A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D. Burgesse his rejoinder for D. Morton The first part

SECT. 7. Concerning Images, &c.

1. A Third reason brought against significant Ce∣remonies, was, that they open a gap to Images, &c. where the Reader must remember, or consider, that the meaninge is: Images instituted for signification of morall duties, may as well be set up in Churches, as Crosse and Surplice. The Def. his answer was (to passe over superfluitie of wordes) that Images are not to be accounted Popish, or unlawfull, but onely in regard of superstitious adoration. Wherunto it was replied, that then Cassanders Images (not for adoration, but for infor∣mation & incitement) are not Popish: whiche the Rej. doeth not onely grante, but also proveth it, by the con∣sent of Calvin himselfe, Instit. lib. 1. capit. 11. sect. 12. where he sayth, that Historical Images, or Pictures, may have

some use, in teaching, and putting, in remembrance.

Now for this, let it be considered, that Calvin in that section, speaketh onely of ordinarie pictures, for teaching and putting in remembrance of that which they repraesent of themselves, without any Ecclesiasti∣call institution, as certayne wordes written doe signifie a certayne meaning, without any speciall institution. Suche (it may be) would be the picture of Ananias in a white Surplice, signifying with other pictures agreable to the storie, that Paul esteemed and called him a whited wall, Act. 23.3. But in the very next section, which is the thirteenth, Calvin, disputing against setting up of any Images in Churches, doeth sufficiently declare, that he allowed of no Ceremoniall religious use of Images, suche as is of our Crosse, and Surplice.

2. The Replier alleged against this defense of Ce∣remoniall religiouse use of Images, especially in Chur∣ches, the common consent of our Divines. Against this, the Rej. first opposeth Luther and the Lutherans: and then asketh if they be none of our Divines? To whiche I answer, that they are in most maine poyntes our Divines: but about this buisinesse they are no more our, then about Vbiquitie, Consubstantiation, &c. for whiche they disclaime us, even the wholle Churche of En∣gland, as no part of the Catholicke Churche, but Secta∣ries, Sacramentarians, &c. Secondly, the historie of Luther about Images is well knowen: how in opposi∣tion to Carolastadius, whoe brake downe Images with∣out his consent, he would have them to be tolerated, onely for a tyme, untill men were more fully instructed.

But that he allowed them for good Ceremonies of re∣ligion, that cannot be shewed. M^r. Foxe, in the storie of Luther, hath this: Luther misliked the rashnesse of Caro∣••astadius, in stirring up the people, to throw down Images, without authoritie, and before the people were taught, that Images serve to no purpose. Not that he would mainteyne Images (as he sayd) to stand, or to be suffered: but that this ought to be doen by the Magistrate &c. This was Luther en∣forced unto, by the slanderers, that accused Protestantes of se∣dition and tumultes, &c. This is no argument, for the Ma∣gistrate to let Images stand; whoe may and should remove them, and will not. The cause why Luther did so stand with the standing of Images, was time, and not his owne judgement. He wished them away. Nay (as Zuinglius relateth) he tur∣ned them, some with their feet upward, and some with their faces toward the wall, & their backes to the people, for to make them not religious, but ridiculous. Thirdly, the Lutherans make this one of their controversies, against Calvin, Beza, &c. whether Images may be tolle∣rated in Churches, or in religious use. Fourthly, Pola∣nus (whoe was borne amonge the Lutherans in Silesia) in Ezech. cap. 11. testifieth, that the Lutheran Images, are worshipped of most Lutherans, &c. and therefore are Idoles to be avoyded.* 1.1 And will the Rej. then defende the Lu∣theran use of Images?

3. In the next place, the Rej. asketh, in mumminge fashion, if Vrsinus, Iunius, & M^r. Perkins be not of our Di∣vines? or if they doe not acknowlege an historicall use of I∣mages lawfull? To whiche I answer, that they are in our consenting Divines.

