FOUR SERMONS, LATELY PREAched, by Martin Fotherbie Doctor in Divinity, and Chaplain unto the King's Majesty.  
The first at Cambridge, at the Master's Commencement. july 7. Anno 1607.  
The second at Canterbury, at the Lord Archbishop's visitation. Septemb. 14. Anno 1607.  
The third at Paul's Cross, upon the day of our deliverance from the gunpowder treason. Novemb. 5. Anno 1607.  
The fourth at the Court, before the King's Majesty. Novemb. 15. Anno 1607.  
Whereunto is added, An answer unto certain objections of one unresolved, as concerning the use of the Cross in Baptism: written by him in Anno 1604. and now commanded to be published by authority.  
AT LONDON, Printed by HENRY BALLARD, for C. K. and W.C. 1608.   

TO THE MOST REVEREND Father in God, and singular Patron of all good learning, the Lord Archbishop of Canturbury his Grace, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, and one of the Lords of his majesties most Honourable Privy Counsel.  
RIGHT honourable, and my gracious good Lord, I make bold to present to the view of your wisdom, four Sermons preached by me, though not very lately, yet not very long since, upon special occasions, as their titles show. Being hitherto unwilling that they should see the light; though thereunto I have been greatly importuned, both by the instance of divers my judicious friends, and (for some of them) pressed, by the reverend authority of your Graces own name, which (notwithstanding) I have hitherto detrected; as knowing how little needful it is, to pester the world with any more books, which groaneth already under the burden of them: Yet am I now beaten from my former resolution, by the incessant importunity of certain seduced, and seducing spirits, who (swelling with a windy opinion of knowledge, falsely so called) have taken great exception at the second of these Sermons, which was preached at your Grace's visitation, and as yet, make no end of traducing it to the world, as tending directly unto the disgrace of preaching. For the detecting of whose ignorance, and convincing of their malice, I am now not unwilling, to publish to the world what was spoken at that time: if your Grace do not esteem it, as a thing borne out of time. Not doubting, but that which passed the favourable censure of so reverend and so learned an assembly as then were the hearers, will now find like acceptance, with all that be judicious and indifferent Readers. As for Papists, and (their confederates in this cause) our schismatics and Sectaries, I neither expect, nor respect their approbation of it. They be now (as we hope) not in any so great number, as that any great reckoning is to be made of them: especially, in your Grace's peculiar Diocese, which (I am verily persuaded) is better defecated and purged, both from Papists and schismatics, than any other quarter of this land; which as it is our most blessed peace and quiet, so may it be your Graces exceeding joy and comfort.  
These slender labours and endeavours of mine, I presume to offer unto your Grace's patronage, not only in respect of my strict obligation unto your Lordship for many of your forepast most honourable favours: but also, because (in true account) your Grace may rightly be esteemed the very anchor of all these, & myself but the instrument: they all of them receiving their first motion and being (either directly, or occasionately) from your gracious favour, as from their first mover: which, as it giveth me full assurance of your honourable acceptance; so it bindeth me to performance of all dutiful observance; and to pray for the continuance of your Grace's most prosperous and happy estate, that as God hath made you hitherto a notable instrument, to settle and establish both his truth and Church amongst us, so we may long enjoy you, to the comfort of all them that wish well unto them both.  
Your Grace's most obliged to all humble duty, MARTIN FOTHERBIE.   

The first Sermon, at Cambridge.  ECCLES. 1. VER. 2. 
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher: Vanity of vanities, all is Vanity.  
THE jewish Rabbins prescribed us this excellent rule for the right understanding of every text of Scripture: Qui non advertit, & quid suprà, & quid infrà scriptum, is planè pervertit viventis Dei verbum: He that weigheth not what is written, both above and below, shall never well expound that is written between them. Now, if we proceed by this rule in expounding of this Scripture, we shall find that King Solomon in this book of the Preacher, had a twofold end, the one of them subordinate unto the other. For first, if we look upward to the beginning of this book, we shall there find this sentence which I now have read unto you, Vanity of vanities, all is vanity: wherein his end and scope must needs be, to bring us out of love and conceit with earthly things, as being vile and unprofitable, nay, hurtful and damageable; which there he implieth by this title of Vanity. Secondly, if we look downward to the end of this book, we shall there find this sentence, Let us hear the sum of all, Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man: 
Cap. 12.13  wherein his end must needs again be, to bring us into love with divine and heavenly things, 
Col. 3.1.  and (as the Apostle Paul adviseth) to make us seek those things that are above, as comprehending in them the only true felicity; So that King Solomon in this book hath (as I said) a double end: The first is to revoke us from the love of the world: The second to provoke us unto the love of God, which will certainly ensue and follow in us, if the former obstacle be removed from us.  

1. john 4 16.  For our God and Creator, who is perfect love himself, hath made us his creatures of such a loving nature, 
Plut. in vita Solon.  that (as Plutarch well observeth) we needs must be always loving of some thing: so that if our love be diverted from the world, it needs must be converted unto God; or else it should lie idle, which love cannot do; that is against the very nature of it.  
Now King Solomon to divert our love from the world, and the things of the world, he useth none other argument throughout this whole book, but only this one, to tell us they be Vanity: neither could he indeed have used any reason more forcible to bring them into extreme contempt with us, then by calling them Vanity: for no word in the world doth more fully express the vile, and the thriftless and unprofitable nature of these earthly things, than Vanity doth.  
And therefore seeing that King Solomon so constantly useth the name of Vanity throughout his whole book, whensoever he speaketh of any worldly glory; calling them still Vanity, and Vanity of Vanities, and nothing but Vanity; it shall not be amiss to enter a serious and diligent inquisition, what should be here intended by this name of Vanity. For we must not think that the holy Ghost doth iterate so often and beat upon one word, either rashly, or idly, or casually, or unadvisedly, but for this special purpose; that we seeing this one word to be so often inculked, and so constantly used in every place, might take the greater heed unto it, and search with greater diligence into the hidden and inward meaning of it.  
Neither shall it be a vain or a needle's labour thus to hunt out this Vanity, but both profitable and necessary unto our present purpose. Profitable, because if we know not what vanity meaneth, we shall never reap any profit by this admonition of King Solomon, in telling us so often that All is vanity: for in the perfect knowledge of this one word, Vanity, consists the perfect knowledge, not only of this particular text, of which I now preach, but also of all this whole book of the Preacher: which is nothing else in effect, but as it were a comment upon this word, Vanity, as Saint Augustine observeth. And necessary it will be, because the true knowledge of this word, 
Aug. lib 20. De civit. Dei, cap.▪ 3.  Vanity, is a matter of greater difficulty, and more laborious inquisition, than any man would at the first imagine, as evidently appeareth out of A. Gellius: who maketh report of a notable conflict between two great and professed Grammarians, 
A. Gel. lib. 18. cap. 4.  about this word Vanity, what it properly should signify. Their controversy being grounded upon a place of Sallust, where he censureth Cn. Lentulus to be such a one, as it was uncertain whether he were, Vanior, or Stolidior; a more vain or a more foolish kind of man: the one of them maintaining, that both these two words did note but one vice, and that Vanity is nothing else but Folly: The other, that either of them deciphered a several kind of vice, and that Folly is one thing, and Vanity another; as he there most plainly proveth.  
But howsoever these two Grammarians descent, as concerning the particular vice designed in this word, yet they both consent in this, that it is a name of vice: and that it implieth, that all those things unto which it is rightly applied, are of a reprovable and vicious nature. So thas (as I said before) this Preacher could not possibly have used any word which more fully layeth out and exposeth to our eyes the base and contemptible, the bad and unprofitable nature of all earthly glories, than Vanity doth.  
Saint Paul speaking of them, he useth a very homely and dishonourable name to express their comtemptible nature by: he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, dung, or dross, both of them, 
Phil. 3 8.  vile and base: but yet neither of them so vile as Vanity is. For both dung and dross may have profitable uses, but that which is vain, that hath no use at all, it is utterly unprofitable; it is like unto salt, when it hath lost his saltness, which is good for just nothing, as our Saviour Christ teacheth us. 
Matt. 5.13.  So that this Vanity is of a more vile and abject nature than the vilest excrements of the most abject creature: for there is none of all them, that is clearly without all use, as Vanity is, in what significations soever you take it; as (if you will but look into the divers significations of this word Vanity, delivered unto us by Heathen writers, and confirmed out of the holy scriptures) you may plainly see.  
For I find this word Vanity, to have six significations, & yet not one good one amongst them all, not one that implieth the least fruit or profit to be implied in it. To begin with that first, which I named last.  
The first signification of this word Vanity, is all one with Inutile, that is to say, a thing without all use, or profit, for so it followeth immediately after this text: 
Eccles. 1.3.  Quid emolumenti? What profit hath a man of all his labours wherein he hath travailed under the sun? He proveth all our labours about these earthly matters to be therefore Vanity, because there cometh no profit of them: for this is one essential note of Vanity, to be fruitless and unprofitable: And therefore as God here reasoneth against the world, that it is vanity because it is unprofitable; so worldlings else where do reason against God, that his service is likewise Vanity, because it is unprofitable: Ye have said, it is in vain that we have served God, and what profit is it that we have kept his commandments? 
Mal. 3.14.  They conclude it to be vain, because it is unprofitable. And the consequent is good if the antecedent were true. So that King Salomon's first meaning in calling these earthly matters Vanity, is to insinuate thus much; that they be altogether fruitless and barren of all good, and that there is no profit at all to be found in them. Saint Paul appealeth unto the Romans own judgement, what profit these earthly things have brought them; What profit (saith he) had ye then in those things, 
Rom. 6.21.  whereof ye are now ashamed? And Solomon bringeth worldlings complaining, in this manner, of their unprofitable labour about earthly things: What hath pride now profited us, 
Wisd. 5.8.  or what hath the pomp of riches brought us? So that when it pleaseth God to open a man's eyes, to see the true vanity of all earthly glories, in their own proper colours, as he did the Romans eyes, by the preaching of Saint Paul, then do they see most clearly, that there is no profit in them, but rather that they be such vain and foolish things, as that they ought to be even ashamed of them, as the Apostle Paul implieth in the fore-alleged place. And surely, the true reason, why men are not ashamed, so foolishly to bestow their unprofitable pains about these transitory earthly things, is, because God as yet hath not opened their eyes, to see the fruitless vanity of them, & how grossly they be deceived in them, their sight being blinded by the god of this world, 
1. Cor. 4.4.  as the Apostle Paul observeth.  
To give you an instance or two to this purpose: The thief when he goeth about to steal, he hunteth after profit, and thinketh it better to reach out a little, then to live in want, because the god of this world hath blinded his eyes: but when his punishment cometh, than he seeth his own error, and then he is ashamed of it, and then he findeth by experience, that his stealing hath brought no profit to him, but incomparable loss. The licentious worldling likewise, when he hunteth after pleasure, he seeketh after that which seemeth good unto him, because the god of this world hath blinded his eyes: but when his punishment cometh, than he changeth his mind, and then he seeth his folly, 
Wis. 5.7.8.  and then he is ashamed of it. That he hath so wearied himself, in the ways of wickedness, and yet hath got no profit by it, as is notably declared, in the book of Wisdom.  
And even so is it likewise in all other sins: though the sinner do always propound unto himself, (at the least in his conceit) a kind of profit in them, whereunto they seem to answer, with appearing shows of goodness, yet he still finds in the end, when he hath made his trial of them, that they be indeed no better, but (as the Apostle truly calleth them) Unprofitable works of darkness: 
Ephes. 5.11.  and therefore such as (of right) we ought to be even ashamed of.  
But here we must take heed, that we measure not our profit by worldly gain and commodity: For, that oftentimes is loss, as our Saviour Christ teacheth us in the Gospel; though a man should gain the whole world, yet if he lose his own soul▪ that gain is but Vanity, because there is no profit in it. For so it followeth in that very place: What shall it profit thee to wine the whole world, 
Mat. 16.26.  if thou lose thine own soul? Therefore, we must measure our profit, not by gain, but by godliness: for, that is the greatest gain: and that (as Saint Paul teacheth us) is profitable to all things, 
1. Tim. 6 6.4.8.  having promise both of this life, and of the life to come. That which a man gaineth with godliness, that is great gain, and great profit, though it be but a little: but that which he gaineth without godliness, that is Vanity and disprofit, though it were the whole world: because he payeth his soul for it, which is more precious than the world, as it followeth in the forecited place. And therefore this our Preacher, who (in the beginning of this book) telleth us, that all is Vanity: yet (in the end of it) he excepteth godliness, that it is not Vanity: Let us hear the sum of all (saith he) fear God, 
Eccles. 12.13  and keep his commandments, for this is the complete duty of man. This godliness is not vanity, because it is full of profit: it hath a great reward (as our Saviour Christ teacheth us in the Gospel) Great is your reward in heaven. 
Matt. 5: 12:  The reward of godliness, though it be but small in earth, yet is it great in heaven; yea as great as heaven, for it is heaven itself: but the reward of earthly profit when we seek it without godliness, is the loss of heaven: and therefore all such gain is merely Vanity, Vanity in this first sense, that is, merely unprofitable and damageable Vanity.  
The second signification of this word Vanity, is all one with Vacuity; Vanum, tanquam vacuum: that is, a thing that hath a show, but yet taketh the true substance of that it representeth: and so indeed is nothing else but only an empty semblance.  
In which sense I find this word applied three several ways: First, Vanum, I find opposed to Plenum: and so it signifieth a thing void and empty. Secondly, I find it opposed to Grave: and so it signifieth a thing light and windy. Thirdly, I find it opposed to Verum: and so it signifieth a thing false and crafty.  
For the first of these three senses, to wit, Vanum inane, That is, 
Cic. orat. pro. Cn. Plancio.  empty Vanity: In this sense doth Tully use that word in his oration pro Plancio, where he calleth those promises that be not kept, Vana & inania, vain and empty promises: as (chose) the keeping of promises both in our English and in the Latin tongue, is commonly called a fulfilling of them; Implere promissa. Promises if they be not fulfilled in their keeping, they be but vain and empty in their making. In this sense doth Virgil likewise use that word in the first of his Georgiks, 
Virg. lib. 1. Geor  he calleth the empty ears of corn which have nothing but a husk, Vanas aristas, vain ears: Expectata seges, vanis elusit aristis. He calleth such ears vain, because they be empty. And in this same sense doth likewise the Scriptures themselves use that word. job calleth the days of this mortal life, 
job 7.3.  Menses vacuos months of Vanity, that is, void and empty months, empty of all stayed and solid comfort, few and evil, as jacob complaineth of his life. 
Gen. 47.9.  So likewise the Prophet David in the second Psalm, he useth the same word, in the very same sense: 
Psal. 2.1.  Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? He speaketh in that place of the attempts of the heathen against Christ and his kingdom. Which place of the Psalm, Saint Hierome translating, he putteth for Vana, Inania: Inania meditati sunt, They imagined vain things, saith David; that is, void and empty things, saith Hierom, things void of reason and void of success. For though they might seem to have gotten a full conquest over our Saviour Christ, when they once had killed him, 
Plut. in vita Bruti.  because (as Theodotus Chius once said of Pompey) Mortui non mordent, A dead dog biteth not: yet even then did their fullness prove to be mere emptiness, and even then did Christ begin his conquest over them. He, whom (whilst he lived) they counted little better than a dead dog, 
1. Sam. 16.9. Eccles. 9.4. Apoc. 5.5.  as it is in the proverb, after he was dead did prove a living Lion, a victorious Lion of the tribe of juda, and conquered the whole world, according to that prophecy which he had given of himself, that If he once were lifted up, 
john 12.32.  he then would draw all men unto him. So that all their attempts against our Saviour Christ, did prove, right indeed as the Prophet David calleth them, but vain and empty imaginations: as likewise do the attempts of like wicked persecutors against his members the Christians, 
Psal. 2.1.  they commonly prove vain and empty.  
For when they seek to conquer them by cruelty & persecution, they themselves are thereby conquered; and the Christians by their torments become more than conquerors, as the Apostle Paul teacheth us: 
Rom. 8.37.  Though for thy sake we be killed all the day long, yet are we in all those things made more than conquerors. Thus (as justine Martyr hath very well observed) Tormenta paganismi, 
just. Mart. lib. quaest.  quibus ipse se defendit, paganismum tollunt, Christianismum firmant: The torments of the Pagans are the nourishments of the Christians: for this sect of Christianity (as Tertullian truly noteth) Tunc magis ●dificatur, cum caedi videtur: 
Tertul. ad Scapulam.  The more that it is killed, the more it is increased: the blood of the Christians, as the same writer noteth (in an other place) being the very seed of the Church: 
Idem. Apolo. cap. 50.  So that all the attempts of such wicked persons do prove merely Vain; that is, void and empty, as well against the Church as against Christ himself. And therefore the Prophet Isay speaking of the Vanity of those ungodly men, 
Isay 29.8.  which seek to devour and swallow up the Church; he compareth their attempts (and that very fitly) unto a hungry man's dream, who imagineth that he is filling himself at a banquet, but yet when he awaketh, his soul within him is empty and faint; and so are their hopes too, which desire to feast themselves of the spoils of the Church, they do vanish as a dream, and their souls be found empty; as (God be praised) we have had great and gracious experience, and that very lately. And even so is it likewise in all other earthly things, all the comfort which they yield us, is but a false joy, as it were in a dream; but he that is the fullest of them here in this world, when he awaketh and riseth up unto the resurrection, shall find himself emptied of them all: 
Luke 1.53.  When the hungry shallbe filled with good things, but the rich shall be sent empty away, as it is in the Gospel: 
Phil. 2.7.  For as Christ when he came to us in mercy, did empty himself quite of all his heavenly glory: so we, when we go unto Christ in judgement, shall likewise be emptied of all our earthly glory; we shall appear before him naked, being stripped of all those gay and goodly trappings, which now so much glorify, and vanifie foolish worldlings, as even Plato himself noteth. 
Plato, in Gorgia.  And then (as I noted before out of the book of Wisdom) we shall truly see the Vanity of all these earthly glories, when we see how bare, and how naked, and how empty they have left us. This briefly for Vanity, as it is Inanity, that is, void and empty of all those good things, whereof it seemeth to have store and plenty.  
The second branch of Vanity, in this second signification, is Vanum, opposed unto Grave, or Ponderosum: and so Vanity signifieth a thing light and windy: so that Vanitas and Levitas be in this sense Synonyma. In this sense doth Sallust use the name of Vanity, as Nonnius citeth him: Maurivanum genus. He calleth the Morions a vain nation: that is, Light and unconstant; Ingenio mobili; as he noteth them in an other place. 
Sallust. b●l. jugurth. C●c lib. 1. de Divinat.  So likewise doth Tully use this word Vanity in his book of Divination, where he complaineth, that the notable Art of Divination is brought into comtempt, Levitate, & Vanitate hominum, By the levity and Vanity of men. For, as the excellent Art of Music is grown into contempt through the baseness and lightness of certain vagrant musicans, which prostistute their coming at every drunken feast: so likewise that renowned Art of Divination, grew into great comtempt, through the vileness of certain roguing mountbanks, & cozening fortune-tellers, which out of men's foreheads, and faces, and hands, would take upon them to divine, and to read hidden destinies: and thereupon it was, that Tully so complained, that the dignity of so noble an Art, had suffered such a prejudice, through the levity and Vanity, of certain her professors. Using Levity & Vanity, Promiscuè, for one thing. And in the same sense, do likewise the Scriptures use the name of Vanity, for lightness, and that which hath no weight or worth in it. The Prophet Moses calleth Idols Vanity: and the Prophet Isay calleth them Wind: 
Deut. 32.21. Isay, 41.29.  both words noting out their lightness unto us; they are as light as wind, which is the lightest of all things; yea as light as nothing, as it followeth in that place: 
1. Cor. 8.4.  for an Idol is nothing, as is noted in an other place. The Prophet David likewise discoursing of the vain condition of man, he useth the same word, 
Psal. 62.9.  in the very same sense: for he saith, that Man is deceitful upon the weights: Yea, and altogether lighter than Vanity itself: Lighter th●n Vanity. Which must needs imply, that Vanity is a very light and windy matter, when as it is put for a principal instance and example of lightness, as there you see it is.  
The third branch of Vanity in this second signification, is Vanum, opposed unto Verum, and so Vanity signifieth a thing false & crafty: so that Vanitas, and Falsitas, be (in this sense) Synonyma. In this sense doth Plautus use the name of Vanity, 
Most. act. 4. S●e. 2.  in his Mostellaria, Vera cantas, Vana vellem; You speak the Verity, I would it were Vanity, opposing Vanum, unto that which is Verum. In this sense doth Terence also use the name of Vanity, in his Eunuchus, Si falsum, aut Vanum, 
Eunuch. Act. 1. Scene▪ ●.  aut fictum, continuò palam est: he calleth that a Vain thing, which is a false and a feigned thing: expressing Vanum, by his Synonymon, as Plautus did by his Oppositum.  
And in this sense I find the name of Vanity applied most commonly unto three several things: First (in spiritual matters) I find Idolatry to be called by the name of Vanity, because it is but a false religion; it is Falsum, and therefore Vanum, as you heard before out of Terence. It hath a show of godliness (as the Apostle Paul speaketh) but yet it lacketh the power of it. 
2. Tim. 3.5.  In this sense doth Moses use the name of Vanity, in the book of Deuteronomie, where complaining of the jews in the person of God, he saith, that, 
Deut. 32.21. jer. 8.19.  They moved him to jealousy with that which is not God, they provoked him to anger, with their Vanities. As Idols are false gods, so idolatry is false worship: and both these called Vanity, because they be false. Hence likewise the Prophet David calleth such heathen worship Superstitious Vanity: Superstitious, because idolatrous, and Vanity, because false. 
Psal. 31.6.  Secondly (in common life) I find Lying to be called by the Vanity, because it is a false speech: it is Falsum, and therefore Vanum, as before I noted. In this sense doth Tully use the name of Vanity, in the first of his Offices, 
Cic. lib. 1. Offices.  where speaking of the falsehood of tradesmen in their arts, he saith, that Nihil profic●unt, nisi admo●um mentiantur, nec quicquaem est turpius Vanitate. He saith their chiefest profit ariseth from their lying, rather than from their buying. which he calleth a dishonest kind of Vanity. A good item for such men. 
Virg. lib. 2. Aene●d.  So likewise doth Virgil use the name of Vanity, for lying and feigning. 
— Nec si miserum fortuna Sinonem  Finxit, vanum etiam, m●ndacemque improba finget. Where (as you plainly see) he useth Vanus and Mendax, a Vain man, and a Lying man, as two words of one sense. So likewise, that Apoliinaris in Gellius, of whom I spoke before, he defineth Vanos, 
A. Gel. lib. 18. cap. 4.  to be properly Mendaces et Infidos, that is, Liars and Unfaithful men. And in this same sense do likewise the Scriptures use the name of Vanity: O ye sons of men, 
Psal. 4.2.  (saith the Prophet David) how long will ye love vanity, and seek after lies? Where the latter word expoundeth what is meant by the former, to wit, that by Vanity, he understandeth Lying. 
Psal. 12.2.  So likewise in an other place, Vanitatem loquuntur, quisque cum proximo suo: They speak Vanity every man with his neighbour: that is, they speak deceitfully, and tell lies. Thirdly (in friendship) I find Flattery to be called by the name of Vanity, because it is but a false and a counterfeit love. It likewise is Falsum, and therefore Vanum. In this sense, doth Tully use the name of Vanity, in his book De Amicitia: 
Cic. lib. de Amicit.  Assentatio ea est molestissima (saith he) cum ad vanitatem accedit authoritas: He saith, that Flattery is then a most dangerous quality, when as men of authority do abject themselves, to so vile a Vanity. In this sense doth Accius use the name of Vanity also: putting Vanans for Fallens, as Nonnius observeth; and he citeth this place out of his Alcmene, which notably expresseth the whole nature of Vanity, in this present sense, as it is taken for Falsity. Tanta frustrando lactans, et vanans protrahit. So that Vanum is that which doth Protrahere, and Frustrando lactare: A vain thing is that which leadeth on our desire, and as it were suckleth it with a false and flattering hope, and yet utterly frustrates and deceiveth it in the end.  
So that (to gather all the branches of this second signification of Vanity into one bundle, and to apply them unto our present purpose) King Solomon in calling these earthly matters Vanity, (if Vanity be taken in this second signification) insinuateth thus much; that there is nothing in all the greatest glories of this present world, but mere deceit and falsehood: they being empty of all those things whereof they seem to be full, light in all those things wherein they seem to be weighty, and treacherous in all those things, wherein they seem to be friendly; so that they do nothing but delude and abuse our weaker senses, with false and flattering shows, of a certain painted goodness, that which indeed is not in them; and therefore those men which set their hearts upon them, and place their whole felicity in them, are as vain and as foolish, as if they should make their felicity of an empty bladder, which is Vanum Vacuum; or of a light feather, which is Vanum ventosum; or of a lying picture, which is Vanum falsum; all which were great points of ridiculous folly.  
The third signification of this word Vanity is all one with Frustra Vanum, quasi frustraneum, which signifieth a thing that attaineth not his end. 
Donat. in Eunuchum.  Hence some of the ancient and learnedst Grammarians define Vanum to be, Quod fieri non potest: they call that a vain thing, which cannot be compassed; as if a man should endeavour with Danaus his daughters, to fill a sieve with water: or with the foolish Romans, to reach up unto the heavens with their finger; it were a vain attempt, because he cannot attain his end. In this sense doth Virgil use the name of Vanity, in the first of his Aeneids: 
Virg. lib. 1. Aeneid.  Nifrustra augurium vani docuere parents. Where he expoundeth Vanum (as you see) by Frustra. In this sense doth Accius likewise take the name of Vanity in the place that I cited before unto you. Tanta frustrando lactans, & vanans, protrahit vanans frustrando In this sense also the Scriptures themselves use the name of Vanity: 
Cla●is scriptural  for that which doth frustrate and disappoint us of our end. Eve hoped when she had brought forth her first borne son Cain●, that he had been that promised seed which should break the serpent's head: but afterward perceiving by his wicked life that he could not possibly be the man; she seeing herself deceived in her first son, she called her next son Abel, that is to say, Vanity: because her hope in his brother had not attained his end. The Prophet David likewise in one of the Psalms, useth the name of Vanity three times together in this third signification: Except the Lord build the house, 
Psal. 127.1, 2.  the builder buildeth but in Vain. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman watcheth but in Vain. Except the Lord give his blessing, the ploughman's toiling is in Vain; that is, without the grace & blessing of God, neither the Carpenter in his building, nor the Watchman in his watching, nor the Ploughman in his toiling, can possibly attain unto his end: and therefore he calleth their endeavours Vain. So again in another place: 
Psal 33.17.  A horse is but a Vain help to save a man. And why is he but Vain? the reason followeth in the very same place, because he cannot deliver any man by all his great strength. That is, he cannot attain his end in saving of a man, and therefore he is said to be but a Vain help. So again in another place: 
Psal. 60.11.  Help Lord, for Vain is the help of man. That is, man's help attaineth not his end, but is like unto the rotten reed of Egypt, which pierceth the hand that leaneth upon it, 
2. Kin. 18.21.  if (help Lord) be not joined with it. So likewise Saint Paul, If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching in Vain, 
1. Cor. 15.14.  and your faith, that is likewise in Vain. That is, they cannot attain their end.  
So that if Vanity be taken in this third signification, than the end of King Solomon in calling all things Vanity, is to insinuate thus much; that no earthly thing can attain unto his end; but that when a man hath even tired himself and wasted out his strength in hunting and pursuing after them, yet shall he never find that end, nor that glorious good which he seeketh for in them, but shall (in the end) be driven to complain, that he hath wasted & wearied himself in Vain; as he himself professeth in the book of Wisdom. 
Wisd. 5.6, 7.  Take himself for an example, how greatly he abounded with all the greatest glories that the earth could yield, Wisdom, Honour, Riches, Pleasure, & whatsoever worldly good the heart could desire: all which when he had so fully attained, that he was even glutted with them, yet could he nowhere find that end which he sought for ●n them, to wit, any settled contentment and comfort. ●nd therefore first he was driven to shift and change his desire from one thing unto another, being still wearied, but not satisfied nor contented with the fruition of them. And after, he finding them every one to be alike deceitful, he generally pronounceth of them all, without exception, that they have nothing in them but Vanity and Vexation; as is largely declared in the second chapter of this book.  
The fourth signification of this word Vanity, is all one with Fragile or Mutabile; that is, A thing frail and weak, and of no firmness nor continuance, and so Vanum is opposed to Firmum or Constans.  
In this sense doth Tully use the name of Vanity in his second book De natura Deorum, 
Cic. lib. 2. de nat. dear.  Nulla in caelo Vanitas inest, sed contra summa ratio atque constantia. He saith that there is no Vanity in the heavens, but chose, all firmness and constancy. So that he maketh Vanity and constancy to be opposite and contrary. Hence the Latins use Vanesc●re, and Euanescere, for a thing that quickly changeth, and cannot continue in his state. In tenuem e●anuit auram, saith Virgil. 
Virgil. lib. 4. Aeneid.  When a thing is easily dissipated (as smoke is into air) then doth it Euanescere, that is, turn into Vanity, in the Latin tongue, to wit, into this frail and fleeting Vanity. And in the same sense do we use the word Vanish in our English tongue likewise when a thing is quickly dissipated, and passeth out of sight, then is it said to Vanish away; 
job 27.12.  that is, to be turned into this fading Vanity. In this sense doth job use this word in his book, where he saith of his fickle and deceitful friends, that They Vanish into Vanity; noting thereby, their inconstancy, and referring the word Vanish unto his true original, from whence it is descended: to wit, only from this Vanity. The Prophet David likewise useth the very same word, in the very same sense: for he saith, that Man is like to Vanity, because his days Vanish like a shadow. 
Psal. 144.4.  And all the old Translations (as Saint jerom observeth) except only The Septuagint (to illustrate this Vanity by a lively example, and to set the true nature of it, as it were before our eyes) in stead of, All is Vanity, they translate, 
Hier. in Eccle.  All is smoke, because nothing vanisheth so quickly as smoke: it riseth up very stately, as it were a tower, and it mounteth up aloft, as if it would reach unto the very heavens, and yet every little blast of wind disperseth and driveth it away. This is the unstable and frail nature of Vanity, it is as weak as smoke: and therefore the Apostle james compareth the life of man, 
jam. 4 14.  for the Vanity and the weakness of it, unto a Vapour or Smoke, which suddenly appeareth, but presently vanisheth. And the Prophet David (as you heard before) compareth it unto a Shadow, 
Psal. 144.4.  which is less than Smoke: so that nature itself can hardly fit any pattern, or find any comparison, to express unto the life, the frail and fleeting nature of this unstable Vanity.  
Now Vanity (in this fourth sense) hath two branches, or degrees, the one of them a step unto the other: the first of them is Vanitas mutationis: The Vanity of alteration: The second, is Vanitas corruptionis, The Vanity of corruption, or dissolution. Of the first of those Vanities, to wit, the Vanity of alteration, 
job. 6.16, 17, 18.  job speaketh in his book, where he compareth the friendship of this present world, unto ice and snow, which with the least heat of the sun, vanisheth away: that is, altereth and changeth into an other nature. Of the second degree or branch of this Vanity, to wit, 
Rom. 8.20, 21.  the Vanity of corruption, the Apostle Paul speaketh in the Epistle to the Romans, where he pronounceth of all Gods visible creatures, that They be subject unto Vanity, that is, the Vanity of corruption, as he himself expoundeth it, in plain and express words, 
Primas. in cap. 8. Rom.  for Quicquid finem habet, Vanum est: as Primasius glosseth upon that place.  
So that if Vanity be taken in this fourth signification, (as S. Jerome thinks it is, who saith, upon these words, that Caducum quiddam in hoc verbo Vanitatis oftenditur, that Vanity implieth a weakness and fragility) then King Salomon's meaning is, that all these earthly things are so frail and so momentary, that they be as wavering as the wind: having no constancy, no firmness, no stability in them, but are changed in a trice, as easily as smoke. And it is most true indeed, as we may evidently see in every one of them, if particularly we do look into them. For what other thing is honour, but only a light blast of the people's breath, which vanisheth in a moment, 
Pro. 31.30. Isa. 28.4.  as the sound of a tinkling Cymbal in the air? What other thing is beauty, but the weak paint of a false colour, 
Pro. 23.5.  which with one shake of an ague is blasted, and so fadeth? What other thing are riches, but a heap of shining dust, 
Isai. 40.6.  which with every blast of wind is puffed away and perisheth? Finally, what thing is all living flesh but only grass? (as the Prophet Isai teacheth,) and what all the glory of it, but the flower of the field? the grass withereth, and the flower fadeth, if the breath of the Lord do but blow upon it, as it followeth in that place. So that no globe of smoke is more quickly dissipated, no blast of wind more quickly changed, than the weak unstable nature of all earthly matters is.  
Yea, and though they had some stability in themselves, yet have we no whit of stability in ourselves, but every day and hour are subject unto Vanity, not only to the Vanity of mutation, but also to the Vanity of corruption. So that though they could not be taken away from us, yet may we in a moment be taken away from them, as Belshazzar was from the midst of his pleasure, even whilst he was floating in his greatest jollity: 
Dan. 5.4, 5.  and Herod likewise in the midst of his honour, even whilst he was extolled with his greatest glory: 
Act. 12.22, 23  and the rich man likewise from the midst of his treasure, 
Luke 12.20.  even whilst he was saying, Anima quiesce. So that both in respect of their frailty and of ours, neither hath the rich man any cause to rejoice in his riches, 
jer. 9.23, 24.  nor the strong man in his strength, nor the wise man in his wisdom, nor any man in any thing, but only in the Lord. For Mundus transit, 
1. john 2.17.  The world vanisheth away as it were a little smoke, with all the concupiscences of it: but God is always, I am, he is ever the same, and in him is no change, as the Prophet Malachi noteth: 
Mal. 3.6. jam. 1▪ 17.  no, not so much as a shadow of change, as the Apostle james addeth.  
The consideration of this transitory Vanity of these earthly things, aught to work in our hearts those same two good effects, which I mentioned in the beginning of this speech: fairest to loosen our affections from the world: And secondly, to knit them unto God. The first of these two uses Saint Hierom maketh of it in his comment upon this place: 
Hier. in Eccle.  Aspiciens elementa (saith he) & rerum multiplicem varietatem, admiror quidem operum magnitudinem: s●d recogitan● omnia haec transire, solumque Deum idem semper esse, cogor, non semel, sed bis exclamare, Vanitas Vanitatum! When I consider (saith he) the heavens and the elements, and the wonderful variety of creatures in them both; I stand almost astonished at the wonderful majesty and greatness of the work: but when I consider again, that all these things are but transitory, and that only God himself hath stable perpetuity, then am I forced again, (in as great a contempt of them) to cry out, not once but twice, O Vanity of vanities. He calleth them Vanity, because they be transitory, and therefore of our love thinketh them utterly unworthy. The second of those uses doth the Apostle Peter make in his second Epistle: Seeing then (saith he) that all these things shall be dissolved, 
2 Pet. 3.11, 12.  what manner of persons ought we to be in godliness and holy conversation of life, looking for, and hastening the day of Gods coming? The consideration of the frailty and Vanity of all earthly things ought to make our affections to mount up into heaven, and to settle themselves there upon stable and eternal things: to wit, on God himself, in whom is no change, as you heard before. This is the right use which we ought to make of considering the frailty of our earthly state.  
The fifth signification of this word Vanity is all one with Iniquity; so that Vanum and Iniquum be (in this sense) Synonyma: a Vain thing is nothing but a lewd and a wicked thing. In this sense doth Pacuui●s use the name of Vanity, as Nonnius observeth: Ne tu turpassis Vanitudine aetatem tuam. Turpassis Vanitudine: See that thou defile not thy youth with Vanity: that is, with Wickedness, as with lust and filthiness, and such like vices; which (our Saviour Christ telleth us) do defile the man. 
Mat. 5.19, 20.  In this sense do also the Scriptures use the name of Vanity, as well as in the former: The Prophet David desireth the Lord to turn away his eyes that they behold not Vanity; 
Psal. 119.37.  that is, Wickedness. And King Abiam calleth jeroboams followers Vain and wicked men. 
2. Chro. 13.7.  Vain and wicked, expounding by the latter word what he meant by the former. And the holy Ghost calleth the sins of the Gentiles, 
2. Kin. 17.15.  the Vanity of the Gentiles. And again, God knoweth the thoughts of men, that they be but Vain: that is, 
Psal. 94.11.  Wicked. For so it is expressly affirmed in the book of Genesis: All the imaginations of the thoughts of man's heart are only evil continually. 
Gen. 6.5.   
So that if Vanity be taken in this fifth signification, King Salomon's meaning is, that all earthly things be not only Vain in all the forenamed kinds of Vanity, but also in this too (which is worse than all the rest) that they be occasions and inducements unto wicked Vanity. They draw on iniquity with the cartropes of their Vanity, as the Prophet Isai teacheth us. 
Is●i. 5.18.  Hence riches are called wicked Mammon, because they be occasions of wickedness unto us. 
Luke 1●. 9. 1. Tim. 6.10.  They be the root of all evil, as the Apostle Paul teacheth us. And the like may be said both of honour, of knowledge, of pleasure, & of all other worldly goods whatsoever. There is as it were a secret hook conveyed closely into every one of them; Quo homines Capiantur, tanquam hamo pisces, as Tully observeth out of Plato: 
Cic. lib. de Senec.  whereby those men which chop greedily at the bait, are by & by taken with the hook, and so drawn on by the cords of their Vanity, first unto sin, and then unto misery: and therefore Saint Augustine in one of his Sermons, having entered the consideration of the dangerous and insidious nature of these earthly goods, he crieth out twenty times in detestation of them, 
Aug. Serm. 31. ad fratres in eremo.  O munde immunde, fallax & proditor, qui homines illaqueare non desinis, quiescere non permittis: O the Vanity and villainy of this present evil world, which with one and the same breath, both flattereth & betrayeth us, neither suffering us to sit still, with out her allurements, nor yet to escape the snares of her punishments. So that (to gather all these significations of Vanity together) you now may see how vile the nature of it is. It is Inutile; it is Fucatum; it is Inane; it is Falsum; it is Leave; it is Simulatum; it is Mendax; it is Frustraneum; it is Inconstans; it is Caducum; it is Iniquum; and it is Stultum. These be the material parts of Vanity. Wherein you may plainly see, what King Salomon's true censure is of all these worldly things, which scene so specious unto men: first, that they be altogether without all fruit and profit; which is the proper adjunct, or rather indeed the essential form of Vanity. Secondly, that whereas they have a show of profit, yet is that nothing but even a show indeed; yea and that an empty show, a flattering show, a lying show. Thirdly, that if they could have any profit in them, yet were it but a light profit, not worth the accounting of, because it never attaineth that end which it maketh show of. Fourthly, that though all those things should attain their end, yet could they not possibly retain their end, they being so frail and so brittle, that they be more easily broken then a bubble. Fiftly, that they do not only disappoint and defeat us of their hoped end; but also they misled us to a wrong and a worse end: namely, to sin and iniquity, the end of which is death and utter misery. And thus all the greatest glories and good things of this world, be not only fallacia, quia dubia: but also insidiosa, quia dulcia, as Lactantius truly noteth: 
Lactant. lib. de opific. dei. cap. 1.  They be not only deceitful, because doubtful, but also dangerfull, because delightful.  
Now all these worldly things being thus many ways Vanity, it followeth by a consequent of unavoidable necessity, that if man do still set his heart upon them, he himself should be Vanity in the sixth and last sense, that is, blind and foolish Vanity.  
For in that sense sometimes do I find this word Vanity to be taken. 
Sallust. lib. de bello jugurt.  In this sense doth Sallust use the name of Vanity in his jugurthine War, expounding Vanitas to be imperitia: that is, unskilfulness and Ignorance. In this sense also did that Grammarian take it, who contended with Apollinaris about it, as I noted before out of A. Gellius. He confidently maintained that Vanus and Stolidus were all one: that is, that a Vain man is nothing but a foolish man. In this sense do likewise the Scriptures themselves use the name of Vanity. 
job 11.12.  Vain man (saith job) would fain seem to be wise: that is, Foolish men do affect an opinion of wisdom. So likewise doth Solomon use the same word: 
Pro. 12.11.  He that followeth the Vain, is void of understanding. And so likewise doth Saint Paul use it, 
Ephes. 4.17, 18.  interpreting Vanity to be nothing but the darkness of understanding. So that man if he set his heart upon these Vain and foolish things, which be enthralled and subject unto so many Vanities, then must needs he himself be Vainer and foolisher than they: and so be altogether lighter than Vanity itself, 
Psal. 62.9.  as the Psalmist speaketh.  
Thus have I largely showed what Vanity is, and what parts it hath: and that though it be a word of many significations, yet that there is not one good one amongst them all, as before I noted: but all of them implying, that that which is a Vain thing, must needs be a vile thing: a false and a flattering, a frail and a fleeting thing, and such a thing as hath no kind of good thing in it.  
Let us now see in a word (for the conclusion of this Sermon) why King Solomon having thus brought all earthly things into extreme contempt with us, by calling them not Vain, but even Vanity, in abstracto, is not yet content with that, but calleth them still further, The Vanity of Vanities. For we must not think that even this is done in Vain. Of which point I find three differing opinions, which I will dispatch in three words.  
The first is S. Hieroms, that this Vanity of Vanities is spoken only per exaggerationem, by way of amplification, to note out the greatness and the excellency of their Vanity. For the Hebrews, because they lack the highest and superlative degree of comparison, they do usually express it by ingemination & doubling of the positive: as Dominus Dominantium, The Lord of Lords, for the greatest Lord: Canticum Canticorum, The song of songs for the excellentest song: Seculum seculorum, The world of worlds, for the world Eternal. And so Vanitas vanitatum, for the greatest and excellentest Vanity of all other. So that Vanitas Vanitatum goeth as far beyond common Vanity, as Canticum beyond Verbum, and Verbum beyond Silentium: or Seculum beyond Momentum, 
Hugo. de S. Victor. in Eccles.  and Momentum beyond Nihilum: as a learned Father noteth. Then the meaning of King Solomon in calling these earthly matters the Vanity of Vanity, is nothing else, (in S. Hieroms opinion) but to note out unto us, 
Hier. in Ecclen.  Magnitudinem Vanitatis, the greatness of their Vanity: and that they be of all other things the most excellent Vanity. For as the blackness of black is the most excellent black, and the whiteness of white is the most excellent white: so the Vanity of Vanities is the most excellent Vanity, as it were the sublimation and quintessence of Vanity; as if all the Vanities of the world should lay their heads together, to make but one peerless and excellent Vanity, that should be this Vanitas Vanitatum; and yet even that could not be Vainer than these earthly things be, as I have formerly showed. This is the first opinion.  
The second opinion is Hugoes de Victore, who thinketh, that this Vanity of Vanities, 
Hugo. de S. victor. in Ecclen.  is rather spoken per inculcationem, that is by way of repetition, to note unto us, not the magnitude, but the multitude of those deceitful Vanities, which every where lie hid in these earthly things. For in all these earthly glories which we think so goodly of, if we thoroughly would search and look into them, we assuredly should find a whole nest of Vanities, (as it were of serpents) to lie lurking in them which lead us, like brute beasts, from one Vanity to another: first drawing us to iniquity with the cartropes of their Vanity, and then unto misery, with the cartropes of their iniquity, as before I noted. So that this Vanitas Vanitatum (in Hugoes opinion) doth Omnem Vanitatem contivere, quasi genus ●mnium generum. This Vanity of Vanities is rather referred to the number and variety, then to the greatness and quantity of these earthly Vanities.  
The third opinion is grounded upon both the former; which I find in Hugo too: to wit, that this pathetical ingemination of Vanity of Vanities, is yet rather spoken Per admirationem, by a way of wonder and admiration: that King Solomon considering, in the deepness of his wisdom, both the magnitude and the multitude of these earthly Vanities, and yet, how greedily Vain men pursue & follow after them: Admirans & stupen: ait, Vanitas Vanitatum. He crieth out as even astonished with admiration, O Vanity of Vanities: that ever any man should be so grossly blinded, as to be deceived by them. For this repetition and doubling of the word, as he noteth in that place, Et re● magniudinem, et admirationis significat novitatem. It noteth out unto us, both the wonderful greatness, & the marvelous strangeness of that we wonder at. And surely though the proverb be, that Sapiens nihil admiratur: that he which is a wise man will wonder at nothing; yet in this case, of the wonderful Vanity of the world, the wisest man is always the greatest wonderer; when he considereth, 
Psal. 39 6.  How vain men walk in a Vain shadow (as the Psalmist speaketh) striving with infinite labour, vexation, & trouble, to get unto themselves, a thing of nothing: which first they are uncertain whether they can obtain; and yet, by & by, most certain that they can not long retain, for the unstable condition, both of it and of themselves So that, though all other worldly things be no better then mere Vanity, yet man himself (of all other things) is the greatest Vanity. He is a world of Vanities, yea a world of wicked Vanities, Who drinketh up iniquity, as a beast drinketh water, as job noteth in his book: yea he is indeed, 
job 15.16.  this Vanitas Vanitatum: he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Vanity of Vanities, which the Preacher here speaketh of: not one single Vanity (as other things be) but an upheaped mass of many Vanities together: His cogitations, consultations, and contemplations, Vanity: his projects, actions, and endeavours Vanity, his life Vanity, his death Vanity, nay Vanity of Vanities, as Hierom collecteth; Si viws homo Vanitas est, certe mortuus homo, Vanitas Vanitatum est. Finally, 
Hier. in Ecclens.  all the creatures of God (for his sake) be Vanity: and he (amongst the creatures) is the greatest Vanity; whose beginning was with the Vanity of Mutability, 
Gen. 3.6. job 15.16.  in desiring to change and to alter his estate: whose continuing is in the Vanity of Iniquity, which (as you heard even now) he drinketh in like water; 
Rom. 6.23.  and, whose ending will be with the Vanity of Mortality. For, the certain wages of his sin shallbe death. 
Isa. 5.18.  Thus draw we (like to beasts) in the cords of many Vanities, from our birth unto our death. So that man (as I said) is not only Vanity, but also Vanity of Vanities: that is, 
Psal. 38.5.  universa Vanitaes, as the Psalmist calleth him: universa vanitas omnis homo, Man is an universal Vanity, & as it were a Compendium of all the Vanities of the world together: of the Vanity of Mortality in his body; of the Vanity of Iniquity, in his soul: and of the Vanity of Mutability in them both. Yea and further to express the unexpressible Vanity of man every way, he saith (in an other place) that, Man is altogether lighter than Vanity itself: 
Psal. 62.9.  so that no Vanity can compare with the Vanity of Man; no lightness with his lightness. If it should be demanded, what is lighter than wind, we might answer, that Vanity is: for so the Prophet Isai affirmeth in his prophecy. 
Isa. 41.29.  If it should be demanded, what is lighter than Vanity, we might answer, that Man is: for so the prophet David affirmeth in the Psalm. But if it should be demanded, what is lighter than Man; we must answer that Nothing is. 
Isa. 40.17.  For so the prophet Isai affirmeth in an other place, where he saith of Man, that he is less than Nothing; nay, Nothing is not lighter than Man, but Man is lighter than Nothing. For, he is not only Vanity, which is as little as Nothing, but he is Vanity of Vanities, which is less than nothing. 
Gen. 18.27.  Thus pleaseth it the holy spirit of God, to humble the haughty & proud spirit of man, by making him the meanest & vilest of all creatures: yea, as vile as dust, or ashes, as Abraham acknowledgeth: that so, he finding nothing of worth in himself, nor in any of those earthly things whereunto he addicts himself, he might be led by the hand, from all liking of himself, and of the things of this world, to bestow his love on God, where it ought to be placed: for this is the true end, 
Aug. lib. 20. de civit. dei. cap. 3.  whereunto this whole book driveth, and this so often repetition of Vanity of Vanities, as S. Augustine truly noteth: Non utique ob aloud, nisi ut eam vitam desiderunt, qua Vanitatem non habet sub hoc sole, sed veritatem sub illo qui fecit hunc solemn. Which the Lord grant unto us, for his dear Son our saviours sake, to whom with the Father and the holy Spirit, be all honour and glory both now and for ever. Amen.   

