation

from the world of earth, earthly and carnall men, and so forth. By all which, this your so glosing and specious an Argument of a Type of Coheirship, proueth to be but an Image and Type of a selfe-pleasing conceit.

SECT. XI. Their second Pretence, to proue the inten∣tion of Christ.

That whereupon the Supper is placed is called a Table, 1. Cor. 10.* 1.111 You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord and the ta∣ble of deuils: The Communion booke commandeth vs to prepare our selues for the Lords Table; and Christ noteth this Table to be a resemblance of our heauenly societie, telling his disciples, saying; You shall eate and drinke with me at my Table in my Kingdome. Therefore must we still retaine our prerogatiue of our Coheir∣ship of Sitting, because this is a Table-gesture, according to the Country wherein we liue.

Our Answer.

Your former fancy hath taken that impression in your braynes, that now whatsoeuer you look vpon, doth seeme vnto you to be of the same colour, and to make for the manifestation of your former pretence. And ther∣fore now the Table of Christ must needs inferre the like Table, wheresoeuer the Sacrament is administred; and this Table must inforce a Table-gesture of Sitting; and this Table-gesture must resemble the Coheirship of the faithfull with Christ, in the Kingdome of heauen: and all these you hold to be essentiall points of this Supper. But if I might be suffered to pose you from point to point, according to this our methode, I thinke that you would not be so farre in loue with your owne conceit.

First [A Table.] Christ had an artificiall one; for

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

so the Passeouer required, and the place afforded: but let vs suppose the woman driuen into the Desert (as it is in the Apocalyps) that is,* 1.112 the Church, or any part thereof to be in distresse, in a Wildernesse, where no Table can be had; do you thinke that the Grasse, or ground (as it did in the miraculous Banquet of the feeding of fiue thou∣sand with fiue loaues and two fishes) may not serue the turne?* 1.113

Secondly, you exact that there be vsed at this one Ta∣ble a sitting gesture for all the Communicants: as though, without sitting, they could not be Partakers of the Ta∣ble of the Lord: But suppose (which happeneth yearely in many parishes within this Kingdome) that a thou∣sand, and sometimes two thousand Communicants are assembled,* 1.114 may not I (as Andrew said of the fiue loaues and two fishes, for the satisfying of fiue thousand people) say of one Table, What is this for so many? Can you pre∣pare one Table, to containe thousands to sit one with another; for resemblance of our ioynt communion in heauen? Or if not, will you haue vs thinke that Christ doth exact of his faithfull a circumstance of Impossibi∣lity? Be you rather perswaded, that if the bread and wine, being set on one Table, shall be distributed to some thousands of people, although placed in Seats, se∣parated from the Table; yet is each one of them Par∣taker of the same Table of the Lord. And this is not in∣fringed, but established rather by the Text, which you haue alleaged:* 1.115 You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the table of diuels. For by the Table of diuels, is meant euery Altar, whereupon there was offered any sacrifice vnto Idols; where the Heathen people were made partakers of those sacrifices, not by sitting at the Altars; but by receiuing part of those sacrifices,

and Libamina, which were immolated, and offered vpon such Altars.

As for your resemblance of Coheirship, and fellow∣ship with Christ, in his Kingdome, by thus sitting at one T••ble, in receiuing of the holy Communion; I haue proued that it is but your priuate and pe••tinacious fig∣ment: And for further euidence, we are to enter into consideration, what person it was that Christ did sustaine, at the celebration of his owne Supper; was it of a Lord, or else of a Seruant? The Tenure of the first Institution runneth thus: He tooke bread, brake it,* 1.116 and gaue it vnto them.— Likewise he tooke the cup, and gaue it vnto them. These are Acts of Ministration, which he put vpon his Apostles, and all other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, saying, [Do this &c.] If any could possibly doubt hereof, Christ himselfe would resolue them, who saith a little after,* 1.117 I am among you as him that serueth. And I trust that you dare not affirme, that CHRIST, in his ministra∣tion of this Supper of Grace, was a Type and Fi∣gure of himselfe, in the estate of his Coheirship, which is in his Kingdome; for so shall you confound things infinitely distant, Ministration, and Dominion; estate Militant, and Triumphant; Lord, and Seruant; Earth and Heauen.

Let vs therefore compose our minds vnto a Chri∣stian moderation, and thinke, that we are at this Feast, both Suters in prayer, for remission of sinnes; and Congratulators, by thanksgiuing, for remis∣sion of our sinnes, and all the Royall Benefites of his Death and Passion: And not to presume too much of such familiaritie with CHRIST,

which seemeth to thrust out Humility from this Banquet, and Type of Christ his humiliation: But be it sufficient contentment, that we might be but as Ostiarij, Doore∣keepers, in that Celestiall Temple; and not presume that, by vertue of our Coheirship, we must needs set our selues vpon the same Tribunall with Christ, Who is set at the right hand of God in the heauenly places,* 1.118 farre aboue all Principalitie, and Power, and Might, and Domination, and euery name that is named, not onely in this world, but also in that which is to come.

SECT. XII. Their third Pretence, to proue the Intention of Christ, is from the due disposition of the Receiuer.

* 1.119The Disposition of heart, which is required of vs, in our very Act of receiuing, is not so much humility, as assurance of faith and cheerefulnesse; which is much better express••d and shewed by the gesture of Sitting, than of Kneeling.

Our Answer.

You will not thinke, I hope, that Humility doth hin∣der the assurance of faith; or that the difference of out∣ward Gesture must needs set Christian vertues at variāce; but you suppose that faith is more welcome to this Banquet than Humility: and that therefore Faith must be attended with the gesture called Sitting; but Humi∣lity must not be suffered to haue her handmaid, called Kneeling, to waite vpon her. I maruaile who made you Vsher at this feast. But let you these two Vertues alone, and they will walke hand in hand, as louing Sisters, and both haue their seruants attending vpon them, in the

same actions. To this end I propound vnto you two Theologicall concords.

The first concord is betweene Faith and Humility, in that myrrour, which is set forth by our Sauiour in the Gospell, concerning the great man that said vnto Christ; Lord,* 1.120 I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vn∣der my Roofe: Thus doth Humility vnueile her selfe: but what said his Faith? Speake thou (to wit, Christ) the word onely, and my seruant shall be whole. This was such an admirable assurance of faith, in the estimation of Christ himselfe, that he said: Verily, I haue not s••und such faith, no not in Israel: and yet this Faith and Humility, in this one act, kissed each other.

The second concord is to be seene betweene Humili∣at••on and Thankfulnesse, euen in the Gesture of Knee∣ling, as it is often and plainely recorded in holy Writ: for the Prophet Dauid, in a Psalme of Thankfulnesse, doth exhort the true Worshippers thus:* 1.121 Let vs come before his presence with giuing of thankes: How? By Sit∣ting or Standing? (So peraduenture the presumption of some would say:) but the Prophet, as it were by way of preuention, saith: And worship,* 1.122 and fall downe before the Lord our Maker. Will you see this acted? One man of ten persons, that were cured of the Leprosie,* 1.123 returning and glorifying God, fell downe at Christ his feete, giuing him thankes.

And if you shall say, that this Thankfulnesse was not so well expressed, by this gesture of Humility, which is Kneeling; then may you as well impute a peece of Inde∣corum vnto the twenty foure Elders, more then was meet,* 1.124 when, in their act of yeelding glory and praise, they are said to vse the same gesture of kneeling: and accordingly, you might spy out a lesse seemelinesse in the Angels, who

are d••scribed by a kind of Analogie, and resemblance, to vse their Humiliation by Kneeling,* 1.125 in worshipping and giuing God thankes. You must seeke out, for your owne reputation sake, some more tollerable reason than this, to proue your pretended Intenti••n of Christ; or else confesse that you intended nothing, but to wrangle with the Church.

SECT. XIII. Their fourth pretence to proue the Intention of Christ, is from a pretended meannesse of the Element.

* 1.126If our Sauiour had intended that the outward Elements should h••ue beene thus reuerenced, he would not haue made choice of bread and wine, which are so common and base.

Our Answer.

It seemeth then, by this Obiection, that you fancie Ambrosia, Nectar, Manna, or some such other Element of a more perfect nature, which may in your opinion, deserue such a Reuerence: Whereas the Sacraments of bread and wine are by you esteemed but base. I cannot, for my part, but blush in your behalfe, to heare such Turkish and He••thenish language, proceed from any Professour of Christianitie. Haue you not yet taken out S. Peters lesson,* 1.127 That which God hath sanctified, let no man call common? If he could speake thus much of ordinarie meates, what an impiety must it be, to abase these Ele∣ments, which are consecrated vnto a Sacramentall vse, to be Seales of the Couenant of grace; and are most fit, of all other creatures, to expresse our vnion with Christ, and communion with all faithfull Christians?

This I vrge not, as perswaded that you can be so irreli∣giously minded, as your words may import; but to let

you vnderstand that you haue bin so far transported with preiudice, as that when you spake against due reuerence, in receiuing this blessed Sacrament, you could not but speake irreuerently.

SECT. XIIII. Their fift Pret••nce, to prooue the Intention of Christ, a∣gainst Kneeling, is from the example of the Apostles.

It were great Hypocrisie in vs to pretend greater Reuerence and Deuotion in r••c••iuing of it, then was in the Apostles;* 1.128 nay if it were fit for vs, to vse Kneeling, it was much more fit for the Apostles, in ••e∣gard of Christ his corporall pres••nce among them.

Our Answer.

This Consequence is a non sequitur, and that in di∣uers respects; first, in respect of the purpose of Christ, who then made himselfe familiar with his disciples, that he might the better instruct them, whilest he was yet in the forme of an ordinary man; in so much that at the time of the institution of this Sacrament, he rose from Table, and would needs wash his disciples feet: to what end?* 1.129 I haue giuen you an example (saith Christ) that as I your Lord and master haue washed your feet, you also ought to wash one anothers feet: And further professeth himselfe to haue bene amongst them, not so much as one that sat at Table, as one that was seruant vnto them.* 1.130 But after his Ascention and glorification, the precept was laid vp∣on All, that All Knees should bow vnto him:* 1.131 which ge∣sture, if it ought to haue bene performed at the sight of his presence in the flesh, then must they haue bene al∣wayes Kneeling.

Secondly, in respect of the Apostles themselues, who were the first choice and immediate Emba••sadours for Christ, and instruments of reconciliation of the world, by meanes of that most Royall Embassage, which they receiued from Christ, the King of glory; and not so only, but also who were indued with all kind of graces of Gods Spirit, as well of gifts called gratū facientia, as grae∣tis data. But we, who are exceedingly inferiour vnto those golden vessels, that were so excellently indued and sanctified, ought to thinke it our dutie, that the lesse wee are in our selues, for gifts and graces, the more we should contend to excell them (and true humilitie is voyde of hypocrisie) in humiliation.

Thirdly, the Consequence of this your owne Con∣sequence, may teach you to recant and reuoke your Conclusion; seeing that it must follow, that forasmuch as we haue no example (as I remember) of any A∣postle, that did, vpon any occasion, vse the precise gesture of kneeling vnto Christ; it must therefore follow, by your learning, that we ought not to kneele in our ordi∣nary prayers, which we make vnto Christ. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉! For it is no lesse.

Finally, you may not impute this to ignorance, or arro∣gancy in our Church; as though she either knew not the Institution of Christ, as well as other Churches; or that, knowing it, she thought her selfe wiser than the Apostles in the alteration of their gesture: for things indifferent haue their alterations and Changes, as Ships haue their diuers motions and turnings, according as their Pilots, in their discretion, shall by varietie of accidents, as it were diuersitie of winds, be occasioned to turne or returne them.

