To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
IN this Section answer is made to some allegations brought out of Protestant Writers (not unto all vvhich the Abridge∣ment citeth for the perfection of the Scriptures) where 1. the Defendant answereth for himselfe, that his meaning was not of matters meerly ceremoniall. And so, say I, the meaning of our argu∣ment vvas not of such meere ceremonies as the Defendant here
describeth in the end of this Section, if he meane by meere cere∣monies mere order and decencie: but our ceremonies are of ano∣ther nature, because they haue doctrine or teaching in them, and therefore are doctrinall, as he pleaseth to speak, or mixt, 2. confes∣sing that in one place he speaketh of ceremonies, he limiteth his speech to such ceremonies as are made essentiall parts of a sacra∣ment, as Milke in stead of Wine: sopping in of bread into the cup, and wringing in of the grape; these ceremonies hee ac∣counteth doctrinall. But here I vvould faine heare a good rea∣son, vvhy sopping of the bread into the cup is more doctrinall, or more against the vvord, then the crosse in baptisme. Bread and Wine were ordained by Christ to a holy use in the Church: so is not the crosse: sopping hath some agreement vvith reason: cros∣sing hath none; sopping was vsed by Christ himselfe the same night, and at the same table vvhere the sacrament was appointed: crossing vvas never used by Christ or his Apostles. In sopping there is no new materiall signe appointed, but a new fashion onely of vsing the old: in crossing a new signe is obtruded. So that sop∣ping seemeth to bee better then crossing. If opinion of necessa∣ry use doth put a difference: our men can easily conclude in the Convocation house, that it is not the opinion of the Church of England, and then all will be well. If sopping seeme to bee a part of the sacrament: crossing when it is done in the very act of sprinkling, (as many times it is) maketh as much shew of bearing a part in baptisme. But what if out of the Lords Supper, a little before, or a little after, vvhile the prayers are making vvhich be∣long to the Supper, there should be appointed such a sopping to bee used of all that communicate for mysticall signification, I vvould know of the Defendant whether this were allowable or no by his doctrinall distinction? If not, vvhy should he shew more favour to the crosse?
In excusing of B. Iewel, and D. Whitakers, nothing is sayd by the Defendant, which hath not formerly been confuted.
Now it might bee here expected, that the Defendant should haue sayd something concerning those generall rules which God hath set downe in his vvord for the direction of the Church in rites and orders Ecclesiasticall, mentioned by the Lincolne-shire Ministers in this argument, p. 44. But neither here, nor in any o∣ther place of this booke, doth the Defendant so much as indevour to shew that our ceremonies are needfull and profitable for the edi∣fication of the people, by the more comely and orderly performance of that service which hee hath expresly prescribed in his word. This is a main matter vrged in the Abridgement, vvithout which the cere∣monies cannot be innocent in their vse: and all that the Defen∣dant
hath hitherto endevoured to answer is in the Abridgement brought in to other end then to proue that no ceremonies are to be brought into the Church vvithout those conditions: and yet for all this, our ceremonies in this chiefe poynt are left destitute of all defence. If therefore all were granted which the Defendants argumonts or answers in this booke maintaine, yet the ceremonies wil be found nocent, and to be rejected, if it be but for their unpro∣fitablenesse, according to that of Basil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.