A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the surplice, crosse in baptisme, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramentall elements of bread and wine.

CHAP. III.

SECT. I. II.

THE third Argument is, because all humane ceremonies, appropriated to God service, if they be ordained to teach any spirituall duty by their mysticall signification, are unlawfull. Concerning this, vve haue in the first Section a flourish of words.

In the second Section, some thing is said of Math. 7 8 10 11. But •• vvhat vvas the reason that this Confuter of the Abridge∣ment, should passe by or put off the first and second reason or confirmation there alledged, and snatch at one place of Scripture, vvhi•••• his but a parcell of those confirmations vvherewith the se∣cond reason is backed? The first confirmation in the Abridge∣ment is, that the second commandement forbids us to make to our selues the likenesse of any thing whatsoever for religious use: as it is understood by Bucer, Virel, Fulk, Andrewes and others. The second confirma∣tion is, that Christ is the onely Teacher of his Church, and appointer of all meanes whereby we should be taught and admonished of any tholy du∣ties. For illustration of this second reason, among twenty other allegations, something is brought out of Math. 7. Now the Def. passeth by the maine reasons, and all other allegations that belon∣geth to them, and maketh a stand at this place of Mat. 7, vvhich yet for substance hath once been handled before in the former Chapter. Is not this proper confuting?

Secondly, in this very text, he toucheth not that wherein one∣ly the Abridgment groundeth their reason. For in the Abridge∣ment, p. 32. there is nothing cited out of Mark. 7, but the 4 and 7 verses; he answereth to the 8 10 and 11 verse. What should a man say to such dealing?

Thirdly, they say that our Saviour by this Argument (among others) condemnes the Iewish purifyings and ••ustifieth himselfe and his disciples in refusing that ceremonie, because being (the precept of men) it was taught and used as a doctrine by way of signification, to teach what inward purity should be in them, and how they ought to be clean∣sed from the pollutions of the Heathen. For which interpretation of the place, they alledge Chrysostome, Whitakers, the Church of Wit∣tenberg. Calvin, Virel, Zepperus, Fulk, Rainoldus and others. To all this the Def. answereth nothing, but that with a simple denyall, he sheweth that there were other causes vvhy our Saviour con∣demned those vvashings: which is the very same thing vvhich the Abridgement affirmeth, vvhen they say, by this Argument among others, our Saviour condemned them. So that in all this

Section nothing at all is said to the purpose: saue that in the win∣ding up, the Defendant accuseth those of Sadduceisme vvhich depart so farre from the Pharisies: Which accusation, if it doth not touch our blessed Saviour himselfe, I leaue to be considered by the Defendant himselfe. Howsoever, the mentioning of Pha∣riseisme in this matter is idle, for the Scripture saith expresly that this ceremony vvas common to all the Iewes, Mar. 7. 3.

SECT. III.

THE same kind of dealing vvhich vvas noted in the former Section, we meet vvith also in this. For, vvhereas in the third confirmation of this argument, the Abridgement brin∣geth in Augustine, the Churches of France and Flanders, Calvin, Martyr, Beza, Sadeel, Dan••us, Zepperus, Polanus, Iewel, Humfry, &c. the Defendant calleth out Augustine alone by himselfe, and that vvith a double trick. For first, he citeth but one place of Augustine vvhich vvas miscited or misprinted in the Abridge∣ment, and leaveth out the other out of Epist. 5 rightly quoted in the Abridgement: Secondly, he maketh this place to conclude the maine argument, whereas in the Abridgement it illustrateth onely the third confirmation of that Argument. Concerning Augustine he answereth, 1 that in the first place cited there is no such thing, vvhich I grant to be true, but if in stead of lib. 3. cap. 35 be set lib. 2 cap. 1 then something vvill be found. 2 That else∣where (not mentioning the fift Epist. which the Abridgement quoted) Augustine saith, that all holy signes are called Sacraments: but yet it doth not follow from hence that in his opinion all such signes are Sacraments, but onely in vvord or phrase of speech. Neither vvas it brought in (as he might haue marked) to proue any such thing, but onely to shew that such signes participate part of the nature of Sacraments: and this as that use of the vvord Sacrament doth confirme, so that vvhich was derived from thence, and hath been in perpetuall use, viz. that such ceremonies are called Sacramentalia, Sacramentals. But neither Augustine, nor other fathers doe disallow such ceremonies (saith the Defendant) and this we doe not deny: if by disallowing be meant constant rejecting of such things. Yet something is to be found in their generall doctrine, from vvhich we may soundly conclude against these inventions of man.

SECT. IIII.

BVt in this fourth Section, more legerdemaine is used then ••n many other. For when the Def. professeth to answer the testi∣monies of Protestant Divines found in the Abridgement, he produceth onely foure, as if there were no more to be found: vvheras in the same place of the Abridgement, viz. p. 33. there be many more ioyned to these, as before I shewed by name: and to them divers others are added p. 35. But let us heare what he can say to these foure vvhich himselfe hath chosen to answer. To Cal∣vin he sayth, that he speaketh onely of those mysticall ceremonies which are properly sacramentall. And this, say I, was the very poynt for vvhich this place vvas alledged, viz. that such significant signes are properly sacramentall. Is not this then good answering? Concer∣ning Mysticall-morall, I vvill speake something in the next section. Zepperus sayth hee) hath not a word of mysticall signification. The place is lib. 1. cap. 10. vvhere among divers rules, he giveth this for one, that sacramentall signes must signifie holy things to be sealed up in the heart: from vvhence hee concludeth as against Hu∣mane traditions, because God will not by them stirre up any grace in the heart of man: so in speciall by this vvith some other rules, hee concludeth against the signe of the Crosse, and other such ce∣remonies in Baptisme. Is this nothing? Iewel insisteth onely in sa∣cramentall signes; and such sayth the Abridgement, are all that sig∣nifie spirituall graces. As for Beza, hee granteth him in a man∣ner to condemne all symbolicall signes. But to extenuate his credit herein, hee would haue the reader beleeve, that no o∣ther Divine doth consent with him herein. But if any man look upon the places quoted in the Abridgement, p 35. viz, Harm. Con∣fess. part. 2 p. 229. 230. Eiusd. Sect. 17. ad Saxon. Confess. obs. 1. Calv. in Es 20. & in Math. 21. 25. Perkins in Gal. 3. p. 231. he shall find that Beza is not alone in this poynt. Beside, Bellarmine con∣fesseth that Brentius is of this minde, De cult. sanct: lib. 3. cap. 7. and in his 2 book De effect sacr. he ioyneth herein vvith Brentius, Calvin and Chemnitius. I vvill add one vvhom this Def. calleth worthily a judicious refuter of Bellarmine: i. Iunius. His words (in his ani∣madversions upon Bell. de cultu sanct. lib. 3. c. 7. an. 12) are these; Quod si ad usum non potest quisquam instituere, profecto neque ad sig∣nificationem homo legitime potest adhibere, &c. 1. Humane ceremonies cannot be lawfully used for signification without incroching, no not in private, much less in the Church of God & publick administration. There can bee no blessing or consecration Ecclesiasticall, without the word and prayer. Here is no word of institution: and prayer of faith there

can be none, where there is no commandement nor promise of God insti∣tuting.