S••CT. XV. Our generall Confutations of all the Non-conformists pretences, shewing; That it was not the Intenti∣on of Christ to bind his Church to the Ge∣sture of Sitting, in receiuing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

Our first Confutation.

Our former distinction betweene the Ceremonies, v∣sed by Christ, at the time of the Institution of this Sacra∣ment, whereof some were onely accidentall, (which fell out by occasion of the Celebration of the Passeouer, and other Circumstances of that time;) and some essentiall, which were such as were comprised within the Lists of Christ his Precept of, Doe this, &c. doth fully discharge as well vs, in respect of the Ceremonie of ge∣sture, in ••itting; as it doth our Opposites, in respect of the Circumstances of time, place, number of Persons, and of the Non-conformists manner of Administration, in the Celebration of this Sacrament; as hath bene al∣ready euinced from such speciall Euidence,* 1.132 which it will be sufficient in this place onely to haue pointed at.

SECT. XVI. Our second Confutation, concerning the Intention of Christ, from their owne Witnesses, acknowled∣ging, that the Intention of Christ was not to bind men vnto an imitation, in the Circumstantiall points of the Sacrament.

Two Witnesses may be as good as two-score, for the

Clearing of this point, especially beeing in the iudge∣ment of the Non-conformists so iudicious and Ortho∣doxe.* 1.133 Zanchie. These things onely (saith he) that Christ commanded at his last Supper, b••long to the substance th••rof: for he gaue two precepts, the one in these words [hoc facite] D•• this: in saying [this] he comm••ndeth two things; [pr••∣mum vt totum; secundum, ••t tant••m faciamus, quod ips•• f••cit:] so that noth••ng must b•• added or diminish••d. The next pr••cept is in those words of doing [In remembrance of me] saith Christ, which, in respect of vs that reciue it, be∣longeth to the essence of the sacrament. But if we shall alter any thing, which is not cōmanded of God, or adde that which is not essentiall, but onely accidentall; and that not as neces∣sarie, but as indifferent, or decent, or for order, or edification; it followeth not that the worship instituted by Christ, is any whit changed. As for example, Christ instituted this Sa∣crament in the night; but the Apostles ex••rcised it after∣wards in the morning, shall this be accounted a detracting from the institution of Christ? No, for Christ commanded not that it should be celebrated in the night, but onely that we should Do [Quod, non quo tempore] What, and not in what time, he did it. The same may we say of [Vinum dilu∣tum] the mixture of wine with water, vsed in the Church in the dayes of Iustin Martyr, according as Christ (which is probable) did. Adde vnto this, that the ancient Bishops, in the Administration of the Supper, changed their vestures; which did not appertaine to the altering of the Supper: but that, which is either taken away from the institution, or ad∣ded thereunto, as necessary, that doth corrupt the Lords Insti∣tution.* 1.134 The Apostles did not imitate Christ, in putting off their garments, and washing of others feet, as Christ did, be∣cause this belonged not vnto the essence of the Sacrament. The essentialls are comprehended vnder those words of

Christ, [hoc facite, Do this] which he spake concerning wa∣shing of feete.

Our second Witnesse is M. Beza,* 1.135 who writing his resolution, concerning another question, viz. whether the people might receiue the Sacramentall bread, from the hands of the Priest, with their mouthes onely, and not with their hands? doth determine as followeth; Christ com∣mandeth vs to take it, and the receiuing with the mouth, is a kind of taking; not but that it were better to receiue it ac∣cording to the first example, both with hand and mouth: but that which is better, is not alwayes absolutely necessary. You will say that Christ commanded the other, in saying, [Take] I grant it, but so, as to vnderstand that [primaria intentio Christ••] his primarie intendment was to preserue the forme of the Sacrament, and not to stand too strictly vpon that, which is not absolutely necessarie. Christ commanded vs to Baptize, signifying immersion; shall we therefore say that Aspersion is no right Baptisme? so then, [ipsa sumptio, non sumendi modus praecisè praescribitur,] but you will say,* 1.136 we are commanded neither to adde, nor detract any thing from the institution of Christ; I grant it, but the question is who are to be said to adde, or detract, &c.

I cannot forget, that this aberration of Popery hath bene condemned by me, as a transgression of the pre∣cept and practise of Christ, who, as he gaue the Sacra∣ment into the hands of his Disciples, so did hee also or∣daine, that it should bee obserued; that being one of the Circumstances, whereof he commanded, saying, [Do this:] so that the contrary Doing of the Papists, in putting the Sacrament into the mouthes of the peo∣ple, by iudging them too profane, to touch such Ho∣ly Mysteries with their hands; (as if a Christian mans lippes were more hallowed than his fingers)

this I must still hold to be a notable peece of Superstiti∣on. And although, with M. Beza, I acknowledge that it doth not detract from the substance of the Sacrament it selfe, yet doth it derogate from the precept of Christ his Institution thereof.

M. Beza doth else-where discusse the nature of Cir∣cumstantiall and accidentall points in another instance. We may not contend (saith he) about the bread, whether it be vnleauened or leauened,* 1.137 albeit we thinke that common bread is more conuenient vnto the ordinance of Christ; for why did Christ vse Azymes, but onely beca••se at that time there was no other bread, to be had? How could these wit∣nesses haue spoken more pertinently, or fully, to prooue that it was not the Intention of Christ to bind vs more necessarily to an imitation of the gesture of Sitting, at the Celebration of this Communion; then it doth to other circumstances of time, places, persons, sexes, and the like?

SECT. XVII. Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists, con∣cerning the intention of Christ, is taken from the Non-conformists themselues, by their owne confession of the liber∣tie of Sitting.

* 1.138You your selues multiply many Testimonies, telling vs that M. Bullinger maketh it an indifferent thing, whe∣ther the Church receiue it sitting, or comming to the Table, but the most agreeable to the Institution (saith he) is Sit∣ting.* 1.139 And M. Fox, speaking of the Primitiue Church, saith, that the Communion was administred, either sitting at Supper, or else standing after Supper: and in Eusebius,

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, Anno 157. writeth of the manner of one, that stood at the Communion-Table: also,* 1.140 Do∣ctor Fulke affirmeth out of Gregory Nazianzen, Anno 380. who saith of the Communion Table, that it was set that men might come round about: Lastly,* 1.141 M. Iewell writeth that in Basil, in his time, euery man was bound to take the Communion standing.

This, which you vse, in your bookes, as an Obiection against vs, we make bold to returne, as an euident Con∣uiction against your selues: because now you cannot but see your feet in that stocks, which is called a Dilemma. For if that we, as you haue said, are bound to the gesture of Sitting, by the example of Christ, how commeth it to passe that you now allow of a bond of the Primitiue Church, for the gesture of standing? Can you so easily suffer standing to shoulder sitting out of his due place? But if that you can so willingly admit of standing, why were you already so instant in pressing vpon vs the neces∣sitie of sitting? or are you now so vehement, in excluding all indifferency of kneeling? Consider, I pray you, whe∣ther there be not the like Analogie, betweene kneeling and sitting▪ as there can be betweene sitting and standing. This Argument we haue drawne, as was said, from your owne Obiection; and so are you out-shot in your owne Bowe.

SECT. XVIII. Their third Accusation against the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiuing of the holy Communion, from the example of the Primitiue Church.

The Primitiue Churches, for sundry hundred yeeres,* 1.142 vsed to re∣ceiue it standing; for Tert. (who liued Anno 180,) reporteth thus, as the Custome of his time, and Tradition receiued from the Apostles,

that it was vnlawfull to Kneele vpon the Lords day, or vpon any other day betweene Easter and Pentecost; and Anno 127. it was decreed in the Councell of Nice, that none might pray kneeling vpon the Lords day; the reason is commended out of the Canon Law; be∣cause on this day is celebrated the ioyfull remembrance of the Lords resurrection.

Our Answer.

This Custome of the Primitiue Church, in standing at the time of publike prayer, for the testifying of their faith in the Article of the Resurrection, was then held most requisite, when as yet that Fundamentall Article of Christian faith was generally impugned, and gain say∣ed by some Iewes; by diuers Hereti••ks; & by all Pagans: which occasioned the Primitiue Fathers, in those ages, to ordaine, that all Christians, for the better manifesting of euery mans professiō herein, should vse that publike ge∣sture of standing. But afterwards, when the faith of the re∣surrection had generally taken root in the hearts of men, thē this Ceremony of standing in prayer did, by little & lit∣tle, vanish in some places, together with the cause therof.

First then, in this example of the Primitiue Church, we see a gesture of standing, as a Ceremony Ecclesiasticall: Se∣condly, the end thereof, for a ioyfull remembrance of the Lords Resurrection, which maketh the Ceremonie to be sig∣nificant: Thirdly, that this was applyed to Gods publicke worship. These considerations may serue for an ample Confutation of your former generall Positions, wherby you condemned our Three Ceremonies, to wit; Surplice, Crosse, and Kneeling, because, forsooth they are Ceremo∣nies of humaine inuention, of mysticall signification, and ap∣propriated to the seruice of God. Now therefore, if you al∣low of the foresaid practise of the Primitiue Church, why haue you formerly impugned it? If you do not approue thereof, why do you now obiect it? But more of this hereafter.

Our second Inference needeth no dilatation, which is briefly this; that the example of the Primitiue Church, in changing the gesture of Sitting into Standing, doth demonstrate the liberty that the Church hath, in altering and changing all such kind of Rytes.

SECT. XIX. Their fourth Accusation, against the Gesture of Kneeling, at the receiuing of the Sacrament, is from the opinion of the necessity thereof; as well by the learned, as by the vnlearned.

1. Of the vnlearned.

Many people in the Land thinke that this gesture of Kneeling is necessarie.* 1.143

Our Answer.

The errour of the people, if there be any such, is to be imputed vnto two sorts of Ministers; the one kinde are too idle, or too ignorant; that they either cannot, or else care not to instruct their people, in these points: the other sort are too busie, who falsly impose vpon the Church an erronious opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies, which she, in their owne knowledge, hath alwaies abhorred in the Romish Professors; and disclai∣med and renounced among her owne. But, it may be, the principall errour is the iealousie of the Accusers, who vse to suspect an errour in many, in stead of a few; or (for ought that I know) of any, that holdeth this ge∣stures as essentiall vnto the Communion.

SECT. XX. Their taxation of the Learned.

* 1.144Yea and the learned, as it is in the Communion booke of King Edward the sixt, say, that the vse of kneeling is to auoide profana∣tion.

Our Answer.

Are you then of opinion, either that Sacraments cannot be prophaned; or that the Church had not rea∣son to preuent, or auoide, the prophanation of this Sa∣crament of the Eucharist? If that the Sacraments were not subiect to profanation, then should they not be Sa∣craments. For Gods most glorious Name is subiect to mans blasphemy; Mans holy life, to infamy; Godlines, to scorne; Truth, to slander; and all sacred things, vn∣to the prophanenesse of godlesse men: otherwise, nei∣ther things could be said to be Sacred, nor godlesse men profane.

As for the wisedome of our Church, in this case; she, perceiuing the blasphemous mouthes of the Papists to vilifie the Sacrament of our Lord Iesus, administred in our Church, with the ignominious names of Bakers Bread, Vintners Wine, prophane Elements, Ale-cakes, and such like reproachfull termes; did hold it fit, that we, by our outward reuerence in the manner of receiuing of the Eucharist, might testifie our due estimation of such holy Rytes (which are consecrated to so blessed an vse, as is communion of the body and bloud of Christ,) and that thereby we might repell the staine and ignominie, which such virulent and vnhallowed tongues did cast vpon them.