For Vrsine, his wordes are plaine (parte 2. pag. 45. they must needs have large consciences,* 1.2 who blush not to recken a thing of the worst example, and from heathenish rite, and custome brought into the Church, not without the great disgrace and hurt thereof, among indifferent things. Where it must be observed, that he disputed against Flaccius Il∣liricus, about Images, even in the Lutheran use, which our Def. and Rej. mainteine. Iunius also is ours. His words are these (adv. Bell. de Imagin. lib. 2. cap. 12. v. 30. It is Gods cause and ours (as is plaine out of the word, that neyther his Image nor Christs, nor any of the Saincts for a reli∣gious end, be sett up in any place (specialy that is appointed for Gods worship) or at any time without his order. Verily those Images are to be reckened not onely among things Superfluous,* 1.3 but Scathie and Forbidden things. M^r. Perkins (being in every mans handes) may be easily consulted with, upon the second Commandement, and in his treatise of Ido∣latrie.

4. Beza, with his fellow Ministers of Geneva, are next brought in, whoe allowed many pictures, to be set forth in the Frenche Bible. Beza his judgement (even of Lutheran Images) is plaine in his answer to Westphalus, a Lutheran, capit. 36. The placing of Images in Churches we thinke a 1000. times flatly forbidden by the word of God. Whosoever would see Bezas resolute judgement, about the Lutheran use of Images, which the Def. approveth of,* 1.4 let him looke upon his Antithesis ad th••s. 4. Witen∣bergentium, in Colloquio Mompelgardensi: & ad Colloquium Mompelgardense, parte 2. And he shall finde enough to sa∣tisfie him, not onely about Bezas judgement, but (if he

be a good Protestant) concerning the cause, or quaestion it selfe. For no answer of moment could ever be brought forth, by any eyther rigid, or gentle Lutheran, from that time, unto this day.

As for those pictures in the Frenche Bible, they are not significant Ceremonies of religious use by speciall institution; but suche signes as Characters or letters, concerning whiche, answer is given, in the first section of this Chapter, out of Alexander Hales: They signifie holy things not as they are holy, but as they are things.* 1.5

The Rej. therfore fore-seeing what would be an∣swered, goeth about to praevent it, by saying, that the Def. condemneth all religious use of Images, properly so called, 1. e. whose determination must be to God-ward, as Polanus in 2. Praecep. expresseth the meaning. Whiche expression I cannot finde in Polanus, but this to our purpose: Images are not to be allowed in Churches for laymens books.* 1.6

Neyther can the Def. or Rej. denie all religious use of Images, properly so called; except they denie signifi∣cant Images, appointed for commonefaction and institution of men in religious duties, to be a religious use. Whiche if they could have doen, they needed not have admit∣ted Images into the same ranke with their income significant Cerimonies, accidentall parts of religious wor∣ship. By this also is answered that which he addeth of simple hystoricall use of Images, as separated from all reli∣gious use.

5. Of having Images for religious use, the negative is defended by Calvin, and the affirmative by Bellar∣mine, de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 9. in which quaestion, it was

observed by the Replier, that the Def. taketh Bell. his part.

The Rejoynder heere first maketh a kinde of doubt, whether Calvin did not therin contradict himself! But not trusting to that, he addeth, that the quaestion was, whe∣ther Images may be well (rectè) placed in Churches? because thinges lawfull in them selves, are not lawfull in all times & places to be used. Now the meer looking upon that Chapter of Bell. will praesently manifest, that Calvin, calling Images in Temples, Idolatrous signes sett up wherewith the Churches are defiled,* 1.7 never meant so to minse the matter, as to make them lawfull, but not expedient. And in deed, if Images may be used for commone∣faction, and institution, as Ecclesiasticall significant Ce∣remonies, ther can be no reason given, why they should be shutte out of the Churche, where Ecclesiasticall signi∣ficant Ceremonies have their cheifest use.

This is certayn, that the Def. expressly denieth the bringing in of Images into Churches, for some suche uses as Bellarmine speaketh of, cap. 10. For instruction, and erudition, for stirring up unto ímitation, and for praeser∣ving of the memorie of Christ, and Saincts, he denieth (I say) this to be any part of Popis•• use or abuse about Ima∣ges, when he sayth, that Onely in regard of superstitious adoration, the use of Images is to be called Popish.