The second Sermon, at Canterbury, at the Lord Archbishop's visitation.  ECCLES. 1. VER. 2. 
Vanity of Vaniities, saith the Preacher, Vanity of Vanities, all is Vanity.  
I Have (partly here, and partly elsewhere) unfolded the whole substance of this present Scripture; yea, and that in many Sermons, as you may remember, delivering in all of them such profitable doctrines, as I thought best befitted the nature of the hearers: which I purpose not at this time to rehearse again unto you, but only to offer unto your considerations, a modest defence of some special doctrines, which have been much traduced, as false and erroneous: that so, those questions which arise in the Church may peaceably be, both heard and determined, not in any blind and obscure convention (as some of them have been) but, in a learned and a lawful congregation.  
For our fitter ingress into which discourse, let me only repeat thus much: That, the general parts which I considered in this Scripture, were in number two: The Author, and the Matter: or his Doctor, and this Doctrine. The Author is here called by the name of a Preacher; Saith the Preacher: The Matter is delivered in the form of a censure; defininitively pronouncing of all earthly glory, that it is indeed nothing but Vanity of Vanity.  
In the Author of this doctrine I made this observation: that he calleth not only himself A Preacher, who spoke this Sermon with his lively voice as Athanasius affirmeth; 
Athanas in Sunop. Psal 19.3.  but he calleth this book A Preacher too, though it have neither voice nor language, as the Psalmist speaketh. From whence I then collected these three positions, for the cleared of certain truths, which have been greatly obscured, Atramento Sepiarum, as the Orator speaketh: by the writings of certain troublers and disturbers of our peace. 
Cic. lib. 2. de Nat. dear.   
First, that all the books of the Scriptures are Preachers unto us, which teach us most plainly the way of Salvation; not only when they be expounded, but also when they are humbly and faithfully read. This position I then proved: first, by the authority of king Solomon in this place, who calleth this book (as you see) A Preacher; which had been an unfit, & a misapplied title if the books themselves did not preach unto us.  
Secondly, I proved it by the authority of S. james in the Acts of the Apostles, 
Act. 5.21.  who calleth Reading expressly by the name of Preaching. Moses (saith he) hath them that Preach him in every city, seeing he is read every sabbath day. He saith that he is preached, because he is read: Because: for even Beza himself in his translation expresseth that place by this causal, conjunction Quum, Because. So that he which denieth the reading of the Scripture to be a preaching to us, he denieth the authority both of the old and new Testaments. For Solomon affirmeth it in the old, & james affirmeth it in the new: yea, & (as Eusebius noteth of the Metaphrasis of Talianus) he putteth the holy Ghost himself to school, 
Euseb. lib. 4. Eccles. hist. cap. 27.  and will teach him how to speak more fitly & exactly, though Sus. Mineruam. 
Cic. lib. 1. Acad.  For the holy Ghost, as you see, calleth a book a Preacher: and he calleth Reading Preaching, which certain men amongst us count an absurd kind of speaking: nay, a false and an erroneous doctrine, blaspheming therein even the Spirit of truth himself.  
The second position which I deduced out of the former observation, in his calling a book by the name of a Preacher, was this: that this Reading is not a faint or a feeble kind of Preaching (as some men affirm of it, who call bare reading but bare feeding) but it is a mighty and a powerful kind of preaching; both sufficient, and efficient to beget in our hearts both faith and all other spiritual virtues: if we rightly come prepared unto the reading of them, and if God vouchsafe his blessing unto our labours in them; two necessary conditions unto our profitable ●eading: the first of them given by S. Augustine; the second by S. Chrysostome; 
Aug. lib. de utilit. credend. cap. 6. Chrys. hom. 21. in Gen.  yea, and both of them no less necessary in preaching, then in reading: without which it is no more in the Preachers power than it is in the Readers, to beget any good in the hearts of the hearers. But these two being granted, even bare reading (as some scornful spirits do in derision term it) may be as active a kind of preaching, and as operative of all true Christian virtues, as their most adorned or impassioned Sermons. This position I proved: first by the authority of the Prophet Moses, who ordained in the book of Deuteronomie, 
Deut. 31.11, 12.  that the book of the Law should be read unto the people: yea, and that unto them all, men, women, and children: yea, and that every time that they appeared before the Lord. Now to what end must all this reading be? yea, and reading so often of one and the same thing? He telleth us in that place, that these three effects shall ensue & follow of it: the knowledge of God, the fear of God, and the faithful keeping of the commandments of God. All which notable effects (as there he noteth) the bare reading of the word shall effect and bring forth; yea, and that not only in men of understanding, but also even in women and children: yea, and that not only in the Israelites, but also in the Heathen and stranger that should hear it. Which point I pray you diligently to note: that even bare reading is able of itself, not only to nourish faith in the heart of the faithful, but also to beget faith in the heart of the infidel, and such as before did neither know God nor his word.  
Secondly, I proved the same position by the authority of Ezra, 
Nehem. 8.9.  who found by his experience, the former prediction of Moses to be true: for when as he had but only read the book of the Law unto the people, it was of so mighty & powerful an operation, that it cast them all into mourning and weeping: yea, and that so excessive, that he himself was constrained by a public edict and commandment to restrain it. Now though in that place there be some mention made of exposition, and giving the sense; yet note, I pray you, that this notable effect of their mourning is not there ascribed unto the exposition, but only to the reading; for it is said that it was the words of the Law which wrought this vehement passion, and not any gloss which was made upon them.  
A like effect also did the bare reading of the Law produce in King josias: 
2. King. 22.11, 19  it had so powerful an operation in him, that it caused him to rend his clothes off from his back, and his heart to melt away within him: and yet was there here no exposition, but only bare reading. The same points I yet further backed by the testimonies both of jeremy and Baruck: The first of whom foretold as much as Moses: 
jer. 36.6, 7.  and the second sound performed as much as Ezra in the bare reading of the word: 
Baruck. 1.5, 6  for it made the people both to fast, and to pray, and to weep, and to give alms unto their needy brethren. Now what or whose preaching could have wrought more worthy and noble effects than this bare reading did?  
Thirdly, I proved the same position by the testimony of S. john, who ascribeth even faith itself (which is the chief point in question) unto this action of reading. 
john 20.31.  These things (saith he) are written, that ye should believe. Now, that which is written cannot make us believe, but only by reading. Finally, I confirmed it by the testimony of our Saviour, in bidding us Search the Scriptures, that is, to read it, and adding, 
john 5.39.  that so we should find eternal life in it. So that, by the forecited Scriptures you see, that both The knowledge of God, and The faith of God, and The fear of God, and The obedience of God, and Eternal life with God, (which is the highest reward of all virtues) is expressly ascribed unto the bare reading of the word. And therefore those men which deny reading to be an effectual kind of preaching, & disable it, from begetting either faith, or any other spiritual virtue in us, they make Moses and jeremy two false prophets: Nehemiah and Baruck, two false historians: S. john a false Apostle: and our Saviour, a false Christ; for all these affirm it.  
The third position which I gathered from the former observation, in calling a book by the name of a Preacher, was this: That Preaching is not always more effectual than reading. This position I then proved by two special instances: The first of them out of Tully; 
Cic. lib. 2 ad Attic. Epist. 12.  who found his understanding (the first part of his mind) a great deal more instructed by reading a short letter, sent unto him from Atticus, than it had been by hearing a long discourse of Curioes', upon the self same points: whereupon he cried out, ubi sunt, qu●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? where be they now (saith he) who say the word spoken hath greater power in it, then hath the word written? He there confuteth that opinion, by his own experience: Quanto ●agis vidi ex tuis literis, quam ex illius sermon●, quid ageretur? The second instance was out of S. Paul: whose adversary found his affection, 
2. Cor. 10.10.  (the other part of the mind) a great deal more touched, by the bare reading of his letters (which he plainly confessed, to be strong and mighty) then ever it had been, by the hearing of his Sermons, which he despised, as light, and things of no value. His letters indeed (saith he) are sore and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no value. This is truly and ingeniously the sum of that doctrine, which heretofore I have delivered as concerning the comparison of Reading and Preaching.  
In all which, what was spoken, that could give the least offence, unto any well meaning, or but indifferent mind? What that any way offended, either against any article of our Christian faith, or any duty of godly life: or, against any other point of sound and wholesome doctrine? Nay, what but justified by the authority, both of the old and new Testament, and ratified by the testimony of the holy ghost himself. Nay, yet further, what, but avouched for a sealed truth, by all true Protestant's, against the Papists? who teach us, that the Scripture is dark and obscure, and such as cannot preach unto us. With whom I did never look that any of our men (professing themselves, to be such reformed and reforming Protestants) would ever have joined hands as we evidently see (by the writings of some and the speeches of others) they apparently do. For, those three forenamed positions of mine, which (I am sure) would greatly have offended the Papists, if they had been my hearers, and been censured of them as heretical doctrines, have likewise displeased some, that call themselves Protestant's. Who have (in their ignorance) traduced all those three former positions, both far and near, and howted them up and down, not only as three false and erroneous doctrines: but also, as doctrines dangerous, and such as tend directly unto the disgrace of preaching, and making it of none effect: though no word were spoken unto any such purpose, no, nor yet, that could be forced unto any so bad a sense, unless it were this one (which must be done with a wrinch too) that they which prefer any preachers Sermon, either in excellency, or in efficacy before the holy Scriptures, they prefer this word of a man, before the word of God: which I take to be no heresy, but an impregnable verity, and so I hope to make it to appear most plainly to you.  
And therefore, I must crave your Christian patience, that I may clear the former doctrines, from the two former imputations; especially, from that imputation of falsehood: which is the greatest infamy, if it be true, and the greatest injury, if it be false, that can possibly be cast upon a Preacher: yea a far greater injury, then to call him either a murderer, a thief, or a traitor. For to be a false teacher, is to be all these together; it is to be both a murdererer of men's souls; a thief, unto Christ's fold: and a traitor to God's honour. And therefore, Saint Hierom saith, that Neminem decet in suspicion baereseos esse patientem. 
Hier. Epist. ad Pammach.  That no man ought to be patient, when his doctrine is impeached. And Ruffian though his adversary in some other matters, yet in this agreeth with him; That he which can endure the suspicion of an heretic, it is unpossible for him to be a true Catholic. And therefore, I must pray your licence, that by a modest and a Christian Apology, I may vindicate these doctrines into their native verity: and not suffer such tried and approved truths, to run up and down, so branded for errors, but freely and sincerely to discharge that duty, which I owe both unto God, and to his truth, and to the Church, and to myself. All whom I should betray into the hands of the wicked, if I should permit such innocent truths to be any longer so scourged and whipped, as they have lately been, and not do my best endeavour to rescue and deliver them.  
First therefore, as concerning those three positions which have been so mightily resisted, you are to know thus much: (which I doubt not, but the greatest part of this grave and learned auditor, being the flower of our Clergy, doth sufficiently understand) that there is none of them all which is any novelty of mine own invention, but are all of them main and beaten grounds of religion, expressly and positively set down, by all our learned Protestants, in their disputations (upon these points) against the Papists. 
Breut. pricope tertia.  Of which I wonder, that some of the reprovers of those doctrines, should be so unlearned, as to be ignorant.  
For first, whereas the Papists teach us, that the Scriptures of themselves, are dark and obscure, & such as cannot teach us, much less preach unto us, because they lack a voice; whereupon they call the Scripture, in a kind of derision, but Mutum magistrum, that i, sa dumb Teacher: we positively set down both the contraries against them. First, for their position, That the Scriptures in themselves are but dark and obscure, and such as cannot teach us: we set down this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them, 
2. Pet. 1.19.  that The Scripture is as clear, and as bright as a light, which shineth in darkness, as the Apostle Peter teacheth us: 
Chriso. hom. 1. in johan.  nay, as bright as the sun beams, as Saint Chrysostom avoucheth; they being in themselves so facile and evident, that they are able to instruct even the simple and idiot, in all doctrine necessary unto their salvation: 
Hom. 21. in Gen.  Adeo ut divina scriptura opus non habeat humana sapientia, ut intelligatur: as he writeth in an other place. So that (as the Apostle Paul affirmeth) If the doctrine of the Gospel be hid unto any, 
2. Cor. 4.3.  it is but only unto such as perish. And this truth we prove against the Papists by many great and strong arguments, grounded partly upon the authority of the holy Scriptures; partly upon the concludencie of necessary reasons: and partly upon the testimony of the ancient Fathers, 
Whitak. cont. Bellarm. quaest 4. de Script. cap. 4.  being twenty six in number, as I find them collected by a learned Writer: and all of them most excellent, answering fully all objections which are usually brought, either by Papists or Schismatics against those positions. Which because they are all of them most worthy your hearing, and yet the time will not now allow me their speaking, I refer those that be learned unto our men's disputation against Bellarmine's fourth question upon the Scriptures: where they shall evidently see, that there is no point of doctrine necessary to salvation, but that it is most plainly and familiarly delivered in the Scripture, even to the capacity of every simple Reader, yea even the simplest of all: Etiam Publicanis, Piscatoribus, Fabris Pastoribus, Illiteratis, 
Chris hom. 3. de Lazaro.  & Idi●tir, as Saint Chrysostome noteth. Unto which his induction, Saint Agustine addeth his general conclusion, 
Aug. lib. de Vtili creden. cap. 6.  Nec in caeteris contrarium est videri; though in somewhat other words, Vt nemo sit (saith he) quii●de haurire non possit, quod sibisatis sit. That for their false position.  
Now for their frivolous reason, why the Scriptures cannot teach us because they lack a voice, we set down this position: That the Scriptures have not only a lively voice in them, as birds and beasts have, but also a speaking voice too, as men and Angels have, whereby they do both teach us, and preach unto us. And this we prove by many sound reasons: whereof I will give you a taste but only of some one or two, because the Arguments be long and the time is short.  
Our first argument is this: which (because I am now as it were in the School, and as in a Colony of both the Universities) I will conclude in Scholastical form. It is in effect thus much.  
If the Scrptures instruct us with a speaking voice, then do they likewise preach unto us: For what other thing is preaching but instructing with the voice? But the Scriptures instruct us with a speaking voice: Ergo, They preach unto us.  
The Assumption we prove by manifold texts of Scripture, where the Scripture is expressly affirmed to speak unto us. As namely in that place unto the Romans: Whatsoever the law speaketh, 
Rom. 3.19.  it speaketh unto them that are under the Law: where the Law is said to speak unto us. So likewise in another place unto the Hebrews: Have ye forgotten the consolation which speaketh unto you as unto children? 
Heb. 12.5.  where the Proverbs of Solomon are said to speak unto us. For from thence is that testimony fetched. So likewise in another place unto the Romans: What saith the Scripture? where the Scripture in general is said to speak unto us. 
Rom. 4.3.  And divers other such like places there be, alleged by our men against the Papists in discussing the fifth question upon the Scriptures. Wherein we labour to prove it as a ground of our religion, against the Papists heretical doctrine, that the Scriptures in themselves do both speak and preach unto us.  
Our second argument is this: That if the Scriptures do expound the Scriptures unto us, then do they also preach unto us. For what other thing is preaching, but expounding of the Scriptures? But the Scriptures expound the Scriptures unto us; Ergo, They preach unto us.  
The assumption of this argument we prove by many arguments, every one having the strength of a firm demonstration, and containing sufficient matter to furnish a whole Sermon: being all of them deduced, either from express Scriptures, or from necessary reasons; or from the concurring judgements of the ancient fathers. Yea, and (that you may perceive how far a learned judgement doth differ from an ignorant) that man of worthy memory M. D. Whitaker (whom for his godly labours against the Papists all posterity will reverence) he delivereth his judgement upon this question in these words: 
Whitak. in Bellarm. quaest. 5. de Scrip. cap. 8.  which I pray you to mark diligently.  
First he affirmeth, that God speaketh unto us as plainly in his word as ever he spoke unto Moses in the cloud when he talked there with him face to face. Secondly, he affirmeth that the Scriptures do preach so plainly and so excellently unto us, that if God should speak unto us from heaven in his own lively voice, he neither would deliver any other matter, nor yet dispose it in any other form than he hath already delivered in the Scripture. Thirdly he affirmeth of the contrary opinion, that it is & falsum, & impium: That is, not only an erroneous but also an impious kind of doctrine. And fourthly, he affirmeth of the defenders of it, that they be & inepti & audaces, that is, not only an ignorant, but also an impudent kind of persons. This is his judgement of the reprovers of my doctrine.  
So that, for the first of my three positions: That the Scriptures in themselves do preach unto us; you see that it is no such strange and uncouth monster, as some men (in the deepness of their ignorance) have imagined it to be, preparing themselves with no less folly to fight against it, than the soldiers in Pacu●ius did against a Snail, which they thought to be some Monstrum borrendum, inform, ingens, as the Poet speaketh; 
Virg. lib. 3. Aeneid.  that is, some fierce and terrible monster, when they heard it thus described; Animal terrigenum, tardigradum, 
Cic. lib. 2. de divin.  Domiportum, sanguine cassum. Thus ignorance and blindness, there feigneth many monsters, where true and solid knowledge findeth none at all.  
But let us now proceed unto our second position: that Reading is an effectual and a powerful kind of Preaching. For which point; whereas the Papists teach us that the Scriptures as they be dark, and cannot teach us, so they be weak and cannot move us; whereupon they call the Scripture but literam frigidam, and egenum elementum; that is, a weak and beggarly rudiment: we positively set down these Theses to the contrary: First, for the plainness and perspicuity of the Scripture: that Deus nobis in Scriptures planissime loquitur: that God speaketh unto us most plainly in the Scripture; which is jewels position in his Apology. Secondly, for the power and efficacy of the Scripture, that Sacra scriptura, vel cum ligitur, vel cum auditur, est ordinarium organon, quo spiritus sanctus mentes lectorum & auditorum regenerate illustrat, vivificat, & caelestibus virtutibus ornat. What can there be more plain, or more full, or more direct unto our purpose? And this is the categorical position of Brentius in his learned disputation (upon this point) against Sotus: he expressly affirmeth, that the very Scriptures, not only when they be Preached unto us, but also when they be but only Read by us are an ordinary means to regenerate men's souls, to enlighten them, to quicken them, and to beget all heavenly virtues in them; and all this it effecteth, Ve● cum ligitur, when it is but only Read. Words of great force and great power, and such as prove the Scriptures to be neither dumb, nor yet dull teachers, but indeed most powerful, and moving Preachers.  
For proof whereof (amongst other arguments) we use these Scriptures following. First, that place of the Psalm, where the Prophet David ascribeth unto the word of God, not only to be able to enlighten the mind and understanding, but also to work upon the heart and affection. He saith that it is able, 
Psal. 19.7, 8.  both to give light unto the eyes, and wisdom to the simple: yea and further to comfort the heart, yea and even to convert the soul. What can there be more, either performed by the Preacher, or desired by the hearer, than here you see most plainly ascribed to the Scripture?  
Secondly, we allege that place of the prophet jeremy, where he compareth the word of God unto a fire and a hammer, 
jer. 23.29.  which is able to break even the strong rocks a sunder, and (as john the Baptist speaketh) even out of very stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 
Mat. 3.9.  I trow, it must have no small strength and power in it, that is able to cleave and to break a stony rock.  
Thirdly, we allege that place of the Epistle unto the Hebrews: 
Heb. 4.12.  The word of God is lively and powerful in operation▪ and sharper than any two edged sword, that it pierceth even to the dividing of the soul and the spirit, the joints and the marrow, and is able to discern, even the very inward thoughts and intentions of the heart. A notable place indeed, and which evidently proveth, that the Scripture is not either a dumb teacher, nor yet a dull worker, but a mighty and a potent preacher, even to the very hearts of men.  
Neither be these places to be understood of the word Preached only, (the only evasion of our ignorant adversaries) but of the word Read also. For to that only end they be alleged by us Protestants against the Papists, and otherwise they should be alleged beside the purpose. The question being between us, not of the Preaching of the Scripture, but of the Reading of them: of the native and inherent perspicuity of the Scripture, and not of that accidental light, which is brought unto them by our expositions: as they that be learned and conversant in the controversies, do right well understand.  
Let us therefore now proceed unto our third position which was thought the greatest monster: that Preaching is not always more powerful than Reading. For that point, let me give you but only this one watch word: that it is known to be a notable Art and cunning of the Papists, to join unto their former disgraces of Reading, an excessive and hyperbolical commendation of Preaching: that so, they having weaned the people from the reading of the Scripture, whereby their errors might be discovered, and brought them on wholly to depend upon their Sermons, and as it were to hang upon their lips, that their Ipse dixit might pass for demonstrations, they might so lead them more easily (as it were hooded and blindfold) into all kind of errors. I pray God it be not also the drift of some others, that would seem to be far unlike unto the Papists. But to return unto our question.  
Whereas Petrus a S●●o, a notable Papist, setteth down the whole sum of papistical doctrine, as concerning the comparison of Reading and Preaching, in this short position: that Praedicatio viva, longè superat scripturam mortuam, that, Lively ●reaching is far more excellent, then is dead Reading: that position doth Brentius, a very learned Protestant, confute and refel, as a popish error, in his Defence of the Confession of Christopher, Duke of Wittenberg, where he handleth this point both fully & substantially, both largely and learnedly censuring this forenamed position of Sotus, to be a contumely and reproach, not only against the holy Scriptures, but also against our Saviour Christ himself. Again, whereas Hossius an other papist affirmeth unto the same effect, that the Scriptures are but bare and naked elements, but Preaching is indeed the lively word of God: that position doth jewel (the jewel of our Church) most earnestly confute in his learned Apology; affirming it to be a speech (in effect) as blasphemous, as the horrible heresy of Montanus, who presumptuously vaunted of himself, that he could speak better than the holy ghost himself: which is indeed both a true and a wise censure of it. For what is it else, to prefer our Sermons before the holy Scriptures, but to prefer men's speeches before the holy ghost? Therefore, this doctrine of the Papist, the Protestants confute, by many strong reasons: which prove unto us plainly, that the Scriptures of themselves are both in Teaching and in Meaning, of far greater power, than any man's expositions, how artificial soever. I will give you but a taste of some one or two of our men's reasons, and so pass on to the second of their scruples.  
First therefore, for the first point, that the Scriptures have in themselves, a greater power to teach and instruct us, than any preachers Sermons, Luther proveth it by this reason. Because all Preachers and expounders of the Scriptures do prove their expositions to be true by Scriptures. But every proof must be a Notiori, as those that be learned know. Ergo, the Scriptures be Notiores, that is to say, More known and more plain, than any Preachers expositions. This is Luther's opinion, confirmed with his reason, which the learnedest on our side have allowed for a good one: yea, and do use the same themselves against the Papists.  
Now secondly, for the second point, that The Scriptures have also greater power to move us, than any Preacher Sermons: that most grave and learned father Brentius, (for so it pleaseth Bishop jewel to honour him, 
Defes. Apol. p. 520.  yea and very worthily too, for his great learning and wisdom) he, not only affirmeth it, as his opinion, but also confirmeth it by good and sound reason: and he citeth for this purpose, that saying of our Saviour; 
Luke 16.31.  He that will not hearken unto Moses and the Prophets, he will never be persuaded, though a man should be raised from the dead to speak unto him. Which is a notable place indeed, for the power and efficacy of the written word, and such, as evidently proveth, that he which will not be moved with the reading of the Scriptures, he will never be reclaimed by hearing any Sermons, be they never so pathetical, never so effectual. Which our Saviour Christ himself doth likewise acknowledge in plain and express words: 
john 5.47.  If you believe not Moses writings (saith he) how will ye believe my words? So that even he himself ascribeth greater power of working faith in our hearts unto the written Scriptures, then unto his own most lively and excellent Sermons: 
john 7.46.  though it be affirmed of him, that never did any man speak as he spoke.  
Thus as concerning those three forenamed positions, which were thought by some to be such great novelties, you see that there is nothing in the at all contained, but that which is both said and proved by us Protestants, and gainsaid by none, but either Papists, or Schismatics: and therefore I having now obtained a fit opportunity (which hitherto I lacked) for the deciding of these questions before competent judges, I thought good to permit them unto your grave and learned censures; and so in peace to dismiss their reprovers: For whom I doubt not, but I may truly pray, as our Saviour Christ doth for his persecutors. O father forgive them, for they know not what they do: they all of them being no better then ignorant and blind guides, 
Luke 23.34  which lead you after them like blind followers into the very ditch: I speak of the lay part of this auditory. For as once the prophet Elizeus, when he saw that the Aramites were smitten with blindness, came unto them and told them that they were out of the way, and so made them follow him out of the way indeed, 
2. King. 6.19.  until he had brought them into the midst of their enemies: so certain of your false and seduced prophets, perceiving your blindness in such questi●ons as these, have likewise told you, that you are out of the way, and so enticed you to follow them, until (as you now see) they have at last brought you into the tents of the Papists, and there they leave you: which may be a good caveat for you to take heed what manner of men you follow as your guides hereafter, lest, whilst you think they lead you into the gates of Zion, they lead you indeed (through their ignorance and blindness) into the gates of Babylon, as you see that these have done.  
But let us now proceed unto the second of their scruples: That this doctrine tendeth greatly unto disgrace of Preaching, and making it of none effect: because I prefer reading, in calling it the word of God, and make preaching to be but the word of man. For so it hath pleased some men to collect, though without all due consequent. For if any man do construe my commendation of Reading to be a disgrace of Preaching, he may by the same reason (or rather lack of reason) condemn of the same fault, even the Apostles themselves. The Apostle Paul compareth Faith and Hope, 
1. Cor. 13.13.  and Charity together, and he preferreth Charity before both the other: shall we therefore affirm, that he disgraceth both Faith and Hope? or that he maketh either of them unnecessary for a Christian? God forbid. To come a little nearer unto our own question: The Apostle james biddeth us, that If any man lack wisdom, he shll ask it of God. Whereby he implieth that spiritual wisdom may be attained by prayings. 
jam. 1.5.  Shall we therefore say that S. james disableth Preaching, & maketh it unnecessary to the attaining of wisdom? Nay, (to come home unto the ve●y point of our question) the Apostle john telleth us that were need not that any man should teach us any thing, 
1. john 2.27  because the holy ghost himself doth teach us all things. This cometh very near unto that which they reprove. And yet (as I think) there is no man so graceless, as from hence to collect, that S. john disgraceth Preaching, or maketh it unneedful unto our salvation: yet may that be wrested out of the words of S. john with a great deal less violence than it could be out of mine. 
Chrys. hom. 3. in 2. Thes.  S. Chrysostome hath a notable place to this purpose, wherein he perstringeth the folly of those fantastical persons, which will never come to the Church, but only to hear Sermons, telling them plainly, that if they would be such Readers as they ought, they should not stand in need of any Preachers at all. I will set down his words, because they be most pregnant, and deliver most plainly his resolute judgement. Ad quid, inquis, ingredior (saith he in the person of those conceited auditors) nisi aliquem Sermocinantem an●iero? What should I do at Church (say they) if there be no man there to preach? There is their objection. Now hear his answer to them. Istud omnia perdidit & corrupit: This is that (saith he) which hath marred & spoiled all. Quid enim opusest concionatore? Per nostram negligentiam necessitas ista facta est: [Have ye not need of a reader saith he] for of reading he speaketh in that place. Nay, there is indeed no true need of a Preacher, It is but only our negligence in reading, which maketh us so much to stand in need of Preaching. Why so? He addeth in that place: Omnia clara sunt & plana ex Scriptures. Quacunque necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt. Sedquia delicatuli estis auditores, delectationem audiendo venantes, propterea & ista quaeritis. All things (saith he) are open and easy in the Scripture, and whatsoever is necessary unto salvation, the same is evident and plain. But because we are wanton and delicate hearers, hunting only after pleasure and delight in our hearing, that is it which maketh us run so fast after Preaching. here is Chrysostom's judgement as concerning Reading and Preaching, wherein he goeth very far in advancing of Reading, & yet hath no purpose to depress or disgrace preaching, which no man used more diligently.  
These things have I noted to rectify the error of such malignant interpreters, and to exemplify unto the simpler hearted hearers, that spiritual things may be compapared together, without any wrong or disgrace unto either, yea, 
Tertul. lib. 1. cont. Marci. cap. 29.  even then when as one is preferred before another. Because (as Tertullian very aptly distinguisheth unto our present purpose) Non praeferrimus ut malo bonum, sed ut bono melius. We do not prefer them as a good thing before an evil, but as a better thing before a good. And it is a rule of Rhetoric (yea and of reason too) as concerning such comparisons, 
Cic. lib. 2. ad Heren.  that Non necesse est, in rebus comparandis, ut alteram vituperes, si alteram laudes: and therefore as S. Hierom reasoneth against joviniam: 
Hier. lib. 1. cont. jovin.  Nunquid argentum non erit argentum, siaurum argento pretiosius dicatur? Is therefore silver made no silver, if a man chance to say that gold is better? So may I likewise reason in this our present question: Is therefore Preaching made no preaching, if in some points it be surpassed by Reading? Or must Preaching of necessity be disgraced, if Reading in any respect be preferred? He must needs be a man of a deplored blindness, unto whom things so distant do seem to have coherence.  
Then why should my commendation of eading, which I gave, both according to the holy Scriptures, and to the ancient fathers, and to the professed doctrine of all true Protestants, be rather accounted a disgrace of Preaching, than their excessive commendation of Preaching be accounted for a disgrace unto reading? or unto praying, both which they have justled out of the Church by their Preaching, to use Cartwrights' own words. This forsooth is the matter: that in comparing a Sermon with the Scripture, I called Preaching but, The word of a man; which they confidently hold to be truly and properly the very word of God: and resolutely affirm that it ought to find the same credit and authority with all men. A very untrue and an unsound position, that I say no more of it.  
And therefore I pray so much equity of you that be unlearned (which I doubt not to obtain of those that be learned) that that which shall be spoken against this false opinion, may not be so perverted as if it were spoken simply against all Preaching: which every good Christian must of necessity confess to be a necessary duty in the Church of God, and a powerful instrument to draw men's souls unto him. But yet for all that, as Preaching may be too much depressed, so may it be likewise too much advanced, even to the dishonour of God himself, whose own work it is. For as job noteth in his book; that a man may speak wickedly even in defence of God, 
job 13 7.  so may a man speak wickedly even in defence of Preaching. Which surely is then done, when we make our own sermons (which are but men's inventions) to equal in authority God's divine and holy Scripture.  
And therefore that you may the better perceive the monstrous absurdities of this foolish opinion, give me leave I pray you (in a word or two) to set before your eyes that strange kind of doctrine, which these men have delivered, as concerning Preaching: for so you shall a great deal more easily discern whether such kind of Preaching be the word of God or no.  
First, they openly deny that the Reading of God's word is a Preaching of it: because this lacketh exposition. And yet S. james telleth us, 
Act. 15.21.  that Moses is Preached, whensoever he is Read; even without exposition. In which only instance of Reading the Scripture, Preaching may truly and properly by called The word of God. But yet this Reading though it be of all other (in this one respect) the most divine and authentical kind of Preaching, because it delivereth the word of God, most simply and sincerely in his own proper form; without either any mixture of human invention▪ or any tainture of human corruption: yet this do they first of all, and most of all cast away from being Preaching, and call this no better than playing upon a Stage. 
D. Whitgift. P. 579.  They be the very words of some of our chief reformers; though I know there be many which will hardly believe that so lewd and profane a comparison, should ever proceed out of the mouth of a Christian, especially of so purified and refined Christians as they would seem to be.  
Secondly, they exclude from Preaching, all those discourses which are made by any other persons then only by ourselves. Whether it be by way of explication of a text, as the Comments and Sermons of divers great Divines, both ancient and recent: or by way of Common place, without any certain text: as the Homilies of our Church, which be indeed most learned and most godly Sermons, howsoever disgraced by those scornful spirits, which spare not (as you see) the word of God itself, but blasphemously compare the Reading of it, unto the playing upon a Stage. But yet neither of these kinds do they allow for Preaching, because they be not of our own, but of another man's making. 
jer. 36.7, 8.  And yet Baruk was commanded by the Prophet jeremy to Read his prophecy unto the people; that is, to Read a Sermon of another man's making: and was told that it should work an excellent effect in them, as it did in very deed, 
Aug. lib. 4. de doct. Christ. cap. 29.  as before I have showed. But yet this will not those men allow for Preaching, though Saint Augustine doth, yea & showeth great use of it in the Church of God. Whereupon there doth follow this evident absurditi●e, which I pray you well to mark: That if a simple and unlearned Minister shall happily meet with a most learned Sermon of another man's (namely Calvin's or Bezaes') and so shall rehearse it unto the people, that must not be counted Preaching, because it is not his own; but his own is Preaching, because it is his own; be it never so unlearned, never so confused.  
Thirdly, they reject from Preaching, even these Sermons that be our own, under two conditions: First, if they be read out of a paper, as the weakness of some men's memories compelleth them to do, who yet may be profitable members in the Church of God. But this (with them) is no preaching, though it be our own invention: and yet Baruk did read, 
jer. 36.8. Baruk 1.5.  not only the Prophet Ieremies, but also his own Sermon too, Out of a paper, unto the people, as he professeth of himself: yea, and he found that his Reading to be an effectual kind of Preaching, though it were, Out of a paper. 
2. Kings 22.11, 19  For it caused both Prince and People, both to fast, and to pray, and to weep before the Lord. As likewise did the reading of the law (even Out of a paper) unto King I●sias, as you heard before.  
Again, even our own proper Sermons they reject from being Preachings, if ever they have been Preached before, though in an other place, and to an other audience. And yet Saint Paul confesseth unto the Philippians, that He was not ashamed to speak the same things divers times unto them; 
Philip. 3.1.  adding, that for them it was a sound way of instruction Thus you see how great a chain of errors this one opinion hath linked together: and all of them, Ex diametro, opposed to the Scripture. Reading of the Scripture is no Preaching, because it lacketh exposition: Expositions of either the ancent fathers, or modern writers they be not Preaching, because they be not of our own making: Our own Sermons be no Preachings, if we speak them not by heart: Nay, though we so rehearse them, yet be they no Preachings if ever they have been Preached before.  
So that now you see what manner of Preaching that is, which must be counted equal unto the word of God, and may not, without blasphemic be called The word of man. It must only be our own, be we never so ignorant: it must be none other man's, be he never so learned: and it must be our own, not by ordinary course of reading attained, either from old or new writers; neither yet, by often iteration decocted; but (in a sort) after the Anabaptistical manner, both suddenly infused, and effused. This is, (with those men) that noble and that worthy kind of Preaching, which must, in credit and authority, equal the holy Scriptures, in power and perspicuity far excel them. A very blind and a bad kind of doctrine.  
For these great inconveniences must needs ensue of it: First, if our Sermons be truly and properly the word of God (as they commonly affirm) it will from thence follow, that the Preacher in his Sermons cannot err. For, The word of God can not err. And so, we who have taught all this while, that the Fathers can err, the Pope can err, the Counsels can err, shall now teach, with the self same mouth that We ourselves cannot err. Which were both an impudent and an impious assertion. For what is that which can privilege us from error in our Preaching? The Chair of Moses could not privilege the pharisees from error: the Chair of Peter cannot privilege the Pope from error: the earthly Paradise could not privilege the first man from error: nay Heaven itself could not privilege the Angels from error; and can only the Pulpit privilege us from error? Is not Papistry Preached? is not Heresy Preached? is not Schism, and contention, and all error Preached? do not all these find Pulpits, to vent themselves out of? Why then it is apparent, that a Sermon may not only be the word of a man, but also sometimes the word of a wicked and ungodly man; the word of a Schismatic, the word of a Papist, 
Greg. hom. 9 in Ezech.  the word of an Heretic. For as Gregory truly teacheth us: Si desit spiritus, nihil adiwat locus: It is not the place can help us, if the spirit be not with us.  
Secondly, if Preaching be truly and properly the word of God, as they affirm, it will from thence follow, that all our glosses must needs be canonical Scriptures. For the word of God is canonical Scripture: and so we who have taught, all the expositions of the Fathers, to be but the bare opinions of men, shall foolishly now teach of our own expositions, that they be the very word of God: which is to set the Preacher not up in Moses chair, but to pluck down God himself, and to set him up in God's chair.  
Thirdly, if Preaching be truly the word of God, as they affirm, then if I expound the Scripture one way, and another man an other way, both these must be taken for canonical senses, and both be true meanings of the word of God: though the one of them should be clean contrary unto the other, as they be but too too often. And so, even we ourselves should make the holy Scriptures, to be indeed no better than a very nose of wax, to be bowed every way, though we bitterly and worthily reprove it in the Papists.  
Fourthly, if Preaching be the very word of God, and the sole ordinary means to beget a true faith in us, as they affirm; then will it from thence follow, that the Scriptures of themselves, are not sufficient to salvation; but as the Papists add unto them their apocryphal and unwritten traditions; so we must add unto them our vocal and speaking expositions, to make them perfect. These and divers such like false & dangerous consequents must necessarily follow that fantastical doctrine, that Preaching is properly the very word of God: 
Aug. lib. 4. cont. julian. Pelag. cap. 3.  of which I may truly say (with S. Augustine) Piget metam dicere, quam muita eos v●sana sequantur, talia sentientes, talia dicentes. A new and a strange opinion, which only doth proceed from humane pride and ignorance, and from an arrogant conceit, of men which dote upon their own gifts.  
Why? is not all this enough which we ascribe unto Sermons, when we acknowledge them to be Gods own holy institutions: to be necessary means of our instruction; and powerful means of our conversion: to be truths, which ought of all men to be accepted and honoured: when they consent and agree with the holy word of God? Is not all this (I say) enough, which we lawfully may, & willingly do ascribe to Sermons, but that we must needs make them the very word of God itself? The Apostle S. Paul, though he spoke all by Gods own holy inspiration, yet doth he twice profess in one and the same Chapter, that This he speaketh, 
1. Cor. 7.12, 25.  and not the Lord. He is very well content (though he were an Apostle) that where he lack the warrant of the express word of God, that part of his writing should be held and esteemed but as the word of a man. But some men now adays, are so far enamoured of themselves, and so vainly conceited of their own gift in Preaching, as to obtrude all the idle fancies of their own addle heads, under none other title, but the very word of God: Purum putum, flat contrary to the doctrine of S. Paul in an other place, 
1. Cor. 3.12.  who telleth us expressly, that a Preacher may take for the foundation of his Sermon, The very word of God: and yet, build upon it, as well Clay and Stubble, as Gold and Silver. But these men do tell us (if we will believe them) that they do build nothing but only pure gold. Belike they would fain have us to take all for gold that glitters.  
Beloved, though we ought (in all true sincerity) to give all due honour and reverence unto Sermons, when they be truly made according to God's word, yet must we always put this difference between Sermons and Scriptures; The Scriptures we must know, 
2. Tim. 3.16. Psal. 12.6. 2. Pet. 1.21.  to be Gods own divine and holy word, containing nothing but pure and tried truths, being all of them writ and penned by God's holy spirit: and by him so commended unto his holy Church: and therefore of all the true members of the Church, to be reverently accepted, without all exception. But for Sermons, we have an other rule and direction: we must in them, both examine the spirit of every speaker, 
1. john. 4.1.  & exact the matter of every speech unto the strict rule of the scripture: as the Bereans dealt even with the Apostle Paul himself. 
Act. 17.11.  So that Sermons ought to have no greater credit with us, than they can gain unto themselves by their agreement with the Scriptures: if they descent from them, no pulpit can sanctify them, no spirit can make them to be the word of God: 
Gal. 1.8.  if they consent with them, yet (the Canon of the Scripture being now sealed up) the Truth of God, or the Doctrine of God, they may be called: but The word of God they cannot, but only by some Metonymy, or Synecdoche, or some other such unproper and figurative speech.  
Therefore, it is as true a position, to say, that a Sermon is the word of a man, as it is to say, that a House is the work of a man. For as in building, though both timber, and stone, and iron, and lome, and all other the materials be the works of God, yet the house itself (in respect of the form) may both truly and fitly be called The work of a man: 
1. Cor. 3 10.  so is it also even in Preaching too (which the Apostle Paul calleth a Spiritual kind of building) though both the Sentences and Testimonies, and Similes, and Examples, yea and Positions too, be the very word of God; yet the positure and placing of those things so together, and the disposing of them in this and that order, and so consequently the whole frame and structure of that speech which we call a Sermon, that is truly and properly the work of a man. The Invention is man's; the Disposition man's; the Elocution man's; the Action man's; the Application, and Allusion man's: and the joining of all those things together, in one artificial body (which giveth to the whole speech the name of a Sermon) that likewise is man's. 
Chrys. hom. 7. in 2. Cor.  And therefore as Chrysostome affirmeth of Reading, that Lectio est legentis actio: so may we likewise affirm of Preaching, that Praedicatio est Pradicantis actio: as Reading is the action and work of the Reader, though the thing which is Read be the word of God: so Preaching is the action and work of the Preacher, though the thing which is Preached be the truth of God.  
Which argument howsoever it may distaste the ears of some ignorants which are without judgement, yet must it needs seem very mild and gentle, even to the reprovers, if it be compared with some of those speeches which have been delivered by some of their own chiefest authors. For Cartwright in his answer unto the preface of the Rhemists, he calleth the very translation of the Testament but the word of a man: as though all the Scriptures which continue not in their original languages, did presently cease to be the word of God, & immediately become but the word of a man. This is harsh indeed, to call the Gospel itself but the word of a man, when it is translated. We go not so far by many degrees (and God forbid we should) we call but those glosses and expositions which are made upon it, The word of a man, which is a far more tempered and qualified speech.  
Which censure notwithstanding, lest any wicked hearer should wrest and pervert unto the despising of Preaching, as some have done the like unto the despising of Reading; let him understand thus much: that when we call a Sermon the word of a man, we take not the word of a man in the worst sense: as S. Bernard doth; who writeth thus of it: Res vi●is & volatilis est verbum hominis, nullius ponderis, nullius pretij, 
Bern. serm. 2. in Solen. Pet. & Paul.  nullius soliditatis: The word of a man is a thing vile & wavering, of no weight, of no worth, of no estimation. In this sense we take not the word of a man, for so it is in a kind of contrariety unto the word of God, as appeareth by those titles which the Prophet David giveth it in the nineteenth Psalm. But when we call a Sermon the word of a man, we take it not by way of opposition to the word of God: but by way of distinction from the word of God. A Sermon is the word of a man, not opposed, but supposed unto the word of God.  
Which distinction I pray you diligently to mark: for in that only consisteth the whole resolution of this knotty question: That a Sermon rightly made is the word of a man, not opposed unto the word of God, but distinguished from the word of God. A Sermon is not so the word of God as the text itself is, but a discourse framed upon it by the wit of man.  
Which action notwithstanding, (lest any wicked spirit should draw it into contempt) we acknowledge it (as I said before) to be Gods own holy institution, & one principal means of procuring man's salvation; as likewise is Reading, Meditation, and Praying, which are no less to be practised, though in many places they be too much neglected. We further confess, that though in outward form it differ from God's word, yet in substance of matter it agreeth with it, if it be rightly made, and that therefore though it be not (in propriety of speech) the word of God itself: yet because it is a truth agreeing with God's word, there can no man despise it, but he despiseth God that sent it. For as if a faithful messenger deliver the true sum and substance of his Master's mind, though he use not precisely all his Masters own words, yet is it to be taken for his Master's message; and he that despiseth him in that message, despiseth not the messenger, but the Master. So is it likewise in our Preaching: though the form of our message be of our own making (as it commonly falleth out in an Ambassadors Oration) yet because the matter is of our Masters sending, you cannot despise us, but you despise him that sent us, as our Master himself testifieth: He that heareth you, 
Luke. 10.16.  he heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.  
And thus much I thought good to speak at this time, in justification of my former doctrine: That a Sermon may be the word of a man, and yet the truth of God. And that this neither was intended by the speaker, nor yet aught to be extended by the hearer, as implying the least disgrace unto Preaching, as certain malignant and captious hearers snatching at my words, and affixing their own senses, have endeavoured to enforce; to whom I wish a better mind, and a more Christian disposition in the hearing of a Sermon.   