Be you contented, by the way, to be put in mind of your owne ignorance, by confounding an Accidentall,

and an E••sentiall necessity together; whereas you ought to haue distinguished them, and acknowledged, that as it is necessary for the Pati••nt to take some receipts of physicke, not as essentiall, as his daily food; but acciden∣tall, because of his present infirmitie: So may we say, that the Gesture of Kneeling is not prescribed, as a ne∣cessarie forme of receiuing the Communion; for then should we condemne not onely the present, but also the primitiue Churches; but yet as necessarie for the refor∣ming of the prophane, and irreligious behauiour of ma∣ny, in these wr••tched dayes wherein we liue.

SECT. XXI. Their fift Accusation, against the Gesture of Knee∣l••ng, at the receiuing of the Sacrament, is from the fi••st Inuention thereof; as being Antichristian.

The vse of Kneeling in receiuing the Sacrament,* 1.145 grew first from the perswasion of the reall presence, and Transubstantiation; being neuer inioyned to any Church till Antichrist grew to the full height, there being no action in all his seruice so Idolatrous as this. It was appointed by Honorius the third, anno 1220.

Our Answer.

There are three things considerable, in our custome; the first is a gesture of outward Adoration; the second is this kind of gesture, which is Kneeling; the third is to know, whereunto the Adoration is directed. First there∣fore, that, in the daies of ancient Fathers, there was vsed an outward Adoration, at the receiuing of holy Sa∣craments, by bowing of the body, is so knowne a truth, that the Non-conformists themselues will acknowledge it: otherwise I should haue alleaged, to this purpose,

Cyril of Ierusalem Catech. mystagog. 5. ad recens baptiza∣t••s,* 1.146 pag. 546. Ambrose lib. 3. desp. S. c. 12. Greg. Naz. de obit. Greg. August. in Psalm. 98. Nemo carnem illam man∣ducat, priusquam adorauerit; & Chrysost. ad Pop. Antioch. hom 61. Adora, & Communica.

Which Testimonies, although they do not all iustifie the Popish manner of Adoration, whereby the Papists adore (in an opinion of Transubstantiation) the Element of bread, as the very person of the Son of God; yet do they euince an outward Humiliation of the body to God, and vnto Christ, at the receiuing of these pledges, as from the hands of Christ: which the words of Cyril, in the place aboue cited, do explaine, who speaking of ta∣king the Cup, saith; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bowing thy selfe, after a manner of Adoration,* 1.147 and worship saying, Amen. Here you haue a gesture of Adoration, I say not to the Cup; but, at the re∣ceiuing of the Cup, vnto Christ, by relation of a gift, from a Giuer: I say againe vnto Christ; for that Adora∣tion was directed vnto him, vnto whom the oration and prayer was due, in saying, Amen.

In the next place, after we haue learned that there was a gesture of Adoration vsed, we are to enquire con∣cerning this gesture of Kneeling. Is not this a gesture of Adoration, which is often both commended and com∣manded in holy Scripture? If then the Adoration of Christ, in receiuing of this gift be lawfull; Shall the more humble gesture make the act of Adoration lesse lawfull?

The third point remaineth, which is to vnderstand aright, whereunto, or to whom this Adoration is to be directed, without danger of Idolatry. This is taught vs by our Liturgie; according herein, with the most

ancient Liturgies of the Primitiue Church: Sursum corda, Lift vp your hearts, to wit, vnto the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, that gaue his Sonne; and vnto Christ himselfe, the Lambe of God, that sitteth vpon the Throne, that gaue himselfe for our redemption, by his body and bloud.

Now, to come to the point, and, for the present, to grant that some wicked Pope had inuented Adoration, by Kneeling; yet are wee notwithstanding discreetly to distinguish of colours, lest that, for want of due cir∣cumspection, we call Blacke white, and white blacke.

To this purpose, I shall expedite this doubt, by cer∣taine demands. I aske then, first, whether euery Inuen∣ti••n is to be condemned, because the Authour thereof was some euill Pope? He that should affirme this, must cons••quently deny the vse of a Gunne; because the In∣uentor thereof was a Fryar: or the wearing of a Coate, because the Taylor happily was a Theefe.

Secondly, I aske, shall we condemne the gesture it selfe, because it is Kneeling? To affirme this, were con∣sequently to condemne, not so much the Inuention of man, as the Ordinance of God; who often requireth in his worship the act of Kneeling.

Thirdly, I aske, must we therefore refuse this gesture because it is for Adoration? To affirme this, were con∣sequently to disallow the ancient custome of bowing the body, for that was a gesture of Adoration.

Fourthly, I aske, ought we to abhorre this gesture of Kneeling, onely as it was applyed by the Pope, for a Di∣uine Adoration of the Hoast it selfe? This we confesse to be indeed, a Popish Inuention, and as execrable an Idola∣try as Christendome hath euer seene; and to condemne this onely, is fully to iustifie our Church, which doth as

much detest that abhomination, as any Aduersarie of that Romish Synagogue.

As for Honorius, whom you fancy to haue bene the first Inuentor of the foresaid manner of Adoration by Kneeling, it is more then my bookes do teach me; sure I am, that you will witnesse Zepperus saith: Honorius de∣creuit,* 1.148 vt cum eleu••tur h••••tia s••lutaris, qu••sque se reueren∣ter inclinet: Which words [to incline reuerenth] do no∣tifie vnto vs rather the bowing of the body, that the ben∣ding of the knee: albeit I will not contend about the fi••st Authour of this Adoration, whether Honorius, or In∣nocentius; for it is not materiall.

SECT. XXII. Their sixt Accusation, against the gesture of Knee∣ling, is taken from the Popish Abuse thereof.

The gesture of kneeling in the act of receiuing, is notorio••s••y knowne to haue bene of old,* 1.149 and to be still abused to Idolatry by Papists, by whom it is d••il••y vsed in the wor••••ip of their breaden god: a••d that vpon an I••••latrous intent, that the bread is become God: yea and one of their strongest Arguments, to iustifie that their Ido∣latrous, conceit of Transubstantiation, is, because else the Church ••••ould commit Idolatry, in kneeling before the Elements.

Our Answer.

And it is as well knowne, that Protestants, in Kneeling at the receiuing of the consecrated Elements, do not ••buse them to Idolatry; but do as much hate the Romish Moloch, to wit, that their breaden god, as doth any Non-conformist: knowing and professing that truth, which Theodoret a thousand two hundred yeares since, pub∣lished in expresse termes, saying; that Bread, after the

words of Consecration, doth remaine still bread,* 1.150 both in forme, in figure, and in substance. Whereby the infatua∣tion of the Romanists appeareth to be palpably grosse; the rather because they can haue no colour of euasion, as I haue shewed else-where.

SECT. XXIII. The seuenth and last Accusation, vsed by the Non-conformists, against the gesture of Knee∣ling, is a pretence of Idolatry.

This gesture is used as a part of Gods worship,* 1.151 bec••use it is hel•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a reli••ious A••••ration by all men.

Our Answer.

If you could demonstrate, that this gesture is either vsed as a proper part of Gods worship, or else that it re∣ceiueth from vs that Popish Adoration, which you pre∣tend; then might you with one breath iustifie your op∣position against the Church, and condemne her im∣position of such Rytes vpon you: but that, in proofe, this, as likewise the rest of our Ceremonies, are not maintained or obserued in our Church, as essentiall parts of worship, but onely as circumstantiall, and conue∣nient adiuncts, and appendices; we haue already be∣stowed an whole Chapter.* 1.152 And as for our manner of Kneeling, heere questioned, we make no doubt to vin∣dicate it from all crime of Idolatry; yea, or the least sus∣pition thereof.

SECT. XXIIII. The first Reason of the Non-conformists to proue our manner of Kneeling Idolatrous, because, before a Creature.

* 1.153To adore God in, or before any creature, without warrant of the word of God, is Idolatry.

Our Answer.

This Position may not run current, without all ex∣ception; for to exclude, from the act of the Adoration of God, or of Christ, all these Prepositions of by, in, be∣fore, onely in respect of the creatures; were consequent∣ly to forbid vs to pray by, or, with our tongues, the In∣struments of Adoration: or, In the Temple, the house of God, and the place of the solemne Adoration; or yet either directly against vs, Before the Table of this sa∣cred Banquet, and Supper, called the Lords Table; or else vpwards Before the heauens aboue, towards the Ce∣lestiall seate and Sanctuary of God. Therefore except you will compell vs to Adore God, with our lippes and eyes shut, you must admit of some limitation; and, by some distinction, shew, when, or how a man may adore, by, in or before a creature, without Idolatry: where∣of we are to say more in the Sections following.

SECT. XXV. Their second Reason, to proue our fore-said Gesture of Kneeling Idolatrous, because there is in it a Relatiue worship.

* 1.154Because all relatiue Adoration of God, before a creature, with respect vnto it, is Idolatry. But the reuerence vsed in the re∣ceiuing

of the Sacrament, is a relatiue adoration of Christ, with re∣spect vnto the Sacrament; for they say, they do reuerence to the Sa∣crament, which is Idolatrous.

Our Answer.

We expected that you would at least haue endeuored to proue, in our manner of Kneeling, a Popish kind of rela∣tiue worship, which is (as in their C••ucifixe) to fast••n our diuine Adorat••on vpon the Creature, that it may so, by a representatiue relat••on, be conueied vnto the Creator; whereof we are to speake in the Section following. But, in stead of worship, by representatiue relation to Christ, you speake onely of a Relation from God vnto the Cr••a∣ture, telling vs of a relatiue Adoration of Christ, with res∣pect vnto the Sacrament, which is extremely different, as you may iudge by your owne Actions.

For do not you your selues allow a relatiue Reuerence (and that iustly) in reading the word of God; a Reue∣rence in praying vnto God; a Reuerence in religious hal∣lowing of the Lords day; a Reuerence in entring into the solemne place of Gods worship, which is the house of God? and haue not all these a relatiue respect betweene God and his Creatures? for the Scriptures, which are but lines of Incke, are Creatures, yet such as are called holy Scriptures; and are Signes expr••ssing vnto vs the Truth of God. The words of mans voice are such Creatures, which by ancient learning are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, the Signes of things signified thereby; and being v∣sed in prayer vnto God, do present our Humilitie, thanke∣fulnesse, and Adoration vnto him. The Sabbaoth day is, as all other dayes, a Creature of God, and yet is set apart, and appropriated by GOD vnto his Adoration; and

commanded, in that regard, to be hallowed of vs, which is in a respect that we haue from God vnto it. The so∣lemne place of Gods worship, where-soeuer it bee, is a Creature of God, and hath reference vnto God, as an house to the owner thereof. Now shall these be vsed with a Religious Reuerence, and with a relatiue respect, and shall onely the blessed Sacrament of our Lord Iesus Christ bee Celebrated without any such Reuerence? Procul hinc, pro∣cul este—.

But I know you cannot be so profanely-minded to∣ward this Sacrament, because you are not ignorant, that this is the whole Argument of th••t Chapter of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. telling them of the visible Iudgements of God vpon many of the Corinthians,* 1.155 thus, Many of you are sicke, and many are asleepe,* 1.156 (that is dead,) but why? [ob hanc causam,] for this cause, saith the Apostle, to wit, because they came so profanely vnto it, as if they had come to the heathenish Bacchanals, or to their owne Domesticall Tables. For thus he saith; Haue you not houses to eate and drinke in?* 1.157 but you come hither, not discerning the Lords bo∣die? As if he had said, do you come so homely vnto this spirituall Banquet, ordained for the refreshing and reple∣nishing of your soules, which you are to partake of, with hope of remission of your sinnes, in this life; and of a blessednesse both of your bodies and soules, in the Re∣surrection of the iust, through the vertue and price of your redemption, by the death of Christ, in his body Crucified, and blood shed for you?