6. It was added by the Repl. that the Def. his asser∣tion is directly against the Homilie against the perill of Ido∣latrie, unto which we are bounde to subscribe. If this be true (sayth the Rejoynder) the Bishop deserveth to be suspen∣ded: the Replier, if it be untrue. Now I doe not desire

that he alone, (separated from the rest eyther partaker of the same or guiltie of equall faults,) should be supended: but I dare adventure my suspension, against his, that neyther he nor the Rej. can clear his assertion, from di∣rect contradiction unto that Homilie. I will take no other wordes for proof of that which the Repl. sayth, then that founde in a booke written against M^r. Richard Mountague, about the like sentence, called A dangerous Plot, &c. pag. 94. and 95. where these wordes are quo∣ted out of that Homilie: The words Idoll and Image, be words of divers tongues, and soundes: yet used in the Scrip∣ture indifferently, for one thinge allways. To bringe Images into the Churches, is a foul abuse, and great enormitie. They be forbidden, and unlawfull. They are not thinges indiffe∣rent, nor tollerable. If the Def. will say, that his asser∣tion is not contrarie to these wordes, then I am conten∣ted, that his suspension should be deferred longer then M^r. Mountagues promotion was, after he had written this, and suche like scandalous doctrines, tending di∣rectly to the overthrow of our religion. And this rea∣son may be alleged for him: that M^r. Mountague in some poyntes went so farre beyonde D. Morton, that he reckoneth him amonge the Puritan Bishops.

7. The Repl. noted also, that the Def. his asser∣tion confirmeth Bellarmines foul wordes, whoe sayth, that the Apologie of the Churche of England lyeth, in affirminge the Councell of Franckford to have decreed the abolishing of Images: de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 8. because the onely answer is that which Iunius (in his notes upon that chapter) giveth: He that forbiddeth Images to be wor∣shiped,

doeth forbid having of Images worshipable, especially in Churches: which answer this Def. doeth flatly denie. The Rej. answereth, that the meaning of B. Iuel, in that place of the Apologie, was, not that the Councel did simplie take away Images, but contrarie to the Councel of Nice, which required the adoration of them. But 1. If these wordes doe not shew Iuels meaning, yet certainly they declare Iunius his minde and judgement, plainely. How then dare the Rej. avouche Iunius to have allowed Images worshipable? 2. Iuel his words are: Charles the Great had a Councell at Franckford, contrarie to the 2. Nicen Councel, concerning the taking away of Images: where the taking away is not limited by contrarietie to the Nicen Councel, but manifestly explaineth the sentence wherin that contra∣rietie did mainly consist. 3. Learned Iuel knew, how to write plainely, so that his wordes and meaning may be understood. Now what his judgement was of Ima∣ges for religious use, (adoration set a part) apeareth evi∣dently, as in his 14. Article, so especially in that notable and Propheticall sentence of his, concerning the Image of the Crosse of Christ, as it was in some place or places of England: Si illa mala Crux stat, nos cadimus. If that evill Crosse stand▪ wee (or our religion) must fall.

This is related by D. Humphrie, in the historie of B. Iuels life and death, a litle before the ende. And in very deed, except those which write against the Papists, doe refute all Images instituted for religious significa∣tion, they doe not make any difference bewixt us, and a great part of Popish Doctors. For (as Bilson, against the Iesuites Apologie, pag. 572. well observeth) this is

the doubt, betwixt us and the Papists, whether we should not content our selves, with suche meanes as God hath devized for us, and commended unto us, therby dayly to renue the memo∣rie of our Redemption; or else invent others of our owne heads? Nay if we admitte of significant Images, as religious Ce∣remonies, I would fain know how we in England can condemne, those that wor••hip before them, or them commemoratively, or recordatively, as Petrus de Crabrera (in 3. q. 25. a 3. disp. 2. n. 35.) speaketh, and Vasquez de∣fendeth to be the common tenet of the Romish Doc∣tors. For that is nothing else, but at the beholding of a Crucifixe, or suche like Image, and calling to minde Christ, and our dutie to him, upon the same to worship him whiche (upon the supposition of their religious signification lawfull) can hardly be condemned by those which hould kneeling at the Communion good.

Concerning Oyle, Lighte, Spitle, Creame and H. Water.