To Iunius add Danaeus, cont. Bell. de Cult. sanct. l. 3. c. 7. It is blasphemy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thinke, that any outward thing may be made a signe in the Church, unlesse it be expresly ordained in the word, and commanded by God himselfe to be used unto that end.

SECT. V.

HEre that vvhich in the Abridgement is the third proofe of a proposition, and backed with many allegations, is nakedly brought in that it may be the better maistered. Symbolyca•••• signification giveth unto ceremonies a chiefe part of sacraments. For the clearing of this poynt, the Defendant distinguisheth betwixt morall signes and sacramentall. Of sacramentall he maketh two parts, one after the manner of a signe, and the other of a seale: then he maketh a differenc•••• betwixt morall and sacramental signes, not onely that sacraments doe seale, which morall signes do not, but also that sacramentall signes doe represent a collation of grace given by God unto man; whereas morall doe onely no∣tifie a dutie of man which in some moral vertue he oweth unto God. Then after he findeth fault with this, that signification should bee called the chiefe poynt of a sacrament. Now for the first, I doe not marvell that he calleth his distinctions wedges: for this is a most unhappy wedge indeed, which riveth in sunder the holy sacraments of God, and maketh way for humane inventions to creep into their place.* 1.1 The sacraments (sayth he) doe signifie grace conferred: and mo∣rall signes doe signifie a dutie of man in some morall vertue. But the Scripture teacheth us that the Sacraments doe also signifie the dutie of man towards God. For by the sacraments the whole co∣venant is signed and sealed betwixt God and man: so that not one∣ly Gods conferring of grace, but mans dutie through grace is there professed and represented. This the name Sacrament, as it signifi∣eth an oath or obligation, doth import, by Bellarmines owne con∣fession: de sacram. l. 1. c. 8. This the name ••ucharist doth also shew, in the Lords Supper, notifying that thankfulnesse we owe unto God. This the words of institution doe plainly testifie in the Lords Supper, Doe this in remembrance of me. And I think the Def. vvhen he considereth the matter well, will not dare to deny, but that sanctitie (which he sayth is signified by the Surplice) is signi∣fied in Baptisme: and constancie also which hee ascribeth to the crosse. If he doe, he may be easily confuted, by those places where the scripture speaketh of it, especially Rom. 6. throughout the chapter.

2 Against that morall signification attributed unto humane in∣ventions,

I propound this argument, in the words of a ••overend man (whom for some reason I will not name.) To be a teacher of my understanding, and an exciter of my devotion, are such effects at require vertue inherent or assistent to those things which should be causes of them•• but no signe of mans devising hath any such vertue in it, or with it: for then it must come from that word put forth in the creation, and s•• things naturall should haue a force communicated to them of teaching supernaturall: or else by Gods after-institution: such we read not any but of Baptisme and the Lords supper onely: or by the Churches impetra∣tion. But this cannot be: for prayer obtaineth those effects of things, to which they serue by Gods creation and institution: but not any creating or new conception of things to supernaturall uses. For then the Church might ask that this or that creature might be made a sacrament unto her: in which case she should pray without all warrant from Gods will.

3 If humane inventions be such morall admonishers in spiritu∣all duties, the consciences of men without doubt are bound to sub∣ject themselves unto their admonitions; and then unto them from whom they doe admonish, or by whom they are made admoni∣shers: i. to mortal men, such as our convocation consists on. Is not this good divinitie?

4 Whatsoever is ordained in the Church as a teaching signe, that ought often to bee interpreted unto the people in Sermons: for that is the teaching which must cleare and perfect all teaching of signes: and should not they preach fairly in the name and words of Christ, that should expound unto the people the signification of a surplice and a crosse? Would not this also be much for the edifi∣cation of the people, that sometime they must heare of the morall good vvhich the ceremonies teach: and sometime be admonished of the right meaning of our convocation house in the appointing of these ceremonies, left they turne them to morall evill in super∣stition: and at other times they must be instructed, how to defend these ceremonies against the opposers of them, lest otherwise they use them without faith? Surely all the Sermons which many Pa∣rishes heare, would ••caree be sufficient for this doctrine of Cere∣monies.

5 I dare appeale to the eonfciences of the best conforming Christians, whether ever they found themselves truely stirred up to holinesse, by the Surplice, or to constancie by the Crosse? one thing I am sure of, that in some one congregation where these ce∣remonies haue not appeared for 20 or 30 yeares together, there hath been more holinesse and constancie of faith, then in many Cathedrall Churches where they were never omitted.

This poynt being cleared, there need no great answer be given to the cavill, of making signification the chiefe poynt of a sacrament.

For if the Def. meant to deale plainly, vvhy doth he change the vvords, that he may find some colour for his accusation? The A∣bridgement sayth onely, that it is a chiefe part: he accuseth them for saying it is the chiefe part: betwixt vvhich two phrases, he kno∣weth how great roome there is for a wedge. 2. To proue that sig∣nification is one chiefe part, the Abridgement alleageth Gen. 17. 11. Exod. 12. 13. Luk. 22. 19. why is no answer given to these places, if the assertion bee false? 3 The Def. himselfe in his distinction which he bringeth here concerning a sacrament, doth allow one chiefe part of a sacraments nature to be signification ad modum sig∣ni. Be••••armine therefore hath as good a friend of him as of the A∣bridgement.

But (sayth he arguing herein against himselfe) if signification bee a principall part of a sacrament, then all the morall signes used in the Le∣••iticall worship, should be properly deemed sacraments. Why so? because things take their denomination from the principall parts. True: but 1. as hath been observed, there is difference betwixt a principall and the principall. 2. Every thing that hath denomination from a prin∣cipall part, hath not properly the same name vvith it. A man may in some sense be called spirituall, because his principall part is a spirit: yet he may not be properly deemed a spirit. 3. all those ce∣remonies which had signification in the Leviticall law, haue this denomination from sacraments, that they are properly called Sa∣cramentall: 1. participating something of the nature of sacraments, though they be not sacraments properly so called.

SECT. VI.

A Second objection from reason is here brought in•• viz. that if ceremonies which God himselfe hath ordained to teach his Church by then morall signification, may not now be used: much lesse may any of those which man hath devised. But vvhy doth the Def. passe by all the allegations vvhich belong to this reason in the Abridge∣ment, p. 33. 34. they cite to this purpose first the Councel of Nice, Austine, Martyr, Bullinger, Lavater, Hospinian, Piscator, Cooper, West∣phal••s, &c. And then after, Calvin, Bullinger, Hospinian, Arcularius, Virel, Bison, Reynolds, Willet, &c. And againe, Calvin, Bullinger, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Hospinian, Arcularius, our book of Homilies, Humphrey, Reynolds, Willet, &c. Are all these worth no answer? at least they shew, that this is no new reason divised by the Non∣conformists: but the common tenent of Protestants, and the ground whereby they confute the superstition of Papists.

Yet let us heare his answer to the reason as it is nakedly in it selfe considered: remembring alwayes, that he can say nothing, but that

which the Papists may as well say for many, of their cere∣monies against this argument pressed vpon them by our Di∣vines.