SECT. XXVI. Their first Confirmation of the aforesaid pretended I∣dolatry, by relatiue worship, in Kneeling.

Yea there hat•• bene f••un•• in a•••• age••, the roote of Idolatry (if not grosse Idolatry it selfe) to ••iue to the signe that shew of outward Re∣uerence and A••oration, which is du•• to the thing signified,* 1.158 and to the giuer hims••lfe.

Our Answer.

What a sinister supposition is this? as though that the Reuerence, due to Ch••ist, were giuen vnto the Sacra∣ment of Christ? this, we confesse, were true Idolatry.

You may not thinke much, if our Church do now sharpen her Censures and Co••rections against you, who thus multiply your Calu••niations against her, es∣pecially in this branding her with no lesse heynous a Crime than Idolatry, which is (as being the most vile of all other) called in holy writ, not onely abominable, but also abomination it selfe. It will therefore concerne you to make good your godlesse aspersion, by some manner of reason; for this, which you deliuered in the last place, is rather a reproofe of your supposed guiltines, than any proofe thereof.

S••CT. XXVII. Their s••cond Confirmation of the pretended rela∣tiue Idolatrous worsh••p.

Else why is it not vs••d in Baptisme, as well as at this Sacrament,* 1.159 exc••pt that, with the Idolatrous Papists, we wi••l say that it is of grea∣ter dignitie th••n the Sacrament of Baptisme?

Our Answer.

Nay rather seeing that you know the doctrine of the Church to esteeme both the Sacraments of equall digni∣tie (for as much as they proceede from the same autho∣ritie of our Sauiour, and are ordained for the same end, euen to be seales of faith, concerning the promises of saluation vnto vs) Why do you make such an odious obiection; and not rather thinke that this Reuerence is inioyned, without any Papisticall intent? Cannot this sa∣tisfie you, but you will stil exclaime and say, Why is this reuerence done at the receiuing of the Eucharist, except it be with the Idolatrous Papists? I tell you, this is done, not to consent with the Idolatrous Papists, but absolutely to confute them, who cannot but acknowledge, that our Sacrament of Baptisme is a very perfect Baptisme, accor∣ding both to the essentiall matter, and manner, which Christ himselfe ordained. But as for our Sacrament of the Eucharist,* 1.160 they do (as hath bene shewen) vilifie it as common and ordinarie bread and wine. The difference then, as you see, is, not in an opinion, that the Eucharist is of greater dignitie than Baptisme with vs; but because it is of lesse esteeme among the Papists.

Notwithstanding be not offended with me, if that I cannot thinke any of you so irreligious, as not to be wil∣ling to kneele reuerently in holy prayer vnto God, in the time of the Celebration of Baptisme; especially when prayer is vsed to God, to blesse his owne ordinance in the behalfe of the child. Which manner of worship, is so farre from Idolatrie, that the very Infant baptized, if it could speake, would say, that the Adoration, there, is not directed vnto the Element of the water, but vnto God, for his grace vpon the child.

S••CT. XXVIII. Their third Confutation of the pretended Idolatry, by Relatiue wo••ship.

Or why do we not condemne t••e Papists,* 1.161 for Kneeling and praying before a Crucifixe? This Bellarmine doth inferre vpon the opinion of them that hold, that Christ, although he be not corporally present, may be adored in the Sacrament; then, saith he, it is not Idolatry to Kneele b••fore an Image. And indeed thus the Papists answer: Wee (say they) do not worship vnto the Image, but vnto God that is re∣presented thereby.

Our Answer.

There is, in the place alledged,* 1.162 obiected against Prote∣stants a Testimony out of Nazianzen; in the same place P. Martyrs Answer to that Testimony is fully related; then followeth the Reply of Bellarmine, vpon that An∣swer of P. Martyr; and now our Non-conformists bring in their reference from Bellarmines Reply. So that this play consisteth necessarily of foure parts; Nazianzen the speaker, P. Martyr, the expounder, Bellarmine the Re∣plyer, and the Non-conformist, the Applyers of Bellarmins conceit. It will not displease our Reader, to see each par∣tie Act his owne part.

First, Nazianzens Testimony is this; Super Altare coli Christum: Christ is Adored vpon the Altar. Whence the Papists collect, that men must adore, with diuine wor∣ship, the Sacrament that is vpon the Altar. Secondly, P. Martyr Answereth; Coli quidem Christum, sed coli in Symbolo, sicut in symbolo significatur: That is, Christ is worshipped in the signe, is he is signified therby.

Thirdly, B••llarmine replyeth; Then (saith he) may it be lawfull to fall downe before the signe, and to Adore Christ there, although absent frō thence; & consequenly is it lawfull

to fall downe, and worship the Eucharist, and Images of Christ; neither is this Idolatry, as Protestants exclaime.

Fourthly, hence our Non-conformists follow Bellar∣mine, and borrow of that good fellow his staffe, to knock their fellow brethren: but leaue P. Martyr, now defen∣ding the common Cause of all Protestants; as if they had conspired, to betray their owne Adoration into the hands of a common Aduersarie.

But we must in part excuse them; because they dealt not thus in malice, against his person; but in ignorance of his iudgement: for P. Martyr, discussing the same Ar∣gument else-where, doth fully expresse his owne mea∣ning.* 1.163 Adoration (saith he) consisteth in Inuocation, con∣fession, and giuing of thankes, all which are due vnto God, and vnto Christ, wheresoeuer they do manifest themselues vnto vs; which is done three manner of wayes; First, by the inward thought of the heart moued by the Spirit of God, in our earnest apprehension of God, and of Christ: then fol∣loweth our Adoration of them, by inuocating, Confession, and giuing of thankes. Secondly, they declare themselues some∣times by externall words, as by holy Scriptures, & godly Ser∣mons. And thirdly, by outward signes, as in the Arke of the Couenant, and in our Sacraments; yet so, that Adorati∣on be not fixed vpon the symbols, or signes, but, in Spirit and in Truth, vpon Christ sitting on the right hand of God in Heauen. Notwithstanding, because the simple people, by reason of the errour of Transubstantiation, rooted in them, cannot so easily vnderstand this, I should thinke, that men should abstaine from outward prostrating themselues in kneeling, vntill they bee better instructed. I confesse that many do godlily kneele, and Adore at the hearing of these words, [Et verbum caro factum est,] where notwithstanding not the words, but the things are adored: euen so the signes

in the Sacrament are not adored.

Wherein P. Martyr could haue no other meaning, than, by a significatiue relation, from the signe, to the thing signified. For a man, in Kneeling at the Sacrament, should vpon the sight thereof abstract his thoughts from the sensible obiect, and lifting vp both his eyes and his heart vnto heauen, should Adore, that is (as he saith) inuocate, confesse, and giue thankes vnto God, and vnto Christ.

But how shall this Answer iustifie the Popish manner of worship; Kneeling before, and to an Image; sometimes inuocating the Image it selfe, and fixing their thoughts vpon it; or at least vsing to Adore Christ, with it? as we shall proue. Whereas, contrariwise, this our Adoration of Christ, arising from the sight of the Sacrament, is no more, in the iudgement of P. Martyr, than when at the hearing of the sensible words of the Scripture, or of a godly Sermon, our thoughts are not fixed vpon the E∣lements of words and syllables, but by them are eleua∣ted and drawne vnto Inuocation, and thanksgiuing vnto God. According to this meaning, P. Martyr (you see) alloweth Kneeling, at the receiuing of the Sacrament, to a peple instructed. Now if, after three-score yeeres prea∣ching, our people haue not bene sufficiently instructed, the cause must be imputed either to the ignorance, or negligence of their Teachers; except you will haue vs thinke, that they are past instruction. Hitherto of our particular Answer.

SECT. XXIX. Our more generall Confutation of the Non-conformists, prouing both that a Reuerence is due, at the recei∣uing of the blessed Sacrament; and that the Reuerence, by Kneeling, hath not Affinity with Romish Idolatry, first, by Rea∣son, and the grounds thereof.

As differences of Colours are best discerned, when they are compared together; so may we most easily di∣stinguish the diuers opinions, both of our Protestants from Papists, and of Papists, among themselues, concer∣ning Relatiue, or Respectiue worship, by onely relating of their different obiects; especially in these termes, con∣cerning Reuerence. We shall therefore first discouer the errour of Poperie herein: and so will the truth of our Re∣uerence be better discerned.

SECT. XXX. Our first ground of Confutation is, by discouering of the Romish superstition, in her maner of worship, whether Relatiue, or Absolute, or ioyntly both.

The Relatiue maner of Worship, (as it is professed in the Church of Rome) appeareth to be of two sorts, according to the two different opinions of her professors.

SECT. XXXI. The first opinion of Romish Relatiue worship, and our difference from it.

Some Romanists are produced, by Bell. to hold only this

respect in their worship, by an Image; namely,* 1.164 to fall downe Before it, and By it, and In it, to honour the person that is represented thereby: which opinion he attributeth vnto Alexander, Durand, and A••pho••sus de Castro: vnto whom Suarez the Iesuit adioyneth Hel••••t,* 1.165 and Picus Mi∣randula. Amongst these, Durand may speake for the rest. This kind of wo••ship of an Image (saith ••e) is but improper∣ly and abusiuely so called, because, by the image, we haue a re∣membrance of the person; wh••ch is worsh••pped as well in the presence of the Im••ge, ••s if he w••re real••y present.

This opinion, among many other intollerable con∣ceits of the Papists, about their relatiue worship, seemeth most tollerable; and yet I may aske any ingenuous man, whether he euer heard (I do not say our Church, but) any ••pproued Doctor therin, teach, that we do, or ought to Kneele before the Sacrament; that By it, or In it, we may personally worship Christ, as if he were re••lly present.

But you peraduenture will aske me, what is then the respect, that we haue to Christ in this receiuing? Haue patience a while, vntill we shall come to this point; & be not too hasty to vrge vs, to deliuer all at once. It is a dan∣gerous thing for men to gallop in rough & rocky waies.* 1.166

For the present, be content to know, that whereas the Papist doth directly prostrate himselfe to the Crucifix or Image, with an opinion of holines and efficacy in that ob∣iect, to make his prayers more acceptable; and therefore hath some cōfidence In-it, & by-it, to be more easily heard of God: this cannot but be exceedingly superstitious. But our Kneeling is not so directed, that either In h••c ob∣iecto, vel per illud, we may be more acceptable, but we vse it, tanquàm obiectum à quo, that vpon sight of this Sa∣crament, as a visible Word, (euen as at the hearing of the audible words of Gods booke) our hearts may be

moued to a spirituall contemplation of God, and of Christ, vnto whom we pray. The Papists adoration is somewhat Inhaesiuè in obiecto, or adhaesiuè per obiectum; but ours is, abstractiuè, ab obiecto. Thus much of the first manner of Relatiue Worship.

SECT. XXXII. The second Romish Opinion of Relatiue worship, and our difference from it.

You haue obiected, against vs, the Papists in generall; and by name haue called in Bellarmine for your Proctor: We are desirous to heare him speake, and deliuer vnto vs that opinion, which he himselfe holdeth, and defen∣deth, as the generall doctrine of the Romish Church. And it standeth thus. Images are to be worshipped with the same honour,* 1.167 wherewith the person represented is honoured, although improperly, and accidentally. How like you this peece of learning? I know, you abhorre it, and our Church (you know) doth as much detest it, as your selues.