8. In the Abrigement, unto Images were joyned Oyle, Lights, Spitle, Cream, and Holy Water. But it pleased the Def. to passe over Lights, and Cream, untouched. And concerning Oyle and Spitle, by the Rejoynder his owne correction of the Repliers collection, his answer is: that they, having their birth and being from an Apish imi∣tation of a miraculous imployment of them, are therfo••e to be kept out of doores, though some significant Ceremonies be let in. Now this is no answer (as the Replier observed) ex∣cept the miraculous using of any thing doeth forbid, that it should at any time after be used for signification.

Whiche the Rej. would neyther affirme, nor denie; but onely calleth it a flout. But it is suche a flout, as being granted, it ca••hiereth the Crosse, as being above all other Ceremonies for fame of miracles wrought by it, and the Surplice also, as being, in part, an Apish imitation of the Angels miraculous apparitions in white. But the trueth is: our Prelats doe place it in the Churches power, to retayne, as Ceremonies of Baptisme, Chrisme, Salt, Candles, Exorcismes, Ephata, and the Consecration of the Water, so well as the Crosse. These are the very wordes of Lancelot Andrues, the late famous B. of Winchester, in his answer to the 18. Chapter of Cardinall Perrons Replie, pag. 12. or sect. 17. For Holy Water, his more distinct answer was, that their (i. e. Papists) sprinkling of water upon the People, for remembrance of their Baptisme, if it were applied onely for to make them often mindfull, and carefull to keep their vow of Christianitie, made once to God in Baptisme, it might be called a morall Ceremonie and Chri∣stian. But as it is used in Romish Churche, as operative, to the purging of venialb sinnes, and driving away of Devills, it is Popish and execrable. I am constreyned to repeat the Def. his wordes, that they may discover the vanitie of the Rej. his exceptions against the replie to them op∣posed: which was, that Calvin Inst. lib. 4. cap. 10. s. 20. And Iunius in Bellarmine de Cultu Sanctorum, libr. 3. cap. 7. n. 8. were of another minde: &c.

The Rejoynder 1. blameth the Replier for making shew, as if the Def. were fairely inclined to let in the use of Holy Water: But without any cause, except he will de∣nie the Def. to be fairely inclined, to let in the use of

a morall Christian Ceremonie, as the Defender calleth it. 2. He observeth, that the Def. named not H. Water, but sprincking of Water upon the People. Now the Rej. sayth expresly thus: Wee come to that which they (the Papists) call H. Water their (i.e. the Papists) sprinkling of Water upon the People, &c. confounding plainely these two termes. 3. He noteth, that the Defender did not say it may be, but it might be called Christian: that is (by the Re∣joynder his interpretation) if superstition had not stayned it. Now I cannot see any difference betwixt that which the Replier sayth, it may be accounted Christian, were it not for this or that; and this of the Rejoynders: It might be so accounted, if it were not for this or that. But if a staine of superstition, doeth hinder, that a humane Ceremonie cannot be after called Christian, though that superstition be taken from it, by doctrine & profes∣sion, what will become of our Ceremonies, which the Rejoynder doeth so labour to mainteyne as Chri∣stian, that he hath scarce one threed left about him drie, or free from his sweating? 4. He denieth the Defender to have sayd, that were it not for the operative power which is ascribed unto it, it might be accounted Christian.

Wherin whosoever will but look upon the De∣fender his owne wordes, even now quoted, must needes wonder, what subtill difference the Rejoynder can conceyve betwixt his formall wordes as onely ma∣king mindfull, it is Christian, but not as operative: and that sense which he denieth. 5. Because both the Defender and Rejoynder doe make so muche of operative vertue ascribed by the Popish Doctors unto Holy Water, for

cleansing from veniall sinnes, as that therin they place all the Poperie and fault of it: let them knowe, that diverse of the best learned amonge them doe flatly denie it. As Estius in 4. pag. 14. Some speake improbably, that Holy Water Con••erreth remission of venial sinne, onely by the deed done.* 1.8 Vasquez in 3. disp. 128. cap. 5. ar. 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial sinne, nor were instituted for any such end, but to stir up the mind to abandon them. Now as for necessitie,* 1.9 wherwith the Rejoynder would put off Cal∣vin: Bellarmin himselfe (de Pontif. l. 4. c. 18.) answe∣reth: It is an admonition or holy institution onely whithout any obligation to a fault if it be omitted.* 1.10 They sinn not who (without contempt) do not Sprinkle themselves with Holy Water, when they enter the Church. Iunius his wordes are so full and plaine, that they admitte no answer: no hu∣mane ordination can make it good. 6. The Rep. conclu∣sion: that suche sprinkling of water as the Def. alloweth, may perhaps be called I••wish: but not Christian, without taking Christs name in vayne; cannot be eluded by the Rejoynder his comparatively Christian, no more then some uncleannesse may be called Christian, in comparison of filthinesse contrarie to nature.