His first answer is, that the use of some Iewish rite, without any Ie∣wish opinion, is not damnable; instancing in circumcision and Easter. Where 1. he should haue told us, how a Iewish rite can bee used, without some part of a Iewish opinion? For he himselfe after con∣tendeth, that our ceremonies are not the same with the Papists, be∣cause wee haue not the same opinion of them which the Papists haue. 2. What doth he mean by this new tearme domnable? I hope he doth not symbolize with the Papists in their difference of mor∣tall sinne and veniall? of which fault he so vainly accused us be∣fore. If he meane by not damnable, not unlawfull: then hee hol∣deth circumcision, as it is used vnder Prester Iohn, to be lawfull. If hee meaneth any thing else, as, that it doth not utterly destroy the being of a Church, then he speaketh some truth, but nothing at all to the purpose.

His second answer is, that it is farre more safe to invent new cere∣monies, then to use those which God once appoynted, and now hath aboli∣shed: because they might ingender an opinion of necessitie: and so might bring in all the Leviticall law. Where 1. it is well he confesseth plain∣ly, that all the Iewish ceremonies are abolished: for therein hee contradicteth that which hee sayd in his former answer. 2. from hence our divines use thus to argue, Num vero veteres figurae subla∣t•••• sunt, ut locus esset novis? num divin•• sublatae sunt, ut human•• succederent: i. Are divine ceremonies abolished, that humane may bee erected in their place? They are the words of Doctor Whitaker, de Pontif. cont. 4. ••. 7. c. 3. and the reason is strong. For if it had been the will of God that we should haue bee been taught by o∣ther signes then those that are appoynted in the New•• Te∣stament, hee could easily, and vvould surely either haue cho∣sen some of the old, or appoynted some new in their places. 3. Though there may bee more danger in some respect, on the one side, yet there may bee more absolutely on the o∣ther. 4. The inventing of new humane ceremonies haue in∣gendred an opinion of necessitie in them: and haue brought in all the Popish law of rites: so that even in these respects, it may be questioned in whether side is greater danger.

SECT. VII.

THe third and last reason vvhich the Def. could find brought against significant ceremonies, is, that this will open a gappe to

images, oyle, spittle, and all Popish, ceremonies: all which Bellar••in•• commendeth, as fit to put men in remembrance of good things, &c. To this hee answereth divers things. 1. This consequence (sayth hee) from some to all•• is too lavish. But this consequence is of his owne framing: for the consequent vvhich the Abridgement maketh, is from the common nature of significant ceremonies, to every speciall, being equally considered in regard of other circumstan∣ces. Neither is there any occasion at all in the Abridgement for that ridiculous consequence which the Def. maketh from may to must▪ in his example of the Kings Councell.

Secondly, It is as unreasonable (sayth hee) as if a Patient that hath some drugges prescribed him, should thence conclude hee may taste of all. But it is as reasonable, say I, as if a Patient having some druggs prescribed unto him, should thence conclude, he may taste of any which are of the same nature, especially if the same Physiti∣an should prescribe them unto him.

Thirdly, It is unconscionable (sayth hee) because there are many abuses mixed with Popish ceremonies. Which answer seemeth meer∣ly unconscionable; because it is plainly expressed in the A∣bridgement, that this inference doth consider the Popish cere∣monies onely, in regard of that signification vvhich they haue of good things.

Fourthly, he disproveth the use of oyle and spittle, because they were once vsed miraculously. As if the mir••culous using of any thing did forbid, that it should at any time after bee used for significati∣on. Surely then the many miracles vvhich histories do record to haue been done by the Crosse, must needs banish that also out of the Church.

Fiftly, for Images, hee sayth, They are not to be called Popish, but onely in regard of superstitious adoration. As if Cassanders image were not Popish: which is an assertion, 1. directly against all our Di∣vines, vvho not onely confute the Papists for adoration of their images, but also for having them in any religious use, especially in Churches; for this is the controversie betwixt Calvin and Bellar∣mine, de Imag. lib. 2. c. 9. wherein this Defendant taketh Bellarmines part. Secondly, it is directly against the Homily concerning ima∣ges: unto which we are bound to subscribe. Thirdly, it confirm∣eth the soule words of Bellarmine, who saith that the Apologie of the Church of England lieth, in saying that the Councel of Frank∣ford decreed that Images should be abolished, De Concil. Auth. lib. 2. c. 8. for the onely answer is that which lunius giveth in his notes upon that chapter, an. 56. He that forbiddeth Images to be wor∣shipped, doth forbid the having of Images worshipable, especially in Chur∣ches: Which answer this Defendant doth flatly deny.

Sixtly, for holy water, he sayth, that may bee accounted Christian, were it not for the operatiue power which is ascribed unto it in Poperi••. But good Protestants, I thinke, will rather beleeve Calvin, who calleth it a kind of repetition of baptisme. Instit. l. 4. c. 10. sect. 20. and Iunius, who peremptorily affirmeth, that no humane ordination, opi∣nion, or superstition, can make it good and profitable. in Bel. de Cul. sanct. l. 3. c. 7. At the least let it be called Iewish, not Christian: for Christ will not haue his name called upon such superstitious devices: nei∣ther can it, without taking in vaine.

7 Lastly, he sayth, there is no reason to deprive the Church of power of ordeining significant ceremonies, because she may abuse it: wherein he saith true. But to argue from manifest abuses, against that which is called use, and yet is as like those abuses as one egge is like ano∣ther, this I hope is reason.

That which by the way is brought out of Peter Martyr, is not of any great force. For he there persuadeth that unto Hooper out of a good aff••ction, which out of conscience he durst not doe him∣selfe, though his place at Oxford did tie him unto it, as hee pro∣fesseth in an Epistle, p. 1127. Where also hee sheweth, that the chiefe end that moved him so to persuade Hooper, was because he hoped, that by his and such mens yeelding, the ceremonies might in time be abolished: which we find to be an erronious conjecture. But that hath much lesse reason in it which he addeth, viz. that the open gap of many ceremonies is now quite shut up, because our church is contented to admit of so few, and no more. For 1. we haue not so much as the word of our Prelats for this nil-ultra. 2. The gap is every day made wider and wider by such defenses as this is, which allow of I∣mages themselues for some religious use. For by this meanes any crucifix may come in, that is not greater then the Church doore. 3 They that shut up a gap upon their pleasure onely, can when they please open it againe.

Now I haue maintained the testimonies and reasons which this Def. could find in the Abridg, against significant ceremonies, I wil add one, lest it should be forgotten, or lost: which I know not how the Def. leaped over, seeing in the Abridg, it hath deservedly the first place among all the proofes, which are brought in to this pur∣pose. The argument stands thus in the Abridg. p. 31. The second commandement forbids us to make to our selves the likenesse of anything whatsoever, for religious use: and so is this commandement understood by Bucer, Virel, Fulk, and D. Andrewes now Bishop of Winchester. And p. 32. 33. D. Andrewes is brought in alledging this for the root of all superstition and idolatry, that men thought they could never haue ad∣monitions and helps enough to stirre them up to wo••ship God. Yet God (sayth he) had given foure meanes, viz. the word written, the word

preached, the sacraments, and the book of the creatures.

Now lest the Def. may seeme to have passed over this proofe as unworthy any answer, I will briefly add the grounds of it.

1. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 likenesse used in the second commandement is generall, and comprehendeth under it all religious similitudes, because they are homogeneal to Images there expresly forbidden.