Yet is this the man, forsooth, from whom you lear∣ned to compare the Romish worship of a Crucifixe, with our worshipping of Christ, in receiuing of the Lords Sacrament. That therefore you may be confuted (as the Schoole speaketh) euen Interminis, I shall entreate your Proctor to expresse the meaning of his former proposition, in their manner of worship of the Crucifixe; Euen as (saith he) when the Preacher saith vn∣to the Crucifixe, [Tu redemisti nos] this is spoken to the Cru∣cifix, not as it is an Image, or as it is wood; but as it is taken in stead of Christ himselfe: that is, they are spoken to Christ himselfe, whom it doth represent.

I returne to the proposition, as it is deliuered by Sua∣rez, a principall Iesuit.* 1.168 The Image is and ought to be ado∣red with the same worship, wherewith the person signified is honoured. Which he laboureth to proue by the Coun∣cell of Trent; where it is thus decreed:* 1.169 By Images which we kisse, and before which we fall downe [Christum ado∣ramus, — & Sanctos veneramur] that is, We adore Christ, and reuerence the Saints. Whereupon the Iesuit maketh this Comment: Per [adoramus] latria; & per [venera∣mur] dulia significatur. By [adore] is signified [latria:] meaning the worship, which, they say, is proper vnto God (so they professe to adore Christ in worshipping an Image:) and by [reuerence] is signified Dulia, which is that worship wherewith they say, in worshipping of the Ima∣ges of Saints, they honour the Saints.

And consult both with Bellarmine and Suarez, and the whole Schoole of Iesuites, reporting vnto vs the doctrine of the Church of Rome at this day; and they all conclude, that the Image of Christ or of God, is ho∣noured Eodem actu latriae; with the same act of Latria, which they call Diuine worship; Quamuis modo quodam inferiori. Are not these excellent Chimists, who can extract a Degree of worship Inferiour to that which is Diuine, from an Act of worship which is properly Diuine? Which if they could; yet how shall they make their peo∣ple so metaphysicall?

But what will you say to all this? do not your con∣sciences tell you, that the Religion of our Church hath catechised you, from your infancy, to execrate and condemne all such sacrilegious Relation of the Worship of signes, as this is; wherein they professe in the very same act of Adoration (which they call Latria, that is, a worship proper to the Diuine Maiestie) to adore both the crea∣ture,

and the Creator; yet (as they will make vs beleeue) to the one modo quodam inferiori, which is a Metaphysi∣call conceit, apprehending a difference of manner in the Identitie of action, whereof their people (in whom Ignorance is the Mother of Deuotion) are no doubt very capable. For how can they, in an act of Latria to an (according to the ancient acceptation of the word) Idoll, free themselues of all Idolatrie? Thus much of the Romish manner of Relatiue worship.

SECT. XXXIII. The Romish Decree and absolute manner of worship both of an Image, and of the Sacrament. First concerning an Image.

Their profession heerein is to worship the Image (tan∣quam obiectum quod colitur,) euen that which they see, and kneele before; this Bellarmine discouereth in two proposi∣tions. The first; The Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped not onely improperly,* 1.170 by themselues, and not as they do represent any person, so that the Images them∣selues terminate (I may render it, possesse) that worship, as they are considered in themselues, and not as they represent any person. And he addeth saying; If that Images were not to be worshipped, but onely improperly; as signes, before which; or, by which; or, in which the person represented is honoured: thē may we deny (saith he) that any are to be worshipped at al.

Now that you haue heard your Proctor speak, & tell you that the Romish Church alloweth a worship of Ima∣ges without relation vnto any person, whose Images they be: You are chargeable to shew that this superstition may be iustly imputed vnto vs. It is manifest that you cannot: for the worship, which you call into question, is onely relatiue; and this of Bellarmine is professedly giuen to Images, and to signes, without any relation at all.

SECT. XXXIIII. The second absolute, and direct Romish worship of the Sacrament, Idolatrously.

It is the Romish profession, to adore the Sacrament (name∣ly the corporall substance contained therein) as the very person of the Son of God, in the proper substance of his bodily presence; which we iudge Idolatrous, not onely by an Accidentall possibility, but by an absolute infallibility.

For first, that the worshippers do adore the bread with diuine honour, in stead of Christ himselfe (which possi∣bility the Doctors of the Romish Church do cōfesse) may happen to their Adoration of the Eucharist, by reason of many possible accidents: as if he that consecrateth haue not had a true Ordination; or,* 1.171 in consecrating of the Sa∣crament, haue not a right Intention; or, in vttering the words of Consecration, faile in his syllabicall pronuncia∣tion; or, if the formes of the Sacraments themselues, by vnfit admixtion, or putrifaction, lose their perfection. In all these (for euerie one of them is possible) possibilities it may fall out that the Romish worshippers do adore with Diuine honour the element of bread, in stead of the Son of God: which what is it but, at least, an Accidentall Ido∣latry; but yet true Idolatry?

They haue, in this case, no other colour of euasion, than to tell vs, that when they kneele downe to adore this Sacrament, they do it with an implicite and inward con∣ceit of the minde, saying; If Christ be present, then I adore thee &c. But this is a most miserable shift, to make Adora∣tion (which is the highest honour, & homage, which man oweth properly to God) vnto an Hypothetical beleefe [if Christ be there.] The truth of God telleth vs, that who∣soeuer cōmeth to God, He must beleeue that God is, that is,

honour him with a Diuine faith, that he is wheresoeuer he is adored: But in Ifs and Ands, that is, in fallibilities, there can be no Diuine faith. Ergo, this Suppositiue faith is meerely supposititious; because it is impossible, that the Ielousie of God should admit of a doctrine, or Religion, whereby it must necessarily happen sometime, that the creature should be worshipped with honour, properly due vnto the Creator himselfe. This be spoken of the possibility.

How much more Idolatrous must they appeare to be, when as, by necessary consequences from Scripture, iudgement of ancient Fathers, and the aduocation of the perfectest Senses of man, it may be infallibly proued, that that which they adore, as Christ himselfe, remaineth still in figure, forme, and substance, the same Bread, that it was before Consecration? This inferreth such an infal∣libilitie of their Idolatry, that it is impossible, but the Po∣pish Adoration of this Sacrament must be Idolatrous. From which kind of Idolatry, whether possible, or infal∣lible, you will free vs, before we conclude this cause.

Hitherto haue we shewne what kinde of worship, in receiuing the Sacrament, ours is not; namely, not Po∣pish; whether you consider the Relatiue kinde of wor∣ship, by making the Sacrament an obiect of Adoration, In quo, or per quod: or else the absolute manner of Ado∣ration, by worshipping the Sacrament, tanquam obie∣ctum, quod adoratur. We are now to shew, what is the obiect of our Reuerence, in receiuing the Sacrament.

SECT. XXXV. The Relatiue Reuerence, which is vsed in our Church, in respect of the Sacrament, is without note of Idolatry.

First, if our Relation be made from the Signe to Christ, the thing signified; then, is the Sacrament, ob∣iectum à quo significatiuè: the Signe mouing vs to that [Sursum corda] to lift vp our mindes, from the earthly obiect of Sense, Bread &c. to the body of Christ, the spirituall obiect of faith, vpon his Tribunall Seate in Heauen.* 1.172 Wherein (as hath bene proued out of your owne Witnesse) there can be no shadow of any Idola∣trous Adoration.

Or secondly, our relation may be taken from Christ, to the Sacrament, as betweene a giuer and his gift; and so, in Kneeling downe, we take this holy Sacrament, as the mysticall pledge and seale of the body and bloud of Christ, the price of our Redemption, apprehended by faith. Whereas therefore the deuout Communicant is vpon his Knees, praying to the blessed Trinitie, to be made a welcome partaker of so heauenly a Feast; and praysing the supreme Deity for these Royall tokens of his grace; this respect and relation, being a reuerent ta∣king of this so inestimable a gift, as from the hands of Christ, according to his owne Ordinance, cannot come within the least suspicion of Idolatry.

SECT. XXXVI. This our former relation of Reuerence, betweene a Giuer and his Gift, is illustrated by a Similitude.

We were ready to illustrate our former Reuerence,

by the comparison of receiuing a gift, from the hand of earthly Maiestie; but we perceiue that the Non-confor∣mists are ready to preoccupate.

SECT. XXXVII. The Non-conformists preuention, vnto our Comparison.

* 1.173There is no proportion betweene the Ciuill reuerence, giuen to a King, or to the gift which we r••ceiue from him, and this religious reuerence to these bodily things; for there is far more danger of Ido∣latry here, then there.

Our Answer.

This obiection noteth onely a danger of Idolatry: but this is to feare where no feare is; for although there be not a Proportion of equality, betweene a Ciuill and Religious reuerence; yet is there a proportion of similitude, and the one doth singularly illustrate the other, in this case. For as a Ciuill gift ought to be taken with a Ciuil reue∣rence, from the hand of an earthly Soueraigne: so must a Spirituall gift, and the Instruments thereof, be receiued with a Spirituall and Religious Reuerence; as from the Maiestie of Christ, who instituted, and ordained it for vs. And as the Ciuill reuerence, vsed in receiuing the gift of the King, doth not derogate from the dignity of the King, but rather establish it; because the whole reuerence redoundeth to the King: so this our religious receiuing of holy Rytes, doth magnifie the Author, but no way deifie the gift. And doubtlesse, none can be so simple, as seeing any Subiect, reuerently taking any grant, or es∣pecially gift, from the hand of an earthly King, by the token of a Ring, or, if you will be a rush; as to imagine that worship to be derogatiue to the Royaltie, or Maie∣sty of the King.

SECT. XXXVIII. Our second ground of Confutation is taken from the Testimonies of their owne Witnesses, requiring of Communicants Reuerence, in receiuing any such Ordinances of God.

We are not ignorant, that many Protestant Authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiuing of the holy Communion; but how? as it is vsed Idolatrously of Papists, in a sacriligious opinion, that the Element of bread, which they adore, is the very person of Christ: but not as it may be vsed religiously, by Orthodoxe and godly professors. For better demonstra∣tion whereof, it will be our office to produce their owne choicest Witnesses; all of thē exacting of Cōmunicants an outward reuerence; and some allowing also of this kind of Reuerence, which is by Kneeling.

First, M. Caluin, chalking out, as it were, the right line of true Decencie, saith; Sed operaepretium est, &c.* 1.174 It will be worth our labour, to define what is to be vnderstood by that decorum and Decencie, which Paul commendeth. In∣deed, the end of Decencie is, partly that whilest such Rites, which are vsed, may gaine veneration or reuerence vnto sa∣cred things, we may be thereby holpen and exercised vnto Deuotion; partly that also modestie and grauitie (which ought in all actions to be especially regarded) may most shine in them. But that must we account to be decency, which shalbe so fit for the reuerence of holy mysteries; as is meet for the ex∣ercise of godlines, or els cōuenient for ornament; nor can this be without profit, but will serue for the admonishing of men, with what modestie, religiousnesse, and reuerence they ought to handle holy things.

To this end we are forbid, by the Apostle, to mingle our profane drinkings with the holy Supper of the Lord; that women come not without the couers of their heads; and ma∣ny other things we vse, as namely, our praying vpon our Kn••es, with our heads bare; and we administer the Sacra∣ments of the Lord not sordidly, [sed cum aliqua dignitate,] but with a kind of Dignitie. You that haue excepted a∣gainst vs, for Kneeling to auoide profanation, do you see how instantly and vrgently M. Caluin requireth an out∣ward Reuerence, in the handling of such sacred Rites.