9. In the following passages, concerning abuse o•• imposing humane Ceremonies, and P. Martyrs, judge∣ment, nothing is worth the answering, which hath not been formerly cleared. Onely about that which the Def. affirmeth, concerning the shutting up of the gap, which was sayd to be opened by this doctrine of hu∣mane significant Ceremonies, in Gods worship, some∣thing must be answered unto the Rejoynder his fierce

accusations. 1. The Rejoynder asketh, If any more significant Ceremonies have been brought-in this threescore yeares? To whiche I answer, first that ther have been of late more bringing in of Altars, with bowing unto thē, then was before: and at Durrham, the third Seat of our Def. more superstitious observations are now sayd to be urged, then in threescore yeares before. Secondly, it is wel knowen, that in threescore yeares, ther have scarce any generall significant Ceremonies been newly brought into the Churche of Rome: yet Chamier (tom. 2. pag. 1299.) answereth to the like evasion: We are to regard not onely what is brought in, but what may be brought in. For while such authority is challenged, the ••oke ìs not cer∣taine, but wavering.* 1.11 2. Because the Replier sayd, that the gap is every day made wider and wider by suche defences as this is, which allow of Images themselves, for some religious use; because by this meanes any Cru∣cifixe may come in, that is not greater then the Churche doore: the Rejoynder accuseth him of a steeled con∣science, if he doeth not bleed for suche an injurious jest of fals∣hood, tending to bring them into suspicion, and hatred: so that in his charitie, we can no longer be accounted syncere men. And I pray you why? Forsooth the Def. doeth not allow all Images, and in Churches too, and for religious use. Now (if his heat be over) let him consider the Def. his wordes, cited, allowed, and mainteyned by himselfe, pag. 291. the use of Images, onely in regard of super∣stitious adoration, is to be called Popish, and not true. What distinction is heer betwixt Images? though he was not by the Replier accused, as favouring all Images, but onely

a Crucifixe. And let him tell us, if he doeth (or can by his groundes) disalow of all Crucifixes? or if ther be no use of suche Images, in Churches, but onely for superstitious adoration? or if ther be no religious use of a significant Image beside adoration? The case is so plaine, that every man may see the Rejoynder in this place, breaking out into an intemperat passion, for want of a reasonable answer to that which he was ashamed to confesse.

3. The Rejoynder confessing that our Prelates can when they please, open the gap, to many other Ceremo∣nies like to these which now they urge upon us, addeth notwithstanding, that the Replier his spirit in saying so, transported him, to involve his Maiestie, and the State, by an uncharitable surmize. And that this gap shall never be ope∣ned, unlesse our janglings, and our sinnes bring Gods displea∣sure upon our land. Now alas, what involving is this of Civill powers, to say, that the Prelats, by their permis∣sion, may bring in threescore Ceremonies, as well as three. And what humane religious Ceremonies can be brought into England, without our sinnes desert? As for his intermixing of our janglings, as a possible cause, it is not worth any jangling.

Concerning the second Commandement.

10. One Argument is yet to be handled, eyther o∣mitted, or (as the Rejoynder sayth) put off unto another place, by the Defendant. The Argument standeth thus: The second Commandement forbiddeth to make unto our selves, the likenesse of any thinge whatsoever,

for religious use: as Bucer, Iuel, Fulke, Andrews and Bilson doe interpret it. Therfore to make, appoint, or use significant Ceremonies, of mans devizing, is un∣lawfull.