2. Significant ceremonies are external acts of religious worship, even as they are used to further devotion. Suarez in Thom. p. 3. ••. 65. a. 4. Bell. de effect. sacr. l. 2. c. 29. &c. 31. and therefore be∣ing invented of man, of the same nature of Images, by vvhich and at which God is vvorshipped. The Def. distinction of essentiall & accidentall worship, vvill help no more here, then the Papists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gods law is not mocked with vain distinctions.

3. The affirmatiue part inioyneth obedience to all the worship appoynted by God: all which was significative, Heb. 8. 5. & 10. 1. from whence it followeth, that no significant ceremonies must by man be brought into religious actions. The nature of the affirma∣tiue sheweth the qualitie of the negative: by the circuit of the one, we may learn the compasse of the other.

4•• Significant ceremonies which are by institution, must of ne∣cessitie belong vnto the second commandement. An accurate di∣stinction of the commandement will easily shew this. But nothing contained in the second commandement is permitted to man. For to him this comandement in regard of making, is wholly negatiue. Thou shalt not make to thy self, &c. Which words, as Calvin sayth, Nos à carnalibus observatiunculis, quas stolida mens nostra comminisci solet, in t••tum revocant & abstrabunt.

SECT. VIII.

IN this passage there is nothing to bee found but a noyse of vvords crackling like thornes under a pot: Let it therefore vanish of it selfe.

SECT. IX.

HEre the Defendant undertaketh and beginneth a confutati∣on from Scriptures of that assertion, vvhich denieth signifi∣cant ceremonies of mans institution to bee lawfull in Gods worship. Now a man would haue exspected by the title, some rule of Scripture: but seeing none can bee found, vvee must bee content vvith examples: vvhich notwithstanding are nothing so firme and certaine as rules. Yet let us heare what examples he can bring.

The first example is Abrahams directing of his servant to put his hand under his thigh vvhen he did swear. It is mervaile he did not beginne before. Abraham. For Suarez the Iesuit to proue the same point for substance, bringeth Abels sacrifice, Noahs Al∣tar &c. in Thom. 3. qu. 65 a 4, which serue also as much to the purpose as this example. But to the point in hand. 1 It is in all probabilty false, that Abraham appointed this ceremony. So Calvin, Iunius and others upon the same place, doe judge, because it vvas a signe of subjection usuall in those easterne parts.

2 It is false also (vvhich he faith in the second place) that swearing is the most divine seruice of God of all other. For the proper end of swearing is not to vvorship God, but to confirme a truth: though in the appealing unto a supreme Witnesse and Iudge worship is implyed, and so an oath appropriated unto God as a part of his vvorship, not in the principall end of it, but in manner of seeking that end. This is plaine by the nature of an oath.

3 It cannot be proved, that this ceremony did teach any spiri∣tuall dutie. It is most probable, that it was a common signe of sub∣jection used in solemnities of that kinde, as well out of an oath as in it, vvithout any respect unto Christ, as vvith it. If the Def. never read any such thing (as he saith he did not) I cannot helpe that. I assent unto Calvin herein the rather, because that as im∣position of hands in those parts did alwaies signifie some superio∣rity, so this under position of hands vvas by proportion fit to sig∣nifie subjection of inferiours.

4 Lastly, if all this vvere granted, that this signe vvas appoin∣ted, that it vvas appointed in solemne vvorship, and that it did signifie a holy thing: yet tho Defendant should remember that Abraham vvas a Prophet, and of more authority by farre in the Church of God, then our Convocation-house. So that this instance is nothing to the purpose, as, I am perswaded, A∣brahams servant vvould sweare, if he vvere heere present, and it vvere needfull, even in the same manner that then hee did to his Master.

SECT. X.

HEere comes in a stragling objection, as it is here alledged vvithout any dependance, omitted in the place whereto it belongeth. I vvill not therefore presse it in this place. One∣ly it vvould be marked how little the Defendant careth what he saith, so that he say something to every thing: 1 he answereth that

Papist•• doe commonly teach by their ceremonies some new doctrine, not warranted by Scriptures. For confutation of which, the Papists may well appeale to Durandus his Rationale, vvhere he sheweth the sig∣nification of almost all the Popish rites. Now if the Defendant can there finde one signification of a hundred, vvhich teacheth any strange doctrine not warranted by the Scriptures, I haue taken my numbers amisse. 2 He saith the Papists ceremonies differ from ours in application, by their opinion of necessity and holinesse. But 1 the question heere is onely of signification: and therfore it is out of time to talke of application: 2 the Papists doe not hold their ce∣remonies absolutely necessarie to salvation. For this Bellarmin•• de verbo non scripto l 4 c. 11 denyeth of all unwritten traditions, as also Aquinas 12. qu. 147 a 4 ad 1. Neither doe th••y hold them essentially necessary to the being of a Sacrament: This Aquinas with all his followers deny, p 4 qu. 66 a 10. vvhere he saith ex∣presly, that all signes invented••ly man are onely for stirring up of de∣votion, and procuring of reverence to the Sacraments: vvhich is, word for word, our English plea. 3 It doth not appeare that the lear∣ned Papists haue any opinion of all their significant ceremonies, vvhich this Def. doth not maintaine. For Suarez a principall Ie∣suit in Thom. p. 3 q. 65 a 4 propoundeth onely three errours as he calleth them, vvherin Protestants differ from Papists concerning ceremonies in generall: wherof the first is, that onely those things which are written ought to be retained and used in the Church: The se∣cond is, that no outward worship of God is lawfull, but onely that which is appointed by God. The third and last is, that the Church hath not power of commanding and ordeyning those things (hee meaneth mysticall ceremonies) which are necessarie for the convenient cele∣bration of the Sacraments. Now there is none of these three points vvherin Swar••z and the Def•• doth not jumpe.

SECT. XI.

THE next example is the day vvhich Mordeca•• and Ester appointed, Est. 9 concerning vvhich I answer 1 it was no mysticall ceremonie: but a circumstance of order. When Bellarmine objecteth the same example to like purpose against the Protestants, de cult. sanct. lib. 3. c. 10. Iunius answereth, praeceptum fuit politicum: it was a precept of order. And some of our owne Writers at home that it was appointed for a civill use, a day of re∣joycing.

SECT. XII.

THE Feast of Dedication, ordained by Iulas Maccabeus is also alledged by Bellarmine de cult. sanct. li. 3 c. 5. & de Rom. pont••li. 4 c. 17 but we need not be so carefull of excusing Ma∣chabeus and those times from all fault. Christ seemeth, saith hee, to approue that feast, Ioh. 10 22, but seemeth, onely, say I. It is said that Christ vvho had been before that time resident in Ieru∣salem, vvas walking in Salomons porch at the Feast of Dedica∣tion, when some Iewes came to aske him vvhether he was the Christ or no; doth it follow that he observed the Feast? As for Danaeus h••••re cited, it hath been shewed before how well he liked of significant ceremonies ordained by man.

SECT. XIII. XIIII.