The third Sermon, at Paul's Cross, Novemb. 5. Anno 1607. upon the day of our deliverance, from the gun powder treason.  PSAL. 81. VER. 1.2, 3, 4, 5. 
Ver. 1. Sing joyfully unto God our strength: sing loud unto the God of jacob.  
Ver. 2. Take the song, and bring forth the timbrel, the pleasant harp, with the viol.  
Ver. 3. Blow the trumpet in the new Moon: even in the time appointed at our feast day.  
Ver. 4. For this is a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of jacob.  
Ver. 5. He set this in joseph for a testimony: when he came out of the land of Egypt, where I heard a language, that I understood not.  
THe Psalmist well perpending and recounting with himself in a heavenly meditation, the blessed estate where in he then lived in the land of promise, & wisely comparing it with that wretched estate, wherein his forefathers lived in the land of Egypt, how that he was now blessed, both with wealth and honour; and (that which is a great deal more precious than they both) with the free and safe use of God's holy service, whereas they were vexed, both with want and labour, yea and (that which is a great deal more grievous than they both) with a cruel restraint from the service of their God: For (as Moses recordeth in the book of Exodus) they could neither serve their own God without danger to their bodies, 
Exod. 8.26.  because they must offer unto him the abomination of Egypt; nor yet see them serve their gods, without grief unto their souls, because they offered unto idols, the abomination of Israel. This Psalmist therefore, balancing those two estates together, and finding how graciously God had dealt in his time, by multiplying and upheaping all his mercies on his Church, more than he had done in the time of old, he was so ravished and transported with that heavenly contemplation, that he doth, as it were, Excessum pati; he is carried, as it were, clean out of himself, as S. Paul was in his spiritual ecstasy, who, whether he were in the body, 
2. Cor. 12.2.  or out of the body, he himself could not tell: calling here upon the whole Church, in a vehement passion, to come and assist this his godly affection, and to help him, with all sorts of musical instruments (as though human voices were too weak for his purpose) to sound out the praises of so gracious a God: as well for their exemption from that grievous captivity, as for their adoption into so glorious a liberty: wishing, that the day of that blessed redemption might annually and eternally be observed in the Church, with all kind of religious and festival solemnity, as if it were enacted by a statute and a law, In perpetuam rei memoriam, that so the remembrance of it might never fade or perish.  
Hence breaketh out that vehement and pathetical Exordium of this Psalm, To sing, and sing again: to sing joyfully, and cheerfully: to bring out their timbrels, their haps, and their viols; and to blow up their trumpets, as in the new Moon. Whereby it appeareth, that the whole scope and purpose of this religious Psalmist, in this his so passionate exhortation, was indeed nothing else, but only to rouse up the drowsy spirits of the people, by the help and assistance of these musical instruments, and to waken them to a holy and religious alacrity, that so they altogether (like so many several pipes in an organ) might sound out with full noise the praises of God, as being the chiefest end for which they were created.  
For a man (as Clemens Alexandrinus noteth) is not only Templum, 
Clem. Alex. in Protrept.  but also Tibia Spiritus Sancti: He is not only a Temple, wherein the holy ghost dwelleth, but he is also a timbrel, whereupon he playeth the praises of God. Which comparison of his hath much fit matter in it, whether we respect the disposition of man's soul: or, the composition of his body: or the native or destinate end of them both.  
First, for the Soul; we see by daily experience that the mind of a man, if it be indeed a man's mind, if it be not a brutish and an inhuman mind, not the mind of a beast in the body of a man, it hath such a Sympathy and coaffection with the music which it heareth, that (like Hypocrates his Twins) they do always either mourn or rejoice together: embracing still the same passion, as though they both were ruled by one heavenly constellation, and had but one spirit divided between them. In so much that (as Aristotle reporteth in his politics) there were divers of the ancient and learned Philosophers, 
Arist. lib. 8. Pol. cap. 5. Item Cic. lib. 1. Tusc.  who being even astonished at this admirable Symphony and Consent of the Mind and Music; and not finding any good and sufficient reason for it, they have thereupon concluded, That the very soul itself could not possibly be any other thing else, but only a kind of Harmony and Music. And indeed there is so near a kindred and affinity between these two things, between Anima, and Musica, that always, for the most part, that proveth evidently true, which is usually current in our proverbialll speech, that Vt modus citharae, sic motus animae: As the Harp is tuned, so the heart is moved: it giveth over itself, even into captivity and bondage unto Music, to be swayed and overrated to what affection it is pleased. Two notable examples and experiments whereof, the Scriptures themselves offer us, to let pass all profane stories, which be of infinite variety. 
1. Sam. 16.23  The first is of King Saul: in whom the raving of a wicked spirit, was by the force of Music allayed and calmed. The second is of the Prophet Elizeus, in whom the drooping of a good spirit, was by the force of Music excited and quickened. 
2. Kings 3.15.  Two contrary effects, and yet both of them wrought by the power of this one cause. Whereby it appeareth, that all the powers of man's soul, yea & all in his soul, are subject to the power & command of Music. 
Cic. lib. 2. de orat.  So that the title of Flexanima, which is given unto Rhetoric, may by far better right be ascribed unto Music: so sovereign an empire hath it over the soul, as Tully observeth out of Plato.  

Philo. lib. de Sacerdot. honour.  Now for the body: Philo Indaens compareth the body of a man unto a Musical instrument: and the resemblance holdeth well in very many strains: especially in these compounded instruments which are now so much in use, wherein there is both Pulsus and Flatus joined together. 
Theodorit: Serm. 3. de providen.  For first, the strings be the Heartstrings: the bellows, be the lungs: the windpipe, the throat: the sound-bord, the palate: the keys, the teeth: the Plectrum that striketh them, the tongue: 
Cic. lib. 2. de nat. dear.  as Tully fitly calleth it: Quo percutiente omnia voci● instrumenta consonant, as Philo writeth in the fore-alleadged place. Thus the whole structure of man's body is framed in such sort, as though he were made unto none other end, but only to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Athenag. orat. pro Christian Item Aug. tract. 9 in Epist. johan.  as Athenagoras calleth him, that is, a wind instrument, for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the holy Ghost, to breath into, and so to sound out the praises of God.  
Yea, and this is indeed his very natural end: the very end of man's creation, both in body and soul, is, in truth, nothing else but to sing and ●ound out the praises of God: in this life with the Saints, as the Prophet David teacheth us: 
Psal. 30.4. Psal. 132.9.  and in the life to come, with the holy Angels, as the Apostle john teacheth us: where it shall be his everlasting, and never-ending work, to Sing, as is expressly declared in the book of the Apocalyps. 
Apoc. 5.9. Apoc. 15.3.  So that this holy Psalmist exhorting us here with such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to power out by singing all the powers of our souls in the praise of God; he therein exhorteth us unto none other work, then that which is the principal end of our making.  
Thus you see what the occasion was of the making of this Psalm: and withal, what the sum is of all those five first verses, which I now have read unto you. Whereof I do not purpose to deliver at this time any curious analysis: nor yet precisely to stand upon the exact distinction of those several Musics, whereunto the Psalmist here so vehemently exhorteth us: but only to point down upon one especial point, more eminent than the rest, which will occupy the whole time.  
Only here let me give you this one general note, to make the way more plain unto that particular subject, whereupon I purpose somewhat longer to insist: that whereas there be but three kinds or forms of Musics, 
Isidor. lib. 3. orig. cap. 18.  as Isidore observeth; the first, Harmonical, which is expressed by Voices and Singing: the second Rhythmical, which is expressed by Strings and Striking: the third Organical, which is expressed by Pipes and Blowing: 
Aug. in Psal. 149.  Or, (as S. Augustine distinguisheth them, in somewhat other words, but to the same effect) Cantus, Flatus, Pulsus: Cantus, in choro: Flatus, in tuba: Pulsus, in cithara: the Psalmist here calleth for every one of them, and will have none left out, as S. Augustine there observeth. He calleth for joyful Singing, and loud Singing, which is Harmonical Music: He calleth for Timbrel, Harp, and Viol●, which is rhythmical Music: and he calleth for Trumpets, which be Organical Music. All these he here calleth for, unto none other end, but only that (as the book of the Psalms is concluded) every thing which hath breath might praise the Lord. 
Psal. 150.6. jansen in Psal. 150.   
For the first of those three Musics, to wit, Harmonical music, he nameth in the first verse two several kinds of it. The first is joyful singing, which is called Exultation, and respecteth the springing and motion of the heart: The second is Loud singing, which is called jubilation, and respecteth the tuning and modulation of the voice. But yet so that neither Exultation is without the voice of the body; nor yet jubilation, without the joy of the soul: but be only so denominated from that which is predominant, being otherwise in use, almost never asunder; & therefore in this place they be joined both together: Exultate Deo adiutorinostro: jubilate Deo jacob: exultate, iubilate. As likewise again in the ninety five Psalm: Exultemus Domino, iubilemus Deo: and in divers other places.  
Of the first of these two sing, to wit, of Exultation, I have already spoken in another place, upon the like occasion which is offered at this time: and therefore, without either any repetition, or further circuition, I will now come to the second, to wit, to jubilation, and show you what that is. Which point I am induced the rather to discuss, yea and that somewhat largely, because I find it so often, even incullced unto us, throughout the whole tract of this book of Psalms: 
a Psal. 95.1.  Rejoice, and iubilate, in one place: 
b. Psal. 81.1.  Sing and iubilate, in another: Play and iubilate, in another. 
c Psal. 150.5.  And so ever (for the most part) when there is any exhortation unto spiritual rejoicing, 
2. Sam. 6.15.  there still is joined with it, this jubilation, as though our inward joy could not be rightly tempered, unless this jubilation were therewith intermixed. Let us therefore now consider what this jubilation is, whereunto the holy Scriptures do so often times invite us.  
jubilation (as some think) is an Hebrew word, indenised and made free amongst the Latins, as divers other strange words be: because otherwise they could not (without long circumlocution) express the full power and signification of it: a word more familiar amongst Divines, then amongst secular writers, it being commonly applied unto the expressing, of a spiritual and heavenly rejoicing.  
In which word, there be divers of the ancient Fathers, which think there lieth hidden some Divine and Heavenly mysteries: and therefore it is a matter that is worthy the noting, to see what strange speculations they have devised in it, and how greatly they have laboured and toiled themselves to give us the full signification of it. Origen, 
Orig. hom. 7. in josua.  when he cometh to expound this word jubolare, professeth, that he feeleth himself to be inwardly touched, he knoweth not by what secret and extraordinary motion, to search into the secret meaning of it: hoping verily there to find, Thesaurum magnum in parva dictione, as Saint Chrysostome writeth in another like case; 
Chrys. hom. 15. in Gen.  that is, Some great treasure couched in this little word. And the rather is he so conceited of this word, because he findeth a place in the Psalms, 
Psal. 8.8.15.  where it is thus written, Beatus populus, qui intelligit jubilationem: Blessed is the people which understandeth that rejoicing, which is called jubilation: and therefore he saith, that he cannot but search out, quid istud tantum operis sit, quod populum possit beatum facere: What great and hidden mystery (or rather indeed, what treasury) this jubilation is, which is able to make blessed, not only the practisers but also the very understanders of it. Saint Augustine in like sort, whether it were, that he had read this place of Origen, and so, by imitation, borrowed his conceit from him; or whether, by the light of his own understanding, he light into the same conceit with him, I know not; but he also handleth this same word jubilare after the self-same manner. 
Aug. in Psal. 99  For when he cometh unto the exposition of it, he likewise professeth, that he cannot, by any means, overpass it: finding himself instiged by an inward inspiration, to search into the inward and hidden meaning of it. And he allegeth for his reason that same place of the Psalm, Beatus qui int●lligit jubilationem: Adding further, (as Origen did before him) that it needs must be some great and weighty thing, and very worthy to be searched, whose bare knowledge is able to make all his knowers blessed, as it is said of this word: concluding with this prayer, to attain unto the right understanding of it, Det mihi Deus noster intelligere, quod dicam; Det vobis intelligere, quod audiatis: God give me understanding to know what I speak, and God give you knowledge to understand what you hear. Unto both parts of which prayer I do heartily say, Amen; as handling now that sublime and difficult argument, which he then so greatly feared. Let us therefore now approach unto the secrets and mysteries of this jubilation, unto which we have made so great a preparation.  

Hil. in Psal. 65.  Hilary saith, that this jubilare is, vox agrestis & pastoralis, a word that is borrowed out of the country: but how, or by what reason, he expresseth not. Only thus much he seemeth (by the forenamed titles) obscurely to insinuate, That jubilation is a voice which represents that joy, which Shepherds use to make when as they shear their sheep; 
Psal 4.7.  or, husbandmen, when as they inn their fruit; which commonly they do with great gladness and rejoicing: as the prophet David noteth in one of the Psalms, where he compareth his own joy, for the fullness of it, unto the husbandman's joy, when his corn, and wine, and oil increaseth, which he insinuateth to be great. 
Isay. 24.13, 14.  The prophet Isai likewise useth that same comparison, to express that great joy wherewith God would recompense the sorrow of his people: he saith, that there shallbe such a joy, and such a shouting in the land, a● is commonly used at the shaking of the olives, and the gathering of the grapes, when the vintage is ended. Whereby it is evident, that that work was always done with great mirth and jollity. Of which kind of rejoicing, the eight Psalm may serve us for a pregnant illustration, as appeareth by that Inscription which is prefixed unto it; where it is entitled, Psalmus Calcantium in torculari, A song of the treaders in the winepress: the very title of this Psalm too, 
Theod. in Psal. 80.  as Theodoret noteth out of the Septuagnit. And this country singing (as Hilary thinketh) is indeed the true and the right jubilation. Of which opinion also is that learned Roman Varro, 
Var. lib. 5.  that great master of words, who thus distinguisheth of this word jubilare; that Quiritare, is Vrbanorum: but, jubilare, Rusticorum. Saint Augustine giveth some light unto this forenamed opinion, 
Aug. in Psal. 99  by adding a familiar example to illustrate it; but yet he goeth far more cunningly about it. As country men (saith he) when they gather in their fruits, do use to sing for joy, and in their song, which consisteth of words, do intermix certain other voices, which he indeed no words, but notes and interjections of their inward affections; These voices (saith he) do properly express that inward passion, which we commonly do call, by the name of jubilation. Such voices were those medleys, which the Athenians used in their solemn sacrifices called Ostophoria, 
Plut. in vit. Thesei.  wherein they were wont to add unto their songs, as the foot and keeping of them, Eleleu, In, In: which words have no certain and fixed signification but only be notes of their inward passion, as Plutarch noteth in them. The first, being the jubilus of their Paeans and mirth-songs; the latter, the jubilus of their Threni and mourning songs. For, jubilus serveth for this use also, as well as for the former. The voice of jubilation, is sometimes the voice of tribulation, yea and of jugulation too, as evidently appeareth in the prophecy of Amos, 
Amos 2.2.  where he threateneth the Moabites, that they shall die with the voice of shouting and jubilation. So that this jubilation hath not only his Canorum, and Blandulum, but also his Tremulum, and Querulum too, not only his Hypertidion, but also his Hypodorion too, as Isidore teacheth: 
Isid lib. 2▪ orig. cap. 19  that is, not only his light and glad music, but also his heavy and sad music too; though the use thereof most frequently be in the former sense. Such voices likewise be those Iöes, which the Romans were accustomed to mingle with their songs. Iö paean: Iö triumph: Iö Hymen, and such like. And (to illustrate it by a domestical and familiar example, because jubilus is a domestical and familiar country-song) such voices be those Faiaes, which are oftentimes used and intermixed with our songs: words of no proper and determinate signification, but only intimations of our inward affection, which they argue to be full. Whereunto even the Greek word which is used for jubilation, doth seem to have a kind of allusion: for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it were a composition of Fa, la, la, nomine fictitio; by a word which is made to the similitude of the sound: as Balatus ovium, for the bleating of sheep: hinnitus Equorum, for the neighing of horses, and such like. The licence is well known unto such as be learned, yea even unto every mean Grammarian, under the figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These musical interjections be (as they think) this jubilation, in the first signification.  
Now other of the Fathers do take this word otherwise: affirming it to be, not Agrestis, but Militaris vox; Not a voice which is borrowed out of the field from Farmers, but a voice which is borrowed out of the camp from soldiers: this jubilus being drawn from that Hebrew jobel, 
Lyra in cap. 25. Leuit.  which signifieth (as is noted) A Trumpet, or a Cornet, a warlike and a soldiers instrument.  
But yet the opinions of those Fathers, do even in this same point, not a little dissent. Origen saith of this jubilation, that it is Clamour exercitus, 
Orig. hom. 7. in jos.  unanimiter se ad pugnam cohortantis: jubilation (saith he) is the voice of an army, wherein every man exhorteth and hearteth on his fellow to march valiantly forward, and to set upon the enemy. With whom likewise agreeth Hilary in the forealleadged place; taking now this jubilare, by a second cogitation, in a new signification.  

Plut. in vit. Marij.  Such a jubilus was that, which the Germans used when they set upon the Romans in Marius his army, crying one unto another, Ambrones, Ambrones; having that then for their Watchword, as we commonly at the charge, use to cry out, S George; and the French men, S. Dionysse; and so every other nation on that Saint which is their patron: auspicating the beginning of the fight with his name, as it were with an Omen, and so encouraging, yea & after a sort, even enraging themselves with that military jubilation. Such a jubilus was that likewise which the Romans themselves used, 
Plut. in vit. Romul.  when they set upon the Latins, ad caprae paludem: wherein every one encouraged his fellow by his name, On Marcus, on Quintus, on Decius', and so forth, every man bidding his brother be strong, 
Isay 41.6.  as the Prophet Isai speaketh, and to make all speed possible to assail them on the sudden. And therefore after their solemn sacrifice in nonis capratinis, which was purposely instituted in remembrance of that victory, the people were enjoined to use this Rite and Ceremony, to run from the place where their sacrifice was made, as fast as they could: and in their running, to call out, Marcus, Quintus, Decius, and divers such like names: which they did to this purpose: First to admonish them, how notable a victory they had once obtained, by using that military jubilation: and secondly, to premonish them, how notable victories they may afterward obtain, if they remember but to use the like imbulation again. A memorable example, 
1. Sam. 4.9.  both of which jubilation, and also of this notable effect that it wrought, there is set down upon record in the first book of Samuel, when the Ark of God was brought into the host of Israel; the Philistims then hearing that joyful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Israelites then made for the coming of it, when they shouted so for joy, they were suddenly so terrified and appalled at the matter, that they were brought to the point almost to fly for fear: but yet (only by the strength and power of this military jubilation) they gathered up their spirits, and stood manfully unto it: as appeareth in the story; where the very words of their incitement & military cohortation be purposely registered, that so they may the better be both observed, and remembered. Be strong, O ye Philistims, and play the men (say they) jest ye become slaves unto the Hebrews now, as heretofore they have been to you. Be valiant therefore, and fight it out. By which only encouragement and exhortation, they then got the day of them: and won that same famous and renowned victory, wherein God himself (as they thought) was led into captivity, being taken a prisoner in the field. This military cohortation is jubilation in the second signification.  

Basil. in Psal. 94.  Now Basil, though he agree with Origen, that this jubilation is a military word; yet doth he disagree in this, that he saith it is a voice, not of Exhortation, but of Gratulation: it is vox vincentium, not praeliantium, as he writeth in that place. It is not the voice which soldiers do use, to exhort one another when they go to fight, but rather such a voice as they do express, when the victory is gotten, and they have done fight. With whom likewise consent, both 
a Nys. orat. profe●to paschae.  Nyssen, 
b Theod. in Psal. 94.  Theodorite, & 
c Euthym. in Psal. 94 1. Sam. 4.5. 1. Sam. 4.3.  Euthymius, who all of them affirm that jubilation is a voice of a triumphant rejoicing, which presupposeth a victory. Such a jubilus was that which the Israelites made, when the Ark was brought into their camp, as you heard before, it is said that they shouted with a mighty shout, so that the earth rang again, imagining that then they had gotten the victory into their own hands, as is noted in that place: and therefore it was that they shouted so for joy, 
Plato in Lyside.  triumphum canentes ante victoriam, as it is in the proverb. This shouting and this triumphant rejoicing, is jubilation, in the third signification.  