The Rejoynder answereth, in general, that Religious use, by these fore-named Authors, is taken. 1. For worship to the Image: 2. Worship to God, by the Image: and not simply, that whiche may any ways conferre to the furtherance of Reli∣gion. Wherin, he sayth nothing but trueth, and yet no trueth at all to the purpose: except he understandeth in the that which he affirmeth, onely, 1. e. that they meant no more, but worshiping to, and by: and in that he denieth, by simply, no difference, betwixt any of those thinges that help forth or further Religion: as if ci∣vill circumstances, and instituted religious Ceremonies, were all one. And if this be his meaning, it requireth more then his simple testimonie, to confirme it.

11. For the backing of this Argument, it was first observed by the Replier, that the word likenesse, used in the second Commandement, is generall, and compre∣hendeth under it, all religious similitudes: because they are homogeneall to Images, there expresly forbidden. To this the Rejoynder answereth nothing: but onely sayth, that our Ceremonies are not religious similitudes in suche a sense as the Commandement intendeth, and Divines under∣stand. And that the Replier speaketh ignorantly: because the Commandement doeth as expresly forbid suche similitudes, as any graven Images.

Now the first of these sayinges, we cannot under∣stand, untill the Rejoynder explaineth him self, what that

sense is, in which the Commandement intendeth to forbid all religious similitudes? As for the second, to leave the Repliers ignorance unto the readers judgemēt, more in it is granted, then was demanded: viz: that all reli∣gious similitudes are expresly forbidden in the second Commandement.

12. It was secondly added by the Replier, that si∣gnificant Ceremonies are externall actes of religious worship, even as they are used to further devotion▪ Suarez, in 3. q. 65. ar. 4. Bell. de Eff. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 29, and 31. and therfore being invented by man, of the same nature with Images, by which, and at which, God is worshiped. The Rejoynder here (for want of a better answer) flieth to his olde Sanctuarie, of meritorious, ne∣cessarie, and immediat worship grosly held by Papists of their Ceremonies, whether th••y be significant, or not significant. But he hath in the former part of this writing, been so beaten out of this burrow, that we need not againe spend time in digging about it. Let any man looke upon the places quoted, and he shall finde, that (merit necessitie, and immediatnesse set a part) significant Ceremo∣nies are externall acts of religious worship: which was all that this argument required. And I dare leave it (though not to the Rejoynder yet) to D. Burgesses judge∣ment, if merit, necessitie, be thinges eyther cheifly, or at all, forbidden in the second Commandement, more then in any other? Certainly, meritorious conceites are generally forbidden: but in no one Commandement specially: and necessarie binding of Conscience by man, belongeth to the first. The Replier looking for an an∣swer

something like this, of essentiall and accidentall wor∣ship, for praeventing of it, sayd that suche a distinction would help no more heer, then that of the Papists, be∣twixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

For this the Rejoynder accuseth him of an uncharita∣ble heart, and an unlearned head. But I see no cause: as hath been fully shewed in the confutation of that distin∣ction, both in the first part of this writing, and also in the second Argument, or Chapter, of this part. Yet because the Rejoynder is so impatient, of hearing his distinction of essentiall and accidentall worship, compared with the Papists vaine distinctions: let any man consi∣der a litle the Popish distinctions, which Rivetus hath well noted and expressed in his Cases, on the second Commandement: Worship religious is either of it selfe, or by accident proper or improper of it selfe,* 1.12 or some other thing, for it self, or in regard of another. Primarie or se∣condarie, proper or Analogicall. Absolute or respective, simple or according to some respect. Direct, or reductive, perfect or imperfect. And compare with them the Rej. his distinctions of Ceremonies, and worship, in the first part examined. I doubt not, but he will say, they come neerer together, in the very termes, then one would have exspected.