HEere M. Cartwright is brought in as answering the former ob∣jections out of the Machabees and Ester. But M. Cartwright p. 197, doth professe that there is as great difference betwixt these two, as is betwixt heaven and earth. And in his Confutati∣on of the Rhemists, vvho urge the feast of Dedication as this Def. doth in Ioh. 10 22, he answereth plainely, that this Feast was unduely instituted and ungroundedly by the Machabees. Which also he proveth by such reasons as neither the Rhemists, nor this D••f. vvill ever answer. Yet let us heare, vvhat he hath chosen out of M. Cartwright to answer. The Church may appoint holy daies in certaine cases: but it is one thing to restraine part of the day, and ano∣ther to restraine the whole day. Where 1 M. Cartwright is vvronged by the Def. for he confesseth (in the places quoted) expresly, that upon some extraordinary cases the Church may restraine a whole day, as at a solemne fast. 2 He should let us see vvhat mysticall signification is in the times appointed, as he striveth to doe in o∣ther significant ceremonies: if he vvould haue a more particular answer, otherwise they are alledged heere to no purpose to proue significant ceremonies.

The other vvords quoted out of M. Cartwright are, that the ex∣••mple out of Ester is no sufficient warrant for our Holy daies: 1 because our estate ought not to be so ceremonious as theirs, 2 That was done by a speciall direction of the spirit of God. To this the Def. answereth first, that if then when the ceremonies were so many one might be added, much more now. Which consequence vvere good, cae••eris par••bus, if all other things did agree: but this is that very thing vvhich M. Cartwright denyed. He answereth in the second place, that it is

presumption to imagine a speciall direction where none can be proved. But how shall vve trust this man in relating the Arguments and Answers of the Ministers in private conference, vvhen now the second time, as it vvere in one breath, he so unjustly accuseth M. Cartwright as giving no reason for that he saith, vvhose prin∣ted booke doth confute him? for so it followeth in M. Cartwright, immediately upon the vvords by him quoted, p. 194. This may appeare by another place, where the Iewes changed their fasts into feasts, onely by the mouth of the Lord, through the ministerie of the Prophet. For further proofe whereof I take the 28 ver. where it appeareth that this was an order to endure alwayes, even as long as other feast daies, which were instituted by the Lord himselfe: so that what abuses soever were of that feast, yet as a perpetuall decree of God it ought to haue re∣mained: whereas our Churches can make no such decree, which may not upon change of time and other circumstances be altered. For the other proofe hereof I take the last verse. For the Prophet contenteth not him∣selfe with that, that he had r••hearsed the decree, as he doth sometime the decree of profane Kings, but addeth precisely, that as soone as ever the decree was made, it was registred in this booke of Ester, which is one of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture: declaring therby in what esteem they had it. If it had been of no further authority then our decrees, or then a canon of one of the Councels, it had been presumption to haue brought it into the Library of the Holy Ghost.

SECT. XV. XVI.

IN the title of these two Sections, the Defendant promiseth an instance of a ceremonious instrument belonging unto the vvorship of God. But he bringeth none saue the Altar of the two tribes mentioned, Iosh. 22 vvhich hee cannot shew to haue been any instrument of Gods worship: so that he seemeth meere∣ly to haue forgotten his title. But for the thing it selfe M. Parker long since p. 1 c. 2 s. 33 hath given this answer. 1 that we may bet∣ter argue from the Altar of Damascus 2 King. 16 against the crosse, then they can from this Altar for it. 2 that this Altar of the two Tribes, vvas not in state or use religious as the Crosse is, vvhich he confirmeth by the confession of B. Babington on the second Com. and by the testimony of Lavater on Ios. hom. 61, 3 that in this our men say nothing vvhich the Papists alledge not for their superstitions, and the Lutherans for their images, as probably as they, Masi•••• and Chitreus upon this place. To the same purpose tendeth the answer vvhich the Def. hath set downe in the name of certaine Ministers. Let us here therefore his Reply. 1 He proveth the setting up of this Altar to haue beene humane, which

no man that I know ever doubted of.

2 He would proue that it vvas appointed to Gods service. But alas he can bring no colour for that. It was a patterne (saith hee) of the Lords altar, which was a chief•• instrument of Gods worship: as our crosse is a resemblance of the crosse of Christ. Where 1 vvhy doth he compare the crosse vvheron Christ did suffer vvith the Lords Al∣tar? that crosse vvas no more holy, then the souldiers that nailed Christ to it, or then Iudas, that betrayed him into their hands: and therefore the signe of that crosse in respect of the resemblance vvhich it hath to that, is no more holy then the picture of Iudas. 2 Is every resemblance of a holy thing holy? then every Al••∣house picture, vvhich resembleth any thing belonging to the Scripture & holy uses, is also holy. 3 If any of the Tyrians which vvrought under Salomon about the vvork of the Temple, should haue procured a modell of the Temple to be drawne, and carried it vvith him into his Country for to haue shewed it them for newes, had that model been religious or holy? the Def. thought he had to doe with such as vvould beleeue whatsoever he said.

3 He goeth about to proue, that it vvas mysticall signification ••eaching a spirituall dutie: because that one end of it vvas, in re∣spect of the present Gileadites, to teach that the Lord was God: and ano∣ther in respect of their posterity, to testifie their consent in the true Re∣ligion. But in all this faire shew, there is scarce one word true. For 1 it doth not appeare out of the text, that there vvas intended any use of it for the present age that then lived. The contrary appea∣reth plainly, vers. 27, 28 &c. The last verse cited to this purpose by the Defendant, must be interpreted as Iun••us noteth out of the 30 verse. So that even by this it is manifest that a direct helpe unto devotion vvas not sought for in the erecting of this altar. For then not onely the two Tribes then living should haue had use of it, but most of the other Tribes should haue had reason to haue imitated their example, in setting up Altars of devotion even at every three-way-leet, as crosses are wont to stand. 2 in regard of posterity, the immediate end was to testifie, that though they were separated from the other Tribes by the river Iordan, yet they belonged to the same people, and had right to come unto the same place of vvorship. Now vvhat is this to a ceremonie which hath state and immediate use in the speciall solemne worship of God? the use of this testifying vvas to procure a consent and ap∣probation in future times among the other Tribes, that these two Tribes might be suffered to come to the Temple for to worship God there. So that neither the two Tribes, nor the other ten were stirred up by this Altar as by an instituted mystical ceremonie un∣to vvorship or devotion: for as for the two Tribes, they vvere

onely to shew this monument unto those vvhich called their right into qu••stion. And the other were to consent and grant them their right. What is this to a garment of religion, or solemne religious vvorship?

SECT. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI.

THE second instance is Salomons altar, 1 King. 8 64, wherein 1 I cannot but marvell at the addition vvhich the Def. ma∣keth unto the Text, vvhen he telleth us out of the Scripture of an altar, and of a brazen Altar, built by Salomon, vvithout spe∣ciall warrant: whereas in the text there is neither mention made of brasse, nor of Altar, but onely of sanctifying the inner part of the Court: he did not surely attend much unto that vvhich hee wisheth to another, sect. 20 in these vvords, I would you had leasure to looke more directly upon the text alledged. But for the matter it selfe, it is vvorth the marking, to obserue by this example vvhat autho∣rity is given unto men in the vvorship of God by our Masters of ceremonies, not onely to appoint accidentall vvorship, but even that vvhich is principall and most essentiall: that which maketh other essentiall vvorship to be holy: For what is this else, vvhen they say man may of his own head appoint an Altar? If they say man may appoint an Altar, but not the offering upon the Altar, let them heare our Saviours answer, Math. 23 19 Yee fooles and blind, whether is greater, the offering, or the Altar that sanctifieth the offering?