* 1.175Secondly, B••shop Iewell, falling vpon the same subiect, saith; Neither do we onely adore Christ, as very God, but also reuerence the Sacrament, and holy mystery of Christ his bo∣dy and blood, and, as Saint Ambrose teacheth [Baptismum Christ vbicunque est veneramur,] That is, we worship Bap∣tisme wheresoeuer it is had; and according to the Councell of Athanasius, [Dominica verba attentè audiant, & fideli∣ter adorent,] Let men diligently heare, and faithfully reue∣rence the words of God. Briefly, we worship all other like things in such religious wise vnto Christ belonging; but these things we reuerence as holy, and as appointed, and com∣mended by Christ: but we adore them not with any diuine honour, as Christ himselfe. Doe you not now see a Reue∣rence due vnto the Sacrament, without Adoration; that is to say, a Religion void of Idolatrous superstition? name∣ly, by Relation from the giuer to the receiuing of the gift.

* 1.176Thirdly Zanchie, labouring likewise to remoue two contrary Vices; as the deadly enemies of Gods wor∣ship, the one is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Contempt or neglect of due worship; the second is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, false and supersti∣tious worship; to the end he might establish that golden meane, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the true sincere worship of

God: He, against the former Monster of Contempt of holy worship (out of the Apostles doctrine, 1. Cor. 11. whereby were condemned the vnreuerent commers to the Eucha••ist) collecteth, saying, The Sacrame••ts are to be vsed with outward Signes & Tokens of honor & reuerence,* 1.177 not in reg••rd of themselues, but in respect of Christ, by whom they are instituted: for God himselfe, when he forbad in his Law, the worship of any Images of mens making, yet taught he that his owne Images, to wit, his Sacraments, the signes of heauenly things should not be handled without some honour and reuerence. For as the word of God,* 1.178 although it must not be adored, yet ought it to be handled, and hearkened vnto with Reuerence: so are the Sacraments worthy of Reuerence; which the Apostle perswadeth vnto, when he teacheth that men must eate the Sacrament of the Lords Supper [Dignè] worthily. For although this worthinesse consisteth in the mind of a man, which is indewed with faith and Charitie, yet may it be also referred to an externall Reuerence, seeing that they among the Corinthians, that came irreuerently vn∣to the holy Supper, were grieuously chastned of the Lord, as the Apostle teacheth in the same place.

Fourthly, M. Beza is alledged,* 1.179 as although commen∣ding both inward & outward adoration, when these feare∣full Ceremonies are celebrated: yet that, for the auoiding of danger or else suspition of Idolatrie, he held it dangerous to vse the Gest••re of Kneeling in the Act of receiuing. It is true, and so it may be very requisite in those places and times, whereof he spake: and his exception is onely that it might be dangerous by some Consequence. But M. Beza saith not that the gesture of Kneeling, in the act of the receiuing the Sacrament, is Idolatrous in it selfe; No, but the flat contrary. Gen••culatio denique cum Symbola accipiuntur, Speciem quidem habet piae & Christianae ve∣nerations,* 1.180

ac proinde olim potuit cum fructu vsurpari. Do you not obserue that he condemneth not the gesture in it selfe, which (saith he) might haue bene profitably vsed in former times; namely, before that it was Idolatrously abused in the Popish Chuch? Which Testimonie as it cannot preiudice our Church which is now so seuered from Poperie, euen in this point of Adoration, that Papists themselues do know and confesse it; so doth it iustly condemne your condemnation of the act of Kneeling, by iudging it to be in it selfe directly Idolatrous. If you shall persist to tell vs, that Beza was of your Iudgement, then must you grant, that with the same breath, he de∣fended a commendable Idolatry; seeing that he iudgeth the act of Kneeling to be in it selfe a profitable gesture, euen in the receiuing of the Sacrament.

Fiftly, to the same purpose, and somewhat more ex∣presly P. Martyr,* 1.181 I do not contend (saith he) that Cere∣monies should be euery where the same, but yet we ought to prouide, that they be not against the word of God; yea they should as much as may be, be reduced vnto edification and decencie. Therefore it is no matter of difference, whether we receiue the Sacraments sitting, or standing, or Kneeling, so that the Institution of Christ it selfe be preferred, and occa∣sion of superstition remoued.

This his Position conteineth in it, these two suppositi∣ons, the first is, that Kneeling at the receiuing of the Communion is not an act of superstition it selfe: Second∣ly, that it may possibly be vsed now without danger of Superstition. And is not this also a plaine contradiction vnto your former assertions? I make no quetion but all other the Authors, who haue spoken absolutely for out∣ward Reuerence, in the vse of sacred Mysteries, would not haue bene more vehement in condemning the Idolatry,

and sacrilegious manner of Kneeling of the Papists, then they would haue bene (at the least) equall and indiffe∣rent, to admit of our custome of Kneeling, if that they had beheld the decent integritie that is vsed therein. All this while we haue kept aloofe off; we come at last to parly with the Non-conformists themselues.

SECT. XXXIX. Our third Confutation of the Non-conformists, and iustifica∣tion of Our selues, is from the confession of Bellarmine, excu∣sing Protestants from the suspition of Adorati∣on; euen because they hold the matter of the Sacrament to remaine Bread.

This our Iustification, I confesse, is against their will, for it issueth out of an obiection, which the Non-con∣formists haue made to accuse, and condemne our Church.

The Non-conformists Obiection.

And Bellarmine hauing said that we,* 1.182 (whom he calleth Cal∣uinists, and Sacramentaries) do not adore the Sacrament; neither, saith he, should any man maruell at that, seeing they do not beleeue that Christ is really present, but that the b••ead in the Eucharist is indeed nothing else but the bread that came out of the Ouen.

Our Answer.

Do you not remember Iosephs Cloke, which his Mi∣stresse caught hold of, to draw him to her lustfull bed? who notwithstanding afterwards, in a complaint vnto her husband, turned the same Cloke as a witnesse a∣gainst

Ioseph, to conuince him of folly; notwithstanding it was, indeed, and in truth, a full demonstration of her owne filthinesse, and dishonesty. And see you not how wittily you do imitate that fact of Iosephs Mistris, by ob∣iecting to the Church of England the speech of Bellar∣mine, which in true construction may be a sound and e∣uident Argument for her iustification: Seeing, that Bel∣larmine, so great an Aduersary, confessing that Prote∣stants do not adore the bread, euen because they beleeue it to be bread; doth consequently acknowledge, that they, by their receiuing of this Sacrament, cannot possibly be guilty of the Romish maner of Adoration of the out∣ward Elements. What needeth therefore so great an outcry in the eares of simple people, to the slander of the true Church of Christ, by associating her, as afterwards ye do, with the Synagogue of Antichrist, in an Idola∣trous reuerence?

I alwayes expected, that, as often as you take from the mouth of Bellarmine such kind of speeches as this, obiecting that we thinke the Sacrament to bee nothing else but bread, that came out of the Ouen; you should haue shewne your selues zealous Aduocats for the common cause, by controlling the Iesuits impudencie: according as M. Iewell might haue instructed you, in his Answer a∣gainst the like scoffe of M. Harding, in vilifying of our Sacrament.* 1.183 Whereas M. Harding (saith he) vniustly de∣fameth vs as reckoning the Sacraments of Christ nothing else but Tokens, let him vnderstand that we both thinke and speake reuerently of Christ his Sacraments, as knowing them to be the Testimonies of Gods promises, and instruments of the holy Ghost: and as we make not the Sacrament of Baptis∣me bare water, notwithstanding the nature and substance of water remaineth the same still; so we make not the Sacra∣ment

of Christ his body and blood, bare bread and wine: for, as Saint Augustine saith, [Videndum est, non quid sint, sed quid significent] We must not regard so much what they are, (namely in substance) as what they signifie, to wit, ac∣cording to the new nature that they haue of a Diuine Sa∣crament.

SECT. XL. Our fourth Confutation of the Non-conformists, and Iustification of our selues, issueth from the Non-conformists owne Practise.

First, by their Intentionall Reuerence.

You would account it an extreme iniurie, to be cen∣sured as contemners, or profaners of these holy myste∣ries; or not to celebrate and receiue them reuerently, with the truely religious affections of your hearts and mindes: which you professe will be the dutie of euery worthy Communicant, that shall rightly discerne in this Sacrament the Lords body.* 1.184 This being granted (which without impietie cannot be denyed) it ministreth vnto vs an Argument, whereby you may bee confuted (as I suppose) without all contradiction.

Fist, I may reason thus: That manner of Reue∣rence, which it is lawfull for a Christian to conceiue in his mind, the same is as lawfull for him (the case of Scan∣dall excepted) to expresse in his outward gesture of bodie. But it is lawfull for a Christian to conceiue such a Relatiue Reuerence; as from the sight of the Sacrament (being Obiectum àquo) to raise his thoughts to a con∣templation of the mysticall and spirituall obiect of faith, signified thereby: and vpon the vnderstanding of the mysticall, euen the body and blood of Christ really (al∣beit

not corporally) exhibited vnto vs in this Sacra∣ment, to receiue these visible pledges of our redemption, by the death of Christ, (as the Obiectum propter quod) with all holy and reuerent deuotion of heart and mind. Therefore, it is lawfull to performe a sensible and bo∣dily reuerence at our outward receiuing thereof.

The infallibilitie of this Consequence ariseth frō the difference which is betweene the inward, and outward Reuerence: for the inward reuerence is the formall part and very soule of reuerence, and farre exceedeth the bo∣dily, which is but onely the materiall. Where therefore the materiall and bodily forme of Reuerence is acoun∣ted Idolatrous, there the Intentionall and formall much more; because the worship is in it selfe and Act indiffe∣rent, and so may become either religious, or superstiti∣ous, by the vse, or abuse thereof, according to the inten∣tion and mind of the Agent: euen as we may discerne in this one word, Aue, vsed in salutation; for many came to Christ, and said Aue; O haile Master, and did honour him; the Iewes also bowed to him, & said Aue; & dishono∣ed him. The difference of these two consisted not in the out ward gesture, which was the same (both sorts Salu∣ters) but from the diuerse Intentions, the one kinde per∣forming their salutations in ciuilitie, but the other in mockery. Euen so the gesture of Kneeling is an act in∣different in it selfe, being vsed as wel of Children to their Parents, as of either religious persons to God; or sacri∣legious vnto Idols: but the formall distinction of each one proceedeth from the mind and affection of the Ac∣tor; for that, which is in childrē pietie, & in subiects loy∣altie, the same is in the truely religious deuotion, and in the superstitious and sacrilegious Idolatrie.

Vpon these Premises wee inferre this conclusi∣on;

that if there bee in you an inward, relatiue reuerence of soule, in the receiuing of this blessed Sacra∣ment, from a respect had betwixt the Doner, God, and this holy Sacrament, being so precious a pledge of our saluation: then can it not be vnlawfull, to giue some expression of this your religious intention, by the same visible reuerence, in one, or other outward gesture of the body; especially being to participate of the Sacra∣ment, the seale of mans redemption, both body and soule. And indeed the bodily parts of man are nothing else but the Organs and Instruments of the affections of his soule. If therefore that godly Indignation, which the Publican had against his sinnes,* 1.185 be shrewing (as it were) his owne heart, commanded his hands to Knock on his breast:* 1.186 If Hope lifteth vp pure hands in prayer vnto hea∣uen, in confidence of Gods promises: If holy Faith moued the womans hand to pull Christ by the hemme of his garment,* 1.187 in beleefe to be healed by some vertue from him: If Charitie stretched out the Samaritans hand,* 1.188 to Bynd vp the wounds of the distressed man, that lay halfe dead by the way: If Deuotion towards God in Lydia,* 1.189 charged her eares to giue Attention to Gods word: If Contrition for sin powred out of Peters eyes bitter teares of repentance; shall not the vertue of Humilitie,* 1.190 haue some power to make demonstration of it selfe, in an ac∣knowledgement of so vndeserued mercy, as is to be partaker, by faith, of the body and bloud of our Lord Ie∣sus, by some significant gesture of bowing the body at the receiuing thereof, answerable to the religious affe∣ction of your mindes? Thus much of the Intentionall Reuerence.