13. The Replier in the next place, argued from the affirmative part of the second Commandement, unto the negative, thus: This Commandementinjoigneth obedience to all the worship appointed by God, all which was significative, Heb. 8.5. and 10.1. therfor it forbiddeth any significative Ceremonies to be brought

in to the worship of God, devized by man: &c. The Rejoynder heer 1. answereth out of M^r. Cartwright, that the Affirmative part injoineth us, to use suche as him∣self doeth approve in his word. Now though in that edi∣tion of M^r. Cartw. his Catechisme printed an. 1611. the affirmative part is thus expressed: Doe that which I com∣mand thee, and doe no more; Yet that which he quoteth, out of another edition, is enough to cashier all humane significant Ceremonies. For what can be more plainely spoken against them, then that onely suche outward means must bee used in Gods worship as himself hath a••lowed▪ But (sayth the Rejoynder) M^r. Cartw. reckoneth the re∣verend gestures of the body, amonge those outward meanes▪ What then? Then bodily gestures in religious actions are ey∣ther determined by God, or may be lawfully appointed for sig∣nification, by man. A strange consequence: as if, when God allowed for an offering eyther a payre of Pigeons, or two Turtle doves, without particular determination, the Priests might have appointed for signification, that onely two Turtle doves should be offered!

His second answere is, that all worship of God among the Iewes, was not significant in his sence of significant. What his sence is, I know not: but the sence and words of the Replier his argument, was of worship appointed, or in∣stituted, beyond that which is naturaall, or necessarie, without any institution, except the law written in every mans heart, be an institution; which hee seemeth not to haue conceiued.

14 The last consideration by the Replier propoun∣ded was, that significant Ceremonies, which are by in∣stitution,

must needs belong vnto the second Comman∣dement; as he that maketh an accurate distinction of the Commandements, will presently see: but to man the second Commandement is (in regard of making) wholly negatiue. Ergo. The Rej. answereth first, that signifi∣cant Ceremonies may belong rather to the third Com∣mandement, as D. Ames referreth them; or accidentally to the fourth. Now as for accidentall belonging to this or that Commandement, it is not in question. To the third Commandement they cannot be directly referred, according to that distinction of the Commandements, which the Rej. himselfe produceth, in the next words as accurate. As for D. Ames, let any man looke vpon his Medulla, lib. 2. cap. 13. th. 34.35.36. and he shall see how the Rej. mistook him.

His second answere consisteth in distinguishing the Commandements of the first Table: Wherein (to let other things passe) he maketh the second to prouide, that from God wee take the prescription of all that, by use of which we may really worship him, and esteeme him to be truely and properly honoured of vs: and the Third to prouide, that in all acts of his worship, we carry our selues syncerely and reverently, from this hee concludeth, that the right use of Ceremonies, belong rather to the third Commandement, then to the second, as touching their end. Of this I know not well what to make: 1. The argu∣ment was of significant Ceremonies, in regard of their institution and making, the Rej. answereth, touching their end. 2. Touching their end, I cannot vnderstand (nor I thinke any man else) how the proper end of the

Crosse in Baptisme, should be syncerity and reverence; ex∣cept mixture of humane inventions with Gods ordi∣nances be syncerity; and presumption of doing so, be re∣verence. 3. If the second Commandement doeth pro∣vide that we take from God the praescription of all reall worship; then also of significant Ceremonies, except they be phantasticall worship: and yet euen figmenta cere∣bri, cordisve humani, the very phantasies, or images of the minde, not prescribed by God, are (by the most inter∣preters) held as well forbidden, as outward reall images. If the same Commandement do••th binde us to Gods prescription, in all true worship; then humane signifi∣cant Ceremonies, being not prescribed by God, are fa••se worship. If also in proper true worship; then they are onely metaphoricall worship, like unto true worship, or at least tropicall; which hath beene sufficiently confuted in the first part, and in the second Chapter of this.

The third answere given by the Rej. is, that in the second Commandemēt, nothing is forbidden, as touch∣ing making, but the instituting, or fancying of our owne meere devises, as an immediate meanes of worshipping God thereby. The force lieth in those two termes, meer devises, and immediate meanes of worship. Now for the distinction betwixt immediate and mediate worship, it hath beene sufficiently canvized in the first part. The other evasion, of meer humane devises, is the common refuge of Iesuites, when they are pressed with this argu∣ment. So Bellarmine (de effectu Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 32.) to Calvin, alleging that all humane will-worship is con∣demned in Scripture, * 1.13 answereth: That is called humane

and will-worship which is meerely humane. &c. but what the Church teacheth is of another nature. Beside, lay these two termes together, and then this is Pes computi: mans de∣vises may be euen immediate meanes of worship, if they be not meerely mans.