As for our answer it is the same vvhich all our divines giue un∣to Bellarmine: as the objection is the very same vvith that which Bellarmine oppose••h to Calvin, de pont. lib. 4 c. 19. 1. this act of Sa∣lomons was by speciall direction of Gods Spirit. So D. Whitakers an∣swereth, de pont. c. 4 qu. 7. ad arg. 7 quicquid Salomon fecit, id Dei authoritate & spiritus sancti nutu fecit. So D. Su••cleife de pont. l. 4. c. 6. But from M. Nic. this answer vvill not be received. The Def. saith it can never be proved. But suppose an altar to haue been built as the Def. vvill haue it, and then I hope the nature of the thing doth sufficiently proue it, as before I shewed: Beside Salomon had not yet declined from the right vvaies of his father David, vvho did attempt nothing about the Temple but according to the vvriting which he received from God, as he told Salomon 1 Chron. 28 19, Neither is it to be omitted, that Salomon at that very time vvhen he did this thing in question, was acted and lifted up extra∣ordinarily in communion vvith God: as appeareth by that divine prayer vvhich he then made for the Dedication of the Temple, vvhich cannot be judged but to proceed from the extraordinary

direction of Gods holy Spirit. Lastly, if that had not been so, yet the high Priest was at hand vvith Vrim and Thummim, by which vvhen it was so easie to haue speciall direction, vvho can thinke that Salomon would venture on such a matter as this upon his own head? But the contrary is proved (saith the Def.) because a reason is rendred in the Text which moved Salomon to doe that he did. As if these two could not stand together, to doe a thing upon some reason: and yet to doe it upon speciall direction from God! see Num. 36.

A second answer is given by some of our Divines, that Salomon did this out of the equity of Moses law: so Iunius cont. 3. l. 4. c. 19. To this the Def. replyes, that this answer overthwarts the former. Which is nothing so. For Salomon might be, and no doubt vvas in speciall manner directed to see the equity of the Law, and specially dire∣cted and authorised also to follow it. The Def. therfore is decei∣ved in that advantage which he maketh of this answer.

A third answer is brought in by the Def. under the name of M. Nic. viz. that God by his visible descending approved of the worke of the Temple, and did authorize Salomon to doe that he did. To whom the Def. vvisheth more leasure, that he may look better upon the Text, vvhere he should not finde that God approved the Temple of Sa∣lomon by any visible appearance, untill the sacrifice was ended. But if the Def. had had both leasure and pleasure to looke better upon the text, before he had censured another, then 1 he would haue seene that God appeared in the Temple before the sacrifice was either ended or begun: 1 King. 8 10 11 2 Chron. 5 13 14. 2 He should haue seene also that Salomon built the brazen Altar, not of his own head, nor upon a suddain which vvas impossible, but by the same direction that he did all the other holy things, 2 Chron. 4. 1. 3. He would not haue talked so loosely as he doth heere s. 20, vvhere no man can gather by his vvords, that he knoweth of any Al∣tar appointed particularly of God, beside the Altar of incense.

A fourth answer is, that vvhich Daneus giveth unto Bellarmine, ••on. 3 lib. 4 c. 19, viz. that this was not a new additament for kinde, but for some circumstance onely; because this Court was sanctified by God, Exod. 27 & 40, and Salomon is said to sanctifie because he put it to that use which was not ordinarie. To this the Def. replyeth nothing vvorth the answering: but onely that he accuseth M. Nic. and so in deed the Divines formerly alledged, of unconstancie & uncon∣sonancie: whereas the answeres that haue been given may very vvell concurre all of them in one action, and one answer. The rest of his talke doth hang upon the hornes of his new found brazen Altar: and there I leaue it.

SECT. XXII.

COncerning synagogues, I answer, 1. they were no significant ceremonies about which the question now is, 2. it is most likely though that the same Prophets vvhich erected schools, called schooles of the Prophets, were the first founders of those sy∣nagogues. 3. seeing in the synagogues there was no significant ce∣remony of action or apparrell, appointed by men, to bee used in them: therefore in the Christian congregations, vvhich in forme of vvorship, (saving the addition of sacraments appointed by God) is altogether the same with the synagogues, there ought much lesse to be any.

SECT. XXIII. XXIIII. XXV. XXVI.

THe first example brought out of the New Testament, are the the feasts of charitie, ordained (as the Def. sayth) by the Apostles. To which our answer is ready, that if they were ordained by the Apostles, then they vvere not humane, but divine, and therefore nothing pertaining to our question. To this the Defendants reply is, that if divine be opposed unto constituti∣ons not commanded of God, then we could not haue uttered a more un∣learned position: because all Divines distinguish betwixt divine, Aposto∣licall, and Ecclesiasticall traditions. All Popish Divines indeed doe al∣low of this distinction, because it maketh for their purpose: and some of our English vvhen they vvrite in defence of the Hierar∣chie, or of the ceremonies: but so deeply to accuse those that re∣fuse it, for vvant of learning, this is too magisteriall For 1. that vvhich came from the Apostles as they vvere Apostles, that came from the spirit of God, Act. 15. 28. 1. Cor. 7. 40. and to call that divine which hath the divine spirit of God: 1. God himselfe for authour, vvhat vvant of learning is in this? 2 Iunius vvas a Divine, and learned, yet he sayth, that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostolicall traditions, is almost imaginarie and superfluous in Bell∣cont. 1. lib. 4. c. 2. an. 6. Danaeus calleth it a childish distribution, in e∣und. loc. more learned divines, might easily be named, that doe so allow of this distinction. And indeed, to examine it by that lear∣ning, by vvhich distinctions are chiefly to be tried, it hath no Lo∣gick at all in it. For 1. the distinction pretended betwixt things appoynted for perpetuall use, and those that may be altered up∣on occasion: This distinction or difference (I say) is no way contained, in the tearmes Divine, Apostolicall 2. Some things vvere immediatly by Christ appointed, vvhich vvere not perpe∣tuall:

as many things proper to the Apostles and their times. And some things appoynted by the Apostles which were to be perpetu∣all, as the essentialls of Ecclesiasticall government.

A second answer is brought in, that these feasts were abrogated by the Apostles. Then (sayth the Def.) 1. they were not of divine institution. Not in that sence indeed, which meaneth by divine perpetuall: but yet they might be divine, as gifts of tongues, healing, prophesy∣ing, &c. vvere. Then 2. (sayth he) the Church may institute and a∣brogate as the Apostles did. The consequence is but faint: yet the consequent or thing inferred, may be granted, so that the Church keep within her bounds. Our finall answer is, That these feasts of charitie were not of mysticall signification, nor yet meerly Ecclesiasticall. And indeed it is plaine, that these feasts did carry no ordained sig∣nification, but that which nature her selfe had imprinted in their foreheads. For who knoweth not that familiar feasting of poore and rich together, is a demonstration and preservation of loue, vvithout institution? and yet this is all that the Def. can say for their signification. Neither were these feasts merely Ecclesiasticall or religious, because they were used in the assemblies: for they were also used in the same manner, and to the same end, out of the assemblies. Their proper end was reliefe of the poore, and main∣tenance of brotherly loue.

Last of all, for the ordination of these feasts, it cannot be shewed to haue been Apostolicall. Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. 22. judgeth otherwise. So that in this example, the Def. can neither shew mysticall signification, religious ceremonie, nor Ecclesiasti∣call ordination: and yet except all these be proved, the instance maketh nothing at all unto his purpose. But that which hee lac∣keth in weight of arguments, he strives to make up in number.