Isai. 9.3.  The Prophet Isai in his Prophecy, seemeth wholly to allow both the former significations of this word jubilation, as indifferently representing the true nature of it. For than he compareth the joy of the jews, which they shall have by the coming of their great Messias, to the rejoicing of farmers, when they gather in their fruits, and to the triumphing of soldiers, when they divide their spoils: therein plainly alluding unto both the forenamed significations of this word, that it is both Agr●stis and Militaris vox. But the Prophet Moses seemeth partly to reject them both, as somewhat defective, and not sufficiently expressing the whole nature of it. 
Exod. 32.17.18.  For he, describing the jubilation of the children of Israel, when they sang their joyful Pean unto the molten Calf, when as joshua told him that it was the sound of war, There is a sound of war in the host: no, no (sayeth Moses to him) this noise is neither the voice of them that fly, nor yet the voice of them that follow, nor of any such tumultuous and military velitation, but it is the voice of Singing and jubilation. Whereby he insinuateth, that there is a jubilation, which is not like any noise that is used in war: neither the voice of a fight, nor the voice of a flight (though both these may be called jubilations too, as you heard before) but there is a jubilation of a more divine and heavenly nature, like that religious and holy singing, which is used by the Church in the service of God, and in setting out of his praise, either by the Saints here in earth, or by the Angels in heaven, when they sing their Allelu-iah, unto the Lord their God.  
In the former of which senses, for the Singing of Saints in the Church of God, is this word jubilare used in the ninth Psalm, Venite exultemus Domino, iubilemus Deo salutari nostro. O come let us Sing unto the Lord, and let us jubilate unto the rock of our salvation. The first word expounding what is meant by the latter: the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as it oftentimes falleth out) being placed in the former place. And where must this jubilation be used? It followeth in the next words, Let us come before his presence, that is, into his Church, by the consent of expositors. In the second of these senses, for the singing of Angels, is this word iubilare used, 
job 38.7.  in the book of job: Where wast thou (saith God unto him) when the stars of the morning all together did praise me, and when the sons of God did jubilat unto me? cum jubilarent omnes fuij Dei. Meaning here by them, the Angels: as S. Hierom expoundeth it. 
Hier. in cap. 38. job.  And this religious Melody and holy Singing is jubilation in the fourth signification.  
Now, if a man desire to understand more particularly what the nature of this kind of jubilation is, because the singing and rejoicing of Angels is a thing unknown unto us; S. Augustine giveth us this adumbration of it. jubilare, saith he, 
Aug. in Psal 94.  Est gaudium verbis non posse explicare, sed tamen▪ voce testari. He saith, that jubilation is a kind of unexpressible joy, which may, in some sort, be uttered by the voice, but yet cannot be expressed by any words. With whom likewise Saint Gregory consenteth most fully, 
Greg. lib. 28. Moral. cap. 14.  defining jubilation to be nothing else, but Cordis laetitia, quae oris efficacia non expletur ut cum gaudium quis nec dicere potest, nec tacere: This jubilation (saith he) is such a flood of joy, as a man can neither let out by utterance, nor yet keep in by silence, lest he be overwhelmed with it: 
A. Gel. lib. 1. cap. 15.  but he is brought to such a pass, that (as Epicharmus speaketh) he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He is made by it, altogether unfit to speak, yet altogether unable to hold his peace. 
Anonymus, in Psal. 46.  He can neither Reticere, nor yet Recitare gaudia mentis▪ as another Father writeth: He hath neither in himself a possibility to utter, nor yet a power to smother that joy which is within him. And therefore Saint Augustine saith in another place, that in this jubilation our heart doth Parturire, quod non potest parer●: 
Aug. in Psal. 32.  Our heart (saith he) in the tr●● passion of jubilation is so passingly surprised and overcharged with joy, that it laboureth no less than a woman in her travel, and yet cannot be delivered of that which it conceived. Whereupon he inferreth: Et quem decet ista iubilatio, nisi ineffabilem Deum. Then to whom can belong this unspeakable rejoicing, but only unto God, who is himself unspeakable? And he thereupon concludeth, Quod si illum fari non potes, & tacere non debe●, quid restat tandem nisi ut jubilees? If then thou neither canst express him, nor oughtest to suppress him, what other thing remaineth, but to iubilate unto him? Which is (as you have heard) a mean course between both. It is a kind of speech, because it is a voice: and it is a kind of silence, because it is an insignificant voice. And therefore, he saith in another place, 
Aug. in Psal. 101.  that jubilare, est ructare Deo laetitias nostras: To jubilate, is not to speak out, but to belch out our joy unto God; as it were from a full stomach: and in another place, Quod poteritis explicare, 
Aug. in Psal. 80.  clamate: quod non poteritis, jubilate. So that this jubilation, is a far more Divine and Heavenly rejoicing, though it be but only in our heart conceived, than any that can by our words be expressed: and therefore of God is much better accepted, as Saint Bernard teacheth us: 
Bern. Serm. super Salue. regina.  Plus valet Iubilus cordis, quam strepitus oris: motus gaudiorum, quam sonus labiorum, consonantia voluntatum, magis quam vocum. Thus you see, both how manifold, and how profound a sense, there lieth hidden in the name of jubilation: which I have insisted the longer upon, because I observed, so many fathers, and so ancient, so wise, and so learned, to be brought by this one word, into so great a muse, and almost into a maze. And therefore I judged that not unworthy your hearing, which so many grave fathers and of so great learning, have judged to be worthy their inquisition and searching, yea and that with such infinite and unexhausted pains and diligence, as this treatise must needs represent, and subject unto the eyes of all men, that are of any judgement.  
Now the end of all this long amplification, is no more but only that one short lesson, which the Apostle john giveth us, 
1. john 1.4.  in the first of his Epistles, to wit, that in this our rejoicing unto God, our joy must be full, Full, not faint, not formal, not hypocritical; but true, sincere, effectual: that it may be indeed, as it is in name, a jubilation: that is, a full and hearty rejoicing. Then to come now somewhat lower from this seraphical discourse, wherein I have spoken but only to a few; and to descend unto more familiar and popular matter, and to apply all this treatise unto our present purpose.  
In vain do we now celebrate this feast of mirth and joy, if we have no joy of it: and if we have joy, we have it in the heart, and not in the lips only. For joy, (as the Stoics note, who are the most accurate definers of passions) is indeed nothing else, 
Cic. lib 4. Tusc. quaest.  but Cordis dilatatio, that is, an enlarging and spreading out of the heart; as Sorrow is nothing else, but only a contracting, and a pressing it together. And surely the Lord, in this point, hath done graciously his part, that our joy may be full. For he hath even dilated and enlarged our heart, as the prophet Isai speaketh, 
Isai. 60.5.  that we may largely rejoice: yea and further, he hath also enlarged the matter and subject of our joy, and made it proportionable unto our heart, that our joy on all sides, may even overflow: and that our rejoicing (as here he requireth) may be indeed a right jubilation. For in what sense soever we take this jubilation, the Lord hath given us as great occasion to use it, as ever he did the jews, who be here called to it.  
For first, if jubilation be taken for the country man's singing, occasioned by the plentiful increase of their fruits, (as it is in the first sense) then never had any country men in the world, 
Psal. 4.7.  greater cause of jubilation and hearty rejoicing, when their corn and wine and oil increased, than our whole country hath, by those many, both peaceable and plentiful years, which God (of his goodness) hath now a long time given us: wherein we have attained that happy conjunction, which David prayed for unto his beloved Jerusalem, 
Psal. 122.7.  that there is amongst us, both peace within our walls, and plenteousness within our palaces; yea, and within our cottages too: yea and that both these so great, as the world hath no where seen, in this our present age.  
For first, as concerning the Peace we have enjoyed, it may truly be called The peace of God which passeth all understanding. 
Phil. 4.7.  For it passeth indeed all human understanding, that so many plots being daily devised, so many snares being secretly laid, and so many engines being cunningly applied, by our restless and erreconcileable enemies, for the breaking of our peace, and the utter rooting out of God's religion from amongst us: yet that (maugre all the malice of all the limbs of satan) our Church should still continue in a sweet and constant peace, and that all the gates of hell should not prevail against it: but that, (notwithstanding all their wicked machinations) our Church should not only enjoy peace in itself, 
Mat. 16.18.  but also should give peace unto all her bordering neighbours: being erected as a Sanctuary for all the afflicted members of all other Churches, to fly unto, as birds unto their hill, as the Psalmist speaketh, there to shroud themselves amongst her green and dourishing branches, 
Psal. 11.1.  from all those grievous tempests which at home in their own countries have fiercely beaten upon them, and forced them to take their flight away from them, finding here that blessed peace and tranquillity in our Church, which in their own they have sought for, with the spending of their dearest blood, and yet could never get. So that for this our Peace we must needs conclude with the poet, that Deus vobis haec otia fecit: It is only God himself, 
Virg. Eclog. 1.  yea even the God of peace, that hath made this peace amongst us. Our peace is the Lords doing, and it i● wonderful in our eyes, considering the opposition: 
2. Cor 13.11. Psal. 118.23.  It is (as ● said before) The peace of God which passeth all understanding And therefore unto him, for this his gracious favour, we ought to offer up our hearty jubilation.  
Now for our Plenty, which is God's second blessing upon this our nation, & the second argument to excite us unto this country-iubilation; that hath been so wondrous great amongst us, as though God himself had made windows in heaven, 
2. King 7.2.  to rain it down unto us. For what one is there of all our neighbour nations, whose indigency and want hath not been supplied by our Plenty and abundace? France, Spain, Germany, yea, and Italy itself, though it stand so distant from us. So that the title which Cato giveth unto Sicily, 
Cic. orat 4. in Verrem.  to be the chiefest barn, nay the very nurse of Italy, that calla penaria, & nutrix Italiae, that may in some degree be applied unto our land, aswell as to that Island: who have from hence nourished some of the very chiefest Principalities of Italy, even then, when the breasts failed of their ancient nurse Sickie, & were utterly dried up. So that as once the land of Egypt in the time of joseph was a common storehouse unto all her neighbours, to relieve them with her Plenty in their great necessity: so hath our land oft times been, through God's mercy and goodness; with which even Egypt itself cannot compare in fruitfulness: 
Gen. 47.19, 20.  for Egypt hath suffered many famines, yea and those great ones too: so that her inhabitants have been forced, both to sell themselves, and their wives, and their children, and all that ever they had, to buy themselves bread, and so of subjects to become slaves and servants, and that only for the necessity of their famished belly: but our land hath never sustained any famine in any man's memory; the hardest that it hath at any time endured, is but Annonae Caritas, it is not Fames; it cannot be called Famine, but only a little Dearth: yea and even that Dearth also, 
Stow. Annal. p. 1147.  rather growing (often times) from those cormorants our Cornemongers, then from the fault of our earth. Which Dearths of ours, notwithstanding when they be even at the dearest, yet may be counted Plenties, if they be but compared with the ordinary harvest of other countries. It is noted amongst us as a very great Dearth, and is put into our Chronicles amongst our rarest accidents, 
Stow, ibid. p. 423, 622, 865.  if wheat be but brought unto some forty shillings or four marks a seam; and that not often neither: which in divers other countries, is very far beneath the ordinary prices, as our Merchants daily find by their own experience.  
So that all the world may bear us witness, that as once the dew of heaven fell only down upon Gedeons' fleece, 
jud. 6.37.  when as all the earth beside was hard and dry about it; so the dew of God's blessing hath only fallen one our land, when all our neighbour countries have been destitute of it, lying dry and unfruitful, and being utterly untilled by the hand of the farmer, but yet every where harrowed by the hand of the Soldier, & rend almost in sunder, with all those great calamities, which fire and cruel sword could bring upon them, and that for many years together: whilst we, in the mean season, have sit quietly at home, Every man under his vine and under his figtree, 
Micah. 4.4.  as the Prophet Micah speaketh, without all manner of fear; having our sons and our daughters like the polished corners of the Temple: 
Psal. 144.12, 13, 14.  our Oxen strong to labour: Our Sheep bringing forth thousands and ten thousands of increase: Our garners stuffed full with all manner of store: having no invasion, nor leading into captivity, nor no complaining in our streets. So that all the world may justly say of us, 
ver. 15.  O happy are the people that be in such a case: and we may as justly sing again unto them, Yea, happy are the people that have the Lord for their God: for that is indeed the true cause of all our happiness, if we truly look into it. And therefore unto him for this his great mercy, we ought heartily to jubilate. But surely our unthankfulness in this point hath been exceeding great: we have not offered unto God this jubilation of thankfulness in any mean proportion, as his goodness deserveth: but abusing those forenamed great blessings of God, both of Peace and Penty, unto our own lusts, we grow wild and wanton by them, like untamed heifers: and so run on directly into the sins of the Sodomites, 
jer. 31.18.  into Pride, Lust, and Idleness, & fullness of bread: these be the true effects, which (in stead of true thankfulness) our Peace and Plenty have produced in us: 
Eze. 16 49, 50.  We call for the timbrel, the harp, and the viol (as the Prophet Isai noteth in the jews) and for all those other istruments, 
Isa. 5.12.  which here you see consecrated unto holy jubilations, and these we daily abuse in our unholy feasts and banquets, where we jubilate unto our bellies, as though we made them our Gods, forgetting God himself, who is the fountain of all mercy: and therefore (saith the Prophet) my people are le● into captivity. Therefore: that is, for their unthankfulness in forgetting of God, the giver of all goodness: a great, and a just cause: Which judgement I pray God to turn away from us, and to forget all our unthankfulness; who surely have matched them in their sin, yea & outmatched ●hem too; and therefore have great and just cause to fear, lest we be matched with them in the punishment of their sin. For what meaneth this hanging & this linger plague, which hovereth so long (like a sad and threatening cloud) over the heads of us all, in all the corners of this land? somewhere raining down sadly, somewhere drizzling but softly, the drops of God's displeasure: what meaneth it I say, but that seeing God perceiveth how negligent we have been to jubilate in our Hymns the tunes of thanksgiving for his benefits received, he will now make a trial whether we will be more diligent to iubilate in our Threnes the tears of repenting for his judgements threatened.  
If by neither of these two means we can be won unto God, but that, like those perverse and froward children, of whom our Saviour Christ complaineth in the Gospel▪ we will neither be brought to dance when God pipeth unto us nor yet to lament, 
Luke 7.32.  when he mourneth unto us, there is doubtless yet behind, in the belly of this black and slow-moving cloud, that fierce and grievous tempest to be reigned down upon us, whereof the prophet David speaketh in the Psalm, that God will rain down upon the heads of the wicked, both snares, 
Psal. 11.6.  and fire, and brimstone, and plagues, and storms, an● tempests, this shallbe the portion of their cup. For it is a sure rule and of unchangeable verity, which S. Augustine giveth v● that Si non reddis Deo faciendo quod debes, reddes ei patiendo qu●● debes. 
Aug. lib. 3. de libero arbit. cap. 15.  He that payeth not God his right, in doing that he ought: Go● will pay him his right, in suffering that he ought. But to proceed● to the next point.  
If jubilation be taken for a military cohortation, exciting and stirring up one another to alacrity (as it is in the second sense) then have we both great and just cause, to use even this kind of jubilation too. Who, though we have now made a new, and a true peace (as we are persuaded) with those old adversaries of ours, with whom we have had a long & a strong jar, (a jar indeed more truly than a war) though (I say) at this present, we count all to be sure, and sing nothing but Peace, Peace, as it is in the Prophet: 
jer. 6.14.  yet ought we not in reason to be so lulled asleep, and as it were bewitched with the sweet and charming name of Peace, as utterly to forget the time of war. It is no ill policy, whilst the weather is calm, to provide for a storm. For though the tempest of all their old displeasure be now for the present well blown over: yet have we not a Rainbow, to give us full assurance, that the like storm shall never arise again from that quarter. And therefore, though we have great cause of rejoicing in this our present peace, and just cause to iubilate unto God for the same, as before I noted: yet ought we not so securely to be reposed in it, as to think, that this our state, cannot be changed from it: lest if we be too supine & too careless, as the men of Laish were, we be also taken tardy, as they were. The story is well known. It is a good rule which the Apostle Paul giveth us, 
judg. 18.7.27. 1. Cor. 10.12.  not only in spiritual matters, but also in civil too: That he which now standeth, should take heed lest he fall. And it is no evil rule which Epicharmus giveth us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that, 
Cic. lib. 1. ad Attic. epist. 14.  watchfulness, and distrustfulness, be the very sinews of wisdom and prudence. Which I speak not, to buzz into the heads of the people any unnecessary jealousy and suspicion, which were contrary unto charity: but to rouse and stir them up unto necessary vigilancy and circumspection, that they sleep not in security: that they be not too forward, (as the most men are now adays) in cashiering of their armour, and in Breaking their swords into scythes, 
Micah. 4.3.  and their spears into spades, as the Prophet Michae speaketh; lest the time do suddenly fall upon them, (yea and that ere they be provided for it) when they would wish them brought back into their old forms again, 
joel 3.10.  as the Prophet joel noteth. I will not Malè ominari, because I see no just cause: but yet thus far I hope I may safely go with Saint Augustine, 
Aug. Epist. ad Macedon.  as to give you this one watchword, for your better caution, and to shake off too much presumption: that Nemo potest veraciter amicus esse ●ominis, nisi ipsius fuerit primitus veritatis: that Those men can haerdly be truly friends to any, 
Hier. Epist. ad Paulin.  that be not truly friends unto the truth itself. For (as Saint Hierom well observeth unto the same purpose) it cannot be Vera amicitia, if it be not Christi glutino copulata; There cannot be possibly any true and sound friendship, whereas both parties be not glued together by Christ. Those civil and politic respects, whereby nations are commonly cemented together, they be but Cementum malè temperatum, 
Eze. 13.10, 11.  as the prophet speaketh, they be but a kind of ill-temperd mortar, Arena sine calce, as it were sand without lime, if that Gluten Christi, the truth of Christ religion, be not mixed with them. And they be commonly no better than a daubing over of a matter, as it were the parieting of an old rotten wall, whose swelling breaketh suddenly, 
Isai 30.13. Higher Epist. add Demetriad.  when as no man looketh for it, as the Prophet Isai noteth. But a word of this point (I hope) will be sufficient. For (as Saint Hierom apologiseth in a like slippery argument) Haec dicta sint non infausto contra vos vaticinio, sed pavidi cautique monitoris officio, vel ea fortasse, quae tuta sunt formidantis: Let these things be interpreted, not as ominously fore speaking that which certainly will be: but, as carefully forecasting, that which possible may be: The tenderness of my love being happily, there afraid where, it may be, there is indeed no true cause of fear. But yet stirring you up unto a careful circumspection, which (I am sure) can do no harm.  
For be it, that we lacked the fear of all foreign enemies, yet lack we not the danger of domestical and intestine, which are more to be feared: yea and so much the rather too, because they can so cunningly disguise & mask themselves, and seem to give so little an outward cause of fear. For how many be there now amongst us, not only of our secret Papists, but also of our open Recusants too, which do seem to rejoice and to iubilate with us, in the commemoration of this happy day, and to celebrate the festival solemnity of it with as great a zeal, as the best of us all, giving place unto no man, in ringing, singing, feasting, bonefiring, and in all other compliments of outward rejoicing? but yet for all this, they have inwardly great grief, to see the remembrance of this joyful day so honoured: their joy is nothing else but Ementita frontis serenitas, The false glimpse of a lying countenance; they rejoice in the face, 
2. Cor. 5.12.  but not in the heart, as the Apostle Paul speaketh. For surely, if they have any joy at all in their hearts, 
Gen. 27.41.  it is none other, but only that cruel joy which wicked Esau had, that (yet for all this) they hope, that The time of mourning will one day fall upon us, 
Hab. 2.1.  and then will they kill their brother jaacob. And therefore great cause have we to jubilare, yea and to Vigilare too, to stand upon our watch, as the Prophet Habakuk speaketh: yea, and upon our guard too and to cheer up one another to watchfulness and circum●spection, that we be not taken sleeping by our waking enemies, who are like to God in this, 
Psal. 121.4.  that they neither slumber nor sleep: but like the devil in this, that they apply all their watching, not unto good, but evil. They watch not, as the keeper of Israel watcheth, 
john 10.10.  who neither slumbereth not sleepeth▪ to preserve and maintain us; but they watch as the thief watcheth, to spoil and to destroy us, as our Saviour Christ teacheth us. And therefore good is that counsel which in an other place he giveth us, that seeing we know not certainly when the thief will come, 
Mat 24.42, 43, 44.  that therefore we should constantly watch for his coming.  
To show you the necessity of this good advice, To watch, in that one example, whose memorial we now celebrate: you may call to your remembrance (and you ought never to forget it) how near we were all of us almost overtaken, for lack of this watching: nay, utterly overthrown by our deep security, in that damnable plot of the gunpowder conspiracy: how the plot was contrived, the matter congested, the work finished, and that there lacked nothing unto the very perfecting of our destruction, but only the giving of fire unto the engine. So that as the prophet David speaketh) there was but one step between us and death: 
1. Sam. 20.3.  but only that one; which also might have been as easily finished, as it was so far ripened, if our gracious protector, The keeper of Israel, had not watched a great deal more carefully for us, than we did for ourselves: but that never-sleeping eye of God's merciful providence (of whose unspeakable goodness we have had so great experience) that waked, when we slept, and beheld all the working of those hellish pioneers, yea and laughed even to scorn all their wicked endeavours. For when they themselves thought all to be cocksure, and were even putting of the fire unto their infernal powder, he utterly defeated all their purpose and endeavour; by snatching us as a firebrand out of the fire, 
Zach 3.2.  and causing the flames thereof (as the flames of Sidraches fire) to issue out upon themselves, & to devour those that sought to devour us. 
Dan. 3.22.  So that we have as great a cause to jubilate unto God, as ever those three children had, when they sung their renowned Psalm in the fiery oven. For surely, their deliverance was never more miraculous, then was that of ours: who were both designed to as cruel a flame, and as strangely delivered from the same, even by the immediate hand of God, he being, as it were, in the midst of the flame with us, as he was with them.  
For in that miraculous deliverance of ours, there be two points most remarkable: in both which the hand of God may be sensibly felt, yea and his pre●ence (in a sor●) may be visibly seen, there shined so great an evidence of God's providence in them.  
The first of them is this, 
Terent. Eunuch Act. 5. See. 6.  that he made their own tongue the instrument to bewray them: that so they should, Suo indicio, quasi sorex, perire: as the Comike speaketh; that they should perish, as the rat doth, by bewraying of themselves: and that so their own tongue should fall upon them, 
Psal. 64.8.  as it is in the Psalm. For the same tongue which could contrive the treason, could not conceal the treason; but though it enjoined dumb silence unto others, yea even unto their own pestiferous confederates, yea and that under the sacrament, or rather indeed under the excrement, of an oath (to use S. Augustine's Paranomasia) yet could it not perform the same silence itself▪ 
Aug. lib. de hear s●b. Sec. 46.  but as though there had been Flamma, over in ardent● as Ennius speaketh▪ as though the traitors mouth had been burnt with his own flames, 
Cic. lib. 2. de Orat.  or his tongue had been big with the scorching coals of juniper, so laboured it of that mischief which it had conceived, & could find no rest, nor no ease, until it was delivered, and had brought forth that same damnable birth into the open world. 
Psal. 118.3.  This was the Lords doing, and it is m●rueilous in our eyes.  
It hath often times occasioned me to meditate very seriously upon that place of King Solomon: 
Eccle. 10.20.  Curse not the King no not in thy thought: for the fowls of the air shall carry the voice and that which hath wings shall declare the matter. 
Pl●ut. lib. de Garrulitate.  Which point we see verified in the discovery of this matter, That which had wings bewrayed it. 
Plaut. in Amphit. Act. 1. Scen. 1.  Not Ibici grues, nor Bessi hirundines, though both these have been discoverers of very heinous treacheries; but volucris vox, as the Comike speaketh, certain winged words: certain words which came out of the wing of a bird: the quill of a goose's wing, bewrayed this whole treason. So that, as once the Roman geese preserved their capitol from surprising; so now again one of the same kind, hath likewise preserved our Capitol from burning, yea and our Capita too, the chiefest heads of all our nation That which had wings bewrayed the treason: which one would little have dreamt to have been ordained to so great a good. This is the former point of God's merciful povidence, and in a sort of his presence in discovering this treason, and delivering us from that great destruction; that he brought the matter so about, that Their own tongues bewrayed them.  
The second is this: that though they speak their mind as it were in a strange language, & delivered their meaning but only in parables; yet that God so enlightened the royal heart of our King, with a bright shining beam of his heavenly wisdom, that notwithstanding all their obscuring of their inward meaning, yet he should point down directly upon the very mystery of their iniquity, & present- (like an Oedipus) dissolve all their Sphingas: or rather indeed (like a Solomon) find out all their riddles. This hath likewise occasioned me, 
1. King. 10.3.  to ruminate very often upon an other place of King Solomon: that surely there is a sentence of divination in the lips of a King: 
Pro. 16.10. 1. Sam. 10.9.  and that his heart is not as another man's heart is: but indeed a most rich treasury of profound and hidden wisdom: God himself by imparting of that divine and heavenly blessing, seeking to honour himself (in their person) amongst men. But to proceed. If jubilation be taken for the triumphing voice of soldiers, having utterly defeated and vanquished their enemies (as it is in the third sense: then have we (even in this respect) as great a cause to use this jubilation, as ever yet had any people or nation, since the world first began: who (by the assistance of God's merciful providence) have so often times defeated so many plots and engines, devised by our enemies for our utter subversion: wherein always their snares have fallen upon their own heads, and wrought their own confusion; giving us a far greater and juster occasion to sing up and down all the streets of our cities, as once the Romans did: 
A. Gel. lib. 4. cap. 5.  that Malum consilium, est consultori pessimum: as the detectation of so many and so notable treasons, complotted by our enemies, both against our late dread sovereign Queen, and against our most gracious King, and (in them both) against all us, hath notably declared to the wonderment of the world. Wherein still those our enemies did fall into that pit, which they digged for us, and we were saved from it, as it were on Eagles wings, as the Prophet Moses speaketh. 
Exod. 19.4.  And yet have we been forced to pass both throrow fire and water unto our deliverance, as the Psalmist affirmeth of the Israelites: 
Psal. 66.12.  by both which our enemies have endeavoured to entrap us; and yet in both our God hath most graciously delivered us. His name be praised for it.  
For the first, to wit, our deliverance in the waters, in the time of our late Queen: let us but call to our remembrance that same wonderful deliverance which from heaven was sent unto us, in that wonderful year of Anno. 1588. when all our seas were overspread with the sails of our enemies, and all our waters covered with the ensigns of those that came to fight against us. A benefit whose memory ought never to die amongst us, never to decay. For though we now be at one with that nation, which at that time most earnestly endeavoured our destruction; it followeth not, that because they be now (as we hope) our friends, that therefore it should not be lawful for us, to remember the great mercy and goodness of God towards us, when as we are sure, that they were our enemies.  
Let us therefore (I say) but call unto our mind with what a strong desire and mighty preparation they came as then against us, and how great a perturbation their coming then wrought in us, terore, not panico, but Hispanico; and we shall find that we had as great a cause to use that fearful lubilation, which is recorded in the Psalm, as ever the jews had in their like trepidation: 
Psal. 124.1.  If the Lord himself had not been on our side, if the God of heaven had not been on our side, they had swallowed us up quick, when they came against us, they were so wrathfully displeased with us. The floods had surely drowned us, and the waters had passed even over our souls. But the Lord strong in battle was our refuge, the God of I●akob was our defence. Yea, and he armed forth all his creatures in the day of our battle, to fight for our defence, and our enemy's offence, that we might be delivered, and they destroyed. The winds fought against them, and against their ships, as they did against the ships of A hasia. 
2. Chron. 20.37.  The sea fought against them and against their host, as it did against the power and host of Pharaoh. The stars fought against them, and against their horses, 
Exod. 14.27.  as they did against the horses and chariots of Sisera. 
judg. 5.20.  All the elements in their courses fought every one against them, as they did against the Canaanites, until they had brought them unto utter confusion. Now (as it is in the book of wisdom) By all the same mean▪ 
Wisd. 11.5.  whereby our enemies were destroyed, were we (through God's goodness) miraculously delivered. So that it might fitly be said unto us, which the Poet saith unto the Roman Emperor: 
O nimium dil●cte Deo.— Cui militat aether,  

Claud. de tertio consulatu Honorij.  Et coniurati veniunt ad classica venti.   
And therefore we have great cause to jubilate unto God, and to sing out unto him, that same Io triumph, which the Israelites did in their like deliverance out of the waters. The Lord hath triumphed gloriously over his enemies: 
Exod. 15.1, 5.  the horse and his rider [the ship and his sailor] hath he overthrown in the midst of the sea. The waters have covered them, the floods have overwhelmed them, they sank unto the bottom as a stone. Therefore blessed be the Lord for thus avenging of Israel. 
judg. 5.2.  This cause have we to jubilate unto the Lord our God, if we remember his great mercies in that memorable year, & the wonderful deliverance which he then brought unto us out of those great waters, which had almost overwhelmed us.  
Yea and never a white less have we (nay ten thousand times greater, if we call unto our mind, our miraculous deliverance from that raging fire, which was provided to devour us: (the second of our instances) wherein we might truly have said, 
Isa. 1.9.  with the Prophet Isai, that, If the great mercy of the Lord of hosts had not been, we should surely have been made, even like unto Sodom, and to Gomorrah. Like unto them indeed, yea and not only like unto them, in the general state of our destruction, 
Plaut. Rud. Act. 3. Sce. 6.  being utterly destroyed as they were; Cum ramento & puluisculo, as it is in the proverb: but also, like unto them, in the particular mean of our destruction, being destroyed by fire, as they were. Our Towers, our Princes, our Churches, our Priests, our Cities, our Houses; of all which we might have said, if their plot had prevailed: 
Haec omnia vidi inflammari, 
Cic. lib. 3. Tusc.   
Priamo vi vitam evitari,  
iovis aram sanguine turpari:  and all reduced to the true face of Sodom. But yet here is one difference, wherein the malice of our enemies did as it were erect itself, that they had provided for our destruction, a far more base and unworthy fire, then that wherewith the Sodomites themselves were destroyed. For their fire was the fire of God, 
job 1.16.  as it is expressly called in the book of job: but our fire should have been the fire of of the devil. Their fire came down from the bosom of Heaven: but our fire should have come up from the bowels of hell. So that, by this difference, their fire was far more noble than ours. But yet, there is another difference, wherein (maugre all the malice of our hellish enemies) yet our fire had been more noble than theirs: that their fire, descending down from Heaven, and tending towards hell, did certainly beat down with it, those cursed bodies thither: but our fire, ascending up from hell, and tending towards Heaven, had (doubtless) carried up those blessed souls thither; whom our enemies had appointed as sheep unto the slaughter, and intended to have sacrificed, as a burnt offering upon an altar. A burnt offering indeed, burned even to coals and ashes: but yet for all that, a sacrifice, which (no doubt) but God would graciously have accepted, in respect of the innocency of those lambs which were offered; though utterly detested and abhorred, in respect of their cruelty by whom they were slaughtered: as he did the sacrifice of Abel's holy blood, though offered by the unholy hands of his cruel brother Caine. But yet for all that, 
Psal. 124 6. Plaut. captain. Act. 3. See. 4. Gen. 22.10, 12  thrice blessed be the name of the Lord our God, Who did not give us over as a pray into their teeth, but miraculously delivered us, even inter sacrum & saxum, as he once delivered Izaack, even as the stroke was in striking. So that, we have great cause to iubilate unto God, and to sing that joyful melos which the Isralites once did, in their like deliverance from their imminent danger: Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare: 
Psal. 124.7, 8.  the snare is broken, and we are delivered. 
Deut. 33.29.  Our help is only in the name of the Lord. And again, that in another place: Blessed art thou O Israel, who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord?  
To conclude: If jubilation be taken for the Ecclesiastical psalmody and music of the church, whether militant, or triumphant, when they make their holy melody, and praise the name of God, In Hymns, and Psalms, and Spiritual songs, (as it is in the fourth sense) then even in this respect also, 
Col. 3.16.  have we great and just cause to iubilate unto God; who hath most graciously delivered this famous church of ours, not only from those our forenamed enemies, which openly oppugn her, but also from others unnamed too, which secretly undermine her: endeavouring, by a colourable pretence of reformation, to bring it unto utter desolation and destruction, and to make it an habitation for ostriches and dragons, 
Isa. 13.21, 22.  that Zijm and Limb may dance in our palaces, and the satire call out unto his fellows: that whereas now there is heard the voice of holy singing and jubilation, there might be nothing seem, but only The abomination of desolation.  
Notwithstanding all whose malice, and secret underworking, yet hath God here established a most glorious church amongst us; 
Apo. 21.11, 19  not unlike unto that New Jerusalem, which came down from heaven, made altogether of Carbuncles and precious stones, 
Isa. 54.11.  as the prophet Isai speaketh: so that the glorious beauty of our church this day draweth all men's eyes unto it, as it were a blazing star, yea and even perstringeth and dazzleth them, with the shining brightness of it. Neither is there any thing (God be praised) in this worthy church of ours, which so greatly needeth to be reform, as that such unclean and filthy birds be chased out by whom it is defiled, and by whose jarring sounds, as it were by the yelling of Mews, and the screeching of Owls, the holy music of our church is greatly disturbed. And therefore, that our church may be glorious within, as well as without (as it is required in the spouse of Christ) we ought continually to furnish it with the voice of jubilation, 
Psal. 45.13.  that the praises of God and of the Lamb, may perpetually sound in it, and never die.  
Th●s in what sense soever we take this jubilation you see, how great a cause God hath given us all to use it▪ no sort of us excepted, Courtiers, nor Carters, Soldiers, nor Citizens lay men, nor Ministers, but that every one of us in our several callings, have weighty cause to jubilate upon special occasions: but all of us in general upon that great occasion whereby we are now called unto this present jubilation; because every man hath his share in this cause of our rejoicing. 
Psal. 148.12, 13.  And therefore (as the psalmist in this place exhorteth us) let us take up the Psalm bring out the timbrel, the pleasant harp with the viol; sound up the trumpet, as in the new moon▪ that young men, and maidens, old men and babes, may jubilate and praise the name of the Lord. 
Psal. 118.24.  For this is the day which the Lord hath made: therefore let us be glad and rejoice therein. A day wherein the devil contended with God himself, about the body of our King; 
jud. 9  and in him about the body of our whole kingdom too: as once he contended with the Angel Michael about the body of Moses: hoping to have gotten the honour of this day, and to have glorified himself against God himself by it, in the overthrow of his Church. But God was too strong for him, and so hath gotten the day from him: making this day for ever, both honourable to himself, and comfortable unto us, by our preservation, which he thought to have made most horrible & dismal, by our utter destruction. And therefore, as the jews, upon a like occasion, have eternised the memory of their Purim by making it A statute in Israel, 
He●●. 9.17, 22.  and a law in jacob, as the Psalmist speaketh in this place: so is it both wisely and religiously ordained by us, that it should be both a Statute and a Law in England too, a Statute-law, to nobilitate and eternize the blessed remembrance of this holy day: which I pray God may for ever be better observed then many other of our good statutes be, which have formerly been made. And so for this time I here conclude.   

The fourth Sermon, at the Court. Novemb. 15. Anno 1607.  2. TIM. 3. VER. 8. 
As jannes' and jambres resisted Moses, so do these men resist also the truth.  
Our Saviour Christ affirmeth in the Gospel of S. Luke, 
Luke 18.8.  that when the Son of man shall come to judge the world, there scarcely shall be found any faith upon the earth. A heavy censure of these times of ours; but yet tha● prophecy of his is notably confirmed by the testimony of his own disciple in this place. For the Apostle foretelling in the beginning of this chapter, what the state and condition of the world shall be, in this last and worst age of it; he numbereth up sins and iniquities so fast, and packeth them so close together, that a man would indeed think it were utterly unpossible, for so excellent a plant as the virtue of faith is, to spring and grow up in so great a throng of vices, which (like noisome weeds) so thick shall overspread the face of the whole earth, and choke up whatsoever is wholesome in it.  
In which catalogue of the Apostle, you may observe this difference; That all other sins are but only named by him a word for sin, and so away: as though he hasted forward unto some greater matter: and so be continueth a short conglobation for the space of four whole verses together, the four first of this chapter; Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, proud, boasters, heady, haughty, treacherous, and so forth, with as great a Laconismus, and as perfect a brevity as can possibly be devised: but when he cometh to the sin of Hypocrisy, he doth not so slightly pass it over; but there sets down his foot, and to the full describeth it: pai●●ng out all the guises of these disguised Hypocrites, which in these latter times shall abuse the world, and seduce the simple people with their feigned shows of godliness, being notwithstanding destitute of all the power thereof as the Apostle expressly and in plain words affirmeth.  