SECT. XLI. The second Practise of the Non-conformists, for our iustification, is Bodily: And this is either Ac∣cidentall, in respect of the Communicants; or Proper, in the manner of com∣municating.

The Accidentall is their Bodily presence, communi∣cating with vs in this Sacrament, notwith∣standing our manner of Reuerence.

This shall be my Reason: Idolatry is set downe, in the booke of God, as a necessary cause of Separation from all Idolatrous worshippers: for what affinity is there betweene God and Belial? Which one cause, although it were onely, might iustifie our departure out of the Romish Babylon. To this purpose, your Witnesse Zanchie giueth this Thesis.* 1.191 Idololatriae crimine inuoluuntur, qui cum Idololatris, ipsorum Idololatrijs communicant. Contrary∣wise; the materiall breaking of bread, that is, the com∣municating in the blessed Sac••ament, is a principall note of Vnion in one Faith and Religion, seeing that this Sacrament it selfe is a mysticall signe of the vnion of the faithfull among themselues; from which it hath recei∣ued the Appellation to be called the Communion. Not∣withstanding, you haue the grace to abide in the womb of our Church, and to liue in one Brotherhood with vs, in a publique profession of one doctrine and wor∣ship of God, in Prayers and Psalmes, and in the Com∣munion it selfe. And now deliberate with your selues (I beseech you) whether you, by this your manner of calumniating, and traducing of the Churches practise, to call it Idolatrous, haue not bene the Authours of Schisme

to the Separatists, and Apostates of these times; vnto whom you haue giuen their first bane (euen this suspi∣cion of Superstitious worship in our Church) whereby their hearts are so poysoned, and their braynes intoxica∣ted, that now no Antidote of your making, can be able to cure them.

Take therefore vnto you the mindes of discreete and Christian hearts, either to be that you seeme, or to seeme to be that you are; as glorifiers of God with vs in our Church, so for our Church; that therefore you do not dishonour her that is your Glory and your Crowne, seeking (as she hath done many worthy Martyrs of Christ, and holy Saints) to breed and bring you vp, in the syncere faith of Christ, vnto your assured hope of eternall glory. Thus much of our iustification, by your Accidentall practise of consent, in Communion with vs, in this Sacrament.

SECT. XLII. The third Practise of the Non-conformists, is from their Bodily Reuerence, at the receiuing of their food, both Corporall and Sacramentall.

First of their Corporall.

You your selues are knowne to be so reuerent in pray∣ing vnto God, as that, in saying grace before meate, you vse to vncouer your heads, and you do well: but look now to the act, is it not an act of Reuerence? Why else are you vncouered? And is it not an act of Spirituall worship; wherefore else do you pray? And is not the out∣ward obiect, whereupon you look, meate, euen the crea∣ture of God? how else can you desire God to blesse These

his creatures? And is not this your Adoration of God, re∣latiue and respectiue, arising betweene the Gift, and the Giuer? otherwise why should you haue reference in prayer vnto God, for his blessing vpon your meates? And lastly, will you say (for this Interrogatiue must needs conuince your consciences) that this your Adoration is according to the Popish opinion, by a personall represen∣tation, in giuing any part thereof to the creature; by ado∣ring either It, or In it, or By it? How then should you iustly condemne that Romish Church of Superstition? Nay do you not acknowledge, that the respect, which you haue from the meate to God, is as from the gift vnto the Giuer; and that Gods gift is an obiect, propter quod; for which you pray, and render praise vnto him? And why then do you infame our Church, as if she were Idolatrous, which teacheth you, in these, and all other points of Adoration, how to auoide all Idola∣try? Surely he that cannot distinguish betweene these two, to wit, Reuerence to God, at the receiuing of his Sa∣crament; and reuerence to God, in the Sacrament receiued, may, when he would warme him at the fire, burne him∣selfe in the fire. Thus much of your practise in Reuerence, at receiuing your corporall food.

SECT. XLIII. Our fift Confutation of the Non-conformists, and iustifica∣tion of our selues, is from the proper practise of the Non-conformists, in their outward Re∣uerence, at the receiuing of this Sacrament.

You may remember the whole passages, and very paces, we haue gone, that we might perswade you to

allow, and imbrace our outward gesture of reuerence, in receiuing of the blessed Sacrament: some taken from Reasons; from Confessions of your owne Witnesses; from your owne Practises not onely Intentionall, but also Reall; and this both Accidentall and Proper: and this, as in an outward and visible reuerence, in receiuing as well Corpo∣rall, as Sacramentall food. All these foure hauing bene manifested; it remaineth onely that we proue the last, concerning the bodily Reuerence perfo••med by your selues, at the receiuing of the Sacrament it selfe.

I need not vse many words; you receiue this Sacrament with your heads vncouered, and would (I thinke) hold it a prophanenes, not to giue some outward semblance of vncouering your heads at the receiuing thereof. This be∣ing your generall practise, I do not see how you may iustifie your owne heads, and condemne your knees; by whatsoeuer pretence you can make. Will you say that (kneeling, & vncouering being both practised about the same act) the one gesture can be more subiect to Idolatry then the other? I appeale to your owne Witnesse, who cōdemning the peoples adoration of Images, doth ioynt∣ly abandon these three gestures; Genuflectionem,* 1.192 Capitis apertionem & Corporis inclinationem: Kneeling on the knee, vncouering of the head, and bowing of the body; where and whensoeuer they are applyed vnto a false adoration: as being contrarie to the second commandement, [Thou shalt not worship &c.]

Or will you hold it reasonable to say, as some are thought to answer, that you, in the celebration of this Sacrament, beginning with prayer and thankes-giuing, were vncouered; and that now it is but continuata actio, a continuing of the same gesture, at the administration and participation thereof; either because of the publique Psalmes, then vsed in the Church, or for that you are ex∣••rcised

in a diuine meditation, about the Analogie be∣tween the elements of bread and wine, and the body and bloud of Christ, signified thereby; by as reall an applying of the same body and bloud of Christ to your soules, for the nourishment thereof, as you haue a reall and substan∣tiall incorporation of the bread and wine into your bo∣dies; & that you are presently ready to proceed in other prayers: so that, being vncouered, you cannot be said, so much to put off, as to keep off your hats; nor to be made kneele, but to be found kneeling, at the receiuing of this Sacrament.

He that condemneth, in his own conscience, an other mans direct vncouering of the head, at the receiuing of the holy Sacrament, as superstitious, being himselfe vnco∣uered; and shall notwithstanding excuse his owne gesture, because of the former pretence of a continued action, or spirituall meditation: This man shall be but (as S. Iames calleth him) a Paralogizer,* 1.193 and deluder of his owne soule: because no act is called goo••, nisi ex integra causa, that is, wh••n it is good in euery part; but it is euill, ex quouis de∣fectu, that is, vpon any one defect. Therefore the conti∣nuance of the same gesture cānot ma••e that action good, wherein any part thereof, in respect of the obiect, is con∣demnable in it selfe; because if the reuerence at the recei∣uing be vnlawfull, I ought, in my behauiour, as well to haue declined that which ought not; as to haue practised that which ought to haue beene performed; especially where (for God is a iealous God) there could be the least iealousie of Idolatry.

The nature of due reuerence will more clearely appeare, by a sight of the contrary. If any Tenants, seeing their Lord riding, with his seruants, some before, and some behind, yet but meanely furnished for their attendance, should be disposed to laugh and iest at them; & exercise

the same scoffe vpon their Lord approaching; would it be any tollerable satisfaction, to say (when they should be called in question) that they did but onely continue their laughing and iesting?

Or will you hereupon suspect, that you haue erred, in being vncouered, and hereafter make amends with coue∣ring your heads? This would be but an hiddie, and giddie retractation, by which you must needs contradict the cu∣stome (as I suppose) of all the reformed Churches in Christendom: whereof one of your own choicest Wit∣nesses testifieth, saying;* 1.194 De h••c membro inter omnes pios constat, reipsa enim h••c comprobant, cùm ad Sacramentorum participationem reuerentèr, apertó{que} Capite accedunt; hàc ra∣tione protestantes, aquam illam Baptismi, panem & vinum Coenae non amplius esse res profanas, sed sacras, per quas Chri∣stus seipsum, suam{que} gratiam cōmunicat; eó{que} esse reuerentia dignas &c. It is a thing granted (saith he) of all godly men, and indeed testified and approued of them, by their comming to the participation of the Sacraments, Reuerently, with their heads vncouered, protesting thereby that the water of Bap∣tisme, and the bread and wine in the Lords Supper are no cō∣mon, but sacred things; whereby Christ doth communicate himselfe and his graces vnto vs, and that therefore they are worthy of this reuerence. Euen as (saith he) the word prea∣ched, although it is not to be adored, yet must it be reuerent∣ly handled, is the word not of men, but of God: and so like∣wise the Sacraments, in the administration of them, a••e worthy of reuerence, whereunto appertaineth the saying of the Apostle, commanding vs to eat and drink that cup 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worthily; which worthinesse and dignity, although it doth properly consist in the minde indued with faith an•• loue, yet may we not without cause referre it vnto the externall reue∣rence, whereupon it was that they, that came to the Lords Supper irreuerently, were seuerely chastned by the hand of

God. 1. Cor. 11. You see how exactly this your choice and venerable Witnesse hath pleaded for an externall gesture of reuerence, by vncouering the head, at the receiuing of such holy Rytes; which he maketh to be the same, in the case of worship, with the bowing of the knee.

You will peraduenture reply; if the case standeth so, concerning vncouering our heads, why are we then con∣demned for irreuerence, and why is Kneeling required? Shall I tell you? I can conceiue but three reasons here∣of: the first is, because diuers of you are thought to be vncouered, not with any intention to expresse your reue∣rence, at the receiuing of this Sacrament, because you condemne those that performe any reuerence by knee∣ling; therefore yee are vrged to kneele, that thereby you may manifest your vnanimity of one iudgement with our Church. Secondly, the order of kneeling hauing bene established by the Church, and being (as hath bene proued) a Ceremony indifferent, it is lawfully exacted, and ought to be performed by you, for expression of vnifor∣mitie. Lastly, because that women also (who because of their sex may not be vncouered) might shew the deuoti∣on of their soules, by their bodily representation of knee∣ling; this gesture is required for an vniuersality of Con∣formitie.