SECT. XXVII.

THE next instance (like the former) is the kisse of peace. To vvhich our answer is, that it was a naturall indicant signe of peace and reconciliation. But the Def. borrowing light from some o∣ratoriall phrases of the Fathers, will proue the contrarie: though it be as manifest as any thing can be, both by Scripture, and also by other histories, that it was a civill naturall fashion used in those parts upon ciuill occasions as well as holy. Now what doth hee proue? First the institution, so farre as it was not commanded by Christ, was humane. This he affirmeth, but proveth not: and in his affir∣mation wavereth like a reed shaken with some winde. So farre it was from Christ; and so farre it was from man: and yet we heare not how farre from either. The plain truth is, it was of no institution

at all: but of naturall inclination and civill custome, vsed long be∣fore the comming of Christ, as is to be seen every where in the old Testament, Gen. 29. 13. 1. Sam. 20. 41. &c. yet by direction or cu∣stome it received constant application unto some speciall acts. Se∣condly, he sayth, it was significant, that is, it had a naturall fitnesse to declare the inward affection of loue. What is this to a significati∣on imposed by man? it vvas so significant as shaking of hands: vvhich gesture also used to be joyned with it: Tunc ambo nexi ad invicem dextras damus in osculo pacis sacrae, &c. It did so signifie loue as the turning away of the face doth signifie alienation of minde. But (sayth he) it signified Christian loue. As if Christian loue had not in it the common nature of loue, and therefore cannot be signified partly by naturall signes common to loue. Cleanlinesse in the celebration of the sacraments, is the same that it is at another feast; though in regard of that application, it may be called Chri∣stian or holy cleanlinesse or decencie. Thirdly, he sayth, it was used in time of holy worship. So no doubt was giving of the upper place unto the Elders, &c. in token of reverence: and yet it was no reli∣gious instituted signe of mysticall signification: such reasons as these bewray more confidence then good consideration.

SECT. XXVIII.

THe third and last example vvhich is brought out of Scripture, is, the covering and uncovering of the head at divine service, 1. Cor. 11. to vvhich I answer as before, that it was a civill or∣der of decencie, used as well out of Gods worship, as in it. But here the Def. taketh paines to make many collections, and con∣firme the same by divers witnesses. Because (as he sayth) this poynt is of some moment; though the other were of none: let us therfore briefly consider what they be.

1. I would first learne (sayth he) whether this ceremonie of covering and vncovering were not significant of some good thing? I answer, that this fashion which he abusiuely calleth a ceremonie, was significant in a generall sence: that is, it did declare or argue a good thing.

2 I would ask what thing it is that is hereby signified? I answer, sub∣jection and superiour power. But there is a relation also to God, sayth the Def. I answer, there is in mans superioritie, a kind of resem∣blance of Gods soveraignite: and so there is also, as Calvin obser∣veth, in omni principatu in all superiour power: so that this maketh covering and uncovering, no more a religious significant ceremo∣nie, then the upper seat of a heathen Magistrate sitting in judge∣ment: for by that seat is signified a superioritie, in which there is some image of Gods sovoraigntie. There is nothing alledged out

of our Divines by the Defendant, which may not as well bee ap∣plied to the Iudges bench, as to this covering and uncovering. And the Apostle doth shew plainly, that the vaile he speaketh of, vvas of the same nature vvith long haire. So that, by the Def. reason, mens short, and vvomens long haire, must be accounted religious mysticall ceremonies.

3 Our third demand (sayth he) is, whether these ceremonies of cove∣ring and uncovering, were not instituted to bee observed in Gods publicke worship? I answer, it was required that they should be observed in holy Assemblies. But 1. it was not onely required in Gods pub∣lick vvorship, but also as Calvin upon the place granteth, In quovis graviore coetu aut matronarum aut virorum, in any graue meeting of men and women. And instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 29. ne mulieres in publicum nisi velatae procedant: ••. Whensoever they goe into pub∣licke places. 2. It was not instituted primarily and principally for Gods worship. If it were, I aske, vvhen and by whom? Paul surely did not institute a new ceremony in this place: for v. 14. he groundeth his admonition upon nature, i. as Calvin well expoun∣deth it, vpon a received vse and ancient custome in those parts: which some through lightnesse began unseemly to transgresse. There is nothing alledged out of Martyr or Chrysostome against this answer.

4. Fourthly (sayth he) wee desire to know, whether this matter were not a thing indifferent? I answer, it is indifferent in the generall na∣ture of it; yet at that time, and in that place, they sinned that did otherwise, even before Paul, or any of their overseers, gaue them charge about it.

Lastly, (sayth he) it is worthy our inquirie to learne how farre other Churches may be directed by this example? I answer, so farre just as the Apostles rule stretcheth, 1. Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done comely.

Now the Defendant hath a direct answer to all and every one of his demands, let him cast up his summe, and he shall finde, that he hath proved just nothing. Hee could find but three examples in all the New Testament, vvhich had any colour, so as they might bee alledged for mysticall ceremonies, appropriated to Gods vvorship, by mans institution. The Loue-feasts, the kisse of peace, and the vaile of women. And yet there is not one of these three, (as any indifferent man, if he hath common sense may see by that vvhich hath been said) that can be shewed either to be of mysticall signification, other then nature giveth it, nor appropriated unto Gods worship more then to civill occasions, nor yet ever instituted by any man in the Church of God. Is it not a marvellous thing that men should presume so as they doe to domineere in words and deeds over poore men, in such things as

they can shew neither precept nor patterne for in all the Scrip∣tures.

We will descend lower, saith the Def. And that, I assure him, is his best course: for so long as he wadeth in the pure waters of holy Scripture, he doth but striue against the streame: descending lower to humane vvritings, he may finde the vvaters troubled, and so bring some fish to his net. Yet having the Scriptures on our side, vvee need not feare to follow him vvhether soever he plea∣seth to leade us.

SECT. XXIX.

HEere is alledged the universal custome of the ancient Church, even from the Apostles times for confirmation of humane mysticall ceremonies in Gods vvorship. To vvhich I answer, 1 of the first and purest times, next after the Apostles, this can∣not be proved: nor is likely, because it is not to be thought that all Churches vvould immediately admit of any thing vvhich they had not received from the Apostles. 2 For the next ages it may easily be shewed, that the best Writers taught many generall rules concerning the perfection of Scripture, and the purity of Gods worship, vvhich cannot stand vvith these humane inventions: howsoever in their practise they vvere carried away unto other customes. 3 The infinite troubles of those times against Infidels and Heretickes, about the chiefe grounds and maine foundations of faith, vvould not suffer them to examine these points of lesse moment as they should. And in deed, they vvere so taken up with those conflicts, that they neglected many usuall truths. So that if all should be received vvhich the Fathers practised, neither any thing understood but by their interpretations, vve should be de∣stitute of much truth, and overcharged vvith the burthen of hu∣mane presumptions, as Augustine complained in his time, ep. 119, 4 the Lord in justice vvould haue Antichrist to prevail: which my∣sterie could never haue grown to any ripenesse, had the worship of God been preserved sincere. That corruption begot him, and the reformation thereof must be his utter ruine. It is sufficient that the lamentable experience of fifteen hundred yeres hath de∣clared unto us, vvhat fruit of significant ceremonies brought by man into Gods worship are wont to affoord unto those that affect them. To fetch authority in this case, from their practise, by which hath insued such inestimable hurt to the Church of God, is not the vvisedome of the burnt child, vvho dreadeth the fire.