Ver. 5.  So that he bestoweth more cost, & more pains, to make us know this one sin of Hypocrisy alone, then to know all the sins of the whole world beside. For in them he reciteth but only their bare names, in a short enumeration, as fast as one word can follow after another: but in this he representeth the whole and perfect nature, in a long description, continued in five whole verses together.  
The reason of which his pains-taking is this: Because the sin of Hypocrisy is (in some respects) both more hateful unto God, and more hurtful unto men, than any other sin in the whole world is. More hateful unto God; because (as S. Augustine noteth) Simulata sanctitas, 
Aug. in Psal. 63.  est duplex iniquitas; quia & iniquitas, & Simulatio: Feigned holiness, is double wickedness: because there is both wickedness and a feigning joined with it: 
Ecclus. 7.8.  two sins bound together, as the wise man speaketh More hurtful unto men, because (as S. Chrysostome noteth) Malum. sub specie boni celatum, 
Chrysost. in cap. 7. Matth.  dum non cognoscitur non cavetur: Whilst wickedness is covered with a feigned show of godliness, because it can not be descried, it cannot be declined. And such a sin is the sin of Hypocrisy: It is indeed true wickedness, which is covered over with a false show of godliness: It is sin in a mystery, 
2. Thes. 2.7.  as the Apostle Paul speaketh: It is masked ungodliness; and therefore can hardly be descried.  
For which cause the Apostle (to help us in this point) hath taken great pains to describe this sin at large, and to represent unto us (as it were in an Emblem) the true and perfect nature of those men, which in these latter days shall be resisters of the truth, disturbers of the Church, seducers of the people, and opposers of themselves unto the Prince and civil Magistrate, speaking evil of all those men which are in authority, 
Jude 8.  as S. Jude noteth directly: and yet covering all this foul mass of corruptions under a most specious visar and show of religion. And this he performeth from the beginning of the fifth verse, unto the end of the ninth, in five whole verses, as before I noted. Of which, though I purpose to insist but upon one; yet must I pray your licence, to recite them all; that so I may show you more fully and plainly that whole mystery of iniquity, which the Scripture noteth unto us by the name of Hypocrisy. The Apostle in this chapter descibeth it in this manner:  
They have a show of godliness, 
Ver. 5.  but have denied the power thereof. Turn away therefore from such. For of this 〈◊〉 are they, that creep into houses, 
6.  and lead captive simple women, laden with sins, and led with divers lusts: Which are ever learning, and yet never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 
7.  As jannes' and jambres resisted Moses, so do these men also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, 
8.  and reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall prevail no longer: 
9  for their madness shallbe evident to all men, as theirs also was. Thus far extendeth the Apostles description, most graphical and lively.  
Which discourse of his consisteth of three parts: The first is A definition of the nature of an hypocrite, in the fifth verse of this chapter; which may be thus collected: An hypocrite is a man that hath a show of godliness, but yet denieth the power thereof. A definition so exact and so exquisite in all his parts, that if it were examined by the strictest rules of Logic, I doubt whether any could be found more perfect.  
The second is An admonition to decline and avoid them; given in the person of Timothy, unto all the godly; in the same verse, Turn away therefore from such.  
The third, is A description of a double conflict, which the hypocrite entertaineth with two sorts of people: the first of them with women, in the sixth and seventh verses: the second of them with men, in the eighth and ninth.  
In both which his conflicts, the Apostle setteth down and observeth four things: First, who be the persons, whom the hypocrite singleth out to make his encounter with: which (if you mark them) be of contrary disposition and quality.  
His first conflict and encounter, is but only with women, yea and those also such, as for wit, be Simple: for life, Sinful: for capacity Doltish, and utterly Ind●cible. For all these Epithets, you see in this place to be given them: Simple women, laden with sins, ever learning, and yet never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth. This is the Hypocrites beginning, degenerous, and abject. But his proceedings be of a more elated and lofty spirit. For his second encounter is with Men; yea and those no common men: but even with such persons, as for authority be Princes; for understanding, Prophets; for integrity of life, God's pincipallest servants. For all this is implied in the person of Moses, whom, and whose like, those Hypocrites do most ambitiously affect to resist.  
So that you plainly see, how quickly such Hypocrites will take heart and courage to them: and, if at first they be backed, and but a little fleshed, though it be but by simple sinful women, they will by and by after not stick to encounter, even with the greatest men, and of chiefest place, both in the Church and Commonwealth: yea and that, they count their glory. For (as the Comical Poet hath very well observed) Est stu●tis thesarus in lingna situs, 
Plaut. Paenul. Act. 3. Sce. 3.  ●● quaestui habeant, ma●e loqui melioribus: Such men have a whole treasury of evil words in their tongues: and they commonly bestow them upon their betters, thinking, so to improve them to their better advantage. Which quality of theirs, The Apostle Jude likewise expressly observeth in his Epistle, where he giveth this for one note to know these Hypocrites by, 
jud. 8.  that they always be evil speakers, against men in authority. Note such, that you be not deceived by them.  
The second thing which the Apostle observeth in the Hypocrites conflicts, is His manner of encountering with both those sorts of people: which is very differing and unlike unto itself. In this first conflict with women, he Creepeth like a micher: They creep into houses. In his second conflict with men, he standeth up like a Soldier: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They stood up against, even Moses himself. This may seem a strange course, and almost ridiculous, that he should so stoop to women, that is so stout to men; yea and men of place too. But yet, even herein the hypocrite declareth himself to be very wise, in his own generation: imitating precisely the ancient policy of his Father the devil; who, that he might win Adam, 
Ghrys. hom 2. de lapsa Adae.  he laid his battery unto Eve, as Saint Chrysostome observeth, and even so doth likewise the subtle hypocrite, his son: he knoweth well enough, that in gaining of the woman, he commonly gaineth two; he gaineth the husband also, especially if he be an uxorious man: and therefore he still seeketh to lay the foundation of his credit in the minds of women, that so he may be sure to have patrons satis dicaculos, 
Plaut. Asim. Act. 3.50.1.  as the Comic speaketh; that is, such patrons as will prattle enough in his cause, though it be without all reason: which without such submiss and pleasing behaviour, he could never obtain of them. For it is commonly true, in such friends as women be, that Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit: Fawning findeth their favour, 
Terent. Audria. Act. 1.50.1.  but plain dealing their displeasure. Which as it is generally true in their sex, so is it most specially true in their sect. For it once they do grow to to be sectaries and humorists, they must then needs be humoured, or else all is marred. 
Hier. Epist. ad Demetriad  And this is the reason, why he creepeth so to women. Serpit in paucis, ut perveniat ad plurimos, as Saint Hiaerom writeth in an other case.  
Now on the other side, the reason why he standeth up so stoutly against man, yea and men of that high rank, is to venditate himself unto his complices, by seeming not to be a regarder of men's persons, be they never so great, but so far to be possessed with zeal and sincerity, as even to have neglected the regard of his safety, by hazarding himself too far in speech against them. For by this kind of rebelling against such great men, he expecteth to gain no less reputation, then by pleasing the forme● simple women: who (as Saint Hierom writeth, against Ruffinus) do Procacitatem, 
Hier. apol 3. cont. Ruffin.  disertitudinem, & maledicere omnibus, bonae conscientiae signum arbitrari: They in their sottish simplicity, do verily believe, that such their procacity, and satirical uberty in reproving of great persons, must needs be a sure argument of the sincerity of their consciences. And surely you shall see divers of those painted hypocrites, who when they have lavished beyond all bounds of reason, of sobriety and modesty, against both Moses and Aaron, that is against both the Civil and Ecclesiastical Magistrate, in public places; yet can they be content to creep and crouch most basely unto very simple women, in their private houses: much like unto Hercules, who abroad amongst men, was very fierce and terrible; but within doors amongst women, he would permit his mistress to comb his head with her pantofle: 
Terent. Eunuch. Act. 5. Scen. 8.  as the Comike speaketh; Commitigari sandatio caput.  
The third thing that the Apostle observeth in the hypocrites conflicts, is the event & success of his incountering with those persons: which is as divers and unlike, as his encounter itself was. For in his first conflict with the women, he prevailed against them, and led them captive, as the words of the text show: They lead captive simple women, laden with sin. But in his second conflict with those men, he is prevailed against, & himself led captive by the Truth, whilst it gloriously triumpheth over his detected falsehood: They shall prevail no longer, but their madness shall be evident.  
The fourth and last thing which the Apostle observeth, is the instrument and means whereby this success is obtained in both conflicts. In his first, he prevailed against those women, because he was able to lead them captive after him, with divers lusts. With divers: Gloriae pecuniarum, iactantiae, deliciarum, fortassis, & foediores concupiscentias signat, as S. Chrysostome numbereth them. 
Chrys hom. 8. in 2. Tim.  In his second, he is prevailed against by those men, because they are able to lay before him his madness: Their madness shall be evident to all men, as theirs also was. This is the true coherence of this text with the former Scripture; and withal, a short Epitome of the general doctrine of it.  
The particulars that we have to consider in it, may summarily be comprised in these two short Aphorisms: First, That the truth shall always be resisted: And secondly, that it shall in a certain method and order be resisted: namely after the self same manner, that Moses was resisted by jannes' and jambres.  
For the first of those positions, That the truth shall be resisted; her Apostle here confirmeth it by two notable instances: the first of them Historical, taken from the former times: Moses was resisted by jannes' and jambres, two notable enchanters: the second of them Prophetical, given to the latter times: So shall the truth also be resisted by these men: that is, enchanting hypocrites. Which two examples the Apostle only nameth, not for lack of other store; for the continued succession of Roman Bishops (which is so much stood upon) hath been oftener interrupted, and for longer space, than the succession of Heretics, and Schismatics, and such like resisters of the truth hath been, as appeareth by Chronologistes and writers of stories. But he setteth down these two by way of Synecdoche, putting a part for the whole, and a few examples for a many, to avoid prolixity. In which few notwithstanding, by this his comparing of the first times with the last, and of that which hath been, with that which shall be, this appeareth to be an irrefragable Axiom, that The truth shall always be resisted.  
For first, if we take the name of Truth, in his largest and most extended sense, for the general speaking of the truth, as the Apostle Paul doth in his former unto Timothy, 
1. Tim 2.7.  I speak the truth in Christ jesus, and lie not: the truth in this sense is so commonly resisted, that it passeth in every man's mouth as a common proverb, that Veritas odium parit: The reward of speaking the truth is only hatred. Of which unequal measure the Apostle Paul complaineth unto the Galatians: Am I therefore (saith he) become your enemy, 
Gal. 4.16.  because I have spoken the truth unto you? And our Saviour Christ likewise unto the jews: 
john 8.40.  Ye go about to kill me, a man that have spoken the truth unto you.  
Secondly, if we take the name of Truth in a particular and more restrained sense, for the truth of God's religion, and the doctrine of his word, as our Saviour Christ doth in the Gospel of S john; 
john. 17.17.  Sanctify them with thy truth; thy word is truth (in which sense I take it to be taken in this place:) the Truth is in this sense, so naturally resisted, by all that are not the Truths own natural children, that Tertulian hath given us this general observation: 
Tertul. Apo. cap. 7.  Simulatque apparuit veritas, inimica esse coepit: The truth (saith he) no sooner peeped out and appeared, but by and by it began to be hated: yea and that by two contrary sorts of people, as he noteth in that place: Extranei, à quibus quotidie obsidetur: and proprij, à quibus quotidie proditur. The first sort of those resisters of the truth, are strangers and aliens from the common wealth of Israel: such as openly profess, not only the resisting, but also the utter subverting of it; such as were Nabuch●donoser, and Antiochus in the time of the law; the persecuting Emperors in the time of the Gospel; and the Turk in our time; professed and sworn enemies, not only of the faith, but also of the very name of Christians. The second sort of those resisters of the truth (and they much more dangerous) are dissembling Hypocrites, of whom this text more poperly speaketh: such as pretend to assist the truth, but intent to resist it; by secretly supplanting it, and planting manifold errors under the name of it. 
Act. 20.30.  Of which sort of persons, the Apostle Paul foretelleth us, that even of ourselves, there shall such men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after them. Such as do veritatem, non veritate docere, 
Aug. lib 4. de doct. Christ. cap. 27.  as S. Augustine speaketh: They sometimes speak the truth, but seldom truly: which is a perverse thing: for as Tertullian noteth in the forealleadged place; Ne tunc quidem cum aliquid veri afferunt, sine mendacij vitio sunt: They seek to deceive, even whilst they speak the truth; because they speak the truth but with a lying heart, as they did in S. Paul's time, 
Philip. 1.16.  who preached the truth but only for contention; and a many like in our time, who oftentimes abus● the speaking of the truth, but only to the venting of som● private affection: which prevaricating kind of speaking of the truth, is indeed nothing else but a resisting of the truth: it is nothing else but only ars fallendi, ut per bona, facilius per suadere possint mala, 
Vincent. cap. 17.  as Vincentius Lirinensis noteth: that is, an Art of deceiving, that so under the countenance of a few smaller truths, they may bring the better credit to a many greater errors.  
Of which hypocritical resisters of the truth, there be two divers kinds. The first of them are such as hold the truth in small things, but resist it in greater matters, as even now I noted: such as were false Prophets in the the time of the law, and deceitful heretics, in the time of the Gospel: both which the Apostle Peter yoaketh together in one sentence: As there were false Prophets amongst the people, so shall there be also false teachers amongst you, 
1. Pet. 2.1.  which privily shall bring in damnable heresies.  
The second sort of hypocritical resisters of the truth, do seem to be clean contrary unto the former: for they hold the truth in greater matters, but resist it in smaller: about which (notwithstanding) they stir up no small stirs. 
1. Cor. ●●. 10. 1. Cor. 11.18.  Such as the Church calleth Schismatics, who contend for trifles, as it were for life and limbs, making a great conscience where they should not, but none at all where they should: as divers men amongst us do; who for caps, and Surplices, Holy days, and Crosses, and such like smaller matters, belonging only unto order, & external regiment, have made in our Church a dangerous faction and rent: making head against their heads, and crying out like unto Libertines, (or rather indeed like seditious Tribunes) that all our Christian liberty is utterly betrayed, because in these matters the private fancy of every idle head may not countermand the authority of a public law: and yet covering all this their gross disobedience under an outward cloak of religion and conscience.  
But howsoever those men may seem to please and applaud themselves, in making a conscience to resist the Magistrate, 
Rom. 13.5.  whom the Apostle Paul commandeth them even for Conscience, to obey: yet sure I am of this, that Saint Augustine is so far from allowing of this their disobedience to be conscience, that he openly pronounceth it to be indeed nothing else, but only a true resisting of the truth: Cui nisi ipsi veritati resistitur (saith he) cum regi, 
Aug. li. 3. cont. Epist. Parmenian.  ex veritate iubenti, resistitur: What do men resist, but only the very truth, when they resist the lawful commandment of their Prince? A wise and a true censure.  
Thus you see that the truth shall surely be resisted, both by many men, and by many means. And therefore, no man ought to be so weak minded, as to call the truth of the truth in question, because he seeth it to be resisted, or heareth it to be boldly contradicted. 
Hier. in cap. 4. ad Galat.  For (as S. Hierom truly noteth) Haec est conditio veritatis, ut eam semper inimicitiae per sequantur: This is the state, yea, and the fate, of the truth, that it always shallbe persecuted by the tongues of his enemies. And this contradiction against it, is one special note to know it. And therefore the speaking against the truth, (though with never such confidence and undertaking) yet ought not either to scandalise or discourage any man, which truly and sincerely seeketh after the truth. Because if you examine the reasons of such contradictors, (as every wise Christian ought to do) you shall find them Most deceitful upon the weights, 
1. john 4.1. Psal. 62.9.  yea and altogether lighter than vanity itself. As notably appeared in that renowned Conference, which was held for the reducing of our resisters of the truth: wherein all the great challenges of their greatest undertakers, were found to be just nothing, 
Persius. Satyr. 4.  but swollen and windy bladders; Builatae nugae, as the Poet speaketh. This briefly for the first position, That the truth shall always be resisted.  
Let us now come to the second: How the truth shall be resisted: which (as you see) must be done, by a kind of pattern; As Moses was resisted by jannes' and jambres.  
Let us therefore now examine, who this jannes' and jambres were, and after what manner they resisted Moses: for it is not thoroughly agreed upon by all expositors.  
Some take this jannes' and jambres, to be Corah and his consorts, 
Aret. in 2. Tim. 3.  who resisted the authority of Moses in the wilderness. Now the manner after which they resisted him, was this: they being high minded and ambitious persons, and even burnt up with envy of other men's honours and preferments, which they themselves affected, and thought themselves more worthy of, if they might be their own judges, they made a great Schism, and a dangerous commotion about the rule and authority of Moses and Aron: and so gathering a great company of their own condition and quality, they intended flat rebellion, if God himself had not stayed them: 
Num. 16 3.  telling Moses and Aaron, that they took too much upon them, in making themselves Lords over the rest of their brethren. And adding this, for a reason; that the whole congregation, was as holy as they, and that God was with one man, as well as with an other. Yea and one of their grand exceptions was this (as josephus reporteth) that they did, 
joseph lib. 4. Anti quit. cap. 2.  Sacerdotium absque Populi suff●agio gerere: That they were not elected to their places by the people: though they could not be ignorant, but that they both had been elected by God himself before. So that the main ends which especially they aimed at, were principally two, Parity, and Popularity: the two deadly banes of all good order, and of civil policy, and the beaten paths to confusion and Anarchy.  
In which their commotion, this is worthy the noting: that those great reformers, which sought thus to pull down both Moses and Aaron, as two usurpers, sought to set up themselves into the self same places, as Moses directly objecteth unto them: Seemeth it a small thing (saith he unto Corah) that God hath severed thee from the multitude of Israel, 
Ver. 8, 9  and all thy brethren, the sons of Levi with thee; and do ye also seek the office of the priest? Mark, the Levites cry out against pride and ambition of Priests; as certain male contented Ministers do likewise against Bishops, whom God hath made their rulers: but what is the drift and end of such their declamations? only that which was theirs: that these being displaced, they might creep into their rooms. So that it is not humility, but it is another pride, which driveth such men, so hotly to declaim against pride. And this was the resisting of jannes' and jambres, in the former times, if by them be meant Corah, and his mutinous companions.  
Let us now look down into those latter times, and see whether the truth hath not been resisted, after the self same manner with us here at home, that it was then with him. Have there not stood up amongst us, certain ambitious and seditious Corahs', of the tribe of Levi, who bursting with envy at the honour and preferment of the reverend Fathers and Governors of our Church, who sit in Moses chair, have both by word and writing endeavoured to resist them, and thereby to extenuate, or rather indeed exterminate all their lawful authority and jurisdiction, under the pretence of a new reformation? Have they not told them plainly, that they take too much upon them, in setting up themselves above their fellow Ministers, who ought to be all equals? 2. Have they not brought for themselves the same allegation that those seditious persons did, that all the people of God are holy, and that every Minister is as good as a Bishop, and aught to have as great authority as he? Is it not one of their chiefest grievances, that the election of Ministers is not subjecteth unto the people's suffrages, who are their great masters, and whom they servilely observe with all addicted obsequiousness? Have they not made as great and as dangerous a schism in this own Church, about these matters, as ever the other did in the Church of the jews? And (that which is the prime point of all the rest) do not their own writings declare, that all that rule and authority which they would take away from our reverend prelacy, they would assume again, and cunningly convey unto themselves, under the name of the Presbytery? All this is more than manifest, unto men of any reach if they have but with half an eye looked into the peremptory dealing and practice of their presumptuous Consistory, and of that enormous and unlimited claim, which it layeth unto all authority, both Ecclesiastical and Civil.  
But the same God which denied success unto that Schism, hath also restrained the proceedings of this: (his name be praised for it:) for the very ground & foundation whereupon these men builded their imaginary Babel and towers in the air, hath begun long ago, to sink under their feet, as it did with those mutineers: so that a great part of them are swallowed up by it; and the rest are fast following unto the centre of Shisme: only the cry of a few of the hindmost may still be heard amongst us, as they are in sinking down: which can not much longer be irksome and tedious because they be in the way to silence. And thus much for the former application of this story, if by jannes' and jambres be understood Corah and his seditious company.  
Now other expositors (and those the greater number) do expound this otherwise: affirming this jannes' and jambres, to be those two Egyptian sorcerers which resisted Moses in the presence of King Pharaoh. Now the manner after which they resisted him, was this: When as Moses & Aaron were sent into Egypt to deliver the Israelites from their slavery and bondage, they avouched to King Pharaoh, that The Lord God of Israel had sent them on that message; and for the proof of their assertion, they confirmed their embassage by divers signs and strange wonders, which could not be wrought, but by the finger of God. Against whom there stood up this jannes' & jambres: two brethren against two: and they undertook that all their signs and wonders were but merely sophistical, and that themselves (by enchantments) could do as great things as any they had done.  
In which their encounter, they seemed (in three miracles) to have gotten a kind of conquest and victory over them: In turning their rods into serpents; in bringing in of frogs; and in changing their water into blood: all which those enchanters did, as well as the Prophets.  

Hugo Cardinalis.  Upon which accident, a learned Father hath allegorized in this manner: This threefold attempt of these sorcerers against Moses shadoweth out a threefold engine, whereby the truth shall be resisted in these latter days. First, by the subtlety of serpents: Secondly, by the garrulity of frogges● and thirdly, by the cruelty of blood. By all which means indeed the truth hath been resisted, even in these our days, as well as in his: as if we shall but call to mind the proceedings of those Hypocrites, which have resisted our Moses we may well perceive.  
For first, as concerning the subtlety of Serpents. The Serpent's policy is this: when he seeketh to creep and wind himself into any place, he will first begin to try whether he can wrest in his head: which if he can effect, he will by and by draw his whole body in after it: and even so those subtle and those venomous Serpents, which have of late so stung this worthy Church of England, and like a cruel generation of Vipers, have gnawn even in sunder the bowels of their mother, they began their pretended reformation at the first but with a few smaller matters.  
All was well a great while, but the cap and the surplice: whilst the Serpent had thrust and wrung in his head; but when he saw that this was hearkened to a while, then drew he in a greater part of his body: then was our whole liturgy nothing but a mass of corruption; & our Communion book nothing but a Compendium of the Mass book. When this was listened to a little, then must the whole form of our Church government be changed: for our Clergy were nothing but an Antichristian hierarchy. here the Serpent had wrested in almost all his whole body. When this a while had been admitted, then by and by after was our Church counted no Church, but a company of reprobates, and a very den of thieves. No Church, no Word, no Sacraments amongst us, as there ought to be. Our Priests, they were counted but for idle Priests, and our people, they not counted as a flock of Christ's sheep, but as a herd of filthy swine; for even unto this height and extremity of madness have some of our reformers grown, upon the same grounds and principles that the first reformers laid down, as their own main foundations.  
And this is the bringing in of the Serpent's very tail. For the tail doth not follow the head more naturally than this conclusion followeth upon their premises, if they once be admitted: as they that be learned do right well understand.  
And now I permit it unto your own judgement and wisdom, to consider, whether these be not the men of whom this Apostle speaketh in the chapter next before; that their words shall spread and fret like a canker: 
2. Tim. 2.17.  which eateth further and further, until it have eaten and consumed the whole body, as this doctrine of these men hath the body of our Church, until at last they have brought it (as you see) to be no Church.  
And surely these men be indeed the very Gangrenes and Cankers of our Church, which will never leave fretting until they be cut off (the proper cure of that evil) though never so many medicines be applied unto them, as we see by experience. And therefore that those fiery Serpents may be rightly charmed, it is almost necessary, that (as the Prophet Isai speaketh) both head and tail of them be cut off: 
Isai. 9.14.  and that the rod of Aaron, that is, of the Magistrate should even eat them up, as it did the Serpents of jannes' and jambres; otherwise they will never leave both hissing and stinging.  
I speak not this to exasperate authority against such as be curable, nor to stir up against them any cruel persecution; of which they still complain: though indeed they themselves be the true persecuting Isma●ls: who (for lack of greater power) do still infest their brethren with all the several kinds of verbal persecution, Slandering, Scoffing, Threatening, 
Dangerous positions. lib. ●. cap. 11.12, 13.  Railing, libeling, and what not? But yet for all that, I wish that this cutting-off might be such (if it may be) as our Saviour Christ himself exhorteth us unto, when he willeth us to cut off our hands and our feet, that is, so to sever the vice or the error, that we may save the member. But if this fretting canker have so far possessed them, that they be grown incurable, 
Mark 9.43, 45.  then is it neither against Policy, nor yet against Charity, for the safety of the whole, to cut off such festered and infected parts: but rather, it is great cruelty not to do it. As notably appeareth, even in the Apostle Paul himself; 
Rom. 9 3.  whose Charity, though it were so exceedingly abounding, or rather indeed overflowing, that he wished even himself to be cut off, 
Gal. 5.12.  for the found parts of the Church: yet for those cankered and infected parts, which tended unto the destruction of the whole, (being in very deed, 
Cic. lib. Epist. ad Brutum. Epist. ●.  rather Vlcera, then membra) he wisheth, on the other side, utinam abscindantur, qui vos inquietant: Would God they were even cut off, who seek to disquiet you. Whose godly example, is patronage enough: it making both a wise and a necessary distinction between true Christian charity and vain: foolish pity, of which the Orator truly writeth, that Salutaris severitas vincit inanem speciem clementiae: Wise and wholesome severity, is far more profitable, than that vain and foolish pity. And this briefly for the first engine of those enchanting hypocrites, whereby they have endeavoured to resist the truth: which is, The subtlety of serpents.  
The second, is the croaking and garrulity of frogs, as that Father termeth it, by which means they have likewise attempted to resist it. 
Apo. 12.8, 9  For when that old serpent, the deadly enemy of the Church, found that by open oppugning it he could not prevail against it, he spewed out of his mouth, a swarm of frogs, as that other serpent did, which we read of in the Apocalpies: 
Apo. 16.13.  that is, a fry of young Schismatics; who being as bold as the frogs of Egypt have not only infested the whole land with their croaking, but have also climbed up into the chamber of the King, as impudently as they did: yea they have crauled upon his sacred person with their dirty feet, and have crept up into his very crown, where they have blotted out the fairest of all his titles, I mean the title of his supremacy, and ascribed the same unto their Presbytery, as their writings show most plainly.  
Yea and being yet more mad, and swelling (like Aesop's frog) with greater pride of themselves, even to the cracking of their skins, they have challenged to the combat, even Moses and Aaron, to dispute the case before the King himself, and all the Princes of the land as jannes' and jambres did. But being undertaken, they have been found, upon the trial, to be as blind as bold: and all that they could say to be indeed nothing else, but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aristophanes speaketh, 
Aristoph in Ranis. Act. 1. Scene 5.  that is, A hoarse and harsh croaking of unreasonable frogs. Who though they were at that time, as sound charmed, by some of our most reverend and learned Bishops, as certain frogs in France were once by Bishop Regulus, 
Marul. lib 3. cap. 4.  which have continued dumb & silent ever since, like Seriphian frogs; yet, our frogs (less modest) continue still to trouble the whole land with their croaking: 
Suidas.  as though nothing had ever been spoken against them. Notwithstanding, that action was both begun and proceeded in, with as great a solemnity and preparation, as ever was any since the time of great Constantine: our Constantine himself, in his own royal person, vouchsafing to sustain the greatest part of the burden; and with admirable dexterity to confound their garrulity.  
The third and last mean, whereby the truth shall be resisted by this brood of hypocrisy is, The cruelty of blood. Of which although it may truly be said (Gods name be praised for it) that As yet we have not resisted unto blood, 
Heb. 12.4.  as it is in the Epistle unto the Hebrews: yet that must be ascribed, rather unto Gods most merciful dispensation, then unto their merciful disposition. For that they intended blood, yea and blood upon blood, 
Daug. posit P. 144.145, 147, 170.  their divulged libels show, threatening Fists, and Clubs, and Bicker, that shall make all our hearts ache, yea and Blood spilled by butchers. They be their own words, and I gather no more than their own pens have scattered: and that they were not in jest when they threatened these things, their own overt actitions commenting upon their inward intentions, have notably declared. Their strength was surveyed, their army mustered, 
Ibid. p. 141.  and found to be an hundred thousand hands strong, as they themselves have boasted, if happily their muster-maister was not deceived. Nay the sword was almost drawn, to have struck a deadly stroke, yea and that even at our sovereign head. The sign was given by them, and the trumpeters themselves were mounted up aloft, but it was but in a cart (a worthy chariot for such worthless persons) but yet even there they sounded unto the battle, proscribing by name divers honourable Counsellors, and intending, by a more effectual Metamorphosis then ever jannes' and jambres did, to have turned the water of our rivers into blood. All this is well known unto those that do remember the furious commotion of Haccket and Copinger; which (as all men know) was not done in a corner, but proclaimed in the open streets of our chiefest city, and all this for the furthering of the new pretended Discipline. But it pleased the Lord in mercy, to confound their conspiracy, and by the blood of a few to spare the blood of many in pouring that blood which they thought to have shed, by his merciful providence, upon their own head. And so be it unto all that seek the trouble of Israel. Whereunto let every true heart say, Amen.  
FINIS.   

An answer unto certain objections, of one unresolved, as concerning the use of the Cross in Baptism.  
Vestra solum legitis, vestra amatis, caeteros, causa incognita, condemnatis.  Cic. lib. 2. de Nat. Deor. 
Peccat, qui damnat quasi peccata, quae nulla sunt.  Aug. lib. 3. de libero arbitr. cap. 15. 
Primus felicitatis gradus est, non delinquere: secundus, delicta cognoscere.  Cyprian, Cornelio. 

The Obiectors preface.  
FIrst, I humbly desire, that this may be interpreted, as not done of me, in derogation of the book of Common-prayer, which I have ever used with reverence and respect: nor, of contradiction to the Estate, or opposition to authority, to which I have ever submitted myself. Secondly, in all the time of my forbearance, I would have it known and considered, that I never inveighed against it, or condemned others that did use it, or dissuaded any from doing it: and carried my forbearance so, as none (or few) espied what I did; upon care not to be offensive by mine example. My conformity in other things showeth, that this is omitted, neither contentiously, nor contemptiously.   

Answer.  
FOr the protestation used in this preface, I rest charitably persuaded, because it is made, both by one who best knows what hath been done in that matter; and by one, who (as I trust) for the fear of God, would not make any protestation, contrary to his practice.  
I likewise desire, that, what I shall write in answer of these objections, may be held and esteemed, as mine own free judgement: begotten in me, only by an indifferent inquisition into these causes, and not imposed upon me, by an overweening opinion of any men's persons, that have waded before me in the search of these questions: whose reasons, in many points, I may happily follow, but, their authority without reason, in none at all.   

The first objection.  
First, by forbearing it I was sure I did not sin: by using it, I doubted lest I should have sinned, seeing it hath neither word of Christ, nor example of the Apostles to warrant it: And whatsoever is done doubtfully, is sin to him that doth it.   

Answer.  
As concerning both your positions, delivered in the ingress of this first objection, my judgement is opposed ex diametro, unto yours. That if you had used the sign of the cross (it being so enjoined you, by a Christian law) you might have been sure that you had not sinned: but having forborn it, you could not but know, that therein you greatly sinned. My reason is this, because, Sin is nothing else but a transgressing of the law, either Divine, or Human, where divine doth not resist it. 
1. john 3.4. 1. Pet. 2.13.  And therefore your yielding obedience unto such a law, must needs yield you assurance, that therein you sinned not. On the other side, your detracting of obedience from such a law, must needs resolve you as fully, that therein you sinned, as you knew assuredly, the law was by you transgressed: both these consequents be grounded upon the Apostles own definition of sin, of which you could not be ignorant.  
Ob. But happily, you will say, that sin is but only a transgression of the law of God, and not of the law of man: Such as the cross is.  
Resp. I answer, that whosoever disobeyeth the law of man, commanding in things of indifferent nature, he therein transgresseth the law of God, and consequently committeth sin. 
1. Pet. 2.13.  For, the Apostle Peter commandeth us to submit ourselves, not only unto the law of God, but also unto the ordinances of man, and that, for the Lords sake. Which place of Saint Peter, either giveth the Magistrate commission to command, and enjoineth the subject submission to obey, in matters of indifferencies, or else is he clean stripped of all power and authority.  
Ob. But you say: that though you knew it were commanded by law, yet, you doubting still of the lawfulness of it, and taking it rather to be legitimum, then licitum, this doubting, had turned your obedience into sin.  
Resp. It is very true indeed: and therefore, I doubt not, but that your very doubting in this case, was your sin: nay, many sins bound together: it being both the effect, and the cause, and the body of sin in you: The effect, because it proceeded, from ignorance of the truth. And again, because (as a learned Divine noteth) Conscientia nimis scrupulosa, 
Aspilcuet.  nascitur ex vitio, vel naturali, vel acquisito: the cause of sin, because it produced disobedience in you, and that unto a most ancient, and a most general Christian law: and the body of sin, 
Alter. staig Lex. Theo.  because it kept you from assenting unto the truth: for, in doubting there can be no determination, and therefore no assenting, be the thing whereof we doubt, never so true and certain. Which suspense and vncertain●● in matter of duty, even the Heathens define to be a great sin. Qui deliberant utrum id sequantur quod honestum esse videant aut se scientes scelere contaminent, 
●ic. lib. 3. office  in ipsa dubitatione inest facinus▪  
So that, your doubting, was not only a sin, but also a sin out of measure sinful, corrupting your best actions, and entangling your conscience, with a most un-avoidable necessity of sinning. If you obey, you sin against your own persuasion: if you disobey, you sin against the law, which you ought to obey, 
Rom. 13.5.  even for conscience sake: an indissoluble knot. Whereby even your future obedience, (if you shall return ad meliorem mentem) yet will carry this evil with it, as to accuse & condemn your former disobedience. For (as Tertullian reasoneth in an other like matter) Qui hody non deliquit suscepta corona, deliquit aliquando recusata. 
Tertul. lib. de Coron. cap. 2.  If you do not then offend when you observe the cross, you must needs have offended, when you refused it. This is the fair fruit of your needless scrupulosity, that it maketh one part of your life, to give in evidence against an other.  

Note this.  Now, if your doubting (as you say) do corrupt your obedience, and turn that into sin: do you think that it acquitteth your disobedience from sin? Or can you think that it is no sin, to go against a grounded law, when you think it so great a sin, 
Cic lib 5. Tusc. Tom. 4  to go against an ungrounded opinion? I doubt not, but, if these two sins were put into Critolaus his balance together, your sin against the law, would appear much the heavier For (as Tertullian noteth, in the forecited place) Nec nullum, nec incertum videri potest delictum quod committitur, in obseruationem satis auctoratam, such as the cross is. 
1. Sam. 15, 22 23.  And, as the Prophet Samuel teacheth us Disobedience, is as the sin of witchcraft, which must needs make your sin against the law (being the sin of disobedience) to be much more grievous, than the sin against your persuasion, it being but erroneous.  
Ob. But you will say, that that disobedience which is there so condemned, was disobedience unto the commandment of God.  
Resp. And I say, that it is the commandment of God, that we should obey the magistrate. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. 
Rom. 13, 1, 2.  For there is no power but of God.  
Whosoever therefore resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God. Neither ought we only to obey the magistrate in those things which God himself commandeth but also, even in those which only man ordaineth, 
1 Pet. 2.13.  as the Apostle Peter expressly teacheth us. Submit yourselves unto all manner ordinance of man, for the Lords sake. Mark, unto all ordinances of man, not being opposed to the ordinances of God, as the cross is not. Yea, and these we must obey, even for conscience sake, 
Rom. 13.5  as the Apostle Paul teacheth us, in the forecited place. We must be subject (saith he) not only for wrath but also for conscience sake: which sentence hath oftentimes made me to wonder, at the strange misshapen conscience of many men in our days; who make a great conscience of not observing the cross, and other like ceremonies of the Church, where they have no scripture to guide their conscience: and yet make no conscience of breaking Godly laws which the scriptures command them, for conscience sake to observe.  
Ob. But you say, that this sign of the cross, having neither any word of Christ, nor example of Apostles to confirm & approve it, your conscience would not suffer you, to yield obedience unto it.  
Resp. I answer, that it having again, neither any word of Christ, nor Apostles example to infirm and reprove it, this proveth it to be in his own nature indifferent: and so, to be put in the power of the magistrate, to command or forbid, as occasions may induce it. And therefore, it being (out of doubt) by the magistrate commanded, no man ought to make a doubt whether it should be obeyed. 
Euseb. lib. 12. de praeparat. Euangel. cap. 1  For (as Eusebius observeth out of Plato) they which be private persons, must neither disputare, nor dubitare de legibus, but simpliciter parere. Which branch of Plato's law, he censureth to be consonant to the heavenly law of God. With whom, in this point of simple obedience consenteth Tertullian, allowing much better of our simple obeying then of our subtle enquiring into things of this nature. 
Tertul. lib de coron. cap. 2  Lando fidem (saith he) quae antè credit obseruandum esse, quam didicit.  
The equity of which rule, even you yourself, and divers other, by your practice do confess, in yielding your obedience to the cap and surplice, and many other ceremonies of our English Church. And therefore I desire but to know some good reason, why you do not the like, to the cross in baptism. What commandment of Christ, or what example of Apostles have you for the surplice? or what special warrant and rule for your conscience, save only this general rule of obedience? And therefore you must show by the commandment of Christ, or example of the Apostles, either that the surplice is more allowed than the cross, or that the cross is more condemned than the surplice, or else, you must follow that rule of obedience, as well in the one, as you do in the other, otherwise you shall plainly declare unto the world, that you play but fast & lose with the name of your conscience: which when you will, is bound, and when you will, is free: having so none other rule for it, but only your own will, which is a crooked rule.  
Again, if your conscience were so scrupulized by your doubting, it must needs be, because you knew no light of scripture to give you resolution, 
Sum. aurea.  either on the one side, or on the other. For, Dubitatio, is, in neutram partem consensio. Now, you being thus uncertainly poised, why did you rather propend unto that side, which led you unto disobedience, then unto the other, which led you unto dutiful and Christian obedience? That way which you went, you had nothing to carry you, but only the blast of a windy opinion: yea & not that neither, for your opinion was not settled: that other way which you left, you had two great weights so sway you: viz. the authority of the law, both spiritual, and temporal, and the practice of the Church, both ancient, and modern: a very heavy counterpoise, & therefore I wonder, how you could set them so light, especially you having no such weighty authority to uncertain you, 
Tertul. lib. de coron. cap. 4.  as the Church's example might have been to resolve you; which even in this particular case of the cross, hath both traditionem auctricem, and consuetudinem confirmatricem: & therefore aught to have, fidem obseruatricem, as Tertullian in the forecited book observeth. So that, surely you strained at a gnat, & swallowed up a Camel, when you were so superstitious in not offending against your own private opinion, and so little religious in offending against the Churches public direction.  
Ob. But perhaps you will say, that you will not be led by the examples of men, nor pin your conscience upon other men's sleeves.  
Resp. I answer, first for the examples of men, that though they be not always to be generally followed, without all exception: nor rashly, without due examination; yet, in scruple of conscience, when we lack the direction of the word of God, I do not think that the breach of law, & contempt of the church's example, is the safest way to keep a good conscience. S. Augustine had so high an estimation of the Church's example, 
Look: Calvin. lib. 4. Inst cap. 1. Sec. 10. Aug. lib. cont. Epist. fundam. cap. 5.  that, in the main foundation of all religion, that which led him especially unto a resolution, was the example & authority of the Church Ego vero (saith he) evangelio non crederem, nisi me caetholicae ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. This great opinion had he of the Church's example, that in a matter of greatest weight, it prevailed more with him to gain his assent, than any other reason, or argument could do. And therefore, in such intricate and doubtful suspension, he giveth us this good rule for our direction. Quae vera perspexeris tene: 
Aug. lib. de vera relig. cap. 10.  quae falsa, respue: quae dubia crede: donec aut respuenda esse, aut semper creden●a, vel ratio doceat, vel authoritas pracipiat. A very sound rule, & fit to be observed in every Church, by all the particular members of it: wherein he prescribeth no more unto us, than he had subscribed unto himself, as evidently appeareth out of the former place: whose judgement & practice concurring both together, ought not be so lightly esteemed of us, especially, we having, in this case of the cross (beside his authority, & the example of the Church) both rationem docentem and authoritatem praecipientem, either of which (in his judgement) were sufficient arguments to lead us to obedience.  
Ob. But you say, you will not pin your conscience upon other men's sleeves.  
Resp. I answer, that in matters of faith, where you may have the light of the holy Scripture for your full instruction, it is not simply good to pin your conscience upon the sleeves of men, though how far Saint Augustine did yield, even in this case, I have before declared. But, in matters of order and obedience (such as the observation of the cross is) the scriptures themselves do pin your conscience unto other men's sleeves. For, in things in different commanded for order's sake (where the authority of the Magistrate goeth before) there the conscience of the subject aught to lead him after, as if it were pinned unto the Magistrate's sleeve, by the concurring judgements of the two chief Apostles, 
1. Pet. 2.13. Rom. 13.5.  Peter and Paul, of whom, the one commandeth us, to submit ourselves to all ordinances of men, for the Lords sake: the other, to obey them, even for conscience sake. Therefore (to shut up this first objection) I conclude with Plato: Si positioni non credis, 
Plato in Theatet.  reprobare debes: Si reprobare non potes, positioni credes. Either prove you that the cross is a thing against conscience, or else, yield obedience unto it, for conscience sake.   

The second objection.  
Whereas, order, and comeliness, are the grounds of such things as the Church may add; I have doubted that this sign exceedeth both these, because there is given it a spiritual signification, of our valour in confessing Christ boldly.   

Answer.  
The sign of the cross, as we now use it, is neither against comeliness, nor against good order, but very consonant unto both; 
Instit. lib. 4. cap 10. Sect. 28.29.  even by Calvin's own description of comeliness and order: and therefore (by your own rule grounded upon Saint Paul) may lawfully be added and used by our church. Now, if (besides these two forenamed commodities) it have also a third, 
Tertul. lib. de Coron. cap. 3.  to wit, a spiritual signification, yea and that such a one, as hath not only been allowed, but also affected in the primitive church, this ought not to debar the use of it amongst us, but rather, to infer, that it ought to be in use. For the very same Apostle which prescribeth the two former rules, 
1. Cor. 14.26.40.  of order and comeliness, in the very same chapter prescribeth a third, of greater importance than they both, to wit, that they tend unto edification. And except our ceremonies be thus conditioned, they ought not in any Christian church to be used: 
Calvin. lib. 4. Instit. cap. 10. sect 32.  as Caluine himself noteth: Totum obseruationum usum & finem, ad ecclesiae aedificationem referamus, saith he: referring not only their intended end, but also their daily use, unto the edification of the church.  
Ob. But you say, that to have a spiritual signification, is to exceed the nature of a ceremony, and to draw it unto a higher quality: 
Whitgift▪ p. 190.  Perhaps you mean, unto the nature of a sacrament. For that is T. C. conceit, from whom (I guess) you borrowed it.  
Resp. But therein you greatly mistake the matter. For, not only Sacraments, but also ceremonies too, aught to have their spiritual signification, of which if they be destitute, they utterly degenerate into vain and idle gesticulations: neither is there any reason, why such should have any place in the Church. 
Col. 2.17. Heb. 8.5. & 10.1. Hier. in Galat.  The Apostle saith of ceremonies, that they be shadows of things to come; of good things; and of heavenly things. Saint Hierom saith, that they be not only shadows, but also eminencies too: he calleth them, imagines and exemplaria futurorum; which ought no less to be observed in our Christian ceremonies, than it was in the jewish. For as Saint Augustine observeth) Whosoever observeth any ceremony or sign, 
Aug. lib. 3. cap. 9 de doct. Christiana.  and not understandeth what thing it doth signify, he doth servire sub signo, he is a slave & a servant unto the outward sign: but he that observeth it, knowing the signification of it he serveth not the sign, but the thing whereunto it is referred. Yea and Calvin allowing ceremonies in all christian Churches, 
Cal: lib: 4. Instit cap: 10. sect: 14.  requireth these three conditions in them: that they have, In numero paucitatem: In observatione facilitatem; and in significati●ne dignitatem. So that both Augustine and Calvin do make this spiritual signification, (of which you do seem to be so greatly afraid) to be in all ceremonies a necessary condition And therefore Calvin reproveth the ceremonies of the Papists, 
Ibid:  not for having a signification, but for the darkness & obscurity of their signification, comparing them, in that place, ad scenam histrionicam, and, ad magicam incantationem, for this only reason, because they be, Cerimoniae non intellectae. And, in the conclusion, giveth this general censure of them. Illas omnes caeremonias corruptas esse, et noxias, per quas homines ad Christum non diriguntur, so that he maketh Christ to be the body of our ceremonies, as well as of the jewish, & not only alloweth, but also exacteth a signification of them. The like doth also Peter Martyr, in his epistle to Bishop Hooper, 
Pet: Mart Epist ad Hooperum.  being troubled (as it seemeth) with this self-same scruple, that you are. Quomodo (says he) privabimus eccle●●am hac libertate, ut non possit suis ritibus aliquid signisicare? And, he bringeth in the same place, a most pregnant example, out of the Apostle Paul, 
1. Cor: 11.5.7.10. Ephes. 5.22.  which confirmeth his judgement For he not only commandeth wives to be subject to their husbands, by direct precept, but he also ordaineth, that by this significant ceremony they should express it, to come always to the Church with their heads covered ●n which ceremony, as you see, beside comel●nes and order, he hath a respect, to a Godly signification: finally, the most Divines that I have red (beside comeliness and order) require in all ceremonies, that they tend directlly unto edification. Now edify they can not, unless both they have a signification, and that signification be likewise understood. Unknown ceremonies (as unknown tongues) cannot possibly edify, if by interpretation they be not made known. Yea even the Reformers themselves require this properly in all their ceremonies. 
Cal: lib. 4. Instit cap: 10. Sect: 29.  Calvin saith, that Ceremoniae must be pietatis excercitia, quae ad Christum eecte nos deducant. Goulartius, in his Annotations upon the 74. Epistle of Saint Cyprian, 
Cyprian. Pompeio.  to Pompeius saith, that Rites and cermonies must always have regard, not only of order, but also of edification too. Yea and even T. C. himself (forgetting the danger, 
Page: 8.  which (before) he feigned, of making ceremonies, sacraments, if they had any signification) yet elsewhere yieldeth that they ought to have it. For in one place he affirmeth, tha● (beside the ends by you named, of comeliness and order) they ought to be done unto edification, 
Whitgift P. 86.  making this a distinct head from those two forementioned. Whereby it is evident, that he intendeth that ceremonies should otherwise edify, then only by their comeliness and order. Which they cannot do without a signification. 
278.  In an other place he affirmeth, that Ceremonies ought to be helpers, to promote the Doctrine of the Church, which how they should do I know not, 
599.  if they signify not▪ & therefore the Authors of the admonition doubt not, to add to their ceremonies a signification. For they would abolish kneeling for popery, and establish sitting at the communion, adding this for a reason: because sitting doth better express the mystery of Christ's holy supper. Because, by sitting, we signify rest, and a full finishing of all legal ceremonies in jesus Christ. So that they never doubted that the adding of a signification unto a ceremony, would be the institution of a new sacrament: belike this conceit of yours was not then hatched. How these men agree with Cartwright, or he with Calvin, yea or with himself, I leave for those men to reconcile whom it most concerneth, and who have found in their consciences the inconvenience, of following his ungrounded fantasies: but if our reformers do not corrupt the supper of Christ by adding a significant ceremony unto it; why should we be thought to corrupt the baptism of Christ, by adding a like significant sign unto it. Therefore by all the forecited both reasons and authorities it appeareth, that it is no sin in a ceremony, to have a signification, but rather, a folly, if it lack one, as Saint Augustine truly teacheth us: Who maketh it a sufficient reason, 
Aug. epist. ad januar▪ 119. cap. 19  why the Church should reject them, when they see no sufficient reason, why it did accept them: as they cannot in those ceremonies, that be brutish and insignificant, what reason can be alleged, why any such should be accepted?   

The third objection.  
Seeing our church, according to the Scriptures, hath abandoned all monuments of superstition: and the sign of the cross in baptism, 
Monumentum, quasi monens mentem.  is apt to breed a present remembrance of that horrible idolatry committed by it, in the synagogue of Rome: I have doubted how we can retain it, for peril of falling into idolatry.   