To conclude, be you exhorted but to permit your in∣ternall reuerence, to become visible, by bodily gesture; or suffer your knees to be answerable to your heads, in out∣ward reuerence: and then may we all ioyne the hands of true fellowship and godly vnion, in the participation of this holy Communion; and a more acceptable Thankes∣giuing in the Eucharist vnto the Trinity, in one indiuisi∣ble Vnitie, whereunto be ascribed all glory and prayse for euer. Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cartw. in the rest of his 2. Reply p. 249. & Abridg. Linc. p. 54.
• * 1.2

  1. Pet. 3.
• * 1.3

  Tit. 1.
• * 1.4

  Epist. 12. pag. 106.
• * 1.5

  Tert. de pallio.
• * 1.6

  God is t••e God of order.
• * 1.7

  M. Bucer. tract. de ••acris vestibus, pag. 709.
• * 1.8

  M. Hy. and others.
• * 1.9

  See aboue sect. 2.
• * 1.10

  M. Hy.
• * 1.11

  Zepper. de polit. Ecl. l. 1. cap. 14. quo∣ting Chry••o. Hom. 83. in Mat. & Hier. ••••. con. Pelag.
• * 1.12

  P. Martyr. Epist. p. ••0••7. Zanch. de Redempt. p. 486.
• * 1.13

  Cartwr. quo sup••a.
• * 1.14

  Martyr ••pist. pag. 1087. Za••ch. in ••∣phe 5. Idem de Redemp. pag 489.
• * 1.15

  Ibid. pag. 486.
• * 1.16

  Bucer. Tract. de Sacri•• vestibus.
• * 1.17

  Abridg Linc. pag. 35.
• * 1.18

  Vide, supra, part 1. cap. 3. throughout.
• * 1.19

  P. Martyr Epist. pag. 1088.
• * 1.20

  Zepper. polit. lib 1 ca 14. pag. 159.
• * 1.21

  Zanchius quo supra.
• * 1.22

  Apoc. 7.9.
• * 1.23

  Bucer. de sa∣cris vestib. pag. 707.
• * 1.24

  M. Nic. & M. Hy.
• * 1.25

  Mat. 7.
• * 1.26

  Rainold. Confer.
• * 1.27

  Zanch. de R••d••mpt. p. 699.
• * 1.28

  Gal. 4. Hier.
• * 1.29

  P. Martyr Epist to B. Hooper. pag. 1083.
• * 1.30

  B••cer. quo supra.
• * 1.31

  M. Nic.
• * 1.32

  L••uit. 2.6.
• * 1.33

  M Hi. & M. Hy.
• * 1.34

  P. Martyr. Epist. p. 1087.
• * 1.35

  Platina in vita Steph.
• * 1.36

  P. Martyr vbi supr••.
• * 1.37

  Bucer. tract. de sacris ves••.
• * 1.38

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 28.
• * 1.39

  See aboue part. 1. ch. 4.
• * 1.40

  1. Cor. 8.
• * 1.41

  1. Cor. 8.4. Beza.

  See aboue part. 1. chap. 6. sect. 14.
• * 1.42

  See aboue part. 1. ch. 3. &c.
• * 1.43

  Bu••er. Tract. de sacris vest. in fine. See him mo••e copiously sect. 7.
• * 1.44

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 40.
• * 1.45

  See aboue, Part. 1. chap. 2. sect. 12.
• * 1.46

  P. Martyr. Epist. to Bish. Hooper, pag. 1088.
• * 1.47

  Calu Epist, 120, p, 245,
• * 1.48

  See ••boue.
• * 1.49

  Bucer. Tract. de sacris vest. pag. 708.
• * 1.50

  Bucer. Ibid.
• * 1.51

  M. Gos. M. Nic. and M. Lang.
• * 1.52

  M. Gos.
• * 1.53

  M. Gos. Caluin. in Exo. 20.8.
• * 1.54

  Caluin in the place allead∣ged.
• * 1.55

  Calui•• ibid.
• * 1.56

  Exod. 37, &c.
• * 1.57

  Num. 21.8.
• * 1.58

  Zanch. de Redem p. exp. of this commande∣ment.
• * 1.59

  M. Gos.
• * 1.60

  Constit. Can 30.
• * 1.61

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 41.
• * 1.62

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 41.
• * 1.63

  Cent. 3. pag. 125 num. 10. Basil. lib. de Spirit. ca. 27. Arnob. in Psa. 85.

  Aug. in Psa. 68.
• * 1.64

  Bellar. l. 2. de effectu Sa∣cra. ca. 30. §. Nota 3. & ca 31. §. 2. Proposit.
• * 1.65

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. M. Gos.
• * 1.66

  Chemnitius vide infra sect. 13. B. Iewel Ibid.
• * 1.67

  P. Mart. Ibid.
• * 1.68

  Zanch. Ibid.
• * 1.69

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 41. M. Gos. M. Hy.
• * 1.70

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 29.
• * 1.71

  Coster. Ench. c. 13. fol. 42.6.
• * 1.72

  Constit. can. 30.
• * 1.73

  See aboue, Part. 1. chap. 6.
• * 1.74

  M. Row. and others.

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 27.
• * 1.75

  Statuae Mer∣curiales.
• * 1.76

  M. Hy. & M. Hi. Iren. li. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.77

  Math. 10.38.
• * 1.78

  Math. 3.12.
• * 1.79

  Math. 27.••2.
• * 1.80

  M. Hy.
• * 1.81

  lib. 2. cap. 1.
• * 1.82

  M. Hy. Cent. 3. cap. 10 nu. 57.

  Tert. de coro. milit.
• * 1.83

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. c. 1.
• * 1.84

  Abridg Linc. p. 41.

  M. Hy.
• * 1.85

  Exam. part. 4. Tract. de Imag. pag. 28. col· 1.
• * 1.86

  De Redemp. l. 1. de Imag. pag. 400.
• * 1.87

  Loc. com. pag. 222. So also Iew∣••ll pag. 372.
• * 1.88

  Pol. eccl l. 1. ca. 12. p. 119. & 223.
• * 1.89

  Probl. p. 176.
• * 1.90

  Iewel art. 4. pag. 371. of the last Ad∣dition.
• * 1.91

  Iewel Ib. pag. 372.
• * 1.92

  Bucer. in Censur. ordi∣nat. Eccles. cap. 12.
• * 1.93

  M. Hy. M. Hi.
• * 1.94

  Abridg. Linc. p. 56. & p. 57.
• * 1.95

  Math 26.20.
• * 1.96

  Mark. 14.18.
• * 1.97

  of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.98

  Ioh. 13.12.
• * 1.99

  Ioh. 13.23. Bar. Tom. 1. pag. 198. & pag. 200. he bringeth for the most part things cited out of a booke called, Liber Ritua∣alis.
• * 1.100

  Beza. Zanch.
• * 1.101

  See below, sect. 16.
• * 1.102

  Math. 26.
• * 1.103

  1. Cor. 11.26.
• * 1.104

  Abridg. Linc. p. 61. & Dispute. M. L••rg.
• * 1.105

  The Dispu∣ter.
• * 1.106

  Luke 14.16.
• * 1.107

  Luke 22.30.
• * 1.108

  1. Cor. 11.26.
• * 1.109

  Tit. 3.5.
• * 1.110

  Ioh. 3.5.
• * 1.111

  The Dispute.
• * 1.112

  Apoc. 12.
• * 1.113

  Math. 14.
• * 1.114

  Ioh. 6.9.
• * 1.115

  1. Cor. 10.
• * 1.116

  ••uk. 22.19. Math 26.
• * 1.117

  Luk. 22.28.
• * 1.118

  Eph. 1.20.21.
• * 1.119

  Abridg. Linc. p. 61.
• * 1.120

  Math. 8.8.
• * 1.121

  Psal. 95.2.
• * 1.122

  Ver. 6.
• * 1.123

  Luk. 17.15.16.
• * 1.124

  Apoc. 11.7.
• * 1.125

  Apoc. 7.11.
• * 1.126

  Abridg. Linc. p. 67.
• * 1.127

  Act. 10.15.
• * 1.128

  Abri•••• Linc. p. 5••.
• * 1.129

  Ioh. 13.
• * 1.130

  Luk. 22.27.
• * 1.131

  Phil. 2 10.
• * 1.132

  See aboue Sect. 5. and Sect. 11.
• * 1.133

  Zanch de Redempt: l. 1. de Cul•• De•• ••x••e p. 4••••.
• * 1.134

  Zanch. Ibid. pag. 49••.
• * 1.135

  Beza. Epist. ••. p. 25.
• * 1.136

  Ibid. pag. 7••.
• * 1.137

  Be••a Epist. 11. p. 109.
• * 1.138

  Abridg. Linc. p. 57. quoting Bullinger.
• * 1.139

  Fox Act. Mon. p, 19. Euseb. Hist. Eccle. l. 7. c. 8.
• * 1.140

  Fulk. against the Rhem. Test. fol. 286.
• * 1.141

  Iewel Defen. Apol. p. 237.
• * 1.142

  Abridg. Linc. p. 58.
• * 1.143

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 42.
• * 1.144

  Abridg. Linc. in the ••ame place.
• * 1.145

  Abridg. Linc. pag. 30.31.
• * 1.146

  Cyril. Hieros. Ambrose. Greg. Naz. Aug. Chrys.
• * 1.147

  Cyril Hier. Catech. my∣stagog. 5.
• * 1.148

  Zepper. pol••••. l. ••. c. 1••. pag. 137.
• * 1.149

  Abridg. Linc. p. 30.
• * 1.150

  Dial. l. 2. c. 24.
• * 1.151

  Abridg Linc. pag. 4••.
• * 1.152

  see aboue part 1. cha. 1.
• * 1.153

  Abridg. Linc. p. 56.
• * 1.154

  M. Nic.
• * 1.155

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.156

  Ver 30.
• * 1.157

  Ver. 22. Ver. 19.
• * 1.158

  Ab••idg Linc. p. 6••.
• * 1.159

  Abridg. Linc. p. 68.
• * 1.160

  See aboue.
• * 1.161

  Abridg Linc. p. 66.
• * 1.162

  Bell. l 2. de Euch c. 18.
• * 1.163

  P. Mar. Loc Com. Class. 4. c. 10. p. 863.
• * 1.164

  Bellar. l. 2 de Imag. Sanct. c. 20.
• * 1.165

  Su••r. Tom. 1. in Thom. q••ae••t. 2•• di∣s••u. 54. ••ect. 3.
• * 1.166

  B••ll••rm. Ce∣remoniae ••on∣sunt re•• in∣differentes, sed sunt ••es vtiles, merito∣riae, & pars quaed••m cul••∣••us diuini. lib. 2. de effect∣••ac••am c. 31. ••••ct. Quint••▪ ••rop.
• * 1.167

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag sanc. cap. 22.
• * 1.168

  Suarez quo supra sect. 4.
• * 1.169

  Conc. Trid. ••ess. 25.
• * 1.170

  Bellar. quo supra cap. 21.
• * 1.171

  See the Pro∣testants Ap∣peale lib. 2. c. 2. sect. 23.
• * 1.172

  See aboue.
• * 1.173

  Abridg. Linc. p. 67.
• * 1.174

  Instit. l. 4. c. 1••▪ p. 429.
• * 1.175

  B. Iewel art. B. of Adoration p. 2••2. of the last edition.
• * 1.176

  Zanch. de Redemp. l 1. c 17. p 497.
• * 1.177

  Zanch. ibid.
• * 1.178

  Ibid. p. 531. c 17. Thes. 10.
• * 1.179

  Abridg. Linc. p 64.
• * 1.180

  Beza Epist. 11. p. 109.
• * 1.181

  P. Mart. Loc. Com. Class 2. c 4. p. 203.
• * 1.182

  Abridg. Linc. p. 31. quoting Bellar. l. 4. d•• Euch. c. 29. art. 2.
• * 1.183

  Iewell art. 4. of Adoration. p. 282.
• * 1.184

  1. Cor. 11.29.
• * 1.185

  Luk. 18.
• * 1.186

  1. Tim. 2.
• * 1.187

  Math. 9.
• * 1.188

  Luk. 10.
• * 1.189

  Act. 16.
• * 1.190

  Math. 26.
• * 1.191

  Zanch. de re∣demp. p. 533.
• * 1.192

  Zanch. de re∣demp. lib. 1. pag. 401.
• * 1.193

  Iam 1.
• * 1.194

  Z••nch. de Redemp. lib. 1. pag 531. Thes. 10.