SECT. XXX.

OF our own Writers the Def. heere opposeth unto us, Calvin Iunius, Chemnitius and Zepperus. Now for these, it hath been plainely manifested before, that they all vvith one consent condemne humane symbolicall ceremonies in Gods worship: and that upon good grounds out of Gods word. Now therefore if any thing elswhere hath fallen from any of them by occasion, sounding to the contrary, then we may well think that either their meaning is mistaken therin, or else they shewed themselues to be men: and indeed (to say the truth) there is a little varietie to bee found in some of our divines concerning the poynt of ceremonies. But the cause thereof being marked, will make it lesse offensiue. All our Divines, when they look into the clear chrystall of the scripture, condemne plainly all devices of man in Gods worship, whatsoe∣ever: but againe, some of them when they fixe their eyes on the false glosse of ancient times, and consider withall how hardly men are drawen from their accustomed vanities, and what good some men may doe by applying themselves somewhat to the times, then receiving another kind of impression, they seeme sometime to vvaver in their words. This observation I thought fit to set down in generall, because it may haue good use in some particular places which this Def. threat••eth hereafter to object. But as for the places here quoted, the answer is easie.

Calvin in the first place, disputing against the grosse corruptions of the Papists, sayth, he doth not contend therein about ceremo∣nies, vvhich hee might truely say not onely comparatiuely, but even absolutely in regard of contention with others, who did not obtrude them upon him. And so I am assured few or none would contend much about ceremonies, if they would not force them vpon others.

In the other place, he understandeth by ceremonies, such as are given us of God: as the following words shew: Paucae igitur nobis divinitus datae sunt ceremoniae. What indeed he thought was to bee given to the rude people in this kinde, he shewed sufficiently, not onely by his words formerly cited, but also by his practise, in that he banished such ceremonies utterly not onely out of Geneva, but also out of all Churches, vvhich hearkned vnto his coun∣sell.

Chemnitius in regard that some ceremonies were in use where he lived, handleth them so gently as he can: and speaketh too favou∣rably of Images: yet in other places, the truth wresteth from

him and Brentius also, a right confession, as hath been alledged be∣fore.

Zepperus meaneth onely that the simple having of Images in Churches is not such impietie as doth unchurch a people.

Iunius and Chemnitius in the last place, doe but give a difference betwixt the Fathers and Papists use of some things. Here is no∣thing directly against our assertion. But if all these witnesses did speak as the Defendant would haue them in these places mentio∣ned, what were that to the cloud of testimonies which are brought forth in the Abridgment, and unanswered as yet by the Defender. His own mouth will testifie that our Divines are generally on out side. For in that regard (if he speaketh with good reason) he cal∣leth them still our owne witnesses. Our owne they are not, because we alledge them onely: for so both Fathers, and Papists, and Con∣formists also are alledged by us: but because they speake plainly for us. Which appeareth also the more by his silence at the most part of their speeches.

SECT. XXXI.

AFter much sayling in the maine sea, the Defendant directeth his course (as he sayth) homeward to the narrow seas, by instancing, in the practise of Non-conformists themselues. His compari∣son is good: for as the scriptures were too deepe for him to fasten any anchor of a conforming argument in: so the practises of vveak men are so full of sands and shelves, that here hee can haue no sure riding. The sea of Rome turned, by one of our Prelates, mare Romanum, is the best harbour of all the world for the ceremonies to arriue and rest in.

The first example brought is the forme of an oath, vvhich is taken on a booke. To which I answer, 1. That if this forme of swearing can be proved to bee of the same nature with the crosse in baptisme, &c. we will rather abandon this forme to avoyd the Crosse, then admit of the crosse for loue of this. 2 I affirme, that it vvere much better that this forme (invented by Papists, and abu∣sed not onely by them, but also by many among our selues) were abolished, as it is in other Countries not Popish,* 1.2 then reteined. Mr. W. Thorpe a Martyr, or Confessor, in King Henry the fourth his dayes, refused to sweare upon a booke, alledging Chryso∣stome for the same opinion. 3. This forme if it bee vvorship, see∣meth to be essentiall and necessarie vvorship, not accidentall: for no man is esteemed to haue taken his corporall oath (as Lindwood affirmeth) but hee that sweareth upon a booke. 4. It is not our practise to make any more of touching the book, then of lifting up,

of the hand, vvhich is used in other Countries: i. to make it a signe of assent unto that which is required of us. So that I for my part vvould not finde fault vvith those vvhich sometime hold out a service-booke, or any other to touch and kisse: for it is all one vvhether we shew our assent one way or another, so it be shewen i•• a decent manner. 5. This forme is not used in the speciall so∣lemne worship of God: but in a civill assembly, where occasional∣ly God is called upon for confirmation of the truth. And indeed, as the Def. speaketh well, an oath is rather a cognifance or note of supreame worship, then proper and direct vvorship.

SECT. XXXII.

THe next instance is, The observation of the Lords day: vvhich the Defendant would never haue brought in as an example of a humane ceremonie, if he had not either been sea-sicke or else sleepie with his long sayling which he spake of in the former section. For he taketh it for granted, that we hold the Lords day to be an institution of man, vvhich we utterly deny: We hold, as Iunius answereth Bell. about this matter de cult. sanct. l. 3. c. 10. an. 33. c. 11. an. 3. it is the divine institution of Christ himselfe.

By the vvay here he bringeth in a testimony of Zanchius, calling our Temples types and shadowes of the celestiall Temple. But Zanchier meaning was not to make them destinated instituted types: but onely such things as by accommodation may serve fitly to put us in minde of such a matter: even as any arbitrarie similitude that is fit, may be called a tyde and shadow. I would the Defendant would read the very next Thesis of Zanchie to that hee quoteth: there he should see, that Images, though they bee not for the pre∣sent worshipped, yet ought to be removed out of Churches, be∣cause they helpe not but hinder the vvorship of God. If Images, then by the Def. own former grant, mysticall ceremonies of mans invention: and so mysticall Churches too.

SECT. XXXIIII.

IN this last section, some reason is promised for a finall confuta∣tion of the Non-conformists in this poynt; but I for my part can see none. Nothing (sayth he) is properly called a ceremony, if it be altogether destitute of signification. Then (say I) away, and out of the Church with all ceremonies properly so called, of mans in∣vention. But vvhy hath hee gone about to deceiue us so of∣ten before, by confounding circumstances of order and decencie with other ceremonies, & now in the winding up of all, confesseth

that they cannot be properly called ceremonies? surely there is no reason in this kind of dealing, but onely that which they call So∣phistry.

Calvin (sayth the Def.) and some other, doe accuse the Popish ceremo∣nies because they are dumbe. I answer, they accuse them also for spea∣king, as the scripture doth condemne Images both for being dumb, and also for teaching lies. So that lay all together which those Di∣vines say, and you shall find that in their judgement, humane ce∣remonies in Gods worship, are like a foole in a place of honour, vvho vvhether hee speaketh, or holdeth his peace, still shew∣eth himselfe unworthy of that place.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈…〉〈…〉 malus con••us.
• * 1.2

  Mr. Fox.