Answer.  
For the preamble of this third objection, That our church hath abandoned all monuments of superstition, it is a very true position: and therefore that the cross (as our church useth it) should be a monument of superstition, implieth a contradiction.  
The rest of this objection is so loose and untrussed, that I see not how it should be to your purpose ad-apted. But (if you will admit of my divination) I guess that this must be your reason.  
Whatsoever is dangerous to lead us to idolatry, that aught to be avoided in the service of God: But the sign of the cross in Baptism, is such, Ergo. The proposition of which argument you taking for granted, bestow your whole proof upon the Assumption, which you strengthen by this reason.  
Whatsoever is apt to breed a remembrance of the horrible idolatry committed by it in the Synagogue of Rome, that is dangerous to lead us unto idolatry. But the sign of the cross in baptism is such, ergo. 
This whole objection is more fully answered. pag ●●.   
In these two Syllogisms (as I conceive it) is the whole strength and force of this objection contained: let us therefore examine the several parts, as well of your Protosyllogisme, as of your Prosyllogisme.  
First therefore, for the proposition of your former Syllogism; that, whatsoever is dangerous to lead us to idolatry, that aught to be avoided in the service of God. This word [Dangerous] is a word of ambiguous signification, importing either that, which naturally and necessarily carrieth danger with it: or, that which only casually, and accidentally may give some occasion of danger by it. In both which senses this word Dangerous is used in one sentence, in the scripture: 
Act. 19, 27.  where, Demetrius speaking against the doctrine of Saint Paul, he saith, that it is Dangerous, not only to bring the state into reproof, but also to bring the temple of their goddess into contempt. To the latter of these purposes the doctrine of S. Paul was naturally dangerous, yea, and necessarily too, viz: to the bringing of their temple into contempt, because he taught, that they were no gods which were made with hands: but, to the other purpose, of reproving the state, or, of taking away the gain of their art, it was but only accidentally dangerous. 
Lib. 3. dist. 39 quaest. 1. ●ex. Theol.  So that periculosum (as Bonaventura teacheth) may either be taken as Causa periculi, or else, but only, as Occasio periculi. Now, to apply this distinction unto our purpose.  
If you take Dangerous here in the former sense, for that which is properly and per se, as cause of danger; then yield I your proposition to be true, that whatsoever (in that sense) is dangerous unto idolatry, it ought to be avoided in the service of God. But if you take this word Dangerous in the latter sense, for that which casually and per accidens, may be an occasion of idolatry; then I deny your proposition, as utterly false. What greater show of danger could there be in any thing, then to place the image of an Ox, in the temple of GOD? 
Elian lib 10. de animal. cap. 28.  especially amongst that people who had both seen an Ox worshippied for the greatest GOD of Egypt, under the name of Apis: and, who themselves had worshipped the image of an Ox for their own proper God. 
Psal. 106 20.  But yet, because the image of an Ox was not naturally or necessarily dangerous unto idolatry (that old corruption being so long forgotten) but only casually and per accidens, if any man (by his own corruption) should renew it unto himself: therefore Solomon did not think himself tied by such an accidental danger, but that he might lawfully set the image of twelve Oxen in the very temple. Neither do we read (notwithstanding that probable fear which those images might have ministered unto scrupulous consciences) yet that any man abused them unto idolatry, 
1. Kings. 7.25.  as no man hath likewise the sign of the cross, howsoever that be feared, where there is as little cause. Therefore, to the proposition of your former syllogism, I answer with Aquinas in an other like case. Quando periculum nascitur ex ipso facto, tum factum illud non est expediens. Sed si periculum immineat a nostro defectu, non desinet propter hoc esse expediens. Sicut expediens est ascendere equum, 
Aquin. 22. q. 88.4.2.  quamuis periculum immineat cadenti de ●quo: alioquin, oporteret cessare ab omnibus bonis, quae etiam (per accidens, ex aliquo eventu) possunt esse periculosa. In which sentence of Aquinas, I pray you mark these two things. First, that by such casual danger no action is made so much as unexpedient, much less unlawful. And secondly, that if we should give place to such accidental dangers, we could not freely use the best and most holy actions, which are not to be intermitted, for such fantastical fears.  
Now for the assumption of your former syllogism; that the sign of the cross (as our church of England useth it) is dangerous to lead us unto idolatry, that I simply deny. It is neither naturally and per se, nor yet casually and per accidens, in itself any whit dangerous, to lead us to idolatry, but only, in defectu nostro, as Aquinas distinguisheth, after which manner there is nothing but it may ●e dangerous, be it n●uer so good. 
2 ●et. 3.16.  There is nothing so good, but it is subject to the abuse of evil and wicked men, no not the scriptures themselves, which is no sufficient reason, why they may not be well used, of good and Godly men.  
Ob. But you prove, that the cross is dangerous to lead us to idolatry, by this reason following.  
Whatsoever is apt to breed a remembrance of that horrible idolatry committed by it in the Synagogue of Rome that is dangerous to lead us unto idolatry. But the sign of the cross is such. Ergo.  
Resp. In this argument, both the parts are false. First, for the proposition, there is no coherence between the anteceding and the succeeding part of it. Doth every thing that breedeth a remembrance of any thing abused unto idolatry, endanger us to fall into the same idolatry? then were it dangerous to read in the scriptures the several idolatries of the jews, least by remembering them, we might be endangered, imitate and follow them.  
Ob. But you will say, 
joh. 5.39.  that these be not pictures, but scriptures, which, our Saviour Christ himself commandeth us to read.  
Resp. I answer, that this maketh nothing against our purpose but, rather much for it. For, in that our Saviour commandeth us to read them, his meaning is, that we should remember them, which remembrance he would never have commended unto us, if he had judged it to be so dangerous for imitation as you affirm it is. But, to come to your exception against that kind of remembrance, which is procured by images or pictures. 
Numb. 33.  The image of that golden calf which the Israelites worshipped, set forth in our Geneva Bibles, cannot but breed a remembrance of that horrible idolatry, which was committed with it, in the wilderness, (this, you see, is a picture, & not a scripture) and yet, those reverend and worthy men, who are the authors of that learned translation, of purpose set out that picture in their edition, thereby to imprint the remembrance of their sin more firmly in our minds, never doubting, that the remembrance of their idolatry would stir up our desire unto like impiety. Neither yet (as I think) hath any man been found, who either by view of that picture, or remembrance of their practice, hath been led to imitate them in that vice. So that, remembrance doth not always breed a liking of the thing so remembered, but, oftentimes, a loathing.  

Cic. Epist. 15. Bruto.  There be monumenta odij, as well as Amoris. To go no further for instance, but to the sign of the cross: do we not see by experience, that our remembering how the Papists have abused it, hath stirred up in many men detestation of it? whereby, the hatred up of their abuse hath so blinded their reason, as to breed an abhorring even of the lawful use of it. Which evidently showeth, the notable incohaerence of your Mayor proposition, and that we may well remember idolatry, without any danger of falling into it.  
Now, for your assumption: That the sign of the cross is apt to breed a remembrance of the horrible idolatry, which was committed by it, in the Synagogue of Rome. If that we freely granted, yet were not the cause prejudiced: your Mayor being so weakly founded.  
For, what if it gave us occasion to remember that ancient idolatry, which by remembering, we abhor: doth this make it unlawful? or doth it not rather make it good, and profitable? But I see no cause at all why we should yield you so much. For, I pray you, why should our cross be thought to be more apt, to breed a remembrance of Popish idolatry, than our Communion-bread is, to breed a remembrance of Popish artolatry? Or, why should it be thought more powerful to lead us unto the one, than this is, to lead us unto the other? Especially, the bread being a material & a sensible body, and remaining (for some good space) an object to the eye, whereby it may more easily suggest unto the mind how it hath in the Romish Church been abused: whereas the cross, being an immaterial and a vanishing sign, in one and the same moment being both bred, and dead, is neither so fit to instruct, not so strong to incite us as the bread is. And yet I do not know, nor ever have heard, that any man (not being before a Papist) hath by the sight of our bread, been induced to desire to return unto Popery. So little colour of probability is there, that every one which seeth a cross made in our baptism, should by and by remember that former idolatry, which (happily) he never saw; yea & not only remember it but also desire to return unto it; 
Psal. 14.5. Aug: Epist. 118. ad januar. cap. 2.  there is no likelihood in this fancy. But it is indeed a fear, whereas no fear is, as the Psalmist speaketh. Yea it is superstitiosa timiditas, as Saint Augustin truly censureth it: it is indeed to fear superstition, with a superstitious fear. Now if our cross be no more apt to revive the remembrance of idolatry, than our bread is, I would know by what rule, the one being received, the other should be rejected.  
OB. Perhaps you will say, that Bread in the supper is Christ's own ordinance, but the cross is not so,  
Resp. The brazen serpent was Gods own ordinance, & yet it being abused to idolatry, was justly abolished. So that if your urging of this instance be fit, 
Page 40.  which else where you stand so much upon, the bread can have no protection by being Christ's ordinance, because it hath also been abused to idolatry.  
OB. That bread which we use, was never so abused,  
Resp. No more was that cross which we use, ever so abused. But yet if your reason be good, that whatsoever reneweth the remembrance of the old idolatry, is dangerous to occasion a relapse unto it, and therefore to be removed from the service of God; it holdeth against bread, as well as against the cross. For that is as dangerous to renew the remembrance of former idolatry, as the cross is. But indeed this is but a needless fear, that there should be any such danger in it. For first, why should the seeing of a cross made, rather move us to idolatry, than the hearing of an idol named? may not the reading of the Lords prayer, or of the angelical salutation, put men in mind as well of their Pater noster, and their ave Maria, and of that old superstition which they used in both these, as the cross can of that which they used in it? yet, I think, you will not think it unlawful (for this supposed danger) either to read the one, or to say the other: neither do I think it so, to use the third. For, secondly I demand, who those persons be, unto whom this pretended danger can be intended? are they Protestants? or, be they Papists? The greatest part of Protestants are such, as (for their age) could never see or know how the cross was abused amongst the Papists, yea and of those there is a great part, so fair from danger of Popery, by the use of this ceremony, that they are in great danger of an other extremity, condemning the lawful use, for the unlawful abuse, so that none of them is so slenderly grounded, as by such a weak means to be removed. The other sort of Protestants, which are more ancient, and so by their age might happily remember it, yet having been weaned this forty six years from it, and so long trained up in an other use of it, there is no show of likelihood, that such men should (now on the sudden) be so offended at it, as to quit and abandon their religion for it.  
Now for the Papists, they be such as seldom do come unto prayers, never to our Sacraments, by their own goodwill: so that, there is small danger of doing them any harm. But if any of them should happen to be present at our baptism, they may plainly see our cross, both by the simple use of the sign, and by the words added for exposition of the sign, to be so vindicated and cleared from their superstition, as there is far greater danger to harden them in their opinion by our so distant a difference from them, then by our so near conjunction with them. Finally, the folly and vanity of this needless fear appeareth in this point, that in all the space of this six and forty years, wherein the cross hath been used amongst us, there can not be given so much as one instance, of either any Papist to have been confirmed in his Popery, or of any Protestant to have been converted unto Popery, by seeing the sign of the cross, as we use it. Some examples may be given of the contemners of the cross, whom God hath permitted to fall from that error in horrible heresies, as into Donatisme and Brownisme, but none at all of the observers of the cross, that thereby have been brought to fall into Papisme. And indeed the ●eare is altogether as absurb; that the seeing of a cross made should move us unto Popery, as that the seeing of a wafer-cake should move us to idolatry.   

The fourth objection.  
Seeing we are forbidden, not only idolatry, but also idols. 1. john 5.21. And the sign of the cross to this day is an idol. For first, they think it a special defence against the devil, and evils: per crucis hoc signum fugiat. etc. Secondly, they bless themselves, who sign themselves with it: Thirdly, they call men in their congregation to adore it: saying, Ecce signum crucis, venite adoremus, therefore I doubt, how it, (being but an human invention) may be used in the place of God's worship, and in his holy service.   

Answer.  
This fourth objection consisteth of two arguments, whereby you would disable the use of the cross. The former being grounded upon this position, that no idol may be used in the service of God. The second upon this; that no invention of man, having once been abused unto idolatry, may ever after be used in the actions of piety. The first of these two arguments may be cast into this syllogism. No idol may be used in the service of God. But the cross is such, therefore it may not be used in the service of God, Let us severally examine the parts of this argument.  
First therefore as concerning your proposition, I answer. That no idol, continuing in the nature of an idol, may lawfully be used in the service of God: but if that condition and nature be altered (as it is in our cross) then may it lawfully enough be used, yea though it were the same individuum which before was abused. 
josh. 6.19.  Example whereof of we have in the metals of Hierico, which were wholly reserved for the use of the tabernacle, notwithstanding their abuse in that idolatrous city: wherein it is more than probable, that no little part of them was molten into idols. another like example we have in Gedions' Ox: 
jud. 6.26.  where the very same individual Ox which first was consecrated unto Baal, was afterwards sacrificed unto God. 
Aug. Epist. 154.  Saint Augustine in his Epistle unto Publicola, expresseth his resolute judgement in this point, not Obiter, but ex instituto, taking upon him there to decide this very question, & therefore his judgement ought to have the greater estimation. There he expressly affirmeth that it is a thing as lawful, to convert an abused idol unto the service of God as it is to convert a ●●duced man, so that order be taken that it be not worshipped: 
Whitgift. pag. 273.  yea and even T. C. himself (for all his detestation of idols) yet is not so blindly carried with hatred against them, but that he can see well enough the gold and silver to be God's creatures in them: of which his conscience can give him good leave to make a private use, notwithstanding the tragical exclamations of the admonition, 
Whitgift pag. 26●. 282.283.  and the direct judgement of Saint Augustine, unto the contrary yea and of Calvin too. Nay, he goeth yet further and alloweth the cap and surplice, (which the admonition condemneth for idols garments) and he himself, 
Calvin. in Isai. cap. 3. Whitg. pag. 290.  calleth a woven image, not only a private, but a public and common use, which, how it will stand with his other doctrines, it concerneth this disciples to consider.  
So that, as concerning your proposition. That no idol may be used in the service of God, you see in what sort it must be qualified, or else that you have both Scriptures, and Fathers, and Reformers against you.  
Ob. But, you prove your proposition, by that place of Saint john. Babes keep yourselves from idols, which (as you say) forbiddeth not only idolatry, but also idols too.  
Resp. I answer, that this place of Saint john to keep ourselves from idols, is a Metonymy of that subject, and implieth no more, but to keep us from idolatry, with out which, an idol (in itself) is nothing, as the Apostle Paul teacheth us. To this exposition I am induced by these reasons.  
First, because I take it to be the peculiar opinion of the mahometans to condemn all used of images simply, as you seem to do by pressing this place. In which opinion I think none other sort of men concurreth with them, neither Christians, jews, nor Pagans. Secondly, because I find Didimus Alexandrinus amongst the Ancients, 
Bib. pat Tom. 6. pag. 671.  and Marlorate, and Aretius amongst the Moderns to expound this place directly of idolatry, and not of idols. Thirdly, because Tertullian, 
Tertul. lib. de coron. cap. 10.  who in his book de corona seemeth to condemn not only the action of idolatry, but also the very idols themselves, yet in the very same place confesseth that those very idols be Substantiae mundae ut dei res: et hac sua conditione communes usus. And in his second book against Martion, (expounding the second commandment) he saith, that the true cause why God forbiddeth images, 
Lib. 2 cont. Martion. cap 22.  is only this, that so he might Cohibere substantiam idololatriae. Which two places of Tertullian I pray you to mark: the first, showing that idols, may have a lawful use, and therefore be not simply forbidden: the second, that they only be forbidden in respect of idolatry. 
Calvin in cap: 5. Epist: 1. john. Colloquum Montp. 400. and 415.  Fourthly, because both Calvin & Beza which extend this place to the abolishing of idols, yet do it only in this respect, because they may be occasions unto idolatry. Fiftly, because both the aforesaid authors do allow some use of images: which showeth that they think them not (by this place of S. john) to be simply condemned. Sixtly, because I find even the scriptures themselves to forbid images, only in respect of adoration and worship, ye shall make you none idols or graven image, to bow down to them, 
Leuit. 26.1.  for I am the Lord thy God. So that this place of S. john in forbidding idols, forbiddeth not simply all kind of use of them, but only that religious use, when we adore and worship them. For this place of S. john, is paralleled by an other in the book of Exodus: 
Exod. 23.13.  where we are forbidden, so much as to name or to mention other Gods. Which place must needs be restrained with this exposition, that it forbiddeth us but only, Honoris causa nominare: or else the very scriptures should be contrary to themselves. For they not only name, but also preserve and keep in record the names of divers heathen gods. Astaroth and Milcom are named in the book of kings: 
1. Kings. 11.5. job. 38.31.32 Acts. 28.11.  Arcturus and Orion in the book of job: Castor and Pollux in the Acts of the Apostles, and Act: 14.12. jupiter and Mercury. Therefore as here is no more meant, but that in naming we should not honour them, so in that place of john there is no more meant, but that in keeping ourselves from them, we should not worship them. Which it is known we do not unto the cross. So that if it were granted that the cross were an idol, yet (as long as we do not worship it) it is not by that place of Saint john condemned.  
But to come now to the Assumption of your argument: you say in it that our cross is an Idol: and you prove it by three instances. First that the Papists do think it a defence against the diu●ll: Second that they think it to sanctify the users of it: and, Third that they do adore and worship it.  
Of which three proofs, because the last doth indeed prove it to be (in some sense) an idol; I will take none exception against the two first though they be insufficient, 
Pag. 66.  but will grant that (to the Papists) it is no better than an idol. But yet, I pray you note, how ill these points hang together. The Papists adore and worship their cross. ergo our cross is Turrian idol. How incohaerent is this? Can their worship of their cross make our cross an idol, which is not worshipped? How then could our consciences be assured of the lawful use of any thing which we use, when as we are not sure, whether the same thing, in some other place, be not made an idol? Suppose that at our communion there should come in some temporising Papist, who seeing the communion bread upon the table, would inwardly adore it, after the idolatrous manner of the Romish church, doth his making of that bread an idol, pollute the use of it unto the Godly receivers? if yea, then can we never be assured, whither that which we receive be Christ's body, or an idol: because, there may be always some such disguised Papists amongst us, if no: why should their adoration of an other cross corrupt ours, which is not the same, when as his adoration of the bread, which is none other but the same that we receive, corrupts it not? that cross which they adore, is not the same which we make in our baptism: and that cross which we make, is not the same, that they adore: & therefore I do not see, by what rule, either of true religion, or, of common reason, the one should be condemned for the other.  
Ob. But yet seeing they make though not the same individual cross (which we use) yet the same species of crossing an idol, we ought to forbear the use of a thing so much abused, especially it being none ordinance of God, but only a mere invention of man.  
Resp. The same particular cross which we make, the Papists neither do, nor can abuse: and much less can they the whole Species of crossing, whereof a part remaineth with us, as well as with them: if we should grant, that our cross were of the same Species with theirs, which I think it is not. But if that were granted; 
Page. 63.  then all which the Papists can possibly abuse, is only so much of the Species of crossing, as they have in their own possession. Now, for the abuse which is offered unto some Individua of any Species, why the other individua of the same species (though not so abused) should be condemned, there is neither right nor reason: no more than if we should condemn the whole action of kneeling, because idolaters do use to kneel unto their idols.  
I confess that the scripture commandeth to destroy, not only the idols themselves, 
Deu● 7.5.  but also even their altars too. But this must be only understood of the same Individua which have been abused, not that the whole Species for their sake is condemned. 
josh. 22.16.  The Isralites did not think themselves bound by this commandment, to overthrow the Rubenites altar, though it were erected without any warrant; & in show had some repugnancy with gods own commandment. Nay, 
Colloquum Montpelg: P. 410.424. etc.  Beza yieldeth not thus much: for he thinketh it not necessary that the same altar which hath been abused unto popish idolatry, should of necessity be altered, but that it may serve (as well as a table) for the use of the sacrament. So that he is so far from thinking that the abuse of one Individuum corrupteth the whole Species, that he thinketh not the same Individuum itself to remain corrupted, when the abuse thereof is removed, as it is in our cross; which yet is not the same with the Papists cross, neither numero, nor Specie, 
Page. 62.63.  as we shall see hereafter.  
With Beza concurreth Calvin, in the thesis, that the abuse of one particular corrupteth not the whole Species. For then, the idolatrous abuse of some images, should make all images unlawful. But Calvin himself allowe●h Historical images, 
Instit: lib: 1. cap: 11. Sec. 12.  as helps unto memory, and saith that they have a profitable use, not only In monendo, but also In docendo. Beza goeth yet further: allowing not only Historical images, 
Colloquum Mont part: 2. P. 32. exeditione Bezae. Ex editione jacobi Andreae. P. 421.  but also even Symbolical too. For he alloweth the painting not only of holy histones, but also of holy visions too, Verbi causa. That of Isai. cap. 6.1.2. etc. and that of Daniel. cap: 7.9.10.13.14. wherein God himself must needs be represented. And he thinketh that by the help of such images, the text itself may be illustrated and better understood. The translators of our Geneva bible go yet further, for they in the 33. cap: of Numbers in one page set down, the image not only of the brazen serpent, (now after it hath been abused) but also of the Isralites golden calf which was never well used. Which they would never have done, if they had been persuaded that the abuse which was offered to one of these images, had so infected and tainted the whole Species, that none other of them, could for ever after have any lawful use. Yea and all those images they place even in the Bible, whereby they must needs intend to have some use of them in the service of God. Let these examples be well considered and then give us a reason, how they may lawfully set down an image of that same idol which hath been abused, and not we as lawfully use that sign of the cross which hath never been abused.  
Ob. Now for your second reason in this fourth objection, to wit, that the sign of the cross is but an invention of man, and that therefore (it having been abused unto idolatry) may not be used in the service of God, that is a reason compacted of many errors.  
For first (as concerning your Antecedent) I think that we may upon better ground affirm, that the use of the cross is as an Apostolical tradition, then you, that is but merely an human invention. For first, divers of the fathers expressly affirm so of it: as namely Tertullian. Lib: de corona. cap: 4. whereas he saith of the cross, that though it have not Legem scripturarum, 
Page: 180.  yet it hath both Traditionem auctricem, and consuetudinem confirmatricem. So likewise Basil lib. de spiritu sancto. cap. 27. 
Tom. ●. p. 20  He ascribeth as great authority to the Apostolical traditions, as he doth unto the Apostolical writings, and reckoneth for the chiefest of them, the sign of the cross. 
Pag. 324.  So likewise Damascene lib. 4. de orthodoxa fide. cap. 17.  
Secondly, the practice of the whole Catholic church (which hath ever from the time of the very Apostles had this ceremony in use) doth give great strength unto the judgement of the forenamed Fathers. 
August. Epist 118. add janu.  Saint Augustine saith, that whatsoever is generally observed of all churches (as the use of the cross hath been) that assuredly is either an Apostolical tradition, or at the least, the Canon of some general counsel. And Tertullian, 
Tertul. lib. de coron. cap. 4.  from the general observation proveth, that it is an Apostolical tradition. Idonea testis probatae traditionis, est perseverantia obseruationis: for otherwise it is not likely, that all churches would so generally have consented in this, more than in any other ceremony, as it appeareth they did by Saint Basils' testimony, 
Ibid.  who calleth this signing with the cross, both primam and vulgatissimam traditionum. Thirdly, that great reverence, and high estimation, which all the Fathers, from the first to the last, have had of this ceremony (though all of them do not expressly call it an Apostolical tradition) must needs argue that they thought it to have a better institution, then to be merely and simply an humane invention. Finally, if it be but an humane invention, let us know (I pray you) the first inventor of it, and when it was first decreed, and how it came so soon to be so generally observed. Which if you cannot show us, I think that we may with greater probability, esteem it to be an Apostolical tradition (the fore-alleged reasons giving strength to our conjecture) than you can (without the like) call it a man's invention.  
Now for your consequent, (if your antecedent were granted) yet might that with great reason be denied. For first, admit that this signing with the cross were indeed no better than a mere humane invention: doth therefore the abuse of it in one place, take away all use of it, in any other? or the abuse of it at one time, destroy the good use of it for ever after? 
Loo●e p. 54.  by what reason say you this? you yourselves allow that the creatures of God, though they have been abused, yea and worshipped for idols in the highest degree, (as all Sheep and Oxen were by the egyptians) yet that in the same singular identity, 
Cic. lib. 3. de nat. dear.  they may afterward be used in the service of God, as Gedions' Ox was, which being consecrated as a sacrifice for Baal, 
jud. 6.25.26.  yet afterwards was offered up unto God: and why may not in like sort, the decent and orderly ceremonies of the Church, though abused in one place, yet in an other be restored unto their right use? especially the abuse which is offered in ceremonies, being but only secunda idolatria, 
Tertul. lib. de coron. cap. 10  as Tertullian noteth, but a second and inferior degree of idolatry: whereas that which is offered in the creatures, is oftentimes the principal: they being honoured for very Gods. Where find you Gods creatures (in this case of idolatry) to have any greater privilege than the Church's ceremonies: If they, after they have been made idols in the highest degree, may yet have their use in the service of God, why may not the other too, which can be made idols but in an inferior degree? If the idolatry with creatures, do not destroy the use of the same individua▪ why should the idolatry of ceremonies (which is a less abuse) destroy the use of all the whole species? the translators of our Geneva Bible, in setting out the picture of the golden Calf, insinuate these two things. First, that the abuse offered to one idol of that kind (though it were idolatry in the highest degree) yet hath not so corrupted the whole species of it, but that other may both lawfully and profitably be used. Secondly, that though that idols were but a man's invention, & had been so notably abused unto idolatry, yet, that it is not debarred, from helping us even in the service of God: for that must needs be the end of their figuring it in that book. Beza (as you heard before) goeth further: 
Pag. 20.  for he alloweth the very same altar, which hath been the instrument of an idolatrous sacrifice, to be used as an instrument of our christian Sacrament. In which judgement, divers martyrs in Queen Mary's time concurred, who were content to use the same Surplices and Chalices, 
Fox. p. 1843.  which had been abused in adolatrous masses. 
Sozomen. hist. lib. 7. cap. 15.  The like did the christians in the primitive church: they converted the same temples into the houses of God, which had been consecrated to the service of abominable idols; yet are both idolatrous Temples and altars man's own mere inventions, and not Gods either creatures or ordinances. So that, though our cross were the same which was abused, and but a man's invention, yet might it by these examples be defended.  
But secondly, I answer unto your consequent; That if it were granted, that the sign of the cross were but a man's invention; yet can it not be granted with any truth, that the protestants cross is the same, which the Papists have abused; ours differing from theirs, both in the Agents and in the ends of the action: two very great and material differences. Thirdly I demand, 
pag. 63.  how those men which condemn all humane inventions which have idolatrously been abused, do agreed with themselves, when they condemn kneeling and commend sitting at the holy communion? making this to be a significant sign of our eternal rest, 
Whitg. pag. 599.  which is both merely an humane invention, and hath notably been abused unto idolatry.  
Ob. Perhaps you will say, that sitting is agreeable to Christ's own institution, and that he himself sat at his last Supper.  
Resp. But that is not so: he used an other site of his body, as distant from sitting, 
john. 13.23.  as kneeling is. He leaned, and so did the rest of his Disciples, according to the custom and fashion of those times. Look Clavis Scripturae in voce sinus. Stuckius de ritibus convivialibus. lib. 2. cap. 34.  
Ob. But happily you think, that sitting hath not been so wickedly abused unto idolatry, as kneeling hath.  
Resp. Nay much more and to more horrible idolatry too. For in the kingdoms of Calecute and Narsi●ga, and in diverse other provinces of the East and West India, where they worship the devil in a most deformed image they represent him always sitting: and they worship him, not kneeling, but prostrate. So that they which reject kneeling and retain sitting, whilst they avoid the gesture of Christian idolaters, they imitate the gesture of Heathen idols. Therefore, where sitting is allowed, I know not, why either kneeling, or crossing, should be abolished.  
Then, to recapitulate the sum of this long answer. If neither we ourselves, nor the papits our adversaries do think our cross available to the driving away of devils, nor to the sanctifying of ourselves, nor yet do adore it with divine or holy worship; then is not our cross made an idol, either by our own practice, or by their opinion: and therefore not to be debarred from the service of God, by force of your first argument.  
Again, if our cross be either no humane invention, but rather an Apostolical tradition: or, being an humane invention, yet hath never been abused unto idolatry, then is it not excluded from the service of God, by virtue of your second argument.  
But the first of these is true, as I have showed in the body of this answer: Ergo, the second also.   

The fifth objection.  
For as much as our profession of Christ, is a part of the covenant, Rom. 10.8.9. I have doubted, how man may appoint the sign of the cross, as a token of our profession. This being Gods own prerogative, as to ordain the covenant, so to ordain meet signs for it. Gen. 17.7.11.   

Answer.  
This fifth objection is very intricate, but I guess, that ●t may be explicated thus.  
No man may add signs to the covenant of God. Gen. 17.7.11. But our profession of Christ is the covenant of God. Rom. 10.8.9. Ergo no man may add signs to our profession of Christ. And by consequent, the sign of the cross may not be added, to our profession in baptism.  
In which argument, the Mayor must be answered by distinction. That the outward signs of our profession, or covenant with God, be of two divers natures; for either they be sacramental, or ceremonial signs. For sacramental signs, we plainly confess, that they must needs be of Gods own institution, and have his own promise annexed unto them; and therefore no man hath any power to ordain them, but this (as you truly say) is God's sole prerogative. But, ●or ritual and ceremonial signs, made either for the ordering of the Church within itself, or for the distinguishing of it from other assemblies, the case is far otherwise; such things may be made by the Church's constitution, without any encroaching upon God's prerogative, by the judgement of the most Divines, both old and new. I reffere you for brevities sake unto the ninety five page of Bishop Whitgifts' book continuing unto page 128. In which long and learned discourse he citeth many testimonies of the ancient fathers, declaring many rites ceremonies to have been ordained in the primitive Church by her own authority, without any express warrant of the word for them, saving only that general warrantise of Saint Paul. 
1. Cor: 14.40.  Omnia decenter et ordine fiant. In which rule he naming not the several particulars, but leaving them to the Church's discretion he giveth it power to ordain laws and ceremonies, so that these conditions be not transgressed. 
Whitg. pag. 111. lib. 4. Instit: cap. 10. Sec: 27. Sec: 31.  He bringeth also the judgement of divers new writers which confirm the same. Calvin (who with them is Instar omnium) saith that a set form of rites and ceremonies be the nerves and sinews of the Church, without which it needs must be dissolved. And those constitutions which are made by the Church, he bindeth all the members thereof to observe: condemning not only such as contemn and reject them, but also such, as pretermit and neglect them: adding this for a reason of our uniform obedience in such outward matters, Quantarum ricarum semen futura est earum rerum confusio, si pro ut cuique libitum sit, mutare liceat que ad comunem statum pertinent. Quando nunquam futuram sit ut idem omnibus placeat, sires, velut in medio positae, singulorum arbitrio relictae fuerint. so that he affirmeth, that whereas there is not uniformity in ceremonies, there can never be unity in affections, but must needs be jars and great contentions. 
Whitgift. pag. 106.124.  Yea even T.C. himself expressly affirmeth, that the Church hath power to make orders in these things which are not specified and precisely determined in the word. And he addeth, that if they be profitable for the Church, and be not repugnant to the word, they are to be received as being grounded upon the word, and as things, which God himself, by his Church, hath commanded. Mark I pray you what power, even this adversary of ceremonies ascribeth to the Church: enough to authorize both the cross, and surplice, and all the other ceremonies which he himself impugneth: none of which are repugnant unto the word of God, but all of them profitable for the Church, as the Church itself in ordaining them determineth; and therefore, by his own rule, be grounded upon the word; and so ought to be received as Gods own commandments, ordained by the Church. Further the practice of all Christian Churches in the world doth manifestly show, that the Church hath power to ordain Rites and ceremonies, though not expressly prescribed in the word, for, there is no Church in Christendom without such, as namely, orders for sitting, kneeling, standing: place, for reader, preacher, and administer for the sacraments, time for prayers, sermons, sacraments, and such like.  
Ob. But though the Church have power to ordain orders, for conveniency and comeliness, yet hath it no power to ordain any signs with their significations: neither can there any such example be produced.  
Resp. If the Church have power to ordain unsignificant ceremonies, then much more such as are significant, for, unsignificant ceremonies can not edify, 
Pag. 8.9.  as I have formerly showed, but significant may, if their signification be expressed, as it is in our cross, where these words be added, I sign him with the sign of the cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner etc. what can be more plain, or more profitable, not only to express the duty of the child, (than presently received into the Church by baptism) but also, to admonish every one in the Church what profession they themselves did make, at their baptism? Now, that the Church hath power to ordain such ceremonies, having so good and profitable significations (to let Tertullians' judgement pass, who saith, that licet unicuique fideli concipere et constituere, 
Tertul. lib de coron. cap. 4.  quod deo congruat, quod disciplinae conducat, & quod saluti proficiat) even T. C. his former rule doth sufficiently prove, for he saith, that those things which are not against the word, and profitable for the Church, aught to be received as things which GOD by his Church doth command, and as grounded upon the word of God. But, it is more profitable for the church to have significant then unsignificant ceremonies, and these be no more against the word, than they are, and therefore by T. C. his rule, such ceremonies ought to be received, as Gods own commandments, sent unto us by his Church.  
Now for examples, 
1. Cor. 11.5.7.  that the Church hath ordained many such, it is great ignorance in Story if a man do doubt it. To begin with Saint Paul likewise he ordained that women should come veiled or covered to the Church, 
The Rubenites altar was not for sacrifice, but, to signify, that they belonged to the Church. Which significant ceremony, was allowed by all Israel. Iosh: 22.26.27.30. Pet: Mart: Epist. ad Hooperum.  by that ceremony to signify their subjection to their husbands. Which example Peter Martyr doth peremptorily allege as a proof, that our ceremonies ought to have their significations. Let us descend lower unto the primitive Church. In it these significant ceremonies were generally observed. First, in baptism they were dipped three times into the water. Secondly, they were anointed with oil. Thirdly, they were signed with the sign of the cross. And fourthly, they were clothed with white garments. All these ceremonies are recorded by Dionysius Areopagita in his book of Ecclesiastical hierarchy. The significations of all which ceremonies he afterwards expoundeth, 
Dyonis: lib: de eccles: hierarch: cap. 3.  in the Contemplation annexed unto that chapter. Yea and divers other fathers, both of divers Churches, and of differing ages, in their writings declare, that not only these ceremonies were until their times continued, but also their significations received. First for that threefold dipping into the water, S. Hierom saith that it was done to signify, 
Hier: lib: 2. in Ephes:  that the sacrament was ministered in the name of the whole trinity. Secondly, for that anointing with oil, 
Aug: Tract: 3. in 1. Epist: john.  Saint Augustine saith, that it was done to signify, the inward anointing of the holy Ghost. 3. for that signing the forehead with the sign of the cross S. Augustine again saith, 
Aug: Serm. 8. de verb. Apost.  that it was done, that we should not be ashamed of the cross of Christ. Fourthly for that change of their apparel and putting on white raiments, 
Ambr: lib. de ●jis qui imtiantur misterjis cap: 7.  S. Ambrose saith, that this was done, to signify, that we had now put off [the old man] 1. the coverings of sin & put on the garments of chastity and innocency. Unto these I might add many other Christian ceremonies, 
Basil: lib: de spir: sa●ct. cap. 27.  recorded by Basil in his book de spiritu sancto: as namely, that they prayed towards the east to signify that they sought that paradise by praying, which they lost by sinning. That they prayed standing, upon the Sunday, to signify, that as that day was the day of Christ's resurrection, so they were risen again with Christ, and now sought those things which are above: with divers other like; reckoned up in that place, which he affirmeth to be apostolical traditions.  
All which examples do evidently declare the judgement of the primitive Church; that both it had power to ordain ceremonies, and also to give them their significations: and consequently, the want of judgement in those men, which affirm, that neither the Church hath any such power, nor histories afford any such example. Hereunto I may add the opinion of the very Reformers themselves, who prefer sitting before kneeling at the communion, because sitting betokeneth rest, 
Whitgift. pag. 599.  and an end of all legal ceremonies in jesus Christ: which reason they would never have alleged, if they had thought that the Church had had no power to ordain significant ceremonies and rites. Therefore the Church doth not tyrannize over men's consciences, in ordaining significant rites and ceremonies; but these men would tyrannize over the Church, who would spoil her of that her lawful authority; especially they not being able to produce any Scripture, whereby she is abridged of that power.  
Ob. But though the Church should have power to ordain rites and ceremonies for private order in itself; yet hath it no power to appoint any outward sign, to be a note of our general profession, but that is GOD'S own peculiar prerogative. Gen 17 7.11.  
Resp. That the Church hath authority in greater matters, then either in adding significations to ceremonies, or outward notes to our profession, very many instances do notably declare. First, that whereas Christ instituted his supper at the time of supper, it hath changed that time from the evening to the morning, which is an altering (in circumstance) of Christ's own institution. Secondly, whereas the Apostles decreed in a general council, that Christians should abstain from blood and from stranglers, that hath it likewise altered, and so canceled an Apostolical constitution. The like authority they showed in altering the ancient day of the Sabbath, and administering Baptism unto children: in this, they wanting the commandment of Christ; in that, they changing the commandment of God. From which instances we may argue, as from the greater to the less, That if they erred not in those forenamed ordinances, much less have they erred in adding significations unto their ceremonies: & by the same reason, why hath not the church as great a power to add outward signs unto our profession, as to ordain other ceremonies, concerning our Ecclesiastical administration? Is the sign the less lawful, because it is a sign of our profession? Why then is none at all lawful: for not only this sign of the cross, 
Aquin. 1.2. Quaest 103. Art. 4 c.  but also all other Ecclesiastical ceremonies (as Aquinas teacheth us) are signs of our profession. He saith, that Omnes ceremoniae be protestationes quaedam fidei. Tertullian, being newly converted unto Christianity, 
T. C. saith, that all the Christians of his t●me did the like, for the clearer & more open profession of heir faith. Whitgift. p. 268.  forsook his old habit, which was a gown, and betook him to a new, which was a Cloak, that so with the change of his garment he might notify to the world, the change of his profession: which certainly he would never have done, if he had been persuaded, that the adding of such a sign unto his profession had been an encroaching upon GOD'S own prerogative and peculiar jurisdiction. The Christians likewise in the primitive Church, ever from the time of the very Apostles, have used this same ceremony of the cross which is now in question, as a mark and a sign of their profession, and yet did never either they themselves think it, or the greatest adversaries that they had, impute it, as a presumption and encroaching against Gods own prerogative, 
Basil lib. de Spiritu sanct. cap. 27.  as Saint Basil observeth▪ Nec his quisquam contradicit (saith he, speaking of the traditions and ceremonies of the Church) Quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est, quae sint iura ecclesiastica. So that this objection of yours (if it be good) condemneth not only our use of the cross now after it hath been abused by the Papists, but even the use of it in the primitive Church, before it was abused. Or (if it be weak) it is weak against us, as well as against them. For the use of it now, is no more an incrochment upon Gods own prerogative, than it was in that time.  
Ob. But you prove by that place Gen: 17.7.11. that God only hath power to add signs unto his covenant: and by consequent, that they which add any such signs, presume to enter upon Gods own prerogative.  
Resp. But this proof which you allege, hath two great faults in it First, that it is not ad idem: and secondly, that it is not concludent in the cause: not ad idem, thus. To prove that the Church may not add any ceremonial sign unto our profession, you produce a place of scripture, which speaketh only of sacramental signs. It is circumcision (which was a sacramental sign) that God in that place did add unto his covenant. Such signs I do yield that God only may institute. But as for the cross, we make it not a sacrament, but only a ceremony. And we may truly say of it, 
Aug: 119. ad januar:  as Saint Augustine doth of the birth day of Christ, Non in sacramento celebratur, sed tantum in memoriam revocatur.  
Secondly, if your proof were ad idem, and proper to the purpose, yet is it inconcludent. For, by what rule of reason can this consequent follow, God added a sacramental sign unto his covenant. Ergo, man may not add a ceremonial sign? if God added signs unto his covenant to assure us of his faithful performance of his part, why may not we add signs unto our covenant, to assure him of our faithful performance of our part? 
Tertul. lib. de coron. cap. 4.  Tertullian saith, that Licet omni fideli constituere quod deo congruat, quod disciplina conducat, and quod saluti proficiat. Dicente domino, cur autem, non et a vobis ipsis quod justum est iudicatis? mark, et a vobis ipsis? josua, 
josh. 24.21.22.  when he had heard the people make an earnest profession▪ that they would serve the Lord, & not any other God; he rested not in their bare profession, 
ver. 27.  but sealed it by this ceremony by pitching up a great stone, under an oak, which he said should witness against them, 
Gene. 31.45 46.  if they broke their covenant: as jacob before, by the like ceremony had sealed the covenant between him and Laban: So that, we are not debarred by that place of Genesis, but that we may add signs (if not seals) unto God's covenant: if God's covenant and our profession be Synonimons, as you seem to make them in your Mayor proposition.  
Now, for your Minor: That our profession of Christ is the covenant of God: it may (in some sense) be allowed to be true, although (as you know) the covenant between God and man doth pass in somewhat an other form. 
jer. 11.4.  viz. That he should be our God, and we should be his people, where the Prophet expoundeth our part of the covenant, to be the faithful obeying of him, and not the outward professing of him. As for faith & confession, which you allege out of the Rom. cap. 10.9. to be the whole sum of our profession, and of our part of the covenant with God, that is not true; they be parts indeed of our covenant with God, but our whole part they be not; unless you take both faith & confession in a very large signification; faith not only for believing with the heart, but also for working with the hand; And confession, not only for the speeches of the tongue, but also for the gestures and behaviours of the body. By which means (though not there nominatim expressed) yet our God ought to be served, and the truth both of our faith and confession to be testified. 
1. Cor. 6.20. jam. 2.18.  So that, unto those two points of believing and confessing, we not only may, but also must add a further testification. For our love, and our zeal in the service of God (which is our part of the covenant) can never be testified over much, nor never enough, when we have done all we can: and therefore, if unto our faith in believing, and to our words in confessing, we add other outward signs and gestures, to express the fullness of our inward affection, as namely, sometimes kneeling and casting down our bodies, sometimes lifting up our eyes and hands, sometimes sights and groans, and beating of our breasts: all these significant signs (being nothing else but a more full testification of the faithful performance of our part of the covenant) are so far from being a thing unlawful, that I doubt not, but, unto God they be highly acceptable: unto whom our dumb gestures do oftentimes more effectually speak, than our babbling tongues, as the scriptures plainly teach us, in the examples of Anna, and of Mary Magdeline. 
1. Sam. 1.13. luke. 7.44. etc.  Of this kind we reckon the sign of the cross: which is nothing else, but an outward testification of our faith in Christ crucified, and of our readiness to obey him as our God, that is, to perform our covenant towards him. And therefore, why this sign may not be used, as well as any other, to this forenamed end, I do yet conceive no sufficient reason: unless some better than this be brought, which (as the most of the other) is grounded only upon a groundless fear.   