15 In vie of those grounds, laid by the Repl. against humane significant Ceremonies, out of the second Commandement, the Rej. by way of Reconvention fai∣neth two grounds to the contrary: the first whereof is taken from supposed true worship, & meanes necessarily indu∣cing thereto, as onely forbidden in the second Comman∣dement: and the second, from our placing the worship of God, in forbearing these Ceremonies, which he hath not commanded us to fo••bear. Now to both these earthy dead grounds (or Capita mortua) answer hath been given in the first part; partly in the chapter of Supersti∣tion, and partly in that of Difference betwixt our and Po∣pish Ceremonies. So that nothing need heer be added. Yet in few wordes, 1. He forgetteth himself muche, in distinguishing significant Ceremonies (which he con∣fesseth to be some kinde of worship) from true worship; except he will confesse them to be false worship. 2. He considered not what he writte, when he speaketh of meanes necessarily inducing to true worship. For no Papist ever conceyted, that their Ceremonies, were eyther ne∣cessarie to true worship, as if no true worship could be without them: or necessarily inferring true worship, as if he that used them, howsoever he did it, must needes performe true worship: and yet one of these senses must needes be the meaning of that phraze, if it hath any

meaning at all. 3. He taketh the wholle quaestion for wonne, or granted, when he speaketh of our forbea∣rance of that, which God hath not commanded us to forbear: and therupon concludeth thus: God hath not comman∣ded us to forbear humane ••ignificant Ceremonies. Ergo.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lutheranorum Imagines, a pleris{que} Luthe∣ranu coluntur, &c. sunt igitur Idola fugienda▪
• * 1.2

  Spatiosissimos & amplissi∣mos utique illis ••p••rtet esse con••cientia re∣••essus, & li∣centiam paten∣tissimam, qui rem pessimi exempli, ex Ethnico ritu & consuetu∣dine, in Eccle∣siam, maximo cum ejus dede∣cor••, & damn••, translatam, in adiaphoris nu∣merare non eru∣bescunt.
• * 1.3

  Interest Des & nostra (ut Verbo sacro ex∣ponitur) ne ip∣sius imago un∣quam, & ne Christi, aut Sanctorum imago, de causa religiosae, in loco ullo (prae∣sertim religio∣so) & temporo, sine authoritate sius statuatur Profecto, ista Imagines, non inter superflua selum, sed etiā inter vetita, & damnosa sunt numerandae.
• * 1.4

  Imaginum & statuarum col∣locationem in Templu, puta∣mu•• expresso Des Ve••bo millies interdi∣ctam.
• * 1.5

  Significant sententias (a•••• res) sacrae non in quantum sacra sunt, sed in quantur•• res.
• * 1.6

  Non sunt Ima∣gines in Tem∣plis tollerande, quae pro libri•• sint imperitae multitudu••i.
• * 1.7

  Erecta signa Idololatriae, quibus Templa dehonestantur.
• * 1.8

  Improbabiliter dicunt quidam, aquam benedi∣ctam conferre remissionem venialium pec∣catorum ex opere operato.
• * 1.9

  Sacramentalia non o••erantur remissionem peccatorum ve∣ntalium; n••que instituta sunt ad eam signifi∣candam: sed ad excitandum animum, in de∣testationem il∣lorum.
• * 1.10

  Est admonitio, vel p••a institu∣tio▪ sine obliga∣tione ad ••ul∣pam. Non pec∣cant, qui citrà contemptum, non asperguns se aquâ ••ustrali quandò Tem∣plum ingre∣diuntur.
• * 1.11

  Rituum non tantum indu∣ctorum habenda est ratio sed & e••rum qui in∣duci possunt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 enim authoritas talis vindicatur, in∣gum non est c••rlum, sed in fl••xu.
• * 1.12

  Per se aut per accidens, pro∣prius aut im∣proprius: per se, aut per a∣liud, propter se, aut ratione alterius, pri∣marius, aut se∣cundarius, pro∣prius, aut ana∣logicus: absolu∣tus, aut respe∣ctivus: simplex, aut secundum quid: directus, aut reductivus perfectus, aut imperfectus.
• * 1.13

  Vo••atur cultus humanus & voluntarius, qui est mere humanus &c. Quae autem ab Ecclesia docen∣tur non sunt mere humanae.