The sixth objection.  
I pray to have it cleared, that the use of this sign for witnessing ourselves Christians, doth take nothing from baptism, which, doth richly and sufficiently testify the same.   

Answer.  
How the use of the cross, serving only as a memorial of Christ's passion for us, and of our reciprocal obedience unto him, should take any thing from baptism (which intimateth the same things) I can not conceive. The multitude of witnesses maketh every thing more certain. And, in this so necessary a duty of professing our religion, we need not to fear that we can bring too many. Nay rather, there be many expected of us, yea and not only words, but also signs and gestures too, as I have formerly showed, in answer unto the fifth objection. 
pag. 3●.  Simon the Pharesie, when he called Christ to dinner, had sufficiently by words declared his affection; but yet, because he added not a further testimony by gestures in offering Christ a kiss, at his first entertainment, his duty is censured as defective and unperfect. 
luke. 7.45.  On the contrary side: Mary Magdelines affection was esteemed more full and perfect, for that multitude of outward signs whereby she expressed it, in washing, wiping, kissing, weeping, and in anointing of Christ's feet with oil. As therefore a careful servant, who hath had his duty sufficiently told him by word of mouth, yet is not to be blamed, if (for greater assurance) he will write it in a paper, or (for memory sake) but score it upon a stick. So, though the sacrament of baptism, do both fully and richly declare our duty, yet is not our religious diligence to be condemned, if (for our better remembrance) this ceremony be superadded.  
Ob. But you seem to insinuate, that the sacrament of baptism doth testify sufficiently that we be Christians, and that therefore this other testification by the cross is superfluous: and being added, doth seem to import some defect in baptism to that purpose.  
I answer, first, for the cleared of our action. That we add not the sign of the cross unto baptism, as though the sacrament were either unperfect or unsufficient without it, to our regeneration, in jesus Christ: but we annex it as only a significant sign, to testify, what new profession (by our baptism) we are entered. So that, we make not our cross either a part of the sacrament, or any necessary supplement unto it, to give it any strength which it hath not of itself: but we add it, as only a circumstantial complement, for illustration sake, to notify unto the world, that we honour our new profession of Christianity by that very sign, which al● (that be not Christians) think the great dishonour of it.  
Secondly I answer, that our adding of this sign unto baptism, doth neither argue it to be sufficient, nor is argued by it to be superfluous. God added the new testament unto the old, for our more plain instruction: (the matter of both the testaments is the same) doth either this argue that to be unperfect, 
Psal. 19.7.  or that argue this to be superfluous? Our Saviour Christ having instituted holy baptism, contented not himself to have given this one sacrament unto this Church, but added afterwards an other, to wit his Supper (the matter of both these two sacraments is the same) doth this addition argue, that either the one of these is unperfect, or else that the other of them is superfluous? The writings of Moses did sufficiently and richly declare unto the Israelites, the benefit which they received by the brazen serpent: yet did not they think it to be any derogation from the sufficiency of his book, to help their own remembrance therein, by preserving the visible Symbol of it. Which monument they kept without any divine warrant, and yet were never condemned for it, as detracting from the sufficiency of the scripture by it. 
Numb. 33.  The same we see practised▪ even in our Geneva Bible, where though the text do sufficiently express the whole history, yet do not the Translators think it a thing unlawful to make a visible representation thereof, for the helping of our memory. Whereby it appeareth, that one and the same thing may by diverse signs be signified, one giving light unto an other (as the death of Christ was, by diverse sacrifices in the law) and yet none of them be rejected, as either unperfect, or as superfluous. Therefore, as the passage of Israel over Iorden, is sufficiently testified in the book of josua, 
Iosh 4.5.6.7.  and yet josua himself (to have a visible sign and monument of that action) caused twelve stones to be pitched up, as a further testimony of it, not hindering thereby, but rather helping the testimony of the scripture: so may we use the cross, for the very same end, which is signified in baptism, and yet nothing derogate from the sufficiency of it, as the ancient Christians did by the changing of their garments; 
Whitg. p. 268  which as T. C. saith, did serve for the clearer profession of their faith, and as Christian soldiers at this day use to do: who (of what nation soever they be) do still bear, in their ensigns, the sign of the cross, proclaiming themselves by that sign to be Christians, and not doubting thereby, to disable that profession which they made in baptism.   

The seventh objection.  
And if this be true, then should it seem that this ceremony of the cross is idle. And I am doubtful whether it be not a taking of the name of God in vain, to have any thing idle or superfluous in the service of God.   

Answer.  
And if this be true, you say: but that it is not true, I have formerly showed: And therefore this objection, being but a consequent grounded upon the former, need not to be confuted, it falling of itself, as Abiram did, when his ground sunk underneath him: I have formerly showed that it is not true, that the use of the cross in witnessing us Christians, doth any thing detract from the sacrament of baptism, but rather, addeth thereunto a more plain explication. For, the sign of the cross marked in our foreheads (in the nature of the sign) doth more directly witness, and more properly express, that we are not ashamed to be counted his servants that died upon the cross, than the sprinkling of water upon the forehead doth. And therefore in respect of this fit and opposite spiritual signification, conspiring so fully with the sigfication of baptism, and expressing it so lively, that ceremony can not so justly be counted idle as your insignificant ceremonies may. Whereupon, no man can have any just cause to doubt, whether such a religious use of the cross, should be a taking of God's name in vain. But rather it may very truly be said that such vain conceits fathered upon God's name, and such violent detorting & wresting of God's commandments from their purposes unto ours, is indeed a taking of God's name in vain.   

The eight objection.  
Albeit the use of this sign be ancient, and (from things of common life) were brought into the sacrament before Popery came in: yet (sithence consignatio crucis quae autiquitus sine, superstitione fuit, et tollerari tunc potuit, patefecit aditum abominandae superstitioni, et hyperduliae crucis horribilissimae) my scruple is, how that which was at first, not evilly taken up, may now be well continued. Especially, seeing the Cannon-law itself saith, Distinct: 63. (as it is cited by D. Reinolds against Hart) if our predecessors have done some things which at that time when they were first done were without fault, and afterward be turned into error and superstition, we are taught by Ezechias his breaking of the brazen serpent, that posterity may destroy them without delay, and with great authority. Thus far the Canonists.   

Answer.  
The use of the cross in the primitive Church, though sometimes before washings, feastings, walkings, and other such like actions of common life, yet was always used with a kind of religion, as it were to sanctify such common actions, by a religious ingress: but that, not ex opere operato, but, 
Perkins. prob. pag. 84.  ex opere operantis, the sign of the cross being, tacita invocatio meritorum Christi, and so used by antiquity.  
The abuse which afterward grew from thence (if it grew from thence) was rather an offence springing from man's natural corruption prone unto sin, than any necessary consequent of such a religious custom, 
Beza. Epist. 8.  as Beza (whose words you cite) would seem to make it, using therein a manifest Elench, A non causa pro causa. For with as great reason may he make the communion-bread to be the cause of Popish artolatry, as the cross to be the cause of their idolatry; for, the bread hath been as grossly abused by them, as the cross hath. And you may say as truly of the bread, that patefecit aditum abominaendae superstitioni, as you can of the cross.  
Your granting that this sign at the first was not evilly taken up, is a justifying of our use of it, who reduce it now again unto the primitive use, which was not evil.  
Your reason why it ought to be abolished, because it since hath been abused, is falty many ways, and therefore would further be examined. It may (as I take it) be reduced to this Syllogism.  
Whatsoever hath been abused to idolatry and superstition, that aught to be destroyed. But the sign of the cross hath been so abused. ergo.  
Your Mayor you prove, by a sentence out of the Cannon-law. Your Minor, by a sentence out of Bezaes' Epistles. Let us therefore now examine, as well your positions, as your proofs.  
First therefore as concerning your Mayor proposition. That whatsoever hath been abused unto idolatry ought to be destroyed, it is utterly false. For, if all things that have been so abused should be presently abolished, we should leave ourselves nothing, that might be rightly used. So general or rather indeed so transcendent, hath this sin of idolatry been. For, there is none of all God's works, nay there is none of man's works, but it hath in some place or other, been some way or other abused to idolatry. So that, if for other men's abuses, we should be forced to renounce the things so abused, we should deprive ourselves, of the principal helps and muniments of our life. The Chaldeans did worship the fire for their God: the Aethiopians, the water. Shall therefore we Christians be aqua and igni interdicti? or, because the Papists have worshipped their bread, may not Protestants use bread? you see what gross consequents will necessarily follow upon your antecedent. Therefore, though your proposition (in ●ome sense) may have some truth in it; yet is it not to be admitted, in such a generality, as by you it is propounded. That whatsoever hath unto idolatry been abused, should by and by (without further examination) be destroyed. But unto the abolishing of things so perverted, (if by the law they be established) we must proceed with many cautions. 
lib. 4. Instit. cap. 10. Sect. 30.  First Calvin telleth us, that we must neither Temere, nor Subinde, nor levibus de causis ad novationem decurrere, but in changing of things established we must use great advisement. Secondly, we must with indifferency consider, whether their commodities or discommodities be the greater, if the commodities, than that sentence of the Comike is a rule of right reason. That Cuius multa commoda sunt, illius quo incommoda ferre decet. If the evil be greater than the good, then must we consider, whether it be separable, or inseparable. If separable, then is that a good rule which the orator giveth us, 
Cic. lib. 2. Epi. ab Attic. Epi. 1  non minus probandam esse medicinam, quae sanat vitiosas parts, quam quae exsecat. If inseparable, then yield we that counsel of the Poet to be necessary, that immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum est, ne pars syncera tra●atur. So that this abolishing of things of good use, for some abuse that hath grown unto them, is then only allowable, when their evil is greater than their good, or, when it is incurable. Both which points are far otherwise in the sign of the cross, as we see by experience. And therefore no cause, why for that abuse of it which hath been in an other Church, and is long ago reform in our Church, so ancient a ceremony should now be abolished.  
Ob. But you strengthen your proposition with two fortifications. The one is a sentence of the Cannon law, which commendeth unto us the abolitions of things abused unto superstition. The other is an example of Canonical scripture, which commendeth Ezechias, for putting the same in practice.  
Resp. First, for that judgement of the Canon law, if we were of some men's disposition, we might allow it for a good reason, that the rule could not be good, because it is fetched out of the Canon-law, & was no better but a Popes-decree. But we will not use such peevishness, but leave that to our adversaries. 
Distinct. 63. cap. 28. Quia. sancta.  Let us hear what the law saith, and how far it maketh for you. Per hoc magna authoritas est habenda in ecclesia, ut si nonnulli ex praedecessoribus et maioribus nostris fecerint aliqua, quae illo tempore potuerunt esse sine culpa, et postea ver●untur in errorem et superstitionem, sine tarditate aliqua, et cum magna authoritate à posteris destruantur.  
In which sentence there be two things to be considered of us. The first is the quality of the persons of whom he speaketh: the second, his qualified manner of speaking. For the persons here meant by the name of Posterity, it must needs be understood of men in authority, & not of any private persons. The words of the decree are most plain & pregnant. These aught to be of great authority in the church. Why? that, if things well begun do degenerate into evil, by that great authority they may be destroyed, whereby he implieth, that he which will do the work of Ezechias, in destroying things abused, he ought to have the authority of Ezechias. Otherwise, if therebe a disparity in the agents, there will certainly follow a disparity in the actions. For, if that clause in the latter end of the decree cum magna authoritate a posteris destruantur, be so construed (as some men have wrested it) that the very example of Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent) (which before he had alleged) doth give great authority unto every other man, to do the like; it is not only a manifest perverting of the Grammatical construction, but would also prove the subverting of all civil constitutions. For what authority doth the example of magistrates, (which orderly repeal inconvenient laws), give unto private men, disorderly to break them, whilst they stand in force? Or how doth the action of the Magistrate, who hath his authority invested in himself, as a public person authorize private men to do the same work, by their voluntary imitation? If this licence were granted, it would prove, not the taking away of abuses, but the sowing of ten thousand abuses, 
August. lib 10 cap: 8 de civit: dei.  for one. Saint Augustine, speaking of this fact of Ezechias, saith that he destroyed this serpent by his public authority, & not by any private fantasy. He did religiosa potestate deo servire. Calvin upon the second commandment, expounding that place of Deuteronomie, ye shall destroy all the places wherein those nations served their Gods, ye shall overthrow their altars, 
Deut: 12.2.3  and break down their pillars and burn their groves with fire etc. He citeth the judgement of S. Augustine, who saith, that this commandment was not given unto private men, 
Cal. in Exod. page. 286.  but to the public Magistrate. And he commendeth his judgement to be very sound, 
Io. Wolph. in lib. 2. Regum. cap. 18.  and wise, Wolphius likewise, who handleth this question ex professo; Whether private men may destroy the monuments of idolatry, He peremptorily denieth it. Privatis hominibus ut haec agant▪ pius ac sapiens author est nemo. Speaking even of this very fact of Ezechias, in destroying the brazen serpent. And he strenghneth his judgement by the example of Gedion, who all the while that he was a private man, he endured the Altar & the grove of Baal, & laid no hand to pull down that idolatry, but when he once was called unto the magistracy, & furnished thereby with lawful authority, than he did the deed, 
judge 6.25.26.  & he did it thoroughly. So that the magistrate being the person, whom the decree understandeth by the name of posterity, his example can be no warrant for any man to do the like, if he lack the like authority. Now for the qualification of the speech, which was the 2. thing to be considered in the law: the form of speech which it useth, is but only permissive, granting a liberty, and not preceptive, imposing a necessity, leaving place for the Magistrate, with advisement to consider, whether the abuse be such, as doth necessarily require such an utter destruction. The law saith, That posterity may destroy them. You say that posterity must destroy them. From May, to Must, is no good consequence. That Logic rule (as you know) is grown almost into a proverb. A posse ad esse non valet argumentum: we yield that posterity may destroy them, if the abuse can hardly be reform: & that it must destroy them, if it can not be reform at all. But neither of these can be said of the cross, whose abuses we have reform with very great facility, and yet not destroyed the right and true use of it, as experience showeth plainly. And therefore those men, which match our cross with the brazen serpent & think it as necessary to be destroyed as that, they truly fall into that censure of Calvin, 
Cal. in Exod. page: 2●6.  that praecisé urgendo quod per se medium est, sunt nimio rigore superstitiosi.  
Ob. But happily you will say, that if this sentence of the Canon law, do not enforce the abolishing of the cross, yet the example of good King Ezechias doth. For, if he destroyed the brazen serpent, being GOD'S own ordinance, because it was idolatrously abused: then much more ought we to abolish the cross, which is but man's invention, it having been likewise idolatrously abused.  
Resp. This example of Ezechias is very much stood upon, and therefore it would be the more narrowly examined, Your argument is enforced A maiori ad Minus and it may be framed thus. Ezechias spared not the ordinance of GOD, but destroyed it, because it had been abused. Ergo, much less ought we to spare the ordinance of man but destroy it, if it have been likewise abused.  
I answer, that your Antecedent, which is the ground of your argument, is not true. Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent, did not therein destroy the ordinance of God. For, 
Numb: 21.8.  in the brazen serpent there be things to be considered: Viz: the first erection, for the healing of the people: and the preservation, for the remembrance of that benefit. The first erection was indeed the ordinance and injunction of GOD himself: but the preservation was the mere invention of man, It issuing from the good intent of the people, without any warrant or commandment from God. Now, that work being finished in the wilderness; for which GOD erected it; that which Ezechias destroyed, was but only man's invention, to wit the preservation of it. So that if the cross be but only an human invention, and not Apostolical tradition, yet even so, that thing in the serpent which Ezechias destroyed, was no better. And therefore the ground of your argument A maiori faileth, it being rather a false presumption, than a true position.  
Ob. But happily you will say, that the brazen serpent had yet a further use ordained by GOD: namely, to be a figure of our saviour CHRIST; And so ought to have continued unto his coming, if for that abuse it had not justly been cut off.  

2. King: 18.4.  The brazen serpent was a figure of CHRIST, not as it was preserved in the Temple, where it was indeed Nehushtan, a piece of dead brass without all power and virtue: but as it was erected in the wilderness, where it gave health unto the people. 
john. 3 14.  The text is plain, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up. etc. So that with the use of it in the wilderness, the figure also ceased; and therefore for that cause it need not be preserved. Now, that because it was a figure of CHRIST, it should therefore continue until the coming of CHRIST, that hath no necessary consequence. For the cloud which accompanied the Israelites, in the wilderness, was a figure of CHRIST, 
1. Cor: 10.2. john. 6.49.50.58. josh. 5.12.  yet did it not continue unto the coming of CHRIST. So likewise the Manna was a figure of CHRIST; yet did it not last unto his coming. Some indeed was reserved, as a monument in the Ark: but that was by virtue of a special commandment, 
Exod. 16.32.  not by virtue of being a figure of CHRIST.  
Ob. Well be it, that this brazen serpent were not preserved by any special warrant; yet Ezechias destroying it because it was abused, and being by the holy Ghost for so doing, commended: though the argument follow not A maiori, yet it followeth A Pari, that the cross ought likewise to be abolished▪  
Resp. This Par is Dispar, in many respects: and being grounded upon a comparison of equality, yet hath great inequality in every part of it. For, I note between that Idol which Ezechias destroyed, and this cross which you would have abolished, seven material differences, which every one make a disparity in your comparison, and consequently, Non sequitur, in your argument.  
The first of them is taken from the object of the abuse: Ezechias took away none other idol, but only that same Individuum which was abused: but you would take away the whole species of crossing, because some Individua of that species have been abused amongst the Papists, though many, amongst us Protestants, be very rightly used. The second difference is taken, from the Subject of the abuse. He took away none other idol, but that which had been abused amongst his own people: but you would take away that cross which amongst our own people is rightly used; only because, amongst an other people (with whom we have no communion) it is abused.  
The third difference is taken, from the nature and quality of the abuse. He took away that idol, which was abused, contrary unto law; you would take away that cross which is rightly used, and the use thereof established by law.  
The fourth difference is taken, from the degree and quality of the abuse. He took away that idol which was abused in the highest degree, being idolatrously worshipped for a false God. For that same people refused to burn their incense unto God, [2. Chron. 29.7.] which notwithstanding offered it most profusely unto that idol. 2. King. 18.4. But you would take away that cross, which was never yet worshipped as a false God by any, but hath been used in all Christian Churches, as a lawful and laudable ceremony, in the worship of the true God.  
The fifth difference is taken from the continuance of the abuse: He took away that idol whose abuse still remained; but you would take away that cross, whose abuse hath long ago been removed, & whose right use is now again restored.  
The sixth difference is taken from the certainty of the abuse: He took away that idol, which upon certain knowledge, he saw to be idolatrously abused: but you would take away that cross, which (only upon an uncertain surmise) you do imagine may possibly be abused, Scilicet, if some Papist should chance to come in amongst us in the very nick, whilst it is in using.  
The seventh difference is taken from the difficulty of removing the former abuse. He took away that idol, whose idolatry could hardly be reform, so long as the sensible object of their abuse remained: but you would take away that cross, which can hardly be abused; the object of abuse is so presently vanished: as even Calvin himself noteth in an other like instance. 
lib. 1. Instit. cap. 11. sect. 3.  He disputeth, that the sudden appearing of the Holy-ghost in the form of a Dove could not minister just matter of adoring that resemblance, because it was of so short continuance, being but unius momenti Symbolum, which may much more truly be said of the cross, that it is indeed but unius momenti symbolum, it appearing and perishing in one and the same moment. And therefore if his appearing in the shape and form of a living body, was so free from danger, because it was so short: then much more is the cross, whose form is less dangerous, vanishing more sudden, and appearing of less continuance.  
Therefore the cross and the brazen serpent being equal in this point, that both of them are but humane inventions, but unequal in so many other points of far greater moment: in the object, in the subject, in the quality, in the quantity, in the continuance, and in the certainty of the abuse: and again, in the difficulty of reforming the same; that these two things, whose offence is so unequal, should admit an equality of punishment, is against all rules, both of equity and judgement.  
Now for your Minor proposition, which you strengthen by a sentence out of Bezaes' Epistle, who affirmeth that the idolatrous adoration of the cross, sprung only from the use of the sign of the cross: he affirming this upon his own bare word, without any testimony or proof from antiquity, I will answer him with that of the Orator; 
Cic. orat. pro Sexto. Rosc.  De hoc, quia verbo arguit, verbo satis est negare.   

The ninth objection.  
Seeing the sign of the cross is left out of our communion, because of the superstition and idolatry: me think by the same reason, it should be left out of the Sacrament of Baptism.   

Answer.  
If the cross was superstiously abused in the mass, & therefore is left out of our communion, where it hath not so fit an use as it hath in Baptism, our church hath therein used a religious caution. But if having removed the forenamed corruption, and restored the cross to his first institution, she hath retained the same in the sacrament of Baptism (symbolizing therein, not with the Papistical, but with the primitive church) she hath done in that, no more than she might, having full jurisdiction, to ordain lawful ceremonies at her own discretion. Look pag. 26.   

The tenth objection.  
Seeing the second commandment (as I conceive the meaning) forbiddeth all religious images, mental or corporal, permanent or transiant; I desire to have it showed, how the likeness of the cross, being for religious use, to be a token of our religion, is not against the second commandment.   

Answer.  
This tenth objection may be thus collected: All religious images are forbidden unto us in the second commandment. But the sign of the cross is a religious image: Ergo; It is forbidden in the second commandment. For your Mayor proposition: if by religious images you had understood only such as are made to be religiously adored, we should quickly have agreed: but you taking the name of [Religious] in a sense of such enormous largeness, viz. for any thing, that any way, may help us in religion, as appeareth in the exposition of your Minor; I must needs require some better reason than your own conjectural conceit, that all such images are in that commandment forbidden: Otherwise, your proposition I deny as false; and that for these reasons: First, because I dare not condemn, all those famous and renowned churches, which even from Christ's time unto ours, have used the cross, to have been idolatrous; nor those ancient, learned, and godly Fathers, which have thought and taught so reverently of it, to have been idolaters: which absurdity must needs follow, if either this objection, or your fourth, have any weight in them. Secondly, because I find the whole stream of expositors to be against you: amongst whom I have given instance both in Caluine and Beza, and of our own translators of the Geneva Bible. pag. 21. Whose instances I wish you more deeply to consider of, and how far their judgement differeth from your proposition. Thirdly I find the practice of God himself to be against you in commanding the Cherubins to be placed in the Tabernacle; which (as Bishop Babbington truly collecteth) must needs make GOD contrary unto himself, 
Babbing▪ upon the second common.  if all religious images were so simply forbidden in the second commandment, as you affirm in your proposition. Fourthly (to come to our own particular instance) if the sign of the cross were simply forbidden in the second commandment, than were not only Gods practise contrary to his precept, but also one precept were contrary to another. For he commandeth expressly in the prophecy of Ezechiel, 
Ezech. 9.4.  to mark certain men in the forehead with the sign of the cross, which there he calleth Signum Tau; which being by Character expressed (as there it is commanded) hath none other form then the sign of the cross, 
Hier. in Ezec.  as S, Hierom expressly expoundeth that place: Thou litera, crucis haebet similitudinem, quae in Christianorum frontibus pingitur. Therefore this second commandment, doth neither particularly forbid the sign of the cross, nor generally all kinds of religious images, but only, in ordinatione ad cultum: to which purpose the cross is not used in our Church, where (as you know) it is not worshipped.  
Now for your Minor, that our cross is a religious image: that is more false than the former was. An image, our cross cannot be called, but in a very constrained sense: seeing that, in making it, we do not intend, either to express, or to honour that material cross, whereupon our Saviour suffered (whose image you would insinuate that sign to be) but only to testify by that outward sign, that we are not ashamed of the sufferings of Christ. As for the outward scheme & representation of the cross, it more properly may be called a character, than an image, as I showed you before in the letter Tau, whose character is the perfect form of the cross, as is likewise the Roman T. as Tertullian observeth; 
Tertul. lib. 3. cont. Martion. cap. 22.  seeing that we refer it, not eiconically to represent the cross of Christ, but Symbolically to represent his passion, by that character. Now, that characters and images be of two diverse natures, the Turks plainly show us, who are most superstitious in avoiding of images, & yet they do willingly admit of characters, as appeareth in their coins. So that the cross can no more properly be called an image, than the letter T. can. Yea even the Papists themselves deny it to be an image, as appeareth by their distinguishing of imago crucis, 
Bellarm. de imagine lib. 2. cap. 28.29.  from signum crucis, which is much more true in us, whose sign of the cross, is made rather to represent the sufferings of Christ, than the cross whereon he suffered. But, if our sign were a perfect resemblance of that cross, yet, as long as we use it not, in any such sense, it ought not, as an image to be objected unto us. The Hieroglyphiks of the Egyptians, were (in their shape and proportion) the images of birds, and beasts, and other creatures, amongst which was also the cross, as Ruffian reporteth, under which they signified the life to come: 
Ruffin. lib. 2. eccles. hist. cap. 29. pag. 7.  but yet because they used those figures but only as Characters, they are there to be reputed, not as images, but as letters. And therefore the signification of images is stretched and strained very far when such a poor character, (clean contrary to the use of it) yet is fetched within the compass of them.  
I have been the more careful to vindicate the cross from this opinion of being an image, not that it would hurt or prejudice the cause any whit if it were granted to be one, but because I do see, that T.C. and his followers have such an notable art in making of images & idols, that if they happen to mislike any thing whatsoever, they can presently transform the same into an idol, & make it as contrary unto God's commandment, as it is unto their own private fantasy and conceit. In this place you make the cross an image; and, in your 4. objection, 
Whitg. pag. 290.723.  you make it an idol; So likewse T. C in one place maketh the surplice an idol, calling it a woven image: in an other place, he calleth a Bride an idol because her husband saith, with my body I thee worship. And thus every thing which they misconceipt, is by and by misshaped into an idol. Whereas it is most true, that they make an idol of their own idle fancy, and private conceit, for the honour of which babble, they despise magistrates, violate laws, & force the very scriptures themselves. But, to return. You call the cross, not only an image, but also a religious image, and yet (as you know) we do not worship it: nor place any holiness or religion in it, more than in other ceremonies: neither make we it a substantial part of God's service, but only circumstantial: using, it only as an ecclesiastical ceremony, appointed in our church by humane authority, and not enjoined by God, upon mere necessity. 
Cal lib. 4. Instit. cap. 1.  And therefore whensoever our church (whom we ought dutifully to obey in all things, as our mother) shall cease to command us the use of that ceremony, we may then cease it lawfully, neither ever will call for it as a matter of necessity: but will truly profess with Minutius Felix, 
Sec. 10. In octavio.  nos crucem neque adoramus, neque optamus. In the mean season, if we use it whilst it is commanded, we do not offend against the second commandment: but, they which refuse it, offend against the fifth, of not honouring, with obedience, their lawful magistrates.   

The eleventh objection.  
I desire to have it opened unto me, by the word of God, how this sign can be affirmed to be an honourable badge, whereby to dedicate us unto him that died upon the cross. This (as I understand) is proper to the two Sacraments, to be the badges of our profession.   

Answer.  
This scruple here propounded, is nothing at all to the sum of this question▪ whether there cross may be lawfully used, or no. For, what if some men had applied the name of a badge, not altogether properly unto the cross, doth it therefore follow, that to use it, is altogether unlawful? Surely tho●e men will take any occasion to refuse it, that will take so light an occasion to condemn it. For what is it (I pray you) that in this name offendeth you? is it the title of Honourable? or the title of a Badge? For the first, that ought not: for I know none but infidels that do hold the cross a dishonour unto Christians. And I know again, that the ancient Christians did purposely use this sign before the face of infidels, to show them, that that which they counted their shame, they themselves esteemed to be their glory: so honourable a badge did they take the sign of the cross to be. Is it the name of a Badge, which so much offendeth you? why? that is but only a metaphorical appellation, to signify that it is a note or a cognisanse, whereby Christians may be known. What is there in this name, that can offend any wise man? The name of a badge is so far from being appropriated to the sacraments in the scripture, that it is not so much as once given them there, so far as I remember. Only, by analogy, it may be applied unto them: and so may it likewise unto ceremonies too, 
Pag. 3●.  which (as I cited before out of Aquinas) be nothing else, but Protestationes quaedam fidei, that is, badges and testimonies of our faith and profession.  
Ob. But you reason against that title in this manner.  
There be no more badges of our profession but two: viz. the two Sacraments. But, the sign of the cross is neither of them. ergo. No badge of our profession.  
Resp. For your proposition, I take it to be utterly false: and to be your own sole and singular opinion, wherein (so far as my reading stretcheth) I find not one fellow to keep you company. No Divine that I know, doth make the two Sacraments the sole badges of the Church. Calvin, unto the Sacraments addeth the preaching of the word, 
Cal. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 1. Sec. 9  as an other note of the Church. Luther, not only addeth it unto them, but also preferreth it before them; making, the Preaching of the word an essential note, 
Luther. lib. de concilijs et Ecclesia.  as being of the very Esse of the Church. The Sacraments he maketh but only accidental, as belonging but only to the Bene esse. 
Whit. cont: Bellar: quaest: 5. de Ecles. Beza: lib. confess cap: 5. Sect. 7:  With whom likewise consenteth that worthy Doctor Whitaker, a man (as all men know) not otherwise Lutheranizing. Beza, unto the word and Sacraments addeth also Discipline, as yet an other note of the Church. Luther again in the forecited place, addeth ●euer other badges unto his forenamed. viz: The power of the keys. The ordination of ministers. Prayer in public assemblies. and the cross of persecutions. By which it appeareth that though all Divines do make the sacraments the badges of the Church, yet that none of them do make them the only badges, as you expressly do.  
Ob But you desire to have it proved by scripture, that the sign of the cross is a badge of the Church.  
Resp. Let me answer you as CHRIST once answered the pharisees. 
Math. 21.24.  I will also propound a like condition unto you. Prove you by the scripture, that the cross can not be a badge of the Church: or that the sacraments are the only badges of it. Either is this condition which I propound, equal, or else that which you propound, must needs be unequal. For (as Tertullian noteth, 
Tertul. lib. de Coron. cap: 2.  to this very purpose) expostulantes scripturae patrocinium in part diversa, praeiudicant, suae quoque parti scripturae patrocinium adesse debere. If we must bring scripture who have the law for our doings: then much more should you do so, who have the law against your doings But, that you can bring none, we are verily persuaded: and yet I will show you that we can bring some. In the old testament, 
Num: 15.38.  GOD himself who appointed circumcision for a badge of their profession, g●ue them also (for an other badge) their Fringes and Phylactiries. In the new testament, our Saviour CHRIST, who gave us his sacraments for badges of our profession, yet (besides these two) he telleth us of an other, 
john. 13.35.  and a surer. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you love one an other: making Christian charity the cognisans of Christians. In the primitive Church the first believers, not contenting themselves with the sacraments for badges, took unto themselves a new one, to wit, 
Acts. 11.26.  The name of Christians. So that if a badge be nothing else, but a cognisans or note whereby a thing may be known, you see it now proved by the very scriptures, that not only sacraments be badges of our profession, but also outward garments inward virtues, yea & significant names too: which (indeed) are nothing else, but Notae rerum, the marks, and badges, & as it were the Cognisances whereby things be known. These instances out of the Scripture show that the sign of the cross, though it be not a sacrament of CHRIST'S own institution, yet that it may be a badge of our profession: as it was amongst the Christians in the primitive Church, who took it up in use, for this special purpose, to testify unto the world, that they were Christians, and not Pagans.  
If for this special ceremony of the cross, you still do require more particular testomony out of the scripture, I answer with Peter Martyr, 
Martyr: Epist. ad Hooperum.  in a like case: Non necessario requiritur, ut in sacris literis expressam mentionem exhibeamus, singularum rerum quas vsurp●mus. It is enough that we have not the Scripture against it, if we have the law for it.   

The twelfth objection.  
Lastly, because conscientia must be regulata: and regula conscientiae is only vox and verbum Dei, who alone is lord of the conscience: I humbly crave, that my scruples may be satisfied by the word.   

Answer.  
For the rule of our conscience, you rightly define it to be the word of God. And therefore, seeing this ceremony of the cross hath no particular testimony, either Pro or contrà, in the word of God; that general rule of the Apostle Peter, to submit ourselves unto all ordinances of man for the Lords sake, 
1. Pet: 2.13.  aught to be the rule of all our consciences. Which is a more plain and direct testimony of the word of GOD to guide our conscience unto obedience, than ever I could as yet see brought, so much as to colour your disobedience. which hath caused me often times to muse, with what face men could make such a pretence of conscience, not to yield their obedience in these indifferent matters, when as their conscience therein is without his rule: And therefore must needs be either an equivocal conscience, that is (in truth) no conscience at all: or else (at the least) an unruled conscience, yea and an unruly too, in keeping such a rule for indifferent things, of which they have no rule in the scripture, but only that forenamed rule of S. Peter, which most apparently they transgress.   

The obiectors conclusion.  
I do earnestly crave, to have the answers of my doubts set down, that I may the better ponder them: and that I may have leave, if (after answer) any scruple remain, modestly to propound it.   

Answer.  
I wish, that other men, which descent in opinion as concerning these matters, would take this wise and godly course (which yourself have done) for their satisfaction: to show the grounds of their scruples distinctly and plainly: and to propound unto themselves not victory, but verity, without altercation or obstinacy. Surely, if this course had been taken from the beginning, many fruitless contentions had received an end: the consciences of many men had been less offended: the lives of all men better reform: the calling of the ministry more regarded, their preaching more obeyed, and the Church in general better edified, which now by our contention is greatly damnified.  
I have therefore (for your particular satisfaction) set down (as you desire) mine answers in writing. If any scruple as yet remain unresolved it shall, with no less modesty by me be answered, than it is unto me by yourself propounded.  
God give us all his grace, to keep the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace. Amen.    

The same party (being fully resolved for ten of his objections; but as yet unsatisfied, as concerning two of them, viz. the third, & the tenth) brought these objections after, to receive a further answer.  

A reply to fortify the third objection.  
My third reason (me think) hath not yet received his full satisfaction: which for the more evidence, I thus frame & fortify.  
All relics and monuments of idolatry (being no creatures nor ordinances of God) used in God's service, are unlawful.  
But, the sign of the cross is such. It is a monument of idolatry, and used in God's service; Ergo, it is unlawful.   

The proposition is thus backed.  
First, a monument being nothing but that which admonisheth our mind of any thing, it must needs be, that being abused to idolatry (being no way of God's creation nor ordinance) and remaining to posterity immediately after the abuse, are relics and monuments of idolatry. Concerning which, 
Deut. 12.3.  God hath plainly declared his will, where he commandeth to cut down the groves, and to burn them, to overthrow the altars, to break the images in pieces, etc. And thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God. 
Isai. 30.22.  Also thou shalt pollute the covering of the Images of Silver, and the rich ornaments of the Images of gold, and cast them away as a menstruous cloth. Where necessarily in clear reason, we must understand, that GOD will have done away all of this kind, as well as these particulars here named: yea, all that hath any nearness or affinity with idolatry, and which may be as enticements to turn us from God and his pure worship, from which we are so apt to decline, if we have the least occasion. Such is man's extreme propension unto superstition: as the example of the jews evidenceth. Upon these grounds our church worthily (in a religious care of preserving us sincere in God's service) hath abandoned rood-lofts, wax-candles, and other infinite relics and monuments of idolatry.  
For the Assumption: The sign of the cross to be none of God's creatures or ordinances, but the invention of men, it is clear. Also, that it was idolatrously abused of the Papists, by whom it is immediately left unto us. And it hath a certain fitness to bring their idolatry to mind, as often as it is used in divine service: therefore a monument of idolatry, howsoever used by us unto another end, which might have kept in all other monuments of superstition whatsoever, even Heathenish idols; for it is an easy thing to devise a different end and use of them, from that whereunto they were applied by idolaters. Now, if things abused unto idolatry be unlawful, than the sign of the cross, being more than that, even made an Idol, as having divine adoration, holiness and virtue given to it, much more (in that respect) should be reckoned unlawful.   

Answer.  
As concerning your Mayor proposition, That all monuments and relics of idolatry are unlawful, it must first be examined and distinguished, before it be either admitted or denied.  
First therefore as concerning these two words, of [Relic] and [Monument what your meaning should be in them, it is not plain and apparent. A Relic in his original sense, is properly nothing else, but the remainder of some body, 
Orig. hom. 5. in Psal. 36.  which is for the greatest part consumed, as Origen noteth. Quae superest pars corporis, reliquiae nominatur. A monument, is some new work, erected and instituted for the remembrance of that old body, which before was decayed. Both these words, by the common and ordinary Ecclesiastical use of them, imply, that both a relic and a monument are purposely destinated, to preserve the remembrance of that subject, 
Festus in voce, Monimentum.  of which it is either a relic or a monument: as Festus noteth.  
Now if you take a relic or a monument of Idolatry in this sense, for either a remainder of that old idolatry which is now decayed, or a sign newly erected of purpose, to preserve the remembrance of it, for the love and reverence which we bear unto it: then I yield your proposition to be very true, that all such relics and monuments of idolatry, aught to be rooted out, and none of them used in the service of God. For that were to mingle light with darkness, Christ with Beliall, 
2. Cor▪ 6.16.  and the Temple of God with Idols, as the Apostle Paul speaketh.  
But, if you take the name of a relic of idolatry, for any thing which hath in idolatry been used, though the abuse thereof be now reform, and the nature thereof (by an other use) clean changed, as it is in our sign of the cross: Or, if you take the name of a Monument, for any thing whatsoever may bring into our minds the remembrance of idolatry, though not ex instituto, but ex accident, then do I utterly deny your proposition, as false. And that for these reasons.  
First, because yourself, even in that proposition where you would eradicate all monuments of idolatry, yet do it with this reservation, If they be not either the creatures or ordinances of God. So that you seem to grant a special dispensation, unto certain monuments of idolatry, to be admitted again into God's service, 
Look p. 22.23.  namely if they be either God's creatures or ordinances. Which (for aught that I know) have by the word of God no greater immunities or exemptions, then have man's ordinances and inventions: as evidently appeareth by agag's sheep, which were God's creatures: and the brazen serpent, which was GOD'S ordinance: both which were destroyed, notwithstanding that indulgence which you seem to give them. So that the creatures of GOD have no greater privilege, being monuments of idolatry, than other things have. And I desire to know, either the place where, or the case when, or the cause why, such privilege is granted them? For I suppose that this clause of exemption, is but cunningly inserted into the proposition, only to avoid the force of those evident examples which may be brought of GOD'S creatures and ordinances abused to idolatry, which yet have been restored unto their uses of piety: and to tie us only unto the inventions of man, wherein you suppose we can bring you none instance.  
So that, from this clause of your exemption, I thus argue.  
The creatures of GOD have no greater privilege than the ordinances of the Church: But the creatures of GOD (by your own confession) are privileged from destruction, though they have been abused unto idolatry. Ergo. The ordinances of the Church are likewise privileged: and consequently the cross.  
So that either you must show by the testimony of Scripture, where that special privilege is granted unto God's creatures, or else will we plead it as a common law for ceremonies, and for man's inventions, as it pleaseth you to call all ecclesiastical constitutions, though T.C. have an other opinion of them, as you heard before pag. 16.  
The second reason which moveth me to deny your proposition, is the judgement and practice of the primitive church against it, who have admitted of diverse inventions of men in the service of God, which had formerly been abused unto idolatry, even with devils. To give you one instance, above all exceptions.  
The Christians in the primitive church, converted those same temples into the houses of God, which had before been consecrated unto heathen idols. These idolatrous temples are man's mere inventions, erected not only without any warrant, but also directly against God's commandment: and yet you see, that the primitive and purest church made no scruple at all of using those temples, though they were the same individua that had been abused, 
Deut. 12.2.  and have an express commandment to be destroyed. Whose example (contrary to your position) all the reformed churches of Christendom do imitate, in using without scruple, those very same churches, which have manifestly and manifoldly been polluted with popish idols: which practise even Calvin himself alloweth, Neque nobis hody religio est, 
Cal. Exposi. in Exod.  saith he, templa retinere quae polluta fuerunt idolis, et accommodare in usum meliorem. Now, what can be the reason, why both the primitive church and ours should so fully conspire in using the same temples which have been abused, (contrary unto the express and particular commandment of God as you imagine) but only this, that they thought not themselves there bound to use destruction, where the things abused would admit a reformation, as it hath apparently done, no less in our crosses, then in our churches.  
If you call those temples, the creatures of God, because the wood and stone, and other materials whereof they were made, are the creatures of GOD, you apply that name unproperly, and very abusively: and, by the sam● proportion, I may likewise call the sign of the cross, the creature of God, 
Act. 17 28. john. 2. ●. Rom. 11.36.  because, In him we live and move, and have our being: and without him is nothing made that is made: and, of him, and through him, and for him are all things.  
If you grant these te●ples to be man's inventions (as they can not be denied to be the works of men's hands, no nor of their heads neither) then must you either deny, that they were lawfully converted unto the service of GOD, contrary to the running fireable of all Divines▪ Or else you must cancel that, which before you averred, That it is unlawful to use the inventions of man in the service of GOD, if once they have been abused unto idolatry.  
My third reas●n of denying your proposition, is, that I do find you to be singular in it, 
Pet Mart. Epist add Hooper●m.  and all Divines (beside yourself) against it. Peter Martyr, in an Epistle which he writ to Bishop Hooper upon this very question, giveth these pregnant instances against your proposition. That not only the temples of heathen idols were converted into the houses of GOD: but also their idolatrous revenues, dedicated to their plays to their Vestals, nay, to their devils, yet were co●uerted to the maintenance of Christian Ministers. He addeth in that place many other instances, and he delivereth his judgement in this memorable sentence, Non mihi persuadeo papatus impietatem esse ●antam, ut quicquid atting t●omnino reddat contaminatum, quo, bonis et sanctis, usus pio, non possit concedi. Mark usus pio. With him likewise consent▪ both ●ucer, Gua●ter and Bullenger, whose sentences being long to write here, and yet very worthy the reading you may find in Bishop Whi●gyfts book. pag. 276.277. yea and even T. C. himself (contrary to his own Doctrine) ye● is forced, 
Whitg. pag. 284.  by the evidence of the truth to yield thu● much, That things abused to idolatry may lawfully ●●e used, in the Church, so that first they be purified from their abuse. Yea and in an other place, he yieldeth that even monuments of idolatry (note your own word) may be used in the Church, 
256.  so that there come manifest profit of them. Neither speaketh he there of either the creatures, or ordinances of God, but of the Cap and Surplice which are man's inventions, both which, though he affirmeth to be monuments of idolatry, yet he granteth that they might be used in the church, but that they be altogether with out any profit.  
And again he professeth of them, in that place that they neither have any pollution in themselves, 
Tertul lib. de Coron cap. 8.  nor transfuse any pollution unto their wearers, but that he rejecteth them for lack of profit in them, and not only because the Papists have abused them. Unto these I might add Tertullians' judgement, who giveth many instances, of heathen men's inventions which have notably been abused unto idolatry, and yet had good use in Christianity amongst which, these be some; that letters were first invented by the heathen god Mercury & Physic, by the heathen god Aesculapius & yet the first of these he granteth to be necessary, non solum commercij rebus sed et nostris erga deum studijs: the second, though it were the inventions of a heathen, 
Isai. 38.21. 1. Tim. 5.23.  yet was used both by the prophet Isay towards king Ezechias, in prescribing him his plaster: and by the Apostle Pa●l towards his scholar Timothy in prescribing him wine, in steed of water. Yea, and he further affirmeth, that our Saviour Christ himself, when he girded him with linen to wash his disciples feet, did therein use the proper habit of the heathen god Osiris. And he determineth this question, with this conclusion, that all those inventions of heathen gods, may be used in the service of Christ and the true God, which do either bring to men, a manifest profit [as Mercury his letters do] or, a necessary help [as Ezechias his plaster did ●or, an honest comfort [as Timothy's wine did, the rest, which have none of these uses, he condemneth.  
My fourth reason why I deny your proposition, is, because even you yourselves, by your practice, confute it, in admitting and wearing the cap and the surplice, which are neither the creatures nor ordinances of God, but mere inventions of men, honoured by the Papists with an opinion of holiness, and abused by them, in their idolatrous service; and immediately from the Papists themselves, left unto us, and censured by the reformers, 
Whitg. pag. ●82. 261.283.  to be the Preaching signs of Popish priesthood, Antichristian apparel, and garments of idols. Which (as yourself out of the prophecy of Isay allege) ought to be destroyed: Notwithstanding, all which, you are content to use them. Now I would gladly know a reason, why these things may be used, and the cross (being of the same nature, if not of a better) should be so obstinately refused. For ever these forenamed instances (to let the cross pass) are a practical confutation of your theorical opinion, that no monuments of idolatry may be used in the church, unless they be either the creatures, or ordinances of God. This position you yourselves do manifestly confute, in using the surplice: which (peradventure) is the same individuum which hath been abused, whereas the cross (without peradventure) is not the same. I write not this, as misliking your conformity and obedience in those things, but as wishing it in the rest; wherein I see no greater cause of dissenting, then there is in this, notwithstanding a●l those tragical exclamations that the reformers use to aggravate the matter: Wherein they do nothing else; but according to the proverb▪ tragedias agere in nugis, whose vehement exaggerations, as you hau● neglected in the use of the surplice, so have you as great reason, to do the same, in the use of the cross: ●hich you can not condemn as a monument of idolatry (being so simply used as it is in ou● church) but you ●herein must condemn the whole world of Christianity, with whom it hath (from the beginning) been in use.  
Ob. But you bring, for the strengthening of your proposition, three several kinds of proofs. ●he fi●st from the notation of the name of Monument. The second, from the testimony of the scriptures. The third, from the practice of reformed churches: wherein you give instance in our own.  
Your first proof, That all monuments of idolatry are to be abolished is this: because they be ordained to preserve and continue the remembrance of it, 
Pag. ●0.  which you show by this Notation of the name, that Monimentum, is quasi monens mentem. Whereby it appeareth, that you take the name of monument, not for that which casually▪ but for that which purposely admonisheth the mind: that so, by moving a remembrance of it, it may stir up our desire and affection towards it. For otherwise, it may movere, but it doth not promovere: it moveth our remembrance to no purpose, if it draw not our affection to that purpose. So that you make a monument of idolatry, to be (in effect) a muniment of idolatry.  
Resp. I will take none exception at your notation, because I find it backed both by Festus and Nonnius; though that termination [mentum] doth not always imply mentem, as appeareth in many words; Condimentum, Pigmentum, etc. But if you take the name of monimentum, in this sense, for that which purposely preserveth the memory of any th●ng, either for love or honour sake; I have yielded before, your proposition to be true; 
pag. 53.  that no such monument of idolatry is lawful to be used in the service of God: But then with what conscience can any ma● affirm, that our cross in Baptism is such a monument of idolatry? which all men know to be instituted for a far other end, then to preserve the remembrance of Popery amongst us, or to stir up any man's affection towards it.  
If you take the name of monument in a larger sense, for any thing whatsoever, which may bring it unto our remembrance, either casus, or consilio▪ then I say it is a false and a dangerous position, to hold that all such monuments of superstition ought to be destroyed, 
pag. 11.12.53. etc. W●itgift. pag. 277.  as I have formerly declared. For then (as Gualther truly noteth) We should pull down our Churches, and renounce our livings, nay we should abandon not only our ceremonies, but also our Creed, our Sacraments, and prayers, all which may casually bring to our remembrance that idolatry of the Papists, wherein they have been abused. Besides, this absurdity would follow of it; If all such casual admonitions should be condemned; that the same cross, at the same time, admonishing the Papist of his popish adoration, and the protestant of Christ's death and passion, should at one and the same instant, be both a monument of idolatry and of true p●ety, and so should be lawful and unlawful, both at once. And therefore, it were a miserable extending of the name of monument, to stretch it unto all such casual admonishments, and to condemn them as unlawful.  
Ob. But you have a second and a better proof, taken out of the Scriptures, where you allege two places: the one Deut. 12.2.3. where the Temples, the altars, the groves, the pillars of Idols are commanded to be destroyed, as well as themselves. The other place is, Isai. 30.22. where further even the garments and ornaments of idols are commanded to be abolished. And your gloss goeth yet further; that not only the particulars in those places named, but also all that hath any nearness or affinity with idolatry ought to be destroyed, without any limitation of uses, or mitigation of this rigour, how profitably soever they may be employed.  
Resp. 
Whitgift. pag. 273.  Wherein I see, that you descent as far from T. C. (who is not so straight-laced in this point of idolatry, but he thinketh it very lawful to use the gold and silver of idols garments) as he dissents from Calvin, 
Cal. in Isai. cap 30.  who thinketh it utterly unlawful. Therefore S. Augustine's judgement is worthy the hearing, 
Aug. epist. 154.  who in his Epistle unto Publicola, doth fully and sound decide this question, and for these places alleged bringeth a very good exposition; namely, that GOD hath commanded such things to be destroyed, no● as being simply unlawful to all uses, but to restrain men's greedy & covetous desires, in converting them unto their private uses; ut appareat, ●os pietate ista destruere, non avaritia. In which Epistle he most plainly determineth of this whole question: the sum of whose determination may be digested into these few aphorisms. 1. that the temples, & groves, and other such monuments of idolatry, may be destroyed by those men that have lawful authority. 2. that being so destroyed there ought nothing of them unto our own private use to be reserved. 3. that yet notwithstanding, unto public use, they may be employed, yea, & not only to common uses, but also unto religious uses too, in honorem dei, as he proveth by two instances, viz: the metals of Hierico laid up, for God's tabernacle, & the grove of Baal, 
josh. 6.19. judg. 6. 25.2●  cut down, for God's sacrifice. 4. that the reducing of such abused crea●ures unto a better use, is all one (in effect) with the reducing of a wicked man, unto a better life. 5 that yet this proviso must be used that provision be made, 
Note this.  that they be not still honoured. This is the whole sum of S. Augustine's decision; agreeing in many points with Peter martyrs judgement upon the same question; Epistolaad Hooperum. Both which learned Epistles are very worthy the reading, of all men which are perplexed with such intricate doubting, where they may find great stay and comfort for their conscience, if in truth and sincerity they do seek for resolution, and not in pride and singularity for alteration.  
Ob. The third proof of your proposition, is drawn from the example of our own reformed church, whose practice showeth his judgement. She, in abandoning roodloftes, crucifixes, wax-candles, and other like relics and monuments of idolatry, showeth in these particulars, that general position to be true in her judgement, that, No relic or monument of idolatry ought to have any use in the service of God.  
Resp. That a●l monuments of idolatry are to be abolished I have formerly yielded, taking those that be truly monuments indeed, that is, for such idolatrous things as are purposely reserved, to preserve the remembrance of idolatry amongst us, that so we may not be weaned from it. As for incense, wafers, wax-candles, and such like things, which have been misapplied amongst the Papists, and wrung to a wrong use, they cannot be called the monuments of idolatry, but in a very forced and equivocal sense, if our church should retain them in an other use.  
The Godly care of our church, in abandoning all true monuments of superstition, doth not infer that the cross is one: but rather prove that it is none, because our church hath not abandoned it.  
Ob. But you seem to insinuate that our church hath therein erred, having as great a reason to abolish the cross as either Rood-lofts, or crucifixes, or wax-candles, or any other like monuments of idolatry which she hath rejected.  
Resp. Whether our whole church or you, are more likely to err, in truly judging and esteeming the monuments of idolatry, let wise men judge. That which our church hath done in abolishing such things, doth sufficiently defend that which she hath not done: unless we should imagine all those churches which have received the cross, from the time of the Apostles, to be less wise, or less religious, in matter of idolatry, than a few private persons, sprung only up in our times, Nimirum (as Tertullian saith of Martion) liberanda veritas expectavit Cartwrightum. All the world had surely died in idolatry, if T.C. had not helped to pluck it out.  
But as concerning that discretion which our church hath made, in the abolishing of some things, and retaining of others, you are to understand, that all the things she hath abolished be not of one nature; nor for one cause rejected. Some things she hath abolished of mere necessity, because they were simply unlawful, as the image of the crucifix, set up upon the Altar, of purpose to be worshipped, and so known to be notoriously abused. Other things she hath abolished, only upon conveniency, because they were less profitable, as Salt, Oil, Wax-candles and such like. These things she hath abolished, not as monuments of idolatry, and things simply unlawful, but as needless ceremonies, and things not greatly profitable; with whose unprofitable number, she would not have herself unnecessarily burdened. Now, in these of the first sort, in that our Church hath abolished all pa●ts and monuments of idolatry, she hath therein discharged her necessary duty In these of the second sort, in that ●●e hath refused some, and retained others she hath therein used her freedom and liberty, yea even in the things by yourself forenamed: as she hath remembered her du●y, to take away the abuse, ●o she hath not forgot her liberty, to refrain the things abused, the abuse being severed. Such crucifixes she hath removed as were abused unto idolatry, but yet left such still, as may admonish us, by way of history The rood she hath cast down, but left the fit standing. Wax candles she hath removed from before the dead images, and yet retained them still, for the use of living men, to see to praise God by. So that GOD is now praised by the same light amongst us, by which he was dishonoured amongst the Papists, as he is likewise by our cross. And therefore from the practice of our Church in destroying of idolatry you can gather no more, but that the cross (being not destroyed) is no monument of idolatry: unless you will assume a deeper judgement to yourself, than you will grant unto our whole Church beside your self. This, for your proposition, and the proof thereof; that All monuments of idolatry are unlawful in GOD'S service.  
Ob. Let us now come on unto your Assumption that the sign of the cross is a monument of idolatry.  
Resp. Your proposition I denied but with a distinction: but your Assumption I do sim●ly and absolutely deny. I deny that our cross is either a relic or a monument of popish idolatry: and that upon this reason following, which I wish may be well and thoroughly considered.  
First as concerning the word Relic 〈◊〉 our sign of the cross be a relic of the Papists cross than must it of necessity be a part of it as I showed before, 
page: 53.  out of Origens' definition of a Relic. But our sign of the cross is no part of theirs: and therefore, it cannot be a Relic of it.  
That it is no part of theirs, appeareth by this reason: That every part is either an integral part, that is, a member of the same individual body: or else, an universal part, that is either an Individuum of the same Species, or else, a Species, of the same Genus. But our cross (as we use it) is none of all these: it is neither a part of the same Individual action, abused by the Papists; nor a whole Individuum of the same Species: no, no● yet a Species of the same Proximum genus, and therefore it is not a part of theirs, and consequently no relic.  
For the first of these points: That the cross by us used, is not any integral part of that cross which the Papists abused, it is clear by this reason. Because every several cross which any Papist maketh, being but a singular and indiviuall action, it is so far from being possible to be parted & divided between two diverse men, that it is utterly unpossible to be iterated or renewed by one and the same man. Heraclitus said, (and he said truly) that it was unpossible for any man, 
Plut: lib de E.I.  Eundem fluvium vis intrare: taking eundem there, for cundem numero. And so may I say as truly, that it is unpossible for any man, Eandem actionem vis peragere. For though the priest be the same, and the hand the same, and the forehead the same, and the end the same, yet the action repeated is not the same: when he once hath made one singular cross, he can never make the same cross over again. The same opus individwo he may make again; as a man may cast the same bullet in the same mould a thousand times over: but the same Action in individuo (verbo causa his first casting of it) it is utterly unpossible he should ever do again. For to make a singular action again, all these singulers must concur: Idem agens, idem patience, idem agendi modus, finis, tempus, all which are unpossible to concur any ofter than once. So that our cross is so far from being an integral part of theirs, that one of their own crosses is no part of an other. And therefore our cross can no more properly be called a relic of theirs, than a bone of Saint Paul's body, can a relic of judas, of which it is no member.  
Let us now see whether our cross be a part of the same totum universal, seeing it is no part of the same totum integrale. This point I think, if it ●uly be considered, will manifest to all men, that our cross and the Papists, be not so near of kin, as it hath been imagined. L●t us therefore divide the Predicament of Action into his several Species, that we may know how to give unto every one his right, and not unskilfully to confound those things, which nature hath distinguished.  

Actio, alia  
Animi gaudere, dolere.  
Corporis 

Interna, concoctio, digestio, assimulatio.  
Externa. 

Comunis, Loqui, ambulare.  
Sacra 

Genuum fl●ctio▪  
Crucis effictio 

Papistarum quae superstitiosa, quia cultui destinata 

Permanens 1. imago crucis 

H●ec.  
Illa.    
Transiens 1. signum crucis 

Hoc.  
illud      
Protest intium, quae religiosa, quia pi etati accommodata 

Permanens 1. imago historica 

Haec.  
Illa.    
Transiens. Signum crucis 

Hoc.  
illud.               
By this Series it appeareth, that our cross is neither an Individuum of the same Species with the Papists, nor yet a species of the same proximum genus: but separated from it, by three substantial differences. The first is taken from the Agents, that theirs is the cross of Papists, ours of Protestants: which maketh that these two actions cannot be individua of the same species. For a Protestant an● a Papist are two diverse Species or kinds of worshippers; and therefore their actions of worship, must by consequent, be as differing in Species, as be their agents. The second difference between their cross and ours (which maketh them yet more distant) is taken from their differing ends: a point which altereth the very nature of the actions. The Papists make their cross as it were a kind of Exorcism, to keep them from evil spirits: but we do make our cross to no such superstitious end, but only (as by a significant ceremony to admonish our minds of Christ's merits towards us and of our duties towards him. These two differing ends, do yet put a further difference in the actions. There is yet a third difference, which still removeth them further: and that is, that that very remotum genus, of Sacra actio, under which, both the Papists cross and ours is contained, yet doth not praedicari vni●ocè of them both, but of ours only univoce: 
Arist. lib. Categor. cap. 1.  and of theirs, aequivocè: as Homo doth of pictus and of viws homo. For their cross, though it be in name Sacra actio, yet is it in truth and in deed, profana. So that the Papistical cross and ours, agree but in two things: First, in the name, that both are called Crosses: and secondly, in the scheme and outward form of the action, in that both of them be made of one figure and fashion. But they differ in three points, of far greater weight.  
First in the nature of the actions, in that the one is truly a religious action; the other aequivocally religious, truly superstitious. Secondly, in the nature of the Agents: The one being sincere worshippers of the true GOD, the other corrupt worshippers of abominable Idols. And thirdly in the end of the actions; the one being destinated unto true piety, the other likewise unto impious idolatry.  
Thus do our cross and their toto genere differre, so that the corruption of the one, cannot transfuse infection into the other: but that we may as lawfully use ours, notwithstanding their unlawful abuse of theirs, as we may breathe of the same air, into which Idolaters have fumed their incense; or drink of the same waters, 
Aug. epist. 154 add Publs. col●m.  in which Idolaters have washed their sacrifice, as Saint Augustine truly noteth. And therefore these actions, being in nature so distant, the one so innocent and religious, the other so nocent and superstitious; if any man shall either condemn the one, for the abuses of the other, or condemn them both for the abuses of the one, it is all one injustice, as if one should condemn an innocent creature, for the faults and vices of a malefactor; and it falleth directly into that woe of the Prophet: 
Isai. 5.20.  Woe be unto them that call goo●, evil; and evil, good. And that again of the Wiseman. 
Pro. 17: 15. lib. 3. cap. 15. de lib. arbitr. Tom. 1. p. 662.  He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just they are both abomination unto the Lord. For as Saint Augustine truly noteth, Peccat, qui damnat quasi peccatae, qu●c nulla sunt.  
Thus our cross (as you see) is no relic of their cross, of which it is neither a member, nor a part. Now let us see whether it be a Monument of idolatry, or no: yourself do bring this Etymon of that name, 
Isidor. lib. 14. Orig. cap. 11.  that Monimentum, is quasi monens mentem, which is Isidores derivation: which evidently showeth, that the end of all monuments is admonition; and to keep in our minds, the remembrance of those things, which (otherwise) might happily decay amongst us. Hence, temples, and Sepulchres, are properly called their monuments unto whom they be dedicated. So that a Monument of that, in remembrance of which it was purposely erected, and not of any other thing, which by an other man's fantasy is thereby imagined. In this sense, our cross, may truly be called a monument of Christ our Saviour crucified, for whose remembrance it is purposely intended; but why it should be called a monument of idolatry, it having no such end or purpose, as to conserve the memory of it, I can see no reason. A monument (as I said before) can only be called a monument of that which intentionally it admonisheth, and not of any other thing, which conceit and fancy from the same collecteth. For so we might quickly make Quidlibet, ex Quolibet, and every thing might be called a monument of all things: by so far unlike things are we oft times put in mind of some other things. The Israelites by the long use of Manna amongst them, 
Numb. 11.4.5.6.  were not only put in mind of the flesh-pots of Egypt, but also provoked to lust and desire them. Shall we therefore say, that Manna was a monument of their idolatrous food in Egypt, because by loathing of the one, they were admonished to lust after the other? A man oft times is admonished to remember some one thing, by another which is of a contrary nature, (as the prodigal child was, 
Luk. 15 17.  who by seeing the base estate wherein himself was, remembered the good estate wherein his fatners' servants were) yet cannot the one of these, be called a monument of the other: because this admonition is merely casual, and not natural. If then any man be casually admonished to remember the idolatrous cross of the Papist by seeing of ours, this admonition proceeding, not ab intentione agentis, but à corruption spectantis, cannot make our cross a monument of theirs, no more than a Bird flying, or a man swimming, or a plough going, or a ship sailing, may be called a monument of the cross, because by all these figures a man may be put in mind to remember it, as diverse of the Fathers have observed. justine Martyr. orat. ad Antonium Pium. Ambros. Serm. 56. So that our cross can neither be a relic of theirs of which it is no part; nor yet a monument, of which it is no sign, and therefore your assumption (as I hope you see) is false.  
Ob. But you confirm the same unto us, by three special proofs which demonstrate our cross to be a monument of superstition. The first is this: Because it was by the Papists idolatrously abused, who ascribed unto it, divine Holiness, Power, and Adoration. The second is, because it is from them left immediately unto us. The third, because our pretence of a differing end in using it, is not a sufficient defence for it. Because by that reason, all other monuments of Idolatry, yea even idols themselves might be brought in again. This is the sum of that fortification whereby you endeavour to make good your Assumption, that our cross must needs be a monument of idolatry. Let us therefore consider of all these things apart.  
Resp. For your first Objection: that our cross hath been idolatrously abused, nay made a very idol, you prove it by three instances: whereof the two first are insufficient. For, what if they thought the sign of the cross to have either greater holiness, or greater power, than indeed it had; must this needs make it become by and by an idol? 
Isai. 1.21. Ier: 7.4.  The jews thought both their holy city Jerusalem, and the temple therein contained, to be a great deal holier than indeed they were: did this opinion of theirs therefore make those two things idols? 
2 King: 4.29.31.  Elisha in like manner, when he sent his staff to raise the child to life, did think it to have had a greater power, than it had: yet did not that opinion make the staff become an idol. So likewise the Papists, in thinking the cross to have either a kind of holiness to sanctify the users, or a kind of power to drive away the devils; in these fancies they declare, rather the error of their opinion, than the idolatry of their religion.  
But your third instance of adoration, (if it be ideed divine which they give unto it: for all agree not in this point) that is a good demonstration, 
Bellar. Tom. 1. cont. 7. lib: 2. cap. 22.24.  that to them it is an idol. But what is that to us? how followeth it, that our cross must needs be a monument of idolatry, because theirs is an idol any more than our oxen are monuments of idolatry because the Egyptians oxen were their idols? Whether all oxen are made unlawful for the service of God, 
Exod. 8.26.  because some were made idols, that is an other question; but that all oxen must be monuments of idolatry (if our cross be one) that is out of question. For, the reason which you make against the cross, doth hold as strongly against the ox; yea even to the banishing him from all use of the tabernacle (notwithstanding your inserted clause of exemption) if there be any sound truth in your general proposition.  
Ob. For your 2. objection; that the cross is a monument of idolatry because it is immediately left by the Papists unto us. That is faulty in all parts: for this must needs be the sum of your argument, if it have any argument.  
Whatsoever is left us immediately by the Papists, that is a monument of of idolatry. But the cross is left us immediately by the Papists. Ergo.  
Resp. In which argument, both your Mayor and your Minor be false. First for your Mai●r: It is not the leaving of any thing unto us by idolaters, which maketh the thing left, a monument of idolatry, unless it be also a part of their idolatry. For, both the Scriptures and the Sacraments are left unto us (in your sense) by the Papists, who are known to be notorious idolaters: and yet neither of these (I hope) will you call, the monuments of idolatry.  
Ob. But these (you will say) be the ordinances of God, and so may have use in the service of God, by that clause of exemption, which you have inserted into your first proposition, that no monuments of idolatry (being neither the creatures, nor ordinances of God) can have any use in the service of God.  
Resp. Though that clause of exemption admit them into the service of God; yet doth it not exempt them from being monuments of idolatry, if this be a good reason which you here allege why the cross should be a monument of idolatry, because it is le●t us immediately by the Papists. For, the cross is left us none otherwise by the Papists, them both Scriptures & Sacraments are left unto us by them, yea & their idolatrous Churches too: which may truly & properly be called Monumenta, the monuments of idolatry. Unto which you are forced to grant an use in GOD'S service, notwithstanding they be both the same individua which have been abused, and are no better but the inventions of men.  
Ob. Now, for your Assumption, That the cross is left unto us immediately by the Papists, that is as false as your proposition was. For that only may properly be said to be left us, which is de manu in manum delivered unto us, 
1. Cor. 11.23.  as the Apostles did their Traditions unto their successors. In a second and a more proper sense, that also may be said to be left unto us, which by imitation we borrow from others as the apostles again did, their law of Blood and strangled, from their predecessors, in the law. 
Act: 15.20.  But neither of these ways can the cross be said to be left us by the Papists. For, first, unto us (whom they count heretics) they could not leave any thing which they hold so precious: and secondly, from them (whom we count idolaters) we would not borrow any thing, which we held so superstitious. So that, neither of these two ways, is it left by them unto us. And much less the third way, which is, by Desertion, as though we had come unto it, tanquam in vacuam possessionem, for they still do fight for it, tanquam pro aris et focis. So that, I cannot see, how the cross can be said to be left unto us, by them, unless you thereby intent that we have as it were wrung it out of their hands; and that so they left that to us, which they could not withhold from us.  
If you take this phrase [left unto us] in a sense so prodigally and prodigiously large, that you count all that to be left unto us, by those men which have used the same things before us: then may both the sun and the moon, and all the elements be said to be left unto us by idolaters, and consequently to be The monuments of idolatry. and so what is there any where, which (in this so large and so lax a sense) may not be called A monument of idolatry?  
As for this point, therefore, we truly profess, that we borrow not this ceremony from the Romish Synagogue (though they have more lately used it) but from the primitive Church, who first ordained it. So that as it cannot truly be said, that the Papists have left us either the Lords prayer, or the Apostles creed, or the holy sacraments, but that we take all these (by our own right) out of the holy scriptures, 
Nostrum quip est, quodcunque de nostris, sumpsisse et tradidisse contigit illis. Terul. lib. de tes●imonio animae cap. 5. Senec. Epist. 33.  which are open to us, as well as to them: so can it not truly be said, that the Papists have left unto us the cross, but that we do borrow it from the primitive church: whose customs, the Papists have no more authority to engross unto themselves, than the Protestants have: but may as freely be used by us, as by them, for, Patet omnibus veritas, nondum est occupata.  
But if it were granted, that this ceremony of the cross, though left unto us by the primitive church, yet were brought unto us by the hands of Papists, doth that presently make it a monument of idolatry? if one should receive a token by the hand of a Pagan which were sent unto him from a Christian; is it therefore made a monument of idolatry, because he that brought it was an idolater? Holy orders were given unto the first Protestants, by the hands of Papists: doth this so defile the orders of our ministry, as to make them presently the monuments of idolatry? Surely, though the Papists, have very foul hands, yet do I not take them, to be so ugly foul, as the Harpies feet were, which defiled all things that they once had touched: non mihi persuadeo (saith Peter Martyr) papatus impietatem esse tantam ut quicquid attingit, 
Virg. lib. 3. Aeneid.  contaminatum reddat, quò bonis usui sancto, concedi non possit. In whose Christian and charitable judgement I do willingly sit down.  
Ob. Now, for your third objection. That the change of our end in the use of the cross, doth not make any change in the nature of the thing.  
Resp. I wonder you will affirm a thing, so contrary unto the rules of Logic and reason. Who knoweth not, that of all the causes, 
Aug. Epist. 48. ad Vincent.  it is only The end, which maketh all actions to be either good or evil? especially in things of indifferent nature. Tertullian doth give us some instances to this purpose. 
Tertul. lib. de Coron. cap. 10  et ego mihi gallinaceum macto, non minùs quam Aescul●pio Socrates (saith he) et, si me odor alicuius loci offenderit, Arabiae aliquid incendo. What is the reason then, that his kill of a cock, and his burning of incense, (being all one action with that of the idolaters) yet is not idolatry, as their action was? He answereth it himself: quia, usus ipsius administratio interest. 
Aug lib. 4. cont. julian Pelagian cap. 3.  And again, that he did these things, nec eodem ritu, nec eodem habitu, nec eodem apparatus, quo agitur apud idola. So that, it was his difference in the end, which made such a difference in the actions. For (as Saint Augustine to the same purpose observeth) non actibus, 
Mat. 6.2.5.16  sed finibus pensantur officia, which our Saviour also declareth, by three notable instances in the pharisees, viz, fasting, alms, & praying, all which good actions were (in them) corrupted, by their evil ends, because, they did them to be seen of men. So that, the end (as you see) not only exempteth an action from sin, but also infecteth an action with sin.  
Ob. But you say. That then by altering of the end, we may bring back again even heathen idols too.  
Resp. I answer, that the comparison is very unequal. For heathen idols, are most evidently forbidden and condemned in the scripture, which the cross is not. And yet that there may be such an alteration in the end, that even heathen idols may have some use in God's service, I have showed you before out of Saint Augustine's judgement. 
Pag. 59    

A reply to fortify the tenth objection.  
Ob. All outward forms and liknesses in God's worship, ordained by man, and that, to edify, teach, stir up men's affections towards God: they are forbidden in the second commandment. This is by the very text necessarily consequent. Exod. 20 4.  
But the sign of the cross is such a likeness. For, Master Hooker, an authentic expositor of our ceremonies, condemneth all as vain, that are not significant. And yourself show that to be your judgement in your answer: Ergo, etc.  
That of Saint Paul, that all aught to be to edifying, I pray to have it considered, whether it be understood of such spiritual gifts only, as God gave to his Church, and as be there named. 1. Cor. 14.26.   

Answer.  
That all outward forms and likenesses ordained by man in the worship of God, to edify, teach, or stir up our affection towards God, should be forbidden in the second commandment, I do utterly deny: and I wonder that either yourself, or any other Christian should affirm it; no word of the commandment making for it, and the mind of the commandment making clean against it. The judgement both of Calvin and Beza, and of other Divines I have showed against you, pag. 21.45. The place which you cite Exod. 20.4. Thou shalt make thee no graven image, etc. if you distract it from his meaning, which followeth in the next words, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, doth make rather against the making of all images (which error I think you will not maintain) then against the applying them to so good an end, as you (in this place) seem to condemn. 
Ab impossibi.  Should any thing whatsoever be thought unlawful, which instructeth our minds, and stirreth up our affections truly towards GOD? 
T.C. Whitg. 256.  Surely if you were able to make good, that even Heathen Idols could truly and properly produce these effects, I would not doubt to affirm, even them to be lawful. So far am I from thinking that any thing is in this commandment forbidden, which either enlighteneth our understanding, or inflameth our affection towards God. I rather hold it for a certain truth, that Idols are here forbidden, upon a contrary supposition, namely, that they blind our understanding, and avert our affection away from God. And therefore your proposition wanteth some better proof, than your bare assertion: for (as I said) I do simply deny it for false.  
For your Assumption, that The cross is an image ordained by man for our better instruction and affection towards God: I may simply grant, and yet grant it not therefore to be forbidden in the second commandment.  
This whole objection is fully and sufficiently satisfied, in my former answer, both unto your fourth and your tenth objections: but that answer is not sufficiently taken away by this reply; and therefore thither again I return you.  
That place of Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 14.26. Let all things be done unto edification, that it is principally intended of gifts, and not of ceremonies, 
Whitgift. pag. 86.  I do not deny: but that it may be extended unto ceremonies, as well as unto gifts, I hope you will confess, because all Divines do: amongst whom is T. C. for one, as authentical an expositor of your presbytery, as Master Hooker is of our ceremonies. That ceremonies ought to be without all signification, I take it to be your sole and proper opinion, wherein you have no Divine of any worth to be your rival. And therefore I wonder you should so dote upon it, as here (in a second place) to obtrude it, it having been before sufficiently confuted, Pag. 8.9.   
Gloria in excelsis Deo.   

Errors committed in the Printing.  
In the Epistle, Pag 2. line 18. read Author: In the Sermons, Pag 1. line ●. r. prescribe. pag 7. line 11. r. lacketh. Pag 11. line 32. r. by the name of Vanity. p. 13. line 15. r. which indeed is not: in the same r. and that therefore. Pag 19 in the margin, for Mat. 5. r. Mat. 15 p. 20. line 10. r. capiuntur p. 28. line 1. r. the doctor and his doctrine. line 34 r. Tatianus▪ in the margin, for Act. 5. r. 15. pag 31. line 7. r. to read them. line 8. r. life in them. line 25. r. the mind. Pag 33. for this word of a man. r. the word of a man. Pag 37: line 34. r. legitur. so pag 38. line 10. Pag 40. line 22. rea. moving. Pag 41. line 27. rea. in them. Pag 42. line 9 r. seducing. Pag 43. line 2. r. praying. pag 52. line 5. r. judgement. pag 57 line 13. r. and destinate. line 34. r. giving. pag 58. line 1. r. overruled. pag 63. line 18. r. Oschophoria. line 31. r. Hyperlidion. pag 66. in the margin r. defesto. pag 67. line 24. r. ninety fifth. pag 68 line 4. r. if any man. pag 79. line 13 r. execrament. pag 80. line 15. r. presently. pag 81. line 2. r: detection. line 4. r. our now most, etc. pag 91. in the margin, for Act. 3.50.1. r. Act. 3. Scen. 1. & for Act. 1 50. 1. r. Act. 1. Scen. 1. P. 92. l. 13. r. reveling. pag 96. in the margin. l. 28. for 1. Cor. 11.10. r. 1. Cor. r. 10. pag 98. line 24. r. against the pride. pag 101. line 31 r. idole-priests. pag 103. line 28. read spawned.   

In the Treatise of the Crosse.  
Page 3. line 14. read indifferency. pag 8. line 19 r. credas. pag 11. line 4. r. recta. Pag 13. in the margin, for p. 53. r. 60. line 29. r. a cause. pag. 15. line 19 r. to imitate. Pag 16. line 12. r. a detestation. line 21. r. were freely granted. line 31. r. why should that be thought. Pag. 17. in the margin, r. pag. 42. Pag. 21. line 13. r. the subject. line 29. r. communes usui. Pag. 24. in the margin, for pag. 63. r. 74. and again, for pag. 62. 63. r. 73. Pag. 27. in the margin, for pag. 54. r. 63. Pag. 28. in the margin, for pag. 20. r. 24. and for pag. 63. r. pag. 74. 75. Pag. 31. line 10. r. rixarum. Pag. 32. for, for the Sacraments, r. of the Sacraments. Pag. 36. line 35. r. disciplinae. Pag. 39 in the margin, for pag. 32. r. 37. Page 40. line 7. r. insufficient. Page 42. line 2. read apposite. Pag 45. line 8. r. abolition, line 26. r. there ought, Pag. 48. line 6. r. there be two things. Pag. 49. line 19 r. A non sequitur. Pag. 51. line the last, r. pag. 31. Pag. 55. line 30. r. the cross. Pag. 56. in the margin. for pag. 30. r. 35. Pag 63. in the margin, for. pag. 22. 23. r. pag. 27. Pag 64. for pag. 16. r. 31. Pag. 65. line 26. r. usuj pio. so also in the line following. Pag. 66. line 19 r. invention. Pag. 67. line 12. r. every one of these. Pag. 68 in the margin, for pag. 10. r. pag. 12. and for pag. 53. r. 62. and line 30. r. casu. Pag. 70. line 21. r. altercation, and line 23. r. her. Pag. 72. line 9 r. retain. In the margin, for pag. 53. r. 62. Pag. 73. line 21. r. bis: and so line 23. Line 28. r. opus in individuo. L. 30. r. verbi causa. Pag. 76. line 25. r. a monument is only a monument of that, Pag. 80. line 10. r. would. Pag. 82. in the margin, for pag. 59 r. pag. 69. Pag. 83. in the margin, for pag. 21.45. r. pag. 24.  
FINIS.